prospecting for coal bed uranium in kansas through the use

Fort Hays State University Fort Hays State University

FHSU Scholars Repository FHSU Scholars Repository

Master's Theses Graduate School

Spring 2018

Prospecting for Coal Bed Uranium in Kansas Through the Use of Prospecting for Coal Bed Uranium in Kansas Through the Use of

ArcGIS and Uranium Proxies ArcGIS and Uranium Proxies

Logan Howell Fort Hays State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses

Part of the Geology Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Howell, Logan, "Prospecting for Coal Bed Uranium in Kansas Through the Use of ArcGIS and Uranium Proxies" (2018). Master's Theses. 587. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses/587

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of FHSU Scholars Repository.

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/gradschl

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses?utm_source=scholars.fhsu.edu%2Ftheses%2F587&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/156?utm_source=scholars.fhsu.edu%2Ftheses%2F587&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses/587?utm_source=scholars.fhsu.edu%2Ftheses%2F587&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

PROSPECTING FOR COAL BED URANIUM IN KANSAS THROUGH

THE USE OF ARCGIS AND URANIUM PROXIES

Being

A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty

of the Fort Hays State University in

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of Master of Science

by

Logan Howell

B.S., Appalachian State University

Date_____________________ Approved___________________________________ Major Professor

Approved___________________________________ Chair, Graduate Council

i

ABSTRACT

The potential implications for the discovery of coal bed uranium in Kansas not

only have a significant scientific and human health interest impact, but also a possible

future economic one as well. This study sought to look for coal bed uranium within the

Cretaceous Dakota Formation located in north-central of Kansas. This study utilized the

two coal bed uranium proxies of historic subbituminous coal production and radon, and

ArcGIS to produce a field-site selection map. This map was used to pick counties within

Kansas to collect samples from. Once samples were collected, they were scanned for

radiation using all available settings on two Geiger counter units at Fort Hays State

University. Samples collected from all field sites within Cloud, Republic, Jewell, and

Pottawatomie counties tested negative for uranium, thorium, and other radioactive

materials.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Schafer, my committee members, and the faculty and

staff of Fort Hays State University for their valuable input on the direction of this project.

I would also like to thank Debi Aaron for assistance in the field and in establishing

landowner contact for field sites. I would also like to thank the landowners for allowing

access to field sites and the collection of samples. I would like to extend a thank you to

the Fort Hays State University Graduate School for giving me this opportunity. I offer a

final thank you to my parents, family, and friends for support in this endeavor.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................v

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF APPENDIXES.................................................................................................. viii

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

Study Objective ........................................................................................................1

Rationale ..................................................................................................................2

Methodology ............................................................................................................8

Literature Review.....................................................................................................8

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................12

ArcGIS and Field Site Mapping ............................................................................12

Fieldwork ...............................................................................................................21

Lab Work ...............................................................................................................31

RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................33

DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................36

iv

Conclusions ............................................................................................................36

Limitations .............................................................................................................36

Future Work ...........................................................................................................38

Summary ................................................................................................................38

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................39

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Results of Geiger counter tests of Pottawatomie (S series), Cloud (1T & 2T series), and Jewell (J series) county coal samples .............................................................33

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page 1 Surface Geology of Kansas (Data from KGS) .........................................................4 2 Stratigraphic Column of Kansas (modified from Zeller et al., 1968) ......................5 3 Excerpt of Figure 2 Section with Focus on the Dakota Formation (modified from Zeller et al., 1968) ...........................................................................................6 4 Except of Figure 2 Section with Focus on the Wabaunsee Group (modified from Zeller et al., 1968) ...........................................................................................7 5 Kansas Counties .....................................................................................................13 6 Subbituminous and Pottawatomie County Bituminous Coal Production Zones. ..........................................................................................14 7 Selected Area Historic Subbituminous Coal Production Values ...........................15 8 Kansas Radon Levels .............................................................................................16 9 Kansas Selected Area Radon Levels......................................................................18 10 Raster Calculation Equation ..................................................................................17 11 Kansas Selected Area Prospecting Map ................................................................20 12 Kansas Prospecting Map vs NURE Sediment Samples Uranium (ppm) ...............21 13 Cloud and Republic Counties Sampling Sites .......................................................23 14 Cloud/Republic County Tailings Pile ....................................................................24 15 Jewell County Geology and Sample Sites .............................................................25 16 Pottawatomie County Sampling Site and Surface Geology ..................................26 17 Coal Sample recovered from Jewell County .........................................................28

18 Coal Sample recovered from Cloud/Republic County ..........................................29

19 Coal sample from Pottawatomie county featuring pyrite ......................................31

vii

20 Site selection vs NURE Sediment Sample Comparison Map ................................35

viii

LIST OF APPENDIXES

Appendix Page A Kansas Counties Selected Attribute Report ...........................................................42

1

INTRODUCTION

Study Objective

This project focuses on investigating the potential existence of coal bed uranium

in Kansas. The objective is to find out if coal samples that were field collected according

to ArcGIS site selection had any uranium, thus indicating the presence of coal bed

uranium in north-central Kansas. There has been little work in investigating the potential

presence of coal bed uranium in Kansas, and the value of the knowledge as to whether it

is present in Kansas or not warrants further investigation. As a resource, uranium has uses

in the energy, medical, food-processing, and military sectors. The potential implications

for the discovery of coal bed uranium in Kansas not only have a significant scientific

impacts, but also economic ones as well. The harvesting and refining of commercial or

weapons grade uranium is a profitable economic venture that has led to the development

of companies specializing in the extraction of uranium. If coal bed uranium was

discovered in commercial amounts in Kansas, it could lead to an economic boost for the

state. Utilizing potential coal bed uranium stores in the state could also be a source for

job creation within the state of Kansas. In the current economic situation, job creation and

an economic boost could significantly improve the finances of the state of Kansas overall.

