Rocky River N.S.W

Rocky River N.S.W

Taken from

http://digsopen.minerals.nsw.gov.au/

Very unfortunate for those involved. Those old timers were extremely good at what they did.

Oh there is very good gold in that area. But mate what information did you gain from the above post?

Interesting report.

While I am no expert, the report tells me several things:

1. The old timer dredging moved an awful lot of material
   
2. Fine gold is scattered far and wide by floods - but what virgin ground there is was left alone by the old timers because it only held fine flood gold. At only 0.78g per cu metre, even I would not be hitting that virgin ground - too much effort for little return
   
3. There is still gold shedding into the river given the presence of fine gold in wash that has been deposited since old timer dredging - but only 0.1 g per cu metre would have me looking elsewhere - it will take many many years and floods to increase the concentration of flood gold
   

Don't think I'll be doing any prospecting there.

The only thing I can pull from this report is that my time would be better spent elsewhere in the creek. I would be looking for more of the granite bedrock outcrops that are referred to and sniping.

So, the granite sides of the previously worked areas were shallow to bedrock and not worked in the past. If test holes to bedrock were now made - using, say, a shovel and then a post hole digger (especially an old auger type) - then the makeup of the top of the unworked bedrock would be revealed. Dips, holes and ledges would have accumulated Gold long ago and then been buried. The granite ledges and cracks in unworked material on the banks could have quite some potential at bedrock depths (2 meters). Since the old dredges needed deep water to work and maneuver they would have, of course, not bothered with shallow to bedrock material.

Big Rocks (boulders) prevented digging to bedrock in another place. If those big rocks prevented test holes with a tracked backhoe then they certainly frustrated bucket line dredging and so that could be a good area to investigate. If I only dug test holes in easy ground I'd only find small, leftover Gold, too. Dig down to a boulder, carefully (stop and read that last word as though your continued health depended on it!) excavate on one underside, roll (never lift - roll!) the boulder into the deeper hole and keep going down, alternately rolling back and forth, in virgin ground.

Never get between a rock and a hard place..

So, to sum up: the testers were looking for quantities of non dredged material to work with some sort of other equipment. The dredgers (bucket line?) didn't want to work areas where big rocks would break their equipment or they were too far from the gut of the stream. In addition, bucket line dredges avoid digging down into 'nooks and crannies' in bedrock - because it tears up the dredge.

Just the type of project for -2 meter to bedrock and unknown potential small scale miners with banjos. All this RIGHT NEXT to heavy duty workings in the past.

ALASKA JOE wrote:

So, the granite sides of the previously worked areas were shallow to bedrock and not worked in the past.  If test holes to bedrock were now made - using, say, a shovel and then a post hole digger (especially an old auger type) - then the makeup of the top of the unworked bedrock would be revealed.  Dips, holes and ledges would have accumulated Gold long ago and then been buried.  The granite ledges and cracks in unworked material on the banks could have quite some potential at bedrock depths (2 meters).  Since the old dredges needed deep water to work and maneuver they would have, of course, not bothered with shallow to bedrock material.  

Big Rocks (boulders) prevented digging to bedrock in another place.  If those big rocks prevented test holes with a tracked backhoe then they certainly frustrated bucket line dredging and so that could be a good area to investigate.  If I only dug test holes in easy ground I'd only find small, leftover Gold, too.  Dig down to a boulder, carefully (stop and read that last word as though your continued health depended on it!) excavate on one underside, roll (never lift - roll!) the boulder into the deeper hole and keep going down, alternately rolling back and forth, in virgin ground.  

Never get between a rock and a hard place..

So, to sum up:  the testers were looking for quantities of non dredged material to work with some sort of other equipment.  The dredgers (bucket line?) didn't want to work areas where big rocks would break their equipment or they were too far from the gut of the stream.  In addition, bucket line dredges avoid digging down into 'nooks and crannies' in bedrock - because it tears up the dredge.  

Just the type of project for -2 meter to bedrock and unknown potential small scale miners with banjos.  All this RIGHT NEXT to heavy duty workings in the past.    

Joe you are 110% spot on the money, i know for a fact you are right been there done that so to speak.

mdv wrote:

Interesting report.

While I am no expert, the report tells me several things:

1. The old timer dredging moved an awful lot of material yes
   
2. Fine gold is scattered far and wide by floods - but what virgin ground there is was left alone by the old timers because it only held fine flood gold. At only 0.78g per cu metre, even I would not be hitting that virgin ground - too much effort for little return Ha this is a common mistake made by most. up that way the gold seems to settle in concentration in only certain locations and very little else where, one must look out side of the creek bed.
   
3. There is still gold shedding into the river That is what you must look for given the presence of fine gold in wash that has been deposited since old timer dredging - but only 0.1 g per cu metre would have me looking elsewhere - it will take many many years and floods to increase the concentration of flood gold
   

Don't think I'll be doing any prospecting there.

That is the trouble with areas like Oallen Ford people expect all areas to be just like that with gold everywhere. But in reality it is not and you must hunt for it many a time you will pan blanks then you will hit a spot that will make you say oh my god.

Amazing!

Outlander wrote:

The only thing I can pull from this report is that my time would be better spent elsewhere in the creek. I would be looking for more of the granite bedrock outcrops that are referred to and sniping.

What about been able to tell work ground and unworked ground can you see anything in the report that will help you.

The old "Doughnut Shop Philosophy"

"The difference between the Optimist
    and the Pessimist is droll.
The Optimist sees the doughnut
    and the Pessimist sees the hole.

If the old timers spent considerable time in a region you can just bet with certainty that they weren't there, working out in the open air, for the rewarding health benefits of exercise and the 'Roo Stew' at the end of the day.

*****

James,  I have spent forever studying tailing piles; push-up piles of tailings, overburden and, in one case - abandoned pay; and also bank cuts of stream deposited glacial and non glacial till.

The big trick is to study a side cut to look at the 'as found' gravels, clays and sands.  

The easiest to catch, quickly, is a push up pile of overburden - all sizes of material that is not of any specific orientation (not horizontally laid down with water) .  Open air spaces within (mostly underneath) the larger rocks.  No layers of sand, gravel or rocks.

Piles of rocks, that are all large in size, no fines in between the rocks and jumbled in orientation = oversize from a classification system.

Piles of about the same sized smaller sizes, no big rocks but gravel up to a certain size mixed with clay, silt and sand with no air spaces = worked, undersized tailings.

Layers of rock, gravel, sand and clay with the rocks laid down with horizontal orientation upstream / downstream, usually no air pockets and laid 'flatish' = flood deposits (you're actually looking at a cross section of gravel bars that have been put down with flooding).

Where it gets quite interesting is when floods mix certain different types of deposits.

The most unusual for me?  At a mate's Alaskan claims in the side of his retaining pond.  Sands, small gravel in distinct layers with a few layers of larger gravels, no air voids.  Right there, inbedded in the sands and small gravel was a very large (twice the size of a Ute) slab of clay with ancient organic bush roots and grasses in it.  It took me a while to puzzle it out - early spring time flooding had ripped a huge chunk of frozen clay and, with a large amount of ice attached, had finally been dropped by the flood waters (the ice had finally melted) on a sandy/gravel bar and then covered it with more sands and gravel over time.  No specific orientation and no air voids because it had been deposited and covered by flood waters.  


Joe

Mate top info and covers it very well indeed.

Ok what dose this report tell you?