Showing posts with label geologists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label geologists. Show all posts

Saturday, May 16, 2009

Diamonds, Canada, And Rogue Geologists

The following article is not about global warming, but a fascinating story about a persistent, rogue geologist and the discovery of diamonds in Canada.
Peter

How a Rogue Geologist Discovered a Diamond Trove in the Canadian Arctic

By Carl Hoffman 11.24.08 (source)
Diamond hunter Chuck Fipke spreads out maps of potential new discoveries.
Photo: Andrew Hetherington

Behind an unmarked door in a faded business park outside Kelowna, British Columbia, in a maze of rooms crowded with desks, computers, and floor-to-ceiling shelves, Chuck Fipke sifts through 20-pound bags of dirt.

"We take samples, hey, from gravel and streambeds all over the world," Fipke says. He sieves the earth, runs it through magnetic drums and centrifuges and electromagnetic separators. Then his technicians, working with scanning electron microscopes, separate out grains and mount them on postage-stamp-sized squares of epoxy. It's painstaking work but worth the trouble. Fipke has learned to understand those grains of dirt, and that understanding has led him to diamonds.

Eighteen years ago, there was no such thing as a Canadian diamond — as far as anyone knew. Diamonds came mostly from Australia, Botswana, South Africa, Namibia, and Russia. De Beers mined 75 percent of the world's output, much of it tainted by controversial "blood diamonds," sold to fund African wars.

Stones from the Ekati Mine.
Photo: Andrew Hetherington

Today, Canada is the world's third-largest producer, by value, of rough stones. In the Northwest Territories, BHP Billiton's Ekati mine has been producing since 1998 and Rio Tinto's Diavik mine since 2003. De Beers opened its first Canadian mine, at Snap Lake, in July — a confirmation that Canada is the new center of the world.

The story behind the addition of Canada to the ranks of diamond-producing nations leads back to one man: a short, absentminded Canadian geologist named Chuck Fipke. When he discovered diamonds in Lac de Gras, Northwest Territories, in 1991, he started the largest staking rush in North America since George Carmack found gold in the Klondike a century earlier. And he's not finished: He's prospecting around the world, toting gravel samples back to his lab in British Columbia to figure out where to look for his next big strike.

In 1970, fresh out of the University of British Columbia with a degree in geology, Chuck Fipke signed on with mining company Kennecott Copper to look for gold and copper in Papua New Guinea. A helicopter would drop him off alone in the middle of a jungle, and pick him up at the end of the day. The terrain was so rough that the chopper often couldn't land — Fipke would just leap out as it hovered close to the ground. One day he turned around to face 20 locals, arrows strung. He raised his arms, slowly removed his vest, and offered it to "the one who looked like the chief." By the time the helo returned for him, Fipke was in his underpants clutching a fine array of tribal shields, bows and arrows, and fetishes. "I've got an amazing collection of stuff!" he says.

Fipke is a small man with a shaved head, a burnished tan, piercing blue eyes, and forearms like Popeye's. As a kid, his frantic start-stop mind made people think he was stupid. After getting his high school girlfriend pregnant, he agreed to marry her ... and then failed to show up for the wedding. (The couple eventually married after the baby was born.) He stutters and says "hey" in almost every sentence. He frequently loses his glasses and his keys, shows up late to appointments, and has a history of spending prodigious amounts of money in strip joints. His nicknames have included Captain Chaos and Stumpy.

After stints in the Amazon, Australia, and South Africa, Fipke opened a mineral separation laboratory in British Columbia in 1977. A year later, Superior Oil hired him to go back into the field — to look not for metals but gems.

