Thursday, June 7, 2012

Rocks in Campfires


Sometimes we get extremely practical questions - so mundane that no one has ever spent time scientifically researching or studying them. Another way to put this: a million people have conducted a million unreported independent experiments. However, equally many people have opinions!

Case in point: putting wet rocks from a river in a campfire:


Q: 
Hi there!
     First let me say I was so happy to find a result when I googled "ask a geologist".  The internet continues to impress.
     A friend and I recently were talking about rocks in campfires, and the safety of it.  She was convinced that solid rocks can explode with shrapnel-like effect if overheated.  I ceded that I believe rocks may able to explode, but rocks that were solid and found in a dry area would probably be safe, and that it were more likely to simply crack than to actually provide enough force to send a fragment out at high velocity.
     So obviously when we returned I did a bit of research, and found that a lot of people talk about this, but no-one seems to have any concrete evidence.  It's all either anecdotal or stated as theory.  Most of these involve "river rocks", rocks which have been exposed to water over long periods, "soft rocks" such as sandstone or pumice, the combination of the two, or simply "rocks which have air or liquid in them".
     I don't doubt for a minute that there are circumstances where gas or liquid inside of a rock can expand and cause the rock to break.  What I question is whether or not the explosion can produce a shrapnel-like effect.  Whether or not the force can be great enough to send a piece
of the rock out at great velocity, or if it would be more likely for it to simply crack with little effect.  I did a tiny bit of research only to realize that the mechanics regarding density of rock and vapor
pressure were pretty deep. The engineer in me realizes that it relies on many variables, the distance of the pressurized water to the surface, the shape of the rock, and of course it's density and the amount of vaporizable water, and that water's coordination within the rock.
     So whaddya think?  Can rocks explode like grenades?
- Andy B.

A:

That's a classic question with thousands of anecdotal answers. I have personally seen a river rock, deposited in the middle of a roaring campfire, explode. There was a distinct bang sound (several, actually), but I don't remember any pieces flying off. Others around the campfire told me that yes, they had seen fragments fly out of other wet-rocks-in-a-fire experiments, and considered anyone putting a water-soaked rock in a hot campfire as being unusually foolish. I've seen worse: in a field camp in the deep Venezuelan jungle, I watched obreros throw half-used cans of insecticide spray into a campfire with predictable consequences.

The engineer in you has homed in on the best answer (I hesitate to use "correct" here, meaning that it has been experimentally verified, or verified from personal experience, take your pick). The problem is there are too many variables.These include how "tight" the rock is, how fractured it is, how much porosity, how much transmissivity (how interconnected the pore spaces are), how fast it heats up, and how large a volume. There are probably others.

It comes down to this: to constrain the variables, one must do thousands of experiments to get anything statistically meaningful. I suspect this experiment has been "conducted" millions of times by millions of kids around campfires, but no one ever collected and compiled the results. I can't imagine anyone other than Myth Busters having the time and resources to do an appropriate set of experiments. I would be surprised, however, if they have NOT done experiments like this.

~~~~~


Monday, June 4, 2012

The Largest Possible Bay Area Earthquake


Some questioners have serious worries about the risks in where they live – polluted groundwater from industrial plants or fracking, exposure to volcanic eruptions, and risk from earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Sometimes people are just trying to get some reference they can use for legal action or engineering decisions they are required to make… or justify. In this example it’s not clear what the objective is, but I hope the answer is educational.

Q:
Please provide me with Web links or literature citations to the current estimates of maximum credible earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Region.

Thank you. – Robert Z.


A:
I'll lay out selected references first, then explain the principles underlying them.

The largest historic earthquake to strike northern California remains the M = 7.9 event of 1906. These aren't that unusual; I remember vividly being thrown out of my bed as a small child by a magnitude 7.7 earthquake in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

... we find that "Determining whether the intraslab events occur within the crust or mantle portions of the slab is not only important for understanding the rupture process of these events, but also for estimating the maximum possible magnitude. Normal-faulting earthquakes confined to the 7 km thick subducted oceanic crust are not likely to exceed the magnitudes of the three large (M6.5-7.1) Cascadia intraslab earthquakes, while allowing a thicker seismogenic zone suggests that much larger earthquakes could occur."

...we read "The Calaveras Fault plays a major role in accommodating plate-motion slip in the San Francisco Bay region.  Geodetic modeling, historical creep data and paleoseismic trenching suggest a fault slip rate of about 15 mm/yr on the Central Calaveras Fault, which extends from San Felipe Lake on the southeast to Calaveras Reservoir on the northwest.  Within the uncertainty of limited geologic data, the long-term slip rate on the Central Calaveras Fault is consistent with the short term rate estimated from aseismic creep and geodetic modeling.  However, a critical question is whether or not the Central Calaveras Fault produces large-magnitude earthquakes, or whether the fault relieves strain only by aseismic creep and small to moderate earthquakes.  Existing seismic source characterization models generally assume or strongly weight scenarios in which the fault may rupture in earthquakes up to magnitudes of about M6.2.  Understanding the maximum size of earthquakes possible along the Central Calaveras Fault is critical to estimating probabilities of future earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay region. ".

In general, the maximum possible moment magnitude correlates closely with the amount of fault surface that actually breaks - and by how much (surface area * throw).

A subduction earthquake such as Cascadia in January 1700 (or Tohoku, 11 March 2011) presents a much larger potential slip-surface because it dips relatively shallowly, and can reach down-dip much farther (~200 km for the Tohoku event) before it reaches the plastic zone (pressures and temperatures high enough) of the Mantle. The San Andreas is a roughly vertical-dipping, right-lateral transform fault, and also has multiple bifurcations and bends, all of which would tend to limit the surface area where slip can actually take place. This suggests that M ~ 8 is the maximum that could be expected for the San Francisco Bay area.

