Analysis of Tyrrell Sea Deposits from the Vicinity of the Victor Diamond Mine: Comparison of Four North American Clay Deposits

Jean Elizabeth Holloway

An Undergraduate Thesis submitted to the

School of Environmental Studies

In conformity with the requirements for

a Bachelors of Science Honours Degree

Queen’s University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

April 2012

Abstract

The De Beers Victor Mine is an open pit diamond mine, located in the James

Bay lowlands of northeastern Ontario. The lowlands are characterized by extensive peatlands overlying Tyrrell Sea sediments. One of the potential impacts of open pit mining, and the focus of the current research, is the potential for differential subsidence in the Tyrrell Sea sediments owing to continuous groundwater withdrawal from the underlying limestone aquifers. To fully understand the potential effects of subsidence, a better understanding of the nature and properties of the Tyrrell Sea sediments is needed. Subsidence is related to characteristics of the deposit, which will be determined by calculating four geotechnical properties. These properties of samples collected from the sediments of the Victor Diamond Mine were compared to the values from samples of Lake Agassiz sediments, Champlain Sea sediments, and the

Bearpaw Shale. The properties of hydraulic conductivity, grain size, plastic and liquid limit, and mineralogy were determined for each sample and the results were analyzed and compared to data collected from the literature. The results indicate that the

Tyrrell Sea sediments are a low plasticity clay, with a low liquid limit, a hydraulic conductivity higher than all the other clay deposits, is characterized as a clayey silt in terms of grain size, and has a mineralogy primarily containing quartz, illite, chlinochlore, and calcite. The mineralogy shows that the Tyrrell Sea sediment does not contain smectite minerals, which indicates that there is no relationship between

Lake Agassiz and this deposit.

iii

Acknowledgments

First and foremost I would like to thank my Thesis Supervisor, Dr. Vicki

Remenda. She gave me the wonderful opportunity to travel to the Victor Mine and collect my own samples, as well as made this entire project possible. Second, I would like to recognize Kelly Ali, the graduate student that I spent the summer working with at the Victor Mine. Without her mentoring and guidance this project would not have been possible. Kelly has impacted my life in the most positive of ways, has taught me a great deal, and her friendship will be cherished for a long time to come. I would also like to give a special thank-you to Dr. Brian Cumming, who was my Thesis Course

Coordinator, but also supplied me with my sample of Lake Agassiz clay. Similarly,

Dave Sharpe from the GSC was extremely helpful in supplying me with a sample of

Champlain Sea clay. A special thank-you to Alan Grant, of the Department of Geology and Geological Engineering at Queen’s, who patiently answered all of my questions about XRD. Without these contributions laboratory analysis would have been very limited! A special thank-you to Dr. Neal Scott for sitting on my Supervisory

Committee. Tribute needs to be paid to NSERC, as funding came from them, as well as to De Beers Canada Ltd. In particular, thanks to Brian Steinbeck for being so cooperative. Thanks to everyone at the Victor Mine, this could not have been done without your support. Thank you to all the other students and professors working on research at the Victor Mine, especially Pete Whittington for providing me with hydraulic conductivity data for the peat. Lastly, I want to thank my father, Art

Holloway, who edited this paper for me, as well as spent many long hours discussing the results and conclusions. Many more hours to come, Dad.

Table of Contents

Abstract ………………….………………….………………….………………….………………………… ii Acknowledgements ………………….………………….………………….………………….………. iii Table of Contents ….………………….………………….………………….………………………….. iv List of Figures ………….………………….………………….………………….………………………... v List of Tables ………….………………….………………….………………….………………………… vi List of Common Abbreviations ..………………….………………….…………………….……… vii Section 1: Introduction ………….………………….………………….……………………….… 1 1.1: Tyrrell Sea ………….………………….………………….……………………….…… 3 1.2: Lake Agassiz ……….………………….………………….……………………….…… 4 1.3: Bearpaw Shale ….………………….………………….……………………….…...… 6 1.4: Champlain Sea ….………………….……………...….……………………….……… 7 Section 2: Materials and Methods ………….……………...….…………………………..….. 9 2.1: Determining Hydraulic Conductivity ……...….……………………..….….. 10 2.2: Determining Plastic and Liquid Limits …...….………………………….…. 11 2.3: Determining Grain Size ……….……………...….……………..……………..….. 13 2.4: Determining Mineralogy …….……………...….……………..……………..…... 13 Section 3: Results ….………………….………………….………………….……………………… 17 3.1: Plastic and Liquid Limit ……………….……………………..…………………… 17 3.2: Grain Size ………………….………………….………………….……………………... 18 3.3: Hydraulic Conductivity ………………….………………….……………………... 19 3.4: Mineralogy ……………….………………….………………….…………………….... 19 Section 4: Discussion ……………….………………….………………….……………………..... 24 References …………….………………….………………...……………………...... 31 Summary……………….………………….………………….……………………...... 34 Appendix A: Liquid Limit Calculatios……………....……………………...... 44 Appendix B: Grain Size Distributions …………….…………………………...... 48 Appendix C: X-Ray Diffraction Scans ….………………….……………………...... 52 Appendix D: Classification Systems …………….………….…………….………...... 60

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of Sampling Locations ….………………….……………………...... 36

Figure 2: Map of Research Transect at the De Beers Victor Mine…...... 36

Figure 3: USCS Plasticity Chart (ASTM, 2006) ….………………….……………………...... 37

Figure 4: Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Liquid Limit ….………………….………………...….... 37

Figure 5: Clay Fraction vs. Hydraulic Conductivity ….………………….……………...…….. 38

Figure 6: Liquid Limit vs. Clay Fraction ….…..…………….……………………...... 39

Figure 7: X-Ray Diffraction Scan of Tyrrell Sea and Lake Agassiz ………...... 40

List of Tables

Table 1: Laboratory results calculated in this study for plastic limit (PL), liquid limit (LL), grain-size, and hydraulic conductivity (K) ………...... 41

Table 2: Data collected from relevant literature to use for comparison with results calculated in this study for plastic limit (PL), liquid limit (LL), grain size, and hydraulic conductivity (K) ………...... ………...... 42

Table 3: Classification of samples based on their plasticity, and a combination of their plasticity and grain size ……...... ………...... ………...... 43

vii

List of Common Abbreviations

PI – Plasticity Index PL – Plastic Limit LL – Liquid Limit XRD – X-ray Diffraction ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials USCS – Unified Soil Classification System K – Hydraulic Conductivity

Section 1: Introduction

The De Beers Victor Mine is Ontario’s first diamond mine, and is located at 52°

49’ 15” latitude, 83° 53’ 00” longitude, approximately 90 km west of the community of

Attawapiskat (De Beers Canada, 2009), in the James Bay lowlands (Figure 1). The lowlands are characterized by extensive peatlands overlying Tyrrell Sea Sediments and discontinuous tills, which in turn overlie Silurian limestone aquifers. The James

Bay Lowlands are the third largest wetland zone in the world (Environment Canada,

2005), and their limestone bedrock is home to many kimberlite pipes, some of which are diamondiferous.

One of the potential impacts of open pit mining, and the focus of the current work, is the potential for differential subsidence within the Tyrrell Sea sediments owing to continuous groundwater withdrawal from the underlying limestone aquifers. Pumping may result in partial and variable drainage of the peatlands

(Branfireun et al., 2007). This drainage has potential for changes in the hydrological, biogeochemical, and ecological functions and properties of the wetlands. The magnitude of these changes is directly correlated to the connectivity between the peatland and the limestone aquifer (Branfireun et al., 2007). To fully analyze the connectivity of the system, further understanding of the nature and properties of the fine-grained sediments underlying the peat is necessary.

There is some ambiguity when discussing the term “clay”. Clay can either refer to clay minerals, or the clay particle size fraction, and either or both can be present in one deposit. In terms of particle size, clays are mostly platy microscopic particles of mica, clay minerals, and other minerals including quartz and feldspar (Das, 1999).

The grain-size boundary identified by Das (1999) for clay is 2 µm, and will be used in this thesis. Clay minerals will be discussed in Section 2.4: Determining Mineralogy.

Clay is defined as natural material with high plasticity, small particle size, the property of hardening when fired, or a combination of any of the two (Mackenzie & Mitchell,

1966).

This project used Mackenzie & Mitchell’s (1966) definition of clay, being the properties of plasticity, grain size, and mineralogy, to characterize the Tyrrell Sea deposits within the vicinity of the Victor Mine. This report investigated four geotechnical properties of the Tyrrell Sea sediments: the hydraulic conductivity, the

Atterberg limits, grain size, and mineralogy. These properties give insight into the characteristics of the Tyrrell Sea sediments, particularly how they react to the presence or absence of water.

