Level1 - Apologies for being somewhat tardy in replying, but much time over the last few days has been taken up with an idiot colt foal who's been kicked on the knee for his sins - I'm trying not to think about the vet's bill....

Anyway, back to the discussion. You've turned my question around to ask why should mineral not be removed at the expense of the mine. One very simple reason as far as I'm concerned, and that is the inherent destructive nature of the process. I'd say it is up to the mineral collector to justify the removal/damage, rather than the mine historian/archaeologist to put the case for preservation. We are dealing with historical remains, after all! Don't get me wrong, I have no problem at all with specimen collection from working mines/quarries (respect to the lads at Rogerley for taking on a mine to get specimens), but it's too easy to say "well, it was only abandoned in Victorian times so it isn't really _that_ historical". Thinking along these lines ends up leaving us with nothing from the supposedly non-historic period because it wasn'y thought important (for example, the magnificent chimeny at Watergrove Mine, demolished in 1960 for its stone....).

Pulling things back to the original discussion topic, the spirit of the NAMHO guidelines is "leave it be unless it's in imminent danger or of truly exeptional value". If a mine is going to be lost permanently and the mineral specimens are of significant interest, then by all means take them out along with any artefacts on one proviso - it is not done for personal gain. Furthermore, by turning the question around you've sidestepped my original challenge to you 99.9% assertion - care to substantiate it or withdraw it?

On the Lead Legacy and the mine hillocks of the Peak, the purpose of that document is to assess the scale of loss and to identify the significant sites which are most worthy of preservation. The mineral interest only features in so far as it is geologically significant, in which case SSSI status is usually already in place. I'm well aware of micromounters, a copy of Mining History 14.1 (jointly published with JoM&M) is in my collection, but I don't think the examples you've picked are likely in the vast majority of the hillocks. Oakstone occurs in only a few places and at depth, Smithsonite also tends to be a deeper mineral, and Aurichalcite is usually found as a secondary - mainly at Ecton, and in a few other locations to my knowledge, all well underground. As I pointed out in my last post, the bulk of the hillocks are generated by trenching down to the veinhead and mostly throw up bits of the standard veinstuff assemblage

There's another issue with disturbing the hillocks which is stock poisoning. When you start digging in to them, you throw up fragments of galena, and the small fragments are the troublesome ones. Most of the hillocks run through stock fields, and we have enough trouble with lead levels in the grazing without someone adding to the problem digging through the hillocks on the off-chance of something interesting. I speak from experience here, BT put a cable through some of our fields (five small veins cross them) and we had to cordon some areas off for a year due to the lead disturbance. Even now, I'm having to keep a close eye on these areas for galena particles.

Vanoord's given chapter and verse on the legalities, so I'll conclude by restating that I'm not against all mineral collection, just that which is done at the expense of the mining remains.

---

My apologies to Vanoord for continuing the mineral debate in a thread that began as an artefact one.

AR:
I think you have side-stepped my earlier question: "So perhaps you can tell us why a wall that is no different to many miles of other walls, except that there is a glint of mineral in it, should have special merit?" I maintain that miles and miles of mine walls are generally of little historic merit. They are commonplace and repetitive. If I am wrong then please explain why. What is so special about a stretch of wall that has no unusual features to distinguish it from miles of other identical walls? If it was a hand-chiselled coffin level, or had some other rare feature then you'd have a case. Otherwise we might as well conserve every Victorian brick, every pot shard, or any other commonplace item just because it is older then me. The proportion of those walls that have mineral interest is small. Let the mineral buffs have their little bit of wall, and you can have all the rest.

Whilst most of us (I hope) can agree about removing items to safety when collapse is imminent, how can one foretell that it is imminent? Sure when the arching is bulging, or the timbers bending it sort of gives it away, but sometimes mines fail without warning. And ultimately the vast majority will do so. Keeping items undergound in the hope that the mine will not go suddenly is taking a gamble. And it is a gamble you will ultimately lose. You are up against the second law of thermodynamics.