~~~~~

Friday, June 1, 2012

Acid and Pyrite


Many people are interested in minerals – but some are also interested in how minerals interact with other things. This is for very practical reasons. A mining engineer will want to know something about all the minerals related to – found in – an ore deposit, and there could be dozens. A clear understanding is required of both the minerals and their interactions with heat and acids. Without this, it is impossible to sort out each mineral from the raw ore. Each will react differently to different processes and solutions. The mine infrastructure designers – the people who build 50 million-dollar mills - then can set up a mill and plant  to extract what they want from the ore… Lacking this understanding the ore will just remain strange-looking dirt.

Keep in mind that the minerals were concentrated by a complex chemical-physical process in the first place. Many people think of fluids in the Earth as being the same thing as potable groundwater – but the fluids forming and interacting with ore deposits can often be hot and very acidic (that’s why the concentration happens). Experiments with different solutions on different mineral species help mining engineers and geochemists to work out the extraction process. Pyrite is commonly found in almost all sulfide deposits, and must be removed first to extract the gold, copper, molybdenum, silver, lead, tin, etc., being sought after. Our early ancestors – creators of the Bronze Age of ancient Greece – had already worked out much of this process millennia ago.

Q: 
Will nitric and/or muriatic acid affect pyrite?
Thanks for your time. – Aaron C.

A:
Muriatic acid is just a tech grade of hydrochloric acid.

Pyrite fuses easily under heat, becoming magnetic and giving off sulfur dioxide fumes (SO2 – that burnt-match smell). Pyrite is insoluble in hydrochloric acid (not an oxidizer). However, a fine powder (which exposes much more of the pyrite surface area) will dissolve in concentrated nitric acid (HNO3), which IS an oxidizer.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Volcanoes at Night


The following exchange is typical of the sometimes unusually informed questions we can receive from young children. In the exchange that follows, the Mom (Jo) wrote to Ask-a-Geologist for her daughter, Samantha, because Samantha wasn’t allowed to have access to the internet yet. Samantha was just 3 at the time these questions arrived!

Q:
I am writing to you because I promised my daughter I would send Jeff Wynn the Volcanologist from one of her volcano books an email. The books I read to her every night are Volcanoes! (National Geographic) for Kids, The Best Books of Volcanoes, by Simon Adams, and Time For Kids: Volcanoes.

Not in a million years would I think that my 3 year old daughter would be so obsessed by volcanoes but she talks about them every day at school and always mentions tectonic plates, lava and magma. This phase of hers has lasted since December. :-)

Anyway, questions she had was why does the Volcanologist always have a stick? 
==Jo L.

A:
I have not seen volcanologists use sticks except for leveling rods for surveying.  In some cases it would be wise to use hiking poles so you don't fall and do a face-plant in the glass of a recent flow. When we sample some active magma we usually use a piece of wire trolled through an active (glowing red) lobe, or use a trowel to dig out a blob – the hot lava is dense and very sticky (not to mention HOT). It is VERY hard to collect a useful sample, even with heavy gloves.

Q:
Can you really walk on hot lava? 


A:
Yes you can walk on hot lava, but I don’t recommend it. The human body is a bit more dense than water, but typical basalt lava has a density up to three times this. I've walked over Kilauea magma lobes as they were moving downhill into a forest, and were swelling in thickness – but only after an initial gray crust had formed. The problem is that even the crusted lava is so hot that they will melt your boot soles rather quickly. Cold lava will destroy your boots also - but mainly because cold lava is solidified, crusty glass, and the abrasion tears the boots up at a phenomenal rate. The other problem with walking over hot lava is that the air temperature above it is suffocatingly hot - without a thermometer to say for sure, I would estimate the air temperatures above some flows I've walked over southeast of Kilauea were up in the 120F - 140F (50C – 60C) range. You can't stay in that for very long at all, and if you are downwind you can't stay there either - so in several occasions I had to walk across a new flow just to get out of the heat and back to my helicopter. Helicopters can’t get adequate lift in those high temperatures, which means the pilot could not rescue me unless I moved away from the hot zone. 