These properties were also investigated for samples of Lake Agassiz clay,

Champlain Sea clay, and Bearpaw Shale. Comparisons among the four deposits is based on data collected both in the laboratory and the field, as well as with data obtained from the literature. The goal of this project is to characterize the Tyrrell Sea sediments, and place them in context with three other important North-American clay deposits, to gain a better understanding of the nature of the sediments. The samples from Victor Mine were expected to be rock flour, or clay-sized particles that are not clay minerals. It was expected that this deposit would be composed mostly of finely ground carbonates with high plasticity, and low hydraulic conductivity. Early investigations suggested that the Tyrrell Sea sediments would be similar to the Lake

Agassiz sediments as it is assumed that Lake Agassiz drained north through the Victor

Mine area.

1.1 Tyrrell Sea Deposits – Victor Diamond Mine Site

The Tyrrell Sea was a postglacial sea that covered the land depressed by isostatic load of the Laurentide ice sheet over what is contemporary Hudson Bay

(Brauneder et al., 2011). During the Pleistocene era, the James Bay Lowlands experienced repeated glacial events. Glaciers in the Hudson basin began their retreat approximately 8,300-7,500 years before present (Martini, 1986). The retreat of the ice within Hudson Bay was rapid, and seawater moved inland via Hudson Straight

(Quigley, 1980). The Tyrrell Sea sediments were deposited between 10 and 5 Ka, vary from 2 m to 21 m in thickness, and comprise varying fractions of silt and clay

(Brauneder et al., 2011).

Published information on composition and properties of these deposits is limited. Martini reported that the sediments were dominated by a clay-sized fraction

(Martini, 1986). Quigley stated that as the underlying bedrock is limestone/dolostone this suggested that there was a presence of finely ground carbonate material (Quigley,

1980). Access to these deposits has been limited in the past by the remote nature of their location, and studies have been primarily restricted to sediments found along the banks of rivers. The Victor Diamond Mine provides valuable access for examination of these fine-grained deposits. The deposits in this area were originally classified as “clay” (HCI, 2006), although ongoing work by K. Ali and V. Remenda (in

4 progress) has indicated that the sediment grains are clay-sized but not clay minerals.

1.2 Lake Agassiz Clay Deposits – Lake 239 Site

Glacial Lake Agassiz originally formed due to the damming of water by the late

Wisconsinan ice sheet. This ice sheet advanced into the Hudson Bay Lowland about

25,000 years ago (Clayton & Teller, 1983). This ice blocked the northward draining rivers, which combined with melt-water and local rainfall to create proglacial Lake

Agassiz. These waters were all fresh, but Lake Agassiz also received some water from salt-rich groundwater movements (Graham & Shields, 1985). Graham and Shields

(1985) state that Lake Agassiz was undoubtedly fresh, but the cation concentration allowed the particles to be distributed in a flocculated state. As the continental ice sheet advanced southward, Lake Agassiz was restricted by Mesozoic rocks of the

Manitoba Escarpment to the West, and rocks of the Precambrian Shield to the East

(Clayton & Teller, 1983). The Red River Lobe of the Wisconsin Ice Sheet fully displaced the proglacial lake approximately 20,000 years ago (Clayton & Teller, 1983).

The Red River Lobe began its retreat at least 13, 500 years ago, which occurred rapidly save for a few minor re-advances (Clayton & Teller, 1983). The last of the re- advances over the divide between the Hudson Bay and Mississippi River drainage basins occurred between 12,000 and 11, 500 before present, and Lake Agassiz formed shortly following this event (Clayton & Teller, 1983). The Red River Lobe continued to surge into the southern area of the Lake Agassiz basin for the next 500 to 1000 years, each time depositing fine-grained lacustrine sediment in the basin (Clayton &

Teller, 1983). Lake Agassiz’s maximum extent was approximately 350,000 km2

5 between 9,900 and 9,500 before present (Clayton & Teller, 1983). By approximately

8,500 B.P. the level lake had fallen bellow the level of its eastern and southern outlets

(Clayton & Teller, 1983). The last part of Lake Agassiz drained north through the

Tyrrell Sea about 7,500 years ago (Clayton & Teller, 1983).

Fenton & Moran (1983) describe various formations within the Lake Agassiz deposit. The Brenna Formation is highly plastic clay, where as the Sherack Formation is silty clay. Graham and Shields (1985), state that Lake Agassiz sediments are nonhomogeneous, anisotropic, active, overconsolidated, fissured, and swelling. They also state that Lake Agassiz sediment is highly plastic, with a clay-sized fraction of approximately 75-80%, and with the clay minerals being mostly interlayered illite- montmorillonite. The clay they are describing is most likely of the Brenna Formation.

The sample of Lake Agassiz clay used for analysis was collected from a core taken at the bottom of Lake 239, which is located in northwestern Ontario at the

Experimental Lakes Area (Figure 1). Precambrian shield underlies the area with bedrock dominated by pink granodiorite. In 2004, the sample was collected using a

1.0 m Livingstone square-rod piston corer with an internal diameter of 5.08 cm (Moos et al., 2009). Two overlapping cores were taken from the central basin, at approximately 30 m depth. Core 2, with a total length of 1135 cm, was chosen for analysis. Each 1 m section was split into 0.5 cm intervals which were then placed into

16 oz Whirlpak® bags and stored at 4°C for later analysis (Moos et al, 2009). For this project, the section from 94cm-100cm from the deepest 1m section of the core was used.

At its largest extent (~9,000-10,000 years before present), Lake Agassiz covered the Experimental Lakes Area (Figure 1). Moos et al. (2009), did radiocarbon dating on samples from various depths in Core 2, and came up with an age-depth model. This model shows that for the depth of the sample used in this study, which was 94-100cm of the 900-1000cm core, the age was ~10,000 before present. This indicates that this sample is likely Lake Agassiz clay.

1.3 Bearpaw Shale Deposits – Southern Saskatchewan Site

The Bearpaw Formation, the youngest formation of the Cretaceous Montana

Group (71-72 Ma), is a westward thinning wedge consisting mainly of marine silty clays and sands (Powell, 2010). The sediments were deposited in the Pierre Sea, at a slow rate in relatively calm waters (Peterson, 1958). Bearpaw Shale, as well as other clay shales that crop out in Western Canada, have been heavily consolidated by sediments and ice and are currently in a state of rebound because of the release of this load due to erosion and deglaciation (Peterson, 1958). In southern Saskatchewan, the

Snakebite Member forms much of the bedrock surface, and is composed of mainly non-calcareous marine silt and clay (Powell, 2010).

Peterson (1958) reported the sediments of the Bearpaw Shale are soft, slake easily with water, are highly plastic, and contain montmorillonite. He found that the properties of the formation allowed it to be split into a soft upper zone, a uniform, hard lower zone, and a transitional middle zone. The upper zone had high water content ranging from 29-36%, the lower zone from 20-27%, and the middle zone from

25-31%.

Two samples of Bearpaw Shale were chosen for analysis, collected from the

Luck Lake site located approximately 160km south of Saskatoon (Figure 1). The site consists of approximately 30m of glacial till overlying approximately 90m of clay shale of the Snakebite member (Powell, 2010). The site is located next to the Luck Lake

Heritage Marsh. Drilling at site was conducted on two separate occasions, firstly in

November, 2005 by Probe Drilling using a hollow stem auger rig, and secondly in

September 2006 by Saskatchewan Department of Highways using a hydraulic rotary drill (Powell, 2010). The cores were wrapped in plastic wrap followed by masking tape. Finally, the samples were coated in wax and stored at 4°C. The samples chosen for this analysis were RM06-0164 and RM06-202.

1.4 Champlain Sea Sediments: GSC-BH-JSR-01

The Champlain Sea was an inland sea, which developed as a result of marine water intruding into the St. Lawrence lowland following the retreat of the Laurentide ice sheet, due to depression by isostatic load (Brydon & Patry, 1961). The sediments of the Champlain Sea were deposited approximately 10,000 years before present, and were derived from igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Canadian Shield (Brydon &

Patry, 1961). As the Laurentide ice sheet retreated, Lake Frontenac was formed in the

St. Lawrence lowlands, depositing varved clays on top of tills (Brydon & Patry, 1961).

As the glacier continued retreating, seawater intruded creating the Champlain Sea and fine-grained marine sediments were deposited in the brackish water. Laventure and

Warkentin (1965) state that this water had variable salt content and that the particles settled in a random arrangement with high porosity and high water content. They

8 found their samples of Champlain Sea clay to be composed of approximately 70% clay sized particles, 25% silt, and 5% sand. Brydon and Patry (1961) found the sediment to be composed of predominantly mica and chlorite, with small portions of amphibole, feldspar, and quartz.

