South Georgia Minerals Program: heavy mineral bearing sand of the coastal region of Georgia [Aug. 1967]

Project Report No. 8 s.outh Georgia Minerals Program
State Department of Conservation Department of Mines, Mining and Geology
A. S. Furcron, Director
HEAVY MINERAL BEARING SAND OF THE COASTAL REGION OF GEORGIA
By J. W. Smith and S.M. Pickering, Jr.
l. Roger Landrum
August 1967

PROJBCT HEPORT NO. 8
SOU'l'H GlWRGIA MINERALS P.HOC:H..AM
Georg ia State Division of Conservat ion Department of r.ti.nes, Mining and G'oloe;y
A. S. Furc con, Director
TTen.v7y' - Mine:cal-Dearing Sand of the
\)oastal 1\egi on of Georgia
by
James W. Smith
Samuel M. Picke ring, Jr.
J. Rof,er I,andrum
July 1967

i

ERRATA

The following corrections are applicable to Project Report No. 8:

Page iii, line 20 .
Page iv, line 7.
Page vii, paragraph 3, line 7.
Page 12, paragraph 2, line 1
. Page 12, paragraph 3, line 1 . Page 35, paragraph 5, line 1
Page 36, paragraph 2, line 5
. . Page 44, line 1.
Page 44, paragraph 1, line 8
. Page 62, paragraph 1, line 5

.for Wells read Holes .for Trial read Trail .for amonazite read mona~ite .for Otton read Otto .for Teax read Teas .for mandellic read mandelic acid .for mandellic read mandelic .for WELLS read HOLES .for loosing read losing .for starolite read staurolite

iii
CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT -----------------------------------------------------------------

If

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

vii

II~TRODUCTION -----------------------------------------------------------

l

Definition and Uses ----------------------------------------------Purpose of Report -------------------------------------------------
Area of Report ---------------------------------------------------Previous Work -----------------------------------------------------

1
l
2 1?

GEOLOGY ----------------------------------------------------------------

18

I

KNOWN DEPOSITS ---------------------------------------------------------

19

METHOD OF STUDY --------------------------------------------------------

21

Field Methods ----------------------------------------------------Laboratory Procedures ---------------------------------------------
Determination of Heavy-Mineral Percentages --------------------

21 22 22

Determination of Titanium-Mineral Percentages in

Heavy-Mineral Fractions -----------------------------------

23

Chemical Analyses of the Heavy-Mineral Fractions --------------

35

Radiometric Monazite Analysis ---------------------------------

36

CONCLUSIONS

41

SUGGESTIONS TO FUTURE WORKERS ------------------------------------------

43

ADDENDUM 1: Wells Drilled by Southern Railway System in Charlton County ----------------------------------------

44

ADDENDUM 2: Petrographic Analysis of Core from Effingham County

by James Neiheisel -------------------------------------
Laboratory Procedure -----------------------------------------Petrographic Description -------------------------------------Conclusions on Effingham County Well --------------------------

51 52 59 62

REFERENCES CITED -------------------------------------------------------

64

J
I

iv

TABLES

Page

l . Locations of auger holes given by geographic de script i ons and by

Georgia coordinates ------------------------------------------------

4

2 . Physical propert ies of sample s -------------------------------------

24

3. Mineral percentage s of sele cted s ample s ----------------------------

31

4. Chemical anal yses results on he avy-mineral concentrate s ------------

38

5. Percentage s of he avy mi nerals and clastic s izes from holes dri l l ed
on Tr i al Ri dge by Southern Railway System --------------------------

46

6. Mechanical s ieve analysis and composition of sedime nt s amples
f r om Effingham County , Georgia-------------------------------------

7. Average acid insoluble he avy-mineral suite as f r actional pe rcent

s amples f rom Eff ingham County, Georgi a - ----------------------------

57

FIGURES

l . County outl i ne map of Southeast Ge orgia showing auger hole

locations ----------------------------------------------------------

3

2 . Map of coastal r egion of Georgia showing large areas of he avy-

mineral concentrations and auger hole localities with greater

than 2% he avy minerals ---------------------------------------------

20

3. Map of southern part of Charlton County , Georgia, showing l ocations

of hol es drilled by Southern Railway System ----------------- -------

45

v
ABSTRACT
The area of sand in Georgia similar to that mined near Folkston, Georgia, for titanium, zircon and monazite was determined from the literature. Covering this area is a surface sheet of Recent and Pleistocene sand which extends for about 100 miles inland from the Atlantic coast. Eighty holes were augered to an average depth of about eight feet. Core was divided into one- to three-foot interval samples.
The percentages by weight of clay, sand and silt, and larger grains were determined . The sand and silt portion was separated into light and heavy fractions. The percentage of titanium minerals was determined by counting grains, and titanium and zirconium were detemined by wet chemical analysis. Monazite content was estimated by radiometric techniques .
Heavy-mineral content was also determined for 12 deep holes fishta il drilled on Trail Ridge, and data are included for one deep hole i n Effingham County.
Large a reas of heavy -mineral concentrations occur at Folkston, Cumberland Island, Jekyll Island, s ix miles east of Woodbine, and six miles no rth of Brunswick.
Holes with samples containing greater than two percent heavy minerals were also auge red at Savannah Beach, near Marsh Island, near Walthourville, near Ridgeville, and near Kingsland. No sample of Pleistocene sand containing greater than one percent heavy minerals was found west of Trail Ridge and the approximate 125-foot contour extending northward from the ridge. Concentrations of heavy minerals are generally associated with fine-grained quartz sand.
The higher level Pleistocene sands tested have been leached of some of the undesirable heavy-mineral species, such as the amphiboles and epidote.

vi
Pre l iminary chemical analyses suggest t hat the titanium miner als i n t hese sands have be en leached of iron. Consequent ly, these s a nds a re probably of mor e economic inter est than the lower leve l Pleistocene sands t o the eas t or the Recent sands along the coast and along the Altamaha and Savannah Rive rs .

vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A. S. Furcron suggested and directed the project. This r eport was prepared by the Georgia Department of Mines, Mining and Geology wit h the assistance of numerous full and part-time employees.
T1is report wa.s prepare d by James Tfl. Smith, Geologist III, and S. M. Pi ckering, ir., c~eologist II, of the Department of Mines, Mining
and Geology between the summer of 1964 and June of 1967. Vance L.
Hendrix, Gerald B. Garr, and Robert E. Hunter assi st ed t he aut hor s in t he
drilling p~ase of the wor k. Gerald B. Garr, Steven c. Engle bright ,
Robert E. Hunter , Anna M. Conn, Martha A. Green, and Claudia 0 . Storey assisted in the physica.l and petrographic analyses, and J. Roger Landrum
did the chemical analyses. A. s. Furcron and Jesse H. Auvil assisted in
editing t he report. Claudia 0. Storey did the dra.fting and assisted in editing.
Prior to field "rork on this project, Thomas E. Garnar, Jr, , geologist for E. I. DuPont de Nemours Company near Starke, Florida, discussed and demonstrated many of the aspects of sampling, analyzing, mining, and processing heavy-mineral-be aring sands. Milton E. McLain and Dorsey Smith of the Nuclear Science s Division, Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Instit itue of Technology , analyzed selected sample s radiometrically to
determine amonazite content . Eugene v. Whittle, Plant Engineer of Humphreys
Mining Company at Folkston, kindly arranged for comparison analyse s of several
samples. H. tv. Straley, III, Professor of Geology at the Georgia Institute
of Technology, and John E. Husted and Maximo F. Munoz of the Mineral Engineering Branch, Gorgia Institute of Technology, discussed methods of' exploration and analy se s with the authors. Jame s Neiheisel, geologist with the U. S. Army Corp s of Engineers, Mariet ta, Georgia, suggested methods of sampling and analysi s, assisted in editing the report, and analyzed t he core from the Effingham County hole, Addendum 2. Norman K. Olson, geologis t f or Southern Railway System, made availab le the samples discussed in Addendum L

INTRODUCTION Definition and Uses
Heavy-mineral-bearing sands are predominately quartz containing a small percentage of minerals which have considerably higher specific gravi t ies than quartz and, therefore, are easily separated from the quartz . A concentration of the titanium minerals ilmenite-leucoxene and rutile is at present the most likely type of heavy-mineral deposit of economic potential in the sands of the coastal region of Georgia. The major use for the titanium i n these minerals is in the production of white paint pigment. Titanium is also used extensively for welding-rod coatings. The demand for titanium metal for aircraft and missile manufacture is increasing .
Other heavy minerals of possible value are monazite and xenotime for their rare earth elements and thorium; zircon principally for refractories , foundry sand and facings, ceramics, and zirconium metal; staurolite for portland cement additive; garnet for abrasives; and kyanite and si llimanite for refractory material.
These clastic sediments probably have value other than for the heavy minerals. Of possible potential would be the quartz sand for glass and construction, gravel for construction, and the clay minerals. Clay minerals are now being separated economically from sand in North Florida. PurEose of Report
The major aim of this work, which utilized only shallow, hand-augered holes, is to familiarize the authors with the problems of heavy-mineral exploration in the coastal region of Georgia so that a more extensive exploration program may be undertaken utilizing a power drill capable of drilling to 50 feet . Also, it is hoped that the hand-operated augering program will be

2
sufficient to narrow the area of search, and thus indicate to industry the possible location of areas of heavy-mineral concentrations of high quality. Area of Report
The area studied is a north-south strip adjacent and parallel to the Atlantic Coast, about 150 miles long and 100 miles wide. This includes the following twenty-two counties : Appling, Atkinson, Bacon, Bullock, Brantley, Bryan, Camden, Charlton , Chatham, Clinch, Effingham, Evans, Glynn, Jeff Davis, Lanier, Liber t y, Long, Mcintosh , Pierce, Tattnall, Ware, and Wayne (Figure l and T~ble 1).

3

UN 1 MILES I

FlORIDA

Figure 1. County outline map of Southeast Georgia showing auger hole locations,

4

TABLE 1

LOCATIONS OF AUGER HOLES GIVEN BY GEOORAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS AND BY GEORGIA COORDINATES

The Georgia Coordinate System's t wo base points are just southwest of the State for the western part of the system, and just south of t h.e State for t he e astern par t. Loc alities in Georgia can be expre ssed as teing so many feet north and east from these base points . Tic marks of the Georgia Coordinate System appear on t he margin of the more recent quadr angle t opographic map s and t he State Hip,hway Department of Georgia co1mty maps . The quadr angle maps used for the coordinates in this table are the 1:250,000 scale topographic maps prepared by t he Army Map Service .
The Georgia Coordi nate System is divided into two ':t.ones--the East Zone and the We st Zone . The dividing line between these zone s is an i:rTegu l ar no!.'tl;- sout h line} following county boundary lines , approximately t hrough the middle of the State . Each of these zones has been assigned a central meridian which approximately divides each zone in half. The se central meridians are 8210 ' west longitude for the East Zone and 8410' west longitude fo r the West Zone . The ce ntral meridians f or e ac h zone have arbitrarily been a s signed the value of 500 , 000 feet east f or the x-coordinate . The base l i ne for both zones has been assigne d to 3000 1 nor th l atitude . Thi s , there fore, puts all numbers in the Ge orgia Coordinate System in a northeast quadrant and, thus, are positive .
To de t e rmine the x, y coordinate, it i s necessary t o s tate the zone (East or West) and the coordinates then calculated:

y = ft . north of 3000' north l atitude

x

500, 000 + x ' where x ' is f eet east of central meridian

x = 500,000 - x' whe re x 1 i s fe et west of ce ntral meridian

Hole No.
1. 2.
3.
4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

'fable 1 - (continued)
Geographic Location
BULLOCH COUNTY
East side of Ga. Highway 73, 5.7 miles southwest of Statesboro city limit. North side of Ga. High~;ray 26, 7 . 3 miles southeast of Statesboro city limit. East side of County Road S-1845, 0.7 mile north of Stilson.
EFFINGHAM COUNTY Northeast side of Ga. Highvray 21, 6.5 miles northwest of Springfield East side of Ga. Highway 21, 3.3 miles north of Rincon. East side of Ga. Highway 21, 3.0 miles south of Rincon. North side of Ga. Highway 30, 3.2 miles west of Chatham County line
TATTNALL COUNTY North side of Ga. Highway 23, 0.8 mile southeast of Reidsville.
EVANS COUNTY North side of Ga. Highway 30, 8.5 miles northeast of Reidsville.
BRYAN COUNTY North side of Ga. Highway 30, 8.2 miles ~..rest of Pembroke .
East side of County Road S-1838, 3.3
miles north of Pembroke. North side of U. S. Highway 280, 0.2 mile vrest of Effingham County line.

