Project Report No. 9 South Georgia Minerals Program Georgia State Division of Conservation Department of Mines, Mining and Geology A. S. Furcron, Director By Mineral Engineering Brancb, Engineering Experiment Station Georgia Institute of Technology, and Georgia Department of Mines, Mining, and Geology November 1967 This program is being carried out under contract as Project A-880 of the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia Project Report No. 9 South Georgia Minerals Program Georgia State Division of Conservation Department of Mines, Mining and Geology A. S. Furcron, Director by Mineral Engineering Branch, Engineering Experiment Station Georgia Institute of Technology and Georgia Department of Mines, Mining and Geology November 1967 This program is being carried out under contract as Project A-880-002 of the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia ERRATA The following corrections are applicable to Project Report No. 9: Page 28, Percent Dry Feed . . . for 00.0 read 100.00 Page 46, Paragraph 1, line 5. for in-site read in situ iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . iv LIST OF F'IGURES v INTRODUCTION . . l OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 4 PROCEDURE 5 RESULTS 9 CHATHAM COUNTY . 12 Summary of Results 13 Procedure 38 Review of Data 41 ECHOLS, LANIER, AND LOWNDES COUNTIES . 43 Objectives 44 Results 45 Discussion of Results 46 Core Sampling vs Drill Cuttings 46 PRELIMINARY RECONNAISSANCE DRILLING/ JEFF DAVIS, MONTGOMERY, AND WHEELER COUNTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 PRELIMINARY RECONNAISSANCE DRILLING/LIBERTY, LONG AND WAYNE COUNTIES . . . . . . . . . . . 86 iv LIST OF TABLES Page CH-1. BPL DETERMINATION ON CORES - CHATHAM COUNTY 22 CH-2. Ml\.TRJX BENRF'TCIATION RESULTS - CHATHAM COUNTY 26 CH-3. ECONOMIC FACTORS - FIGURES OF MERIT - CHATHAM COUNTY 37 EC-1. BPL DETERMINATION ON CORES - ECHOLS COUNTY 53 EC-2. MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS - ECHOLS COUNTY 55 EC-3. ECONOMIC FACTORS - FIGURES OF MERIT - ECHOLS COUNTY . 57 EC-4. BPL DETERMINATIONS - CORE VS DRILL CUTTINGS SAMPLES ECHOLS COUNTY . 58 LA-1. BPL DETERMINATION ON CORES - LANIER COUNTY . . 62 LA-2. MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS - LANIER COUNTY . . 63 LA-3. ECONOMIC FACTORS - FIGURES OF MERIT - LANIER COUNTY 64 L0-1. BPL DETERMINATION ON CORES - LOWNDES COUNTY . 69 L0-2. MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS - LOWNDES COUNTY . 71 L0-3. ECONOMIC FACTORS - FIGURES OF MERIT - LOWNDES COUNTY . 74 JD, MONT, WH-1. BPL DETERMINATIONS - MAXDruM - ON CORES 85 LI, LNG, WN-1. BPL DETERMINATIONS ON CORES 95 LIST OF FIGURES l. Index Map of Program Area . . . . . . . 2. Radiation Emission (0.585 to 0.625 Mev) vs %BPL 3. Legend for Lithologic Logs CH-1. Location of Holes - Chatham County CH-2. Lithologic Logs - Chatham County . . CH-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Chatham County EC-1. Location of Holes - Echols County . EC-2. Lithologic Logs - Echols County . EC-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Echols County EC-4. Comparison of Results Obtained by Core Drilling in Well No. Ec-17 and Wash Drilling in Well No. E-45 LA-1. Location of Holes - Lanier County LA-2. Lithologic Log - Lanier County LA-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Lanier County L0-1. Location of Holes - Lowndes County L0-2. Lithologic Logs - Lowndes County L0-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Lowndes County JD-1. Location of Holes - Jeff Davis County JD-2. Lithologic Logs - Jeff Davis County . JD- 3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Jeff Davis County MONT-1. Location of Hole Montgomery County WH-1. Location of Hole - Wheeler County WH-2. Lithologic Log - Wheeler County . WH-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Log - Wheeler County LI-1. Location of Hole - Liberty County . . . . . v Page 3 8 11 14 15 17 48 49 50 52 59 60 61 65 66 67 77 78 79 81 82 83 84 87 vi LIST OF FIGURES (CONT.) LI-2. Lithologic Log - Liberty County . LI-3. Electric Resistivity Logs - Liberty County LGN-1. Location of Holes - Long County LGN-2. Lithologic Logs - Long County . LGN-3. Electric Logs - Long County . WN-1. Location of Hole - Wa.yne County WN-2. Lithologic Log - Wayne County Page 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 l INTRODUCTION Eight project reports have been issued to date on this program which was initiated on July l, 1965. All information is published and released as progress reports to the general public as soon as feasible. Accordingly, most of the reports have been completely factual as to results obtained over a relatively small area of the Coastal Plain. Project Report No. 7, however, presented a geological discussion of the phosphates of South Georgia and of northern Florida. Project Report No. 8 covered a preliminary investigation of "heavy minerals" occurring along coastal Georgia. Project Report No. 6 noted (page 6) that phosphorite layers in Effingham County dipped to the north. Gamma-ray logs from deep wells along the coast shaw anomalous readings, believed correlatable with layers of phosphorites, that are relatively close to the surface, say about 100 :ft., near Savannah and deeper near Brunswick. These data, when projected, showed the desirability of core drilling in Chatham County, where phosphorites should be rather close to the surface. Project Report Nos. 3 and 4 had shown areas of phosphorite interest in western Echols County and in southwestern Lanier, the deposits being similar to those of northern Florida. Data were too few to show whether these areas were interconnected through Lowndes County or to give an approximation of the east-west width of the interesting phosphorites. Accordingly, core drilling operations were carried out in Chatham County and in Echols-Lowndes-Lanier Counties, with the results reported herein. The existence of ''phosphates" as reported by S. M. Herrick, "Well Logs of the Coastal Plain of Georgia", The Geological Survey, Bulletin No. 70, 1961; drew attention to two areas of possible interest: (l) an area near the conjunction of Montgomery, Wheeler, and Jeff Davis Counties and (2) along a. line, roughly paralleling the coast, 2 in Liberty, Long and Wayne Counties. Reconnaissance drilling was carried out in these areas to determine desirability of more detailed drilling. Figure 1 is an index map showing the locations of holes drilled and reported to date. With the anticipated delivery of a second drilling unit, designed for more rapid sampling at relatively shallow depths as desired for heavy minerals, clays, and sands reconnaissance, a heavy burden on the analytical laboratory's facilities is foreseen. Automated equipment for the arc emission spectrograph has been installed. A new radiation measuring technique for rapid determination of phosphorite matrices qualifying for beneficiation and chemical analyses has been investigated. 