The sample of Champlain Sea sediment used for laboratory analysis in this study was obtained from the Geological Survey of Canada from a core near the town of

Kinburn, Ontario (Figure 1). The sample was taken from a depth of 43 meters, and was described as massive, laminated and bioturbated silty clay.

Section 2: Materials and Methods

Five weeks were spent at the Victor Mine during July and August of 2011.

Samples of the Tyrrell Sea deposits were collected from four stations (11KMT35,

11KMT100, 11KMT26, and GPS-10) along the Research Transect, and within the open pit of the mine. The Research Transect (Figure 2) is a north-south running line of instrumentation and boardwalk installed in the peatlands in previous years by the

Research Consortium (Waterloo, Western and Queen’s). Samples were collected by augering through the peat and into the sediment using a soil-sampling auger. At each station samples of varying depth were collected, and the samples chosen for analysis represented the most clay-like material observed in terms of grain size and plasticity

(based on preliminary grain size analysis, and field tests). The samples were stored in

Ziploc bags, and transported from the Victor Mine back to Queen’s University in coolers.

Of the samples collected from the open pit, two samples have been chosen for analysis: 17/07/11-1 and 18/06/10-3. These samples best represented the range of properties of the sediments found at the site, including what was believed to be rock flour. Based on field observations, sample 17/07/11-1 was thought to have properties closest to true clay, and sample 18/07/10-3 to rock flour. Two samples were chosen from boreholes surrounding the bioherms on the Research Transect - sample 23/07/11-4 and sample 10/10/11-2. Bioherms are ancient mounds of coral reef that protrude through the sediment and peatlands. Sample 10/10/11-2 was sampled from a borehole surrounding the North Road Bioherm (Figure 2), and sample

23/07/11-4 was sampled from a borehole surrounding the North Bioherm (Figure2).

These samples were chosen because they represented saturated silty clay.

2.1 Determining Hydraulic Conductivity:

Piezometer nests were installed at two stations, one surrounding the North

Bioherm on the Research Transect (Figure 2) and one surrounding the North Road

Bioherm (Figure 2). Wells of 0.025 m diameter with short screens (~0.10 m) were installed within the fine-grained Tyrrell Sea deposits. Sample 23/07/11-4 was collected from the Intermediate Well at station 11KMT35 (11KMT35-I), from the interval 2.9-3m below ground surface. The piezometer was screened from 2.9-3m below ground surface.

Sample 10/10/11-2 was collected from the Deep Well at station 11KMT100

(11KMT100-D), from the 2.6-3m interval below ground surface. The piezometer was screened from 2.85-2.95m below ground surface. The wells were installed with sand packs and bentonite seals. 11KMT35-I had a bentonite seal from approximately 1.3 -

3.4 meters below ground surface, and a sand pack from approximately 3.4-3.6 m below ground surface. 11KMT100-D had a bentonite seal from approximately 2.4-

2.75 m below ground surface, and a sand pack from approximately 2.75-2.95 m below ground surface.

A falling head hydraulic conductivity test was run on July 28, 2011, for

11KMT35-I, and a rising head test was run on October 12, 2011 for 11KMT100-D.

Hydraulic conductivity data was measured using Schlumberger diver data loggers.

Manual readings were also taken, to anchor the data from the data loggers for

11 analysis, and for quality control. Values for hydraulic conductivity were calculated using AQTESOLV Aquifer Test Analysis Software.

AQTESOLV required defining each unit as either confined or unconfined. For both stations, it was assumed that each unit was unconfined on the basis that the hydraulic conductivity was higher above and below the units. AQTESOLV allows for the use of standard analysis hydraulic conductivity tests, including the Hvorslev

Method and the Bower-Rice Method. The Hvorslev Method was chosen for analysis, as the aquifers were unconfined, they were partially penetrating wells, and this method fit the data better than the Bower-Rice Method.

Tables 1 and 2 show results from laboratory analysis as well as data collected from the literature. It must be noted that some values of hydraulic conductivity were calculated in situ and some were calculated using laboratory tests, specifically consolidation tests. Consolidation tests were carried out on small samples collected from core drilling. Due to the small sample size, the results of these tests are considered a point representation of the deposit and its properties. In contrast, in situ tests were done on large regions of the sediment, and thus give better representations of the entire deposit. In situ hydraulic conductivity tends to be lower than laboratory hydraulic conductivity for the same deposit.

2.2 Determining Plastic and Liquid Limits:

Plastic and liquid limits have been used for many decades in Civil Engineering and are standard tests with ASTM methods. The plastic limit (PL) is the water content in a sample at the boundary where the sample goes from behaving like a liquid to

12 behaving like a solid, and the liquid limit is (LL) is the water content at which a soil changes from plastic to liquid behavior. To determine these parameters the procedure for the ASTM Standard Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils was followed (ASTM D4318, 2010).

To determine the liquid limit, the sample was mixed with distilled water and a portion was placed in a Liquid Limit Device (ASTM D4318, 2010), and leveled off to a depth of 1 cm. A grooving tool was then used to cut a groove approximately 1cm deep, and the handle of the liquid limit device was rotated. The number of blows was counted, and rotation ceased once the groove closed approximately 1.3 cm. The sample was then removed from the liquid limit device, and its moisture content was calculated using the standard ASTM method for Laboratory Determination of Water

(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass (ASTM D2216, 2010). Appendix A shows the plot used to calculate the liquid limit for each sample.

The plastic limit of a sample was determined by forming a portion into an ellipsoidal mass (ASTM D4318, 2010). The sample was then rolled out onto a plate until it reached a thickness of 0.32cm. The piece was then reformed into the ellipsoid using hands, and then re-rolled. This was repeated until the thread crumbled under the rolling pressure, and no longer formed a thread with diameter 0.32 cm. The sample was then removed and the moisture content was calculated using the standard

ASTM method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and

Rock by Mass (ASTM D2216, 2010).

2.3 Determining Grain Size:

To determine grain size, the standard ASTM method for Particle-Size

Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis was used (ASTM D6913, 2009).

Samples were baked at 110°C for 24 hours, and the mass was recorded. The samples were then soaked with water and a sodium hexametaphosphate dispersant (Calgon) at a ratio of 100mL of water per 4 grams of Calgon. They were then washed using a

45µm sieve. The portion that passed through the sieve was caught in a bucket and analyzed using a Fritsch Particle Sizer Analysette 22. The portion that was retained on the sieve was placed on a tray and baked again for 24hours at 110°C. After this portion of the sample was dried, it was run through a standard set of sieves (ASTM

D6913, 2009) on a mechanical sieve shaker. This partitioned the sample into various grain sizes, and when combined with the data obtained by the Fritsch Particle Sizer

Analysette 22, allowed for graphical determination of the grain size distribution

(Appendix B).

2.4 Determining Mineralogy:

Mineralogy is one of the most important factors determining the physical properties of soils (Mitchell, 1993). Clay mineralogy is of particular interest because the presence of certain clay minerals result in significant geotechnical properties in soils. Clay minerals are complex aluminum silicates composed of either a silica tetrahedron or an alumina octahedron (Das, 1999). The combination of silicon tetrahedral units produces a silica sheet, and the combination of alumina octahedral units produces an octahedral sheet (Gibbsite sheet) (Das, 1999). In a silica sheet, each

14 of the silicon atoms with a charge of positive four is linked to four oxygen atoms with a total negative charge of eight (Das, 1999). As the oxygen atom at the base of the tetrahedron is linked to two silicon atoms, there is a negative charge of one to be balanced for the oxygen at the top of the tetrahedral (Das, 1999). When a silica sheet stacks with an octahedral sheet, these charged oxygen particles replace the hydroxyls in the octahedron (Das, 1999). This creates a structure of discrete layers, and can cause differences in minerals due to different ordering and stacking of layers

(Mackenzie & Mitchell, 1966).

As there is a net negative charge on the outside of clay particles, cations are attracted to the surface (Das, 1999). When water is added to clay, its dipolar nature is attracted to both the positive cations and the net negative charge from the oxygen

(Das, 1999). Hydrogen bonds are also created, by the water and the clay particles sharing oxygen atoms (Das, 1999). This attraction and orientation of water to and around clay particles gives clay its plastic nature, and makes interaction with water an important property to investigate (Das, 1999). The interaction of clay with water also helps with identification of minerals, because as clays are heated they lose their hydroxyl water, which causes measurable deformations in their crystal structure

(Grim, 1962).