In addition to its commercial uses, naturally occurring uranium can be a source of

environmental safety and health concerns. Uranium can be dangerous to humans through

the release of radiation and radioactive elements as it degrades. Radon, a radioactive

element that is produced by radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium as they

decay, is linked with a heightened risk of lung cancer in humans (Field et al., 2000; Lyle,

2007). Even from a health and public safety interest standpoint, knowing if coal bed

2

uranium is present in the state of Kansas and in what amounts is an important topic in

taking precautions in building and zoning for residential areas. As such, this study has a

potential impact on the health and safety of the entire population of the state of Kansas.

For these reasons, identifying its presence in an area is of great importance.

Uranium is typically sought after in the form of uranium ore, in which the concentrations

of uranium-238 and uranium-235 are in a secular equilibrium with their daughter

isotopes. Reactor-grade uranium ore is typically 3.2-3.6% uranium, whereas weapons-

grade uranium ore is >90% uranium. Ores can be enriched through the use of uranium-

235 to achieve reactor-grade or weapons-grade status (Cantaluppi and Degetto, 2000). In

the 1950’s, coal bed uranium was discovered in the Wasatch Formation of northeast

Wyoming (Love, 1952). Further joint works by the United State Geological Survey and

the Atomic Energy Commission sought to identify and measure uranium content in the

United States.

Rationale

Coal bed uranium is different from uranium ore in that it is secondarily deposited

(James, 1978). While the original uranium can come from different sources, the most

common source is igneous rock or ash deposits that leach uranium into surrounding

groundwater flows. Within Kansas, there have been at least 18 ash layers representing the

Pearlette Ash and the Ogallala Formation that have tested positive for uranium and

thorium. These ash layers serve as a potential source of uranium that could then be

secondarily deposited in Kansas coal deposits (James, 1978).

Kansas surface geology ranges from Pennsylvanian marine and non-marine

subsystems in the east that transition to Permian and then Cretaceous systems in the

3

central region of the state and then Neogene and Quaternary alluvial deposits in the west

(see Figure 1) (Merriam, 1963; Zeller et al., 1968). The contacts between these different

systems are riddled with unconformities. The Precambrian basement rock is primarily

igneous and metamorphic rocks. The Pennsylvanian deposits in Kansas consist of five

cycles of marine limestones and shales and alternating non-marine clastic deposits. The

coal samples from the Pottawatomie county sample site are traced to coal seams within

these deposits. The Cretaceous systems of Kansas are representative of the Cretaceous

Interior seaway. The Cretaceous Dakota Formation is the origin of the Jewell, Cloud, and

Republic county samples (Merriam, 1963; Zeller et al., 1968). The two stratigraphic

sections representing rock units sampled are also shown below (see Figures 2, 3, & 4).

4

Figure 1:Surface Geology of Kansas (Data from KGS)

Legend

Kansas Geological Units Rt pfH.ntllboo: KS_liUptJllltiPolJ6_60ld_lll_Rtp

---1111 Q.oJZO,lu,...,,(e,'1yP~~

IIII Cg,j;G&:t.1"'1t.

Kansas Surface Geology w ith Sampling Sites

1111 i,;:i,:o,~,..,me~C5?oe.JO;w,<,o fQf.,..-)oc

1111 '-"";.ln>ssl: S1 5·=

1111 RIDPl', C- o...-.~ - n-...........

1111 R>~ o,,...,,._.,.G-.M>.- .., Fc,,,,,o:l;t,

- -.,,-·-•-•=o -.. ~~,·-----=••~ - --~~··-

110 - 55 -N

A 0 11 0 Kilometers

Created by: Logan How ell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Created on: 02/13/20 18

5

Figure 2:Stratigraphic Colum

n of Kansas (m

odified from Zeller et al., 1968)

(~A! STA(l(

LOWU F'f~..._,.Ui:IFS ~IM SYSTEM

PALEOZO I C ERA

M lfl:l"" Slo(;E u•f'1~ ffiiM\11.~ 506 Ui'f\R JJ~SL'll(S LO'flO ct(TACLOOSSlRI[! UPPllc;IE1M;[(llJS SfRl£S

IURASSICSYSTE~•----------~Ci!T~A~Cf~O.USSYSTE.'11 __ MESOZO I C ER A

"--,..., ..... ,_-,-,."-.-' ,.,.,...- -,-,-~.;::::_:::_:::__-::_,.,.,....,,..,,-,,,,-,u~- --l.---- - ,rni.11 sr;U - ~· __ _ 11'1ERlllmSIPPW1$Elll(S _l LOWlRH.NMstl~l,NIAM$l,:00:c..__ L..__ IICOIE i'F~N!YIIANi._~ Sf.l fS

NISSISSH'f LI.II~ IL.._________ PENNsm.1..~1.1.N= m=''"~ -----------------P A L EO Z O IC ERA

PALEOZOIC E R A

6

Figure 3:Excerpt of Figure 2 Section with Focus on the Dakota Formation (modified from Zeller et al., 1968)

FairPOfl Chalk Member

hr~et-POSl Is. !Md

Pfeifer Shale Membe,

.ktmore Chalk Membtr

Hartland Shale Member

lincOln limestone Mbr.

