DOCSLIB.ORG

Brines of Ohio

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brines of Ohio GEOWGICAL SURVEY OF OHIO FOURTH SERIES, BULLETIN 37 • Brines of Ohio By WILBER STOUT R. E. LAMBORN DOWNS SCHAAF GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF OHIO WILBER STOUT, State Geologist FOURTH SERIES, BULLETIN 3 7 iiJJO DIV. Of GEC\'OGJCAL SURVEY P. 0. BOX 650 BANOUSKY, Oh o BRINES OF OHIO (A Preliminary Report) By WILBER STOUT, R. E. LAMBORN, DOWNS SCHAAF OHIO GEOL. SURVEY \.AKE ERJE SECT10N LIERJ.~h \ LhnD NO.(~ COLUMBUS 1932 PDbJ 2 ds GgDif CONTENTS Page Foreword............................ 7 Introduction.. ...... .................. 9 History...................................... 11 Jackson County.................. ................................... 11 Delaware County................................................. 12 Muskingum County.................................................. 12 ' Gallia County..................................................... 12 Meigs County............................................... 13 Athens County........... ....... ..... .. .............................. 13 Morgan County....................................................... 13 Columbiana County......... 13 Guernsey County................................ 13 Tuscarawas County..... .. 14 Cuyahoga County............................... 14 Medina County.................... ...................................... 14 Summit County........ 14 Wayne County.................... 14 Origin of brines.............................. ............. 15 Rock formations yielding brines ........... 19 Permian system ......................................... 19 Pennsylvanian system ..................................... 20 Cow Run member........................................... 20 Mahoning member, Macksburg Three Hundred-foot sand.... 20 Lower Freeport member, Second Cow Run, Peeker sand .. 21 Clarion sandstone, Macksburg Five Hundred-foot sand. 21 Massillon member, Salt or First Salt sand .............. ..... 21 Sharon member, Maxton sand........ .. 22 Mississippian system ..................................... 22 Vinton member, Keener sand ........... .... 23 Black Hand member, Big Injun sand........... ............... 23 Berea formation ..................................... 23 Devonian system .......................................................... 24 Oriskany formation, horizon of First Water of Big Lime 25 Silurian system........................ ............................................................ 25 Salina formation, Salt beds................... 25 Newburg formation, horizon of Second Water of Big Lime ........... .. 26 Ordovician system .................................................................. 27 Lexington or Trenton formation. .......................................... 27 St. Peter formation...................... ......................................................... 27 Cambrian system ........................... .. 28 Utilization of brines................................ .................................... 28 Sodium and its compounds............. ......................... 28 Bromine and its compounds............ ................................. 30 Calcium and its salts....................... ...................................................... 30 Chlorine and its compounds........... ...... ........................ ............................ 31 Magnesium and its compounds ......... ........................................................... 32 Strontium and its compounds ........... ················........................................ 32 Other components of brines .... .............................................................. 33 (3) 4 tsKIN~ U Y OHIO Page Tests of brines and salt......................... ............................................................................. 33 Macksburg Five Hundred-foot sand.......................................................................... 33 Noble County............ ....... ... .......................................................... ................ ....... 34 Center Township .......................................................................................... 34 Maxton sand.................................................................................................................. 35 Meigs County.................................................. ..................................................... 35 Scipio Township............................................................................................ 35 Monroe County.................................................................................................... 36 Malaga Township................................................................ ......................... 36 Maxville or "Big Lime" sand.............. :...................... ................................................. · 37 Monroe County..... ............................................................................................... 38 Malaga Township.......................................................................................... 38 Kttner sand........................... :.............. ....................................................................... 40 Noble County....... ................................................................................................. 41 Seneca Township.......................................................................................... 41 Monroe County.................................................................................................... 42 Malaga Township............................................. .......................................... :.. 42 Sunsbury Township...................................................................................... 46 Rig lnjun sand.............................................................................................................. 47 Meigs County........................................................................................................ 48 Salisbury Township .................. .......................................... ......................... 48 Noble County........................................................................................................ SO Marion Township.......................................................................................... SO Monroe County... ................................ ................................................................. 5l Jackson Township... ..................................................................................... 