Georgia Coordinates, East Zone
860,500 North 598,600 East 869,300 North 656,300 East 849,900 North 690, 000 East
889,900 North 744,800 East 848,800 North 784,000 East 821,000 North 795 , 500 East 799,000 North 766,900 East
754,700 North 521, 500 East
783,900 North 567,300 East
782,900 North 624,500 East 795,800 North 671, 500 East 798,300 North 731,200 East

Hole No.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
19. 20.
21. 22.
23. 24.

Table 1 - (continued)

Geographic Location
BRY~T COUNTY (Con't)
East side of Ga. High1.ray 67, 0. 2 mile
south of Pembroke.
South side of Ga. High\'Tay 204, 13.5
miles east of Pembroke.
North side of Ga. Highway 63, 11 miles
southeast of Pembroke.
North side of Ga. Highway 63, 7.3 miles
northwest of Richmond Hill.
North side of Ga. Highv1ay 63, 1.2 miles
northvrest of Richmond Hill.
Turn east off Ga. High1vay 63 on road to Ft. McAllister (4.5 miles southeast
of Richmond Hill) . Sample taken from
north side of road, 0.7 mile west of
Ft. IvlcAllister.

Georgia Coordinates, East Zone
773,800 North 669,6oo East 773,100 North 723,400 East
71~1,000 North
705, 900 East 728,000 North 754,200 East 711,200 North 764,000 East 689,200 North 798,300 East

CHATHAM COUNTY

North side of Ga. Highway 204, 6.5 miles
north"1est from intersection with Ga.
High-ray 25 .

749,500 North 756,900 East

West side of Ga. Highway 25, 2.0 miles
south of Port Wentworth

768,200 North 814,700 East

North side of Ga. Highway 26 on Wilmington 735 ,600 North

Island, 4.0 miles east of Savannah.

866,000 East

South end of Savannah Beach, dune sand.

725,300 North 908,000 East

LONG COUNTY
West side of U. S. Highway 301 at
Ludowici.
vlest side of Ga. Highway 38, 7 miles
northeast of Ludowici.

622,000 North 627,000 East
644,600 North 661,500 East

Table 1 - (continued)

Hole No. 25. 26.
27. 28. 29 . 30. 31. 32 .
33.
34 . 35 .

Geographic Location
LONG COUNTY (Con't)
South side of Ga. Highway 99, 6.5
miles southeast of intersection with U. S. Highway 301 in Ludowici.
North side of Ga. Highway 99, 11.5
miles southeast of Ludowici.
LIBERTY COUNTY
North side of Ga. Highway 196, 11 miles west of Hinesville.
East side of Ga. Highway 67, 0.8 mile north of Hinesville city limit.
North side of Ga. Highway 144, 9.0 miles northeast of Hinesville city limit .
North side of Ga. Highway 38, 1.6 miles west of Midway.
North side of Ga. Highway 38, 8 miles southeast of Midway.
West side of Ga. Highway 38, 15 miles southeast of Midway.
JEFF DAVIS COUNTY
At Hazelhurst.
APPLING COUNTY
North side of U. S. Highway 341, 7.5 miles southeast of Hazelhurst.
South side of U. S. Highway 341, 4.0 miles southeast of Baxley.

7
Georgia Coordinates, East Zone
594,400 North 655,600 East
583,200 North 678,400 East
676,700 North 634,600 East 690,000 North 667,000 East 7ll,200 North 704,200 East
657,000 North 722,000 East 632,200 North 757,400 East 625,100 North 788,000 East
680,100 North 370,300 East
664, 700 North 405, 900 East 637,100 North 463,600 East

8
Hole No . 36 . 37 . 38. 39 . 40.
41.
42 .
44 .
46. 47 .
48 .

Table 1 - (continued)
Geographic Location
WAYNE COUNTY
South side of Ga. Highway 27 , 3.8 miles west of Odum.
North side of U. S. Highway 341,
2. 0 mile s north~lfe st of Jesup.
South side of U. s. Hi ghway 341,
2.0 mile s southe ast of J esup.
West side of U. s. HigmTay 82,
4.0 miles northeast of Screven.
5 . 0 miles north of Mount Pleasant off Ga. Highway 27, near Alta.maha River.
West si de of County Road S-615, 1. 8 mile s south of Mount Pleasant.
MCINTOSH COUNTY
East side of Ga. Highway 25 , 8 . 5 miles north of Eulonia
North side of Ga. Highway 99 at Townsend
West side of County Road S-1892, 0. 5 mile north of intersection with Ga. Highway 99 in Crescent .
East side of Ga. Highway 99, 10 . 0 miles northeast of Darien.
East side of Ga . Highway 99 , 4.5 miles northeast of Darien.
West side of Ga. Highway 99,
0 . 8 mile northeast of Darien.
BACON COUNTY
East side of County Road 8-1589, 3. 9 miles north of intersection with Ga. Highway 32.

Georgia Coordinates, East Zone
609,400 North 524 ,500 East 592 ,000 North 582,000 East 574 ,500 North 596 , 200 East 556 ,000 North 555 ,000 East 547 , 400 North 658 ,000 East
513,200 North 650 ,200 East
591,800 North 740 ,200 East 561,700 North 698,800 East 553,100 North 748 ,300 East
544,800 North 753,900 East 517 ,800 North 739,000 East 503,800 North 733 , 400 East
582,200 Nor th 384, 200 East

Hole No.
50. 51. 52. 53.
54. 55.
56. 57. 58.

9 Table 1 - (continued)

Geographic Location
BACON COUNTY (Con't)
South side of Ga. Highway 32, 2.8 miles east of Alma.
North side of Ga. Highway 32, 9.5 miles southeast of Alma.
PIERCE COUNTY
South side of Ga. Highway 32, 0.2 mile south of Bristol.
South side of Ga. High'tiTay 32, 0.6 mile northwest of Patterson
ATKINSON COUNTY
Inside Pearson city limits near intersection U. S. Highways 82 and 441.
WARE COUNTY
North side of U. s. Highway 82, 6.0
miles northwest of Waycross city limit.
North side of U. s. Highway 84,
3.7 miles southeast of Waycross city limit.
BRANTLEY COUNTY
North side of Ga. Highway 32, 1.2 miles from Pierce County line.
North side of County Road S-1227, 1.2 miles west of intersection with
U. s. Highway 301. East side of U. s. Highway 301, 0.8
mile north of intersection with County Road S-1227.

Georgia Coordinates, East Zone
561,000 North 425,400 East 547,900 North 451,800 East
524,100 North 486,000 East 504,700 North 506,100 East
474,200 North 287,500 East
455,800 North 459,500 East
434,100 North 464,500 East
489,400 North 548,100 East 474,900 North 556,300 East
477,000 North 567,200 East

10
Hole No.
59. 60 . 61. 62 .
64 .
66. 67 . 68 .
70.

Table 1 - (continued)

Geographic Location
BRANTLEY COUNTY (Cont 1d)
On top of ridge on southwest side of
Ga. Highway 32, 1.6 miles southeast of
Browntown .
North side of U. s. Highway 84, 0.6
mile west of intersection with U. S. Highway 301.
South side of U. S. Highway 84, 5.9
miles east of intersection with U. S.
Highway 301.
North side of u. s. Highway 84 at
Atkinson, 8.4 miles east of intersection
with U. s. Highway 301.
Sand pit, 25 feet north of U. S. Highway 84, 0.9 mile from Glynn County
line.
East side of U. s. Hi ghway 301, 0.5 mile
north of Charlton County line.
South side of Ga. Highway 32, 50 yards
from Glynn County line.

Georgia Coordinates, East Zone
481,500 North 626,200 East
438,800 North 553,100 East
442,300 North 586,500 East
444,800 North 598,400 East
448,500 North 622 ,200 East
389,300 North 549,700 East 476,500 North 635,000 East

GLYNN COUNTY
10 feet south of Ga. Highway 32, 0.2
mile from Brantley County line .
South side of Ga. Highl>ray 32, 0, 4 mile
from Brantley County line .
South side of Ga. Highway 32, 1.1 mile
west of intersection with U. S. Highway
341.
Ga. Highway 99, 2.4 miles west of intersection with Ga. Highway 25.
Near Ga. Boys Estate off Ga. Highway 99, 9.0 miles northeast of Brunswick.

475,500 North 636,800 East 474,100 North 639,500 East 463,300 North 683 ,900 East
471,000 North 718,900 East 476,600 North 718, 900 East

Hole No.
71.
72.
73. 74 . 75. 76 .
77. 78. 79. 80.

11 Table 1 - (contL~ued)

Geographic Location
LANIER COUNTY
North side of Ga . Hig~1.way 37, 2. 4 miles
east of intersectbn vd th U. S. .lTighwa.y
129 .
CLINCH COUNTY
South side of Ga. Highway 37, 0.6 mile
'"est of intersection Tith Ga. Highway
38.

Ge orgia Coordinates, East Zone
382 ,500 North 240,400 East
374,000 North 300,200 East

CHARLTON COUNTY

East side of Ga. Highway 252, 4.5 miles
north of intersection with Ga. Highway
40.

321 ,000 Nort h 561 ,900 East

East side of Ga. Highway 23, 21. 2 miles
north of St. George .

292 ,100 North 543, 900 East

West side of U. s . Hig hway 301, 10.7 miles 245,300 North

north of St. George .

531 ,400 East

West side of Ga. Highway 23, 5.4 miles south of st . George.

165,200 North 529,900 East

CAMDEN COUNTY
Under tower on west side of County Road
S-1850, 1.7 mil es northeast of intersection wi th Ga. Highway 259.
\fest s ide of Ga. Highway 252, 1.4 miles
east of Cha.rlton County line.
s~uth side of Ga. Highway 252, 2.8 miles
east of Charlton County line.
North side of Ga. Highway 40, 0.5 mile
east of Kingsland city limit.

388,700 North 601,200 East
352,000 North 589,200 East
353,900 North 594,800 East
291,300 North 654 ,700 East

12
Previous ~fork The following reports, presented chronologically, cover at least
a portion of the coastal region of Georgia and seem significantly related to this heavy-mineral exploration.
Otten Veatch and 1. W. Stephenson (1911) outlined the "Pleistocene"
deposits of Georgia--roughly the limits of the area covered in this report.
Teax (1921) reported heavy-mineral concentrations on st. Simons and
Sapelo Islands, especially between low- and high-tide marks at the south end of the islands. He also reported a concentration three miles west of St. George, Charlton County, on the Georgia and Florida Railway. This is near the holes drilled by the Southern Railway System (Addendum 2, this report).
C. W. Cooke (LaForge, Cooke, Keith, and Campbell, 1925) divided
the Recent and Pleistocene coastal deposits into "terraces", broad flatlands of similar elevation. The 11est side of their Penholoway terrace is the approximate western limit of areas the authors found to contain a high percentage of heavy minerals.
J.H.C. Martens (1928) reported a concentration of heavy minerals
one mile f rom the north end of Long Island near the crest of the beach ridge.
Martens (1935) studied heavy-minerals from three localities in Georgia and
sampled to depths of six inches to two feet.
C. W. Cooke (1939, 1943) and F. s. MacNeil (1947) mapped the
geology of the study area and revised the geologic interpretation somewhat.
v. E. McKelvey and J. R. Balsley, Jr. (1948), mapped from an air-
plane the distribution of coastal black sands in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Ge orgia. The black sand diminishes in abundance northward, and

13
they are found only on beaches along the open ocean. The best concentrations are on the south end of islands . "Characteristically, the sands a.re concentrated on the back of the beach by storm waves and are generally best exposed just after a heavy storm. " They mapped black sands along almost the entire length of open ocean beaches of Georgia.
F. s. MacNeil (1949) mapped a high terrace and four Pleistocene
shorelines of Georgia and Florida.
John B. Mertie (1953, 1958) panned 13 samples f rom shallow depths
in the southeastern part of the coastal region of Georgia. He reported that the greatest concentrations of heavy minerals i n this area were about one percent,and these occur at a few places along the eastern margin of the Okefenokee Swamp.
The U. S. Geological Survey (1953) indicated in a very general
manner radioactive anomalies along the Georgia and northeast Florida coast . Geophysical work of practical application to heavy-mineral
exploration i s t hat of R. M. Moxham (1954) , an airborne radioactivity survey
in the Folkston area. Sigmund J. Rosenfeld (1955) analyzed 130 auger and channel samples
representing thicknesses up to five feet. His area covered roughly the northern half of the authors' area. He grouped limonite, which is l ikely secondary in many cases, with the other opaque minerals in his analyses ; therefore, the authors could not compare titanium-mineral percentages with Rosenfeld. Also, Rosenfeld restricted his analyses to a fract ion of the sand-size material.
Jesse A. Miller (1957) reported that titaniferous heavy-sand
deposits have been observed near the southern end of Sapelo Island, at the

14

northern end of Long Island, and near the southern end of St. Simons Island.

Also, heavy-mineral exploration was undertaken during early 1955 by several

companies along the beaches and coastal plain "terraces."
Evelyn z. Sinha's (1959) report include s maps of the geomorphic

features and sediment types at the surface in the northern part of the

coastal region of Georgia.