Q:
Why the Pompeii guys not use their cars to get away from the Volcano? 


A:
They didn't have cars in those days (79 AD), and I'll bet all the donkeys had already taken off running on their own. The REAL problem with Pompey was that many of the people were likely killed by a rush of hot gas (called a nuee ardent) that roared down the volcano's slopes at high speed - and then they were engulfed and covered by pyroclastic flow debris. This is extremely hot ash and pumice that rained down on the survivors faster than they could run, and engulfed, suffocated, and burned those not already dead. It must have been a fast death, but a very painful one.

 
Q:
Don't know how long she will be so interested in this topic but I try and get books and watch videos of volcanoes as much as we can. 

A:
Keep feeding her books, and then just stand back in awe at what you have made.

Q:
Have a nice day!

A:
You too.

Q:
Hi Jeff Wynn, Samantha was thrilled to hear from you and took your email to share with her class at the NW Montessori School. They all enjoyed hearing about volcanoes. You have a fan!
Samantha has another question.
She always calls Mount Rainier the "Dormant Volcano" but she wants to know why it is a dormant volcano.

And another.
Why do volcanoes erupt at night? I tried to tell her the erupt during the day as well but she is fascinated on how bright they are when she sees pictures of volcanos erupting at night.

Thanks,
Jo L., Mom of Samantha (future Volcanologist?)

A:
Dormant is a fuzzy word. Volcanologists will call a volcano "dormant" after it has been quiet for a long time. How long you would call "long" is still being argued, but generally is up to the individual geologist. She must weigh when the last eruption took place, and what the previous eruptive history was. Mt Rainier had its last "classical" eruption (ash and pumice flew up and out of it, or lava built domes or flowed down its flanks) several thousand years ago, but a big water-and-debris flow called a lahar (the "Electron” flow) roared down into what today is Tacoma, WA, only ~500 years ago. Thus that "dormant" characterization is even fuzzier.

Volcanoes don't care what time of the day it is - no one has ever been able to get a statistical correlation with tides - the Sun, the Moon - for instance. So volcanoes erupt as often in the daytime as in the night-time.  Samantha is probably impressed with some Strombolian activity photographed at night. Glowing yellow-red cinders flying out of a volcano look spectacular in night-time photography, but aren't nearly so in daytime images. 

