4 C‘Ht} m 3' y M WI} W!" W l ‘ M Mr L I, ' ‘i “I 1‘ 5 \ i i 4 ‘5 . H I‘ H ! l w H} III I' h ( _i 3:83: 4 was; THE EFFECTS OF WASHiNG OIL WELL CUT‘HNGS FROM ROTARY AND CABLE TOOL WELLS AS RELAY!!! TO SAMPLE Losses Thesis for the Degree of M. 3. MlCH’a‘GAN STATE CQLLEGE Warren Eiwin Hofstra 1949 THESIS This is to certifg that the thesis entitled "The Effects of Washing 011 Well Cut- tings from Rotary and Cable Tool Wells as Related to Sample Losses." presented lNJ Narren Elwin Hofstra has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Geology 31.8. __ degree in _ __{__u!1_as,, 1‘. $94?___ Hate, _ M 495 '. .___.._..__. m WIS 01' IASHIIG OIL III-I. CUTTINGS ’30! RON! LID CAB“ TOOL WILLS L3 mm 20 ML] 1.08838 By Ian“! Elwin Baffin A E3818 “knitted to the School of Graduate Studio. of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Sciences in partial mlrmnont of the require-ants for the legro- of mm 01' some) I Department of Geology and Geography 194’ THEmg I Leknowl edgenente hroughout this problea the courtesy and consideration of the persons in the petroleun induetry have been very gratifying. Vithout their aeeietance and the unueual privilege of free aoceee to eanpling facilitiee of operating welle. thie work would not . have been poeeible. Suggestione and intonation obtained froa geologists and drilling crew neabere have been of vital aeeie— tance. lepecially I wish to thunk: Ir. Harold Boyd. Ir. Glenn Sleight. Ir. Charlee Crawford. llr. lobert Steven and Ir. Charlee lice. Both adainietrative and field workere of the lichigan Geo. logical Survey have also been entrenely helpful in sting thin etudy succeeeful. Ir. Gerald lddy. Ir. Rex Brant, um Helen Ilartin and Ir. Peter lillar were very kind in giving their aid. he patience and cooperation of w advisers and the other faculty aeabere of the Geology Departaent of Iichigan State College are gratefully acknowledged. lly thanke to: Dr. 8. G. Bergquiet. Dr. 3. !. landefur. Dr. J. I. Irow and Dr. I. a. Kelly. hat. but not leaet the untiring and largely unrewarded aid ef liee l. Iary Hughes in tedioue laboratory procedure receivee ay eincere gratitude. 217569 0!:er Abstract History of sanplos collected at a rotary well. (Figure 1) History of sanples collected at a cable tool well. new sheet for study of the well cuttings. hocoduro for the laboratory washing of samples. Description of the cuttings in unwashed sanples. Results of nechanical analyses of the samples. (Figures 2 and 3) Iffocts of washing on the different rock types. he effects of the drillor's washing. he effects of the laboratory washing. Ilportaoco of gain and loss in sanples. Leg of rotary saaples. chart of activity at the rotary well. Log of the cable tool sanples. Detailed conparison of logs for each depth. hanary of conparisens of content in unwashed. driller's and laboratory washed sslplos. he Kirk-coin heavy liquid soil analysis test. l’reparatioa of sanplos for the Kirk-Gain test. Ifficioncy of the Iirh-Goin heavy liquid test. Photos of the Iirh—Goin tests. Break-down tests on sandstone and shale samples with the Han- ilton-Boach dispersion aachine. thoi'lffocts of 'ashing on v.11 Cuttings fron Rotary and Cable 1901 Iells as Related to Banple Losses USMC! he problen was suggested by Mr. Gerald Eddy and Ir. no! Grant of the lichigen Geological Garvey. he purpose of the proqu was to ascertain what changes a sanple of rock cuttings undergoes in the two washing processes which have been standard procedure for acne tine. In the first process the driller at the well washes away , large anounts of fine, clay-like cuttings associated with the coarser cuttings which are later studied by the geologist. be fine nude are very difficult to renove fron tho sanple if allowed to dry. In the second process washing is done in a oonnercial lab. oratory where the remaining fine ntorials are renoved. he coarse concentrates are studied by the geologist in asking his lithologic log of the well. haples were collected by the writer fron a rotary well in Clan Union Township. Iissaukeo County and fro- a cable tool well in Rich-end township of Osceola county. Samples were selected froa the upper zones of the lississippian fornation where extra-e variations in lithology provided good couples for the study of a nuaber of rock types. lanplos were obtained and washed under supervision of the drillers at each well 3in order to confers exactly to their aothods. .ibtkura mania—Hr! Nthluf a In addition to the driller's eanplo. totally unwashed cuttings were collected to provide a control for conparative studies. it the rotary well lid sanples also were taken near the intake of the circulating punp enployed to bring cuttings to the our. face. lad sanples provided infornation relating to possible contanination of couples by recirculation of sand size cuttings. he procedure eaplcyod in connercial washing was studied in the Iount Pleasant plant. hasty consecutive depths were studied fron the rotary cuttings and eleven fren the cable tool cuttings. hr each depth. an unwashed. a drillor's and a laboratory sanplo were conparod. loch type was sized individually in nest fyler sieves and the fractions weighed to deternino .1 so distribution. A. . binocular nicroscope was used to identify the different types of fragnents. The percentage in each size was recorded. Heavy liquid and acid tests corroborated identification. Insults of the study show that the driller's washing changes the original distribution of the sizes ef'rock desired by the geologist. be lighter rock types are washed out and the heavier ones concentrated. laboratory washing tends to produce the opposite effect'as the washing is sore violent. Coarser sizes are washed out than in the driller's washing and the heaviest aineral present shows losses. lalple losses in- horent to the nethod seen to obscure such trends in the inter. nediate gravities. but obvious gains were observed in the per.- centage of lighter ainorals. f he opposing effects of the two washings result in such variable sanples that better sanple handling nethods are deenod necessary. 1 acre thorough washing at the well would serve to give a nah aoro reliable sanplo for geologic interpretation. hO-bOlt sanple for detailed studies would be obtained by wash- ing the sonple on a 100 nosh i'yler sieve. Iineral content and the percentage of sample in each sise would be unchanged. History of lanplos Collected at a notary Ioll notary sanples were obtained from a test well of the Iichigan Gas Storage Conpany. located in section thirty-five. hwnship twenty-one North. Range six West. Clan Union Down. ship. Iissauhoe County. under State Pornit lunbor 14103. the underlying bedrocks are drift covered shalos and sandstones of the Iaginaw (Pennsylvanian) fornation. lad Conditions: the rotary ad was pulverized rock and water. with Aqua—Gel and rortland eenent added. It was not as viscous as nest rotary nude. Circulation through the well was very fast. rs. driller estinated a twelve to fourteen ninutos 'lag" tine for sanples shon drilling at nine hundred feet. he settling pit with dinensions seventy-five by twelve feet. is located about twenty feet fron the drill hole. Conent was added to the nud the day before sanpling and also while sanplos were being collected. Description of the sanplo trap: fhe sanplo trap consisted of a baffle eight inches high. across a trough ton inches wide. through which the lid and cuttings flowed as they left the drill hole. About three or four inches of and flowed over the baffle and also at its sides. Sacks of cenent fernod the sides of the trough behind the baffle. his created a backwater slightly over a foot wide. Although very little sanplo sas deposited at. the baffle. deposition was good approxinately a foot behind it and extending all the way to the drill hole. he sanples con- tained a large anount of fine as well as coarse naterial. burg on. Eben game: be a «:3 on a ”ORE E 14 \ Eb menace woken mono “3m. H Procedure for collecting samples: Before the baffle was inserted. the trough was shoveled clean and rinsed. The baffle was then replaced and at the