John A. Doering (1960) mapped the ~uaternary surface formations

of the southern part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain, and he discussed the

stratigraphy and geologic history.

Stephen M. Herrick (1961, 1965) studied well cuttings and determined

the thickness of the Pleistocene sediments in the coastal region of Georgia.

Maximum thickness is about 65 feet on the east side. He divided these sedi-

ments into three lithologic units.

James Neiheisel (1962, 1965) studied in de tail samples collected

from holes t o depths of 14 feet from the Altamaha and tributary rivers,

Jekyll Island, Brunswick Harbor and vicinity, and the Silver Bluff and

Paml i co shoreline areas in Pleistocene sands near the Altamaha River.

Ge orge I. Whitlatch (1962) discussed the possibility of ~~eavy

mineral exploitation in Georgia and commented on several references.
Donn s. Gorsline (1963) reported on samples collected with a

small Hayward Orange Peel Grab . Several of the samples were from the Georgia

continental shelf. All heavy-mineral concentrations were less than one per-

cent.

J. H. Hoyt and R. J. Weimer (1963) and R. J. Weimer and J. H. Hoyt

(1964) compared features of the modern beach with the older inland beaches .

15
They recognized areas of shallow marine water by animal (Callianassa major) burrows.
Orrin H. Pilkey (1963) included in his work several shallow samples
from the continental shelf off the Georgia coast. "The average concentration of heavy minerals in t.he South Atlantic shelf sediments is slightly less than
0. 5 percent. No strong areal trend in these percentages was noted" (p. 643). John H. Hoyt, Robert J. Weimer, and Vernon J. Henry, Jr. (1964),
who studied the sediments of Sapelo Island and the nearby mainland, indicated the complexities involved in the formation of barrier islands. Their cross sections show that during the formation of barrier islands the tidal zone (thought to be a zone of heavy-mineral. concentration) migrates vertically and horizontally; therefore, heavy-mineral concentrations may occur at many different positions beneath a barrier island.
Orrin H. Pilkey and Dirk Frankenberg (196l-t) delineated the boundary
between relict, or Pleistocene, sediments and Recent sediments on the Georgia continental shelf.
Robert T. Giles and Orrin lf.. Pilkey (1965) included in their work
the percentage of heavy minerals in the fine-grained fraction of several surface samples from Georgia dunes, beaches, and rivers. One of their signif-
icant observations corresponds with those of Dryden and Dryden (1956), Lincoln Dryden and G. A. Miller in Overstreet, Cupples and White (1956), Dryden (1958), and Neiheisel (1962, 1965). "Rivers deriving their load
exclusively from Coastal Plain sediments are characterized by a stable heavy mineral suite. Sediments of rivers with headwaters extending into the Piedmont are characteristically mineralogically unstable" (Giles and Pilkey,
1965' p. 910) .

16

Robert T. Giles (1966) made some general comparisons between heavy
minerals of river, beach and dune sands of the southeastern Atlantic Coast.
John H. Hoyt and John R. Hails (1966) confirmed six Pleistocene
shorelines in the coastal region of Georgia and attributed the prominent sand ridges to barrier island environments and the flat areas in-between as lagoonal salt-marsh flat environments.
John E. Husted, A. S. Furcron, and Frederick Bellinger (1966) included heavy-mineral data from four holes in Lanier County. Their highest concentration of heavy minerals was one percent.
The Minerals Engineering Group, Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology and the Georgia Department of Mines, Mining
and Geology (1966) included heavy-mineral data from 14 drill holes in Echols
County. Their hip;hest concentration vTas l . 8 percent. Allan K. Temple (1966) studied the gradual alteration of ilmenite
to rutile in the weathering environment. He found that in sa.nd cleposits the mare weathered material is in and above the zone of the fluctuating water table, and that titanium-mineral concentrates are higher in titanium near the surface of the ground. A portion of his report on a drill hole from Folkston is as follm-Ts:

Footage
0-4 4-6 6-8
8-10 10-12

%Tio2 in Titanium
Minerals
75.6 71.8
68.5 67.2 66 6

17
Temple found that for sand deposits in general the titanium content of the titanium-mineral concentrate varies depending on t he relative age of the deposit. That found near present sea level contains less titanium than that at higher levels. These results of Temple are similar to those obtained by the authors of this report.

18
GEOLOGY
Sand similar to that mined for heavy minerals near Folkston, Georgia, and in North Florida occurs i n a surface sheet of clastic sediments from out on the continental shelf to about 100 mile s inland. These sediments are Pleistocene and Recent in age and consist predominantly of sand and sandy clay. This sand sheet is up to 60 feet thick along the coast and wedges out to the v-rest.
Along the coast, there are barrier islands composed predominantly of Recent and Pleistocene sand. I nland, paralleling the coast, are several ridges about the size and shape of the present-day barrier island chain. The ridges are up to 50 miles long and 5 miles wide. Betvreen the ridges are flatlands \'Thich are progressively higher inland. These ridges and flatlands are former barrier islands and lagoonal areas which developed during stages of sea-level stabilization during Pleistocene time .
Several major rivers run roughly perpendicular to the coast. Along these streams there are Recent clastic deposits up to a few miles across and up to several feet deep.

19
KNOWN DEPOSITS
Heavy-mineral sands have been mined in Northeast Florida for many years, primarily for their titanium minerals. Zircon and monazite are usually
recovered also. In 1965, Humphreys Mining Company began mining s~ilar deposits
near Folkston, Georgia, about three miles from the Florida line (Figure 2). A few companies have sporadically prospected the coastal region, but little infonnation has been made public. However, it is general knowledge among local citizens that deposits have been extensively drilled about six miles east of Woodbine, Camden County, six miles north of Brunswick, Gl~1n County, and on Cumberland and Jekyll Islands (Figure 2).

20

2.4xowA~ tHOURVIUE

SAVANNAH BEACH
ISLAND

X
BR UNS WI C

"'

0

WOODBINE
o X

"'

ISLAND

HN MILES 1
Figure 2. Map of coastal region of Georgia showing large areas of heavymineral concentrations (large X) and auger hole localities with
greater than 2% heavy minerals (small x).

21
METHOD OF STUDY
Field Methods The area of sand in Georgia shov1ing possible similarity to those
areas vlhich have been mined in Florida and Georgia was determined from geologic maps and reports. This area of study is a strip of land about 100 miles wide adjacent to and paralleling the coast (Figure 1). Sampling traverses '~ere drawn along east-"rest roads on topographic maps (1:250,000 scale) across the area. In general, a hole was augured abm:Lt every 10 miles along the traverse, preferably at rarely found road cuts. In the absence of outcrops, areas lvhich appeared sandy and dry (on higher ground) were chosen vrhere the water table shouJ.d be lower. Where augering below the vrater table the hole usually closes. Frequently, where no outcrops or dry, sandy areas could be found for several miles distance along the chosen traverse, a hole was augered in swampy land. A total of 80 holes was augered (Figure 2).
Sampling equipment consisted of a man-powered auger which made a hole about three inches in diameter, a drive-pipe sample, a tub in vThich to collect the samples, a shovel, and cloth sample bags large enough to hold about 50 pounds of sand. The stem of the auger was 3 feet long, and additional 3 foot sections of 3/4-inch pipe were added as drilling progressed so that holes up to 18 feet deep w~re made. Where there was a near-vertical face of
sand exposed, a thin-walled steel pipe, 3 l/2 feet long, was driven with a
sledge hammer to collect a sa1l'lple, and then the pipe "ras shoveled free. The
entire sample from a 3 foot interval, about 40-50 pounds for the auger and
15-20 pounds for the drive-pipe, "las combined where practical. Where there was a major change in lithology, the sample was divided.

2?
In addition to holes augered by the authors, Southern Railway System drilled 12 holes in Charlton County (Addendum 1), and a deep ~rell was drilled in Effingham County (Addendum 2). Laboratory Procedures
Determination of Hc:::avy-Mineral Percentages The sample \-ras first .spread on paper to dry in the open air. Clods were crushed with a wooden rolling pin, and the sample was mixed on a square sheet of oilcloth by alternately pulling the corners. A ~~ones Splitter \as used to reduce the sample to about 100 grams, and then it ~1as weighed accurately. To determine the amount of clay and eliminate it, the sample was placed in a quart jar and water containing a clay dispersing agent (0.07 percent by weight of sodium pyrophosphate) 1-.ras added until the jar 1as almost filled. 'l'he water and sample r11ere then stirred and allm.,red to stand for two hours. According to Stokes La1, this is H.bout the time required for spherical particles greater than clay slze (l/256 mm.), havinr.; a specific gravity equal to quartz to settle 10 centimeters in ~vate.r at room tempeJ.ature. The top 10 centimet,ers of fluid i-Tas then vacuumed off through a tube, and this process was repeated until the water was clear. Tt1e remaining sample was collected on filter paper, air dried, and weighe~. 'l'his weight subtracted from the original weight equals the clay content (Table 2). To determine the percent of material grcater than sand size (2 mm..), the sample vras then passed through a U. S. Standard mesh screen No. 10 and weighed (Table 2). The saJJd and silt size pr.~:ction of the sample ~las separated into hr:,av,y and light fractions by placing the sample in a heavy-mineral separatory

23
funnel containing tetr abromoetha.ne (specific gravity of about 2. 96), The sample was st:irred periodicaJ.ly until no mineraJ. grains could be seen sinking from the lighter portion. After being washed and dried the lighter fraction was examined and approximate grain size and color were noted; thus, some idea of its possible use as glass s and, high silica sand, bl asting sand, construe ~ tion sand, and other uses could be determined (Table 2).
Determination of Titanium-Mineral Percentages in Heavy-Mineral Fractions The ~1eavy-mineral fraction of most of the samples containing greater than one percent concentration was screened to +100, +200, and - 200 U, S. Standard sieve sizes to give three fractions of about equal grai n size. Ea.c h of the three fract ions was spread on millimeter-ruled graph paper and observed through a binocular microscope. The total number of grains and the t i tanium-mineral grains (ilroenite-leucoxene and rutile) were counted on random one-millimeter squares and a total of approximately 400 grains was t abulated for eac h s ize fraction. The size fractions were then weighed and an estima.ted weight percentage of tit anium minerals in the heavy-mineraJ.
fraction was calculated (Table 3).

24

Hole Number
l
2 3 4
5 6
7
8 9 10

TABLE 2

PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SAMPLES

Percent clay, pe rcent greater than S<md si ze, color and average estimated grain size of lieht- weight portion of sand and silt fraction, and percent heavy mlnerals in sand and silt fraction.

Sampled I nterval In Feet

'1o Clay Size

0-3

3.6

3-6

2.6

6-9

1.4

9- 11

2.0

0-3

20.0

3-6

24. 8

0- 3

10.0

3-6

24. 5

0-3

7.0

3- 6

9 .1

6- 9

19.0

0-3 3-6~
0- 3 3-6 6-9

11. 5 3.8
6 .J~ 24. 3 23. 9

0- 3

5.6

3- 6

20 . 2

6- 9

21. 6

0-3

12.7

0- 3 3-6
0-3 3- 6 6-9 9-12 12-15

"( .8 11.7
2.~
1.9 1. 2 1.4 2.5

15-18

2.5

%+2 mm .
0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0
1.3 1.4
0 .0 0.3
0 .0 0 .4 1.1
0.0 0 .0
0.0 0.0
Trace
0 .0 0.0 1. 6
0 .7
0.0 0. 2
0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0 .0

LIGH'f-WEIGHT PORTION

Average

Estimated Estimated

Col or

Grain Size

White White White White

Me d. Med . Me d . Me d.

Tan Red- Brn .

Fine Med,

White Tan

Fine
Fine

Tan White Tan

Coarse Coarse Me d.

White
Dk. B:rn .

Fine Coarse

White vlh ite White

Me d. Me d. Me d .

White Tan Tan

Fine Med . Coarse

White

Fine

White Tan

Me d . Me d.

White White White Tan White
Tan

Med. Med . Me d . Me d.
Med. to) Coarse Me d.