I am sorry to say but your dismissal of hillocks shows that you are not a good mineralogist! The oakstone came from shallow workings - exactly the sort that generate those hillocks. For a long time the exact location was lost until some collectors following leads in old archives narrowed it down to one area with many such hillocks and then began to systematically search those hillocks. Eventually, after a number of failures they found a grassy hillock that contained oakstone. The site was rediscovered after being lost for a century. The story is related by Sarjeant, W.A.S. & Ford, T.D. in the UK Journal of Mines & Minerals, 1993, No. 12, p.10-14. This was a significant discovery, and one of historic merit as oakstone supported a minor local industry for fashioning ornaments from the mid 18th century through to Victorian times. Now if you had had your way these collectors would have been prevented from disturbing these hillocks whether through their "historic" nature, fears of lead contamination, or just ignorance of their importance to mineralogy. And eventually the farmer would have cleared them away and the locality would be lost forever.

Smithsonite, aurichalcite, and other secondaries are NOT characteristic of depth as you incorrectly claim. These minerals form by oxidation of the vein close to surface. Surface workings are therefore the best places to find them. In those instances when they are found at depth it is because of either of two reasons: the water table was once low at the point, or they are recent post-mining occurrences. The yellow smithsonite recently found in Yorkshire came from a shallow bell-pit - ie. a "hillock" just like in the Peak District. The extraordinary cadmium-rich variety from the Burren in Ireland is likewise from a shallow, near-surface working. I can think of many, many more examples from all over the UK of tiny shallow workings being of great mineralogical interest. Mines do not have to be big and deep to interest mineralogists. Potentially any mineral working, big or small, could be of interest.

With respect to the lead contamination issue, have you tried applying a little phosphate fertiliser? Google on "lead contamination soil phosphate" and you will find numerous scientific papers and patents explaining that lead can be effectively immobilised by the application of phosphate. This converts it to the mineral pyromorphite, which is the most insoluble of all lead minerals. And it is thanks, in part, to study of secondary minerals that this fact is known. This is one of the reasons that these secondaries, so beloved of collectors, are actually rather important in understanding how heavy metals behave in soils and wastes. The mineral wulfenite, for example, keeps turning up in minor near surface deposits in and around the Peak District and is indicative of widespread molybdenum enrichment in the area which, in turn, had been linked to disease in cattle (UK Journal of Mines & Minerals, 1993, No. 13, p.43).

I think we can agree that collecting should not be at the expense of historic remains - up to a point. I just query whether some of those remains that are abundantly commonplace and repetitive should always take precedence over minerals that may not be.

I hope your foal is on the mend.

Allow me to tell you about an incident of artefact removal. The most important of all the Surrey firestone quarries in archaeological terms contains precious little dating evidence. A small portion of the workings contains some clay pipes, but the vast majority predates the introduction of tobacco to Europe. This leaves only two dateable elements - inscriptions, which are extremely rare and largely confined to the areas where clay pipes are found, and horseshoes which can be dated. Unfortunately the latter are as rare as hens' teeth, so imagine my disgust at finding a carefully dug hole in the quarry waste, at the bottom of which was a rust stain in the shape of a horseshoe. Said shoe had been discovered and removed by someone with a metal detector. I was not amused.
😞

Peter - I'm interested - having found loads of horseshoes (I have a herd of Andalusians here on the farm..) which date back many, many years - how does one date - are there sources of info on different designs??

Your story is interesting - if left, it would have rotted away unfound, now its preserved - perhaps - but not, unfortunately in the right place, for the right reasons... The arguments for and against are almost insurmountable!!

---

Thank you for that story Peter (and "Welcome" from me too). I goes to illustrate the importance of something I've been thumpin' on about for some time in this ,and other threads. The importance of the context any artifact is found in. While I totally accept the 'Wow' factor of seeing things as if the miners had just left them that comes with exploring where Joe and Jane public don't go there comes a point where it may be necessary to relocate an artifact or risk the probability or certainty of its loss. If and when that time comes a full and detailed survey of it's context surely must be undertaken to prevent the situation arising as described in your story where the horseshoe (wherever it is) is just, at best a memento of a moment and at worst a scrap of rusting iron instead of being a datable clue to the history of that part of the mine.
Gosh I got quite excited there (memo to self:- must get out more)
😢

---

I maintain that miles and miles of mine walls are generally of little...merit...they are commonplace and repetitive

Well they may be to a Mineral Collector...but they obviously aren't to us Mine-Explorers...we love mine passages...frankly thats what we're all about we love mine passages, mine levels, mine shafts and mine chambers here!