Structural differences as well as isomorphous substitution, the substitution of one element for another with no change in the crystal lattice (Das, 1999) creates various groups, species, and varieties of clay minerals (Mackenzie & Mitchell, 1966).

Clay mineral groups include the Chlorite Group, Illite Group, Kaolinite Group, and

Smectite Group (USGS, 2001). There are various other types of clays, including inter-

15 layered clays, which have minute particles of variably thick layers of clay minerals

(Grim, 1962).

The Kaolinite Group represents the simplest structure, consisting of layering of

Silica and Gibbsite sheets, held together with hydrogen bonds (Das, 1999). Clays composed of kaolinite are book-like, each “page” representing a Silica-Gibbsite bonded sheet (Grim, 1962).

The potential for swelling in soils is attributed to the presence or absence of minerals of the Smectite Group, particularly the mineral montmorillonite. The

Smectite Group consists of two silica sheets with one alumina octahedral sheet, connected by weak bonds (USGS, 2001). These weak bonds allow for water and minerals to get between the layers (UGSG, 2001). The presence of organic molecules, specifically ethylene glycol or glycerol, will cause the layers to expand or swell in an observable way, allowing for identification (USGS, 2001). Other swelling clays include inter-layered clays and vermiculite (USGS, 2001).

The Illite Group has similar structure to the Smectite Group, with two silica sheets bonded to a central octahedral sheet (USGS, 2001). The difference is that the illite layers are bonded with potassium ions, due to the substitution of aluminum for silicon in the silica sheets (Das, 1999). This property gives Illites their non-expanding nature (USGS, 2001).

The Chlorite Group also has a structure of two silica tetrahedron bonded to one octahedron, with substitution for aluminum in the silica tetrahedral unit (Grim, 1962).

This substitution is balanced by magnesium in the octahedral unit (Grim, 1962).

Members of the Chlorite Group are non-swelling, and are not affected by heat (USGS,

2001).

To determine mineralogy, X-ray Diffraction (XRD) was performed on the clay fraction of the samples using a Phillips X’Pert PRO X-ray diffraction system, using a

Copper tube. Samples were prepared using the standard USGS method of Separation of Silt and Clay by Decantation for X-Ray Powder Diffraction (USGS, 2001). The sample was dispersed in a jar using a sonic probe, and then allowed to settle for approximately 4 hours at 24°C. At this point, the clay fraction in suspension was withdrawn from above 5 cm. This clay fraction was then filtered and mounted onto glass slides using the standard USGS method of Oriented Aggregate Mounts of X-Ray

Powder Diffraction (USGS, 2001). XRD was then run with an angle range of 5-60°2θ, on an interval of 0.0167°2θ per 30 seconds. XRD was run on air-dried samples, on samples that had undergone Ethelyne Glycol Vapour Treatment (USGS, 2001) to observe swelling, and then twice more on samples that had undergone heat treatments at 400°C and 550°C to observe how they react to temperature increase

(USGS, 2001) (Appendix C).

Section 3: Results

A summary of the results for plastic and liquid limit, hydraulic conductivity, and grain-size for samples of the Tyrrell Sea, Lake Agassiz, Champlain Sea and

Bearpaw Shale used in this study are presented in Table 1. Standard values for each deposit obtained from the literature are represented in Table 2. The results for mineralogy will be presented in the text, with the diffraction scans presented in

Appendix C.

3.1 Plastic and Liquid Limits:

The values of plastic limit calculated for the four Victor Mine samples range between 21% and 16%, and average 18%. The value calculated for the Lake Agassiz sample was 19%, similar to that of the Victor Mine samples. Rominger (1954) found values for samples of Lake Agassiz sediments with an average plastic limit of 25.2%.

Data from three samples found by Rominger (1954) will be used for comparison (See

Table 2). The values of the Bearpaw samples were higher. Sample RM06-0164 had a value of 29%, while RM06-202 had a value of 25%. These values calculated for

Bearpaw Shale correspond to the range of plasticity from 22% to 29% calculated by

Powell (2010). The plastic limit found for the Champlain Sea sample GSC-BH-JSR-01, was 21%. This fits into the range of values found in the literature for the plastic limit of the Champlain Sea. O'Shaughnessy & Garga (1994) found values ranging from

20%-40%, and these values will be used for comparison in this project (Table 2).

The liquid limit of the samples from the Victor Mine range from 22% to 34%, and average 28%. The Lake Agassiz sample had a slightly higher value of 36%.

Rominger (1954) found an average value of liquid limit for samples of Lake Agassiz to be 83.6% (Table 2). The samples of Bearpaw Shale had high values for liquid limit, with RM06-0164 at 88%, and RM06-202 at 94%. These values are slightly lower than the range calculated by Powell (2010) of 99%-145% for this area. The liquid limit calculated for the Champlain Sea sample GSC-BH-JSR-01 was 50%. This value fits into the range of values found by O'Shaughnessy & Garga (1994) for the Champlain Sea.

The values range from 30%-80%, and these values will be used for comparison (Table

2).

3.2 Grain-size:

The grain-size data (Table 1) is presented as percent clay, silt, sand, and gravel of the sample by weight. The clay fraction is anything that has a grain size smaller than 2µm, silt is between 2 and 60 µm, sand is between 60 and 2000 µm, and gravel is greater than 2000µm (Das, 1999). The samples from the Victor Mine show clayey silt with trace sand and trace gravel.

The samples of Lake Agassiz, Bearpaw Shale, and Champlain Sea also show clayey silt, generally with trace sand. The Bearpaw Shale values are similar to those measured by Powell (2010), with an average over the sampled interval of 39% clay,

54% silt, and 7% sand. Hendry & Shaw (1998), found clay of the Bearpaw formation to have average values of 57.7% clay fraction, 38.3% silt, and 4.7% sand. The sample from the Champlain Sea showed 20% clay fraction, 79% silt, and 1% sand. The values calculated for the Champlain Sea are lower than the range of values found within the

19 literature. O'Shaughnessy & Garga (1994) found values of clay fraction ranging from

30%-75%.

3.3 Hydraulic Conductivity:

In situ values calculated for hydraulic conductivity at the Victor Mine were 3 x

10-8 m/s and 7 x 10-9 m/s. Values of hydraulic conductivity for Lake Agassiz were found by Remenda et al. (1994) to be 3 x 10-11 m/s. Values for Bearpaw Shale were found by Powell (2010) to be on the order of 10-12 m/s, which is also the value to be used for the samples used in this project for the Bearpaw Shale, as they were collected from the same site. Values found by Neuzil (1993) for Bearpaw Shale ranging from

5x10-14 m/s to 5x10-12 m/s, as well as values found by Hendry & Shaw (1998) of 4.4 x

10-12 to 5.3 x 10-12 m/s will also be used for comparison (See Table 2). O'Shaughnessy

-12 & Garga (1994) found values for the Champlain Sea to be 1 x 10 m/s.

3.4 Mineralogy:

X-ray Diffraction showed that the mineralogy of all the Victor Mine samples are similar. All samples showed the presence of quartz, illite, and chlinochlore, with most showing the presence of calcite. Each sample was scanned once, and then a second time after being treated with ethylene glycol. Heat treatments were deemed unnecessary for these samples, because they did not swell when treated with the ethylene glycol, and tests done by K. Ali (In progress) confirmed similar results.

For sample 18/06/10-3 the scan produced well-defined peaks, and the minerals calcite, quartz, chlinochlore, and illite matched up with these peaks

(Appendix C). Clay mineralogy was determined using the USGS Clay Mineral

Identification Flow Diagram (USGS, 2001). The peaks did not change when the sample was run again after ethylene glycol treatments, and thus it was deemed to be free of smectites. Chlinochlore matched up with the peak at 14 angstroms, and did not react to the glycol treatment, which is typical of this mineral (USGS, 2001). Illite matched with the peak at 10 angstroms, and was unchanged after glycol treatment, which is characteristic of this mineral (USGS, 2001).

Sample 17/07/11-1 was similar to Sample 18/06/10-3, as well defined peaks also matched up with calcite, quartz, chlinochlore and illite (Appendix C). The peaks were unaltered by glycol treatment, which indicates the absence of smectites in the sample. Again, Chlinochlore matched up with the peak at 14 angstroms, and did not change when treated with glycol, which is typical of this mineral (USGS, 2001). Illite matched with the peak at 10 angstroms, and was unaltered after glycol treatment, which is distinctive of this mineral (USGS, 2001).