The wilderness around Snap Lake, in Canada's Northwest Territories, conceals a trove of diamonds.
Photo: Andrew Hetherington


The company already had a search method. A couple of years prior, a geologist named John Gurney, working with Superior's money at the University of Cape Town, hypothesized that certain common minerals might reliably form alongside diamonds. He used an electron microprobe to analyze geological structures called kimberlite pipes — the places you occasionally (but not often) find diamonds — and discovered that the presence of chromite, ilmenite, and high-chrome, low-calcium garnet did indeed predict a rich strike. He examined a host of pipes in South Africa that had these so-called indicator minerals and published a paper explaining his results.

The Snap Lake site is one of four diamond mines established in Canada in recent years.
Illustration: Bryan Christie

Fipke heard about Gurney's work on a tour of De Beers' Finsch Mine in South Africa and quickly turned himself into an expert on indicator minerals — combining what he understood of Gurney's work with results coming out of Russian labs and his own skills with field sampling. Superior had worked with Fipke before, back in his gold mining days, so by the time the company wanted someone to go look for kimberlite pipes northwest of Fort Collins, Colorado, Fipke was the best choice. He found half a dozen, but like 98 percent of the kimberlite formations in the world, they didn't contain diamonds in commercially viable quantities.

But Fipke knew that, 100 miles under those pipes, was a craton, a thick, old chunk of continental plate where diamonds form. Kimberlite pipes are created when magma bubbles up through a craton, expanding and cooling on its way up. If the craton has diamonds in it, the result is either a carrot-shaped, diamond-studded pipe reaching up to the surface or a wide, flat underground structure called a dike.

Fipke also knew that the craton underneath the pipes he had found ran all the way up the Rockies. With Superior's backing, he teamed up with a geologist and pilot named Stewart Blusson, formed Dia Met Minerals, and headed north.

By 1981, the two men were sampling the ground in Canada; they would eventually secure mining concessions on 80,000 square miles. "It was just me and Sewart and a floatplane," Fipke says. "We took all the supplies and all the samples in ourselves."

De Beers geologists, it turned out, were already there, relying on their own indicator mineral formulas. But Fipke and Blusson surmised that the indicators De Beers found had in fact been dragged far from the kimberlite pipe eons ago by a passing glacier. What they needed to do was look "upstream" for the point of origin. Fipke got a helicopter and flew back and forth over the Arctic Circle, using a magnetometer to track variations in magnetic field that would suggest kimberlite. After thousands of miles and hundreds of hours in the air, he found a promising site near Lac de Gras, a barren world of lakes and rock and muskeg a few hundred miles outside the Arctic Circle.

He'd been surveying for eight years. He hadn't found a single diamond. Superior had abandoned the diamond business. Dia Met's stock was trading at pennies a share. But based upon a few samples, Fipke estimated a diamond concentration at Lac de Gras of more than 60 carats per 100 tons — with about a quarter of the stones of good quality or better. (In kimberlite pipes that have gem-quality stones in commercial quantities, a concentration of 1 carat — 0.2 grams — per 100 tons can be profitable.) After six months of sampling, Fipke went public. It was 1991, and he had found a kimberlite pipe (buried under 30 feet of glaciated sediment) with a concentration of 68 carats per 100 tons — the first Canadian diamonds ever found. Shares of Dia Met rocketed to $70. Fipke had partnered with mining giant Broken Hill Proprietary Company (now BHP Billiton) to get the diamonds out; BHP opened the Ekati mine at Lac de Gras in 1998. Soon Dia Met's 29 percent share of the mine was worth billions. Fipke would go on to sell his chunk to BHP for $687 million, retaining 10 percent ownership in the mine, worth another $1 billion.

Today Canada's diamond business is soaring. The country's four working mines produced 17 million carats in 2007, up 23 percent from 2006. Diamonds from Canada now account for 10 percent of all diamonds by carat sold in the world. And the addition of more diamonds to the global market hasn't driven prices down. Average carat value has actually risen 15 percent, and the gems from the far north are untainted by the bad publicity that comes from an association with African wars.