Janssen Clay Member

Terra Cona Clay Mbr.

Greenhorn limestone

Graneros Shale

Dakota Formation

Kiowa formation

Cheyenne Sandstone

?

V) i....J

a:: i....J V)

V) => 0 i....J u c::: 1-1..J a:: u 0:: u..J s: 0 _,

7

Figure 4: Except of Figure 2 Section with Focus on the Wabaunsee Group (modified from Zeller et al., 1968)

Methodology

The steps used in this project can be broken into three phases. The first phase

included obtaining uranium proxies and relevant map data and using ArcGIS to produce a

)

S.lt1t1 Poiftt Shilt Mb1. 81m Umeslot11 Mbl l .. iofl Slrlllt Mt mkr

S.lly11ds ls. Mbr.

Howe llmestc,,.. Mtmber 8•1t•tn ~lt M~

Gltnrocli l s. • br.

l on1 Creel, ls. Nbr.

Arnt1ic11s lt. Mbr.

n,,. Point l s. Mb,.

Wt1t81and!Sh ... Mbr.

/ H1-...b Sh1le w.mbe;r _ - '-" / Asolnwall ls. Mbt.

- .=·:···.

H1At )'Vffl• Shilt Mbr. RHdin1 l imHtOIII Mbl.

W1k111,1$1 Lt. Mbr. Sotditf Cr"41; S11. Mbr

8 1,1rlil 11nala. Mbr.

$11¥11 U lt Sn1lt Mbf.

R1,1lo llmesto,.,. Mtmbtt

Cedlir Vtlt $halt Mbr.

)~:-·t.t{~- Whitt Cloud Shalt Mbr.

~-.:~~-:_:: ::t !111,~lt~==:.: : :

Churct, llrr19sto .. Mbt.

Tl.ltft ,,., .. II SII,, Mbr. SMlfon LIIM1tON Mbr. Joiws Point ShlJt Mbr. eu,- llm•tOM Mbr. low1 Point Sh1lt Mbr.

Hartlord ls. Mbt.

/ Urth I, B1.11t1MII Sll, Mbr1. Rodi Bluff ls. Mbr. O~Sll.llt Mbr.

Ouwt..t Limtst- Mbr.

C

Cm,ola limestone 8

Roca ~ ale

Red Eagle L1meslone

JohnsoA Shale

Fo,ake, Limestone

Janesville Shiile

Onaga Shale

Wood S1din1 Formation 0.

i Root Shillt .;l

C

Stollt r Limestont 5l 1:!

Pillsbury Shale "' Zundale limestone

Willard Shale 0. 0.

Emporia f e "' limestone

Auburn Shale = j i Bt,n L1mu tont z: i

Suanton Shale 0.

f 0 u

Howard l ,meslooe <'l

Seve,y Shale

lopeh limestone

CJlhoun Shille

Deer Cleek limestone

0. 0

Tecumseh SI\Jle <O

C

-

u.l C, < ,-V,

z < c:;; IX >

8

prospecting map to act as a guide for field site selection. This included importing data

layers, digitizing elements from non-shapefile sources, raster reclassification, raster

calculation, and comparison with data points from the National Uranium Resource

Evaluation (NURE) program. The second phase of the project included obtaining

permissions from landowners to sample and retrieve coal samples from the chosen field

sites for analysis. The third and final phase was the analysis of collected samples via two

Geiger counters in the lab at Fort Hays State University.

Literature Review

Coal bed uranium was first discovered in the Wasatch Formation of northeast

Wyoming in the 1950’s, and the Atomic Energy Commission and the United States

Geological Survey began joint research into the study of this phenomena (Love, 1952).

These projects sought to locate and measure coal bed uranium in the United States

(Denson et al., 1959). These studies were conducted throughout the West and

Midwestern regions, but Kansas was not investigated for the potential of coal bed

uranium. The closest investigation into this matter was the study by Landis (1959) that

indicated that there is uranium in the shale deposits of the Pierre Shale in Western

Kansas. Given the commercial and safety concern importance of coal bed uranium and

the confirmed presence in neighboring states, it is reasonable and sufficient cause for

investigation into the subject of coal bed uranium in the state of Kansas and to further

examine the properties of coal bed uranium.

Joint studies of the United State Geological Survey and Atomic Energy

Commission studies concluded that coal bed uranium is most typically produced by the

chemical breaking down of uranium-bearing rocks (Denson et al., 1959). As these rocks

9

physically and chemically break down, the uranium is released. This free uranium can be

picked up by moving groundwater that can then transport it over distance into aquifer

systems. These aquifer systems then allow for the transported uranium to integrate with

nearby rock layers (Gill, 1959; Mapel & Hail Jr., 1959; Pipiringos, 1961). This process

and the reported presence of radon in Kansas groundwater supplies is part of why the

presence of uranium-bearing ash deposits in Kansas is such an important indicator of

potential coal bed uranium deposits (James, 1978; Kalout, 1996).