Sample 23/07/11-4 also had well defined peaks that were unchanged when treated with ethylene glycol (Appendix C). For this sample, the peaks again distinguished calcite, quartz, chlinochlore, and illite. The peaks did not change when the sample was run again after ethylene glycol treatments, and thus it was deemed to be free of smectites. Chlinochlore matched up with the peak at 14 angstroms, and did not react to the glycol treatment, which is typical of this mineral (USGS, 2001). Illite matched with the peak at 10 angstroms, and was unchanged after glycol treatment, which is characteristic of this mineral (USGS, 2001).

The last of the samples from the Victor Mine is 10/10/11-2, which is similar to the others as the peaks distinguish quartz, chlinochlore, and illite, with the only difference being a lack of calcite (Appendix C). The peaks remained the same after ethylene glycol treatment, which determines that there are no smectites present.

Chlinochlore matched up with the peak at 14 angstroms, and did not change when treated with glycol, which is typical of this mineral (USGS, 2001). Illite matched with the peak at 10 angstroms, and was unaltered after glycol treatment, which is distinctive of this mineral (USGS, 2001).

The diffraction pattern of sample GSC-BH-JSR-01 of Champlain Sea sediment showed the presence of quartz, muscovite, and chlinochlore (Appendix C). The sample was scanned after being air-dried, after being treated with ethylene glycol, and then again after being heat-treated at both 400°C and 500°C. The clay minerals were determined using the USGS Clay Mineral Identification Flow Diagram (USGS, 2001).

The scans remained unchanged after all four treatments, which indicates that there are no smectites present. Chlinochlore was determined by the fact that it fit the 14- angstrom peak, and did not change when treated with glycol, which is typical of this mineral (USGS, 2001). Muscovite matched with the 10 angstrom peak, as the sample remained unchanged after glycol and heat treatments, which is indicative of this mineral (USGS, 2001).

Both scans of the samples of Bearpaw Shale showed the presence of quartz, illite, chlinochlore, and montmorillonite (Appendix C). The clay minerals were determined using the USGS Clay Mineral Identification Flow Diagram (USGS, 2001).

Both samples were scanned after being air dried, after being treated with ethylene

22 glycol, and after heat treatments at 400°C and 550°C. Sample RM06-0164 had a peak at 12 angstroms, which expanded to a higher spacing of 17 angstroms when treated with ethylene glycol, and then collapsed to 10 angstroms when heated, indicating the presence of interstratified illite-montmorillonite. However, as there was already a peak at 10 angstroms, which remained the same after all four treatments, it created some interference with the peak that collapsed when heated. It was inferred that the peak that remained unchanged represented illite, as these properties are characteristic of this mineral. The peak at 7 angstroms remained unchanged when treated with glycol and heated to 400°C, and was then destroyed when heated to

550°C, indicating the presence of chlinochlore. Sample RM06-202 showed the same properties and minerals as sample RM06-0164.

The sample of Lake Agassiz sediment was run as an air-dried sample, then again after being treated with ethylene glycol, and then again after being heat-treated at each 400°C and 550°C (Appendix C). The diffraction pattern revealed the sample to contain interstratified illite-montmorillonite, chlinochlore, and quartz. The clay minerals were determined using the USGS Clay Mineral Identification Flow Diagram

(USGS, 2001). The peak at 14 angstroms remained unchanged after all treatments, which indicates chlinochlore (USGS, 2001). The peak at 12 angstroms expanded to higher spacing when treated with glycol, it collapsed to ~10 angstroms when heat- treated at 400°C, which indicates interstratified illite-montmorillonite.

Figure 7 shows the XRD scans for sample 18/06/10-3 of the Tyrrell Sea and

Lake Agassiz L-239. This figure allows for observation of the effects of smectite minerals. The original scan for Lake Agassiz is shown in grey, and the scan after

23 treatment with glycol is shown in teal. It can be seen that the teal scan is at a higher spacing (17angstroms) for the same peak than the grey scan (12 angstroms). The scan of the Tyrrell Sea does not show this effect, as both scans follow the same pattern regardless of treatment, indicating that there are no smectite minerals present. This difference in mineralogy is evident by Figure 7, and the impacts of this will be discussed further in Section 4.

Section 4: Discussion

In this section, properties of each deposit will be discussed, each deposit will be classified based on its properties, and comparisons between deposits will be made.

Classification of each sample was done using the Standard Practice for Classification of

Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) (ASTM D2487,

2011). The samples were also defined on the basis of their grain size percentages using the Forest Road Engineering Guidebook as shown in Appendix D (British

Columbia Ministry of Forests, 2002). The results for these classifications are presented in Table 3. The samples are further discussed based on their mineralogy and hydraulic conductivity. Properties of samples from each deposit were then plotted against each other on various charts, to display how the properties of the samples of the Tyrrell Sea sediments compare.

For the USCS, the liquid limit is plotted against the plasticity index of the samples on the Plasticity Chart (Figure 3). The plasticity index (PI) is defined as:

PI = LL – PL

Where LL is the liquid limit of the sample, and PL is the plastic limit of the sample.

This results in a classification of either low or high plasticity clay or silt. The Tyrrell

Sea samples were all classified as low plasticity clays, with the exception of sample

17/07/11-1 which plotted as silty clay.

Similarly, when classified using the USCS Flow Chart for Classifying Fine-

Grained Soils (Appendix D) all the Tyrrell Sea samples were classified as lean clay, with the exception of 17/07/11-1 that was classified as silty clay (Table 3). In comparison, Lake Agassiz also plotted as a low plasticity, lean clay. Much variability

25 has been observed in the literature regarding the properties of Lake Agassiz sediment

(Table 2). The sample of Lake Agassiz analyzed in this project is likely a near shore sample, which would result in more variability in the grain size in this area. Off shore deposits result in highly plastic clay, which is more typical of Lake Agassiz as seen in the literature (V. Remenda, personal communication, 2012).

The results in Table 3 show that the Champlain Sea and the Bearpaw Shale both represent higher plasticity, fat clay. The classifications for the Tyrrell Sea samples of low plasticity clay and lean clay, as well as silty clay, imply that the sediment has little plasticity. Sediments with low plasticity and lacking smectite minerals do not undergo compaction or subsistence. This indicates that dewatering will not result in compaction or subsistence, and is of major significance for this project.

The remainder of this section will consist of discussion of various plots of the data calculated in laboratory and data collected from the literature for the deposits.

This will allow for a clear representation of how the samples of Tyrrell Sea sediments fit in with the other clay deposits. For comparison, an average value for hydraulic conductivity of 2 x 10-11 m/s will be used for Lake Agassiz so that more data points can be used for observation.

Figure 4 plots Liquid Limit versus Hydraulic Conductivity values for all four deposits investigated in this project and values obtained from the literature. There is extreme variability within the Lake Agassiz sediment. This variability is expected, as there are different Formations within the Lake Agassiz deposit (Fenton & Moran,

1983). The values for liquid limit range from low to high, at roughly the same

26 hydraulic conductivity. The sample of Lake Agassiz clay analyzed in this project was likely of the Sherack Formation, while samples with higher liquid limits were likely of the Brenna Formation.

There is also variability among the Champlain Sea sediment, although not as extensive. This could be attributed to the fact that the sampling location is near the edge of the basin where the sea was depositing sediments. Due to the variability of the data on this graph, it can be concluded that hydraulic conductivity and liquid limit are weakly correlated. Originally it was thought that there would be a strong relationship between these parameters. Generally, the liquid limit increases with a higher clay content, which consequently causes the hydraulic conductivity to decrease. This is not the case for this data, and could be because an average value of hydraulic conductivity was used for some of the Lake Agassiz samples. It may be that the properties of a clay deposit are more related to the clay mineralogy than the clay fraction. This idea will be further investigated when discussing Figure 5 and Figure 6 later in this section.

There are two major patterns to note in Figure 4. First, is that the Tyrrell Sea samples from Victor Mine have a high hydraulic conductivity when compared to these other deposits. The values of hydraulic conductivity for all the other clay deposits are in the range of 10-11 or 10-12 m/s, and the values found from Victor Mine are orders of magnitude higher than this. The values found for hydraulic conductivity fit into the range of values calculated by HCI (2006) for long screen observation wells in the area, so it is concluded that these relatively high values are accurate for this deposit.

Secondly, this plot indicates that the Tyrrell Sea sediments and the Bearpaw

Shale have minimal similarities. The Bearpaw sediments have a very high liquid limit and a very low hydraulic conductivity, and the samples of Tyrrell Sea sediments have just the opposite. This could be due to differences in mineralogy and diagenesis between the two deposits. The Bearpaw Shale is sediment of Cretaceous age, and thus has undergone much consolidation, and potential diagenesis over time. The Tyrrell

Sea sediments are geologically recent, and thus have not experienced these phenomena. This has an impact on the properties of the soil. Secondly, the presence of montmorillonite in the Bearpaw samples allows this clay to hold water in its interlayers, which could result in its very high liquid limit and play a factor in its low hydraulic conductivity. The lack of smectite minerals could explain the very low liquid limit and unusually high hydraulic conductivity of the Tyrrell Sea sediments.