Keeping items undergound in the hope that the mine will not go suddenly is taking a gamble

So you believe nothing of any interest should remain ubderground, in-situ...it should all be carted out either to rot in some selfish collectors shed...or at best to lie forgotten in some obscure and un-visited museum...rather than remain in place as a testament to the miners themselves?

With respect to the lead contamination issue, have you tried applying a little phosphate fertiliser

Of course...you're right! The land owner should go to trouble and expense so mineral collectors can have a ferret through his stock holding land! Its so wrong of the land owner not to want you to do that!

I just query whether some of those remains that are abundantly commonplace and repetitive should always take precedence over minerals

Which is what it always comes back to...your desire to take and damage should take precedence over other peoples desire to observe and enjoy...

I normally avoid these discussions but one question always bugs me. I wonder what, say, the 19th century miner would think? How would they like to be remembered? I don't know the answer but the mines themselves, social conditions and a few other factors must be entered into the equation. I think it's a bit dubious to take too narrow a view.

---

The horseshoe I referred to had been there for the best part of (and possibly more than) 400 years. My experience is that iron shoes (horse and ox) removed from the quarries and left untreated will often disintegrate to a pile of rust within a few years. If left there, I have no doubt it would have remained identifiable for a further century at least. Horseshoes are dateable though not so precisely as clay pipes. The only reference book I have is a Shire album on old horseshoes, though I have found the odd website with interesting info on it as well. The book remains the most thorough reference I have found to date. The passage where the shoe lay buried until so recently is known to have been accessible in the early 17th century (from inscriptions), but it would be great to be able to prove the workings had been active for at least 100 years or so before that time.
You could argue that without a metal detector the shoe would probably have remained undiscovered until it disappeared forever, but I am not averse to the use of detectors, because had the shoe been discovered this way and then properly recorded, it would have been of much benefit to our overal understanding of this ancient site.

Hi... I have been exploring the Nenthead Mines since 1984, my father since 1966. We were responsible the discovery of, and publication of the Scaleburn Horse Whim. I was the first mine explorer to reach the forehead beyond Bogg Shaft in Smallcleugh. We located the Zinc Stopes on Guddamgill in Brownleyhill Mine. Adit Now uses a copy of the plan of Smallcleugh Mine that my dad compiled. Our combined contributions to mine exploring in the UK in the last 2 decades is beyond reproach, so I think I can offer fair comment on this topic.
Having followed this debate for sometime its pretty obvious that opinion is badly polarized. I have witnessed damage to mines both deliberate, and inadvertent from both Mine Explorers and Mineral Collectors. To a certain degree both activities are detrimental to the mine environment. To quote a couple of examples a collection of artifacts in Prouds Sump Flatts got smashed by Mine Explorers when they were handling a ladder in July 1987, more recently a group of explorers had a nice fry up in Smallcleugh at the entrance to Hetheringtons January this year. I can quote many other examples. Before the 2 sides carry on with the mud slinging, lets face the fact that the mines in Nenthead, in common with other abandoned mines in the UK are deteriorating. In the Nenthead area alone, since I started exploring in the 80s, Longcleugh 2nd Sun has become inaccessible (everything lost), Haggs Level collapsed at entrance (access at best difficult to Admiralty Flatts), Middlecleugh 2nd Sun Vein now cut beyond the Gyspum Corner Fall. Carr's Mine is largely a show mine. Other parts of these mines, whilst still open are showing marked deterioration, more loss of mine access is inevitable.
The first priority of both mine explorers and mineral collectors is to save both photographic and physical remains from these sites.
The argument that these are sites are of archeological significance therefore MUST NOT be touched is not valid. Even where long term preservation of a surface site of archeological interest is not an issue, Archeologists dig trenches, remove artifacts, in effect altering the sites they dig forever. Nobody questions that. To study a site for archeological or mineral significance, man must use invasive and disruptive methods, be it surface or underground.
Mineral Collectors and Mine Explorers have co-existed for as long as I have been active, neither has any right to decry the other. I hope this is a useful contribution to this. 😉

Jasonbirder:

With respect, I do not think you have really addressed my points. I hope I will not incur the wrath of the moderators for continuing this mineral theme, but as long as the replies come in I guess I will have to.

