Minerals and Resources

Alright, so a lot of people have responded to Chuck’s post about 50 essential minerals. I’ve created two tag clouds (similar to the tag clouds that Brian Romans tag clouds that Brian Romans wrote about back in May) that show the most popular minerals people have posted about so far.

1.) Most Popular Minerals Observed in the Field

2.) Most Popular Minerals Observed in a Lab / Museum

I think this data makes much more sense than my previous try, which just combined ALL the data in a single tag cloud.

UPDATE: I think I will redo entire this word cloud. Since most people are using Chuck’s original list and also adding some of their own minerals, I might try to break this down into two lists. Otherwise the relative sizes of many of the minerals won’t change since it will be included on everyone’s list. This is probably what I will end up creating…
1.) The Most Popular Minerals Observed in the Field
2.) The Most Popular Minerals Observed in a Museum / Lab

UPDATE 2: Done!

More Information

• All My Faults Are Stress Related
• Clastic Detritus
• Dinochick Blogs
• geoberg.de-Blog (in German)
• Geology News
• Geotripper
• Highly Allochthonous
• Hypo-Theses
• Looking for Detachment
• Lost Geologist
• Lounge of the Lab Lemming
• Magma Cum Laude
• Musings of a Life-Long Scholar
• NOVA Geoblog

Yes! It’s a new day and a new meme is spreading across the geoblogosphere like a forest fire. I’m always game to participate in a new meme and this one sounds like it could be especially fun. Chuck at Lounge of the Lab Lemming posted a list of 50 great minerals that he believes everyone should see.

Below is my list of 50 minerals that I’ve seen and think others should see. Bold minerals indicate those that I’ve seen in the field, while italicized minerals have been seen in a museum or laboratory. Where available, I’ll try to include some information about where I observed the mineral (thanks to old field notebooks and school reports). You’ll notice a lot of these locations are very similar. That’s mostly because many of these minerals were observed on many mineralogy class field trips.

Anyway, let’s have some fun!

1. Actinolite
Observed in Wrightwood, CA

2. Agate
Observed at Olmsted Point, Yosemite, CA

3. Amanzonite
Observed in pegmatite found in White Mountains near Lone Pine, CA

4. Andersonite
It’s a radioactive mineral. And it fluoresces. If that isn’t cool, I don’t know what is.

5. Apatite
Made from the same stuff that makes up your teeth!

6. Borax
Observed at Searles Lake, Trona, CA

7. Beryl
Observed in pegmatite found in White Mountains near Lone Pine, CA

8. Beta Quartz
Observed in Bishop Tuff, Owens Valley, CA

9. Biotite
Observed at Olmsted Point, Yosemite, CA

10. Calcite
Observed at Dolomite Loop near Lone Pine, CA

11. Chrysocolla
Observed in Darwin, CA

12. Cinnabar
Observed at Olmsted Point, Yosemite, CA

13. Cordierite
I might have seen this in the field, but I’m not sure. Definitely seen in lab.

14. Corundum
Observed at the mouth of the Russian River, near Jenner, CA

15. Cummingtonite
I can’t think of a single person (geologist or not) who snickers when they hear the name of this mineral.

16. Dolomite
Observed at Dolomite Loop near Lone Pine, CA

17. Fluorite
Observed in Darwin, CA

18. Epidote
Observed at Dolomite Loop near Lone Pine, CA

19. Galena
Observed in Darwin, CA

20. Garnet
Observed at the mouth of the Russian River, near Jenner, CA

21. Glaucophane
Observed at the mouth of the Russian River, near Jenner, CA

22. Gypsum
Observed in Darwin, CA

23. Hanksite
Observed at Searles Lake, Trona, CA

24. Hornblende
Observed at Olmsted Point, Yosemite, CA

25. Ice
Everywhere. I’ve seen this in New Zealand, California, Utah, Colorado, Oregon. Even in my kitchen (though I don’t really count that as being in the field… no matter how scarce food or a good beer may be). And it fits the definition of a mineral: “A naturally-occurring, inorganic homogeneous solid with a definite chemical composition and a unique and ordered crystalline structure.”

26. Jasper
Observed in San Francisco, CA

27. Kyanite
Observed at the mouth of the Russian River, near Jenner, CA

28. Lepidolite
A really beautiful looking mica mineral that is generally rose colored.

29. Limonite
Observed in Darwin, CA

30. Microcline
Observed at Olmsted Point, Yosemite, CA

31. Molybdenite
A boring mineral. At least from what I remember from mineralogy lab. I probably associate this with sleeping in the back of class.