Samantha is unusually precocious. We usually don’t see questions this sophisticated until kids become teenagers. Keep feeding her books. We need people like Samantha to be the next-after-next generation of leaders in science.
~~~~~

Friday, May 18, 2012

Putting it All Together: Finding the Bacon

As a graduate student at the University of Arizona, I somehow wangled a summer job with AMAX Exploration, a mining company related to the Climax Molybdenum mine in Colorado. Like Bear Creek, Kennecott, Placer Dome, and Rio Tinto, this was another exploration entity focused on locating another billion-dollar mineral deposit.
My assignment for a summer: travel all over remote southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico and make gravity measurements. I was given a 4-wheel-drive vehicle, a gravimeter, a credit card, a $400 cash advance, and a set of maps with broad circles on them where there were no gravity data. I was basically a free agent: leave Monday morning, and return Friday evening, and collect as many gravity stations as I possibly could - in a remote region where you could have a vehicle break down and find yourself 40 kilometers from the nearest human being. This sounds like the ultimate freedom, doesn’t it? Well yes, but it had its drawbacks. For one thing I would push myself to work 12+ hour days, because I missed my little family - and wanted to collect as much data as possible to make sure I kept this job. For another, it meant that when I had a vehicle breakdown, it could be potentially life-threatening because I was so isolated. This happened to me several times during that first summer working for AMAX.
You may ask why was gravity data so important?  Amax was looking for another porphyry copper deposit like the billion-dollar monsters found all over southern Arizona and northern Mexico. All the porphyries exposed to sight had been already found, so that meant that we had to search areas where others could still be hidden. A major potential target area was where valleys in the Basin and Range province (that included Arizona, Nevada, parts of Utah, and Mexico: they were covered with recent sediment weathered off the surrounding mountain ranges.
We all knew that dirt, sand, and gravel - basin and valley-fill material - are less dense than a magmatic porphyry body; the porphyry should show up in gravity data, then, as a denser “bulls eye” on our final corrected map.
I also spent a day working with a geochemist, and another day I spent working with an economic geologist from the project team. I learned more in those two days than I did in a month in school.
Again, it all goes back to the deposit model thing. If you’re looking for something, you need to think out carefully where it might really be, how it got where is is, and what it looks like… or you will be wasting your time. I think of the story of the lady looking for a quarter under a street lamp; when asked by a friend where she dropped it, she gestured towards the dark street hundreds of meters away. "But there's better light here."
The porphyry-hunting team had sat around a table to think these things out – and how one might logically go about looking for a "blind" (buried) porphyry. They realized that all the exposed porphyry copper deposits were already being exploited – and in fact they had been largely found far back in the 19th Century. The trick was to find those that were hidden: covered by later volcanic flows, or debris flows, or soils. There are huge basins in Arizona: bathtubs filled with dirt, as one geologist put it. Fully a third of the state has never been looked at for blind porphyries.
The objective required a cooperative effort that was also sequential. My compiled gravity maps showed several possible interesting anomalies - places where the basins were not smooth gravity lows. Typical of the real world, however, they were never neat bulls-eyes – because the gravity meter picks up density changes at all different depths beneath it. It could “see” the edges of ancient canyons buried beneath the valley fill, and other density contrasts, which would complicate the interpretation of any final result. The geophysicist I worked for, however, was very smart, had been around, and had thought a lot about what the data showed. Frank picked several areas that could use some follow-up. He also had convinced AMAX management to pay for an aeromagnetic survey in narrow areas of the team’s focused interest: those flat-looking basins. 
The team now had TWO sets of geophysical maps.
I was encouraged to go out with the geochemist one day – the company encouraged this sort of cross-pollination. The thinking was that if we each understood what the other was looking for, we could help each other – or report interesting things that the other guy might want to follow up on. The geochemist was working from my gravity maps – with certain areas circled by Frank, the project geophysicist who had hired me.  The geochemist would drive his own 4WD vehicle cross-country, looking for large Mesquite bushes in those areas. He would then fight his way in past the green vegetation and clip off thumb-sized chunks of stem, collecting them in a sample-bag which he carefully labeled. These he took back to his lab in Tucson, where he reduced them to ash and then did a chemical analysis for trace levels of copper, arsenic, silver, and 17 other elements. A 20-element suite cost only a bit more than a 3-element suite, so it was more cost-effective if you also hoped for a pleasant surprise.
I asked him why he was doing this? He told me that after the first white men entered the region with all their cattle, the native grasses had been largely eliminated. The Mesquite bush, freed of water competition, survived and with cactus was pretty much all that remained because it had such deep roots. How deep? Miners, he told me, had encountered Mesquite roots in tunnels they were digging underground in the Bisbee copper mining district. Anecdotal word of mouth suggested Mesquite roots reached deeper than 30 meters (100+ feet). THAT’S how you become the dominant surviving plant species in a desert!