Mine walls being abundant and repetitive:

Well they may be to a Mineral Collector...but they obviously aren't to us Mine-Explorers...we love mine passages...frankly thats what we're all about we love mine passages, mine levels, mine shafts and mine chambers here!

Fine, but that does not answer my question, "So perhaps you can tell us why a wall that is no different to many miles of other walls, except that there is a glint of mineral in it, should have special merit?" To demand that you should have exclusive rights to ALL the many miles of walls, and deny mineralogists the tiny proportion that interests them strikes me as just plain selfish. I'm sorry, but I can't think of a polite way of putting it. There are many different interests in mines and for one group (whether explorers, collectors or anybody else) to demand that they alone should have ALL the mine reserved for their interest to the exclusion of others is just unreasonable. I stand by my position that you can have the vast majority of walls to coo at, miles of them, but let the collectors have the few that interest them (and even then most mineralised walls are of limited mineral interest so we are talking about a very small proportion indeed of those walls).

Keeping items undergound in the hope that the mine will not go suddenly is taking a gamble

So you believe nothing of any interest should remain ubderground, in-situ...it should all be carted out either to rot in some selfish collectors shed...or at best to lie forgotten in some obscure and un-visited museum...rather than remain in place as a testament to the miners themselves?

No. As I said in my first post on this thread, "I am not saying one should rip a mine to pieces to "rescue" every last drill rod or crystal, but, whilst acknowledging it can be fun to see them in their original home, if your home was falling in would you stay inside?" Nor do specimens rot in collector's sheds, instead they circulate as the collectors upgrade, swap, sell or bequeath their collections. Some end up in museums that are not obscure or unvisited. And what sort of testament are they to the miners (who toiled under unimaginably hard conditions to make those minerals accessible) if that testament is either accessible only to a few fit and hardy souls who can get down a mine, or to no one at all if the mine runs in? Every specimen rescued from a mine and now protected, whether in private or public collections, is a testament that has a better chance of surviving long into the future to be enjoyed by your great grandchildren. As for "selfish", see my comment earlier about your insistence that you (and your ilk) should have exclusive rights to ALL mine walls to the exclusion of others. The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind.

With respect to the lead contamination issue, have you tried applying a little phosphate fertiliser

Of course...you're right! The land owner should go to trouble and expense so mineral collectors can have a ferret through his stock holding land! Its so wrong of the land owner not to want you to do that!

This is your reaction to a helpful suggestion about how to simply, and cheaply, remedy lead pollution to a member who had encountered this issue on his land? Maybe I should refrain from trying to be helpful if I am going to get my head bitten off. I would be more concerned about landowners clearing away those hillocks altogether, and thus totally destroying whatever mineralogical, archaeological and botanical interest they may have had whilst not actually remedying the lead pollution issue in the process. The surrounding land will already have naturally elevated levels, the act of clearing the hillock will spread around its contents, and there will remain a contaminated "hot-spot" where the hillock was due to leaching while the hillock was there. It also begs the question, "Where does it end up?" I have seen mine waste used for track making. Thus spreading it around even more. No evidence of concern for lead pollution there. Any contribution by collectors digging is trivial in comparison, and easily countered by the simple expedient of replacing the turf when they are done.

Which is what it always comes back to...your desire to take and damage should take precedence over other peoples desire to observe and enjoy...