51 llerea sand......................................................................................................... .. ... .. .. 52 Scioto County........................................................................................................ 52 Jeffenon Township..................... ................................................................. 52 Meigs County........................................................................................................ 53 Sutton Township.......... ............................................................................... 53 Noble County........................................................................................................ 54 Marion Township.... .............................................. :....................................... 54 Seneca Township.......................................................................................... 56 Monroe County................ ............... .................................................................... 51 Center Township.......................................................................................... 51 Belmont County.................................................................................................... 58 Warren Township.......................................................................................... 58 Tuscarawas County............................................................................................. 59 Dover Township............ ... :. ...... .......................................................:...... ....... 59 Stark County........................................................................................................ 60 Canton Township.......................................................................................... 60 Osnaburg Township...................................................................................... 6l Mahoning County............ :................................................................................... 62 Beaver Township..................... ....... ,............................................................. 62 Medina County.................................................................................................... 63 Chatham Township...................................................................................... 63 First Water of Big Lime.. ............. .......... .................................................................... 64 Jefferson County.................................. ............................................................... 64 Island Crttk Township................................................................................ 64 Wayne County.....,................................................................................................. 65 Chester Township ................. .............................................................. :........ 65 Milton Townshi~................................................................ ........................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stratigraphic Succession in Lower Peninsula of Michigan
    STRATIGRAPHIC DOMINANT LITHOLOGY ERA PERIOD EPOCHNORTHSTAGES AMERICANBasin Margin Basin Center MEMBER FORMATIONGROUP SUCCESSION IN LOWER Quaternary Pleistocene Glacial Drift PENINSULA Cenozoic Pleistocene OF MICHIGAN Mesozoic Jurassic ?Kimmeridgian? Ionia Sandstone Late Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Conemaugh Grand River Formation Geological Survey Division Late Harold Fitch, State Geologist Pennsylvanian and Saginaw Formation ?Pottsville? Michigan Basin Geological Society Early GEOL IN OG S IC A A B L N Parma Sandstone S A O G C I I H E C T I Y Bayport Limestone M Meramecian Grand Rapids Group 1936 Late Michigan Formation Stratigraphic Nomenclature Project Committee: Mississippian Dr. Paul A. Catacosinos, Co-chairman Mark S. Wollensak, Co-chairman Osagian Marshall Sandstone Principal Authors: Dr. Paul A. Catacosinos Early Kinderhookian Coldwater Shale Dr. William Harrison III Robert Reynolds Sunbury Shale Dr. Dave B.Westjohn Mark S. Wollensak Berea Sandstone Chautauquan Bedford Shale 2000 Late Antrim Shale Senecan Traverse Formation Traverse Limestone Traverse Group Erian Devonian Bell Shale Dundee Limestone Middle Lucas Formation Detroit River Group Amherstburg Form. Ulsterian Sylvania Sandstone Bois Blanc Formation Garden Island Formation Early Bass Islands Dolomite Sand Salina G Unit Paleozoic Glacial Clay or Silt Late Cayugan Salina F Unit Till/Gravel Salina E Unit Salina D Unit Limestone Salina C Shale Salina Group Salina B Unit Sandy Limestone Salina A-2 Carbonate Silurian Salina A-2 Evaporite Shaley Limestone Ruff Formation
    [Show full text]
  • The Changing Technology of Post Medieval Sea Salt Production in England
    1 Heritage, Uses and Representations of the Sea. Centro de Investigação Transdisiplinar Cultura, Espaço e Memoría (CITCEM) Porto, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, 20-22 October 2011. The changing technology of post medieval sea salt production in England Jeremy Greenwood Composition of seawater Sea water contains 3.5% evaporites of which salt (sodium chloride) comprises 77.8%. The remainder is known as bittern as it includes the bitter tasting, aperient and deliquescent sulphates of magnesium (Epsom salt) and sodium (Glauber’s salt) as well as about 11% magnesium chloride. 2 Successful commercial salt making depends on the fractional crystallisation of seawater producing the maximum amount of salt without contamination by bittern salts. As seawater is evaporated, very small amounts of calcium carbonate are precipitated followed by some calcium sulphate. This is followed by the crystallisation of sodium chloride but before this is complete, bitter Epsom salt appears; something that needs to be avoided.1 In Continental Europe, evaporation of sea water is achieved solely by the energy of the wind and sun but this is not possible in the English climate so other techniques were developed. 1 http://www.solarsaltharvesters.com/notes.htm SOLAR SALT ENGINEERING 3 Evaporation vessel Briquetage The earliest known English method of coastal saltmaking has been found in the late Bronze Age. This involved boiling seawater in crude clay dishes supported by clay firebars (briquetage) and was widespread in Europe. This technique continued into the Iron Age and into the Roman period with variations inevitably occurring in the industry, although the dating of saltworks is very problematical.2 Detailed interpretation continues to be a matter of dispute.