The geochemist contoured a set of maps for the region in southeastern Arizona where the project team had started to focus its interest… one map for each element from his chemical analyses.
Now we had TWO different SETS of maps: geophysical and geochemical. The gravity showed areas with a higher-than-usual gravity field (greater density of rocks under the gravimeter) and the magnetic data showed anomalies that might or might not be caused by a porphyry intrusive. Less than half of these porphyries in Nevada, after a long and careful inventory, had turned out to be magnetic, so by itself the mag data were not diagnostic. We also had “pops” here and there of copper and other metals from the Mesquite geochem sampling.
The exploration team gathered in Tucson and went over the geophysical, geochemical, and surface geology maps. There were several areas they all agreed were possibilities. But a single drill hole, 300 meters deep, would cost at least $50,000. Hmmmm. More proof is needed to justify this kind of expense to corporate HQ.  
The geophysicist suggested another type of geophysics – more expensive per area covered, but they had already narrowed down the areas they would use it on. This kind of geophysics was electrical in nature, called induced polarization or “IP” for short (for obvious reasons). It turns out that if you inject electrical current into the ground and hold it steady for a second or two, it would “charge up” certain kinds of minerals immersed in groundwater deep under the ground. Pyrite (so-called “fools gold”) was one of these minerals, but no one was interested in pyrite – it was just iron and sulfur, and they were everywhere already. But pyrite was often associated with certain copper minerals, for instance gold-colored chalcopyrite, bornite (so-called “peacock ore”), or black covelite, a copper oxide. THESE were what they were looking for. Any excess pyrite found might just prove to be a halo around a big, hidden copper deposit, where all sorts of metals were concentrated by the hydrothermal process described earlier.
In IP survey was contracted out, and the operator sent a report back on his interpretation of the rather cryptic results. He saw polarization layering: the deeper the IP system looked, the stronger the apparent induced polarization effect was. This was a well-known geophysical version of fools gold called electromagnetic (“EM”) coupling. This phenomenon was often seen in conductive groundwater environments like Arizona had in abundance – always getting stronger with depth - as the transmitted electrical current at the surface of the ground set up eddy currents of electricity deep in the ground that acted just like disseminated pyrite “lighting up” with an electrical charge.
The contractor’s summary: I am seeing just EM coupling, nothing of interest.
The project geophysicist, however, pored over the maps for a long time. He noticed that the apparent EM coupling was NOT perfectly layered like EM coupling, but had a slight shift below where the geochemist had gotten a copper “sniff” in his mesquite chemical analyses.
Now comes the serendipity part of this story. I mentioned that this particular geophysicist was different than other geophysicists. Frank was an iconoclast: he thought differently than other people. I learned later that he had negotiated his AMAX salary with a “rider” on it. Every year the company would allocate one drill hole to be drilled on one of his hunches. I had never heard anything like this before or since, but it must have appealed to the intrigue-bone in some senior AMAX manager somewhere.
The company was about to abandon this particular target area, located near Solomonville in the Safford Valley of southeastern Arizona. Frank called for his annual “hunch hole.” Now keep in mind that the faint anomaly he was looking at was probably at least 200 meters (600 feet) deep, and Mesquite roots could not possibly reach down that far. Perry, the project geologist, told him he was crazy, but Frank insisted. The first drill went through 200 meters of sediment… and then intersected 15 meters of pure massive sulfide ore, almost all pyrite. BINGO. It was an astounding success. I saw a chunk of that drill core on the conference room table: it looked like a thick bronze bar. The target property was now even given a name: Sol.
AMAX formed a consortium with Phelps-Dodge corporation to help cover the cost of another 30 – 50 drill holes. The countryside around the discovery hole was quickly claim-staked and then grid-drilled. But after all that work the consortium kept the results to themselves. There was a clue, however: no infrastructure was ever built. It must have been a “bust” even after all those sulfides were found.
By that time I had gone back to school for the Fall, and it wasn’t until nearly a year later that I saw Frank again, and asked him what had happened. Knowing it was considered proprietary information, but knowing also that I had poured a lot of effort into the project, Frank paused. Then he said “We successfully outlined a porphyry sulfide stockwork.” He watched my face for comprehension… and then winked.
What he had NOT said was a “porphyry COPPER stockwork.” In other words, lots of pyrite, but not enough copper, silver, and gold in it to justify a mine development effort when the price of copper had sunk to below $1/lb ($2/kg).
Technically, this was an elegant, successful exploration effort. AMAX recognized that they had a brilliant team in their Tucson office, and kept funneling resources to them for many more years. But while Sol was a success, it was not an ECONOMIC success.
~~~~~

