Conference report This was the fourth of the now biennial conferences devoted to prospecting and cvaluation of non-metallic minerals (viz. the industrial rocks and minerals). It was organised jointly bv the Geological Society, the Institution of Mining and Metallurgv and the Institu- tion of Geologists, with the first taking the leading role on this occasion. Delegates came almost entirely from British industry, company geologists and con- sultants in the main. This is most refreshing for the few of us academics who research and teach in this field. At a national level this is probably the only time such a group of people get together.

The topics of papers were very diverse, from general reviews such as the opening contribution by A.A. Flegg (Geological Survey of Ireland) on the potential for industrial minerals in the Irish Republic, to detailed case histories like P.M. King & J . Christ- offerson's (Amax Exploration) description of the Hemerdon tungsten deposit on the south of Dart- moor. Here the tungsten and tin mineralisation is in a sheeted vein complex in kaolinised granite and adja- cent killas. The former paper made us realise that even if the base-metal mining activity in Ireland has peaked and begun to decline, there is still substantial scope for searching for industrial minerals. Other contributions devoted to specific deposits were those on the extension to Cliffe Hill Quarry, Leicesrrrshire (A. Bell & D Hopkins, Tarmac) where the Cdmbrian porphyritic microdiorite is extracted and crushed for roadstone; the Durness Limestone in the Ullapool area (A.C. Charters, Howard Humphrey's and Part- ners and P.W. Scott) which, unlike most limestones in Britain where resources are virtually unlimited, occurs as isolated patches and is highly tectonised and variably dolomitised; extraction and processing of talc, graphite and kaolin (although most of it was halloysite) in Kenya (D.A. Briggs, A.J. Bloodworth & D.J. Morgan, BGS); and a calcium-magnesium bentonite from Bahia State, Brazil which has formed from weathering of-an amphibole schist (M. Moreira, P.W. Scott, A.G. Fraser & R. Middleton, University of Hull). G. Clarke (Industrial Minerals) reminded us all of the importance of marketing and specifications, and of the high costs and inconsistencies in planning inquiries, in his review of the silica sand industry in Britain. He made particular reference to the effects the new Blubberhouses (near Harrogate) and Bogside

Farm (Fife) deposits will have on the industry. J.E. Prentice (King's College, London) in a thought- provoking paper, urged us to look at the specifications of sand used for construction purposes to see if these meet the real demands for the product. The mechan- ism for faulting at the northern limit of the Leicester- shire Coalfield and the feasibility of recovering open- cast coal prior to new road building in this area was

S. Penn (Trent Polytechnic) and D.J. Harrison (BGS) gave a review of the applications of gamma logging using examples from assessing the purity of limestones and the presence of clay wayboards to the extent of weathering of Pennant Sandstones and the mineralogical differences of Etruria Marl. Penn also discussed electrical conductivity techniques in the assessment of overburden. P. Gordon (Department of the Environment) and G. Walton (Consultant) discus- sed the problems in the stability of quarry faces and outlined methods for stabilising them. The paper on the BGS Geological Database by W.G. Henderson - J .L. Laxton (BGS) generated lots of discussion on the problems of confidentiality of company data. The industrial mineralogy of fused basalts was discussed by A.C. Dunham (with F.C.F. Wilkinson, University of Hull). These are used in high abrasive situations and he emphasised the importance of time and temperature in the manufacture of the required tex- tures. Finally R. Braithwaite (British Drilling Asso- ciation) reviewed the latest developments in drilling, particularly the trend towards small-core drilling.

Field excursions before and after the conference were to Middleton limestone mine (Tarmac), Der- byshire, where the very high purity stone is extracted by room and pillar methods and crushed for use in sugar processing, in glass and for agriculture; Dirtlow Rake, Castleton, Derbyshire (Laporte) where sugary fluorite is present as replacement in limestone adja- cent to the main calcite vein; Coalfield Farm North, near Ashby-de-la-Zouch opencast coal site (NCB); and Buddon Wood Quarry, near Loughborough (Redland) where the Mount Sorrel Granite is ex- tracted and crushed for roadstone.

Extractive Industry Geology, Nottingham,

discussed by A.C. Lingham (NCB). 25-26 March 1985

P.W. SCOTT Senior Lecturer in Geology,

University of H ull

Counterpoint Geological conservation - yes please!

Stan Wood, in his provocative attack on the Nature Conservancy Council's geological conservation poli- cies in the last issue of Geologv 'I'oduv (pp. 68-70), has raised a number of controverial points which require analysis and reply. First, however, it is wise to look at the whole subject in perspective. The number of palaeontological sites in Britain to which his argu- ments could possibly apply is very small - less than

10"h of the 1500 nationallv important geological sites identified by the NCC. Furthermore, if there were no official body responsible for geological conservation, many of the sites vital for geological research and education would already have been destroyed by operations such as infilling, building or coastal protec- tion work. Presumably Mr Wood does not oppose this aspect of the NCC's work? If he does, he is at variance with most professional, and a great many amateur, palaeontologists.

GEOLOGY 1OL)AY Jul-Aug 19851103

Benton, M.J. & Wimbledon, W.A. 1985. The conservation and use of fossil vertebrate sites: British fossil reptile sites. Proceedi’res O f r h e Geo’ogists’ Associarion. v . 8 5 , pp. 1-6.