prepor tine a sanple was taken with a shovel about two feet back of the baffle and scraping approxinately three feet of the trough. he shovel was then backed out carefully with the current to avoid excessive loss of sanple. his material was dunped into a three gallon bucket and an unwashed sanple was taken in a cloth sanple sack. he cuttings were then washed with a hose. swirled around in the bucket. and rapidly decanted several tines. his nethod of sanple collecting is practiced by the driller at the well. Couples were collected at five feet intervals. extending fron the Par-a sandstone of the Saginaw fernation into the green shale-gypsun cone of the Iichigan fornation below. After each sanple was taken. the baffle was renoved and the shovel was saved up and down the trough as the and rushed through it. this operation cleaned the sanple trap effectively. he baffle was replaced as soon as the trap was cleaned. Rotary Ind Couples Procedure for collecting and sanples: on. rotary and sanplos were taken fron the slush pit. about six feet diagonally in front of the and intake. (figure 1. page 7). he sanplos were dipped fron the pit with a pint Jar lashed to a pole. his allowed a reach of four to five feet fron the edge of the pit. rs. sin current of the and flowed close to the bank of the pit and curved back to the intake pipe throughout nest of the sanpling. has the fluid and sanple desired was obtained easily. it tines not acre than three inches of fluid reaained above the settled natorial. and none of the settling nay have been scooped up. keeping of settlings nay have occurred as the and flow was interrupted when the drill pipe was added. it a depth of 945 feet. a sanple was deliberately scooped fron the botton of the pit about five feet hon the intake. Start- ing at a depth of 845 feet. a lid. sanple was collected after every five foot sanple of rock cuttings had been taken. History of lanples Collected at a Cable fool 'oll no sanplos were obtained at an exploratory well of H. I. Dell. the Vincent lunber one. located in section thirty-.two. Downship seventeen lorth. Range ten lost. nichnond Downship. Osceola County. under State Pernit luaber 14370. be well is located in an area of glacial drift overlying shales and sand.- stones of the hginaw fornation. flnpling conditions: he drilling rig is a new cable tool outfit of standard typo. he casing was set about twelve foot too high to shut off the water. consequently the hole filled alnost to the top with water fron the drift. his nado drilling very difficult. especially when shale was encountered. is the driller remarked: “this stuff has to be drilled three tines to get it out of the hole". However. shale was drilled. and the bit worked up thread: the cuttings which were plastered on the 10 sides of the hole. is the bit progressed downward. the shale cuttings were knocked down the hole and were redrillod before the cuttings could be bailed out. Drilling time was very slow: ”fifteen feet per tour‘ in shale" and "forty feet per tour in ___A ' n1. drilling tern tour is equivalent to an eight hour shift. linestone and sandstone”. rroceduro for collecting sanples: fwo nothods were used in collecting sanplos. the first described. was used by the writer. the second by the driller. In the first nethod the sanple trap used is a rectangular bucket nade of corrugated iron. six by nine inches wide at the open end and twelve inches deep. A wooden handle was bolted to one side allowing the handle to pivot about the bolt. Sanples were caught by holding the trap at the lip of the bailing trough. which. as the bailor was dunpod. carried the naterial bailed out of the well to a disposal pit. the trap was filled with the first rush of cut- tings and water that were released fron the boiler. and was quickly lifted away to prevent undue loss of sanple by washing. In any naterial except pure shale. the unwashed sanple was obtained by escaping it fron the botten of the trap. In sono cases. sand cuttings were suspended in shale and it was neces— sary to pour the suspension into a sanple bag to obtain an unwashed sanple. lhen shale was being drilled. the unwashed sanple was peeled off the bit. this type of sanple is what the driller custoaarily saves when the hole is filled with water. 11 It is virtually impossible to wash shale cuttings inasnuch as the bulk of the particles are of clay size. in ordinary drillor's sanple taken fron bailings consists of cavings. fossils. pyrite and hard ninerals within the shale. or of portions of beds above 'or below the sanple point. which are drilled in the sane sanp- ling period. Had the wri tor been prepared for such conditions. sanplos would have been poured into neon Jars to provide uni- forn sanpling conditions. Couple washing at the well: use drillor's ample was ob- tained by pouring about six quarts of water into the trap quite rapidly. his thoroughly churned up the cuttings. A four inch paddle with half inch holes drilled in it was then nevod back and forth through the cuttings. be water was poured off rap. idly and the washing. stirring and decanting were repeated until the water ran clear. Loss water was used after the first washing. ordinarily twelve to twenty-four quarts sufficed for the conpleto washing. be second nothod of sanple collection was used by the non on the second tour who caught sanplos on the rig floor by hold- 1.. a dipper under the boiler. an. driller lowered the boiler Just for enough to trip the clapper valve at the button of the boiler. and allowed sone of the concentrated cuttings to pour out. his nothod of collecting sanplos is superior to the nothod first described as loss tubulont washing is needed to obtain a clean sanple and tine is not wasted. The writer and the first nothod throughout. 12 In the first washing nothod. sand size particles were lost. boy were seen flowing over the side of the trap when water was poured in. Also some of the sanple probably was lost in decon- ting. although the loss was not so obvious. Loss was possibly sustained fron cuttings obtained at a depth of 950 feet. since sand remained suspended in the shale through the first two washings. Band did not are}: to the botton of the trap until the cuttings had been subjected to repeated washing and decan. ting. flow on.» for the Study of the v.11 Cuttings Mshed Mlgs and Eillgr's M1" 1 Split sanple into fifty gran units. 2 Blake fifteen ninutes in water with dispersing agents. 3 let sieve on a two hundred nesh i'yler sieve. 4 Dry the sample. 5 Dry sieve the sanple for eight minutes in the no.1» shaker. 6 'eigh the fractions. 7 Study the fractions with the aid of a binocular microscOpe. about”: M1» 1 'ash the reaainder of the driller's sanple in the stan- dard manner. 2 Dry the sanple. 3 Split the sanple into fifty gran units. 4 ‘ Dry sieve in the Bo-hp shaker. 5 'eigh the fractions. 6 Study the fractions with the aid of a binocular nicro scape. 14 now Sheet for the Study of the Rotary llud Saaples W11: Dry the sanple. Iplit the sanple into fifty gra- units. NP Blake in dispersing agents for fifteen ninutes. let sieve the sanple on a two hundred nesh Eyler sieve. Dry the sanple. Dry sieve in the lo-‘l'ap shaker. Q30.“ Study the fractions with the aid of a binocular aicroscope. 15 Procedure for the laboratory lashing ef haples he sanple is duped into a quart pan. About a pint of water is added fron the cold water tap. he pan is then tilted slightly and the contents stirred briskly with a wooden spoon. As the water becomes very nuddy. acre is added and the stirring is continued with the excess liquid flowing over the sides of the pan. lore water is added and is rapidly decanted while the sanple is being stirred. this process is centimed until the water added runs clear. All but a little water is then poured out and the sanple is dunped into a pan and dried in a low tea- perature oven. Little effort is node to obtain all the ,eanple which sticks to the pan. although it is rinsed out before a new sanple is washed. eon-onus sh. first flush of {.m- usually has the color of the rotary Iud when samples are being washed. Subsequent sash colors are quite consistently the color of the rock being sashed. his is confiraed also by past experience. In this procedure the wash fron linestone was gray. that fron green shale and gypsua was greenish-white. while dark shale produced a dark gray wash. led shales often cause a discoloration of the rotary and. Description of the cuttings in Unwashed Balples he unwashed eagles were sisved to deternine shape. grain sine. and percentages of various grain sizes. 