"Take" = my desire to save for posterity before it is too late. And any "damage" is usually trivial and, when not (if historic mine structures like hoppers, ore tubs, arching etc. are involved) I won't do it or condone it. As for "other peoples desire to observe and enjoy" you seem absolutely determined to deny them that by ensuring that only the fit and hardy get to see them underground, or no one at all if the items are sealed in when the mine runs. That's just being selfish again. Minerals (and I guess artefacts too) left where they lie are ultimately doomed. At least collecting some will ensure that they survive, and can be enjoyed by generations to come without having to risk life and limb in the process. The number of mines once noted for fine minerals, but which are now irrecoverably sealed by collapse is huge. Some are listed in the English Nature conference I cited earlier. Over 30 Irish examples are listed in a recent newsletter of the Mining Heritage Trust of Ireland. And the process is continuing as other posts here make clear. Every specimen saved from them is a specimen that would have been lost if you had had your way. Now who is concerned about saving our natural heritage, so that others long into the future can "observe and enjoy"?

I normally avoid these discussions but one question always bugs me. I wonder what, say, the 19th century miner would think? How would they like to be remembered? I don't know the answer but the mines themselves, social conditions and a few other factors must be entered into the equation. I think it's a bit dubious to take too narrow a view.

A good point Carnkie, and one I have sometimes pondered myself. I suspect they would be thoroughly bemused by the anti-collecting sentiments of some contributors here. The miners often saw pretty specimens as perks. They could make a few bob selling them to dealers and probably most of the magnificent old specimens that grace the national (and some private) collections owe their survival to the miners having no qualms about collecting and selling the results. They also collected for their spar boxes. So I think they would heartily approve of specimen collecting, and would shake their heads in disbelief at the attitude of some here who think that leaving them to rot or be entombed forever is somehow a testament to the miners. Some testament. They laboured hard to make those minerals accessible, that labour should not be wasted. Of course the implements and structures used in the course of that labour are another matter, and is what this thread was originally about.

Artefact removal - from a historical point of view, is it not more important to ensure that finds are properly recorded so that their appearance and provenance are preserved than to be overly concerned about where they end up? An item can be best recorded both photographically and by scale drawing, and the accurate circumstances of its location recorded. I have created a crude typology of ox cues (shoes for oxen) using a collection of them removed from Surrey workings and placed into the care of a museum. The approximate location of most of these had been recorded which allowed me to spot three types of cue, each type largely restricted to a particular section of the workings. More recent finds in the workings, which have not been removed, confirm the distribution I had determined by inspection of scale drawings of the museum collection. I have also been able to record items such as clay pipes held in personal collections, but this was only useful for items whose provenance I could be sure of. I don't judge the people who have collected such items and who have freely allowed me to look at them and record them - the information is what matters, although my personal preference is that such items should normally remain in the workings, with some occasional exceptions. Provided the collected information is published or made accessible in some way, the 'job' of an artefact is done, and where it is held is less relevant. An important 'however' is that leaving the artefact underground will give future visitors something of interest to see. There can be nothing more boring that being shown round an old mine and being told where everything used to be until it was taken out.

Last night's reponse seems to have disappeared down a shaft, so I'll redo it....

"I maintain that miles and miles of mine walls are generally of little historic merit. They are commonplace and repetitive. If I am wrong then please explain why." Well, there are a lot more features to a level than pickmarks. You can tell a fair bit from the shotholes if you know what you're looking at, like an approximate age, as well as obvious things like direction of drivage. The section of the passage can also be significant, there are features like stemple holes, cramps, garlands and launders. A section of packwall may have clay behind it or on top of it, indicative of water control, or it may be packed with moss indicating it is controlling ventilation. This list is just off the top of my head, there are more possible features. The point I've been trying to make is that any judgement about alteration of mining remains has to be qualitative and more importantly based on a full understanding of what's there, not quantitative which is what you 99.9% figure is.

To pose another question, what would happen if a particularly unusual mineral was spotted in the wall of a top-notch coffin level like Fountrabbey sough? Would you then argue that the mineral should take priority as there are other coffin levels in the orefield? To go back to the original purpose of this thread, NAMHO have established guidelines for us to work around when making decisions about when to remove or not, but are there equivalent guidelines for the mineralogical organisations? Furthemore, how many non-academic collectors record mineral in-situ the way we would with an artefact before removing it?