The United States Geological Survey and Atomic Energy Commission studies

also noted that identified coal bed uranium was most often found in lignite and

subbituminous coal varieties. Breger et al. (1955) investigated this phenomena and

determined that this may be due to the preferential stability of the uranium and lignite

compound. Said study also determined that the metallo-organic compound formed by

uranium and the organic components of the lignites was stable and that the organic

components of the lignite possesses a chemical structure that is far more accepting of

uranium introduced to it. This chemical acceptance and strong bond is unique in that it

makes lignites and subbituminous coals more readily able to capture and bond to uranium

than other coal varieties; provided that the groundwater can reach the lignite (Breger et

al. 1955). Moore (1954) even demonstrated this absorption and bonding ability by

submerging a lignite sample into an aqueous solution containing uranium and the lignite

was able to extract greater than 99 percent of the uranium from solution. Nakashima

(1992) showed that uranium can undergo reduction upon joining with lignite.

Lignite is a subtype of coal that is characterized by high carbon content and low

heat production when burned (McCartney & Teichmüller, 1972). Lignite is commonly

10

referred to as “brown coal” and is rated as the lowest quality coal. Lignite is formed from

the compaction and heating of peat through the process of coalification. Lignite typically

has a higher concentration of volatiles and hydrogen than other coal types, as higher coal

grades have undergone more heating and compaction to force out extraneous materials

(McCartney & Teichmüller, 1972).

Other researchers, such as Moore et al. (1959) determined that the permeability of

the overlying and underlying rock layers can have a significant impact on if and where

uranium can be found in coal. If the contacting rock layers are fractured or in some other

way permeable, then groundwater can more easily get to the coal layer and interact with

it on a chemical level. If a coal bed is underlain by a very impermeable rock, such as a

tightly packed sandstone, then any uranium that collects in the coal bed layer will be

unable to leach out of it due to meteoric water or groundwater interactions (Moore,

1959). Other studies have sought to identify other rock units that could hold uranium,

such as the study by Landis (1959) that indicated that there was uranium present in the

Sharon Springs Member of the Pierre Shale in western Kansas.

The investigations of researcher from other countries into the geochemistry and

characteristics of coal bed uranium have yielded insights into how uranium most

frequently occurs in coal and what attributes contribute to uranium accumulation in

various coals. Arbuzov et al., (2011) determined that the five factors affecting the

accumulation of uranium in coal are tectonics, source rock chemistry, syndepositional

volcanism, coal metamorphism, climatic factors, local hydrology, and hypergenic

oxidation of the coals. Russian researchers have concluded that uranium will most often

naturally occur in a coal as the minerals uraninite and coffinite, or as trace particles that

11

can occur in different patterns throughout a sample (Arbuzov et al., 2012). The patterns

of uranium dispersal through a sediment can be uniform, in star-like clumps, reticular

distribution, linear distribution, clusters over phosphate, and inhomogenous distribution.

Finch and Ewing (1992) determined that the most common uranium-based mineral,

uraninite, undergoes oxidation at a rate that is determined by the amount of lower valence

cations that are incorporated into it during formation and radioactive decay.

12

METHODOLOGY

ArcGIS and Field Site Mapping

In order to prospect for coal bed uranium in Kansas, it was first necessary to

develop a map that would be used to select the prospecting sites where coal and therefore

coal bed uranium could possibly be gathered. ArcGIS ArcMap 10.5 was used to produce

a map that would be accurate to the county level. For the purpose of this project, the

imported layer was a Kansas county base map. The proxy layers for coal bed uranium

were created using data from the Kansas Radon Program and the Kansas Geological

Survey. These proxies consist of radon data for Kansans counties and coal production

data for Kansas counties. Radon was chosen as a proxy due to it being an intermediate

step in the decay chain of uranium. The Kansas base map was retrieved from the State of

Kansas GIS Data Access and Support Center (see Figure 5) (Tiger Census Counties,

2014).

13

Figure 5: Kansas Counties

Cheyenne Rawlins Decatut

ShE!l'man Th=• Sheridan

Wallace I Logan I Go,e

Greeley Wichi ta Scott Lone

HsmUton Ke~ny Finney

G<a y

Stanton Gra nt Hast eU

11,icxton Stev ens SewMd Meade

Legend KansasC ounties

Kansas Counties

Norton Phill.» Smith J ewell

Grah am Roob °'""'~ Mitchell

Lincoln

Trego E llis Russell

E lliWOt"lh

N~, Rush Barton

Rice

Hodgeman Pawnee J

-----i___ Staf!Ofd

Edward s Reno

-,~. "''" Kiowa Kingman

1 c, ...