15 the sandstone encountered in.both wells are of several dif. forent types. The sand grains are either frosted or etched. but the cements vary greatly. Linestone and gypaua cenents pre— doainate. with occasional doloaite and argillaceoua cenents. Pyrite ceaent is found in a portion of all sandstones. Ihe various sandstones in the cuttings graded into linestone. dole. site and green shale. Ibis gradation had a aarked effect on the distribution of rock types of different sizes in each asa- pla. Ia cuttings below lyler sieve size 48. the percentage of sand showed a narked increase. !he high sand content of the linestone and dolcaite was responsible for this change. the sieve size at which sandstone becoaes disaggregated depends on the size of the individual sand grains. In this problea very little sandstone was found below Erler sieve sise 65. !he sandstone frageents were consistently irregular and blacky in shape. Idaestone cuttings era-ined.are rarely without sand inclu- sions. Sand content resulted in greatly reduced.aaouats of linestone in sieve sises below 48. .A such larger percentage of linestone was retained on sieve size 300. than on the sizes innediately preceding. on. shape of the linestone frag-ents is blecty to tabular: fine sises are flaky. Sole of the groan shale in the cuttings is sandy in chan- acter and blocky in shape. Practically no change in percentage free the coarse to the fine sizes was noted. Because of its softness. green-gray shale has a general 17 tendency to drill to fine particles. Samples from sieve sizes 48 to 100 have a hid: content of shale. m. high pyritic con— tent of the green-gray shale scene to have little effect on the shape of the particles. Regardless of size. they are flake.like. Pyrite. and also sandstone ceaented with pyrite. are in blocky fragnents. lhch of the pyrite. especially in the larger sises. occurred as mtonorphic crystals. Percentage of pyrite decreased progressively in the fine sizes. he particles of chart found in cuttings are large. Due to its brittleness. chert is ground to very fine fragnenta when subjected to prolonged abrasion. his is shown by the absence of chart in the fine sires of the unwashed sanple. Gypsu- occurred prinarily as an apparently anorphoue ceaent. although tabular frag-onto of aelenite were seen. The unwashed sample shows little variation in the percentage in each grain siae. Results of Mechanical Analyses of the haples Graphs were ads to show the results of angle washing in regard to concentration and loss of sanples of various grain sizes. Oonparison of the first results of aechanical analyses of the unleashed. driller's and laboratory washed sanplos for the sane depth. showed that the point of intersection of the curves of size distribution of one sanple with the preceding one. indi- cated the sine where washout begins. he intersection of the 18 curves occurs in the asterial of sand size and when a valuable figure for comparing the effects of the washing processes on unplu- (figure 2). A graph showing the relation of the in. tersections. called washout points. illustrates that washout is doth below the point and concentration occurs above it. (figure 3). Occasionally concentration of cuttings occurs in all of the sizes saved by washout of large quantities of silt and clay. he curves in this case would not intersect. even though the distribution of the sises desired is changed. A study of the washout points shown on the graph reveals that the driller's nothod of washing is less turbulent than the laboratory process. The point at which the original distribu— tion of sises is changed is higher in value in nest instances of laboratory washing. Distribution curves for rotary sanples show markedly less variation in the munt in each else than curves for cable tool sanples. he settling process which goes on as the sanplea are lifted to the surface by rotary nude. nay be the cause of this condition. Gable tool sanplos undergo nuch nore drastic re- sorting in sise. heir distribution curves show great variance fron size to size in the unwashed sanple. mite possibly this is the result of the lack of previous settling. he effect of both nothods of washing on sanplos is to increase the concentration of coarser naterial and to reduce noticable concentration of the internediate and fine sand sizes. he final curve of distribution is alnost straight with initial 19 {an Illxtulmi/ofluhulllullfflli/ .mom / ,/ / ,/,. , / /. TED // V 4//._ , // 18 / nus. / riom lg 8n n o2 no a. a: 25.8 tan“ 8 .3... e3..- kstopeu I euaaeu .3333 I amnion den-each .l. E mug g gong—0 gm .3 an S. 3. ma. ma. i. ma. ma. S. 3. ma. om. mm. mm. :m. A I ult‘yii Esq—”3.5 .6» macadaopcn ll concerns .nb hopcaopon .II connotes .ab 3.32:3 ll fil/l/ mm .oh cannon gm Egon awe m2 348m Sewn: .3 mg m .oE 393.3 a.“ 036 30.."me 3m and.» 95.3 soaks w: . value high and final value very low. Only slight. if any. reflections of original concentrations can-be seen in the end sanple. lffects of flashing on Different Bock Types Gonparisons were ends of concentrations of rock types subjected to driller's and laboratory washings. with the fol. lowing results. ‘ . hadstone is concentrated on Tyler sieve size 35 in the driller's washing and trends gradually towards a loss in sises 150 to 200. he laboratory washing indicates a general wash- out in all sises: this loss in sises 100 and 200 is very pro- nuanced. Liaeatone is concentrated by the driller's washing in sises 100 to 200. he results of laboratory washing are incon- elusive. Dolonite is concentrated in sises 35 to 65 in the driller's procedure. The suanary of effects of laboratory washing shows no definite trend. Dark gray and gray shale grade fron less of sanple in sises 35 to 65 to concentration in sizes 150 to 200 in the driller's washing. Slight concentration occurs in sises 150 to 300 in laboratory washing. Green shale in the few sanplos tested shows an overall concentration in the driller's process and an overall loss in the laboratory washing. 22 Glacial drift grades fron concentration in size 35 to wash- out in sizes 150 and 200 in the driller's washing. he labor... atory process concentrates drift in sises 65 to 150. Pyrite fron size 48 to 200 is concentrated in the driller's washing. In the laboratory process. pyrite shows a consistent loss from sise 48 to 200. Chart is concentrated below 35 in the driller‘s washing. but in the laboratory washing concentrate. chart predoninatos in sizes 35 to 48. Chart is found in aaallor sises in the laboratory sanplos than in the driller'a sanple. his also in. dieates concentration. Gypsua shows so pronounced effect in the statistical na- nry of variance. but in conpilation of'data it was noted that when it occurs in a sanple entirely as a flour.like cenent. washout was very pronounced in the driller's washing. Concen- tration at sise 200 is seen in either breakdown of the labor. atory process. he lffects of Driller's fishing In drillor's washing. the bulk of the sanple does not nova as a use. nor at once. A lag in washing pernits resettling before decantation. Results of both nechanical analyses and content studies reveal that fragments in sieve sises 35 and 48 are concentrated. Light weight rocks in this range are carried off in decanting. hose sises have a boundary line for washout between the grav. itios of quarts and gray shale. he evidence in the finer sises 23 is not as clear. Pyrite and the flaky naterials. linestone. gray and dark gray shale and possibly green shale. show in... creases but the lore spherical sands fron sandstone and drift were lost. The inpure shale fragnents appeared to be resistant carbonate layers. If this is true. the dividing line between washout and gain is between the gravities of calcite and quarts. 