Shortly before Fipke sold most of his Ekati claim to BHP Billiton, his marriage, faltering for years after so much time in the field, fell apart. At the time it was the largest divorce settlement in Canadian history. "Cost me $200 million, hey," Fipke says. "Best money I ever spent!"

Fipke now has mining projects in Morocco, Greenland, Canada, Angola, and Brazil. His laboratory bookshelves are heavy with mineral guides — and the family histories of thoroughbreds. Besides diamonds, he's now obsessed with horse racing. "It's a huge challenge, hey, and I like challenges even if they're risky," he says. "And I think I'm really going to do spectacularly well with horses." So far, so good: He has more than 50 brood mares in Ireland and Kentucky and 20 racehorses all over the world. His horse Tale of Ekati placed fifth in this year's Kentucky Derby. "I always go to the Derby with Bo Derek," he says, unlocking the door to a windowless room piled with maps and electron microscopes and computers. "She's a good rider, and she knows horses. And she's a lot of fun, hey! I'm gonna do for horse racing what I did for diamonds!"

The De Beers mine at Snap Lake is a labyrinth of crushers and separators.
Photo: Andrew Hetherington


Whether or not Fipke actually turns out to have an eye for horseflesh, his eye for the characteristics of crystals is unparalleled. He shows me rooms of glass flasks and tubes, the equipment for analyzing all those gravel samples. I peek through a microscope and see a rainbow treasure of sparkling gems: green chrome diopsides and red garnets — the low-calcium, high-chrome G-10s that mean diamonds are nearby.

Over many years in the field and the lab, Fipke has refined his understanding of this unique stew of minerals. "Everyone now knows that G-10 garnets with low calcium might lead you to diamonds, hey," Fipke says. "But how do you distinguish between a Group 1 eclogitic garnet that grew with a diamond and a Group 2 eclogitic garnet that didn't? They look the same." Custom software compares the grains' shapes and chemical compositions, analyzes them against 1,000 minerals that are intergrown with diamonds, and compares them against 10 fields of mineral groupings. If seven to 10 of the fields from one pipe overlap, Fipke says, "there's no doubt; it's full of diamonds. No one else out there can distinguish between these similar tiny particles of minerals that grow with a diamond and ones that don't."

Miners prepare to blow up a rock face.
Photo: Andrew Hetherington

"Look," he says, opening a folder on a table. He has thousands of photos of mineral grains magnified to the size of golf balls. Some are all sharp corners and jagged edges, some rounded. Since erosion and age wear the minerals down, "we can tell when we're getting closer to the source. If the edges are sharp, hey, we know they haven't traveled far from the pipe."

That level of geographic precision has allowed Fipke to stake more claims. He's even working in areas of Brazil where De Beers hasn't been able to turn a profit. "And Angola. Angola has the richest alluvial diamond river in the world," he says, "and there are thousands of diamond works there. But we're looking for the source pipes." Five years ago Fipke started making magnetometer survey flights over the Kwango River. Having identified 100 possible targets, he now has 40 men taking core samples 900 to 1,200 feet under the riverbed. "I'm there at the camp at least three times a year, hey, and it's much harder than in the Arctic. Your drilling equipment just gets buried in enormous piles at customs in Luanda and you can't get it. In the Northwest Territories it was cold, hey, and full of snow, but you get a good parka and you're a bug in a rug. Angola is the most inefficient place on earth!"

I start to ask another question, but Fipke has something else in mind. "I'm hungry, hey," he barks, as the door to the map room slams shut behind us. "Do you like oysters?" But we're not going anywhere: He has locked his keys in the room and has to call someone to drive in and open up his office.

We finally head into town. "Hi, Chuck!" says the hostess, leading us to the back room of a hip Asian fusion place. Around a long table sit 23 young women, all sporting stilettos and big hair. "Chuck!" they shout. We have, it seems, shown up at the bachelorette party for Fipke's granddaughter. The hostess seats us at the next table. Fipke orders four dozen oysters and a bottle of wine that has to be driven to the restaurant from some special cellar, and a young women shimmies into the booth next to Fipke. "Chuck," she says, kissing him on the cheek, "do you think you can pay for us all tonight?"