Comsndle .. , ... I Ha, pe,

N

A 11 0 - 55 -0

Republic W,sh,agton I Marshall I " • =h• I & =n niphan

A tdis on Clou::I ,(:: l M,on C la y ottswatomie .,., J=t·~ Ottawa -w ot.Lc.,~ S1Ynee yando

Geary Wabaunsee Did:inson Dougla5 Johnson

Saline Merr i<; Osag e

Fra rl~n Miam i

I Lyon l\.1cPhason Mar ion

Chm

- Coffey An~son Linn

I , .. ,,., I Gre-enwood Woods a, A llen Bol.J'bon

Bu llet" Se-dgwict

W ilion N=ho Q-awfOfd EO

Surrner ~~, :lontgomery Labette Cherokee Cha utauqua

11 0 Kilometers

Created by: Logan How ell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last M odif ied : 02/13/2.018

14

Figure 6: Subbituminous and Pottwatomie County Bituminous Coal Production Zones

After being imported, the data layers were transformed to fit the NAD83 datum.

Coal bed maps from the Kansas Geological Survey were used to outline coal exposures

within Kansas counties. (see Figure 6) (Schoewe, 1952). To make the coal raster, the coal

production map picture was georeferenced using the Kansas base map acquired from the

State of Kansas GIS Data Access and Support Center. The georeference tools allows an

image to be associated with spatial coordinates to fit the image into the known spatial

orientation of the image’s subject. Polygons were then drawn based on the overlay of the

coal production map image from the Kansas Geological Survey (Flueckinger & Brady,

2010). The original KGS image had both subbituminous and bituminous production

Kansas Subbituminous Coal and Pottawatomie County Bituminous Coal Production Zones

Cheyenne Raw lins Decatut Norton Phill.» Smith J~y ShE!l'man Th=• Sheridan Graham Roob °'""'~ ,;·L

I I ""t Liaoo/ Wallace Logan Go,e Trego E llis

~ ~ th

Greeley Wichi ta Scott L,,e N~, Rush Barton

Rice

Pawnee J Finney

Hodg eman -----i___ Staf!Ofd HsmUton Ke~ ny Reno

Edwards

G<ey -,~. Ptett

Stanton Gra nt Hast eU Kiowa Kingman

11,icxton Stevens SewMd Mead e

1 c, ...

Comsndle .. , ... I ""'"'" N

A Legend 11 0 55 0 --Coal A rea (Pottawatomie Bitum inous)

Coal Area (lignite & Subbiluminous)

l) "h;agton I I "•=h• I Republic Marshall &= , niphan

A tct15 on Clo1/ ,<::, \J l M,on Cla y ottsw~mie

/4 ... .;.,. "'. J::l·~ -w ot.Lc.,~ S1Ynee yando

Geary Wabaunsee Did:inson Dougla5 Johnson

Saline Merr i<; Osage

Fra rl~n Miam i

I Lyon l\.1cPhason Mar ion

Chm

- Coffey An~son Wnn

I , .. ,,., I Gre-enwood Woods a, A llen Bol.J'bon

Bullet" Se-dgw ict

W ilion N= ho Q-awfOfd EO

Surrner ~~, :lontgomery Labette Cherokee Chautauq ua

11 0 Kilometers

Created by: Logan How ell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last M odif ied : 02/13/2.018

15

zones, though only the subbituminous (yellow) and Pottawatomie bituminous (purple)

production zones were digitized into ArcGIS. This was because the subbituminous values

were used in the prospecting calculation and the Pottawatomie zones were added in later

due to a landowner invitation to sample a bituminous coal seam in Pottawatomie county

(see Figure 6). The historic coal production values for the counties within the

subbituminous coal production zones were used to produce the coal raster that

represented the levels of coal production throughout the state (see Figure 7) (Schoewe,

1952).

Figure 7: Selected Area Historic Subbituminous Coal Production Values

Kansas Selected A rea Historic S ubbituminous Coal Production Values

Phillip!.

Gfaham Roob

Trego Enis

R~h N~•

Pawnee Hodgeman

Legend

Historic Sub bituminous Coal Values (Thousands of tons) Value D o 50 25 - Less than 10 - -- 10-100 - 100+

Washing ton

Clay

Di .;i;i rt$on

M81ion

N

A 50 Kilometers

Marshall Nemah

Po118wa tomie

Riley

G•"'Y

Mon is

Ly~

Chase

Gf nwood

Created by: Logan Howell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last Modified: 02/13/2018

16

The Kansas base map data layer had fields added to the attribute table that

corresponded to measured radon levels according to the Kansas radon map acquired from

the Kansas Radon Program (KRP, 2015). The KRP breaks radon levels into three

screening levels based on indoor radon and cause for concern. For the sake of future

raster calculation, the breakdown of three categories was preserved. The radon level

attribute field data was used to create a raster layer that showed the varying radon levels

in Kansas so that it could be used with the coal production raster to establish the best

counties to consider for prospecting (see Figure 8). The county base map was used as the

tool extent and mask to ensure Arc would not overextend the conversion. An extraction

by mask was performed to create a map of radon purely within the counties that fell

within the subbituminous coal production zone (see Figure 9).