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Chromite Geophysics

At this point I'm going to move into more direct applications of geoscience. I'm a pragmatic type of person, and if I don't see a point to something, my attention starts to waiver. I also teach Jujitsu, and teach my students many different techniques (Kata) and combinations (Waza). I also teach them to try everything, but perfect those that work especially well for them. Treat these things as "would you bet your life on them?" The same holds, but without the life threatening aspects, for my profession.
We will start with this chapter on geophysical methods and why they are immensely useful. Simply put, geological mapping covers the surface of the earth and makes inferences about the third (buried) dimension from this. Geochemistry is similarly two-dimensional, but inferences can also be drawn from these data about the third or buried dimension. Geophysics, on the other hand, directly images that third dimension. That sounds wonderful, on the face of it, but there are limitations that one must always be aware of. For one thing, if there is significant topographic relief, it complicates any interpretation. For another, the deeper you want to "see" the less resolution that you will have; a pipe buried at 1 meter depth is visible to a surface electromagnetic system, but not if it is buried at 100 meters depth. This is just like trying to read a sign a meter away vs the same sign at 100 meters away.
~~~~~
I belong to a specialized group on LinkedIn where people ask and answer questions related to mining geophysics. One question came in recently about podiform chromite deposits. Chromite is chrome-iron-oxide ore, typically an extremely dense black rock. I have a small 25-kg (55 lbs) sample on our back deck – it’s only about the size of a jogging shoe. However, its density is over 7 g/cc, so if you try to pick it up, you find you can't - until you reposition yourself and straddle it first.
To help you follow the explanation below (which was aimed at an experienced geologist), I need to add a few explanations. An “Ophiolite” is a piece of ancient seafloor that has been rafted up onto a continental margin by a plate-tectonic accretion process. Think of shoving a sheet against a pillow – part of it will end up on the edges of the pillow for the same reason that some ocean-floor ended up on the Oregon-California coast. The rock-type we found there, called “Harzburgite” is a weird, dun-colored ultramafic rock; this means it is quartz-free, and mostly made up of manganese-iron minerals. This rock has distinctive green olivine crystals in it that come from the Earth’s Mantle, and which don’t weather as fast as the rest of the rock, so they stand up from an exposed surface in points and edges. From personal experience, these will shred your skin if you fall on it. “Serpentine” is a highly magnetic, water-and-heat-cooked mineral assemblage usually found in fracture zones in Harzburgite. The expression “podiform” simply means that the chromite is typically found in massive, dense “pods” 10 – 20 meters (up to 60+ feet) in diameter in the host rock, not unlike raisins in raisin bread. A “gravimeter” (or gravity meter) is a sophisticated device with a spring and balance that is extremely sensitive to tiny changes in the pull of the Earth’s gravity. These devices are so sensitive that changes in where the Moon and Sun are located in the sky will appear as large changes in your repeat measurements in one place as a day goes by. Gravity measurements are also strongly affected by changes in latitude and elevation. All of these things must be corrected for – subtracted out of your measurements – before you can get meaningful numbers out of your gravity survey. “Resistivity” is a measurement of how well some material conducts electricity – the greater the resistance to electricity, the greater the resistivity, which is just a volume-independent value. Metals and some sulfide minerals have a lot of free electrons, so they conduct current easily and therefore have a low resistivity.
 So you will see from what follows that for anything to work, everyone has to learn to talk with each other - the geophysics is useless without an understanding of the geology, and vice-versa.
Q:
What is the best and most effective geophysical survey method for Chromite deposits exploration?"
--Yildiray K.
A:
I did some research years ago on podiform chromite in the Josephine Ophiolite in northwestern California. Before I went there, I did some homework first. One gravity survey reported in the scientific literature by the USGS in Cuba (during the pre-Castro era!) had a weak correlation between gravity anomalies and podiform chromite bodies in Camaguey Province. Only about 10% of the anomalies were unequivocally caused by chromite pods, but those discoveries made the survey technically economic: more value was discovered than was spent in the effort searching for it.
There are two problems with gravity surveys that have to do with the sensitivity of the gravimeter and the relatively weak anomalies we are looking for. Think about this: the gravimeter is measuring the effect of all the Earth below you, but you are only interested in the tiny fraction shallow enough to be drilled or mined.
One major difficulty with gravimetry is that you must get a precise elevation for where you are making the measurement. You must correct for even tiny elevation changes to get useful numbers. If the gravity meter is just a meter lower, it will place you closer to the center of the Earth, and the effect of gravity will become significantly stronger – modern gravimeters are that sensitive, and the anomalies being searched for are that weak.
There is another major difficulty with gravity measurements: terrain corrections. If you are on the side of a mountain, the part of the mountain above you to your left, say, will effectively pull upwards against your gravimeter. That part of empty space below you to your right will also contribute – in a negative sense of NOT pulling against your gravimeter. That means that terrain effects are doubly-additive. To correct for these, you must mathematically subtract out the contributions of the different elevations in concentric rings around each gravity station measurement. Typically these corrections are done out to 167 kilometers (100 miles) from each and every station. Ugh.
Because of this, gravity terrain corrections often prove to be the weak link with this kind of survey. In both Cuba and northwestern California, the corrections were far larger than the anomalies caused by the chromite pods - because the terrain we were working in was so rugged and steep. Because of this, the gravity only worked reliably for finding shallow chromite pods.
Podiform chromite deposits tend to be very self-contained (like raisins): there is very little external indication or halo that you are even close to the chromite body in most cases. In my experimentation in the Josephine Ultramafic Complex, a microgravity profile could readily detect pods we already knew existed, and even suggested several others.
Magnetic surveying only showed us where the serpentinite was best developed in the Harzburgite ground mass. This could be construed as an indicator of stress on the Harzburgite by a dense nearby chromite pod during the Ophiolite emplacement process. Basically, the massive chromite pod beat up the surrounding rock as the whole mass was emplaced, and that lead to much faster weathering and serpentinization close to the pod. It’s sort of like having a jug of milk packed in the same grocery sack as your bread and chips. If you brought several sacks of these things home, you could tell right away which sack held the milk jug - by which sack of chips had been turned to powder.
We also experimented with refraction seismic methods. We pounded with a sledgehammer on a steel plate laid out on the ground. With sensitive geophones strung out in a line over the terrain, we measured the arrival time of the sound impulse. We found that yes, there was indeed a significant velocity increase when the sound waves passed through the chromite vs. the surrounding serpentinized Harzburgite groundmass. However, this velocity advantage was offset by the complex 3D terrain we were working in, and was difficult to interpret data if we did not already know where the chromite pod was.
Finally, we experimented with resistivity and “Complex Resistivity” – the change of resistivity with transmitter frequency -  in both the field and the laboratory. There was no strong amplitude change over the frequencies we tried, but there was a subtle time-delay (phase shift) that we believe was caused by Kemmererite. This is a deep reddish mineral caused by alteration (hydrothermal “cooking”) of the chromite over time. It shows up as a thin red rind in a microscope thin-section, surrounding each blob of chromite, and behaves differently in a number of ways from the chromite. The resistivity of the chromite itself is significantly higher (acts less like a metal) than for the beat-up and serpentinized Harzburgite. Again, this small advantage is marginalized by other difficult-to-fix variables including terrain effects and localized serpentinite veins.
The bottom line: geological mapping doesn’t work very well to find buried chromite orebodies. Geophysical methods, especially when several are combined to reduce ambiguity, CAN find these things – but only if they are relatively close to the ground surface. Rough terrain makes it much harder to interpret any results, however.
As a final, odd anecdotal aside, we made several excellent plaster casts of some huge, stream-side footprints that we found in this extremely remote and inaccessible area. These footprints were ~40 cm (at least 16 inches) long, with five toes and a heel-width of ~10 cm (4 inches). Several times, over two separate summers, we even heard the deep hooting sounds of the creatures that apparently made these footprints. The field evidence suggests they were two-legged, very large, and not human - and not bears, either. 
From these hints, can you attach a name to these BIG footprints?
~~~~~