On to collapses, we don't gamble, we take calculated risks about the likelihood of collapse - it's no different to considering how safe a patch of hanging death is before going underneath it. Furthermore, given sufficient manpower and resources it is possible to clear any collapse. It might take time, but it's do-able. The reason a lot more collapses don't get cleared is down to the limitations on these two variables.

Regarding your comments about me as a mineralogist, perhaps you'd care to quote the post where I claimed to be one, and then you can demonstrate your archeological knowledge to me so I can subject it to similar criticism. I'm an archaeologist by training, part of which involved encouraging us to look beyond the boundaries of our own disipline to better our understanding of what we are looking at, which in my case has involved paying a bit more attention to what has been produced by the mines. Yes, I know smithsonite is a secondary, but to get a secondary you need a primary - sphalerite. It's my understanding that sphalerite tends to be found deeper in the south pennine orefield, and so it would be unusual to find smithsonite in the hillocks produced by vein trialling, which constitute a large proportion of the overall assemblage. As for aurichalcite, apart from the dressing tips at one particular mine (which is now being damaged by mineral collectors digging in it...), I've only ever seen it in a few locations underground where there was locally enough copper and zinc together to form it.

I stand corrected on the location of Oakstone (which I'd always seen cited as Arbor Low mine). However, in this case two eminent geologists (who were also founder members of PDMHS....) undertook excavations at a specific location following archival research for scientific purposes. I don't see any problem at all with this, my problem is with anyone who feels like it digging where they like because "they have an interest". I won't get started on the commercial aspects of mineral collecting, as that will really stir up the hornet's nest

As for my assesment of the bulk of the hillocks, that's based on a) familiarity with the surface morphology and recognising the difference between the hillocks generated by vein trialling, openworking, shaft sinking, and the various types of ore processing and b) looking at what mineral does come out of the hillocks when they have been disturbed. No-where have I suggested that hillocks should never be touched, but if they are dug into it should be for bona-fide research purposes. You've also cited the case of farmers removing them ( and I don't agree that "the farmer would remove them eventually anyway") - well, I'd much prefer they left them there but as they own the hillocks, they can do what they want within the bounds of the law. If hillocks do get removed then by all means go in during the removal process and get what you can find, in the same way that collectors do when the likes of Glebe are opencasting.

Artificial fertiliser isn't much used at the moment (it's an extra most dairy farmers can't afford) and there's a plentiful supply comes out of the back end of a cow, which I might hasten to add contains phosphates. Farmers have their own methods of dealing with areas of lead pollution, such as only using them for hay/silage, only grazing oldstock on them, or taking them out of use during the hottest months when lead fines may get kicked up in dust and contaminate the grass. I will point out that when BT's contractors put a 6" wide by 1' deep trench through our fields, they turned up an unpleasantly surprising amount of galena over then veins, which are probably a few inches wide at most, and more likely less. As such, I certainly don't want anyone digging at the bits of hillock under my stewardship on the offchance of finding something interesting!

I'll conclude by restating my position - I don't object at all to collection of mineral specimens for research purposes as long as it's not at the expense of the historical interest, and I don't want to see anyhting destroyed by someone who failed to recognise the significance of it. This doesn't just cover mineral collectors, there are those who explore mines for the sake of exploring and don't give a damn about the history, or there are ecologists who'd try and bar us all from the mines because some bats have set up home in them. Old mines need to be considered as a whole entity, not just through the prisim of a particular interest, but the most important factor is that they should be kept intact as much as possible so that the experience of them can be shared.

Sheesh, I need to go for lunch now, I'm exhausted after that!

---

What an excellent, well balanced post AR. You encompass everything and at the same time give everything an equal balance. The overall balance is something that both Viewer1 and Jasonbirder seem to be overlooking in large maesures at both ends of the scale!

Yes, I reckon you do need to go to lunch and have a stiff drink with it, I reckon you deserve it after that!

Let's hope your post rounds off the mineral collector v mine explorer argument although somehoe I doubt it.

John

Do you mean Level1 instead of Viewer1?

I, as Viewer, would like to say that I would agree with your comments on AR's post.