3 4 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE The objective of the South Georgia Mineral Program is to determine the existence, preliminary quality-quantity data, and approximate location of mineral deposits having economic feasibility potential for establishing new, or expanded, mineral industries in Georgia. This report, Project Report No. 9, includes: (1) Data obtained from core drilling in Chatham Cmmty. (2) Data from holes drilled in Echols, Lowndes, and Lanier Counties to supplement data reported in Project Reports Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. (3) Information from reconnaissance drilling in Jeff Davis, Liberty, Long, Montgomery, Wayne and Wheeler Counties. (4) The development of a radiation measuring technique to reduce the time required for determining the matrices having the minimum BPL (Bone Phosphate of Lime) that has been selected to qualify a matrix for beneficiation investigation. PROCEDURE There were no changes in project procedures from those detailed in Project Report No. 5, and analytical procedures detailed in Project Report No. 6. The distinctly different characteristics of matrices from Chatham County required modifications of flotation techniques and vvarrant the special discussion under the Chatham County section of this report. Radiation Technique for Determining Matrices for Beneficiation A concel1tra.tion of 9 percent BPL in a matrix has been chosen as the lower lim.it for selecting core layers for beneficiation studies. Matrices containing less than this concentration are deemed to have no commercial phosphate potential for the foreseeable future. The usual procedure is to take one inch diameter "plugs" at one foot intervals along the core, combine the plugs from a five foot layer (or a 10 foot or a given layer of visually apparent uniformity) and submit the composite representative sample to the laboratory for chemical analysis of BPL content. By this procedure, many samples are submitted, ru1.d analyzed, which have zero and well below the 9 percent BPL limit. The question was raised if a simple and rapid techniq_ue could be developed for preliminary screening and save the time and effort in analyzing samples of no commercial interest. The association of uranium with the phosphates is well known and is the basis for indicating existence o~ phosphoritecontaining layers of interest by the gamma-ray hole logging technique. Mr. C. C. Ostrander of Georgia Tech suggested the possibility that laboratory measurements of radiation emitted from a phosphorite sample would be sufficiently accurate for screening purposes. 6 One pint samples were taken from cores at 5 foot intervals, where possible, and inserted into the chamber of a TMC 400 channel pulse height analyzer. Radiation was counted for 10 minutes at the start o~ the feasibility study but later was counted for but one minute without any apparent loss of reliability. It was not intended that the radiation technique would be used as an analytical tool to determine percent BPL. As a preliminary step, however, samples of known BPL content were "counted" and a calibration curve of the relationship established. Then samples at 5-foot intervals from the cores of both Ch-l and Ch-2 were "counted", the percent BPL read from the curve and compared with the data obtained from chemical analyses of samples representing each 5-foot interval. Correlation was good over a range of BPL content from 0 to 37 percent and merited continuing the study. The cores had been analyzed for BPL content prior to this study and were selected from those of both the Savannah and Valdosta areas as it was known the phosphorite deposits from these areas are distinctly different. Forty-two (42) samples (c) were counted in the 0.585 to 0.625 mev range and the "counts per minute" plotted against the percent BPL as shown on the log-log graph, Figure 2. The chart was then divided into sections. The horizontal line through 9 percent BPL had already been selected as the minimum BPL content required for further study. The question was "What radiation rate would indicate those samples which should be analyzed directly ~or BPL by chemical means and not miss any potentially commercial samples?" An arbitrary level of 10 counts per minute was selected; any sample showing more than this level would then be analyzed chemically and beneficiated if over 9 percent BPL. 7 The quadrants therefor represent: Upper Right: Matrices meriting beneficiation for economic evaluation. Upper Left : A phosphorite sample would have unusually low "associated uranium"; apparently not occurring in Georgia. Lower Right: Samples merit analysis only. Lower Left Matrices do not merit analysis nor beneficiation. To further check the validity of this technique, 35 more samples were counted, prior to chemical analyses, and then plotted () on the chart. A review of the chart shows that for the 77 samples: (l) No phosphorite layers of commercial interest were missed by the radiation technique. (2) Fifty-four samples were shown as having no commercial interest by both methods. (32 samples had less than 1% BPL) (3) Ten samples were shown as of possible commercial interest by the radiation method but of no commercial interest by the analytical method. (4 samples had less than 1% BPL) (4) Thirteen samples were indicated as of commercial interest by both methods. In other words, preliminary screening of these 77 samples would have eliminated 54 (70%) as not meriting analytical laboratory attention. Remembering that the sample for radiation counting is a point sample; the procedure to determine matrices of interest is: (1) "Count" samples from each 5-foot depth; or where an interface is observed. (2) When "counts" exceed 10 per minute, take average samples from core intervals on each side of the high count samples and analyze for BPL content in the analytical laboratory. ( 3) Matrices having more than 9. 0 percent BPL are submitted for beneficiation and economic evaluation. 8 IIW\ DOES o 0 1-':-i ;_-:l_!d !!I I HnT' R 1--F"" i.f~ i!:i U-~ '-1-' \I II liJ A lA I'~ l'i ' l:t ~~:!J . I; ril= 5 ! tr-~~d ! i ~ ' il ll IJ 11 ' I~ :t -t l<' I; IJ , ' I 1-l ~ ~ . ~j_ 1111 m- .=f:Tt -~ iJ ~~~ i Lttllrtlt.1t11IH: :~-:: , ,~.-.: If! !::.::;-:--' ~ l:;-!:f2 1~' f:9 !-t l::r.:; t-r- 1=!+ ;_~ ' lfJ - ~lli!. :;-.r:.b _ o'i l':i , ft~~j i~ F_; b: lb.; . Ill: I H- I ' 11-h !:l- 1~ Hlf 1: 0 I I l ob 2 2. 3 6 78 10 10 COUNTS PER MINUTE RADIATION EMISSION ( 0.585 to 0.625 MeV) VS % BPL 6 7 8 9 I0 100 Figure 2. Radiation Emission (0.585 to 0.625 Mev) vs %B.P.L. 9 RESULTS Data are presented under the individual counties listed in alphabetic~l order. A drill site location map, lithologic logs (Figure 3, "Legend for Lithologic Logs", is used for all 11thologic logs), core recovery and BPL content (by chemical analyses), and electric resistivity and gamma-ray logs are given for each hole. "WS" in tables denotes "wash samples" when necessitated by inability to recover satisfactory cores for that interval. Phosphorite deposits in Chatham County east of Savannah were found to be distinctly different in characteristics from those in South (",eorgia and those just north in Effingham County. The Chatham County deposits are shown to meet economic criteria for utilization for the manufacture of elemental phosphorous by the electric-furnace process. They did not yield a beneficiated product, even with modifications to the flotation procedure to meet the minimum BPL content currently desired by the wet-acid phosphate fertilizer industry. Calcination of the flotation product will yield a marginal commercial material. The existence of economically useful phosphorites in Echols County west and north of Statenville (see Project Report Nos. 2 and 4) was confirmed. The occurrence of high quality deposits, which meet economic criteria, in southwestern Lanier County (see Project Report No. 3) also was conf'irmed. The area in Lowndes County between these good deposits in Echols and Lanier Counties was found to contain phosphorites of significantly less promise of interest to the fertilizer industry. Analyse's of BPL content showed insufficient levels f'or current or near future economic interest in holes drilled in Jeff Davis (3), Liberty (1), Long (2), Montgomery (1), Wayne (1), and Wheeler (1) Counties. 