"Sure," Fipke says, beaming.

"Do you remember this?" says another woman — his daughter, it turns out, who slides in next to him, holding up a purse. "You bought it for me!"

With Fipke suddenly bankrolling the night, the girls break loose, and the restaurant staff starts hauling out the bottles of champagne. Pretty soon a couple of lasses are dancing on the tables, the oysters are slipping down, a second bottle of rare wine is being decanted, and Fipke is remixing the menu like Danny DeVito in Get Shorty.

And the tales spill forth: three week forays into the Peruvian Amazon, travels with the Kalahari Bushmen of Southern Africa, visits to the pygmies of the Ituri forest in the Congo. "I'd just leave my family and go, hey," he says. "I was really into native culture."

Somebody asks him about Brazil, and it reminds him of something important. "Caipirinhas!" he shouts out of the blue. "I want 25 caipirinhas!"

When the bill arrives, it's 3 feet long and $4,000. Fipke pays up, and we spill into the night — his daughter and granddaughter and their friends and now boyfriends, who joined us in the restaurant. On the street, Fipke suddenly leaps into the air and delivers a solid, suede loafer-clad foot to the head of a parking meter. "I fucking hate parking meters, hey!" he shouts. He jumps and kicks another one, and then erupts into a fit of giggles.

We are ushered past the velvet rope at the Cheetah Lounge, Kelowna's classiest strip joint, and Captain Chaos orders another round of caipirinhas for everyone. Three generations of Fipkes pound drinks as naked women dangle upside down from poles onstage.

The room is spinning by the time Fipke takes me aside and lays a big warm hand on my arm. "Hey," he says, "here's the thing. I learned that I did my best. I mean, I really tried my best. How many people can say that? I worked hard, and I mean really hard. I worked seven days a week from 8 am until 3 am. Every day. We drilled and drilled all winter when it was dark and the windchill was 80 below. Everyone thought I was crazy. But most people just never do their best, hey. And I did."

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Global Warming: How Much Do We Really Know?

The following article comes from "The Professional Geologist", Vol. 44, No. 6, Nov/Dec 2007, pp 12-13, a bi-monthly publication of The American Institute of Professional Geologists. The article is the opinion of two Certified Professional Geologists (CPG), and I think it represents the thinking of the majority of the world's geologists, who are, after all Earth Scientists. Their observations are at odds with the current, claimed (and untrue) notion that the science supporting the concept of man-caused global warming is settled, and the "debate is over".

It is most unfortunate that more geologists don't speak out on the subject, because as the authors point out, geologists are in a uniquely qualified position to refute the cause and effect claims and the shrill cries of catastrophe coming from the global warming alarmists.
Peter


Causes of Global Warming,
Are We Certain?


Robert G. Corbett, CPG-04502 and Gary T. Dannemiller, CPG-05118


This paper is not a definitive scientific
treatise nor does it contain new data.
Rather it is a review of current thought
on the topic, and casts doubt on the
importance of CO2 generation in global
warming. Central to this discussion is
questioning the validity of the notion
that burning of fossil fuel significantly
increases global warming.

Before we get started, we need to
review some elements of argumentation.
In any argument, the several sentences
presented may be either premise or
conclusion. A significant error in an
argument is termed a fallacy. There are
patterns in arguments. For example, if
one set of measurements correlates to
another set (either both increasing or
both decreasing) we say there is a positive
correlation. If one variable increases
and the other decreases there is a negative
correlation. Mere correlation is not
enough to establish causation, unless
there are no other variables that can reasonably
explain the situation
(Heggie,
2002). We shall use this shortly.