I have enjoyed reading this thread very much over the last many days.

I would agree with you that this debate is unlikely to be resolved by this thread.

Cheers

---

Last night's reponse seems to have disappeared down a shaft, so I'll redo it....

Yes, I know smithsonite is a secondary, but to get a secondary you need a primary - sphalerite. It's my understanding that sphalerite tends to be found deeper in the south pennine orefield, and so it would be unusual to find smithsonite in the hillocks produced by vein trialling, which constitute a large proportion of the overall assemblage. As for aurichalcite, apart from the dressing tips at one particular mine (which is now being damaged by mineral collectors digging in it...), I've only ever seen it in a few locations underground where there was locally enough copper and zinc together to form it.

A few words on this - orebodies oxidise. They rust... The mechanism is very like the one you demonstrate to kids in chemistry lessons with a piece of blotting paper with ink on it, dipped into a jar of water - the ink travels up the paper.
As a primary sulphide orebody is subjected to oxidation, sulphides above the water table are changed chemically and re-deposit as secondaries - oxides, then carbonates, silicates, sulphates etc. Just because you can't see sphalerite close to surface doesnt mean to say it wasnt there - you'll probably see evidence in the form of vuggy veins, brown staining from iron oxides resulting from breakdown of the primary sulphides, etc. This mechanism also works to a lesser degree BELOW the water table, at an ionic level, with charged metal ions forming convection circuits - these result in accumulations of metal ions at surface which form concentrations which can be considerable. The aurichalcite you mention can form from very low levels of copper - you don't need huge amounts - a good example of this is Wetgroves, in Yorkshire, where it is all through the mine - I've never seen chalcopyrite, malachite, azurite or any other copper minerals, and almost no sphalerite either - but there is abundant aurichalcite in the veins.

My background, by the way - I have been guest lecturer in exploration geochemistry at the CSM (Colorado, not Camborne!) and did a lot of research into the discovery of deeply buried orebodies - we discovered that it was possible to detect multi-element geochemical haloes vertically above a very deep orebody (we're talking miles in some cases) even though the orebody was overlain by more recent, unconformable rocks, and in the case of Canada and Scotland, deep glacial till and peat bogs. We sampled peat bogs, and found that when peat was removed and replaced with uncontaminated material, the geochemical halo appeared in the uncontaminated material within 12 months.

In short - the smithsonite and aurichalcite folks are talking about are exactly where I'd expect them to be - in the very surface hillocks above the veins, and not neccessarily in, or part of, the veins.


I once met an archaeologist on a minesite who told me in no uncertain terms that a scheduled mine was off-limits to the centre of the earth, and that he would prefer it if nobody ever went there, looked at it, or touched it, and that he should be the only person to examine, record and experience it... Not the most public - spirited of attitudes I'd suggest....


:angel:

---

Let's hope your post rounds off the mineral collector v mine explorer argument although somehow I doubt it.

I hope so too, as mineral collecting is just not an issue in the sites I am most interested in whereas the dearth of artefacts means removal of same can be potentially very serious. But I do understand that the ethics etc of mineral collecting are very important to a lot of people and should be properly discussed. Should it not have been discussed in another topic in the first place to do the subject justice?

John

Do you mean Level1 instead of Viewer1?

I, as Viewer, would like to say that I would agree with your comments on AR's post.

I have enjoyed reading this thread very much over the last many days.

I would agree with you that this debate is unlikely to be resolved by this thread.

Cheers

:oops: Yes, I did mean Level1 I am terribly sorry, I don't know how I managed that! :stupid:

John

No problem.

I've yet to take you up on your kind offer made sometime ago of showing me around a certain place in the BF area.

Next time I'm in North Wales, I'll drop you a PM.



:offtopic: :ban:

---

Should it not have been discussed in another topic in the first place to do the subject justice?

To be honest Peter, it has been discussed to death on many threads on here before. Some even got so heated they had to be severely moderated! Although, of course I understand that as you are new to AN you wouldn't know. Also, like this thread it has often appeared hiding in other threads, so you wouldn't neccessarily find it by thread title!