10 A laboratory measurement of radiation emissions from samples was developed and as previously shown is useful in reducing the number of samples submitted to the chemical laboratory for BPL analyses. The method was developed and tested concurrent with drilling -reported herein. ll LEGEND SAND CLAY SANDY CLAY K\N\\N\\WJ CALCAREOUS SAND ~~ CALCAREOUS CLAY ~'~i\\-lW CALCAREOUS SANDY CLAY 1::::::::::::::::1 LIMESTONE CARBONACEOUS MATERIAL CHERT F>>>>>Qs<~ CALCAREous CHERT Figure 3. Legend for Lithologic Logs 12 CHATHAM COUNTY J3 SUMMARY OF RESULTS Five holes were core drilled over the area east of the city of Savannah. One core from the western end of McQ.ueens Island was made available by the U. S. Geological Survey. Data on the phosphorite deposits are of exceptional interest. Q.uantity and quality data show several areas of definite economically feasible utilization for electric furnace operations. The deposits are distinctly different from those of South Georgia and of Effingham County; beneficiation process modifications were necessary, and the product quality showed them suitable for electric furnace use but somewhat low to mee t current specifications for wet acid fertilizer grade material. These Chatham County phosphorites appear similar to the North Carolina deposits near Aurora. In Hole No. Ch-1, four layers of potential commercial interest were found, the first being at 60-70 feet below the surface and the fourth layer at 152-160. In Ch-5, just five miles NNE from Ch-l, only one layer, at 98-101 feet, was found to merit beneficiation. The matrices generally contained unusually high amounts of -150 mesh material, primarily of clays and other finely divided materials. Difficulties in flotation were considered to be due to the presence of hard clay chips which were not dispersed by the usual washing step and to unusually high calcium carbonates concentrations. 14 II 0 2 3 SCALE IN MILES CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA Figure CH-1. Location of Holes -Chatham County. 15 20 1"'2=2'-0'='----l}~;~iftt 40 160 180 Figure CH-2. Lithologic Logs - Chatham County. 16 Ch.4 Ch.5 0 :~:\Y~:~ :{~~:.: 0 ~:f-E;:; 20 ~;.;,.":""'_,.-...... ~7:.':"~ 20 ~;:~: ~~t~~: ~t~:~=~-~:Y:.~~ 40 100~~-:-...~~ 40 i~*~ . ~z-:-: :. . :~.:~.:;: ... .... 60 -~ __ ~~,,_..,....-....7..,-._:."~-_;. ~~ ~~~~.: 60 _:,.i...~....~. f-_-______ ~~~~~ eo 022 1- L&J L&J "- ~.":-._--4'....-.-..,.:..-w:;.... ~"'.:..:-~ ~ ...,~~"'i-= ~...,..~--: -----~--~- - eo ...- -- ~~ :J: 1a.-. ~ 1&--.2-~ "J:~ cL&J 100 ~-:...:.-:.:~ rl-...t..,._ ---- Jt~~if 100 120 120 140 140 160 160 leO~--~------L---~------L---~------._--~------~--~ IeO Figure CH-2. Lithologic Logs- Chatham County (Cont.). 17 -- - .::. 1---- -- 1- _ 1 -~ 1- =1==1= ::1: + == = --r----- CHATHAM -- -- === - _ ::-__----r-- ===t=-==--~-==-=~r=-=-=-=-ll-==-t----==-=1 r----- - - ~ _ r----- -- - -- 1- -- -- - - - I-- - - - 0 10 1- - - - 20 - 30 40 - - - -1--'T- - - - - -- =--=--=-~~ 1- 1 - - I~ 1- - - 1- - - - - - 1-=t= . --- r-- - -- ==== ===- 50 ~ 60 1--tr------ -1- ---J----f-1- 1-- ----=-:. -::.= r---- - :I=== r-- _1--~~ -- - --- - - - - r----- =---- -- 1- 1- 1 - - 70 1--- - _ _ 1- _ ~-- - -1- eo 1- r - - r---- 1- -r---- 90 = 100 I~ GAMMA SCALE .005 _ ---+-- 1 ---!~1-- - ---~ r----- t--- 110 i-- - 1-----"fs:.::;;:; 120 I- ;:::. . 1------ . - - f::-:: - - - - - - !---- - - - 130 -- - - -- -- r----- -- - - -=== .:_ - 140 _ _ 150 - - - - ~- ~ -- ______.; - - --- - - -,- -- -- 1 =~ $ ==~~~~~-~~~----= -=== - === 160 I==!=== It=- _ - - 1- -- - 170 - - !---- ) =:- ----r---- - - -1- - Jf--- 1 - '- - - - ___--_ __ - - ~==:= f--- 180 -=--- -~ 1--- - - ------- c---::: - - 1- ,_. - -- 1---, f-'- - - - -- - _ _ ~==:= - 1- 1- - : _ _-- 190 - ..: =::3 ~ - - - 200 210 - -r- -~---- r---- 1- -- 1 -- t---1 1-- :--- 220 - - 230 - 240 r-- 250 260 270 1-1- 1- r--- ' r--- 1- 1- r--- - -t-- -1- --1--- 1- 1 - -" 1- Figure CH-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Chatham County Hole Chl - r-- - - '----- I - - - . - r ' 0 I GAMMA SCALE .005 == 10 20 CHATHAM 2 1 1 1 1 I -r- S.P. 10 MV. FF-F3 - 0 -I 10 20 RESISTIVITY 25 OHMS t--' CX> 30 30 -- "" 40 40 f- --+-- ' -- 50 50 60 - 60 -'1- t---- -- L- 70 70 80 6' -~ - 80 90 100 f - - f------- : f------- 110 '----- - 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 I 190 200 210 90 "" 100 110 -f- . 120 130 --r-- 140 -- - - 150 1--:--- 160 ,- 170 ~- -- 180 190 f----- 200 1 -1.-.,.,.._... 210 - - 1- - 1-l Figure CH-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Chatham County Hole Ch-2 19 1- - - ~ . - 10 - CHATHAM 3 r---- ~ 10 - ~ - - --- - -- 20 GAMMA SCALE .005 -- .. -- I ~ - 30 1- --- 1-'"r- 40 1- 1---- f-- 1----::;;;>" I~ 50 1- 1---- ---- -- - +- - -- - - - 1---1---- 60 70 eo - 1- - -- 90 - 1- 1 -- 100 1---- ;--- 1- - -- - - 1- - 1---1- 1- ;;;) ~ - -- - .- ~ - 1 - - r- ,_ 1- 1---- 1- - r-- - 1- -- ,----- - 110 120 1- 130 140 150 ,- 1---- - 11- 1---- 1---- 1- - ;--- 1- 1- r-- --:: - - 1- - 1- :---- 11- Figure CH-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Chatham Hole Ch-3 1\) 0 - 0 10 F -1 - 20 GAMMA SCALE .005 F-----1 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 CHATHAM 4 S.P. 20 MV 1--+-- = - 0 10 20 RESISTIVITY 25 OHMS 30 :I 40 50 60 70 80 90 1-- 100 Figure CH-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Chatham County Hole Ch-4 It - 0 ~- ' 10 GAMMA SCALE .005 _ :----1 20 30 1- 40 50 1- 60 70 =--. eo 90 100 110 CHATHAM 5 I-- -= 1--- S.P. 20 MV. - 1-.' - 14= - 1--- ,' 0 10 1- 20 30 40 -- .~ I= RESISTIVITY I== _. 25 OHMS 1- I-- -- 1----- 50 _ - 1- t - 1- 60 ==- 1--- - - - . 70 ----' f--t-- 1- 80 1-----[ _ ~- 1- 90 100 1---r----=- 110 ' 1- 1----1- -1 ---11 -1 ----' 1--- - - - -- ~- Figure CH-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Chatham County Hole Ch-5 1\) 1-' 22 TABLE CH-1 CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATIONS ON CORES Chatham County SUrf'ace Elevation Hole (Sea Level) Depth, Core Recover;y BPL No. Feet Feet Feet ~ _L_ Ch-1 12 0-10 Rat Hole w. s. o.o 10-15 3 60 .10 15-20 5 100 .51 20-25 4 80 .71 25-28 3 100 .71 28-33 5 100 .74 33-35 2 100 .74 35-45 8 80 .88 45-50 5 100 1.04 50-55 5 100 3.44 55-60 5 100 6.74 60-65 5 100 9.58 65-70 5 100 9.48 -70-75 5 100 6.20 75-80 4 100 5.12 80-87 6 85 5.26 87-92 5 100 4.45 92-97 5 100 4.62 97-102 5 100 3.74 102-107 5 100 55.40 107-112 5 100 4.35 112-117 5 100 3.94 117-122 5 100 11.1 122-127 5 100 7-92 127-132 5 100 6.91 132-137 5 100 25.4 137-142 5 100 22.8 142-147 5 100 20.8 147-152 5 100 4.28 152-157 5 100 31.5 157-160 3 100 22.6 160-165 5 100 4.38 165-175 8k2- 175-185 8 85 3.71 80 3.51 185-190 5 100 2.90 190-195 5 100 2.63 195-200 2.02 200-205 7.08 205-208 2.36 (Continued) Hole No. Ch-1 23 TABLE CH-1 (Continued) CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATIONS ON CORES Chatham County SUrface Elevation (Sea Level) Feet Depth, Feet 208-213 213-218 218-228 228-238 238-243 243-248 248-258 258-268 268-278 Core Recovery Feet ~ BPL ...1_ 1.67 1.01 2.70 .6r( .33 1.34 .33 .84 .16 24 Hole No. Ch-2 TABLE CH-1 CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATION ON CORES Chatham County Surface Elevation (Sea Level) Feet 15 Depth, Feet 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-30 30-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100-105 105-110 110-115 115-120 120-125 125-130 130-135 135-140 140..:145 145-150 150-155 155-160 160-165 165-200 200-205 205-210 Core Recoverl Feet 1 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 2 20 3 30 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 14 5 100 5 100 BPL _1_ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.81 1.32 .71 3.68 2.06 1.72 1.55 1.32 2.29 3-03 3.88 4.01 4.15 4.05 10.39 6.78 9-27 6.54 20.57 30.11 30.58 34.30 16.02 2.87 13.79 3.64 .51 .74 .47 24A Hole No. Ch-3 TABLE CH-1 CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATIONS ON CORES Chatham County SUrface Elevation (Sea Level) Feet 13 Depth, Feet 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-23 23-30 30-36 36-40 40-45 45-49 49-53 53-56 56-60 60-63 63-67 67-71 71-75 75-59 79-83 83-87 87-90 90-93 93-97 97-101 101-105 105-108 108-112 112-116 116-120 120-123 123-127 127-131 131-135 135-140 140-145 145-150 150-159 Core Recover~ Feet 12 5 100 5 100 0 0 8 100 0 0 6 100 4 100 5 100 4 100 4 100 3 100 4 100 3 100 4 100 4 100 4 100 4 100 4 100 4 100 3 100 3 100 4 100 4 100 4 100 3 100 4 100 4 100 4 100 3 100 4 100 4 100 4 100 4 100 4 100 5 100 9 100 BPL J_ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.5. 