As geologists, we are in a better
position than others to recognize that
the geologic record contains evidence
of past cyclical climate changes.
Earth
has warmed since the last interglacial
began about 19,000 years B.P., and
sea level has risen for the past 15,000
years (Gornitz, 2007) although in fits
and starts. We recognize that both the
science behind climate change and the
role of greenhouse gases are poorly
understood. In fact, many close to the
situation claim any relation between
global warming and CO2 is a prediction
approach and not a cause and effect
claim. To most persons, it has become a
cause and effect explanation.
If one goes back in time, CO2 is seen as only one
potential driver of global warming.
According to Utility and Income, an
investment advisory, “… virtually all
globally respected scientific organizations
have accepted the premise that CO2
regulation is needed.” On the other hand,
the Minority Page of the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public
Works of May 15, 2007 reports that some
“prominent scientists reverse belief in
man-made global warming….”

Nature of the Argument
Here is the widely promoted argument:
humankind is burning ever increasing
amounts of carbon-based fuels, and this
burning releases carbon dioxide. This
causes an increase in CO2 content in the
atmosphere. As CO2 slowly increases in
our atmosphere, it (being one of several
greenhouse gases) traps heat, preventing
some heat from re-radiating to space.
Conclusion: burning more fossil fuels
causes the Earth to become warmer.

Flaws in the Argument
This involves classic false cause and
effect argument. Why? No good reason
is presented that other causes for global
warming are not possible or likely.
All
we need to do is identify one plausible
alternate cause and we may invoke the
false cause and effect objection. This
does not prove or disprove one theory,
but it does invalidate the fast conclusion.

There are other theories to explain the
variations now and over the past years:
plate tectonics and its influence on patterns
of oceanic circulation, green house
gases other than CO2 (water vapor,
methane, tropospheric ozone, nitrous
oxide, CFCs, CO), the Milankovitch
Cycle (Cycles Research Institute), solar
radiation variations, cosmic ray flux,
and Earth position to the Sun.
Singer
and Avery (2007) present evidence from
others for a 1500 year-cycle for warming
and cooling of the atmosphere that
is independent of greenhouse gases. J.
Jousel and others (2007) extend the data
and interpretation for the Antarctica
Dome C ice core.

Solar Cycles, A Likely
Explanation
In their book Unstoppable Global
Warming, Singer and Avery (2007) refer
to Earth’s climate timeline, present
failures of the Greenhouse theory, and
cite the many world- and culture-wide
evidences that relate to climate, including
ice cores, tree rings, pollen, coral,
glaciers, boreholes, sea sediments, tree
lines, and agricultural crops. Singer
and Avery compile and present evidence,
direct and indirect, that follows
the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, an
irregular 1470 plus or minus 500 year
moderate warming and cooling cycle.
However, there is no 1470 year solar
cycle. The 1470 year cycle may be caused
by the interaction of other known Solar
cycles. Singer and Avery refer to the 87
year Gleissberg the 210 year Devries-
Suess cycles, and R. Timothy Patterson
mentions the 11 year Schwabe cycle
and the 1100-1500 year Bond cycle.

Patterson’s article Read the Sunspots
is found at Canada.com, dated June 21,
2007. Referring to the Little Ice Age,
Patterson points to the work of others
in noting that as our star’s solar output
and protective wind lessen, cosmic rays
from deep space enter and penetrate
our atmosphere. This allows enhancement
of cloud formation, which has a
cooling effect.
Interestingly, R. Timothy
Patterson has recently stated “Solar
scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun
will be starting into its weakest Schwabe
cycle of the past two centuries, potentially
leading to unusually cool conditions on
earth. Solar power has overpowered any
effect that CO2 has had before, and most
likely will again. And if we’re to have
even a medium-sized solar minimum, we
could be looking at climate change with
a lot more negative effects than “global
warming” would have had.”
We suggest that there is far too much
uncertainty in ascribing climate change
solely to anthropogenic CO2 production.