32. Muscovite
Observed at Olmsted Point, Yosemite, CA

33. Olivine
Observed in basalt flows near Independence, CA

34. Opal
Observed at McLaughlin Gold Mine near Napa, CA

35. Orthoclase
Observed at Olmsted Point, Yosemite, CA

36. Pink Halite
Observed at Searles Lake, Trona, CA

37. Plagioclase
Observed at Olmsted Point, Yosemite, CA

38. Pyrite
Observed in Darwin, CA

39. Quartz (var. Rock Crystal)
Observed at McLaughlin Gold Mine near Napa, CA

40. Quartz (var. Smokey)
Observed at Olmsted Point, Yosemite, CA

41. Realgar
A beautiful mineral. And another one that we would always joke about when we realized that it’s chemistry was “AsS”.

42. Romanechite
Observed at Dolomite Loop near Lone Pine, CA

43. Sanidine
Observed in Bishop Tuff, Owens Valley, CA

44. Serpentine
Observed in San Francisco, CA. Easily my favorite mineral and a key ingredient in California’s State Rock.

45. Sphene
Observed in pegmatite found in White Mountains near Lone Pine, CA

46. Staurolite
A beautiful dark colored mineral. I remember this one specifically from asking our petrology professor what his favorite mineral was. He instantly answered “staurolite” before we even finished the question.

47. Stibnite
Observed in McLaughlin Gold Mine near Napa, CA

48. Talc
Observed at Dolomite Loop near Lone Pine, CA

49. Travertine
Observed in Owens Valley, CA

50. Tremolite
Observed at Dolomite Loop near Lone Pine, CA

More Information

• All My Faults Are Stress Related
• Clastic Detritus
• Dinochick Blogs
• geoberg.de-Blog (in German)
• Geotripper
• Highly Allochthonous
• Hypo-Theses
• Looking for Detachment
• Lost Geologist
• Lounge of the Lab Lemming
• Magma Cum Laude
• Musings of a Life-Long Scholar
• NOVA Geoblog

Earlier this week, Alexis Madrigal wrote a great piece for Wired on how the Soviet Union drilled the deepest borehole in the world during the 1960’s and 1970’s.

The original goal was soon subsumed by the desire to learn more about how valuable ores formed, so the hopes of the Russian effort eventually landed in the middle-of-nowhere mining region, Pachenga. There, the Soviets drilled the deepest hole in the history of the world, more than 7 miles deep.

At the Kola Institute, pictured, the Russians drilled for more than 15 years to reach a crust depth of 40,226 feet, a record that’s never been broken. But however successful the mission was as an exploration, the geological findings from the site remain murky and obscured by the way they emanated out of the fading Soviet scientific machine.

The (awesome website) Damn Interesting also wrote about this same borehole back in 2006. The article, titled The Deepest Hole, is fairly long and does a great job describing the history of the project and challenges involved.

Inside the project’s 200-foot-tall enclosure resides a unique drilling apparatus. Most deep-drilling rigs use a rotating shaft to bore through the ground– using a series of extensions which are incrementally added as the hole grows deeper– but such a method was unworkable with a hole as deep as Kola was planned to be. To overcome this, the Russian researchers devised a solution where only the drill bit at the end of the shaft was rotated. They accomplished this by forcing the pressurized “drilling mud”– the lubricant pumped down the drill shaft– through the specially-designed drill bit to cause it to spin.

Today, the deepest hole ever created by humankind lies beneath the tower enclosing Kola’s drill. A number of boreholes split from the central branch, but the deepest is designated “SG-3,” a hole about nine inches wide which snakes over 12.262 kilometers (7.5 miles) into the Earth’s crust. The drill spent twenty-four years chewing its way to that depth, until its progress was finally halted in 1994, about 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles) short of its 15,000-meter goal.

The Soviet’s drilling rig was designed such that core samples would be provided along the entire length of the drill shaft, providing researchers on the surface with an intimate look at the composition of the Earth as the drill ventured further downward. Before the superdeep borehole project was undertaken, practitioners of Geology had reached a number of conclusions regarding the Earth’s deep crust based on observations and seismic data. But as is often the case when humans venture into the unknown, Kola illustrated that certainty from a distance is no certainty at all, and a few scientific theories were left in ruin. One scientist was heard to comment, “Every time we drill a hole we find the unexpected. That’s exciting, but disturbing.”