Based on the results of this project, these two deposits are end members on the spectrum of clay deposits. The Bearpaw Shale is highly plastic, fat clay, which contains smectite minerals causing it to swell in the presence of water. The Tyrrell

Sea is low plasticity, lean clay, which contains no smectite minerals. Thus, it can be determined that these two deposits are not related. This comparison displays exactly where the Tyrrell Sea sediments fit into the spectrum of clay deposits, which is as a low plasticity end member.

It was noted in the above discussion that the clay fraction of a sample was initially thought to have an impact on its liquid limit and the hydraulic conductivity.

Figure 4 displayed that this was not the case, as there was variability in liquid limits at the same hydraulic conductivity. The impact of clay fraction on the liquid limit and

28 the hydraulic conductivity and how this relates to the Tyrrell Sea samples, will be further investigated in the discussion of Figure 5 and Figure 6.

Figure 5 represents Percent Clay Fraction versus Hydraulic Conductivity for the data collected in this study and from data obtained from the literature. As in

Figure 4, we can see that the hydraulic conductivity of the Tyrrell Sea sediments was higher than the other deposits. It can also be observed that there is variability amongst values of clay fraction for each deposit at the same hydraulic conductivity.

This is interesting, as it was originally thought that as the amount of clay fraction increases, the hydraulic conductivity decreases, due to smaller particles filling pore spaces of the larger silt particles, and slowing the rate of water movement. Mathew and Rao (1995) wrote that the low hydraulic conductivity in fine-grained sediment is related to the composition and concentration of exchangeable cations. These findings suggest that the mineralogy of the sediments has a bigger impact than the clay fraction. The chemistry may also be important, but more research needs to be done on the Tyrrell Sea sediments on this subject.

Figure 6 represents the Liquid Limit versus Clay Fraction for the data collected in this study and from data obtained from the literature. Again, we can see that the

Bearpaw Shale has an extremely high liquid limit, and the Tyrrell Sea has a very low liquid limit. The values for the Champlain Sea and Lake Agassiz deposits show variability, but are generally mid-ranged, and closer to the values observed for the

Tyrrell Sea than for the Bearpaw Shale. In samples from Lake Agassiz and the

Champlain Sea, there is variability in clay fraction values at the same liquid limit. This shows that these two parameters are not related, similarly to how the clay fraction

29 and hydraulic conductivity are not related. This leads to the conclusion that the mineralogy has an important impact on the properties and behaviour of sediments.

One of the most important things to note on this graph is that the samples of Tyrrell

Sea sediment have an average to high percent clay fraction, but have the lowest liquid limit. Again, this shows that the mineralogy, not the clay fraction, is the key to how the sediment behaves.

Rao and Mathew (1995) wrote that flocculation, deflocculation, and swelling of clay minerals affect the structure of the pores, and thus the hydraulic conductivity.

Similarly, they discuss how exchangeable cations also have a large impact on these properties. These factors affect how the sediment reacts to water in general. Thus, the fact that the Champlain Sea and that the Tyrrell Sea were of marine origin should play a role in their chemistry and properties. It was originally thought that the Tyrrell

Sea sediments would be similar to Lake Agassiz sediments, as Lake Agassiz drained north through this area. The mineralogy of both sediments shows that this is not the case, and the results from this project actually indicate that they are more like the

Champlain Sea.

To conclude, I will discuss the characterization of the Tyrrell Sea sediments based on the results of this project. As described in Section 1, there is ambiguity surrounding the definition of what characterizes a clay deposit. Properties such as grain size, mineralogy, and plasticity all provide characterizations of clay deposits.

The samples of Tyrrell Sea from the vicinity of the Victor Mine are characterized as low plasticity clays, containing clay minerals. In terms of grain size, however, they are defined as clayey silt, with trace sand. This is contradicting, as the deposit is classified

30 as clay in terms of plasticity, but silt in terms of grain size. It can be seen on Table 3 that the other deposits discussed in this study also represent clayey silts, or silts with some clay. This shows that the samples from the Victor Mine represent a normal grain size distribution for what is typically called a clay deposit. From this, as well as discussion of Figures 4, 5, and 6, it has been concluded that the grain size does not play a key role in determining the properties of clay, and should not have an influence on its classification. Thus, based on the results of this study, the Tyrrell Sea sediments within the vicinity of the Victor Mine should be classified as a low plasticity clay deposit.

During the field season in the summer of 2011 there were dozens of samples of

Tyrrell Sea sediment collected. This project investigated the four samples that appeared to have the most clay like properties in the field. Thus, this study may be biased in the results of the Tyrrell Sea sediments appearing more clay-like than they actually are. Further research is needed in investigating variability in the sediments with depth, as well as variability spatially, to gain an understanding of how consistent the sediments are. Variability has been seen in data from Lake Agassiz, the Champlain

Sea, and the Bearpaw Shale, and it is expected that there will be inconsistencies in the

Tyrrell Sea as well. Furthermore, it was discussed that exchangeable cations may have an impact on the properties of sediments. More work is needed in the area of chemistry of these sediments, as this will shed some light and allow for more accurate comparison to Lake Agassiz sediments and more importantly the Champlain Sea.

Lastly, more in depth studies and comparison between the Tyrrell Sea and each of the

Champlain Sea and Lake Agassiz is needed.

References

ASTM D2487. (2011). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520. www.astm.org.

ASTM D6913. (2009). Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520. www.astm.org.

ASTM D4318. (2010). Standard Testing Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520. www.astm.org.

ASTM D2216. (2010). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520. www.astm.org.

Branfireun, B., Price, J.S., Remenda, V. (2007). The Impact of Mine Dewatering on the Hydrology and Mercury Biogeochemistry of Peatlands in the Hudson/James Bay Lowland: The De Beers Victor Diamond Mine. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Brauneder, K., Hamilton, S.M., Hattori, K.H., Kong, J.M., & Sader, J.A. (2011). Geochemical responses in peat groundwater over Attawapiskat kimberlites, James Bay Lowlands, Canada and their application to diamond exploration. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis; 11(3), 193-210.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests. (2002). Forest Road Engineering Guidebook: Second Edition. Retrieved on March 10, 2012, from http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/legsregs/fpc/fpcguide/road/fre.pdf.

Brydon, J.E., & Patry, L.M. (1961). Mineralogy of Champlain Sea Sediments and a Rideau Clay Soil Profile. Canadian Journal of Soil Science; 41(2), 169-181.

Clayton, L., & Teller, J.T. (1983). An Introduction to Glacial Lake Agassiz. In J.T. Teller and L. Clayton (Eds.), Glacial Lake Agassiz, (pg. 3-5). Geological Association of Canada, St. John’s, Newfoundland.

Das, B.M. (1999). Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering. CL-Engineering.

De Beers Canada (2009). About the Victor Mine. De Beers Canada. Retrieved on October 22, 2011, from http://www.debeerscanada.com/files_3/victor-mine.php.

Environment Canada. (2005). Wetlands Mean Life: The Hudson and James Bay Lowlands. Canadian Wildlife Service. Toronto, Ontario. Retreived on October 22, 2011, from http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/wildlife/docs/pdf/wetlandsposter05-e.pdf.

Fenton, M. M., & Moran, S. R. (1983). Quaternary Stratigraphy and History in the Southern Part of the Lake Agassiz Basin. In J.T. Teller and L. Clayton (Eds.), Glacial Lake Agassiz, (pg. 49-74). Geological Association of Canada, St. John’s, Newfoundland.

Graham, J., Janzen, P, & Yuen, K. (1998). Weathering-induced fissuring and hydraulic conductivity in a natural plastic clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal; 35 (6), 1101- 1108.

Graham, J., & Shields, D.H. (1985). Influence of Geology and Geological Processes on the Geotechnical Properties of Plastic Clay. Engineering Geology; 22, 109-126.

Gravel, J., Hamilton, S.M., Hattori, K.H., Kong, J.M. (2009). Soil geochemical survey over concealed kimberlites in the Attawapiskat area in northern Canada. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis; 9, 139-150.

Grim, R.E. (1962). Clay Mineralogy. Science; 135(3507), 890-898.

HCI, Hydraulic Consultants Inc. (2006). Hydraulic Testing and Construction of Monitoring Wells – Victor Diamond Project, Ontario. Hydraulic Consultants Inc.