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Exploration Geochemistry, Part 2



The US Geological Survey at one time carried out a mineral resource inventory of most of the United States and Alaska. This was done by organizing teams of geologists, geochemists, and geophysicists to gather data and evaluate a quadrangle. In the Lower-48 a quadrangle was a one-degree-by-two-degree, 1:250,000-scale topographic quadrangle, typically 100 km x 160 km (60 miles x 100 miles) in size. This was called the Contiguous United States Mineral Appraisal Program, or "CUSMAP" for short. In Alaska it was done slightly differently: it was called "AMRAP", and the quadrangles were one degree by three degrees in size - pretty much the same surface area, but the 3-degree size was necessitated by the convergence of the lines of longitude as one got farther and farther north. 

My first introduction to Alaska involved the usual training in handguns and "long guns", the purchase of rubberized rain suits and X-traTuff boots - "cane cutter boots" with an Alaskan attitude. At first I wondered about all the gear, but I soon learned why "Southeast" is famous for two things: bears and rain. The average rainfall in Craig, Alaska, where we first motored to for our work, is 12 feet of rain per year. That's 365 cm of rainfall. It seems like rain every day, all the time. I've seen bumper-stickers in southeast Alaska that say "The Bright Yellow Ball is the Sun."

We started work that first year at the docks of Ketchikan, a small city in the southeastern Alaska Panhandle, where we boarded the R/V Don J Miller, a 35-meter (116-ft), 80-year-old vessel that had been refurbished - outfitted with a map-room and a helipad above it, in lieu of a back deck. We were taught how to drive a skiff - a 5-meter (17-foot) aluminum boat, or in later years this became an inflatable "Zodiac" of about the same size. We were also taught how to make emergency repairs, and how to anchor such a vessel on a coast line. This is much trickier than you might think - this is a region where the tide could shift the sea-level up or down by as much as 10 meters (33 feet or more) in just 6 hours. You do NOT want to tie off your boat, climb up a Devil's-Club-infested creek to collect your stream-sediment sample, and then come back to find your 200-kilo (440-lb) transportation is:
(a) floating out in the fjord a stone's throw away, or
(b) stuck on rocks a stone's throw from the water's edge...
...and thus unusable in either case for up to 12 hours.

Doing an "overnighter" in these circumstances is actually worse than the discomfort of trying to sleep hungry in the cold rain all night. You had to face your buddies sheepishly the next day when they stopped all their own work to come looking for you.  Or for your gnawed bones.

I should mention that the R/V Don J Miller was named after a USGS geologist who died while working in Alaska. By an amazing coincidence this man's daughter, also a geologist, was actually working on that ship with us that summer.

Here were my working parameters: If the cloud cover on any given day was high enough, I would fly out in the helicopter and collect gravity stations. I used a $25,000 gravimeter that could detect changes in the pull of the Earth's gravity field down to  0.0000000001 - that incredible sensitivity is why the thing cost so much. There will be more on geophysics in subsequent chapters.

However, if the cloud cover was below 125 meters (500 feet), our airship was grounded - the pilot sat and read novels and drank coffee all day. Since we couldn't fly, I would instead go out and help the geochemists (I read slowly and I don't drink coffee). As I mentioned, we would motor to an area that we had no data for, then climb up through Alaska's nastiest weed (the thorn-infested, and aptly-named Devil's Club) to a point where we were well above the highest ocean tide. There we would collect several shovels of sediment, crudely sieve out the larger rocks and pebbles to reduce what we had to transport, write field notes on the location, and return to the skiff.

Repeat this 15 or so times a day, with a brief stop at an unforgettable viewpoint somewhere for lunch. Any single stream-sediment sample we acquired was then representative of the entire drainage area to the highest peaks above. We didn't have to crawl through the whole thing to know what might be hidden there. Southeast Alaska's rain brought it right to us.