Federal Agency Setting
Policies
The U.S. E.P.A. climatechange/glossary.html#Sink> has
defined climate change as any significant
change in measures of climate (such
as temperature, precipitation, or wind)
lasting for an extended period (decades
or longer). The EPA relates that climate
change may result from:
• natural factors, such as changes in the
sun’s intensity or slow changes in the
Earth’s orbit around the sun;
• natural processes within the climate
system (e.g. changes in ocean circulation);
• human activities that change the
atmosphere’s composition (e.g.
through burning fossil fuels) and
the land surface (e.g. deforestation,
reforestation, urbanization, desertification,
etc.).
Further information (nearly verbatim)
comes from:
science/stateofknowledge.html>

What’s Known?
Scientists know with virtual certainty
that:
• Human activities are changing the
composition of Earth’s atmosphere.
Increasing levels of greenhouse gases
like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere
since pre-industrial times are
well-documented;
• The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and
other greenhouse gases is largely the
result of human activities such as the
burning of fossil fuels;
• A warming trend of about 0.7 to
1.5°F occurred during the 20th century.
Warming occurred in both the
Northern and Southern Hemispheres,
and over the oceans;
• The major greenhouse gases emitted
by human activities remain in the
atmosphere for periods ranging from
decades to centuries. It is therefore
virtually certain that atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases
will continue to rise over the next few
decades; and
• Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations
tend to warm the planet.

What’s Likely?
The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) has stated
“There is new and stronger evidence
that most of the warming observed
over the last 50 years is attributable to
human activities”. In short, a number of
scientific analyses indicate, but cannot
prove, that rising levels of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere are contributing
to climate change (as theory predicts). In
the coming decades, scientists anticipate
that as atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases continue to rise, average
global temperatures and sea levels
will continue to rise as a result and precipitation
patterns will change.

What’s Not Certain?
Important scientific questions remain
about how much warming will occur, how
fast it will occur, and how the warming
will affect the rest of the climate system
including precipitation patterns and
storms. Answering these questions will
require advances in scientific knowledge
in a number of areas, such as:
• improving understanding of natural
climatic variations, changes in the
sun’s energy, land-use changes, the
warming or cooling effects of pollutant
aerosols, and the impacts of changing
humidity and cloud cover;
• determining the relative contribution
to climate change of human activities
and natural causes;
• projecting future greenhouse emissions
and how the climate system will
respond within a narrow range; and
• improving understanding of the
potential for rapid or abrupt climate
change.
The writers wish to add a note to
What’s Not Certain. The role of water
vapor, a major greenhouse gas, is not
considered by the IPCC or USEPA even
though other greenhouse gases such as
CO2 may have a lesser impact compared
to water vapor.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Causes Of Global Warming: What Do We Really Know?

The following article expresses the opinion of two professional geologists on the issue of man-caused global warming and of course, what some people want to call "climate change". I agree with their conclusions.
Peter


Causes of Global Warming, Are We Certain? (.pdf) November 28, 2007 The Professional Geologist
The November/December, 2007 issue of The Professional Geologist has contains an article titled “Causes of Global Warming, Are We Certain?” by Robert G. Corbett and Gary Dannemiller. Found on pages 12 through 15 it contains a contrarian perspective on the idea that burning fossil fuels makes significant contributions to global warming.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Geologists Views On Climat Change

An interesting comment about geologists.

Peter



May 22nd, 2005
Climate: Geological Views #1
By Steve McIntyre


I gave a speech last week at my tennis/squash club on climate change (which presents speeches from time to time). I included some geological concepts that I don’t usually have an opportunity to talk about. The class of scientist who tend to be most unimpressed with IPCC-type climate science are geologists - which is where I got started in this. If you took an Oreskes-type survey among geologists, I don’t believe for a minute that you would get anything like IPCC solidarity. Unlike most scientists, geologists also happen to know a lot about climate history. Here’s an interesting graphic that I used: Read the rest of this entry »