17

Figure 8:Kansas Radon Levels

Legend Kansas Radon Levels

VALUE

0.0 • 1.9pCi/L

1111 2.0 - 3.9 pCi/L

1111 4.0+ pCi/L

Kansas Radon Levels

N

A 11 0 55 0 11 0 Kilometers --

Created by: Logan How ell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kan sa s Geological Survey Last M odif ied : 02/13/2.018

18

Figure 9:Kansas Selected Area Radon Values

After completing the creation of both rasters, they were each reclassified into

basic counts of one, two, and three (see Appendix A). One represented low values (of

radon and subbituminous coal production), while two represented medium and three

represented high. This reclassification of values allowed for the varying amounts and

units to be added together with equal consideration by the program. The radon and coal

raster datasets were finally added together using the ArcGIS Raster Calculator tool in

order to produce a final raster that represented what areas would be the best sites for

prospecting based on their recorded radon levels and coal production (De Smith et al.,

2007). In this case, the raster calculator added the attribute values from the coal and

N«ton Phillips

Gfehem ·-· Trego E llis

Rus h

Pawnee Hodg eman

Legend Selected Area Radon Values

1111 4.0+ pCi/L

Kansas Selected A rea Radon Values

N

A 50 25 50 Kilometers - - Created by: Logan Howell

Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last Modified: 02/13/2018

19

radon layers in order to produce a viability layer. The equation used to produce the final

map was Coal_Layer + Radon_lvl (see Figure 10). The reasoning behind this is that the

areas with the highest amount of reported subbituminous coal production and the highest

radon levels would be the best possible location to find coal bed uranium in Kansas. As

all counties within the subbituminous coal production area were already classified as

having high radon and could have either no, low, medium, or high subbituminous coal

production, this meant that the resulting raster representing the viability of finding coal

bed uranium placed counties into one of four categories. This resulted in the areas with

the highest historic subbituminous coal production and highest radon levels being marked

as the best possible locations for the viability of coal bed uranium (see Figure 11) (De

Smith et al., 2007).

Figure 10: Raster Calculation Equation

'\ Raster Calculator

Map Algebra expression

Layers and variables

•c oal Bed Uranium Viability

•Re dass_coal2 • CoalValues •Ra donValues

-

• Kansas Radon • Ks_Zip_AvgRadon2014_300. t -

"CoalValues• + "RadonValues•

Output raster

I = I @1 l.-,E3-I

Conditional - ..,

000 0EJB0 Con 0 Pick

800 C:J QEJ[JJ SetNull

000 • GJEJ[J M ath

Abs

I 0 10 GJGJITJ• Exp c ., ... 1n

\ad. fhsu.edul,students~showell'J)ocumentsV',rcGIS\J)efault.gdb\CbuViability

~-O_K _-] I Cancel I I Environments ... 11 Show Help > >

20

Figure 11: Kansas Selected Area Prospecting Map

The ArcGIS map was compared with the National Uranium Resource Evaluation

(NURE) data that was collected by the USGS after sample collection for comparison

purposes in order to visualize how the prospecting map lines up with a larger collection

of sediment samples. The National Uranium Resource Evaluation is a collection of

sediment and water samples throughout the United States that have been examined using

various means to test for uranium, though for the purposes of this project, only sediment

samples were included in the comparison. There are 333 uranium samples that fall within

the viability zone, with yellow and green icons representing samples with higher parts per

million uranium values than the surrounding orange and red icons. These were compared

Phill ips

Grsham

Trego Ellis

Rush Nm

Pawnee Hodi,leman

Legend Coal Bed Uranium Viability D Lowest Viabilrty

- Low Viabilit y

- High Viability - Highest Viability

Kansas Selected A rea Prospecting Map

N

A 50 25 50 Kjlometers - -

W ashillijton

Clay

Did inson

Po ttaw atomie

Riley

Wabaunsee

Monis


21

visually because of the difficulties in hotspot surface mapping due to the partial nature of

the NURE data (see Figure 12) (Smith, 1997).

Figure 12:Kansas Prospecting Map vs NURE Sediment Samples Uranium (ppm)

Fieldwork

The map resulting from the ArcGIS analysis was used to pick an initial county to

act as a starting point for the field prospecting (see Figure 11). Areas where the raster

calculation gave the highest viability of coal bed uranium were highlighted as the best

potential areas for prospecting. The locations highlighted on the map were used to select

the field sites for the investigation of coal bed uranium for this project and represents

both potential commercial use and identifying potential environmental and health safety

Kansas Selected Area Coal Bed Uranium Viability vs NURE Sediment Samples Uranium Count

Norton Phillips Smith

Glaham ·-· Trego

Rush

Pawnee Hodgeman

Legend Coal Bed Uranium Viabil ity

LJLOwtlll:W ?llly

- LOw Vlal:IM/

- Hlgl VbbRJ

- ~ t 61 VtUIMy

Sediment Sa"1)1es Ur anium Count (PPM)

U OOOOI - 3.600000 50 - 25 -

Jewell

~tchel

Reno

N

A

:• o:, • • • • •'· • • •• ,:

.. . . . ·. . : .

o i o o OS o t O ooo <F'•

O ,:JP O~ o 0 0 08

o o0 '.to ~ § o wasi16f11on S •• ,:,: • .. ·. . .. . : .: .. .