0n the basis of this evidence. sorting is controlled by spoci. fie gravity and particle size as related to the carrying power of the wash water. he lffects of Laboratory Hashing In laboratory washing the entire sample is swirled and no lag occurs between agitation and decantation. Results of neclnnical analyses prove that velocities of sanple and water notion are great enough to renove fragnents in the 35 sieve sise. Studies of gain and loss of key ninerals show a very definite loss of pyrite and an equally clear gain in mch light natorials as gypeun. gray shales. and chart. In nost cases gain and loss begin at sieve size 48 and are acre pronounced in the finer sises. Iho relative gain and loss in ligit and heavy uterials indicate centrifugal action in the above range. be increased velocity of the water. the shallow. nose of the washing pan and its sloping sides. provide conditions for centrifugal separation. Iron if the bulk of pyrite were lost by a “panning“ action in stirring conbined with a “plucking“ action when the sanple is dunped. this cannot account for con. 24 centration of light naterial at the cane tine. Pyrite is not present in sufficiently large anounts to warrant this assunption. Variance in treatnent of individual sanplos. chance losses by _spilling and sticking of sanple to the pan. probably prevent a clearer picture of centrifugal action in the internediato grav. itios. Higher angular velocity of the entire sanple than that in the drillor's nothod overcones losses resulting fron the carrying power of the wash water. ‘I'he heavy natorials near the edge of the pan are swept out in greater quantities than the light fragnente oloser to the center of the pan. flushing is partially aided by adding water which spends nest of its force in strong botton currents which swoop rm and over the edge of the inclined pan. The Inportance of Gain and Loss in Sanplo 'ork General use of well cuttings does not demand hair-splitting preservation of the usable portion of sanple as it is when it reaches the surface. However. when a detailed study of an in- portant none is necessary. the best sanple obtainable is well worthwhile. lhen two washing processes with opposite effects. varying in intensity fron sanple to sample are conbined. the resulting product is not reliable for detailed study. no present pro. cedure results in appreciable losses and nisleading concentra— tions in nany different rock types. One solution which would bring the sanple close to the accepted ideas of the reliability of a washed sanple. would be 25 to lake the driller's washing a trifle more thorough. One op. sration.would suffice and further sanple losses would be avoided. If‘uso of the laboratory washing process in continued. then docantation and agitation of sample could.be separated by a short tine interval. the fragments clinging to the washing con. tainer could be washed into the drying pan which nust be drained in any event. lince. when using the standard nothods of washing the scan ple saved for analysis. the fraction of sample below the loo :yler sieve size is approxinately three to one half of one per- cent of the end.product. wet sieving at the well on a 100 lyler nesh sieve would result in preservation of the bulk of the usable sanple as it was before handling. Sanple Innber 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 26 Leg of Rotary Samples Sandstone. gray: pyrite. Sandstone. gray: pyrite. Sandstone. gray: Sandstone. gray: Iandstone. gray: Li thology shale. dark gray: linestone. grey: shale. dark gray: linestone. buff: shale.’ dark gray: pyrite. shale. dark gray: chert: pyrite. shale. gray: linestone. gray: dolonito. buff: chert: pyrite. Sandstone. light gray: shale. dark gray: linestone. light gray: chert: pyrite: gypsun." Linestone. gray: chert: pyrite: Linestone. gray: chert: pyrite: Linestone. gray: pyrite. Linestono. gray: Linestono. gray: chort. Sandstone. gray: pyrite: chart. Sandstone. gray: pyrite. sandstone. gray: shale. Wk 8’”: gypsun. shale. dark gray: sandstone. gray: gypeun. shale. gray: sandstone. gray: chert: shale. gray: sandstone. gray: pyrite. sandstone. gray: shale. gray: pyrite: shale. dark gray: linestone. gray: shale. gray: linestone. gray: chert: l‘ a. 21 23 24 25 26 28 Sandstone. gray: linestone. gray: shale. dark gray: chert: pyrite. Limestone. gray: sandstone. gray: shale. gray: chert: pyrite: gypsum cenent. Sandstone. gray: linestone. 51‘”: shale. gray: chert: pyrite. Dole-its. gray: shale. gray: sandstone. gray: gypsun: chert: pyrite. Sandstone. gray: shale. gray: linestone. gray: chert: gypsun: pyrite. Dolonito. buff: chart. buff: shale. dark gray: send.- stone. gray: gypsun: pyrite. Dolonite. buff: shale. green: shale. grey: sandstone. gray: chert: gypsun: pyrite. Shale. green: shale. gray: dolonito. buff: gypeun: dolonito. dark my: chert: pyrite. 27 Chart of Activity at the Rotary Well lalple Ind Salple Per Cent by [eight haber lunber of Sand Sise in llud Action 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 10.8 Added pipe 7 2 5.2 8 3 5.9 9 4 7.5 10 5 9.2 II 6 11.1 12 7 5.9 Added pipe 13 8 5.5 and canont 14 9 5.0 15 10 3.5 16 11 3.5 l7 13 29.5 IS 14 5.5 ‘ l9 15 1.3 Added pipe 20 15 1.5 21 17 1.5 22 18 1.5 33 19 0.9 24 20 1.0 Added pipe 25 21 1.4 26 22 1.1 27 23 2.5 28 24 2.2 (Pit 13 44.5 Rotooled 29 Solid.per Pint of notary Ind Seaple Per cent of Sand Siso in rifty'orans of Sotaryfllud Sanple lunber Ibight in Crane Per cent by Ieight 1 57.4 10.8 2 82.5 8.2 3 70.0 8.9 4 83.8 7.8 5 88.3 9.2 8 79.3 11.1 7 95.3 5.9 8 78.5 10.9 9 84.5 8.0 10 80.2 3.5 11 85.7 2.8 12 Settlinge 245.2 44.8 13 128.8 29.5 14 81.1 5.5 15 59.2 1.3 18 57.3 1.5 17 52.5 1.5 18 55.3 1.8 19 38.7 0.9 20 50.3 1.0 21 52.4 1.4 22 87.7 1.1 23 89.9 2.8 24 74.8 2.2 Sample lunber 1 10 Log of the Cable Ecol Samples Litholog Dolomite. brown: sandstone. gray: shale. dark gray: chert: pyrite: gypsun. Dolonite. dark gray: dolonito. brown: sandstone. gray: shale. dark gray: chert: pyrite: shale. green—gray. Dolonite. gray: dolonito. brown: shale. green-gray: sandstone. gray: pyrite: chart. Shale. dark gray: dolomite. buff: dolonito. gray: shale. green-gray: sandstone. gray: pyrite: chart. Dclonito. buff: shale. dark gray: gypsun: shale. green. 8’97: chert: pyrite. Dolomite. buff: shale. dark gray: shale. green-gray: sandstone. gray: gypsun: pyrite. Dolomite. buff: shale. dark all: sandstone. gray: shale. green-gray: gypsum: pyrite. Shale. dark gray: sandstone. gray: shale. green-gray: dolomite. buff: pyrite: gypsun canent. Shale. dark gray: sandstone. gray: shale. greenpgray: dolonito. buff: pyrite: gypsun cement. Sandstone. any: shale. dark gray: shale. green-gray: dolonito. buff: pyrite: gypsun censnt: gypsun. Sandstone. gray: shale. green-gray: pyrite: shale. dark gray: dolonito. buff: chert: gypsun. Rotary Sample No. 8 Unwashed Sample Sieve sise (Tyler) 35 48 55 100 150 200 .200 Per cent by weight in sieve sise 41.3 9.3 10.9 10.5 5.2 1.7 Scale. dark gray 25 10 10 5 5 15 Sandstone. gray 60 75 85 85 90 80 Linestone. gray 5 Glacial drift 10 15 5 10 5 5 Driller's Sample Sieve size (Tyler) 35 48 65 100 150 200 .200 Per cent by weight in size 47.6 15.5 16.4 11.7 2.6 .3 Per cent of rock in size (Cemented) Lab-washed Sample Sieve .12. (lyler) 35 48 65 100 150 200 .200 hr cent by weight in sieve size 50.3 19.2 19.0 9.6- 1.5 0.1 0.2 Per cent of rock in sise Shale. dark gray 20 10 3 3 5 15 Limestone. gray 5 Glacial drift 10 15 20 5 3 1 V unwashed Sanple. Sieve sire (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size 31318. M gm Sandstone. gray Glacial drift Pyrite Driller's Sanplo Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray 8131.. daft gray Idme ceneut Glcial drift ryrite Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve sise Per cent of rock in siso Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Lunestone. buff Glacial drift Pyrite 35 39.8 20 74 35 37.6 77 15 10 35 41.5 77 10 10 Rotary Sample No. 9 48 11.8 10 70 19 48 15.9 16.8 8 H NOD-'0! 