This process might sound straightforward, but in practice it is truly arduous work. Getting just a single shovel of sediment in a stream bed made up almost exclusively of rocks the size of your head is one issue. Bucking through the Devil's Club is another. Watching the Tide Tables closely enough to ensure that you are tying off your skiff at the right place is another... and timing your climbing and sample-collecting so that you get back when you planned to is yet another. Humping around a .45-70 carbine or rifled-slug-loaded shotgun - and keeping alert for mother bears - is yet another.

Why did we do this?

The geochemists explained to me that when gold, or sulfide minerals like copper, lead, silver, or molybdenum, are deposited somewhere, there are a lot of other minerals frequently associated with the process. For instance, you may not see "puntos" of gold a mile away from the core of a gold deposit, but you could very well detect a higher-than-normal level of arsenic a mile away. Hydrothermal mineral deposits are concentrations of something you want, something you value. Nature has gathered these minerals from a vast volume of surrounding rock and concentrated them in one place for you. This gathering process is caused by water being circulated through an immense volume of older rock that was already there. The engine driving the wateris driven by a heat source - say a granite or monzonite intrusive punching up from the Earth's Mantle. (A monzonite is like granite, but with less quartz and more calcium in the rock). This hot, usually acid water circulation system picks up gold and sulfide minerals in distant rock and concentrates it in the vicinity of the hot intruding body - seemingly like how moths are drawn to a light.

Early on, miners noticed a haloing effect. As you moved outward from the center of a primary mineral deposit, you would see roughly concentric rings of other minerals. You could see different sulfide minerals as you progressed outward. You would also see "alteration": clay minerals like aluminum-bearing feldspars that had been cooked to a powdery, grungy form by hot, acidic water - close in to the deposit. You may also see greenish-looking rock - less-strongly altered or less "cooked" rocks, but still with some extra chlorine in them - farther out from the center.

The geochemists would collect as many samples as they could during the summers, driving themselves to do 14-hour days while they had the chance. The wild beauty of wilderness Alaska was a nontrivial reward, I might add. They would then spent the cold winters in Denver doing the tedious sample grinding, sieving, and chemical analyses. By the time they were ready to come back for another, perhaps final field season, they would already have preliminary contoured the results. THIS island has copper on this side but not on the other side, while THIS peninsula is just glowing with lead sulfides. So we can look at a map of the stream drainages and get a sense of the area we are talking about in each case - each area being represented by one or two stream-sediment samples.

The economic geologists, thinking through their various deposit models, would then begin to make resource estimations of yet-undiscovered resources. It seems counter-intuitive, but this is surprisingly easy. With time they had gathered enough examples of grade and tonnage that they could even begin to make some realistic predictions of undiscovered resources. Example: You will generally find primary (as opposed to placer) gold in regions with "Greenstone Belt rocks" - chlorine-tainted, "cooked" volcanic rocks. These are usually ancient volcanic island arcs that continental drift has slammed into the edges of the early continental crusts as they were forming. There are areas in Colorado, in California, in Canada, and in Australia where they have really, really, searched and mapped thoroughly. It turns out that there is a consistent pattern: you statistically have a 0.06 chance per square kilometer of finding a gold deposit in Greenstone Belt rocks. Any Greenstone Belt rocks. That means you can - more or less - count on one deposit per every 17 square kilometers.

BINGO.

However, when we got to Venezuela the first thing we noticed was that everything was covered with jungle. Where are the Greenstone Belt rocks in all that jungle? Well, Greenstone Belt rocks are usually pretty magnetic. Along with the metal sulfides that formed with the ancient volcanoes, there is a significant amount of iron. Some of it is in the form of pyrite - "fools gold" - but some of it is also in a form called magnetite. We therefore searched until we could find the old aeromagnetic data collected in the 1950's when US Steel was working in Venezuela (hint: they were looking for banded-iron deposits). We converted those data into a form where the magnetic anomaly showed as a high right over the magnetic source rocks, and used that magnetic data to then figure exactly where the Greenstone Belt rocks were. We could then calculate area. We multiplied that area by 0.06 and got how many deposits must be there. We subtracted out the few known gold deposits, and were left with what must still be there waiting to be found. Using the grade and tonnage curves from North America and Australia, we could also then calculate, through something called Monte Carlo simulation, exactly how many tons of gold were hiding there.

I did this calculation for a quadrangle in Venezuela called NB-20-4; this was the Venezuelan name for a 1-degree-by-1-1/2-degree quadrangle that happened to include a known mining district in one corner called Bochinche. Our Venezuelan counterparts thought they had mapped the quadrangle and found no sniffs of gold, so were preparing to move on and start looking farther west. I showed them that a bit more than seven tons of gold were not accounted for by the known mining district... and our host agency reprogrammed their efforts to continue searching in the NB-20-4 quadrangle.

So science (and an enormous amount of very tedious data-gathering) again actually paid dividends here.

~~~~~