    [Show full text]
  • Carboniferous Formations and Faunas of Central Montana
    Carboniferous Formations and Faunas of Central Montana GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 348 Carboniferous Formations and Faunas of Central Montana By W. H. EASTON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 348 A study of the stratigraphic and ecologic associa­ tions and significance offossils from the Big Snowy group of Mississippian and Pennsylvanian rocks UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1962 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows : Eastern, William Heyden, 1916- Carboniferous formations and faunas of central Montana. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1961. iv, 126 p. illus., diagrs., tables. 29 cm. (U.S. Geological Survey. Professional paper 348) Part of illustrative matter folded in pocket. Bibliography: p. 101-108. 1. Paleontology Montana. 2. Paleontology Carboniferous. 3. Geology, Stratigraphic Carboniferous. I. Title. (Series) For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, B.C. CONTENTS Page Page Abstract-__________________________________________ 1 Faunal analysis Continued Introduction _______________________________________ 1 Faunal relations ______________________________ 22 Purposes of the study_ __________________________ 1 Long-ranging elements...__________________ 22 Organization of present work___ __________________ 3 Elements of Mississippian affinity.._________ 22 Acknowledgments--.-------.- ___________________
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    (Sections) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This “Geologic Play Book for Utica Shale Appalachian Basin Exploration” (hereafter referred to as the “Utica Shale Play Book Study” or simply “Study”) represents the results of a two-year research effort by workers in five different states with the financial support of fifteen oil and gas industry partners. The Study was made possible through a coordinated effort between the Appalachian Basin Oil & Natural Gas Research Consortium (AONGRC) and the West Virginia University Shale Research, Education, Policy and Economic Development Center. The Study was funded by industry members of the Utica Shale Appalachian Basin Exploration Consortium (the Consortium). The 15 industry members of the Consortium were joined by individuals from four state geological surveys, two universities, one consulting company, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), who collectively comprised the Research Team members of the Consortium. This play book incorporates and integrates results of research conducted at various granularities, ranging from basin-scale stratigraphy and architecture to the creation of nano- porosity as gas was generated from organic matter in the reservoir. Between these two end members, the research team has mapped the thickness and distribution of the Utica and Point Pleasant formations using well logs; determined favorable reservoir facies through an examination of outcrops, cores and samples at the macroscopic and microscopic scales; identified the source of the total organic carbon (TOC) component in the shales and estimated the maturation level of the TOC; and searched for reservoir porosity utilizing scanning electron microscopy (SEM) technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Information Maxville Lime.Stone
    .·-~ . f GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF OHIO WILBER STOUT, State Geologist Fourth Series Information Circular No. 3 RECENT INFORMATION ON THE MAXVILLE LIME.STONE by RAYMONDE. LAMBORN COLUMBUS 1945 Reprinted 1961 HOOK I\(..• OHIO GEOL. SURVEY. LAKE ERIE SECTION LIBRARY CARD NO. ·7 STATE CF OHIO Michael V. DiSalle Governor DEPARTMENT CF NATURAL RESOURCES Herbert B. Eagon Director NATURAL RESOURCES CCMMISSION C. D. Blubaugh Joseph E. Hunt Herbert B. Eagon Roy M. Kottman Byron Frederick DemClB L. Sean Forrest G. Hl1ll Myron T. Sturgeon Willian• Hoyne DIVISION OF GEQ.OGICAL SURVEY Ralph j. Bernhagen Chief COLUMBUS 1945 Reprinted 1961 Heer ptg. Co., Cols., O. INTRODUCTION The Maxville has been an important source of limestone for more than 100 years in southern and east central Ohio where it was first utilized for mortar and for furnace flux. Probably for this rea~on outcrops of a limestone later shown to be Maxville in age were described by Briggs in 1838 who noted occurrences near Maxville, Perry County; on Three Mile Run near Logan in Hocking County; near Reeds Mills near Wellston, Jackson County; and at the Canter Quarry in Hamilton Township, Jack- son County.1 Further obser.vations of this limestone were made by E. B. Andrews of the Second Geological Survey of Ohio and his report was published in the Report of Progress in 1869. Andrews named the lime- stone the Maxville for its occurrence near Maxville, Hocking County, noted its patchy distribution on the outcrop, described its stratigraphic position as immediately overlying the Logan sandstones ana shales, and declared the limestone to be of sub-Carboniferous (Mississippian) age.