0.9 2.2 3.9 5.0 5.5 4.6 7.1 30.2 23.0 4.1 29.3 42.0 40.2 38.8 1.3 2.2 1.5 1.9 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.7 9.4 3.6 0.9 25 TABLE CH-1 CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATIONS ON CORES Chatham County Surface Elevation Hole (Sea Level) Depth, Core Recover;z:: BPL No. Feet Feet Feet ~ _j_ Ch-4 8 45-50 5 100 .57 50-55 5 100 .77 55-65 8 80 .84 65-75 2 20 0.0 75-82 4 80 3.20 82-87 5 100 29.33 87-90 3 100 38.92 90-97 5 72 32.24 97-102 5 100 4.49 102-104 2 100 1.58 Ch-5 10 0-5 5 100 0.0 5-15 15-17 2 100 1.01 17-28 3 27 .57 28-35 5 71 o.o 35-40 5 100 .78 4o-48 5 63 .61 48-52 4 100 0.0 52-60 5 63 1.35 60-67 67-75 5 50 2.77 75-79 4 100 4.59 79-82 3 100 7.35 82-86 4 100 4.25 86-90 4 100 5.80 90-94 4 100 7.01 94-98 4 100 8.80 98-101 3 100 31.50 101-104 3 100 6.91 1\J ()'\ TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) l6Xl50 l6X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 ~1,2_Q Concentrates HOLE NO. Ch-1 Surface Elevation = 12 feet (sea level) Matrix Interval = 60-70 feet Total Matrix footage 10 Dry Density lb/cu ft 57.66 Percent dry -r;;eight 100.0 0.35 1.59 5.90 56.28 5.45 50.82 35.89 12.57 Percent BPL 10.05 16.93 12.41 10.52 12.95 16.12 13.42 5-25 63.67 Percent acid insol Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 77-37 72.48 74.42 1.53 0.80 1.14 5-57 2.10 4.03 10.06 18.01 14.52 79-76 1.06 3.65 13-99 79.80 0.57 3-37 11.98 73-71 0.67 2.69 14.78 78.99 0.46 3.31 12.59 73-34 3.14 9.44 6.13 8.88 0.99 1.23 52.47 Fatty Acid T_ailing 47.85 4.01 93-53 0.24 3.28 8.74 Amine Float 39-58 7.15 88.88 0.44 3.72 8.57 Note 1: Iron and Alumina content of 4X8 and 8Xl6 are close to 5%. Note 2: Flotation was slightly difficult. Standard flotation was modified to get clean concentrate. The sand floated in the amine float had to be given a cleaner float to increase recovery of phosphate. (Continued) TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed +4 4X8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) l6Xl50 l6X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates HOLE NO. Ch-1 Surface Elevation = l2 feet (Sea level) Matrix interval = 117-122 feet Total Matrix footage 5 Dry density lb/cu ft 49.19 Percent dry weight 100.0 0.20 0.45 1.69 34.33 3.58 30.85 63.33 19.01 Percent BPL 9.14 24.89 8.84 13.05 14.50 16.56 15.54 6.08 62.99 Percent acid insol 70.63 51.30 67.80 61.50 70.70 61.89 67.09 70.92 9.04 Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 2.60 2.27 2.90 9-32 6.84 8.78 10.31 26.93 14.52 2.95 8.77 16.36 1.68 8.00 14.17 2.69 8.31 16.79 2.02 7.85 15.74 3.09 10.06 7.97 0.65 1.28 46.87 Fatty Acid Tailing 42.25 10.68 69.00 2.90 8.72 6.65 Amine Float 38.73 4.79 93-37 0.26 5.14 2.27 Note 1: Flotation was difficult. A second sample was run due to a possible mistake in labeling, but results were confirmed. (Continued) J\) -.:J 1\) a:> TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed HOLE NO. Ch-1 +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) 16Xl50 16X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -1~_0_ Concentrates Surface Elevation = 12 feet (Sea Level) Matrix Interval = 132-142 feet. Total Matrix footage 10 Dry density lb/cu ft 52.02 Percent dry weight 00.0 0.08 0.26 2.20 38.91 3.47 35.44 58.55 23.02 Percent BPL 26.64 61.74 21.88 18.88 44.51 49.37 45.73 15.03 67.07 Percent acid insol Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 48.97 7.86 47.43 1.74 0.84 2.40 6.35 1.74 6.77 26.50 57.72 24.49 53-92 2.46 7.42 21.16 32.54 0.61 2.91 40.23 20.80 1.19 3.08 44.60 30.53 0.61 2.63 40.23 59-77 2.46 8.60 17-54 7.74 0.56 1.13 35.68 Fatty Acid Tailing 75-79 36.66 43.39 0.87 4.04 20.29 Amine Float 1.19 17.74 73.27 0.48 4.79 9.44 Notes: Iron and Alumina contents of 4x8 and 8Xl6 are more than 5%. Amine flotation very difficult. - (Continued) TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed HOLE NO. Ch-l +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) l6Xl50 l6X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates -- Surface Elevation = 12 feet (Sea Level) Matrix Interval = 152-160 feet Total Matrix footage Dry density lb/cu ft Percent dry weight Percent BPL Percent acid insol Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 8 8L54 100.0 2.17 30.01 65.85 43.07 5.77 0.54 1.02 2.66 0.88 31.48 54.63 0.47 56.25 14.95 0.74 1.84 52.47 2.68 33.45 50.49 0.33 l.65 33.41 66.91 36.32 47.17 0.24 1.64 32.36 10.64 21.75 67.63 0.13 1.60 20.99 56.27 38.58 43.86 0.23 1.78 34.11 27.77 11.23 35.86 1.24 5.37 27.01 48.95 65.89 5.88 0.44 0.60 59.47 Fatty Acid Tailing 47.48 6.14 90.58 0.11 2.60 7.34 Amine Float 3.57 8.70 87.11 0.41 3.07 9.27 Notes: +4 is a composite of 2 samples: One is a chunk of bone and the other is pebble. They were analyzed separately. WT,gm "/a DRY % HT. BPL % % % % A. I. -Fe-2o3- - AL2-o3 Cao -- "BONE" 128.3 1.87 69.20 3.46 Lo6 0.72 59.47 "PEBBLES" 20.07 0.30 45.12 20.04 0.78 1.88 24.66 Compos. +4 149.0 2.17 65.85 5.77 1.02 0.88 54.63 Some trouble in the amine flotation. A sample of a second concentrate was p&ssed thru a magnetic separator with the following results: Mag. - 31. 8gm Non Mag. 4l0.2gm 7.15% wt. 7.15"/o AI 92.8 % wt. 6.73"/o AI 63.40"/o BPL 64.41"/o BPL l. 34"/o AL2o3 0.75% AL2o3 1.42 Fe2o3 0.32 Fe2o3 51.42 Cao 52.12 Cao r,;. v w 0 TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) l6Xl50 l6X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates HOLE NO. Ch-2 Surface Elevation = 15 feet (Sea level) Matrix Interval = 115-120 feet Total Matrix footage 5 Dry density lb/cu ft 77.67 Percent dry weight 100.0 0.25 0.68 4.75 55-71 4.79 51.07 38.61 13.51 Percent BPL 9-51 27.89 32.27 8.19 13.22 12.21 13.08 3.80 63.63 Percent acid insol Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 79.12 57.18 52.12 1.67 1.36 0.81 5-59 0.90 1.96 6.65 18.31 24.84 88.82 0.24 0.76 4.43 80.64 0.44 1.54 8.74 82.49 0.26 0.94 7.00 80.30 0.43 1.50 9.44 76.35 3.64 12.12 3-51 5-71 0.34 0.80 52.47 Fatty Acid Tailing 80.79 2.26 96-30 0.17 0.92 1.05 Amine Float 5.70 5-97 91.09 1.02 2.38 3.61 Note: Dereagentization proceeded with effervescence on addition of acid. It was not possible to attain a PH lower than 4.2. Amine flotation was poor. Since the amount of flotation feed was very small, the products of the test were placed again into the cell and re-floated. (Continued) TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) 16Xl50. 16X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates HOLE NO. Ch-2 Surface Elevation = 15 feet (Sea Level) Matrix Interval = 125-150 feet Total Matrix footage 25 Dry density lb/cu ft 66.14 Percent dry weight 100.0 0.26 0.52 1.12 50.51 1.82 48.69 47.59 57.07 Percent BPL 25.76 39.76 55.41 52.44 36.22 32.31 39.08 13.63 63.13 Percent acid insol 48.74 24.10 13.99 20.84 45.04 51.13 42.86 53.84 6.93 Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 1.38 0.38 0.77 5.06 1.74 1.82 21.69 38.48 46.17 0.64 1.41 43.38 0.31 1.39 30.08 0.49 1.68 26.24 0.35 1.85 31.83 2.55 9.09 11.92 0.32 0.94 52.47 Fatty Acid Tailing 25.63 4.42 92.40 0.11 1.38 2.45 Amine Float 17.31 5.87 90.81 0.19 1.86 3.38 (Continued) w t--' LA) [\) TABLE CH-2 MATRIX: BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) 16X150 16X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates HOLE NO. Ch-2 Surface Elevation = 15 feet (Sea Level) Matrix Interval = 155-160 feet Total Matrix footage 5 Dry density lb/cu ft 89.62 Percent dry weight 100.00 7.14 2.86 2.86 38.93 5.36 33.57 48.21 14.29 Percent BPL 14.o6 33.92 39.59 35.78 11.67 26.34 9.14 10.25 39.86 Percent acid insol Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 43.15 18.39 15.08 0.78 0.68 0.88 2.01 0.90 0.80 28.33 43.38 43.02 17.94 0.75 1.08 42.32 69.67 0.41 1. 