Another interesting drilling project we’ve talked about before is the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth. While only a fraction of the depth of the borehole at the Kola Institute (only 2 miles down, as opposed to 7.5 miles), it has yielded some interesting results.

As for me, the deepest borehole I’ve ever worked on bottomed out at about 150 feet below ground surface. Quite a few orders of magnitude difference!

The USGS releases mineral information essen­tial to the U.S. economy and national security.

U.S. Geological Survey data on U.S. mineral production reflect the domestic housing market decline over the past year. The USGS study shows significant declines in domestic production for a number of construction materials, including cement, gypsum, construction sand and gravel, and crushed stone.

USGS mineral data are used by the Federal Reserve System’s Board of Governors in preparing its index of industrial production, a principal economic indicator.

This index measures the output of factories, mines, and electric and gas utilities. Output reflects changes in price and demand for mineral commodities used by industries such as construction, transportation equipment and agriculture. Output is an important early indicator of changes in economic activity in those industries.

“We find the data, analysis and assistance provided by the USGS to be invaluable in the preparation of the indexes of industrial production and of capacity,” said Norman J. Morin, senior economist with the Federal Reserve System. “The USGS data add appreciably to the product content of industrial production and, moreover, are in an area where no data are otherwise available.”

This is the first time the USGS has publicly released these data in the same form they are provided to the Federal Reserve System. This change is in response to a recent recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences in the report “Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy.”

The U.S. is the world’s largest user of mineral commodities. Domestic mineral data are collected by the USGS through voluntary cooperation of the mineral industry. The USGS is the sole federal provider of unbiased research on mineral potential, production, consumption and environmental effects.

To see the report read “U.S. Production of Selected Mineral Commodities”

For more information on the NAS report read “Minerals, Critical Minerals, and the U.S. Economy”

Visit the USGS Mineral Resources Program for more information.

[Via USGS]

Although the IPCC is not responsible for producing new science, it certainly has a major role in pushing the direction of research. Therefore, any changes to the reporting process of the IPCC are of significance to the geoscience community, especially those who seek funding for research on global change. A recent report in Science highlights an intended reorganization of the IPCC annual report preparation process.

• The first change would ditch the practice of prescribing the scenarios of economic and technological progress driving future greenhouse gas emissions that researchers should incorporate into their modeling, the first step in the process. Delegates also backed the idea of having the communities that correspond to the panel’s three working groups on the science of climate change, its impacts, and mitigation strategies develop their studies in parallel rather than sequentially. Scientists say these changes will reduce the level of uncertainty in their findings, deliver more regional details, and provide policymakers with better clues on how to curb climate change–without lengthening the time from start to finish. The new regime “will expedite and improve the process,” says Richard Moss of the World Wildlife Fund, who helped coordinate the effort for IPCC.

[Via Science]

An editorial by two high-ranking IPCC officials published in a previous issue of Science presents a dissenting view of the intended changes. They contend, “Any move toward more rapid products risks incomplete identification of the range of justifiable views and a consequent reduction of the rigor, clarity, and robustness of the consensus [of climate scientists].”

These intended changes come at a time when the issue of climate change and water resources is (or should be) receiving additional media attention. On April 9, 2008, the IPCC released the Technical Paper on Climate Change and Water that describes the scientific evidence for and potential consequences of global warming. The report also explains methods of adaptation and mitigation that portend a sketchy future for freshwater supply, especially in arid regions of Africa and Asia. The Executive Summary emphasizes,

• “Globally, the negative impacts of future climate change on freshwater systems are expected to outweigh the benefits (high confidence). By the 2050s, the area of land subject to increasing water stress due to climate change is projected to be more than double that with decreasing water stress.”
• “Several gaps in knowledge exist in terms of observations and research needs related to climate change and water.”

[Via IPCC]

The findings of this report suggest that an increase in the knowledgebase for water resources in the United States is of utmost importance. However, the US Geological Survey’s FY 2009 budget for water resources was cut by nearly 17% compared to FY 2008. Some have argued that the Water 2025 initiative and congressional restoration of some budget cuts will offset this major blow to water resource assessment. The US Deparment of Interior’s Water 2025 initiative focuses on improving water resources in the western US, but recent water challenges faced by the southeastern US imply a significant deficiency in the scope of such an initiative.

This article was written by Bob Sas, a Master’s student at San Francisco State University, and kindly submitted to Geology News.