    [Show full text]
  • Detroit River Group in the Michigan Basin
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 133 September 1951 DETROIT RIVER GROUP IN THE MICHIGAN BASIN By Kenneth K. Landes UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director Washington, D. C. Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Page Introduction............................ ^ Amherstburg formation................. 7 Nomenclature of the Detroit River Structural geology...................... 14 group................................ i Geologic history ....................... ^4 Detroit River group..................... 3 Economic geology...................... 19 Lucas formation....................... 3 Reference cited........................ 21 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Location of wells and cross sections used in the study .......................... ii 2. Correlation chart . ..................................... 2 3. Cross sections A-«kf to 3-G1 inclusive . ......................;.............. 4 4. Facies map of basal part of Dundee formation. ................................. 5 5. Aggregate thickness of salt beds in the Lucas formation. ........................ 8 6. Thickness map of Lucas formation. ........................................... 10 7. Thickness map of Amherstburg formation (including Sylvania sandstone member. 11 8. Lime stone/dolomite facies map of Amherstburg formation ...................... 13 9. Thickness of Sylvania sandstone member of Amherstburg formation.............. 15 10. Boundary of the Bois Blanc formation in southwestern Michigan.
    [Show full text]
  • Active Surface Salt Structures of the Western Kuqa Fold-Thrust Belt, Northwestern China
    Active surface salt structures of the western Kuqa fold-thrust belt, northwestern China Jianghai Li1, A. Alexander G. Webb2,*, Xiang Mao1, Ingrid Eckhoff2, Cindy Colón2, Kexin Zhang2, Honghao Wang1, An Li2, and Dian He2,† 1The Key Laboratory of Orogenic Belts and Crustal Evolution, Ministry of Education, School of Earth and Space Sciences, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China 2Department of Geology and Geophysics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA ABSTRACT fold-thrust belt display a variety of erosion- dynamics of salt motion. Although geo scientists tectonics interactions, with nuances refl ect- have interpreted thousands of salt sheets in The western Kuqa fold-thrust belt of Xin- ing the low viscosity and high erodibility of more than 35 basins worldwide (Hudec and jiang Province, China, hosts a series of surface salt, including stream defl ections, potential Jackson, 2006, 2007), subaerial preservation of salt structures. Here we present preliminary tectonic aneurysm development, and even halite salt structures is rare (Talbot and Pohjola, analysis of the geometry, kinematics, and sur- an upper-crustal test site for channel fl ow– 2009; Barnhart and Lohman, 2012). A fraction face processes of three of these structures: the focused denudation models. of these subaerial salt structures occur in active Quele open-toed salt thrust sheet, Tuzima- settings, where boundary conditions of ongoing zha salt wall, and Awate salt fountain. The INTRODUCTION deformation can be geodetically characterized. fi rst two are line-sourced, the third appears The Kuqa fold-thrust belt of Xinjiang Prov- to be point-sourced, and all are active. The Among common solid Earth materials, salt is ince, northwestern China, offers a new prospect ~35-km-long, 200-m-thick Quele open-toed distinguished by uncommonly low density, low for subaerial investigation of a range of active salt thrust sheet features internal folding, viscosity, near incompressibility, high solubil- salt structures.