65 14.5 65 20.7 65 21. 7 85 10 100 14.0 100 17.9 92 (:1 H63 100 16.2 H0 (010 150 6.1 150 5.1 PM 610) 150 3.4 th 610) 200 2.0 200 0.8 87 15 200 0.3 oacaunmss .200 11.7 .200 4.1 .200 ~0.1 unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Glacial drift Pyrite Driller' s Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. huff Glacial drift Ryrite Lahawashed Saqple Sieve size (myler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Lime cement Glacial drift Pyrite Rotary Sample No. 10 35 48 30.8 11.5 75 74 20 10 4 15 1 1 35 48 41.4 15.8 86 82 10 7 3 10 1 1 35 48 61.5 15.8 79 79 15 5 5 15 1 1 65 100 14.0 14.8 90 97 3 2 7 1 65 100 15.9 4.9 87 93 5 2 1 1 5 3 2 1 65 100 13.9 7.4 89 9O 5 5 5 5 1 2 150 0.7 NHHN$ 200 2.5 200 11.3 OIHOIQH 200 0.1 a) (”Celt-'61P 33 .200 19.2 .200 21.3 0.3 unwashed Staple Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by'veight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Glacial drift Driller's Seaple Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Chart Pyrite Lab-washed Staple Sieve size (flyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray we. dark gay Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ohert Ryrite Rotary Sample No. 11 35 43.9 70 25 35 83 15 35 61.5 68 15 15 48 11.8 80 10 10 48 13.6 77 15 48 15.8 80 15 65 10.9 92 65 14.3 HQ MN 65 13.9 83 5 10 100 10.3 100 10.8 150 4.8 150 3.3 200 1.5 200 0.7 50.8 200 0.1 mmSS .200 16.7 .200 2.5 .200 0.3 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (i‘yler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray. nicaceous Linestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Gypsum cement Driller ' s Sample Sieve size (iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Pyrite Gypsum cement Ghert Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (lyler Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Dolomite. huff Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Gypsum cenent Rotary Sample No. 12 35 40.0 45 20 20 35 45.8 15 15 10 35 43.2 55 25 4 3 10 2 Present-85 to 100 48 22.7 64 NHNOOIO) 48 20.7 0% (0 H61 030106110 48 24.5 61 5 10 3 15 3 65 21.0 75 19.3 GHSNNg 65 21.9 100 11.7 85 Pub (”630) 100 9.3 a) HHO 0‘61!“ 150 2.2 me an» 5 150 a: 030-401qu 1.1 HHO‘I N038 200 0.3 39 20 25 10 200 0.4 75 10 200 0.1 10 10 10 .200 30.3 1.9 .200 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rocks in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. light gray Glacial drift (iron stained sand. etc.) Ohert Ryrite GVPIEI Driller's Sample Sieve size (flyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. light gray Glacial drift Ohert Ryrite Gypsum Lab-Sashed Sample Sieve size (lyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. light gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. light gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Gypsum Rotary Sample No. 13 35 31.2 23 20 15 01me 41.3 c.3888 35 47.9 35 25 25 10 3 2 22.2 a. e mmg 48 26.3 39 50 3 1 19.2 HHSHNS 100 11.5 100 8.0 HHHBNHE 100 5.9 150 3.7 150 0.9 § 0 0 g. «Hgmmg 200 1.1 ‘2” 0| UIUIO) 200 0.1 10 25 10 10 200 -0.1 15 20 .200 10.4 .200 3.9 -200 3.9 unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Gypsum Driller' s Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Gypsum Lab-washed ample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in sieve size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Chert Pyrite Rotary Sample No. 14 35 :9. 3 27 25 10 59.8 25 20 10 71.3 20 47 10 48 6.9 48 10 15 20 48 13. 8 10 25 20 3 48 13.0 65 8.3 03 0| {3’ e '0 muuggafi 65 10.2 55 15 25 100 10.7 100 7.7 65 15 10 100 4.8 3.8 15 150 7.1 150 am @388 150 0.6 «858 200 3.6 65 10 10 10 200 a. .383 37 .200 31.1 .200 5.4 0.1 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (fiyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Percent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift - Ghert Pyrite Gypsum Driller's Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Gap!“- st—washed Sample Sieve size (lyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ohert Pyrite Rotary Sample no. 15 35 32.3 05H (”HHUImUIOI 35 59.8 15 73 71.2 mu885 48 6.9 29 15 45 48 13.8 20 8 61 10 48 13.0 15 20 15 11.9 10.2 H5802 100 10.7 64 25 100 A? 56 35 100 4.8 60 20 14 150 7.1 75 15 150 «8.8 N 150 0.6 senses 200 3.6 66 25 200 0.6 15 20 200 0.1 38 31.1 .200 5.4 .200 0.1 unwashed Sample Sieve size (myler) Per cent by’weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Shert Pyrite Driller's Sanple Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Chert Pyrite Lab—washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in~size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Linestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Rotary Sample No. 16 35 51.8 10 78 35 66.7 ~20” HUINQOOI 48 6.6 48 35 10 48 1143 35 5 47 10 48 12.2 10 25 20 2 1 65 7.1 meme 65 11.9 ‘57 25 10 65 11.5 55 20 1 1 100 7.8 67 25 100 10.0 55 35 100 7.6 71 15 10 150 4.9 77 15 150 2.7 57 35 150 1.1 57 35 200 2.4 «8.9 200 0.5 37 55 200 39 19.5 .200 3.6 .200 0.7 unvashed Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Pyrite Driller's Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray $1319s Gray Limestone. gray Ghicial drift Pyrite Lab—washed Seaple Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent ef rock in size Sandstone. gray 8Mh.aw Limestone. gray Glacial drift Pyrite Rotary Sample no. 17 35 42.8 15 77 10 20 65 35 71.8 10 20 68 7.1 35 15 10 48 13.5 33 10 20 48 13.6 65 7.0 65 13.1 uSSmE 10.2 Hggat 100 6.6 SicaFS 10 100 8.2 59' 10 25 100 3.7 150 3.8 65 10 20 150 2.2 15 35 150 0.4 200 1.8 68 25 200 0.6 20 15 60 200 0.1 .200 30.9 .200 9.8 .200 0.2 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Pyrite Driller' s Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Pyrite Lab—washed Sanple Sieve size (Eyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray &dmsmv Limestone. gray Glacial drift Pyrite Rotary Sample no. 18 54.0 20 70 66.0 20 ,55 72.6 N10 ngoa 48 66.5 20 35 15 48 10.7 SSSE l 38 10 35 15 65 6.3 65 8.8 8m8 15 ’ 65 9.4 100 5.7 70 15 10 100 4.9 61‘ 25 10 100 3.3 8mg 10 150 3.2 55 10 25 10 1.6 Hugmfi 150 0.6 wagog 200 1.5 mBSS 200 0.5 200 0.1 HHSEB .200 22.9 .200 7.3 .200 0.2 Unvashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Linestone. grey Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Driller's Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent hy weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Lab—washed Sample Sieve size (tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift. Pyrite Ghert Botany Sample No. 19 27.7 mumggg 46.4 meggg 35 60.3 23 £06361 48 8.0 28 30 20 20 48 14.5 45 20 20 15 48 16.8 15 15 2 65 8.5 20 15 10 65 15.7 49 20 20 10 65 14.7 10 20 15 1 100 9.8 67 15 10 100 11.3 59 15 15 10 100 6.7 59 15 20 150 7.2 74 15 150 3.5 MSSS 150 1.0 20 10 200 3.7 65 10 20 200 1.2 39 39 200 0.2 14 35 .200 .200 7.5 .200 0.4 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Driller's Sample Sieve size (Syler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. grey Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Labavashed Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of reek in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite - munsmflom.m 35 51.0 35 20 35 70.4 HmaSSS 48 5.4 15 25 48 12.3 53 20 15 65 5.9 842 15 65 9.5 68 10 15 5 65 10.1 8mg 15 1 100 6.5 67 10 10 100 9.0 69 10 15 100 5. (A 150 5.4 74 10 150 5.7 10 15 150 1.2 HHmSSB 200 3.9 68 10 20 200 3.1 a H58 200 0.3 umuSSS .200 38.1 .200 12.7 .200 0.4 Unvashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Driller' s Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Short Pyrite Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Rotary Sample No. 21 35 33.2 25 35 35 46.9 HuuSSS 35 76.9 15 35 5 48 4.2 47 15 25 10 48 8. 1 31 (0030 48 10.9 48 10 25 15 1 3.8 «HSSGS 65 7.3 37 35 65 7.0 70 15 10 100 4. 3 68 15 10 100 6.4 65 15 10 100 3.3 65 20 10 150 3.9 75 15 150 3.9 10 15 150 0.8 3853 200 3. 5 75 10 10 200 2.6 10 25 200 0.4 .200 47. 