Hendry, J.M., & Shaw, J.R. (1998). Hydrogeology of a thick clay till and Cretaceous clay sequence, Saskatchewan, Canada. Canadian Geotechnical Journal; 35(6), 1041-1052.

Laventure, R.S., & Warkentin, B.P. (1965). Chemical Properties of Champlain Sea Sediments. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences; 2(4), 299-308.

Mackenzie, R.C., & Mitchell, B.D. (1966). Clay Mineralogy. Earth Science Reviews; 2, 47- 91.

Martini, I.P. (1986). Canadian Inland Seas. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Mathew, P.K., & Rao, S.N. (1995). Effects of Exchangeable Cations on Hydraulic Conductivity of a Marine Clay. Clay and Clay Minerals; 43(4), 433-437.

Mitchell, J.K. (1993). Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour, 2nd Edition. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey.

Moos. M.T., Cumming, B.F., & Laird, K.R. (2009). Climate-related eutrophication of a small boreal lake in northwestern Ontario: A palaeolimnological perspective. The Holocene; 19(3), 359-367.

Neuzil, C.E. (1993). Low Fluid Pressure Within the Pierre Shale: A Transient Response to Erosion. Water Resources Research; 29(7), 2007-2020.

Nix, S.V. (1998). Lab Scale Determination of Hydraulic Conductivity of Lake Agassiz Clay and its Relationship to the Dakota Aquifer and the Incomplete Consolidation Theory. B.Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Applied Science, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON.

O'Shaughnessy, V., & Garga, V.K. (1994). The hydrogeological and contaminant- transport properties of fractured Champlain Sea clay in Eastern Ontario: Part 1- Hydrogeological properties. Canadian Geotechnical Journal; 31, 885-901.

Peterson, R. (1958). Rebound in the Bearpaw Shale, Western Canada. Geological Society of America; 69(9), 1113-1124.

Powell, J.S. (2010). Geotechnical Characterization of the Bearpaw Shale. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geological Sciences & Geological Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON.

Quigley, R.M. (1980). Geology, mineralogy, and geochemistry of Canadian soft soils: a geotechnical perspective. Canadian Geotechnical Journal; 17(2), 261-285.

Remenda, V.H., Cherry, F.A., & Edwards, T.W.D. (1994). Isotopic Composition of Old Ground Water from Lake Agassiz: Implications for Late Pleistocene Climate. Science; 266(5193), 1975-1978.

Rominger, J.F. (1954). Relationship of Plasticity and Grain Size of Lake Agassiz Sediments. The Journal of Geology; 62(6), 537-572.

USGS (2001). A Laboratory Manual for X-Ray Powder Diffraction. Retrieved on January 30 from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/of01-041/htmldocs/xrpd.htm.

Summary

1) The values of plastic limit calculated for the four Victor Mine samples range between 21% and 16%, and average 18%. The value calculated for the Lake Agassiz sample was 19%. Values calculated for Sample RM06-0164 and RM06-202 of the

Bearpaw Shale had values of 29%, and 25% respectively. The plastic limit found for the Champlain Sea sample GSC-BH-JSR-01, was 21%.

2) The liquid limit of the samples from the Victor Mine range from 22% to 34%, and average 28%. The Lake Agassiz sample had a slightly higher value of 36%. The samples of Bearpaw Shale, RM06-0164 and RM06-202, had values at 88%, and 94% respectively. The liquid limit calculated for the Champlain Sea sample GSC-BH-JSR-01 was 50%.

3) In terms of grain size, the samples from the Victor Mine show clayey silt with trace sand and trace gravel. The samples of Lake Agassiz, Bearpaw Shale, and Champlain

Sea also show clayey silt, generally with trace sand.

4) In situ values calculated for hydraulic conductivity at the Victor Mine were 3 x 10-8 m/s and 7 x 10-9 m/s. Values of hydraulic conductivity for Lake Agassiz were found by

Remenda and Cherry (1994) to be 3 x 10-11 m/s. Values for Bearpaw Shale were found by Powell (2010) to be on the order of 10-12 m/s. Values found by Neuzil

(1993) for Bearpaw Shale ranging from 5x10-14 m/s to 5x10-12 m/s, as well as values found by Hendry & Shaw (1998) of 4.4 x 10-12 to 5.3 x 10-12 m/s. O'Shaughnessy &

Garga (1994) found values for the Champlain Sea to be 1 x 10-12 m/s.

5) Mineralogy of the samples of Tyrrell Sea sediment indicates the presence of quartz, chlinochlore, and illite for all samples, and calcite for most samples. This indicates that there are no smectite minerals present, which is different from both the samples from

Lake Agassiz and the Bearpaw Shale. The mineralogy is similar to that observed for the Champlain Sea.

6) Variability in hydraulic conductivity, liquid limit, and percent clay fraction indicate that mineralogy is a more important contributor in the properties and characteristics of a clay deposit, specifically the presence or absence of smectite minerals.

7) The lack of smectite minerals present in the Tyrrell Sea deposit indicate that it is not related to Lake Agassiz, which initial research indicated, and actually has more in common with the Champlain Sea deposit.

8) The Tyrrell Sea deposit is low plasticity clay, with a low liquid limit, a hydraulic conductivity higher than all the other clay deposits, is characterized as a clayey silt in terms of grain size, and has a mineralogy primarily containing quartz, illite, chlinochlore, and calcite.

Figure 1: Map of sampling locations for Tyrrell Sea, Lake Agassiz, Bearpaw Shale, and Champlain Sea sediments.

Figure 2: Map of Research Transect

Figure 3: USCS Plasticity Chart (ASTM D2487, 2011)

Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Liquid Limit

1.00E-07 Tyrrell Sea

1.00E-08 Bearpaw Shale

1.00E-09 Lake Agassiz

1.00E-10 Bearpaw (Powell, 2010)

1.00E-11 Lake Agassiz (Graham et al, 1998) 1.00E-12 Champlain Sea (O'Shaughnessy & Garga, 1994) Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s) 1.00E-13 Lake Agassiz (Rominger, 1954) 1.00E-14 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Lake Agassiz (Graham & Shields, 1984) Liquid Limit (%)

Figure 4: Plot of hydraulic conductivity vs. liquid limit for samples tested in this project (solid points), as well as data collected from the literature (open points), of Tyrrell Sea deposits, Lake Agassiz deposits, Champlain Sea deposits, and Bearpaw Shale deposits.

Clay Fraction vs. Hydraulic Conductivity 1.00E-07 Tyrrell Sea

1.00E-08 Bearpaw Shale

Lake Agassiz 1.00E-09

Lake Agassiz (Rominger, 1.00E-10 1954)

Lake Agassiz (Graham & 1.00E-11 Shields, 1984) Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s) Champlain Sea (O'Shaughnessy & Garga, 1.00E-12 1994) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Clay Fraction (%)

Figure 5: Plot of Clay Fraction vs. Hydraulic Conductivity for samples tested in this project (solid points), as well as data collected from the literature (open points), of Tyrrell Sea deposits, Lake Agassiz deposits, Champlain Sea deposits, and Bearpaw Shale deposits.

Liquid Limit vs. Clay Fraction 100% Tyrrell Sea 90% 80% Bearpaw Shale 70% Lake Agassiz 60%

50% Bearpaw (Powell, 2010) 40%

Clay Fraction (%) 30% Lake Agassiz (Rominger, 1954) 20% 10% Lake Agassiz (Graham & Shields, 1984) 0% Champlain Sea 0 50 100 150 Liquid Limit (%)

Figure 6: Plot of Liquid Limit vs. Clay Fraction for samples tested in this project (solid points), as well as data collected from the literature (open points), of Tyrrell Sea deposits, Lake Agassiz deposits, Champlain Sea deposits, and Bearpaw Shale deposits.

Figure 7: X-Ray Diffraction Scan of Tyrrell Sea and Lake Agassiz

Table 1: Laboratory results calculated in this study for plastic limit (PP), liquid limit (LL), grain-size (represented by percent of the sample by weight of clay fraction, silt, sand, and gravel) and hydraulic conductivity (K) for samples of Tyrrell Sea, Lake Agassiz, Bearpaw Shale, and Champlain Sea sediments.

Hydraulic Atterberg Limits Grain Size Conductivity 2 000 60µ

µm µ m m

Sample PP LL PI % Clay % Silt % Sand % Gravel K (m/s) Tyrrell Sea: 5 10/10/11-2 19 28 9 35 51 9 3 x 10-8 * Tyrrell Sea: 18/06/10-3 16 28 12 35 64 1 N/A Tyrrell Sea: 4 17/07/11-1 16 22 6 25 64 7 N/A Tyrrell Sea: 23/07/11-4 21 34 13 35 60 5 7 x 10-9 *

Lake Agassiz 19 36 16 18 74 8 2 x 10-11 Bear Paw: RM06-0164 29 88 59 10 75 15 1 x 10-12 Bear Paw: RM06-202 25 94 69 18 82 1 x 10-12

Champlain Sea: GSC-BH- JSR-01 21 50 29 20 79 1 N/A

* Values for hydraulic conductivity are field calculated K. Those not noted with an * are laboratory calculated.

