Discovery
                       (...what is it?...)

Jean-Paul Turcaud's discovery of the largest gold mine in Australia on the fringe of the Great Sandy Desert stands as one of the most remarkable individual achievements in the tradition of pioneering exploration in the history of the State.  Yet due to the denials of Newmont and government his efforts remain officially ignored.

Turcaud received virtually nothing from his find.  In fact, when the full cost of his finding the outcrops and subsequent legal costs are taken into account, Turcaud got less than nothing; he paid for finding it, and in far more ways than just a monetary sense.  If it hadn't been for Turcaud finding what he found ('it') when he did, the mine would never have come into existence when 'it' did.   And neither would that region have opened up to exploration.

Two 'its'.  One, the gossans, ..the surface expression of the orebody, ..the indications of mineralisation that Turcaud found; and two, ..the mine that resulted from their examination and exploratory investigation.  Newmont have all along tried to separate the two, and have insisted that Turcaud's discovery had nothing to do with their examination and exploration and revealing of the orebody.  And therein is the crux of the dispute: Newmont went to considerable lengths to sever the connection between the two 'its', whilst Turcaud battled to have the nexus between his discovery and their "great good fortune" recognised.   Finally, driven to desperation and the risk of compromising his right to reward, he succeeded.

So, ....'Discovering' 'it'.  What, exactly is 'discovery'?  And what (exactly) was 'it'?  And how many 'its'?  Turcaud says one 'it' - the orebody, the surface expression of which is sticking out of the ground, ..and he discovered it.  Newmont says two 'its' - the mineralised surface outcrops (which Turcaud discovered), and their value as expressed by the gold they contained (which they 'discovered').  Newmont accepts that Turcaud discovered the mineralised surface outcrops, but because he did not recognise their true value (in terms of gold) he is entitled to nothing.

Two 'its' - 1. the thing, and 2. the value of the thing.  With a schism between them (Newmont)?  Or a connection (Turcaud)?

A crude analogy might be drawn by finding a chest of buried treasure with the corner of the lid (say) sticking out of the sand.  Note, not a 'chest and buried treasure', since that would imply separation, with the two buried together, side-by-side, but a 'chest of buried treasure' - the treasure is in the chest.

Turcaud finds the chest (No.1 'it'), tells Newmont who then come along, push Turcaud out of the way, fence it off, open it up to expose the rubies and the pearls and the silver (No.2 'it'), ..and declare they found it, because Turcaud didn't (or couldn't) open it.   Or let's extend the analogy and consider a third party who comes along, rootles in the bottom of the chest and unearths the cache of diamonds and gold, and proclaim it to world as the long-lost missing treasure of Hob Nabob, and claims (on account of the greater value of gold and diamonds that identify its real legacy) that they found it.   Or perhaps a fourth, who on examining the dulled and rusted lid, pronounces that even the lid and casing has value as well, - as a collector's piece.  The point being, that everyone discovers a piece, and that value, which is a quality of market forces,  is something quite apart from the piece itself.   ....Or perhaps like the person who finds a painting (masterpiece) hidden carefully behind a false wall (or whatever) in his house and takes it to have it valued.  Who discovers 'it' ('it' being 'what', exactly, ...the painting, or its market value?)?

In the first case (buried treasure) the question of 'discovery' (according to Newmont) seems to bear on ownership (marking off).  In the second case where ownership lies with the householder and the question then revolves around the difference between finding 'the thing', and recognising the value that 'the thing' has.  Would a paid assessor (dealer) consider claiming 'discovery'?   Surely not.  But what if the dealer knew that the painting had been stolen  years ago, and therefore that the householder didn't own it at all ?  Would he then be justified in claiming 'discovery', by taking it to the police station and bringing this valuable thing to the attention of the police?    Or what about the police themselves?   Would they be justified in considering themselves 'finders' in the context of their operational expertise when reinstating it to its rightful owner?

Two simple examples that illustrate the importance of standing, ownership, and professional expertise in making a claim to 'finding', but most of all the importance of the first 'finding', for without it the claims of the others are irrelevant.  So (calling a 'spade' a spade), the  person who finds it first - 'it' being the first manifestation of the thing, not the thing 'fully revealed', nor its 'value declared', but just 'the thing', is the person who has priority of discovery.   For no matter the expertise of the locksmith who cracks open the chest (or the length-of-arm of the rootler), or the dealer or the investigators, they are in a sense all freeloaders, ..agrandisers, capitalising on the first finder's first find.  It's that simple.

That in no way is to diminish the importance of the professional expertise of those who instate or re-instate, or realise the value or status of the thing. - it is simply to emphasise (in the context of Turcaud's discovery) the importance of the finding of the outcrops in the first place. Thereafter, the  value of discovery is directly proportional to the value of the thing revealed.   (More:- 1, 2,  3)

Sheppard (2002, p.10) addresses two varying definitions of discovery in relation to orebodies by two people of standing, in Chapter 2 of his book:-  David Harley,  President of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies:-  "I always say it's the first drill hole that goes through ore-grade mineralisation - that's the point of discovery". Dr. A.F. Trendall (Geological Survey, Western Australia):-  "However in my opinion any claimant to a discovery should establish that his find was made in both a geographical and geological sense, i.e., that he not only located the outcrop or feature, but also recognised that it contained a commercial mineral."   Sheppard reports that Turcaud considered Trendall's an admirable definition, saying:- "Mr Trendall's definition is excellent, I could not think of a better one. I could add, I did my very best to have geologists and mining companies share my conviction."  Moreover on his return from the field Turcaud lodged his samples with the Mines Department in Perth with their locations noted on his field maps. On emergence of the dispute with Newmont, gold values were confirmed.

Both definitions of discovery appear to have been made in the context of the Telfer dispute and both fall in the trap of equating 'discovery' with economic viability, which, although this is eventually true in respect of value of discovery, in the first instance this is not for the prospector to ascertain.  By his limited capacity, the prospector can only recognise indications that might lead to establishing real value.  Harley's definition seems a nonsense, for the obvious reason that if no mine results from subsequent drilling then no mine is discovered.  But whatever it was that justified drilling in the first place constitutes a 'discovery' directly proportional in value to that which drilling might reveal.  If drilling reveals nothing, then likewise the surface discovery is valueless.  The view that visiting any sundry outcrop would then constitute a 'discovery' is quite correct, ...but likewise discovery is worthless unless proven otherwise.  The outcrops Turcaud discovered however, turned out to be extremely valuable, and it is a nonsense to say (as Tyrwhitt does)  that because Turcaud didn't recognise the gold, he therefore does not warrant reward.  Turcaud may not have recognised the gold, but quite apart from recognising specific prospect locations in general and the Pascale Hills (Telfer) gossans in particular, he did recognise the distribution of mineralisation over a wide area, and tried to interest many companies in his find(s).  Tyrwhitt, and those who concur with his view are basically placing the routine of chemical analysis over the importance of Turcaud's solitary life-endangering exploration in the desert, and calling that fair priority.  However, to the values of an ordinary man they are surely either being disingenuous, or there is a serious glitch in their cognitive logic.  Or both.  Koehn, another who was passed over in the 'gold-credits',  was to put it nicely in accounting for blinkerdom:-

"...I don't underestimate people's reactions to a bad conscience, and greed is a powerful motivator."