%Heavy
Minerals
0.1 0 .2 0 .2 0. 3
0.6 1. 8
0.7 0.6
0.3 0.4 0.3
0.7 0.7
0.3 0.3 0.6
0 .6 0 .6 0.5
0.6
0 .3 0.1
0. 2 0.2 0.2 0. 2 0.2
0 .2

Table 2 - (continued)

Hole Number
11 12
13 14 15 16 17
18 19
20
21

Se.rn.p1ed Interval In Feet
0-3 3- 6
0- 3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-15 15-18
0-3 3-6
0- 3 3-6 6-9
0-3
0-3~
0-3 3-6 6-7
0-3 3-6 6-9
0-3 3-6 6- 9 9- 12 12-15 15-18
0-3 3-6
6-9
0- 3 3-6

%Clay Size
20 .0 35 .0
4 .2 6.7 24.6 17.5 2.6 5.8
22 .3 19 .6
4.4
8.9 34.9
7.1
18.6
15 .1 33.0 27 . 8
8 .7 4.9 2.5
3.7 1.7 0 .7 0.8 1.4 1 .6
9 .2 18.0
32.5
5.7 J..2

%+2 mrn.
o.o
0.0
0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.7
0.0 Trace 0,0
0,0
1.9
0.0 0 .0
o.o
0.0
o.o o.o
o.o o.o o.o
0.0
o.o o.o
0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0

LIGHT-WEIGHT PORTION

Average

Estimated Estimated

Color

Grain Size

'~Heavy
Minerals

Tan Dk.Tan
White White White White White White

Me d.. Me d.
Fine Fine Fine Very Fine Very Fine Fine

0.4
0.6
.
0 .7 0 .6 0.6 1.1 1.2
0.7

Tan

Me d.

0.4

White

Me d.

0.4

White

Fine

0.8

White

Fine

0.8

White

Fine

1.1

White

Fine

1.5

Gray

Very Fine

0.4

Whi te
Tan White

Very Fine

1.5

Fine

1.1

Fine to ) 1.0

Very Fine

White

Fine

0.8

White

Fine

0.8

Tan

Fine

1.6

Tan

Coarse

0.5

White

Coarse

0. 5

Tan

Coarse

0.5

Tan

Me d.

0.4

Tan

Med.

0.4

Tan

Med,

0 .4

Whibe White
Tan

Fine

1.6

Fine to ) 1.9

Very Fine

Fine

1.0

White

Fine

1.6

Dk .Tan

Fine

1.8

Table 2 - (continued)
26

Hole Number
22
23 24 25 26
27
--
28
29 30
31 32 33

Sampled Interval I n Feet
0-3 3-6 6- 9
9-12
0-3 3-6
0-3
0-3 3-6
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-15
0-3
3-6
0-3 3-6 6- 9
0-3
3 -6~
0-3 3-6 6-9 9- 11
0-3
3 -5~
0-3 3-6
0- 3 3-6

%Clay
Size
1.2 0.8
o.o
0. 9
5.5 12.7
7.3
6.6 14.9
3. 7 4.8 3.8 2.5 8 .1
16.3
30 .6
4.5 7.8 20.2
16.4 30.4
4.2 8.4 18 .9 13.3
13.5 23.1
5.3 12.0
9.9 26.4

'fo +2 mm .
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
o.o
Trace
0.0
0.8 4.1
0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0
1.0
0.6
0.4 1.1
o.o
0.8 1.0
0.2
o.o o.o
7.1
o.o
0.0
2.6
o.o
0 .7 1.4

LIGHT-WE IGHT PORTION

Average

Estimated Estimated

Color

Grain Size

Lt. Brn .

Tan

White Tan

to

)

Tan

Fine Fine Fine
Fine

White White

Med . Med .

White

Fine

White White

Fine Coarse

White White White White White

Fine Med . Me d . Me d. Me d.

White to) Tan Tan

Me d .
Med .

White White White

Fine Med. Fine

White Tan

Fine Med.

Tan White White
.White
White White

Fine Fine Fine
Med .
Fine Fine

Tan vlhite

Fine Fine

White Tan

Fine Coarse

ofo Heavy Minerals
3.5 2.6 2.5
2.7
0.4 0.4
2. 5
0.4 0.3
0.3 0. 3 0.3 0.3 0.4
0.3
0.4
0.8 1. 0 0.9
0.3 0.3
1.6 1.8 1.8 1.0
1.6 1.2
2.1 2.5
0.5 0.5

27 Table 2 - (continued)

Hole Number
34 35 36 37
38
39 40
41 42 43
1!4
45 46 47

Sampl ed Interval In Feet
0-3
0-3 3-6
0-3
0- 3 3-6 6-9 9-12
0- 3 3-6 6-9
0-3 3-7
0- 3 3-6 6-9 9-12
0- 3 3-6
0- 3 3-6
0-3 3-6
0- 3
0-3 3-6
0- 3 3-6
0-3 3-6

%Clay
Size
11. 4
12 .0 22.8
14. 5 4.6 0.9 3.4 6 .5
3.9 13 .9 13 . 7
9.0 20 .9
9 .1 38. 6 19 . 8 19 . 8
5.1 4.8
8.6 9 .1 22 .9 42 .6
4.8
5. 0 4. 5 4.1 2 .4 5. 0 3.4

1o +2 mm . 1.4
0.0
o.o
2. 6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Trace
o.o
0.0 1. 6
Trace
0.9 0.0 0. 0
Trace
o.o
0 .0 0. 0
0.0 0 .0 0. 0 0. 0
o.o o. o
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LIGHT-WEIGHT PORTION

Ave r a ge

Estimate d Estimated

Col or

Grain Size

Tan

Coarse

White Tan

Fine Fine

Tan

Me d.

Tan

Med .

White

Med .

Wh i te

Fine

White

Fine

White Tan Lt .Tan

Med . Coarse Coarse

Whi te Tan

Me d. Coarse

White Wh i t e White Whi te

Fine Fine Me d. Ver y Fine

Whi te Whi te

Coarse Fine

White

Fine

Whi te

Fine

White Red- Ern.

Fine Fine

Whi te

Fine

Tan Dk.Brn.

Me d . Fine

White

Fine

White

Fine

White

Fine

White

Fine

%Heavy
Minerals
0. 3
o. 5
0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 0. 8 0.2 0.2 0.2
1. 9 1.0
1. 2 1.1 0. 2 0.7 1. 6 1.6 0.8 1. 0
0. 9 1.2
1. 4
0. 9 0. 4 2.0 2.2
1. 5 1.7

Table 2 - (continued)

Hole Number
48
49
50 51 52 53 54
55 56 57
58

Sampled Interval In Feet
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-14
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12
0- 3
3-6
0-2~
0-1
0-3
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12
0-3 3-6 6-9
0- 3 3-5
0-3 3-4 4-6 6-9 9-12 12-15
0- 2 2- 4 4- 5 5-7 7-10

%Clay
Size
5 .5 19 . 6 17 .3 24 .2 28 .6
7 -5 29.8 24 .5 18 .0
3.9
8.6
7.0

"/u +2 nun.
0 .4
l.O
2.0 4.0 5.2
Trace
0.0 0.7 3.4
0.3
0 .6
0.3

2.9
4.7
11.4 27.5 21.4 17.6
4.4 30 .0 24 .8
3.2 2.8
10 . 4 21.7 34 .8 23 .9 32.4 52.3
8.5 14 .9 10.9 4.1
l.O

0.0
1. 2
3.8
l.l
1. 4 1.5
0.0 0.0
Trace
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
Trace l.O

LIGHT-WEIGHT PORTION

Average

Estimated Estimate d

Color

Grain Size

Gray Tan Tan Tan White

Me d . Coarse Coarse Coarse Coarse

White Tan Tan Tan

Med. Med . Coarse Me d .

White White

Fine to) Mcd. Med .

White

Me d . to ) Flne

White

Me d .

Gray

Me d.

White Tan Tan White

Med . Coarse Coarse Coarse

White Tan Tan

Med . Me d . Med .

Gray White

Med . Med .

White

Fine

White

Fine

White

Fine

Lt .'ran

Fine

Lt.Tan

Fine

Tan

F:i.ne

White Whi te Whi te White White

Me d. Me d. Coarse Med . Coarse

%Heavy
Minerals
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3
0.7 0.8 0.7
0.3 0.4
0.6 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.9 5.8
0.5 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.3

29
Table 2 - (continued)

Hole Number
59
60 61
62 63 64 65
66
67 68

Sample d Interval In Feet
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-15
15-16 ~ 16~-18
0- 3 3-4
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-15 15-17
0-3
0-3 3-6 6-9 9- 12
0-3
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12 - 15
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-13 13-15
0-3 3- 5
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-14

%Clay Size
4.5 3.3 23.3 22.0 27 .8 22.3 6. 7
5.9 11.2
6 .0 4. 3 2.5 6 .3 3.0 1.8
4.6
4.0 8.9 25 .8 31. 1
2.1
4.8 3-3 2.6 2.4 9.2
2.8 3.5 2.3 1.3 1.6 1.6
4. 5 6.8
16. 2 32 .2 22 .6 34.2 46 . 5

%+2 mm.
0.0
Trace Trace
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3
0.0
0.0 0.0
Trace
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
o.o o.o
0.0

LIGHT -WEIGHT PORTION

Average

Estimated Estimated

Color

Grain Size

White
White White White
White White White

Fine Me d . Fine Fine Fine
Fine Me d.

Gray

Me d.

White

Med.

White White White "White
Tan Dk .Brn .

Me d.
~led.
Med. Me d. Me d . Me d.

White

Fine

White vlhite
White Tan

Me d. Me d. Me d. Fine

White

Fine

White White White White White

Me d. Me d . Me d . Fi ne Me d.

White
White White White
White
White

Me d. Me d. Me d. Me d.
Me d . Med.

Tan White

Me d. Coarse

White White White White White

Fine Fine Fine Fi'ne Fine

% Heavy Minerals
0.7 0.7 0.3 0.6 1.1 1.1 0.6
1.0 0.9
0 .6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.1
0.4
0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5
1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.8
0.5 0.3
0.7 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6

Table 2 - (continued)
30

Hole Number
69 70 71
72 73
74
75 76 77 78 79 80

Sampled Interval In Feet
0-3
0-3 3-6 6-9
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12 12-15
15-17~ 17~-18
0-3 3-4
0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12
0-3 3-6
0-3 3-6
0-3
0-3 3-6
0-3 3-6
6-8~
0-3

%Clay
Size
2.4
4.9 2.5 1.6
5.5 20 .8 18.4 20 .2 18.1 21.7 43.6
3.8 3.2
10.2 3.4 5.3 6.4
2.8 3.0 1.5 2.0
3.3 20.3
2.9
2.1
4.1
4.7 6.6
3.4 2.5 5.0
5.3

%+2 mm.
o.o
Trace 0.0 0.0
0.3 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.6 Trace 0.0
0.0 0.0
o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.8
o.o o.o
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.3

LIGHT-WEIGHT PORTION

Average

Estimated Estimated

Color

Grain Size

White

Me d.

Tan ran White

Fine
Fine Very Fine

White Tan White \vhite
White White
White

Me d. Coarse Coarse
Coarse Me d. Me d. Fine

White White

Me d. Fine

Gray Gray Gray
~fuite

Fine Fine Fine Fine

White White White
White

Med. Fine Fine Fine

White Tan

Med. Fine

White

Me d.

White

Me d.

White

Coarse

White White

Me d. Med.

White White White

Me d. Fine Me d.

Wh i t e

Fine

% Heav-y
Minerals
3.3
1.2 1.0 0.8
0.5 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3
0.4 0.4
2.8 2.9 2.8 4.1
0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4
0.7 1.0
1.0 1.0
0.4
0.7 0.8
0.8 0.8 0.7
6.0

31

TABLE 3
MrnERAL PERCENTAGES OF SE LECTED SAMPLES
Percent heavy minerals in sand and silt fraction; percent titanium minerals, percent zircon and percent monazite in heavi-mineral f raction of samples selected for heavy-mineral concentrat ions of one percent or gre ater. Determinations are in weight percent.