Table 2: Data collected from relevant literature to use for comparison with results calculated in this study for plastic limit (PL), liquid limit (LL), grain size, and hydraulic conductivity (K).

Sample/Reference PP % LL % PI% %Clay %Silt %Sand K (m/s)

Agassiz (Yuen, Graham, & Janzen 1998) 30 80 50 4.6 x 10-11 GF41 (Rominger, 1954) 13.7 27.9 14.2 19 19 62 GF23 (Rominger, 1954) 29.8 119.2 89.4 92 6.4 1.6 GF35 (Rominger, 1954) 12.9 32 19.1 30 62 8 Agassiz (Remenda, Cherry, & Edwards 1994) 3 x 10-11 ** Upper (Graham & Shields 1984) 10 90 Lower (Graham & Shields 1984) 65 55 8m Core (Nix, 1998) 4.06x10-11 13.3m Core (Nix, 1998) 5.68x10-12 19.4m Core (Nix, 1998) 1.76x10-12 26.7m Core (Nix, 1998) 1.18x10-12 Bearpaw (Powell, 2010) 25 125 100 39 54 7 1 x 10-12 Pierre Shale Neuzil (1994) 1 x 10-14 Pierre Shale Neuzil (1994) 1 x 10-13 Bearpaw (Shaw &Hendry 1998) 57.7 38.3 4.7 4.8 x 10-12 61-60 (Laventure & Warkentin 1965) 72 24 4 62-1 (Laventure & Warkentin 1965) 73 22 5 62-2 (Laventure & Warkentin 1965) 71 23 2 61-62 (Laventure & Warkentin 1965) 62 30 2 61-61 (Laventure & Warkentin 1965) 29 17 47 28-83 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 87.9 10.6 1.5 67-8 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 90.2 9.7 0.1 50-194 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 85.1 14.5 0.4 50-199 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 80.3 19.4 0.3 50-203 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 33.8 24.2 42 50-212 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 49.9 47.4 2.8 65-18 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 59.2 31.2 9.6 65-20 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 77.8 20.9 1.3 65-22 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 26 71 2.9 68-4 (Brydon & Patry 1961) 44.8 46.9 8.2 12m NRC Sample (O'Shaughnessy & Garga 1994) 20 30 10 50 1x10-12 * 12m Fallowfield (O'Shaughnessy & Garga 1994) 20 40 20 60 1x10-12 * 12m Renfrew (O'Shaughnessy & Garga 1994) 20 40 20 60 1x10-12 * 12m Casselman (O'Shaughnessy & Garga 1994) 35 50 15 75 1x10-12 * 2 m NRC Sample (O'Shaughnessy & Garga 1994) 40 80 40 75 1x10-12 * 2 m Fallowfield (O'Shaughnessy & Garga 1994) 25 40 15 30 1x10-12 * 2 m Renfrew (O'Shaughnessy & Garga 1994) 25 50 25 60 1x10-12 * 2 m Casselman (O'Shaughnessy & Garga 1994) 30 50 20 30 1x10-12 * * Values for hydraulic conductivity are field calculated K. Those not noted with an * are laboratory calculated. ** Value for hydraulic conductivity found by Remenda, Cherry, and Edwards (1994) is based on both field and laboratory calculated K. Note: The Pierre Shale (Neuzil, 1993) is stratigraphically correlated to the Bearpaw Shale.

Table 3: Classification of samples based on their plasticity, and a combination of their plasticity and grain size by the Unified Soil Classification System ASTM Designation D 2487 – 06 (ASTM, 2006), as well as by their grain size percentages using the Forest Road Engineering Guidebook (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, 2002).

Plasticity & Grain Grain Size Plasticity Size (British Columbia Ministry of Sample (ASTM D2487, 2011) (ASTM D2487, 2011) Forests, 2002)

Tyrrell: 10/10/11-2 Low Plasticity Clay Lean Clay Clayey silt, with trace sand Tyrrell: 18/06/10-3 Low Plasticity Clay Lean Clay Clayey silt, with trace sand

Tyrrell: 17/07/11-1 Silty Clay Silty Clay Clayey silt, with trace sand Tyrrell: 23/07/11-4 Low Plasticity Clay Lean Clay Clayey silt, with trace sand

Lake Agassiz Low Plasticity Clay Lean Clay Silt, with some clay, trace sand

Silt, with some clay and some Bear Paw: RM06-0164 High Plasticity Clay Fat Clay sand

Bear Paw: RM06-202 High Plasticity Clay Fat Clay Silt, with some clay

Champlain: High/Low Plasticity GSC-BH-JSR-01 Clay Fat Clay Clayey silt, with trace sand

Appendix A

Liquid Limit Calculations

Liquid Limit: 23/07/11-4 35% 34% 34% 33% 33% 32% 32% 31% Water Content (%) 31% 30% 1 10 100 Number of Blows

Water Content vs. Number of Blows Lake Agassiz 39% 38% 38% 37% 37% 36% 36%

Water Content (%) 35% 35% 1 10 100 Number of Blows

Water Content vs. Number of Blows 18/06/10-3 29% 28% 28% 27% 27% 26%

Water Content (%) 26% 25% 1 10 100 Number of Blows

Water Content vs. Number of Blows 10/10/11-2 29% 29% 29% 29% 28% 28%

Water Content (%) 28% 28% 1 10 100 Number of Blows

Water Content vs. Number of Blows Bearpaw RM06-0164 93% 92% 91% 90% 89% 88% 87%

Water Content (%) 86% 85% 1 10 100 Number of Blows

Water Content vs. Number of Blows Bearpaw RM06-202 96% 95% 95% 94% 94% 93% 93%

Water Content (%) 92% 92% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Number of Blows

Liquid Limit GSC-BH-JSR-01 54 53 52 51 50 49 48 47 Water Content (%) 46 45 1 10 100 Number of Blows

Water Content vs. Number of Blows 17/07/11-1 22% 22% 22% 22% 21% 21% 21%

Water Content (%) 21% 21% 1 10 100 Number of Blows

Appendix B

Grain Size Distributions

Grain Size Distribution 18/06/10-3 100 90 80 70 60 Silt 50 40 Clay % Finer Than 30 18/06/10-3 20 Sand 10 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Grain Size (um)

Grain Size Distribution 17/07/11-1 100 90 80 70 60 Silt 50 40 Clay % Finer Than 30 17/07/11-1 20 Sand 10 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Grain Size (um)

Grain Size Distribution 10/10/11-2 100 90 80 70 60 Silt 50 40 Clay % Finer Than 30 10/10/11-2 20 Sand 10 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Grain Size (um)

Grain Size Distribution 23/07/11-4 100 90 80 70 60 Silt 50 40 Clay % Finer Than 30 23/07/11-4 20 Sand 10 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Grain Size (um)

Grain Size Distribution Lake Agassiz 100 90 80 70 60 Silt 50 40 Clay % Finer Than 30 Lake Agassiz 20 Sand 10 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Grain Size (um)

Grain Size Distribution Bear Paw RM06-0164 100 90 80 70 60 Silt 50 40 Clay

% Finer Than 30 RM06-0164 20 Sand 10 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Grain Size (um)

Grain Size Distribution Bear Paw RM06-202 100 90 80 70 60 Silt 50 40 Clay

% Finer Than 30 RM06-202 20 Sand 10 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Grain Size (um)

Grain Size Distribution GSC-BH- JSR-01 100 90 80 70 60 Silt 50 40 Clay

% Finer Than 30 GSC-BH-JSR-01 20 Sand 10 0 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 Grain Size (um)

Appendix C

X-Ray Diffraction Patterns

Tyrrell Sea Sediment – Sample 10/10/11-2

Tyrrell Sea Sediment – Sample 17/07/11-1

Tyrrell Sea Sediment – Sample 18/06/10-3

Tyrrell Sea Sediment – Sample 23/07/11-4

Bearpaw Shale – Sample RM06-0164

Bearpaw Shale – Sample RM06-202

Champlain Sea Sediment – GSC-BH-JSR-01

Lake Agassiz Sediment

Appendix D

Classification Systems

USCS Soil Classification Flow Chart (ASTM D2487, 2011)

Forest Road Engineering Guidebook Soil Description Terms (British Columbia Ministry of Forests, 2002)