UTAH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SURVEY NOTES Volume 44, Number 3 September 2012 POTASH IN UTAH The Director’s Perspective by Richard G. Allis One of the newest additions to the Utah are available. A useful feature is a selection of Geologic Survey website that we are very proud basemaps that underlie the geologic map. A of is the interactive geologic map of the state. slider allows the user to choose the transpar- Within a month it became one of our most ency, anywhere between 100 percent geologic visited pages. The map has been a collaborative layer and 100 percent basemap layer. Basemap effort between the Geologic Mapping Program choices include various airphoto, topographic, and staff from the Geologic Information and and street map layers, which also zoom so that Take a look at the map and zoom into your Outreach Program who worked on the applica- the user can easily switch between the layers. favorite area in Utah! The link to access the tion of the GIS technology. Over 400 geologic Another feature is a sidebar that contains a interactive map is on the front page of our maps at scales from 1:24,000 to 1:500,000 were geologic description when the user clicks on website. Please give us feedback on the map scanned and georeferenced so that the user can a particular map unit anywhere on the map. and ideas on how to make it even more user- seamlessly zoom from a statewide view down There is also an option for downloading GIS friendly. Send comments to Sandy Eldredge at to an urban geology scale, where those maps map information or any associated report. [email protected]. Basemap Description Scale http://geology.utah.gov/maps/geomap/interactive/viewer/index.html State of Utah Editorial Staff Vicky Clarke Energy and Minerals David Tabet Gary R. Herbert, Governor Lori Steadman, Stevie Emerson, Robert Blackett, Craig Morgan, Contents Jeremy Gleason, Jay Hill Jeff Quick, Taylor Boden, Department of Natural Resources Thomas Chidsey, Cheryl Gustin, Michael Styler, Executive Director Utah’s Potash Resources and Activity .............1 Geologic Hazards Steve Bowman Tom Dempster, Brigitte Hucka, Energy News .................................................... 3 UGS Board Richard Giraud, William Lund, Stephanie Carney, Ken Krahulec, William Loughlin, Chair Greg McDonald, Jessica Castleton, Brad Wolverton, Sonja Heuscher, UGS Uses Geophysics to Explore Jack Hamilton, Tom Tripp, Gregg Beukelman, Chris DuRoss, Mike Vanden Berg, Andrew Rupke, for New Geothermal Resources .................4 Sunny Dent, Mark Bunnell, Tyler Knudsen, Corey Unger, Mark Gwynn, Christian Hardwick, Oil Shale vs. Shale Oil: Kenneth Puchlik, Marc Eckels, Adam McKean, Ben Erickson Peter Nielsen What’s the Difference? ..............................6 Kevin Carter (Trust Lands Pam Perri, Amanda Hintz Administration-ex officio) Groundwater and Paleontology Glad You Asked ................................................ 8 Geologic Information and Outreach Mike Lowe UGS Staff Sandra Eldredge James Kirkland, Janae Wallace, GeoSights ...................................................... 10 Christine Wilkerson, Patricia Stokes, Martha Hayden, Hugh Hurlow, Administration Survey News ...................................................12 Mark Milligan, Stephanie Earls, Don DeBlieux, Kim Nay, Richard G. Allis, Director Lance Weaver, Gentry Hammerschmid, Paul Inkenbrandt, Lucy Jordan, Teacher’s Corner .............................................13 Kimm Harty, Deputy Director Jim Davis, Marshall Robinson, Kevin Thomas, Rebecca Medina, New Publications ............................................13 Starr Soliz, Secretary/Receptionist Bryan Butler Walid Sabbah, Rich Emerson, Dianne Davis, Administrative Secretary Stefan Kirby, Scott Madsen Kathi Galusha, Financial Manager Geologic Mapping Grant Willis Linda Bennett, Accounting Technician Design: Jeremy Gleason Jon King, Douglas Sprinkel, Michael Hylland, Technical Reviewer Janice Hayden, J. Buck Ehler, Cover: Solar evaporation ponds at Intrepid’s Moab Robert Ressetar, Technical Reviewer Kent Brown, Basia Matyjasik, facility. Photograph by Andrew Rupke. Donald Clark, Bob Biek, Paul Kuehne Survey Notes is published three times yearly by Utah Geological Survey, 1594 W. North Temple, Suite 3110, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116; (801) 537-3300. The Utah Geological Survey provides timely scientific information about Utah’s geologic environment, resources, and hazards. The UGS is a division of the Department of Natural Resources. Single copies of Survey Notes are distributed free of charge within the United States and reproduction is encouraged with recognition of source. Copies are available at geology.utah.gov/surveynotes. ISSN 1061-7930 UTAH’S POTASH RESOURCES AND ACTIVITY by Andrew Rupke Introduction Potash refers to natural or manufactured, water-soluble potas- sium salts, most commonly in the form of potassium chloride (KCl). Potash minerals are primarily used as fertilizer and are vitally important because they provide plants with potassium, one of three essential plant nutrients along with nitrogen and phos- phorous. The chemical industry also consumes potash for pro- duction of or use in a number of products, including soap, glass, ceramics, and batteries. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) esti- mates that 37 million metric tons (mt) of potash (reported as K2O equivalent) were produced in the world in 2011, and 1.1 million mt were produced in the U.S. Consumption in the U.S. was about 6.5 million mt, so the U.S. is currently a net importer of potash. The largest producer of potash in the world is Canada, but Russia, Belarus, Germany, and China also produce significant amounts. Processing plant at Intrepid’s Moab operation. Until 2008 potash prices were relatively stable for a number of years at less than $200 per mt of potassium chloride, but in early geological settings, including surface brines, subsurface brines, 2008 prices rose sharply to about $900 per mt. However, during bedded evaporites, and alunite—all but alunite are currently and following the economic recession of late 2008 and 2009, exploited for potash production. Surface brines of Great Salt Lake prices dropped significantly to slightly above $300 per mt. As the are harvested by GSLM, which has evaporation pond capacity to economy improved, potash prices increased, bringing current produce over 360,000 mt of potassium sulfate (K2SO4). per year prices back up to over $500 per mt—so prices are not at peak Worldwide, potassium sulfate, which is also used as fertilizer, is levels, but are moving in that direction. much less commonly produced than potassium chloride, but sells for a higher price. GSLM is able to produce potassium sulfate due Utah’s Potash Production and Resources to relatively high sulfate content in Great Salt Lake brine, and they Utah is one of only three states in the U.S. that produces potash. are the largest producer of potassium sulfate in North America. Two companies, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) and Great Salt Lake Minerals (GSLM), produce potash at three locations in Utah: Intrepid produces potash in the form of potassium chloride from Great Salt Lake, Wendover, and Moab. At all locations, Utah’s pro- subsurface brines of the Great Salt Lake Desert near Wendover. ducers use solar evaporation ponds in which brine enriched with The Great Salt Lake Desert contains salts precipitated during the potassium is evaporated and concentrated, which leads to precip- late stages of ancient Lake Bonneville, and the precipitated salts itation of potash minerals. Those minerals can then be collected, (also known as evaporites) enrich the groundwater with potas- purified, and processed. Utah’s warm, dry climate is well-suited sium. Intrepid extracts the groundwater using trenches and wells for this efficient use of solar energy. and then pumps the water into evaporation ponds. Near Moab, Intrepid produces potash from deeply-buried evaporites found Utah is unique in that its potash resources occur in a number of in the Paradox Basin of southeast Utah. In the Paradox Basin, evaporites formed during the Pennsylvanian Period (~300 mil- lion years ago) in a restricted marine basin where seawater was Solar evaporation pond at Intrepid’s Wendover operation. Photo by Mark Gwynn. concentrated, precipitated salt, and was subsequently diluted multiple times, producing bedded evaporite cycles. Several thou- sand feet of evaporites precipitated in the basin, and, during the times when the seawater was most concentrated, potash miner- als formed and were deposited. At least 29 evaporite cycles have been identified in the Paradox Basin, and 18 of those cycles are known to have potash mineralization—although only a few of the cycles likely have economic significance. Intrepid solution mines two of the potash cycles by pumping water down a well, dissolv- ing the potash minerals at depth, and pumping the potassium- enriched fluid back up another well. The potash is then re-precip- itated in surface evaporation ponds and harvested for processing (see cover photo). SEPTEMBER 2012 1 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Andrew Rupke joined the UGS as an industrial minerals geologist in 2010. Prior to that, he worked as a geologist in the lime industry for over 6 years. His work and research at the UGS focus on Utah’s diverse industrial mineral resources, including potash, salt, high- calcium limestone, aggregate, gypsum, and others. Potash activity in Utah. The green circles represent existing producers, and the red crosses represent proposed expansions and exploration areas. The pink shaded area shows