Hole Numbe r
1 2 10
12
15 17
18
19
20

Sampled Interval In Feet
0-3 6-9
0- 3 3-6
0-3 6-9 12-15
0-3 9-12 15-18
0-3
0- 3 3-6 6-7
0-3 3-6 6-9
0- 3 6-9 12-15 15-18
0- 3 3-6 6-9

%Heavy
Minerals
0.1 0.2
0.6 1.8
0.2 0.2 0.2
0 .7 1.1 0.7
1.5
1.5 1.1 1.0
0.8 0.8 1.6
0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4
1.6 1. 9 1.0

%Titanium
Minerals
51.7 50 .4
50.8 51.8 53.8 56 .2 62.6 61.3
55.9 58.8
42.9 38.6 43 .5 56.2 56 .7 57.4 54.4 48 .4 55 .6

% Zircon
14.7
12.1
6.2 6.8 4.2
8.9 8.6

%Monazite
0.2 0. 5
0.6 1.3 1.7 2.1 1.4 1.0 0.7
0.7 1.1

Table 3 - (continued) 32

Hole Number
21
22
24 30
31 32 39 40
41 44 46 47 48
54

Sampled Interval In Feet
0-3 3-6
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12
0-3
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-11
0-3
3-5~
0-3 3-6
0-3 3-7
0-3 3-6 6-9 9-12
0-3 3-6
0-3
0-3 3-6
0-3 3-6
0-3 6-9 12-14
0-3 3-6 9-12

%Heavy
Minerals
1.6 1.8
3.5 2.6 2.5 2.7
2.5
1.6 1.8 1.8 1.0
1.6 1.2
2.1 2.5
1.9 1.0
1.2 1.1 0.2 0.7
1.6 1.6
1.4
2.0 2.2
1.5 1.7
0.5 0.3 0.4
0.7 0.7 0.3

%Titanium
Minerals
46.4 43.5
39.4 45.9 38.7 42.7
54.3
34.3 39.4 41.5 46.6
48.0 50.3
58.1 51.3
44.5
56.2
58 .5 66.2
58.5
62.7 62.8
62 .7 64.5
46.3 45.0 64 .8
44.6 42.1 59.4

% Zircon
7.6 3.1
1.5 1.5 2.1 2.5
13.4
6.2 4.5 7.0 7.5
7.4 6.3
10.3 9.0
7.6
14.0
14.1 14.9
9.8
10.9 12.6
8.9 8.6

%Monazite
1.6 0. 7
0.4 0.5 0.2 0.4
0. 7
0.9 0.5 1.5 2.2
1.5 2.1
1.6 1.5
1.2 2.1
2.5 3.0
2.5 2.1
1.2
1.6 1.1
1.3 1.4

33 Table 3 - (continued)

Hol e Number
57
58 60 61 64 66 68
69 70 71 73

Sampl ed I nterval I n Feet
0-3 3-4 4-6 6-9 9-12 12-15
0-2 4-5 7-10
0- 3 3- 4
0-3 6-9 12-15
0-3
0-3 6- 9 13-15
0-3 3-6 6- 9 9- 12 12-14
0-3
0-3 3-6 6-9
0-3 6-9 12-15
0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8

%Heavy
Minerals
0.6 0. 3 1. 2 1.2 1.9 5.8
0 .5 0.2 0.3
1.0 0.9
0.6 0.4 0.6
1.0
0.4 0 .4 0.8
0.7 1.2 1.3 1. 5 1.6
3.3
1.2
l.O
0.8
0.5 0 .2 0.3
2.8 2.9 2.8 4.1

%Titanium
Minerals

%Zircon

%Monazite

3. 2 1.0 0.9 0.1

53 .8 60.6
59.0

56 .5

17 .1

1. 5

54 .0

17 .1

1.6

54. 3 55.1 43 .4

50.1

3.9

3.0

54. 9 60 .1 63 .7

54. 1

9.8

1.0

57. 6

10.6

2. 3

62. 3

10 .6

1. 3

45 .0

10 .9

1.3

47. 1

8 .5

1. 3

59. 3

12.0

1.2

6o .4

6.7

0.4

51.1

5 .7

1.0

45. 0

3.1

0.8

1+0 .1
59 .1 54 .3

62. 9

7.4

1.2

53. 8

15.7

1.1

61. 2

15 .7

1.2

58 .6

12 .9

1. 3

Table 3 - (continued)

Hole Number
76
Bo

Sampled Interval In Feet
0- 3 3- 6
0-3

%Heavy
Minerals
1.0 1.0
6.0

%Titanium
Minerals
44.1 47 . 2
57.0

%Zircon
4.8 4.5 4.2

oJo Monazite
0 .0 0 .0
1.2

35

Chemical Analyses ~ ~ Heavy-Mineral Fractions
The entire sample of heavy minerals from the tetrabromoethane separati on was ground for anal ysis by an electric mortar grinder using an agate mortar and pe stle. The powdered sample was drie d overnight at

Titanium Dioxide - Ti02 (Furman, 1962) (Sandell, 1944). The titanium dioxide percentage (Table 4) in the heavy-mineral
fraction -vras determined colol.'imetrically by the hydrogen peroxide method . A 0 . 1000 gram sample was fused with potass ium pyrosulfate, and the melt was di ssolved in five percent sulfuric acid and made up to 1 ,000 mil liliters. A portion of the solution not treate d wit h peroxide was used as a blank. Hydrogen peroxide was added to the solution, and the optical density was measured on a Coleman Junior spe ctrophotometer set at a vravelength of 420 mill imicrons . The optical density of the peroxidize d titanimn solution was corrected for the blank, and the percent t i tanium dioxide was read from a standard curve .
The color of t he peroxi dized titanium solution was bleached with hydrofluoric acid, and interference f rom vanadium was not noted by visual ob s e r v a t i o n .
Values obtained for duplicate samples were reproducible to within two percent, and runs on a standard prepared in the laboratory "rere within two percent of the standard value.

Zircon ium

Dioxide

-

Zro 2

and

Zircon

-

ZrSi04

(Furman ,

1962)

(Hill and Miles, 1959).

Zirconium dioxide (Table 4) was determined by the mandellic method .

A 0. 2000 gram sample ;.ras fused with anhydrous sodiwn carbonate and the melt dissolved in sulfuric acid (1+3). Three milliliters of 30 percent hydrogen peroxide was added and the solution evaporated to fumes of sulfur trioxide. The diluted solution was made alkaline "'ith ammonium hydroxide, and the precipitated hydroxides were filtered to separate sulfate.
The hydroxide precipitate '"as dissolved in hydrochloric acid (1+3), and zirconium was precipitated as zirconium mandelate with 16 percent mandelic acid. The precipitate was filtered and ;.rashed ;.lith ammoniwn hydroxide (1+4) to dissolve zirconium mandelate and separate any titanium. The solution was made acid with hydrochloric acid and zirconium reprecipitated l!Tith mandellic acid.
The zirconium mandelate precipitate was ignited for one hour at
900 C. and weighed as Zr02 The percent zircon (ZrSi04) was found by multiplying the percent Zr02 by 1.4874.
Values obtained for duplicate samples ;.rere reproducible to vdthin two percent, and runs on a standard prepared in the laboratory '"ere within two percent of the standard value.
Radiometric Monazite Analysis (by Milton E. Mc~ain and Dorsey Smith of the Georgia Institute of Technology.) A radiometric method was used to determine monazite content of the
heavy-mineral fraction (Table 3). Since monazite is the only thorium-radioactive
mineral known to occur in the sands of the coastal region of Georgia. in appreciable amounts, knovm percentages of pure monazite concentrate from North Florida. were mixed with an ilmenite concentrate as standards) and the thorium radioactivity of these standards was compared to the thorium radioactivity of the heavy-mineral-fraction samples. Specifically, a. standard curve vras

37
prepared by weighing known amount s of monazite concentrate mixed with several volumes of ilmenit e concentrate in 25 cc . glass vials. These mixtures were counted for 40 minutes on the cap of the Nai crystal of a Technical Measurement
Corporation analyzer. Counts were integrated under the .2386 mev. thorium
peak. The standard curve was drawn by plotting milligr ams of monazite versus integrated counts minus the base line .
The unknown heavy-mineral samples were analyzed in the same manner and compared to t he standard curve, and the percent monazite was calculated .
A uranium source was used to check t he uranium content of the samples . None vra.s detect ed .

TABLE 4
CHEMICAL ANALYSES RESULTS ON HEAVY-MINERAL
CONCENTRATES
Percent titanium dioxide in sand and silt f raction, in heavy minerals, and in titanium mineral s . Percent zirconium dioxide in sand and silt fraction and in heavy minerals. Determinations are in weight percent .

Hole Number
l 10
12
l5 17 18
19
20 21 22

Sample d Interval In Feet
0-3 6-9
0- 3 6-9 12-15
0-3 9-12 15 - 1 8
0-3
0-3
0-3 3-6 6-9
0- 3 6-9 12-15 15-18
0-3 3-6
0-3 3-6
0-3 3- 6 6-9 9-12

%SaTndi0a2ndinSilt
Fraction
0 . 56 0.46 0 .19 0 .15 0.36
0 .53 0 .62 0 .40 0 . 35 0.60 0.43 0 .38 0 . 50

oHfoeTavi0y0~ i n Minerals
26 .6 27 .8
28 .2 27 .8 28 .2
33.0 35.8 33 0
37.0
30 .6
24. 2 19 .2 22.8
32 .0 32 .0 30 .8 30 . 8
32 .8 32.8
25 .0 18 .6
17.2 16 .4 15 .0 18 .6

%TiTtain02uunin
Minerals
51. 5 55 .2
55.6 53 .7 52 .4
58 .7 57 .2 53 .8
66 .2
52 .0
56.4 49 .7 52.4
57 .0 56.5 53 .7 56.7
67 .8 64.8
53 .9 42.8
43 .6 35.7 38 .8 43 .6

aSJoaZndr0a2ndi nSilt Fracti on
0 .15 0.12 0 .03 0.04 0 .04
0 .10 0 .11 0 .08 0 .04 0 .04 0 .03 0 .04 0 .04

%HeZavry02 in
Mine r a l s
9 .8 8.1 4.0 4.6 2.8
6 .0 5.8 5.1 2.1 l.O 1.0 1.4 1.6

Table 4 - (continue d)

39

Hole Number
24 30
31 32 39 40 41 44 46 47 48
54
58
60

Sampled I nterval In Feet
0-3
0-3 3- 6 6-9 9-11
0-3 3-5-
0-3 3- 6
0-3
0-3
0- 3 3-6
0-3
0- 3 3- 6
0-3 3-6
0-3 6-9 12-14
0-3 3-6 9-12
0-2 4-5 7-10
0- 3 3- 4

%SaTndi0a2ndi nSi l t
Fraction 0 .91 0 .36 0.41 0 .50 0.28 0 .45 0 .36 0.73 0 .68 0.57 0. 43 0.63 0.60 0 .53 0.81 0 .88 0. 57 0 .64
0 .35 0 .33

%HeTaviyo2 in
Minerals
36.4i
22 .2 22 .8 27.9 27.9
27 .9 30 .2
34.8 27 .0
30.1
35 .6
39 .2 37.8
37 .8
4o.6 40 .2
37.8 37.8
37.9 31.0 35 .2
28 .8 26 .6 35 .8
35.6 35 .0 35 .0
35 .0 37 .0

o,<t.J T"l.O2 l..n Titan1.um Mi nerals
67 .0
65 .0 57 .9 62 .7 59.9
58.2 60 .0
59.9 52.6
67 .6
63.4
67 .0 60 .7
64.6
64.6 64 .0
60 . 4 58 .6
81.9 68.9 54 .3
64 .6 63.2 60 .3
66.2 57.7 59.4
62 .0 68 .5

%SanZdr0a2ndi nS il t
Fracti on 0.22 0.07 0 .05 0 .08 0 .05 0 . 10 0 .05 0. 14 0.15 0 .10 0 .11 0 .15 0 .16 0 .10 0 .15 0 . 19 0 .10 0. 10
0 .12 0.10

%HeZavroy2 in
Minerals 9.0 4.2 3.0 4.7 5 .0 5.0 4.2 6 .9 6.0
) .l
9.4 9.5 10 .0 6.6 7. 4 8.5 6 .0 5. 8
11.5 11.5

'T'a.ble 4 - (continued) 40

Hole Number 61
64 66
68
69 70 71
73
76 80

Sampled Interval I n Feet
0-3 6-9 12-15
0-3
0-3 6-9 13 - 15
0-3 3-6 6- 9 9-12 12-14
0-3
0- 3 3-6 6-9
0- 3 6-9 12-15
0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8
0-3 3-6
0-3

1SoaTndioa2ndinSilt
Fraction
0 . 32
0 .26 0 .44 0. 49 0. 50 0 . 49 1.2C: 0 . 39 0.31 0 .18
1.12 1.14 1. 05 1. 26 0.32 0 . 32 2. 10

1Ho eTavi0y2 in
Minerals
31 .0 28 .2 20 .8
32.0
35 .0 35.6 35.0
37.4 36.8 37.4 28.0 30.6
37.0
32 .8 31.0 22 .0
34 .2 35 . 4 28.2
40.0 39 .2 37.0 30 .7
32.0 32.0
35.0

tTfo itTain012umin Minerals
57 .1 51.2 48 .0
63.9
63.8 59.2 55.0
69 .1 63.9 60 .0 74.7 64.9
62.4
54.3 6o.8 48 .9
85 .4 59 -9 52.0
63.6 72. 8 60.5 52 .4
72.5 67.8
61.4

%SaZndr0a2ndinSilt
Fraction
0.03
0 .05 0. 08 0. 09 0. 11 0.09 0.26 0.05 0.04 0 .02
0.14 0.31 0.30 0.35 0.03 0.03 0.17

tHfo eZavr0y2 in Minerals
2.6
6.6 7.1 7.2 7.4 5.7 8.0 4. 5 3. 8 2 .1
5.0 10 .6 10.6 8.6 3.2 3 .0 2.8

41
CONCLUSIONS
One area of hea.vy- miner al- bearing sand is presently being mined in Georgia near Folkston. There are at least four other large areas '\!There there are known concentrations of heavy minerals (Figure 2). Elsewhere, five of our auger holes (Figure 2 , Nos. 22 , 24, 32 , 45, and 80) were found to contain intervals of between two to six percent heavy minerals. To be profitably mineable, a deposit will probably have to contain at least three percent heavy mi nerals and one percent Ti02 The deposit should be several feet thick and within a few feet of the surf ace of the ground. There was no concentration greater than one percent heavy minerals west of Trail Ridge and the approximate 125-foot contour which runs nort h-south and divide s the studied are a abm1t in hal f (Figure 2) . Higher percentages of heavy minerals occur near the shoreline areas of MacNeil (1949) .
The major heavy mineral mined in South Georgia and North Florida is ilmenite and it s alteration products. The other minerals recovered are byproducts. The titanium- mineral concentrates vary greatly in their iron content. That with a lmr i ron content and consequent high t itanium content is less expensively processed to a titanium dioxide product . It is presently desirable
for the ilmenite-leucoxene concentrate to contain greater than 60 percent
t itanium dioxide, and those with about 70 percent are very desirable . From the few titanium analyse s (Table 3) it appears that the titanium
minerals with less iron are found furthest west and near the surface of the ground. The lower iron content is probably due to leaching by ground 'rater .
Previous workers have shown that the more recently depo sited sands along t he coast and along the Altamaha and Savannah Rivers, with extensive head

42
waters in the crystalline rocks to the west, are less leached of certain minerals by percolating ground water. These areas probably contain ilmenite with a high iron content.
Concentrations of heavy minerals are more often found in fine -grained sand (Table 2).