Mr Wood’s desire to rejuvenate palaeontological exploration is entirely consistent with the conser- vation of key geological sites. If there are as many undiscovered, important palaeontological sites as he believes, then why is the protection of the small number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) such a worry to him? The aim of geological conser- vation is, to quote Benton & Wimbledon (1985), ‘to encourage and participate in the systematic use and excavation of sites (but not their total removal) by professionals and responsible amateurs and to pro- mote proper recording of finds and taphonomic in- formation’. This is not a blanket denial of access to sites, but is a strategy to ensure that the vulnerable localities (which Benton & Wimbledon identify as needing some ‘restriction of usage’) are used in a responsible way. This may mean controlling access to sites.

No one would deny that there are a number of highly skilled and respected amateur palaeontological collectors and preparators in Britain; Stan Wood is undoubtedly one of them. Unfortunately, however, there are also many collectors who possess neither the skills nor the inclination to spend their time in the slow and methodical excavations needed to collect all the available data from vulnerable palaeontological sites. The destructive and wasteful results of their efforts can readily be seen at sites such as Cruaday Quarry (Orkney), where vast amounts of the Devo- nian fossil fish bed have been carelessly excavated and broken up in the search for complete specimens of large fish. Much information on palaeoecology and sedimentology has thus been destroyed, as have in- numerable fragmentary specimens of considerable palaeontological value. One of our greatest concerns is that such activities will become more frequent and widespread if the excitement of collecting vertebrate fossils is aggressively promoted to a wide audience. This could greatly increase the pressures upon the vulnerable sites identified as needing special protec- tion. Experience shows that most geologists prefer to use sites which are already well known, rather than look for new sites, and an explosion of public interest in collecting vertebrate fossils would be likely to follow the same pattern.

The vertebrate palaeontology sites selected by the NCC as geological SSSIs are of national importance for their faunas. The lateral extent of the fossil- bearing unit within any such site is usually unknown, and therefore there is always a chance that it is limited. Is it right that there should be uncontrolled collecting from such a site? Or should collecting at particularly vulnerable localities be controlled so that excavations are carried out in a careful manner, designed to obtain maximum scientific information rather than simply visually-attractive specimens? We believe the choice is straightforward: unless there is clear evidence that unlimited collecting will not dam- age the interest of such a site, the NCC will do all it can to conserve it so that the best use can be made of a rare resource.

There are other related problems too. Many land- owners are becoming increasingly irritated by the frequency of trespass and damage which they believe is caused by geologists using private land without permission. Any promotion of a major programme of exploration for new localities would require sensitive management so that the interests of existing geologists who pay proper regard to landowners’ sensitivities

would not be seriously affected. There is also the risk that potential financial gain will prejudice the well- being of sites. Well-preserved vertebrate fossils have real monetary value, and the risks to vulnerable geological sites if they become widely recognised as the source of saleable specimens are obvious. Unscru- pulous collectors can wantonly destroy the context of, and material associated with, vertebrate fossils during their search for such specimens. Surely no one can condone the mercenary destruction of vital scientific data?

With regard to Mr Wood’s comments on the NCC’s prosecution of two men who collected illegally from Achanarras Quarry, the matter is delightfully simple. The locality was bought by the NCC in order to protect its important fossil fish assemblage. A permit system was introduced to control any excavation from in situ material. Wide publicity was given throughout Britain, and four large notices were erected saying that the site is NCC property, that permits are needed to collect from the site (with details of where they can be obtained) and that anyone found collecting without a permit is liable to be prosecuted for theft. The two men ignored all the notices, showed blatant disregard for private property and collected illegally from the site. They were apprehended and subsequently found guilty of theft in Wick Sheriff Court. Since they had already ignored the provisions of the permit system, i t is hardly surprising that the NCC should have been reluctant to issue permits to them unless it could supervise their activities, which it was unable to do.

It is not the NCC’s intention to use the ‘Achanarras model’ widely elsewhere. Our policy is to look at each key vertebrate-palaeontology site on its own merits and determine what, if any, special protection is needed. Often, no specific limitations on collecting are necessary, but even where restrictions are re- quired, collecting or excavation will not be totally banned; instead, careful, controlled excavations de- signed to extract maximum scientific information will be encouraged. We hope that these will attract both professional and amateur palaeontologists in co- operative projects such as those carried out success- fully at Bearsden and Foulden.

We strongly share Mr Wood’s desire to be positive in the field of vertebrate-site conservation, and since 1975 we have been promoting exploration to find new localities for fieldwork. His proposals to extend this work to vertebrate sites is, with reservations on access, very much in accord with the work we have been undertaking for the past 10 years. We also have common ground in appreciating the efforts of those amateur palaeontologists and collectors with the skill and dedication to make significant contributions to science. Where we differ is in our unwillingness to put key sites at risk from uncontrolled collecting until we are sure that nothing scientifically unique will be lost as a result. Whilst Mr Wood’s arguments stem from his own personal beliefs and situation, the NCC must take intp account the views and requirements of all vertebrate palaeontologists both as perceived now and as forecasted for the future. We are responsible for an unrenewable resource, and we should not be forgiven if we carelessly allowed it to be squandered on more trivial uses than it deserves.

KEITH DUFF Head, Geology & Physiography Section

Nature Conservancy Council

10UGEOLOGY TODAY Jul-Aug 1985