'"•. :· : :-····.: .. ··: .. 1 ) -Clsy

Diclinson

Saline

McPhefSon

Harvey

50 Kilometers

Po tl!lwatomie

Riley

Geary Wabaunsee

Lyon

Chase

""'"' t'.xei!nwood

Created by : Logan Howell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last Modif ied: 02/13/2018

22

concerns. Analysis indicated that Cloud County would be the best starting location due to

the historically high production of lignite and subbituminous coal and the high radon

readings within the county. After an initial prospecting trip to Cloud County, networking

resulted in invitations to examine field sites on private property in both Jewell and

Pottawatomie counties. Whereas Love (1952) used a Geiger counter and a scintillometer

in the field, this study collected in situ samples from an exposed coal seam deposits and

secondarily deposited samples from mining tailings piles and brought them back to a lab

at the Fort Hays State University Geoscience Department to prevent false readings from

outside sources. Cloud County samples were recovered from two major tailings piles that

were remnants of a pioneer mining operation that was present in the area (see Figures 13

& 14) (Beede, 1897).

23

Figure 13:Cloud and Republic Counties Sampling Sites

Legend

Samplng Shes

Geology Representatio n: KS_ MapU nitsPolys_solid_fill_Rep_ 1

O..,B:AluYium (late P le6tocene a nd Holocenie)

Qds;Dune sand

- QU oess

- Qal2;A luYium (earty Pl!!istocerie}

- Kgg:Graneros Shale. G 1eenh«n Limestone

- Kd;Dakoa Formation

- Kck:Cbe}e!IM Sandstone. Kiowa Fofflla;tioo

Cloud & Republic Counties Sampling Sites

N

A 10 5 0 10 Kilometers -- Created by : Logan Howell

Data Source: Kansas DASC & Ka nsas Geological Survey Created on: 6/23/2017

24

Figure 14: Cloud/Republic County Tailings Pile (63.5 cm Estwing pickaxe for scale)

The Jewell County samples were recovered from two tailings piles that were the

result of previous landowner mining operations that were located in the southeastern

portion of the county (see Figure 15). The tailings piles at the Cloud and Jewell county

sites were surveyed and fragmentary coal specimens were collected and bagged for

25

analysis back at the lab.

Figure 15: Jewell County Geology and Sample Sites

Legend

sampRig Ste&

Geologj Re pre sentation: K S_MapUnit sPolys_solid_ fill_Rep_2

- Kgg;Gratiero& SM I!, G e eo~om Ltn enme

- Kd;Datoi.afonnancm

Jewell County Geology and Sample S ites

N

A 10 5 0 10 Kilometers -- Created by : Logan How ell

Data Source: Kansas DASC & Ka nsas Geological Survey Create d on: 6/23/2017

26

Samples from the Pottawatomie County site were collected from an exposed coal

seam on the bank of a small creek and were collected in situ. All sample sites were on

private land and specific coordinates have been withheld due to landowner request. The

Cloud and Jewell county samples were identified as coming from the Dakota Formation

based upon recorded lithology during mining, mine shaft depth, and surficial geology

(see Figures 13 & 15).

Figure 16: Pottawatomie County Sampling Site and Surface Geology

The Dakota Formation is a Cretaceous age sedimentary system that is distributed

throughout the Great Plains and Rock Mountain regions, though for the purpose of this

project the focus was on the Dakota Formation within Kansas (Zeller et al., 1968;

Legend

G.ok>gy Rtl)QH nt.tloi.: KS_Ml pUnltiPOl'.f$ _60lld_fll _ Rt p

0:IU:0"'9':er""'1'/At-.l.U"'Ca,e P~,e-~

- Cgd;(;US,.,,,.y a.&~aldr l:

- f'::0.-C•OCD ! J Q'°"e Qr,:, ~ (Pq)

-•.--,i0a,nteG"°""' - 'c!1;0:lu..a1Clr°"e G""""

Pottawatomie County Geology and Sample S ite

N

A 10 5 0 10 Kilometers -- Created by: Logan Howell

Data Source: Kansa s DASC Created: 06/23/2017

27

Macfarlane et al., 1998). The formation is approximately 200-300 feet thick. It overlays

the Kiowa Formation and has a transitional upper contact with the Graneros Shale. The

Dakota Formation is comprised of layers of clay, siltstone, and sandstone with lignite

seams and channels sandstone deposits. The formation is broken up into the Janssen (also

known as the Janssen Clay) and the Terra Cotta (also known as the Terra Cotta Clay)

members. The Dakota Formation in Kansas represents alluvial plains and deltas that

existed on the eastern side of the Cretaceous interior seaway. The sandstone layers

present represent deltaic fronts while the lenses are identified as channel sandstones. The

siltstone layers are attributed to alluvial plain sedimentation. The lignites present in the

Dakota Formation most likely represent near-coastline swamps (see Figures 17 & 18)

(Zeller et al., 1968, Macfarlane et al., 1998).