SUGGESTIONS TO FUTURE WORKERS
Holes should be drilled to a depth of 50 feet to fully explore heavymine r>al deposits which may be mined in the near future. The deposits in North Florida are mined to about this depth. Use of a jet-rotary-type drill
t:.s described by 'l'hoenen and Y.larne (1949) or the drive-pipe-jet rig presently
used by Humphreys Mining Company at Folkston is suggested. After checking the areas shown in this report to have a concentration
of titanium minerals with a low iron eontent (Flgure 2, localities 24, 45, 80),
further exploration should probably begin at about the 125-foot contour and progress southeastward, excluding from the search the Recent sediments along the Altamaha River System and Savannah River. The shoreline areas of ~1acNeil
(1949) should especially be checked.
There are indirect approaches to searching for heavy minerals v-rhich ili:iVe not been thoroughly tested. Systematic sur-.,eys using a, portable instrument to measure thorium radioactivity may o..1.tline areas of monazite concentrat:icn. Detailed ground magnetic maps may show concentrations of ilmenite.
Laboratory techniques can probably be expedited by centrifuging the
heavy-liquid-sample mixture as described by Spencer (1948) and by applying
x-ray diffraction and fluorescence and spectrographic techniques of analysis.

44

ADDENDUM l

WELLS DRILLED BY SOUTHERN RAI LWAY SYSTEM IN CHARLTON COUNTY

Part of t he phosphate exploration by Southern Railway System in 1964

resulted i n the drilli ng of 12 holes on Trail Ridge i n Charlton County, Georgia

(Figure 3) (Olson , 1966 ). This area is approximately 25 miles north of the

heavy- mineral mining on Trail Ridge in Florida . Srunples from the Southern

Railway System drilling were made available to the authors for heavy-mineral

analysis. Although these samples were not completely representative because

they were washed up the hole and caught on a wire-screen strainer, thereby

loosing the f i nes and slimes, they are of v alue, for they penetrated much

deeper t han the authors were able to auger by hand.

The samples were processed and anal yzed in the same manner as the other

samples in the main part of thi s report to give percent he avy minerals in the

sand and silt fract ion , percent clay, and percent greater than sand size. The
results are in Table 5. Holes 4 and 11 are the only ones containing an inter-

val of gre ater than 2. percent heavy minerals within 30 feet of the surface

of the ground.
Hole four (4) was selected at random and mineralogical and chemical te sts

like those described in the main pa.rt of this r eport were .run on the heavy

mineral fractions at several depth intervals. The following re sults were ob-

t ained:

HOLE 4

Sampled Interval In Feet
0-5 10-15 20- 25 1+0-45 50- 60

%Titanium Mineral s
In Heavy Minerals
54.8 59.2 57.2 57 .2 59. 4

%HeTavi 0y2MIinne r a l s
33.2 32.0 26.0 24 .6 26.6

%TiTtai 0n2~umI nMineral s
60. 6 5 4. 1 45 . 5 43.0 44.8

45

I I \ \
\

I

I

I I

".,.

I
I

I

I

/
I

..,">!

~~.>../

o""/ I
(

Two Ml l u

Figure 3 . Map of southern part of Charlton County, Georgia, showing locations of holes drilled by Sout hern Railway System

46
TABLE 5
PERCENTAGES OF HEAVY MINERALS AND CLASTIC SIZES FROM HOLES DRILLED ON TRAIL RIDGE BY
SOUTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM

Hole Number
~Figure 3~
#1.

Sampled Interval In Feet
0-5 5- 10 10-15 15- 20 20-30 30- 40 4 0 - 50 50-60 60-70 70-75

~Clay
7.4 3.0 2.1 1.5 2.5 13.5 9.0 3.5 1.5 3.5

~ +2 mm.
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6

%Heavy Minerals In
Sand and Silt Fraction
0.71 0 .61 0 . 46 0.46 0 .52 1.02 0 . 94 0 .66 0.58 0.80

#2.

0-5

1.7

0.0

5-10

0.0

0.0

10-15

1.0

o.o

15-20

0.5

0.0

20-30

2.0

o.o

30-40

o.o

0.0

40-50

1.0

0.0

50-55

2.0

0.0

55-60

1.2

0.0

60-70

3.5

0.1

70-75

3.2

0.0

0.60 0.83 1.00 1.64 1.40 1.05 2.87 1.23 1.01 1.26 1.50

Table 5 - (continued)

47

Hole Number (Figure 3)
#3-

Sampled Interval In Feet
0-5 5-10 10-15 15- 20 20-30 30 - 4o 40-50 50 - 60 60-65 70-75

%Clay
2.9 2.6 2.0 1.9 4.7 5.6 3.8 2.8 1.9 14.6

%+2 rom .
0 .0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0 .0 0.0 0.0 1.7

#4 .

0-5

2.0

0 .0

5-10

1.2

o.o

10-15

0.0

0.0

15-20

1.7

0.0

20- 25

2.1

0.2

25- 30

2 .0

0.0

30-}lO

1.5

0 .0

40- 45

0.6

0.1

45-50

1.0

0.0

50 - 60

0.5

o.o

60-65

1.0

o.o

65-70

3.8

0 .0

70-75

9 .8

0.0

%Heavy Minerals In
Sand and Silt Fraction
0 .54 0 .67 0.49 0 .62 0.45 0 . 77 0.86 0 . 70 0 .98 0.95
0 .98 2.46 2.66
1.11
0.76 1.52 1.99 1.92 2.21 2.27 1.45 1.30 1.26

Table 5 - (eontinued) 48

Hole Number
(Figure 3)
#5.

Sampled Interval In Feet
0-5 15-20 20-30 30-40 40-45 45-50 55-60 60-70

~Clay
2.4 1.5 1.5 1.0 2.3 2.0 8.2 1.4

%+2 mm.
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o

#6.

0-5

2.0

0.0

5-10

4.0

0.0

10-15

4.6

0.0

15-20

5.9

0.0

20-30

4.8

o.o

30-40

3.8

o.o

40-50

3.4

o.o

60-65

8.9

0.8

#7.

0-5

2.9

o.o

5-10

9.0

0.0

10-15

2.9

0.0

15-20

8.8

o.o

20-30

8.6

o.o

30-40

5.0

0.0

%Heavy Minerals In
:~and and Silt Fraction
0.86 1.15 1.65 1.28 0.85 0.89 1.40 0.84
0.82 0.97 0.92 0.66 0.84 0.67 0.95 0.56
0.59 0.52 0.76 0.74 0.42
o.g4

Tabl e 5 - {continued)

Hole Number ~Figure 3}
#8.

Sample d I nterval In Feet
0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25- 30 35-40 40-50 50-60 60- 65 65-70 70-75

%Cl ay
1.6 1.0 2.1 1. 3 0. 9 0.9 0.9 l.O 1.0 1.1 0. 0 0.5

tfo +2 nun .
0 .0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0 .0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0
o.o

#9 .

0-5

8.1

0.0

5-10

3.9

0.0

10-15

8 .1

0 .0

15-20

14. 9

o.o

20-30

6. 5

0.1

30- 35

7 .3

0.5

40-45

l i m e s t one

60-70

limestone

70- 75

limestone

%Heavy Mineral s I n
Sand and Sil t Fr action
0.99 0.76 0 .67 0.97 1.10 1.64 2.83 2.55 0.77 0 .83 0.89 1.10
0.57 0 . 75 0 .78 0.81 1.01 1.12

Table 5 - (continued) 50

Hole Number (Figure 3}
#10 .

Sampled Interval In Feet
0- 5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-40 40-45

%Clay
5.5 5.5 9.8 9.7 6.6 4.1 1.8 3.4

%+2 nun.
o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0
o.o
0 .0 0.0
o.o

#ll.

5-10

l.O

0 .0

10-15

1.4

0 .0

15-20

0.9

0 .0

20- 30

0.9

0.0

35- 40

1.2

o.o

40-50

2.0

0.0

50-60

2.7

o.o

60-70

2.0

0 .0

#12

0- 5

0.8

0 .0

5- 10

3.7

0.0

10- 15

1.0

0.0

15-20

2.5

0 .0

20-25

3.0

0.0

25- 30

1.2

0.0

35-40

l.l

0.0

40- 45

0.9

0 .0

45- 50

1.6

0.0

50-60

4.1

0 .0

60-70

7.0

0.0

70-75

4.0

0.0

%Heavy Minerals In
Sand and Sil t Fraction
0.84 1.15 0 . 92 0.81 0.72 0.49 0.61 0.80
1.26 2.23 1.65 1.60 l . 77 1.54 0.97 0.75
o.4o 0.69 0 .83 l.ll 0 . 55 o .8o 1.50 1.59 2.00 1.40 1.30 0.91

51
ADDENDUM 2
PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF CORE FROM EFFINGHAM COUNTY by James Ne iheisel
Core from a 300-foot hole drilled in Effingham County, Georgia, by the Mineral Engineering Branch, Georgia. Institute of Technology, and Georgia Department of Mines, Hining and Geology (Husted, Furcron and Bellinger, 1966) was examined mechanically and petrographically. The hole is 3.2 miles northnorthwest of the intersection of Georgia Highways 119 and 17 in Guyton. Analysis results are in Tables 6 and 7.

52
Laboratory Procedure
A series of representative samples vTas obtained for each 5 feet of
core ho le and the sample was r educed by a microsp litter i nto 2 repres entative
samples weighing between 25 and 50 grams each.
The first sample was was hed through a set of s ieves and the fines
(less than 325 sieve s i ze) collected i n a large vessel. The sand was dried
and passed through a set of small s ieves by hand screening for five minutes and the percent of total sample computed for each sieve size. The fine s were reduced i n volume by decantation and then evaporated to dryness and thi s weight added to the previous screenings. Each individual sieve size was examined for compositi on under the binocular and petrographic microscopes and an average percent compos ition, based on a 200 point count per sieve size and we ighted size fraction, re corded . Clay was estimated from the -325 sieve size fraction . Where abundant calcite was present, acid leaching was employed t o separate the clay from the carbonate minerals.
The second sample was acid leached with dilute hydrochloric acid
and carbonate and phosphate minerals decanted through the -325 sieve along
with t he c lay minerals . Compa rison with t he f irst sample and visual microscopic examination enabled an estimate of percent clay and carbonate and phosphate in the sediment sample .
The - 40 sieve size and +325 sieve size portion of the acid -leached
sample was weighed, the heavy mi nerals s eparated with bromoform, washed, dried , and we ight percent of heavy minerals in the total sample computed . The dried heavy minerals wer e sieved through 100, 200, and 325 sieves and the weight percent of each sieve size determined. A representative portion of each sieve s ize was p laced on a glass slide i n index o i l and another repre sen -

53
tative portion of each sieve size placed in Lakeside Plastic No . 70 on a glass slide; the latter provides a permanent record of the heavy-mineral suite. Each slide was examined under the petrographic microscope and at least a 200 count per size fraction made. A weighted average was computed for each heavy-
mineral species and results tabulated in Table 7. The composition of the sediment is listed in Table 6. Some Inaterials
are more accurately computed than others; for example, the clalf mineral content is at best an approximation while acid-insoluble heavy minerals are known very accurately. Acid-leached carbonate rock enabled more accuracy as to weight percent than point count could have afforded. Because of its flat shape, mica percent is at best an approximation. Feldspar and quartz are believed to be accurate as regards weight percent distribution.