73 12.42 31.29 0.64 1.25 34.28 75.44 0.31 1.83 10.14 28.56 1.09 2.53 37.25 3.71 0.46 0.47 54.57 Fatty Acid Tai].ing 50.00 2.60 92.08 0.12 0.96 2.68 Amine Float 35.71 6.31 91.75 0.46 1.91 7.00 Note: Flotation difficult . Dereagentizatio:n difficult, buffered at PH6. Required additional washing before amine float . TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) 16Xl50 16X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates HOLE NO. Ch-3 Surface Elevation = 13 feet (Sea Level) Matrix Interval = 83-90 feet Total Matrix footage 7 Dry density lb/cu ft 57-76 Percent dry weight 100.0 0.05 0.05 0.43 52.18 4.02 48.16 47.29 61.32 Percent BPL 28.02 60.02 57.66 55.07 37.75 47.68 42.25 16.97 65.76 Percent acid insol Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 47.23 7.24 10.22 1.34 0.99 0.72 5.42 1.82 l. 77 23.44 48.97 47.22 13.27 0.89 2.20 45.12 35-58 0.46 2.36 35-33 21.04 1.12 2.98 39.88 38.51 0.64 2.89 31.83 60.48 2.32 8.83 10.07 2.03 0.36 0.76 53.17 Fatty Acid Tailing 20.38 5.63 91.11 0.09 2.40 3.50 Amine Float 18.29 15.24 76.43 0.23 3.77 9.91 Note: Difficult to float. Required scrubbing before fatty acid flotation. (Continued) w w LV -!="" TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) l6Xl50 l6X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Cone entrates f{OLE NO. Ch-3 Surface Elevation = 13 feet (Sea Level) Matrix Interval 93-108 feet Total Matrix footage 15 Dry density lb/cu ft 73.30 Percent dry weight 100.0 0.36 0.89 4.o6 63.14 10.61 52.53 31.55 57.22 Percent BPL 35.41 37.94 53-25 40.43 34.43 24.85 36.08 36.19 60.09 Percent acid insol 45.95 24.75 16.87 37.07 48.68 63.08 44.88 42.69 12.95 Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 0.74 0.46 0.65 3.27 1.18 1.55 26.93 37.08 44.07 0.51 1.55 33.23 0.21 1.04 27.28 0.09 0.88 19.24 0.27 1.25 29.73 1.84 8.03 24.82 0.31 0.94 48.27 Fatty Acid Tailing 29.40 4.32 93-50 0.09 1.02 2.22 Amine Float 13.38 9.48 85.72 0.16 1.34 5.71 Note : When de-reagentized, the pH reached a buffer value of 4.5. Therefore it was hard to de-oil and performed badly in the amine circuit. TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County Feed HOLE NO . Ch-4 +4 4x8 8X16 (Flat. feed) 16Xl50 16X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates Surface Elevation = 8 feet (Sea Level) Matrix Interval = 82-97 feet Total Matrix footage 15 Dry density lb/cu ft 80.19 Percent dry weight 100.0 0.95 0.73 2.15 59.62 7.10 52.52 36.55 51.19 Percent BPL 34.40 10.69 41.01 40.94 41.95 23.94 43.91 22.18 66.50 Percent acid insol Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 41.31 22.96 29.05 0.64 0.34 0.71 2.41 0.73 1.67 28.33 28.33 35.68 35-55 0.41 1.28 32.18 38.60 0.34 1.40 32.88 64.90 0.18 1.26 17.84 36.04 0.34 1.44 33.93 46.79 1.15 4.18 20.53 2.68 0.39 0.71 52.47 Fatty Acid Tailin~ 21.77 2.90 95.30 0.10 1.34 1.05 Amine Float 27.04 24.75 62.80 0.34 2.36 18.89 w V1 VJ 0" TABLE CH-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Chatham County +16* Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) l6Xl50 l6X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates HOLE NO. Ch-5 Surface Elevation ~ 10 feet (Sea Level) Matrix Interval = 98-101 feet Total Matrix footage 3 Dry density lb/cu ft 64.16 Percent dry weight 100.0 0.00 0.00 0.68 49.32 3.81 45.51 50.00 71.54 Percent BPL 31.16 0.00 0.00 67.54 48.16 64.88 47.85 13.89 66.30 Percent acid insol 44.07 0.00 0.00 2.13 28.45 4.69 27.24 60.05 2.12 Percent Fe2Q3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 1.63 0.00 5-32 0.00 25.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.62 52.30 0.60 2.52 38.13 0.44 0.69 51.77 0.49 2.26 38.13 2.66 8.15 13.44 0.46 0.73 52.47 Fatty Acid Tailing 10.15 20.84 63.84 0.94 4.00 15.74 Amine Float 18.31 6.27 89.50 0.30 3.72 4.20 *Note: The amount of +4 and 4X8 was very small, 0.7 and 2.6 gm respectively, therefore, they were included and analyzed as +16. TABLE CH3 ECON MT/Ac Ratio MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac 1> BPL MT/Ac MT/Ac 1> cu yd/T cu yd/T 1> 60 117.6 10 12.6 10.0 1.3 6.0 47 92.1 5 5.4 9.1 .5 9.4 l.O .1 7.1 1.8 4.5 3.4 .9 .3 1.9 .5 10 19.6 10 11.3 26.6 3.0 1.0 .3 4.4 6.6 l.O 1.3 10 19.6 8 14.2 30.0 4.3 1.3 .8 9-5 4.0 4.7 5.4 127 248.9 33 43.5 20.8 9-0 3-9 2.2 22.8 18.5 6.9 9 -1 .1 63.7 .6 .7 53.6 8o.7 8.6 2.2 .01 63.0 .2 .21 48.4 .3 17.0 1.9 .o6 67.1 .7 .76 24.5 21.4 12.4 1.7 .4 65.9 3.1 3-5 8o.5 3.3 2.4 1.0 -.6 4.5 5-1 56.3 33-7 5-9 1.7 115 225.4 5 8.5 9.5 .8 23.0 5 9.8 25 36 25 . 8 9-3 .2 .5 .7 4.7 18.2 3-3 17.1 .6 10.4 1.1 11.1 .o6 63.6 .4 .46 57.5 .2 7.2 1.1 .4 63.1 6.6 7.0 l.O l.O 3.6 1.3 5 9.8 5 9.8 14.1 1.4 l.O 1.3 3.8 4.7 .5 1.8 .5 39 . 9 .2 .7 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.0 FIGURES OF MERIT Overburden Matrix BPL 1n Matrix BPL in F1ot. Cooc. (l) BPL in Flot. Cone . (2) Overburden/Matrix Overburden/Products I+A in Flat. Cone. Products Recovery BPL (+150) Recovery ! i % Ratio cu yd/T i T/Ac-ft i cu yd/T Econ. Level 88 max 3 min 10 min 66 min 52 min 2 max 17.5 max 5 max 400 min 63 min 6 max 1.5 1.9 3-3 1.7 l.O .9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 .3 .2 .2 .1 2.3 2.6 .5 .2 .9 .8 .7 .4 8.8 8.8 1 3-3 2.7 11.0 2.7 3.0 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.0 1.6 .5 .8 5-3 5 3.0 4.8 2.9 .3 1.7 -7 .4 1..3 -9 .5 2.5 l.O .8 17.6 1.7 8 .3 1.0 2.6 1.0 l.O 1.2 1.2 .1 10.0 .1 17.6 4.4 4.0 .6 1.1 .9 1.2 .8 1.7 17.6 1.7 1.4 .6 .8 2.0 3-9 5.4 -9 .8 1.3 ( 1 ;For wet acid proce s:; . (2 )For electric fUrnac~ process. *Sum of +16 mesh and I~lotat i on concentrate . !IO:ES: Overburden ~as-:.d on dry densit.:r q average = 90 lb . /cu . ft. Matrix factors base d on actua l dry densi ty. ractors USJ..ETf..Ol..\ll59399'' '\. ..., \ ' '_...... ' \. -- -.. .... - -...... ........... _______ .. , ~., , ,..~ .- ' ,...- - .,,'~ ~,' -... ,_,...,_. ~ '>-.-~ \ I-""\ - / .........,..... \ ( I ............ / '-..., ../ .... ; \..a. \ / \ '\ W<.9 , \ / . \ .\ I 1.133, y \ ...\ ~ TOI30 /" ' ,, \ , \ ,' ~__,, . I _________.!..,,!. \ >r --------------------.....:::;~---- F' L 0 Rl DA ECHOLS COUNTY GEORGIA Figure EC-1. Location of Holes - Echols County Ec.l5 0 /,~\~%~ II20 . 40 ~;~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ 60 ~ t- ILl eo ILl "- z ~~ :I: t- 0. ILl 100 0 Ec. 16 IIJ ~....-~...::.:- ~ -=~~?- ~ ~ ~:-::.- ~~~ Ec. 17 II ;.:-:..,:~.". ..':..:..~ t~ .."':.:t.u7~ ~~ .::..~::~ r#~~:: P._-.:r..:..~-~ ~~~~ ~~ kSS- -~ ~;~~ ~:~:~ 120 140 160 180 Figure EC-2. Lithologic Logs - Echols County 49 0 20 40 60 eo 100 120 140 160 180 \.Jl 0 I :I I I '"'l_ I ~ --\ ' ./ {"_ --.. -- -, ~ ./ ' .r.'_ , ' ,1 -... . I I GAMMA SCALE .005 I J Jr--------.1 I - ECHOLS 16 - 0 ~ 10 20 L-- - -- 30 - 1- - 40 1-- 50 1- -I- 60 70 - ~ - - --1 -- 80 . -- - -- Figure EC-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Echols County Hole Ec-16 - 1--- GAMMA SCALE .005 ' ~ 0 10 - r:=-- 20 30 40 50 60 70 eo r--- ECHOLS 17 1 - -' 0 -- t-- S P. 50 MV 0 ~ 1::: <>ESISTIVITY 25 OHMS 10 20 30 ~ f - Figure EC-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Echols County Hole Ec-17 V1 f-' 52 LEGEND F7///i ~~ ( I) Ec-17 Core Pl~gs E-45 Wash Drill Samples Weighted Average of E-45 Wash Samples in 25-65 ft. Interval (2) Weighted Average of Ec-17 Plugs in 25-65 ft. Interval. (3) Composite Matrix Sample of Ec-17 25-65 ft. Interval 25.93 ( I) 25 _J fl.. CD ~ 20.86 (2) 0 20 18.55 (3) 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 DEPTH, FT. Figure EC-4 Comparison of Results Obtained by Drilling in Well No. Ec-17 and Wash Drilling in Well No. E-45. Hole No. Ec -15 Ec-16 53 TABLE EC-1 CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATION ON CORES Echols County Surface Elevation (Sea Level) Feet 106 120 Depth, Feet 0-5 5-10 10-18 18-23 23-30 30-35 35-45 45-47 47-50 50-52 52-54 54-58 58-60 60-63 63-79 79-82 82-87 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-16 16-19 19-24 24-29 29-34 34-38 38-42 42-45 45-48 48-54 54-55 55-60 60-64 64-65 65-70 Core Recovery Feet ~ 5 100 5 100 6 75 4 80 4 56 2 40 6 60 2 100 3 100 2 100 2 100 4 100 2 100 3 100 3 100 1 20 5 100 5 100 5 100 1 100 3 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 4 100 4 100 3 100 3 100 6 100 1 100 4 80 4 100 l 100 5 100 BPL _j__ 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 2.4 0.9 4.0 1.3 1.7 3.2 9.0 3.9 3.3 2.9 0.5 0.6 o.o 0.0 o.o 0.0 3.4 1.8 2.3 3.0 4.0 18.5 4.3 3.3 1.5 1.5 1.9 0.3 1.9 3.2 (Continued) Hole No. Ec-17 TABLE EC-1 CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATION ON CORES Echols County Surface Elevation (Sea Level) Feet 146 Depth, Feet 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-18 18-25 25-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-74 74-76 76-80 Core Recovery Feet ~ 5 100 5 100 5 100 3 100 2 30 5 50 4 80 4 80 4 80 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 3 75 2 100 5 100 BPL J._ 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 20.2 25.9 25.8 12.1 18.6 20.1 5.4 2.5 8.6 1.3 TABLE EC-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Echols County Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) l6Xl50 l6X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -l50 Concentrates HOLE NO . Ec-16 Surface Elevation = 120 feet (sea level) Matrix Interval = 38-42 feet Total matrix footage 4 Dry density lb/cu ft 66.90 Percent dry weight 100.0 6.04 6.49 7.59 33.73 9.45 24.28 46.14 14.11 Percent BPL 18.38 32.20 42.32 33.96 18.48 18.88 15.01 10.57 64.41 Percent acid insol 43.79 12.76 17.31 29.10 67.29 63.83 - 68.72 36.82 6.34 Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 1.78 1.30 L69 3.25 0.83 l.OO 13.99 25.71 25.71 1.40 1.26 21.34 0.86 0.82 1.54 1.14 9.09 10.49 0.92 1.93 8.74 2.59 5.46 13.18 2.27 0.77 32.88 Fatty Acid Ta.iling 68.80 11.13 78.90 0.48 1.26 5.25 Amine Float 17.10 10.62 83.99 0.84 l . 78 3.50 (Continued) \_:-; '-'' \.11 (j\ TABLE EC-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Echols County Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) 16Xl50 16X35 (Slime) Concen35Xl50 -150 - trates HOLE NO. Ec-17 Surface Elevation = 146 feet (sea level) Matrix Interval = 25-65 feet Total Matrix footage 40 Dry density lb/cu ft 90.20 Percent dry weight 100.0 1.39 3.78 4.91 67.63 12.98 54.65 22.28 12.09 Percent BPL 18.55 67.10 64.75 45.52 9.44 12.14 9.10 29.38 74.18 Percent acid inso1 Percent Fe2o3 Percent A12o3 Percent CaO 74.33 9.61 13.02 0.74 0.90 0.61 3.06 1.18 1.58 6. 70 31.66 30.43 39.33 0.57 1.30 20.64 88.17 0.20 1.38 2.80 84.42 0.12 0.77 4.20 88.42 0.16 1.50 2.80 54.48 2.43 8.92 9.88 3.74 0.84 1.58 34.98 Fatty Acid Tailing 80.52 0.67 98.07 0.02 0.69 0.00 Amine Float 7-39 6.74 90.99 0.95 2.07 1.40 EC-3 EC:WOMIC FACTORS - FIGURES OF MERIT Echols County Matrix No.: Matrix Interval, Ft.: ITEM Ul!IT (11=100J) Ec-16 First 38-42 Ec-17 First 25-65 :-:::12 i;G. ECONOMIC FACTCRS * Overburden, Overburden, * Matrix, Matrix, * BPL in Matrix, BPL in Matrix, * Overburden/Matrix, Wash-Screen Products +16 Mesh -16+150 -150 (Loss) * Flotation Concentrate ~ Total Useful ~ BPL Recovery +16 Mesh * -16+150 (F1ot. Cone.), -16+150 (Flot. Cone.), Total * Recovered from Matrix * Overburden/Products * Matrix/Products * I+A in Flat .. Cone. ft l~T/Ac ft l>IT/Ac .~ MT/Ac Ratio MT/Ac tiT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac ~ BPL MT/Ae MT/Ac ~ cu yd/T eu yd/T ~ 38 74.5 4 5.8 18.4 1.1 9-5 1.2 2.0 2.7 -3 1.5 .4 64.4 .2 .6 56.2 56.9 4.5 3.0 25 09 40 78.6 18.6 14.6 .6 7-9 53.1 17.5 6.4 14.4 4.4 74.2 4.8 9.2 63.0 2.8 4.5 2.4 FIGURES OF MERIT Overburden Matrix BPL in Matrix BPL in Flot. Cone. (1) BPL in Flat. Cone.(::) Overburden/Matrix Overburden/Products I+A in Flot. Cone. Products Recovery BPL ( +150) Recovery Matrix/Products Unit ft ft ~ ~ 'f, Ratio eu yd/T % T/Ae-ft % eu yd/T Econ. Level 88 max 2.3 3 min 1.3 10 min 1.8 66 min 1.0 52 min 1.2 2 max .2 17.5 max -3 5 max 1.6 400 m~ "! .9 63 min -9 o max 1.4 3-5 13-3 1.9 1.1 1.4 3.2 6.2 2.1 -9 1.0 1.3 \l}For Wt;.t acid proce.s;;. - - ~ 2JFor ~lectric- ~nace proc-=:ss. *Sum of +16 mesh and I"lotation concentrate. NOTES: Overburden bas<::d on dry densit.v@ averag; = 9'J lb./cu. ft. }ls.~:cix :'actors based on actual dry density. !'actors used: ft. thick.>1.ess x 1613 = cu. ~d../Ac; cu. y.:l x 1..:15 =- '!' (2000 lb.); ft. x 1900 = T(2000 lL )/Ac. V1 ~ TABLE EC-4 BPL DETERMINATIONS: CORE VS DRILL CUTTINGS SAMPLES Layer Depth Feet 25-35 35-40 40-45 45-50 50-55 55-60 60-65 Weighted Average No. Ec-17 22.1 20.2 26.0 25.8 12.0 18.5 20.1 20.9 12 BPL No. E-l+5 25.1 24.5 29.0 32.0 36.0 16.6 19.1 25.9 Difference + 3.0 + 4.3 + 3.0 + 6.2 +24.0 - 1.5 - 1.0 + 5.0 59 ~ N I I ~ -e1 Ln 8 j IL ___ atU,I.llll IIIILU LANIER COUNTY GEORGIA Figure LA-1. Location of Hole - Lanier County 60 La.S lll~-----1 0~~~------~--~------~---r------,----r------~--~ 0 20 20 40 60 --- :::---:::i------1 60 80 100 120 120 140 140 160 160 180~--~------~--~------~----~----~~--~------_.--~ 180 Figure LA-2. Lithologic Log - Lanier County Hole La-8 f-------1 1-- t---- 1-0 l==t 20 40 60 BO 100 ~-- - --=~ 120 M - " 0 20 t---- 40 - 60 - - - 90 ~ 100 - - - 'c.-- ' 1- - - - - Figure LA-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Lanier County Hole La-8 0\ 1--' 62 Hole No. La-8 TABLE LA-1 CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATIONS ON CORES Lanier County Surface Elevation (Sea Level) Feet 193 Depth, Feet 0-10 10-13 13-18 18-20 20-24 24-29 29-34 34-37 37-42 42-48 48-50 50-55 55-60 60-70 70-80 80-85 85-90 90-93 93-103 103-115 Core Recovery Feet '12 8 80 2 67 5 100 2 100 3 75 5 100 5 100 2 67 3 60 3 50 2 100 5 100 5 100 8 80 8 80 5 100 5 100 3 100 1 10 3 25 BPL _L 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 20.1 39-3 21.6 21.1 28.5 29.8 9-7 19.6 12.5 10.2 6.8 4.7 2.9 1.6 TABLE LA-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Lanier County Feed HOLE NO. La-8 +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) l6Xl50 l6X35 SUrface Elevation = 193 feet (sea level) Total Matrix footage 21 Dry density lb/cu ft 99.00 Percent dry weight 100.0 1.08 1.83 4.45 70.70 13.37 Percent BPL 21.11 68.42 65.99 63.80 13.05 20.16 Percent acid insol Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 73.62 ll. 78 9.34 0.78 2.24 1.09 2.48 2.67 2.08 11.89 45.12 48.62 24.14 0.71 1.30 40.93 84.88 0.22 0.71 6.65 76.38 0.21 0.56 12.24 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates ~---- Matrix Interval = 30-51 feet 57.34 11.80 86.11 0.61 0.87 5-95 21.94 32.35 55.78 2.50 8.45 18.19 10.62 78.64 7.36 0.69 1.19 53.87 Fatty Acid Tailing 83.57 4.62 94.17 0.11 0.62 l. 75 Amine :Float 5.81 9-71 88.22 0.89 1.67 4.55 Note: Iron and Alumina content of +4 is higher than 5%. The analyses of plugs showed matrix BPL contents over 10% from 60 to 85 ft. When the matrix sample was taken, it was observed that the core from 60 to 85 ft. consisted on cherty rock and thin layers of sandy matrix. Therefore, the matrix was taken only from 30 to 51 feet. w0'\ 0'\ + TAELE LA-3 ECWO:HC FACTORS - FIGURES OF MERIT Lanier County Matrix No.: Matrix Interval, Ft. : !TEN UNIT (1<1=1000) First 46-65 La-6 Second 65-95 Combined La-8 First 30-51 HOLE NO. ECONCMIC FACTORS * Overburden, Overburden, * Matrix, Matrix, 4 BPL in Matrix, BPL in Matrix, * OVerburden/Matrix, Wash-Screen ~ +16 Mesh -16+150 -150 (Loss) * Flotation Concentrate ~ Total. UsefUl ~* BPL Recovery +16 Mesh * -16+150 (F1ot . Cone.), -16+150 (Flot. Cone.), * Total. * Recovered from Matrix + Overburden/Products * Matrix/Products * I+A in Flat. Cone . ft MT/Ac ft JIIT/Ac % MT/Ac Ratio m/Ac JIIT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac JIIT/Ac % BPL MT/Ac MT/Ac % cu yd/T cu yd/T % 46 9().2 19 37.8 14.1 5-3 2.4 .8 30.6 6.4 1.5 2.3 -5 78.6 1.2 1.7 31.7 31.5 13.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 30 43.5 9-7 4.2 o.o 52.2 21.0 22.4 -3 .4 24.9 77-7 .2 25.1 6.0 o.o 139.6 1.7 46 90.2 49 81.3 11.7 g .6 .9 .9 51.6 28.8 1.8 2.7 --.5 1.5 2.0 20.3 32-9 29.6 1.6 30 58 . 8 21 45 .3 21.1 9.6 1.4 3-3 32.0 9-9 3.4 6.7 2.2 78.6 2.7 4.9 50.6 6.5 5-0 1.9 FIGURES OF MERIT ~ Econ. Level Overburden ft 88 max 1.9 1.9 2.9 Matrix ft 3 min 6.3 10.0 16.3 7.0 BPL in Matrix ~ 10 min 1.4 1.0 1.2 2.1 BPL in F1ot. Cone. (1) 1, 66 min 1.2 1.2 1 .2 1.2 BPL in Flot. Cone.(.') OVerburden/Matrix 'f, Ratio 52 min 2 max 1.5 .8 -1.5 1.5 2.1 1.5 1.4 OVerburd~n/Products cu yd/T 17.5 max .6 .5 2.7 I+A in Flot. Cone . % 5 max 3-3 3.0 3.1 Products Recovery T/Ac-ft 400min -3 .03 .1 2..e7 BPL (+150) Recovery % 63 min -5 .1 .3 .8 Matrix/Products cu yd/T b rnax -5 .04 .2 1.2 fl)For l'r.c-t acid proc-;s.::. {2JF~r electric furnace process. ,._Sur.