    [Show full text]
  • Ventures in Salt: Compass Minerals International Rebecca M
    08-064 July 10, 2009 Ventures in Salt: Compass Minerals International Rebecca M. Henderson, John Sterman, Ramana Nanda As Michael Ducey, the President and CEO of Compass Minerals International, looked out of his office in Overland Park, Kansas on the evening of December 11, 2003, he wondered how investors would react to his company going public. Ducey had joined Compass Minerals in April 2002 as CEO and strategic investor, a few months after the private equity firm Apollo Management had acquired it from IMC Global.1 Although salt companies were not typical candidates for IPOs, Compass Minerals had done very well in its two years as a stand-alone firm, and Ducey had encouraged his fellow investors to consider exiting via an IPO. With Goldman Sachs leading its IPO the following day, Ducey considered the response of investors and his strategy going forward. Where should he be focusing his attention? How could he ensure that the company lived up to the high expectations of its investors? A Short History of Salt Salt was one of the most widely used minerals in the world. Although it had thousands of applications, in the United States it was primarily used for highway deicing, and as an input into the chemicals, food-processing, water-treatment, and agricultural industries. 1 Although some parts of the current operations of Compass Minerals go back over a hundred years, its most recent structure arose from a series of ownership changes that began in 1998. On April 1, 1998 IMC Global purchased the salt and chemicals businesses of Harris Chemical Group ($450 MM in cash and $950 MM raised in debt), including the North American Salt Company, the Great Salt Lake Minerals Corp in the US, and Salt Union in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Hydrogelogic Conditions by County for the State of Michigan. Apple, B.A., and H.W. Reeves 2007. U.S. Geological Surve
    In cooperation with the State of Michigan, Department of Environmental Quality Summary of Hydrogeologic Conditions by County for the State of Michigan Open-File Report 2007-1236 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Summary of Hydrogeologic Conditions by County for the State of Michigan By Beth A. Apple and Howard W. Reeves In cooperation with the State of Michigan, Department of Environmental Quality Open-File Report 2007-1236 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark D. Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2007 For more information about the USGS and its products: Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/ Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation Beth, A. Apple and Howard W. Reeves, 2007, Summary of Hydrogeologic Conditions by County for the State of Michi- gan. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1236, 78 p. Cover photographs Clockwise from upper left: Photograph of Pretty Lake by Gary Huffman. Photograph of a river in winter by Dan Wydra. Photographs of Lake Michigan and the Looking Glass River by Sharon Baltusis. iii Contents Abstract ...........................................................................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • Xerox University Microfilms
    information t o u s e r s This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of usefs indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of Michigan and the Great Lakes
    35133_Geo_Michigan_Cover.qxd 11/13/07 10:26 AM Page 1 “The Geology of Michigan and the Great Lakes” is written to augment any introductory earth science, environmental geology, geologic, or geographic course offering, and is designed to introduce students in Michigan and the Great Lakes to important regional geologic concepts and events. Although Michigan’s geologic past spans the Precambrian through the Holocene, much of the rock record, Pennsylvanian through Pliocene, is miss- ing. Glacial events during the Pleistocene removed these rocks. However, these same glacial events left behind a rich legacy of surficial deposits, various landscape features, lakes, and rivers. Michigan is one of the most scenic states in the nation, providing numerous recre- ational opportunities to inhabitants and visitors alike. Geology of the region has also played an important, and often controlling, role in the pattern of settlement and ongoing economic development of the state. Vital resources such as iron ore, copper, gypsum, salt, oil, and gas have greatly contributed to Michigan’s growth and industrial might. Ample supplies of high-quality water support a vibrant population and strong industrial base throughout the Great Lakes region. These water supplies are now becoming increasingly important in light of modern economic growth and population demands. This text introduces the student to the geology of Michigan and the Great Lakes region. It begins with the Precambrian basement terrains as they relate to plate tectonic events. It describes Paleozoic clastic and carbonate rocks, restricted basin salts, and Niagaran pinnacle reefs. Quaternary glacial events and the development of today’s modern landscapes are also discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Contents Illustrations
    Manufacturing Process & Waste Discharges.......... 4 Salt Industry ...................................................................4 Historical Sketch of the Salt Industry....................... 4 Construction Practices from 1881 until 1954........... 5 Construction Practices from 1954 until 1970........... 5 Contemporary Operating and Monitoring Practices 5 Practices of the Morton Salt Company.........................5 Practices of the Hardy Salt Company ..........................6 Evaluation of Operating and Monitoring Practices .......6 Chemical Brine Industry .................................................7 Historical Sketch of the Chemical Brine Industry .... 7 Construction Practices from 1927 unti1 1970 ......... 8 Contemporary Operating and Monitoring Practices 8 Practices of the Morton Chemical Company ................8 Practices of the Standard Lime and Refractories.........8 Evaluation of Operating and Monitoring Practices .......9 Location of Salt and Chemical Brine Wells ....................9 HISTORY OF THE SALT, BRINE AND PAPER GROUND WATER AND CONTAMINANTS ......................9 INDUSTRIES AND THEIR PROBABLE EFFECT ON THE GROUND WATER QUALITY IN THE Domestic Water Supply..................................................9 MANISTEE LAKE AREA OF MICHIGAN Ground Water and Aquifer Characteristics ..................10 General Geology of the Manistee Lake Area ........ 10 Definition of Aquifer Characteristics ...................... 11 Definition of Ground Water Quality........................ 11 Contaminants ...............................................................11
    [Show full text]