V1
+:""
TABLE 6 MECHAliJICAL SIEVE ANALYSIS AND COMPOSITION OF SEDIMENT SAMPLE S FROM EFFINGHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA

%RETAINED

MEDIAN(!)

DIAMETER

DEPTH ( ft . ) 40 80

100 200 PAN

(mm.)

Q.UARTZ

8-15

93.2 6.0 0.4 0.4 Tr

1.31

98 . 8

15-24

80.4 12. 8 1.6 2.4 2.8 1. 20

96.9

24-28

89. 8 4. 4 0.8 2.0 3.0 1. 25

96 -9

28-32

15.2 39.2 17. 6 5.6 21.6 0. 22

70 . 8

38- 45

13.2 16. 8 15.6 35 .6 18.8 0.15

74.4

45- 49

14. 0 6. 8 24.0 49.8 5.4 0.17

83.9

49- 52

8. 0 6.4 22. 8 50.4 12.4 0.13

85.2

52- 57

2.4 6.8 24.0 52 .0 7-2 0.14

79.8

57- 61

0. 2 4.4 9.2 58 .6 27 .6 0.09

6L 5

61-65

4.0 2.4 2. 8 59.2 32.6 0. 09

61.4

65- 78

35 .6 3.0 1.0 34.8 25.6 0.12

67.8

78- 93

18. 3 41.7 6.7 12.5 20.8 0.18

74.8

93- 100

52.4 22 . 4 12. 8 8.4 4.0 0.48

66.7

100- 108

29 . 3 59 .8 8.7 1.6 0.6 0.41

54.6

108-128

35.8 42.0 9 -3 8 .7 4.2 0.20

47. 8

128- 145

8._3 8.2 4.2 10. 7__ - 68 .6 , _ 0.06_ _---- 20.7

-

-----

-

--- ---- --

AVERAGE PER CENT COMPOSITION
FELDSPAR CALCITE PHOSPHATE CL.AY( 2 \tMINERAL MICA I

l.O

-

l. O

-

-

0.1 0.1 Trace

-

2.0

0.1

Trace

l. O

-

-

2.0

0.1

Trace

10. 0

-

-

18

1.2

Trace

6.0

-

-

17

1. 6

1

6. 0

Tr

Tr

6

3.1

1

6.0

-

-

5

2.8

1

10 . 0

-

-

7

2.2

3

12.0

-

- 20

1. 5

5

10. 0

-

Tr

25

1.6

2 I I I

4.0

15

2

10

1.2

Trace

8.0

Tr

5

11

1.2

Trace

8.0

2

20

3

0.3

Trace

5.0

36

2

2

0.4

~ace

6.0

40

2

3

1.2

Trac~

6.0

68

3

2

0.3

rrrace

-

Table 6 - (continued)

'fo RETA:rnED

MEDIAN(l)

DIAMETER

DEPTH (ft .) 40 8o

100 200 PAN

(mm. )

145-150

54 .8 15.8 4.8 10.0 15.2 0.50

150-155

34.5 23 . 1 11.1 9-3 22.0 0.28

155-160

24.2 28. 2 15 . 3 8.4 24.2 0.20

165-170

31.2 9.6 9.6 10.8 38.8 0.18

170-175

27.2 14. 2 14.2 10.0 34.4 0.17

175-180

22.0 6.0 9.2 16.0 46.8 0.09

180-185

21.2 7-5 8. 6 14.5 48.2 0.09

185-190

20.0 7.2 6.0 10.8 56 .0 0.06

190-195

35.8 14.0 6.0 12. 0 32 .2 0.20

195-200

40.0 2.1 2.7 7.2 48 .0 0.10

200-205

40 .0 12.8 12. 0 17.6 18.6 0.20

205-210

28 .6 3.2 9.2 16 .8 42.8 0.13

210-215

28.0 4.4 2.8 22 . 0 42.8 0.11

215-220

34.8 8.0 8.8 10.8 37.6 0.17

220-225

62.2 20.4

--

- - - - - - ----

5-3 7.9 4.2 0.42

QUARTZ
71.7 55 -3 64 .6 57.7 54. 6 52 . 8 55-7 46.9 68. 8 62 .6 77-5 62 .6 54.4 53 .6 55 -5

AVERAGE PER CENT COMPOSITION
FELDSPAR CALC I TE PHOSPHATE CLAY( 2 ) H. MINERAL MICA

4.0

20

2

2

0.3

Trace

3.0

20

3

18

0.7

Trace

5.0

17

2

11

0.4

Trace

3.0

7

2

30

0.3

Trace

5

8

2

30

0.4

Trace

4

10

3

30

0.2

Trace

2

5

2

35

0.3

Tracei

2

5

2

44

0.1

Trace!

4

3

2

22

0.2

TraceI

2

2

Tr

33

0.4

Trace

5

4

Tr

13

0.5

Trace

3

4

Tr

30

0.4

Trace

5

3

2

35

0.6

Trace

3

8

2

33

0.4

Trace

~ __3 __ ~ 38

l

2

0.5

Trace

VI VI

\Jl ~
Table 6 - (continued)

DEPTH ( f't. )
225-230

% RETAii~D ho 8o I 100 200 56.8 8.1 4.0 5.6

PAN
25 . 7

MEDIAN( 1)
DIAMErER
(mm.)
0.45

QUARTZ
71.8

AVERAGE PER CENT COMPOSITION

FELDSPAR

CALCITE P:J:OSPHATE CLAY( 2) H. MINERAL MICA

5

18

3

2

0.2

Trace

230- 235

62.0 12.0 3. 2 9.2 13.6 0.60

47 . 9

4

42

4

2

0.1

Trace

235- 240

48.0 12. 0 8. 4 8.8 20 .8 0. 38

43.6

4

48

3

l

0. 4

Trace

240- 245

47.2 12.0 10.4 7.2 23 .2 0. 38

50.9

5

41

2

1

0.1

Trace

245- 250

53.2 12.8 8.0 6.8 19.2 0. 41

41.7

4

48

4

2

0.3

T r a c ei

250-255

56.8 12. 0 8.4 7.2 15.6 0.44

46 . 9

4

45

3

1

O.l

Trace

25 5- 260

60.8 11. 2 6.0 6.0 24 .0 0. 48

47.6

4

42

3

3

o.4

Trace:

260- 265

50.4 15 .2 8. 8 8.0 21.6 0.42

49. 8

5

40

4

1

0.2

Trace

265- 2_70

48.0 8.0 4.0 4.4 35.4 0.41

47.6

6

40

3

3

0.4

Trace

270- 275

60.0 13. 0 2. 2 3.2 21.6 0. 56

337

6

56

3

1

0.3

Trace

2175- 280

58.2 11.6 3.4 3.0 23.8 0.48

33.5

2

60

2

2

0.5

Trace

280- 285

56.0 14.4 3.6 0.8 25 .2 0.45

25.8

2

68

2

2

0.2

Trace

285-290

88.1 4.0 1.2 2.4 4.3 1.02

24.8

1

70

2

2

0.2

Trace

290-295

78 .4 8.4 2.8 3.6 8.4 1.00

22 .8

2

72

2

1

0.2

Trace

295- 300

68.0 9. 6 3.6 6. 8 12 .0 0.62

23 .8

2

70

2

2

0.2

Tracl

NOTSS: 1. MEDIAN DIAMETER JJII MILLIMETERS AS OBTAINED FROM THE CUMMULATIVE CURVE . 2. PER CET~T COMPOSITION OF CLAY ESTIMATED AS -325 (ACID INSOLUBLE) !11ESH SIEVE SIZE .

TABLE 7. AVERAGE(2 ) ACID-INSOLUBLE HEAVY-MINERAL SUITE AS FRACTIONAL PER CENT SAMPLES FROM EFFINGHAM COUNTY, GEORGIA

0- 2ts- 35- 45- 49- 52- 57- 61- 65- 75- 100- 100- 125- 145- 150- 155- 160 - 165- 170 - 175- lti5- 190-
DEPTH (FT . ) 28 32 45 49 52 57 61 65 78 93 108 128 145 150 155 160 165 170 175 18o 190 195

ILMENITELEUCOXENE
EPIDOTE

57 57 41 21 28 25 39 33 34 44 54 49 51 51 44 48 36 46 50 51 46 51 i 3 5 25 47 42 46 39 35 38 23 20 20 16 22 20 16 30 16 19 24 18 17

ZIRCON

7 13 ll 6 5 6 11 12 12 14 10 10 7 ll 8 9 6 10 8 7 12 13

SILLIMANITE 12 13 14 13 9 10 5 8 6 6 5 5 6 6 12 11 10 10 6 8 8 7

STAUROLITE 10 2 1 2 l

1 11 1 339 936 5776 48 4

f'..ARNET

Tr Tr 1 2 l Tr l

11 22 3 3l

222221 22

TOURMALINE

2 21111l

1222222222321 2l

ffORNBLENDE Tr Tr Tr 6 10 8 Tr 5 l

l Tr Tr l

2 l

1 4 l

2 Tr Tr Tr

RUTILE

5551 1 2 2 343 2 1 32 44l

3 33 34

.KYANITE

2 2 Tr Tr l Tr Tr Tr Tr l

l Tr Tr Tr l

l

l

l

l Tr Tr Tr

OTHER (l)

2 l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

2 Tr Tr 1 1 l

1 l

1 1

NOTES :

TR = TRACE M-10UNTS LESS THAN 0.5% HEAVY-MINERAL FRACTION.

1. OTHER INCLUDES APATITE , MONAZITE, MAGNETITE, BERYL, ETC .

2. AVERAGE BASED ON WEIGHTED POINT COUNT OF TJffiEE-SIEVE SIZES .

\J1 --:)

'v,
(X)
Tab1e 7 - (continued)

~EPTH (FT) I lMENITE-
~JCOXENE
!EPIDOTE
rziRCON [SILLirIAN ITE
~TAUROLITE ~"ET
t!'QURMALINE !HORNBLENDE !RUTILE iKYANITE
PTHER (1 )

195- 200- 205- 210- 215- 220- 225- 230- 235 - 240- 245- 250 - 255 - 260- 265- 270- 275 - 280- 285- 290- 295 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 24o 245 250 255 260 265 270 275 280 285 290 295 300
42 47 46 42 48 42 43 33 34 34 34 32 31 34 39 30 50 38 41 50 42
14 20 15 20 17 21 19 32 27 30 26 28 27 32 23 27 9 a3 29 22 34 18 12 16 18 11 10 1C 5 9 5 10 10 8 7 5 9 11 8 6 10 5 9 7 9 9 10 12 9 10 11 11 12 11 15 8 11 13 12 9 8 4 4
I I
4 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 5 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 4I 2 3 3 2 5 6 8 9 11 12 10 12 10 10 13 8 6 7 6 6 4 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 Tr 1 2 Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr 1 3 Tr Tr 1 2 45543243222222 3223222 1 1 1 Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr Tr 1 Tr Tr 1 1
1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Tr Tr 1 1 Tr 1

NOTES :

TR = TRACE AMOUNTS LESS TIDL~ 0 . 5% HEAvi-MINEFAL FRACTION.

l. OTHER .Dl'CLUDES APATITE, MONAZITE, JI.1AGNE'i'ITE, BERYL, ETC.

2. AVERAGE BASED ON 1.JBIGHI'ED POINT COIDJT OF 'i'HF.EE- SIE\I'E SIZES.

--------

59

Petrographic Description
The sediment f rom the surface to 45 foot depth consists of clean, f ine- to medium-grained, angular sand (top 32 feet) overlying a clayey, fine - grained, micaceous, limonitic sand (32 to 45 foot depth) . Average
mineral composition approximates the following:

Sand, 0-32 Foot Depth
Quaxtz . , .... ... 975
Feldspa:r , , .......... 1.0 Clay.. ................ 1. 4 Heavy Minerals 0 .1 Mica . Tr
100

Fine Sand, 32-45 Foot Depth
Qua.I'tZ , , 73.1 Felds:par. 8.0
Clay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0
Heavy Minerals 1.4
Mica .~
100

Median Diameter in mm.

R8llge , , 1.20 - 1. 31

Average . .. , ..........

1.25

Median Diameter in mm.

RBllge . 0.15 - 0.22

Average ............

0.18

The lithologic unit from the 45 to 65 foot depth is an olive-green ,
micaceous, feldspathic, clayey silt which is unique in containing abundant hornblende in the he~r.y-mineral fraction and higher values of mica and feldspar than any of the other sediments of the core.
The sediment from 65 to 100 foot depth consists of dark-green, phosphatic
pebble-bearing, clayey sand. This lithologic unit is unique in containing black, rounded, polished pellets and pebbles up to 2 em. size and concen-
trations up to 20 percent of the sample from 93 to 100 foot depth. The black
color of the phosphorite is caused by inclusions of pyrite and carbonaceous matter and may reflect the reducing conditions in typical estuarine environments .