~. of +lC. m~sh and flotation concentrate . !lOTES: Cverburden tas~;'i on dry density i:j average = 90 lb./cu. i't. !1ntrix ;~actors taseJ. on actual dry density. ~ac""..ors used: ft. t!1ickness x 1(13 =cu. yd./Ac; cu. :rd. Y. 1.215: T(200G lr..); ~t. Y. };(,) = T(2000 lt.)/.Ac. 65 ~ N I SC:AL[ IN MILES 0 LOWNDES COUNTY GEORGIA Figure L0-1. Location of Holes - Lowndes County 66 Lo. 8 0 ~~~ ~L-.~.o~~.~ 9~ .~:~~ ~-t~--~ -:-:-::-:- 0 20 .:"0-;.s"""~-: 20 -:-:-:-:- ,::...;.,..-..:..._,...._-~- ~,.,-;"T".,:. r:~~..:-~ 40 t&f~] ~~~ .......~. ,~.: .$~~ 40 ----- --------- ~ - --- 60 -------- ultEf.t:'.:!-~':'.;: 60 ----- ~~.r~ ..{:'..:..~.;:.:.. 1 ~~~-:~ :~t}}j:f~); ---- 1- L&.l 80 L&.l LL.. ;~ ~~.~:.~rS.~?r_': 80 ~ z 1- Q. ~ L&.l 100 0 100 ~~-:::-T~?;::;~~~ r=-------- ~~.~;~~-:-....;...1.:..-..o -..:.- 120 ~~~ ~~~~::~~....:. ?z:~.;.; ---- 120 ~;.'"!.;.~. ~::;; --:~:..;..-..:-;. :;:--.:~~~ -~=:..=~-3 -.-~'7"~~"1..: ,:.,:~:; ;.J,tooo.&_ .... 140 ~:-.~.-.-~..J;.,-; - $ ~:---;.r-~~~~ ~~:?f/t?: ~;~-~~--;,.. \l~~;\i 140 160 160 1eo ..__.......__ _---Je-_.....__ _.......l_ _L.__ _......L.._ ___,IL---.-J.----' 180 Figure L0-2. Lithologic Logs - Lowndes County - -- I 0 ~ -.----- - - LOWNDES 8 0 ' ' . GAMMA SCALE .005 - - l +-"'-: ~ ro , 1- 30 ' ~ 40 1' ~ ro I -1 - ==l Se .Pc. 110n MU\V1 . 1L-----1- 30 40 50 50 - 60 1 ' - 60 70 - 80 : 70 80 ==j - RESISTIVITY . ---.---- 250HMS ,- - - 1- - -- - - I -1:-F: - 1- 90 100 ' ' 110 120 130 ' 1---- 1 -H 140 ' 150 ' - 90 100 ~ 1---- 110 120 1, 130 I- 140 150 1- 1---1- 1-- 1--1--- Figure L0-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Lowndes County Hole Lo-8 (}\ -..:] ()'\ (X) l -1---~ a m~ I - LOWNDES 9 r - = - '="= -r- +- ~ 0 =- -T-1- GAMMA SCALE .005 . 10 '" l~~~[ij cc~ -- 20 S. P. 10 MV. 1----0 10 100 OHMS ==J: 20 ~C~-:~ __1-:::=t-:=' 30 E=!==i==f==-t== 1- 1--- !----- 1:7---- L.:"t::::=-- 1- - '-=--="' - ~ ___.:. 1- 40 t-- 50 I:== 1- 60 I= ,__ I= 70 80 t 90 !------- 100 :- l = 110 1----- 1--- - I= 120 130 = 140 t---- 1--- --- - - -- ,_ 150 I" +----+ :.t::=!;: ---+ 1--- -- 1- -- 1- 40 50 ,-~ === 60 ---1--- r- 1---1 - -==!=1---- I-- 80 ~ Jd=- ' 90 1 --~--- I 100 ,- f-- I-- :- !----- 110 1 - 120 --- ~- 130 -- 140 - - ___: 150 -- 1- - 1 ---I I -I I T-:-- t ~ Figure L0-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Lowndes County Hole Lo-9 TABLE L0-1 CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATIONS ON CORES Lowndes County Surface Elevation Hole (Sea Level) Depth, Core Recovery BPL No. Feet Feet Feet ~ _j_ Lo-8 188 0-5 5 5-10 5 10-15 5 15-28 5 28-36 5 36-41 5 41-46 5 46-51 5 51-56 5 56-61 5 61-66 5 66-75 3 75-80 5 80-85 5 85-90 3 90-105 105-110 5 110-115 5 115-120 8 120-127 10 127-129 4 129-131 4 131-140 2 140-142 2 142-148 5 148-154 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 3.6 10.9 9.8 4.1 5.3 4.6 6.7 17.7 14.9 1.4 2.5 4.2 6.0 9.8 8.2 7.7 8.9 5.7 1.2 Lo-9 243 0-5 5 0.0 5-10 5 0.0 10-15 5 0.0 15-20 5 0.0 20-30 5 0.0 30-34 5 0.0 34-37 3 37-45 5 0.0 o.o 45-51 5 0.0 51-57 5 0.0 57-64 5 0.0 64-75 5 0.0 (Continued) 70 Hole No. Lo-9 TABLE L0-1 CORE RECOVERIES - BPL DETERMINATIONS ON CORES Lowndes County Surface Elevation (Sea Level) Feet 243 Depth, Feet 75-80 80-85 85-90 90-95 95-100 100-105 105-110 110-115 115-120 120-125 125-129 129-134 134-135 135-140 140-143 143-147 Core Recovery Feet fj 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 3 1 1 3 2 BPL _1_ 7.6 1.0 3.7 9.2 10.6 4.0 5.4 4.4 8.6 8.3 2.9 5.1 13.2 5.4 39 6.8 TABLE 10-2 MATRIX BENEFICATION RESULTS Lmmde s County Feed +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) 16Xl50 16X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 -150 Concentrates HOLE NO. Lo-8 Surface Elevation = 188 feet (sea level) Matrix Interval = 46-56 feet Total Matrix footage 10 Dry density lb/cu ft 57.6L Percent dry weight 100.0 1.14 1.44 5.72 55.53 30.49 25.04 36.16 1.38 Percent BPL 11.90 56.48 44.07 22.80 7.65 7.69 6.98 14.01 78.77 Percent acid insol 79.32 27.88 44.97 71.70 89.91 90.31 90.14 67.26 3.64 Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 2.32 3.20 0.81 0.81 0.56 0.33 0.92 5.29 1.75 6.37 2.27 2.06 1.64 1.21 0.71 1.71 15.35 1.36 6.65 36.73 28.33 12.36 3.50 3-85 3-15 8.77 54.57 Fatty Acid Tailing 90.56 5.66 92.47 0.40 1.13 2.10 Amine Float 8.o6 6.95 89.48 2.68 2.26 2.80 Note: Iron and Alumina content of +4 is higher than 5%. (Continued) -..J 1--' -.::1 1\) TABLE L0-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Lowndes County Feed HOLE NO. Lo-8 +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) 16Xl50 16X35 (Slime) Concen35Xl50 . -150_ trates Surface Elevation = 188 feet (sea level) Matrix Interval = 80-90 feet Total Matrix footage 10 Dry density lb/cu ft 101.20 Percent dry weight 100.0 1.66 0.91 3.27 63.66 17.00 46.66 30.51 10.47 Percent BPL 15.98 6.98 27.85 32.27 11.57 14.03 10.62 23.57 67.85 Percent acid insol Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 76.57 68.52 54.79 0.92 14.47 4.63 1.83 1.58 1.89 10.49 4.08 17.14 54.13 l. 59 1.58 21.34 83.54 0.51 1.40 7.00 80.32 0.81 1.82 9.09 85.34 0.53 1.40 6.30 65.52 0.86 2.77 16.76 6.76 1.73 1.36 50.37 Fatty Acid Tailing 83.84 4.18 74.83 0.27 1.05 1.40 Amine Float 5.69 15.58 76.97 3.03 2.90 10.84 Note: Iron and Alumina content of +4, 4x8 is higher than 5%. (Continued) TABLE L0-2 MATRIX BENEFICIATION RESULTS Lowndes County Feed HOLE NO. Lo-9 +4 4x8 8Xl6 (Flot. feed) 16Xl50 16X35 (Slime) 35Xl50 ~150 Concentrates Surface Elevation = 243 feet (sea level) Matrix Interval = 90-100 feet Total Matrix footage 10 Dry density lb/cu ft 92.03 Percent dry weight 100.0 1.09 1.96 4.30 62.92 8.37 54.55 29.74 4.05 Percent BPL 14.94 48.63 75.00 66.26 9.10 19.79 7.72 14.69 79.45 Percent acid insol 80.21 41.89 7.44 21.50 89.12 76.48 90.74 76.04 5.22 Percent Fe2o3 Percent Al2o3 Percent CaO 0.92 0.51 0.61 0.48 0.13 0.18 0.13 2.69 0.66 3-59 11.03 2.08 1.58 0.68 0.36 0.88 9.86 1.59 8. 74 21.69 46.17 41.28 4.55 12.24 3.50 9-96 54.57 Fatty A.cid Tailing 92.54 5.43 94.07 0.07 0.24 2.10 Amine Float 3.42 9-31 88.84 1.05 3.18 3.50 Note: Iron and Alumina content of +4 is higher than 5%. ....;) w ---.1 ~ LD-3 ECONmiC FACTORS - FIGURES OF MERIT LCMndes County ITEM Matrix No.: Matrix Interva1, Ft. : --- ECONCMIC FACTORS * Overburden, OVerburden, * Matrix, Matrix, * BPL in t.tatrix, BPL in Matrix, * Overburden/Matrix, Wash-Screen ~ H6 Mesh -16+150 -150 (Loss) * Flotation Concentrate Product Total. Useful Products* BPL Recavery +16 Mesh * -16+150 (F1ot. Cone . ), -16+150 (F1ot. Cone.), * Total. * Recovered from Matrix * Overburden/Products * Matrix/Products * I+A in Flat. Cone. UNIT (M=1000) First 46-56 Second 80-90 ft MT/Ac ft 1-fr/Ac 1. MT/Ac Ratio 1-fr/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac MT/Ac 1, BPL MT/Ac MT/Ac 'f, cu yd/T cu yd/T 'f, 46 90.2 10 12.6 11.9 1.5 4.6 l.O 7.0 4.5 .09 1.1 .3 78.8 .OS .38 26.8 .1 14.2 3.1 24 47 10 22 16 3.5 2.4 1.3 14 6.7 1.5 2.8 .3 67.9 1.0 1.3 37.2 12.5 5.9 3.1 Combined 70 137.2 20 34.6 14.5 5.1 3.5 2.3 21 11.3 1.6 3.9 .6 - 1.1 1.7 34.1 32.9 8.3 3.1 Lo-9 First 90-100 90 176.4 10 20 14.9 3.0 9.0 1. 5 12. 6 6 .5 2.0 l.O 79.5 .4 1.4 46 71.6 8.1 2.3 HOLE NO. FIGURES OF MERIT Unit Econ. Level Overburden ft 88 max 1.9 3.7 1.3 1.0 Matrix ft BPL in Matrix 1. 3 min 3.3 3.3 6.7 3. 3 10 min 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.5 BPL in Flot. Cone. (1) 'lo 66 min 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 BPL in Flot. Cone. ( 2 ) 'lo 52 min 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.5 Overburden/Matrix Ratio 2 max .4 .8 .6 .2 Overburden/Products cu yd/T 17.5 max .2 1.4 .5 .2 I+A in Flat. Cone. 'lo 5 max 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.2 Products Recovery T/Ac-ft 400 min .3 .7 .5 . 5 BPL ( +150) Recovery 'lo 63 min .4 .6 .5 .7 Matrix/ Products cu yd/T 6 max .7 1.0 .7 .7 (l }For we:t acid proc~s~ . -{2lror electric furnace process. Sum of T 16 mesh and flotation concentrate~ NOTES: Overburden bas.;:d or. dr:,. density@ average = 90 lb./cu. ft . Matrix factors based on actual dry densit~ F~ctors used: r:. thickness X 1613 =cu. ~rd./Ac; cu. yd X 1.215 = .:(200J lb.); f't. X 1960 = T(2000 ll.)