1 .200 35.1 .200 0.7 unwashed Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Driller's Sample 31." .12. (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in sieve size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Chert Pyrite Lah.washed Sample Sieve size (Siler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale, my Limestone. gray Glacial drift Chart Pyrite Gypsum cement Rotary Sample No. 22 46.9 omaSGS 60.3 mmmsgg 48 4.4 26 20 10 48 6.7 48 35 10 48 7.7 65 4.6 uSuS 65 6.5 69 20 6.2 100 5.2 68 20 100 5.2 65 10 20 100 3.3 h‘k‘ n.830.23 150 4.1 77 15 150 2.5 150 0.9 47 10 H8 para 200 3.0 Bag 200 1.7 388 200 0.4 27 10 .200 31.7 .200 17.0 .200 1.1 unwashed Sample . Sieve size (iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale, gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Chert Pyrite Driller's Sample Sieve size (tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sands tone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray GLacial drift Ryrite Ghert Lab—washed Sample Sieve size (myler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale: m Limestone. gray ' Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Rotary Sample No. 23 25.1 waggg 44.8 59 20 54.1 58 15 21 3 1 48 6.7 maESS 48 12.0 48 16.3 63 16 15 1 65 8.6 59 15 20 13.8 HHmmbg 17.0 66 20 10 100 9.9 76 15 100 11.0 71 23 100 w cab-5&8 150 7.9 76 10 10 150 4.5 78 13 150 2.0 86 10 200 CO 4. 83 H to H001 200 1.8 200 u age-8} .200 36.8 .200 12.2 .200 0.7 unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Dolonite. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Driller's Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Emu.av Dolomite. gray Glacial drift Chert Pyrite Gypsum Labawashed Sample Sieve size (leer) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Dolomite. gray Glacial drift Chart Pyrite Gypsnn Rotary Sample No. 24 35 56.2 maSSS 35 75.2 18 25 35 15 48 5.4 20 2O 48 8.9 26 15 35 20 48 11.6 20 20 35 18 65 4.8 39 as; 65 7.6 65 7.8 10 25 100 5.2 49 10 30 100 5.8 ”85% 15 100 3.3 150 4.3 H838 150 3.0 H808 14 150 0.8 News 20 200 3.2 88% 200 1.4 200 0.3 10 20 4? .200 33.2 .200 17.0 .200 1.2 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Gypsum Driller's Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Wm“ Lab—washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Limestone. gray Glacial drift Chert Gypsum Botany Sample No. 25 . 35 40.0 10 58 57.8 61 (3 .3 N amufigg‘. 48 5.4 15 35 35 15 48 10.5 41 15 47 10 48 13.2 47 10 25 10 5 65 5.3 35 15 20 65 9.6 20 51 10 65 10.4 8...? 15 3 100 5.2 100 5.8 60 13 64 10 _100 4.7 60 20 10 150. 4. 6 54 10 30 150 2.4 51 15 56 150 0.9 55 10 25 200 3.2 63 30 200 1.3 200 0.3 49 10 20 .200 36.4 -200 12.6 .200 0.4 unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sand Shale. gray Shale. green Dolomite. gray Dolomite. buff Glacial drift Chert Gypsum Driller’s Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Shale. green Dolomite. gray Dolomite. buff Glacial drift Ghert PYrite Gypsum Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray “lama. t9 . buff Glacial drift Ghert. buff Pirite Gypsum Rotary Sample No. 26 35 49.6 25 30 10 77.6 UIHSOIBKU 48 5.4 10 10 20 40 15 7.2 pa F‘ Oil-4015380005: 48 7.2 15 10 10 65 4.4 15 10 10 38 25 5.2 00403084ng 65 5.2 57 20 10 3 100 4.0 15 51 20 § 5. 5‘ Screens: H H OHNU'I 100 3.1 61 20 10 1 150 3.2 10 63 20 150 1.6 35 15 (nearara 150 1.6 38 10 35 Q: 200 2.6 N (HUI PH OO’CAQ 9m 0 8 umwusqmsg 200 0.9 15 49 .200 30.8 ~200 11.1 .200 11.1 unwashed Sample Sieve size (Pyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Shale. green Dolomite. buff Glacial drift Chert Gypsum Driller's Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray 8h81°e 8737 Shale. green Dolomite. buff Glacial drift Ghert Gypsum Pyrite Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. gray Shale. green Dolomite. buff Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Gypsum Rotary Sample No. 27 35 37.8 20 20 20 35 62.4 25 10 15 35 10 35 79.4 15 15 15 35 10 48 4.3 25 15 10 48 7.4 24 10 20 10 10 48 9.5 18 20 15 25 15 3.7 8801013 01 65 5.1 10 15 20 16 65 6.0 29 15 15 15 100 3.6 33 10 35 100 3.6 10 20 10 15 10 100 3.1 10 15 15 10 150 2.8 10 10 45 150 1.8 39 10 25 10 10 150 0.8 25 15 20 15 25 200 2.1 25 10 10 200 1.2 22 10 24 10 200 0.3 24 15 25 15 20 .200 45.7 18.4 .200 0.8 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (lyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sand Shale. gray Shale. green Dolomite. gray Dalomitee butt. Glacial drift Ohert Gypsum Driller's Sample Sieve size (lyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sand Shale. gray Shale. green Dolomite. gray Dolomite. buff Glacial drift Pyrite Gypsum Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size. Sand Shale. gray Shale. green Dolomite. gray Dolomite. butf Glcial drift Ghert Pyrite Gypsum Rotary Sample No. 28 35 42.9 15 25 10 26 18 35 64.3 15 35 15 20 35 81.1 48 15 15 25 20 10 15 48 10.0 25 . 15 20 10 10 10 48 11.4 65 4.4 30 10 20 15 15 10 65 6.4 20 7 10 10 65 5.2 10 15 10 10 100 4.1 33 10 20 15 100 3.2 20 15 12 10 100 1.4 39 20 25 150 3.4 150 1.3 18 15 10 15 150 .0.2 10 20 200 3.1 50 10 200 0.7 15 10 25 17 20 10 200 0.1 20 29 51 .200 36.5 .200 14.1 .200 0.5 Unwashed Sample Driller' s Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gypsiferous Shale. dark gray mloniteg brm Glacial drift Chert Pyrite Lab—washed Sample Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Stale. art my Dolomite. brown Glacial drift Ghert Pyrite Gypsum Gable Sample No. 1 (no Sample) 35 48 65 51.7 7.2 8.6 30 20 67 5 7 4 59 58 25 4 3 2 2 2 2 {0 62.7 8. A 9. Huamgug 100 18.6 NUII-‘l-J, H 100 15.0 {DOING 150 10.3 to ”(0th H 150 4.2 (0(0th H 200 H «mug 1.3 .200 0.2 uuehmnnmz Uhmashed s..p1. (bitmsample) Sieve size Per cent by weight in sieve size firmnefma in size Sandstone. gray Shale. green-gray m]... an m blemite. dark gray Dolomite. buff Glacial drift mat nun mnnflshnh fined” Puourwwdat in sieve size hrunofma in size Suhum.gu' Shale. dark gray fiduguuqny Dolomite. dark gray lblomite. brown awuiuut ant Pyrite hunduSufie Sieve size Paeufhwdflt in sieve size Pacaturwk in size Suhbu.gq m]... m m Shale. green-gray Dolomite. dark gray Dolomite. brown fluhluflt ant Pvritn w 256 34H”; 610 5 39.6 NM :GGOO sub $33309o333 a L0 mm zones 8 DJ m 20 w as Seams as $7 9H SSSSS 1m L4 HGHHSS H» 15.0 m ”genus H» $9 '0‘ ”(DOPE 1m L5 1w 10.5 H NGNNH-‘g 1w as Hmufiwfi fl L6 M 25 m &0 H HmHHH3 m5 Haufiufi 0 mm 69.0 1&6 m9 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (bier) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per eemt of root in size had hale. dark grey Shale. green-gray Dolomite. brown Pyrite Driller's Sample Sieve size (Pyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in sieve size hmdstone. gray mle. dark gray hale. green—gray Dolomite. gray Dolomite. buff Glacial drift' Ghert Pyrite lab—washed Sample Sieve size (Eyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per out of rest in size hndstone. gray hale. green-gray Dolomite. gray Dolomite. brown Glacial drift Short Pyrite Gable Sample So. 3 36 48 6.4 0.9 (Largely cemented with effervescent in l/lO Del. 36 48 29. 7 7. 3 10 36 30 10 17 6 16 10 30 36 2 2 6 3 36 48 48. 9 11. 6 12 17 30 20 28 26 . 28 26 6 4 1 8 7 66 1.4 66 11.3 sc..s on 66 14.3 26 20 14 2 3 100 2.4 100 20. 