Go

Some of the phosphorite clearly reveals teeth and bone fragment origin. The similar size relation with quartz suggests that all the phosphorite pellets are detrital.
The sediment from 100 to 160 foot depth is cream to light -gray clastic carbonate and shell hash, feldspathic, slightly phosphatic sand. From 25 to 50 percent of the carbonate fraction is shell fragments.
Average mineral composition and sedimentary parameters approximate the following percentage dis tribution:

Sandy Silt 45 to 65 foot depth
Quartz . . . . . . 74 5 Feldspar. . . . . . 8 . 5 Clay... 12.4 Heavy Minerals .. 2.2 Calcite . Tr Mica .. .. 2 .4 Phosphorite .. _1!__
100

Phosphatic Sand 65 to 100 foot depth
Quartz . . . . 69.1 Feldspar. 7. 0 Clay. . . . . 8. 0 Heavy Minerals 0.9 Calcite .. ... 6.0
Mica ....... ~.,.. ... Tr
Phosphorite ..~
100

Calcareous Sand 100 to 160 foot depth
Quartz . . . . 51. 2 Feldspar.. 5.0 Clay. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 3 Heavy Minerals 0.6
Calcite .,., 34.6
Mica .. Tr
Phosphorite . 2.3
100

Median Diameter in nun .

Range . .. . . . 0 . 09- 0 .17

Average . . . ...

0 .10

Median Diameter in nun .

Median Diameter in nun,

Range. . . . . . . 0 .12 - 0. 48 Range . 0.06- 0.50

Average ........

0.26

Average .

0. 28

The sediment from 160 to 220 foot depth is comprised of greenish-gray, clayey, feldspathic, slightly phosphatic, calcareous-shelly sand. Both the amber and black phosphorite pellets of similar grain size as quartz occur in amounts up to 3 percent. All the samples display remarkable uniformity in texture. Approximately half of the carbonate fraction consists of shell fragments.
Average mineral composition and sedimentary parameters approximate the following percentage distribution:

61

Clayey, Shelly Sand, 160 to 220 Foot depth
Q.u~tz. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 . 5 Feldspar............................. 3.5 Clay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. 3 Heavy Minerals 0.4 Calcite.............................. 6.6 Phosphorite.......................... 1.7
Mica... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tr
100.0

Median Diameter in mm.

Range 0.~9- 0.20

Average....

0.14

The sediment from the 220 to 300 foot depth is comprised of uniform,

light-grey, sandy, slightly phosphatic, shelly limestone. The mineral com-

position and physical character of the limestone is remarkably uniform. This

uniformity may be demonstrated by superimposing cumulative weight distribution

curves or computing individual sedimentary parameters for comparison purposes.

Inspection of the heavy-mineral suite also reveals uniform garnet distribution

in the limestone which is several times that experienced in any other sediment

unit in the core. This garnet concentration appears related to environmental

factors. Phosphorite also occurs in both the amber and black, round, polished

pellets of similar grain size as quartz.

Average mineral composition and sedimentary parameters approximate the

follmTing percentage distribution:

Sandy Limestone, 220 to 300 foot depth

Median Diameter in mm.

Quartz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 42. 0 Feldsp~.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Clay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 Heavy Minerals. . 0. 3
C~cite. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50. 0
Phosphorite (black & amber) 2.6
Mica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tr

Range 0.38 - 1.00

Average

0.53

62
Conclusions on Effingham County Well
Heavy minerals, exclusive of phosphorite, average about 0.6 percent of the total sediment. The greatest concentration of heavy minerals (1.5 to 3.1 percent) is in the 38 to 65-foot interval. The average heavy-mineral suite
in percent of the heavy-mineral fraction is as follows: 43% ilmenite-leucoxene, 24% epidote, 9% zircon, 9% sillimanite, 4% starolite, 4% garnet, 3% rutile,
2% tourmaline, 1% hornblende, 1% magnetite, monazite, apatite, beryl, hyper-
sthene and others . Anomalous amounts of hornblende occur in olive-green, clayey silt at
45 to 65 feet. Garnet, while insignificant in most heavy-mineral suites, occurs in appreciable amounts at 220 to 300 feet , Hornblende and garnet are the least stable of the heavy minerals and their relative abundance is related to environmental factors favoring preservation. Staurolite, on the other hand, is one of the more stable heavy mineral species,and its erratic distribution is more related to size preference . Staurolite is always in greater population in larger sieve sizes which tends to support this vi ew . Rutile, zircon, and ilmenite-leucoxene, on the other hand , are finer graine d. Greater than 10 percent fel dspar occurs in the olive-green, clayey silt, at 45 to 65 feet, where the feldspars are relatively fresh with well defined twinning. In all sediment, K-feldspar, as orthoclase and microcline, is more abundant than plagioclase varieties.
Calcite, as clastic shell fragments, comprises but very minor amount s of the sediment to 100 fo ot depth. Below 100 foot depth, calcite occurs in abundance . The most indurated calcite occurs in the sample from 100 to 108 foot depth and the least indurated where clastic shell comprises the major portion of the carbonate fraction . There is no interlocking-granuJ..a.r limestone

63
or crystalline limestone in the sediment. In most sediment samples quartz is the most abundant constituent and
second only to calcite in limestone-rich sediment. The largest quartz particles occur as smooth, flattened, pebbles up to 3 em. in size in the phosphaterich horizons.
Mica is locally abundant only in clayey silt or fine sands from the 32 to 65 foot depth.
Median diameter values for sediment are readily computed and usefUl in correlating strata. other sedimentary parameters could also prove of value in correlation, if computed.

64
REFERENCES CITED
Cooke , C. Wythe (1939), Coastal Plain portion: Geologic Map of Georgia, prepared by the Ga. Dept. of Mines, Mining and Geol ogy in cooperation with the U. S. Geological Survey.
(1943), Geology of the Coastal Plain of Georgia :
U. s. Geol .Survey Bull . 941.
Doering, J. A. (1960), Quaternary surface formations of the southern part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain ; Jour. Geology, v. 68, no . 2, p . 182-202 .
Dryden , Lincoln (1958), Monaz ite in part of t he Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain: U. S. Geol . Survey Bull . 1042-1, p . 393-429.
Dr yden , L. and Dryden, C. (1956), Coastal Plain heavy minerals: A speculative summary: 20th Inter . Geol. Cong., Mexico, p . 16.
Furman, N. H. (1962) , Standard methods of chemical analysis: Van Nostrand, Ne"'r York, 6th ed., v . l.
Giles, Robert T. (1966) , River , beach and dune sands of the southeastern Atlantic Coast of the United States : Geol . Soc . Ame rica , Southeastern Section, Field Trip No. 1 Guidebook , University of Ga. Marine Institute, p. 71-76 .
and Pilkey, o. H. (1965), Atlantic beach and dune sands
of the southern United States: Jour . Sed. Petr ology, v . 35 , p . 900-910 .

Gorsline , D. S. (1963), Bottom sediments of the Atlantic shelf and slope off the southern United States : J our . Geology, v. 71, no . 4, p. 422-440.
Herrick, Stephen M. (1961 ), Well logs of the Coastal Plain of Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull . 70.
(1965) , A subsurface study of Pleistocene deposits in Coastal Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Information Cir. 31.
Hill, J . H., and Miles, M. J . (1959), Gravimetric determinati on of zirconium in titanium: Analytical Chemistry, v. 31, no. 2 , p . 252-254.
Hoyt, J . H., and Hails, J. R. (1966), Formation and modification of
Pleistocene shorelines in coastal Georgi a (abs . ): Geol. Soc . America,
AAAS Program, Sec. E., Washington , D. c., p. 20 .
- - - - - a n d Weimer , R. J. (1963), Comparison of modern and ancient
beaches, central Georgia coast : Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists
Bull.47, p. 529-531 .
______ vleimer, R. J., and Henry, V. J., Jr., (1964), Late Pleistocene
and Recent sedimentation, central Georgia coast, U.S.A., in L. M. J .U. Van Straaten (ed.), Developments in Sedimentology, v. 1, Deltaic and
Shallow Marine Deposits, p. 170-176.
Husted, John E., Furcron, A. S., and Bell inger, Frederick (1966) , Proj ect report No . 3, South Georgia minerals program: Mineral Engineering
Branch, Engineer ing Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology and Georgia Dept. of Mines, Mining and Geology.

66
LaForge , Laurence, Cooke , C. Wythe, Keith, Arthur , and Campbell, Marius R. (1925), Physical ge ography of Georgi a: Ga. Geol . Survey Bull, 42 .
MacNeil, li'. s. (1947), Ge ologic map of the Tertiary and Quarternary f ormations of Georgia: u. S. Geol. Survey Oil and Gas Prel. Map 72.
(1949), Pleistocene shor elines in Florida and Georgia:
U. s . Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 221-F .
Martens , J . H. C. (1928), Beach deposits of ilmenite , zircon and rutile in Florida : Fla. State Geol . Survey , 19th Annual Rept ., p . 124-154.
(1935), Beach sands between Charleston , South Carol ina and Miami , Florida : Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 46, no. 10, p. 1563-1596.
McKelvey, V. E., and Balsley, J. R., Jr. (1948), Distribution of coastal black-sands in North Carolina, South Carol ina, and Georgia, as mapped
from an airplane : Econ. Geol ., v. 43 , no . 6, p . 518-524 .
Merti e , J . R. (1953), Monazi te deposits of the Southeas tern Atlantic States: U. S. Geo1. Survey Circ. 237.
(1958) , zirconi um and hafnium in the Southeastern Atlantic States: U. S. Geol . Survey Bull. 1082-A.
Miller, Jesse A. (1957 ) , Titanium, a mater ials survey: U. S. Bur. Mines I. C. 7791.
Minerals Engineering Group, Engi neering Experiment Station , Georgia Institute
of Technology and C~ orgia Department of Mines, Min ing and Geology (1966),
Ga. Dept. of Mines Proj. Rept . No. 2 .

67
Moxham, R. M. (1954), Airborne radioactivity survey in the Folkston area,
Charlton County, Georgia, and Nassau County, Florida: u. s. Geol.
Survey Geophys. Inv. Map GP 119.
Neiheisel, James (1962), Heavy mineral investigation of Recent and Pleistocene
sands of lower Coastal Plain of Georgia: Geol. Soc. American Bull.,
v. 73, no. 3, p. 365-374.
(1965), Source and distribution of sediments at Brunswick
Harbor and vicinity, Georgia: U. S. Army Coastal Eng. Research Center
Tech. Man., no. 12.
OVerstreet, w. c., Cuppels, N. P., and White, A. M. (1956), Monazite in
Southeastern United States: u. s. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 300, p. 597-617.
Pilkey, 0. H. (1963), Heavy minerals of the U. S. South Atlantic continental shelf and slope: Geol. Soc. American Bull., v. 74, no. 5, p. 641~648.
----------------- and Frankenberg, Dirk (1964), The relict-recent sediment
boundary on the Georgia continental shelf: Ga. Academy of Science Bull. 22, no. 1, p. 37-40.
Rosenfeld, Signrund J. (1955), A study of the Pleistocene shorelines bet~reen
the Altamaha and Savannah Rivers in Georgia: unpublished M. s. Thesis,
Emory University.
Sandell, E. B. (1944), Colorimetric determination of traces of metals:
Interscience Publishers, New York.

68
Sinha, E. F. (1959 ), Geomorphology of the lrnTer Coastal Plain from the
Savannah River area, Georgia t o the Roanoke River area, North Carolina: unpublished Ph . D. Thesis, Univ. of N. C.
Spenc er, Rober t V. (1948) , Ti t anium mi nerals in Trail Ri dge : U, S. Bur. Mines Rept. Inv. 4208.
Teas, L. P. (1921), Preliminary r eport on the sand and gravel deposits of Georgiaj Ga . Geol. Survey Bull. 37.
Temple, Alan K. (1966) , Al t eration of ilmenit e: Econ . Geol., v . 61, no. 4, p. 695-714 .
Thoenen, J. R., and Warne, J. D. (1949), Titanium minerals in central and northeastern Florida: U. S. Bur. Mines Rept. Inv. 4515.
U. S. Geologi cal Survey (1953) , airborne radioacti vi ty anomalies map : Southern Chemical Industry, Nov.-Dec., p. 18.
Veatch, Otto and Stephenson, L. w. (1911), Geology of the Coastal Plain
of Georgia: Ga. Geol. Survey Bull. 26.
Weimer, R. J ., and Hoyt, J . H. (1964) , Burrows of Callianassa major Say,
geol ogi c indi cators of littoral and s hallow neritic environments:
Jour. of Pal eontology, v. 38, no. 4, p. 761-767.
Whitlatch, George I. (1962), Georgia' s mineral resources , Project No. E-233- 3: Engineering Exp eriment Station , Ge orgia Institute of Te chnology, Atlant a, Ga .