/Ac. 75 PRELIMINARY RECONNAISSANCE DRILLING JEFF DAVIS - MONTGOMERY - WHEELER COUNTIES LIBERTY - LONG - WAYNE COUNTIES Jeff Davis, Montgomery, and Wheeler Counties Occurrences of phosphorites in wells in Jeff Davis, Montgomery and Wheeler Counties, were reported in "Well Logs of the Coastal Plain of Georgia", s. M. Herrick, The Geological Survey Bulletin 70, 1961. The occurrences were given in qualitative terms, e.g. "phosphatic", in general seemed to be at depths approaching the economic limit, but were sufficiently numerous to warrant preliminary core drilling for definitive data. Three holes were drilled in Jeff Davis County and one in Wheeler. C. W. King, of Atlanta, made available samples from a hole he drilled in Montgomery County. For reconnaissance drilling, it was considered more desirable to present the data as a "group" rather than in the usual format of individual counties in alphabetical order. Further, as the maximum concentration of BPL in each of the holes was below that of current economic interest, tabular data are condensed and presented in Table JD-MONT-WH-1. Figures JD-1, MONT-1 and WH-1 show the locations of holes drilled in the respective counties. Figures JD-2, and WH-2 are lithologic logs, no log being available for the Montgomery County hole. While the existence of phosphorites, as reported by Herrick, in this area was confirmed, the data indicate the deposits to be of such quality and of such depth to have no current commerical interest. Figures JD-3 and WH-3 give the electrical and gamma-ray logs for holes which were so logged. ~ .. ~ + " \ + ... " " 0 " (, T (. I' (." (. + ~( i1' "'( \) l'lo; 0 . (, + COUNTY ~... N ... z I::> 0 u .... z ::> ... . , ~i(;;:'" 0 u ... " + + 0 u 2 3 ScALE IN MiLES E +r r'...o~o .... + COUNTY~~ I '... B ,,; N c u JEFrf v DAVIS COUNTY + I +GEORGIA --..;J --..;J Figure JD-1. Location of Holes - Jeff Davis County J.D. I J.D.2 J.D.3 :~~f:5i ~~~----~~-~. r-----~~~;~~~~~r-----,----r------~~ 0 -:::::::-:-:- 20 40 '\t.fi.'J)-----i 40 60 80 100 120 140 140 160 reo 180 ~--~----~--~----_.--~----~~~~----~--~ ~ Figure JD-2. Lithologic Logs - Jeff Davis County .-- -- ._____1- - - -\- - I I I=F 0 JEFF DAVIS 2 ~~==:::t:~ 10 1 - 0 : ,.I:':1a,. _t~t:~l : == GAMMA SCALE .005 '--------" 20 10 50 ~ =t===!===1 40 ~ 60 ~ I== 1- = - - 70 ------ f.- - 50 i=l- 60 - 80 ,,.__,____ I=- - !==--- - 70 90 -----c !---1-- - 80 100 --1- ~ - - --+- - 1- - t ---, 90 +=- ::J: _-j 100 - ___J RESISTIVITY I - 50 OHMS = ' Figure JD-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Jeff Davis County Hole Jd-2 -..::1 \0 1- =L...... -- I J---=+ :r- -, =-=+===! 0 GAMMA SCALE 0025 10 20 30 40 50 60 - - 70 - 80 90 100 - 110 (X) 0 - ~ JEFF DAVIS 3_ -- - S.P. 20 MV. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 - 100 I 1 ' - ~- _1 -_:j RESISTIVITY 100 OHMS Figure JD-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Logs - Jeff Davis County Hole JD-3 81 0 2 SCALE IN MILES MONTGOMERY COUNTY GEORGIA Figure MONT-1. Location of Hole -Montgomery County. 82 + + ., ~ ~ q.. l ... ... -.) 0 " ~ + ~ + 0 ... " 0 l!1: "' r N + t ~ (" ~ I ' 'I WHEELER COUNTY GEORGIA I 0 2 3 SCALE IN MILES " 0 + G 1,. -' ... c 0 ... "+' 0 J \. ; U ' U' Figure WH-1. Location of Hole -Wheeler County. Whl 0 ~~~----~--~------~--~-----r--~------~~ o 20 40 m '~ ~,!~- - - 1 60 1-:-:-::-:- l- t:1 80 ==:=:=:===-=-1f---- - -1 ..... 80 z J: hw: 100 100 0 120 120 140 140 160 160 180 L-- ' - - - - - --'-- --'-------L-----L--__.;L...-__..___ _......._....J 180 Figure WH-2. Lithologic Log - Wheeler County ()) + GAMMA SCALE .0025 ~ O 10 20 30 I ljA 40 J I GAMMA SCALE ' 005 . 1 1 I I )Ir F 50 60 70 80 90 r - \-- - - r - -;- r-----;-r: WHEELER I ~. . - 1. - - ' ~~- -=1. -- ~~-~F,=-l :~t=:== 0 RESISTIVITY 50 OHMS 10 S.f' 20 MV. =- : 20 - 30 40 50 60 -r--- 70 1--- 80 90 '- ' -L - Figure WH-3. Electric and Gamma-Ray Log - Wheeler County Hole Wh-1 Hole No. Jd-1 Jd-2 Jd-3 Mont-1 Wh-1 TABLE JD - MONT - WH-1 BPL DETERMINATIONS - MAXIMUM - ON CORES Jeff Davis, Montgomery and Wheeler Counties Surface Elevation (Sea Level) Feet Total Depth Drilled Feet BPL Determination Maximum % depths, feet 171 120 2.1 199 107 8.4 112 104 2.9 148 5.2 138 95 2.1 85-95 87-95 96-104 130-135 75-85 86 Liberty, Long and Wayne Counties Herrick (see preceding section) reported "finely disseminated phosphatic grains" in near surface "Pliocene to Recent" sediments in these counties; and also phosphorites in the Miocene sands and clays. Based upon Florida's phosphorites, it has been assumed that phosphorites in Miocene deposits have best economic possibilities. Herrick's information as to the top of the Miocene shows for Wayne County: 4o, 44, 74, 75 and 100 feet below the surface, and for Liberty County wells: 55, 110, 150, 195 and 200 feet. This would indicate a Miocene dip to the north. Yet one well in Bryan County (Pembroke) showed the top of Miocene to be but 30 feet. An earlier review of gamma-ray logs from deep wells along the coast from Chathrun to Glynn Counties had shown anomalies of layers, probably correlatable to phosphorites, as dipping to the south. It appears that the top of the Miocene, again based upon Herrick, approaches closer to the surface westward from the coast, but phosphorite grains, etc, are reported only at uneconomical depths in Appling and Tattnall Counties. In view of these inconclusive data, it was considered advisable to carry out exploratory drilling in Liberty, Long, and Wayne Counties roughly across the centers of the counties and parallel to the coast to determine the actual abundance and quality of phosphorites at economical mining depths. Accordingly, one hole was drilled in each of Liberty and Wayne Counties and two in Long County (into different geologic substructures). The data, Table LI-LNG-WN-1, show insufficient amounts of phosphatic materials to have commercial interest at this time. A greater abundance may be at greater depths (based on Herrick's qualitative observations), but the cost of stripping the overburden make for an unattractive economic picture. Figures LI-1, LI--2 and LI-3 give the hole location, lithologic logs and electric logs for Hole No. LI-1. '1\1 I CENTRAL PORTION LIBERTY COUNTY GEORGIA 0 2 3 . SCALE IN MILES Figure LI-1. Location of Hole - Liberty County 88 o~L=i~.l~------r---~----~---r------r---~----~--~ 0 20 40 60 80 120 120 140 140 160 160 180 180 Figure LI-2. Lithologic Log - Liberty County ~ r- 11- t- , - ,~ ",T..;: .......... ~ "_" . -.~ I 7 ~ r -r -.- ,- I - S.P. 10 MV. -, I - , - _J I __J r 1I- LIB ERTY I ~ --l #'"; I "' ': 0 10 20 - 30 40 50 60 - 70 80 I 90 100 I .. I RESISTIVITY 100 OHMS ~ -- - - , I'll " ~ - ~ .., fi c ' -r""' I -- Figure LI-3. Electric Resistivity Logs - Liberty County ():) \.0 90 . ~r 4 N I . 0 2 3 SCALE IN MILES LONG COUNTY GEORGIA Figure LNG-1. Location of Holes - Long County 91 0 ~L_n~g-.lr-----TL_n~g~.~2 ----~--~----~--~--------~ o 20 40 60 ~ eo eo LIJ "- ~ ...:I: ll. ~00 00 120 120 140 140 160 160 ~0 ~0 Figure LNG-2. Lithologic Logs - Long County '-() [\) r---- - ~ .,.,_ ~ "l. --..... -t-.. S.P. 10 MV. - t- 1- . ' LONG :I 0 I ~ ........ 10 ' ,I"'\ RESISTIVITY 50 OHMS 20 !-----=; ...L ..... t - 30 40 50 -..-.,......... """ r 60 I 70 80 Figure LNG- 3. Electric Logs - Long Coilllty 93 0 2 3 SCALE IN MILES WAYNE COUNTY GEORGIA Figure WN-1. Location of Hole -Wayne County, 120 120 140 140 160 160 ISO _ L---~------L----L------~---L------~--_. ______ .__~ 180 Figure WN-2. Lithologic Log - Wayne County 95 Hole No. Li-1 Lng-1 Lng-2 Hn-1 TABLE LI-LNG-WN-1 BPL DETERMINATIONS ON CORES Liberty, Long and Wayne Countiea Surface Elevation (Sea Level) Feet Total Depth Drilled Feet Core Recovery Overall % BPL Determination Maximum At Depth % Feet 25 85 80 1.0 25-30 75-85 66 60 76 1.0 40-45 59 75 90 5.1 55-60 100 100 0.81 90-95