6 N (3%”ng 100 17.2 seas 160 200.200 2.7 160 13.3 m HNHHHN 160 H6108 61 6.2 82.0 gray mud which is 300 .200 6.4 10.9 92 1 1 1 2 1 l 200 .200 0.6 0.8 86 2 6 1 6 Gable Sample No. 4 Unwashed Sample (bit sanple) Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sand Sand-shale cement Shale. dark gray Stale. green-gray Dolomite. gray Dolomite. buff Drillcr' s Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. green—gray DalomitO, my Dolomite. buff Glacial drift Ohert Pyrite Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Shale. green-gray Calcareous. soapy Sand Ryrite 35 48 65 100 13.1 0.9 1.3 1.7 10 5 1 60 90 85 93 5 10 6 5 3 5 3 5 3 10 1 35 48 65 100 17.8 3.3 4.7 8.0 15 so 40 92 29 10 1o 1 15 17 1o 2 15 15 12 20 25 25 3 1 1 2 1 5 2 2 1 35 48 65 100 36 to 200 a 10.5 25 (Not Sieved) 150 HN 9381 150 6.5 P‘ P’QJP'OJFJFJ 150 200 2.1 15 83 200 4.8 F‘h‘h‘h‘fi- 200 66 .200 79.3 .200 65.1 .200 89.5 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Send Shale. dark gray Shale . green-gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Driller's Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sand Shale. dark gray Shale. green—gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by'weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Band ”310. Mt gray Shale. greenpgray DOIO.1tO. buff Chert Pyrite Gypsum Cable Sample no. 5 35 48 65 100 7.2 2.2 2.4 2.6 10 10 15 3O 43 44 38 38 30 15 2O 25 15 30 25 35 48 65 100 54.6 10.4 9.0 9.7 15 3O 50 10 10 5 2 3 15 10 10 71 45 4O 27 1 1 15 15 15 10 35 48 65 100 66.9 13.3 10.1 7.1 10 25 45 15 15 10 5 6 7 16 10 65 5O 35 33 3 1 2 1 1 10 16 15 7 150 2.7 25 47 10 15 150 5.1 15 20 20 150 1.9 200 2.7 25 39 10 15 200 1.9 ngmug 200 0.4 10 24 20 56 .200 80.3 .200 9.2 -800 0.6 unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. green-gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Cable Sample no. 6 35 48 65 75.8 2.0 1.8 3 10 30 90 67 44 3 10 10 2 10 10 1 1 2 1 2 4 100 2.0 50 35 5 5 2 3 150 1.7 40 23 15 5 2 l5 ( Darkzgray shale sizes are fragments of cavings ) Driller's Sample Sieve size (gyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. greenpgray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Lab—washed Sample ( no Sample) 35 48 65 100 12.3 8.7 22.8 $.2 5 45 80 91 3O 15 2 1 15 15 3 2 38 19 10 3 2 l 1 5 5 5 2 150 7.5 N {UNI-'03 200 1.5 14 15 15 200 5.7 NNNNHH .200 15.2 .200 4.0 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (filer) Per cent by'weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size 131-1119;“: Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gypsum cemented Suh.uflgmy Shale. green-gray Dolomite. buff Hun Gnmn Lab—washed Sample Sieve size (lyler) Pacutfiwugt in sieve size Per cent of rock in size . Sandstone. gypsum cemented Shh.&figmy finale. green-gray “10.160. buff Prue Gypsu- Oable Sample No. 7 35 4.2 35 27.3 20 20 20 48 65 2.9 5.5 ( Cemented ) 48 65 6.7 13.3 Q m 10 2 15 3 10 2 1 2 2 1 48 65 11.7 18.3 87 94 4 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 100 9.7 100 19.8 Hull-’0‘! H 100 16.4 NHHGHN 150 10.6 150 13.0 HHHHm 150 5.0 NH mHH 200 11.8 200 HHHaHu 200 1.8 mamSHg 58 .200 55.3 .200 12.0 .200 1.3 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (1519:) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray “10’ dark my Shale. greenpgray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Driller's Sample Sieve size (lyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rodk in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. green—gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. green—gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Cable Sample no. 8 40 20 20 15 35 a2 5.5228 35 17.2 25 4O 15 15 5 48 1.6 H fifflmfl 48 3.1 HNQNIOIO 48 7.8 35 20 30 65 4.2 HNOIO p. 65 10.5 NHNH‘ 65 20.0 (”#OIWUOI 100 15.8 F‘ haoohaow 100 40.2 HH HHO 100 aa NNHGNO 150 15.8 HHH» 63 150 26.5 98 150 10.8 MHHmHu 200 13.0 on P‘h‘h’fi» 200 10.8 98 200 1.3 ' 59 .200 47.0 .200 A9 .200 0.5 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. green—gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum . Driller's Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. green-gray D910l160. buff an» Gypsum Lab-washed Sample Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray $8.19. dark gray Shale. green-gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Cable Sample no. 9 35 0.7 m88$ 35 4.8 588 10 35 17.4 25 35 20 15 1.1 IFHNNC”: 48 2.7 15 10 10 48 7.5 70 10 65 5.4 F‘h‘k‘ 10 65 15.0 HHHuuH 65 25.8 GNNGNO 100 20.1 h-hihass 10 100 39.9 97 150 18.2 95 150 22.7 HHHQ 150 8.0 92 200 12.6 97 200 7.7 HHHHHm 200 0.9 60 .200 41.8 .200 2.9 .200 0.6 Unwashed Sample Sieve size (Dyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. green-gray “10.1 ta 9 but! Pyrite Gypsum Driller' s Sample. Sieve size (Tyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gnmy Shale. dark my Shale. green-gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Lab.washed Sample Sieve size (Eyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. groan-gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Cable Sample No. 10 35 1.7 NHU‘QUIUI 8‘. HHGUIS 35 2.5 45 20 15 15 3 2 48 3.4 63 HNHN 48 36.3 HP WHO 48 14.5 UFO! 6303‘! 65 65 39.8 65 38.7 caravan-am .100 150 17.0 14.0 95 96 l l 1 1 3 2 100 150 12.3 5.2 96 95 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 100 150 34.6 8.2 97 95 1 1 1 l 2 2 200 12.3 14 200 1.5 200 1.2 92 61 .200 42.0 .200 2.6 .200 0.3 Cable 5amp1e No. 11 'Unwashed Sample ( Bit Sample ) Sieve size (Iyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Cemented sand-shale Shale. dark gray Shale. green-gray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Gypsum Driller's Sample Sieve size (Dyler) Per cent by weight in sieve size Per cent of rock in size Sandstone. gray Shale. dark gray Shale. greenagray Dolomite. buff Pyrite Ohert Gypsum Lab-washed Sample 35 48 65 10.3 3.3 3.1 5 30 45 10 20 20 1 2 75 45 30 3 1 l 1 3 1 2 35 48 65 9.2 29.7 29.9 65 as 94 5 3 1 14 5 3 5 3 1 8 1 2 1 2 1 ( no 35-p1. ) 100 2.7 100 12.0 98 150 2.0 20 37 150 5.7 99 200 1.4 6:53 315: ES 200 1.7 94 o: P‘h‘h‘ .200 77.2 .200 11.8 Summry of Comparisons of Content in Unwashed. Driller's and laboratory fished Samples he percentage of each rock type in each sive size in all the samples studied was tabulated. Comparisons were made from unwashed to driller's sample and from driller's to labor. atory washed sample. Instances showing gain. loss or no change in percentage are summarized in the following tables. Key: Rock Type i'he Sample types Compared (lumber of Comparisons) I‘yler Sieve Sizes a. Instances of decrease in percentage b. Instances of no change in percentage 5. Instances of increase in percentage Limestone Unwashed to Driller's (15) Driller's to 1.45.7445“ (15) 35 45 55 100 150 200(ry1or) 35 45 55 100 150 zoo a. 7 5 5 1 1 3 7 4 7, 5 5 5 '1. 3 4 4 4 4 1 4 5 3 4 5 1 c. 5 7 5 11 11 12 5 5 5 7 5 9 Dolomite (11) (15) 1 4 3 5 5 5 7 5 7 7 7 7 b. 1 o 5 2 o 2 3 3 2 4 3 1 c. 9 7 3 3 5 4 5 7 7 5 5 a Sandstone (25) (38) a. 5 11 9 14 15 15 14 15 15 1o 17 17 5. 4 o 2 o o 1 5 1 1 4 5 3 c.1614l411106 91191468 t. ‘0 Os 9!"? is male. dark gray and gray Unwashed to Driller's (25) Driller's to 145.554555 (15) 35 45 55 150 150 200 (1715:) 35 45 55 100 150 200 12 15 1o 7 5 3 4, 13 9 14 5 9 5 5 5 11 4 7 12 2 5 5 7 5 7 4 9 7 15 15 12 13 11 9 13 13 55415. green Uhsashed to Driller's ( 3) Driller's to 55.3-hon ( 3) 35 45 55 100 150 200(ry1or)35 45 55 100 150 200 1 1 1 1 o 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 o o 1 o 1 o 1 1 1 o 1 o 2 2 1 2 2 2 o o o o o 1 Shale. green-ogre: ( 5) ( 7) 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 o o 1 o 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 o 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 4 4 5 5145141 5:125 (20) (23) 5 7 7 5 11 1o 4 5 3 5 7 3 4 7 5 7 3 5 15 9 5 5 5 11 1o 5 5 5 5 5 9 9 14 11 11 9 Pyrite (35) (38) 5 3 5 5 9 5 9 12 13 12 11 13 1o 5 9 5 5 2 1o 5 5 1o 11 7 9 14 1o 14. 11 15 9 5 7 . 5 5 5 0797'- (16) (16) s 5 7 5 7 5 4 5 4 5 5 4 o 3 1 1 1 2 7 2 5 5 2 1 5 7 7 5 7 7 5 9 5 5 9 11 Chart (17) (21) 5 3 2 1, 1 o 2 5 5 2 o 1 2 5 5 12 15 17 s 2 11 14 17 15 7 5 7 4 o o 13 11 5 5 4. 2 65 he Kirk-Coin Heavy Liquid Soil Analysis Test‘ he Kirk-Coin test was deveIOped by Drs. Kirk and Coin of the University of Southern California for use by the City of I-os Lngeles Police Department. The tests were performed by the originators and were need for comparisons of soil from scenes of crine with soil from the shoes or tools in the possession of suspects. Convictions were made as a direct result of this test. Procedure: Gently disaggregate the sample with a rubber stopper on a smooth glass plate. Pass the nterial through a 100 mesh Tyler sieve. Inmine the material which would not pass throw to see if it can be further disaggregated. Weigh out uniform samples from 25 to 80 milligrams. Place these samples in glass ubes from 12 to ll inches high. Correct outside diameters for the different weights of sanple are: 50 to so mg. - 10 I. 30 to 50 mg. - 8 III. ( hose sises will prevent clogging. ) 10 to 30 mg. - 6 II. If there is some clogging the material can be broken up by gentle stirring with a glass fiber. 'ith a medicine dropper. gently add from one to one and a half inches of bromoform diluted with alcohol to specific gravities which will separate the fol.- lowing heavy minerals: Dolomite. calcite. quarts. nicrocline. kaolin. gypsum. bentonite. and materials lighter than bentonite. ' i J i i . Vol. mun, lo. 3. Sept-her - October 1947. 66 Add the liquids in order of decreasing gravity. After one hour urked concentrations of minerals will be seen on the contacts of the different liquids. If stirred occasionally. there will be diffusion of the liquids and the minerals will be dispersed in sevn to twenty-four hours. One photograph is taken after one hour and another in the seven to twenty-four hour period :01]. "13‘s 1. 5. 7. Preparation ef lamples for the Kirk-Coin rest lplit sanple. Ieigh out five grass of sample. Press on smooth glass plate very gently. fluke on nested 40 and 100 mesh sieves. Pour the material on the 40 mesh sieve into an agate mortar and gently tap the grains of aggregate. bll the grains with Just enough pressure to free the loose coating of mid. . Repeat sieving and tapping until the ships of stone are recognisable on the 40 mesh sieve. lhu no aggregates remain on the 40 mesh sieve repeat the mortar and pestle procedure with the nterial on the 100 mesh sieve. the rock fragments retained on the 100 mesh sieve are used as the coarse sample and the material pae- sing it, is used as the fine sample in the following Iirb. Coin test. Coarse samples are denoted by the sample number with a prime symbol 0) and the fine samples have the sample number alone. the tests are run with the coarse sample first and the fine sample following and use consecutive samples. 67 Preparation of the Rotary Ind Samples for the Kirk—Join Test In preparing samples for the KirbGoin test. the mud was stored free from contamination in pint lason Jars. After two weeks. when the samples were selected for the test. the solid material was completely separated from the water which was per- fectly clear and free from salt. To obtain a representative suple. the following is the procedure that was followed: first. the clear water in the Jar was carefully siphoned off to within a quarter of an inch above the lid. he Jar was then tilted and the contents were stirred rapidly with a glass tube. men the texture of the mud was uni- form. a tube was inserted to the bottom of the inclined Jar and a finger was placed over its end. no sample was then removed and emptied into a small glass vial. J'ive or six tubes filled the vial. he md sample in the vial was then dried in an elec- tric oven at 83 degrees Centigrade. After four hours drying. the sample was cooled to room temperature and corked. Efficiency of the Kirk-Coin Heavy Liquid feet a controlled check of the Kirb.Goin procedure in relation to the lower linit of reliability regarding sise. demonstrated that below 5. Tyler sieve sise 325 or 0.044 m. use action my occur. (See photo lo. 1). Bi: controlled samples were made with ten milligrams of dolomite. fifteen of gypsum and twenty..five of calcite using sised uterial which stopped on i‘yler sieves 150. 200. 250. 270 and 325. laterial which passed 335 sieve was used as the sixth sample. hose were placed in test tubes in the order mentioned. a test for sensitivity using five milligrams of. gypsum to forty-five of dolomite. and five milligrams of dolomite to forty. five of gypsum with minerals which stopped on a 270 sieve sise. showed that there may be disturbances in that sise. a... set- ups were placed in test tubes seven and eight. fl1e same ratios of mineral were used in tubes nine end ten with material finer than a 335 sieve size. i'ube nine had the high dolomite content and tube ten the h1g1 gypsum content. Ihe major anomaly observed was that of a peculiar circula- tion of the sample in tube seven where the dolomite was in large concentration. Only tube ten of the sensitivity tests failed to separate the minerals indicating the lower limit of accuracy. be strange tendency for some minerals. especially gypsum. to rise to the level above their correct position according to yavity and then flocculate down to their correct level on the addition of the next liquid was observed in the tests of cable tool sanples. ‘ few changes in procedure are deemed advisable for work with highly cemented aggregates. Iet sieving the material used for testing would provide much more accurate eisiag. The gypsum and shale cement of the cable tool samples seem to prevent com. plete disaggregation using dry methods. Soft or brittle materials are undoubtedly broken in the present sising process. 69 Stirring occasionally is very desirable in order to pro- vide more accurate dispersion for photographic studies. ‘I'his also shortens the time required for the minerals to come into equilibrium on the correct levels. As a result of the possibilities for error using the types and sises of sample to be tested. results were used primarily as a check on the binocular microscope work. he test demon. strated quite clearly the uniformity of content above and below 100 sieve sise in both the rotary lids and the cuttings from both types of well. he test has excellent comparison possi. bilitiee with the more inert types of sample. and could be used safely in the silt sises. 7O —.__.__——.J r‘r ! ‘._.~— 1 -."“ I + "a '. l . ‘ h Photo of the Controlled Kirk-Gain Heavy Liquid Test Rotary Sample 8 to 12'. Before Dispersion. 71 7—~ ~*-- _.‘*- Rotary Sample 13 to 17. After Dispersien. .22] .0.-.“ C.1-e. Rotary Sample 18 to 22'. Rotary Sample 18 to 22'. Before Dispersion. After Dispersion. 73 .4- .—.___—.———-.o-‘ .1- Rotary Sample 22 to 26'. Before Dispersion. H n— __ —- — ~— _ M _— —- i I 4 5H m! h ‘ t * 3:” . .. .1 I . !!a 9 3's .1 "' g. u- "' Rotary Sample 22 to 26'. After Dispersion. l l -4.._._.__ _ I" Rotary Sample 27 to 28'. Before Dispersion. g._... 1,—— »5as - "-_ Rotary Sample 27 to 28'. After Dispersion. 76 Before Dispersion. Rotary and mp1. 1 to 5'. After Dispersion. Rotary Mud Sample 1 to 5'. Rotary Mud Sample 6 to 10'. Before Dispersion. o ‘ ‘- -... . e e ‘ Rotary Mud Sample 6 to 10'. After Dispersion. 78 Before Dispersion. Rotary Mud Sample 11 to 15'. 7After Dispersion. Rotary Mud Sample 11 to 15'. Before~Dispersion. Rotary Mud Sample 16 to 20’. I, -"....l After Dispersion. Rotary Mud Sample 16 to 20'. Rotary Mud Sample 20 to 24'. Before Dispersion. SH; *’ Rotary Mud Sample 20 to 24'. After Dispersion. 81 Cable Tool Samples 2 to 6'. Before Dispersion. I _._—-A - _ i 7:. ‘ . A . 1. __ _ V , , W, Cable Tool Sample 2 to 6'. After Dispersion. Before Dispersion. . O o 11.4 r .1 .0 .“4 ‘\ .. Q. . . . . J. n v t . . . . JD .. s . v S .. J .3 .1. .3. «,cv. Tush}: s. 0‘. x I! Gable Teolesnple 7 to 11'. .After Dispersion. Gable feel Salple 7 to 11'. Bred-down rests on Sandstone and Shale Sanples with the Ralllton-Beaoh Dispersion Apparatus l'low Sheet Dry the well sanplos Vet sieve in nested 'i‘yler sieves nuborod 10 to 200 Dry the samples Disperse 50 grams of each sieve size for the five minute nininun period let sieve in nested sieves Dry the sanplos Ieigh the fractions Results Sandstone: lumber 10 sieve sise .- totally reduced in size with only five particles renaming on the sieve. The bulk of the sand is on the minor 100 and nuber 200 size sieve. he naterial on the nuber 100 sieve was reduced 36 per cent to 200 and snaller sises. he naterial on the nunber 200 sieve was reduced 9.1 per cent to snaller si see. Black finale: lhe sanple of nuber 200 sieve size was 40.3 per cent rednood to snller sises. he sanple tested was a friable Par-a sandstone. he shale was also fron'the Pennsylvanian forntion. 84 Corrections Page 2. line 12: nest should be nested. Page 9, line 4: settling should be settlingg. Page 16, line 1: sandstone should be sandstones, Page 16, line 15: blocky is the correct spelling, not blacky. Page 18, line 25: noticable should be spelled noticeable. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 1 31 3 1293 OSOLS 4