28

Figure 17: Coal sample recovered from Jewell County

o o o·o rmi12 5

.. •

\

29

Figure 18: Coal Sample recovered from Cloud/Republic County

The Pottawatomie County samples were identified as clarain coals from the

Wabaunsee Group according to recorded lithology during mining and mine shaft depth

(see Figure 19) (Stopes, 1919). The Wabaunsee Group is a Pennsylvanian age group of

cyclothems that consists of the Wood Siding Formation, the Root Shale, the Stotler

Limestone, the Pillsbury Shale, the Zeandale Limestone, the Willard Shale, the Emporia

Limestone, the Auburn Shale, the Bern Limestone, the Scranton Shale, the Howard

Limestone, and the Severy Shale (Schoewe, 1946; Merriam, 1963). The Wabaunsee

Group is roughly 500 feet thick. The formations of the Wabaunsee Group are comprised

of alternating shales and limestones that are representative of both transgressive and

-

\

... '

0 0 mm 2·

30

regressive oceanic movements. The Wabaunsee Group is primarily composed of shales

and limestone, with four major and multiple minor coal beds throughout the group. The

four major coals within the Wabaunsee are the Lorton, Nyman, Elmo, and Nodaway

coals. The major coal systems can extend up to 200 miles without interruption, indicating

that they were most likely the result of coastal swamps (see Figure 4) (Schoewe, 1946;

Merriam, 1963).

These units are important relative to this study because they provide the coals for

uranium to be absorbed into. The proximity to possible uranium sources such as the

Pearlette Ash Bed also makes the depositional environment and stratigraphic context of

these units valuable to this study, as they are in stratigraphic position to receive

potentially migrating uranium. Being Cretaceous and Pennsylvanian deposits, the age of

these units also has allowed for ample time for the migration of uranium from host rocks

and for the absorption of any free uranium by nearby coals (Zeller et al., 1968, Schoewe,

1946; Merriam, 1963; Macfarlane et al., 1998).

31

Figure 19: Coal sample from Pottawatomie county featuring pyrite

Lab Work

Coal samples were measured in the X-ray LAB of the FHSU Geosciences

Department for radioactivity through the use of two Geiger counters. Any radioactivity

reading occurring in the coal samples would most likely be due to a natural source, since

the field sites were largely isolated locations. The two most common natural radioactive

elements are uranium and thorium. Therefore, any radioactive elements detected would

most likely be one of these two, though any radioactive samples would have been sent

• 0 a o·o fT'i'!'I I 2· 3 5

•• •

32

out for full compositional analysis. The first Geiger counter used in the coal analysis was

a refurbished Victoreen Instrument Company OCDM CD V-700, Model 6B. The second

Geiger counter used was a Radiation Alert brand Radiation Alert Monitor. Both Geiger

counters were tested against a known radioactive standard that was provided with the

Victoreen instrument and registered the sample as radioactive on all sensitivity settings.

Both Geiger counters can register radioactivity ranging from 0-50 milliroentgens per hour

(mr/hr). A reading of .5 mr/hr can equate to 0.05 percent equivalent uranium in a sample

(McKeown & Klemic, 1954). Once both units were verified as working properly in the

identification of radioactive samples, they were used with the coal samples collected

from the county field expeditions. Average background radiation according to

manufacturer specifications is categorized as 0.01 to 0.02 milliroentgens per hour.

Therefore, any readings higher than this would have warranted further investigation. The

samples were analyzed on all available settings including X1, X10, and X100. These

settings correspond to the actual radiation measured as the reading on the dial multiplied

by one, ten, or 100.

33

RESULTS

The samples from all counties surveyed did not result in any consistent readings

from either of the Geiger counters on any of the sensitivity settings. There was no

difference in results between fresh seam samples and tailings pile samples. Results for the

Geiger counter tests are included in the table below (see Table 1).

Table 1: Results of Geiger counter tests of Pottawatomie (S series), Cloud (1T & 2T series), and Jewell (J series) county coal samples

Victoreen V-700, Model 6B Radiation Alert Monitor 4

Sample X1 X10 X100 X1 X10 X100

S1 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative










1T-1 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative



34









J1 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative

J2 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative

35

The results of the comparison of the field site selection map and the United States

Geological Survey NURE data are displayed below. NURE coverage is partial in the state

of Kansas. What coverage is available indicates uranium values higher than global

estimates for coals, which are 2.9 parts per million (ppm) for brown coals and 1.9 ppm

for hard coals (Ketris & Yudovich, 2009). Coverage of north-central Kansas that overlays

the subbituminous coal production zone includes some of the highest uranium in parts per

million readings in the entire area (see Figure 20).

Figure 20: Site selection vs NURE Sediment Sample Comparison Map

Kansas Selected Area Coal Bed Uran ium Viability vs NURE Sediment Samples Uranium Count

Norton Phinips Smith

Gfaham Roob

Trego Ellis

Rush

Pawnee

Legend Coal Bed Uranium Viability

LJLowutvtablly

- LoWVlili:llt/

- lilgl Vbblt/

- Hlgles::ivta!lllly

Sediment Samples Uranium Count (PPM)

1.5(10001 - .3.600000 50 - 25 -

" lchel

Rice

Reno

N

.... -. o i o o O s o io•oo&O O,;;fPO~ o 00 08 o oo t §o

w asi,;Jon i 000: •

1) .: .. . ~: :. · .. ·?.:· :. ·,•,·· ··,.,'.:• : : ···.: .. ...... ·. .. . -,. . .. . ,: .. .. .:

.. .. · . . ··: : .· C lay

Ri ley

Did inson

Saline

J1,1cPherson Marion

Harvey Buller

Marshan

Po ttawatomie

Geary

Lyoo

Chase

G,eenwood

A 50 Kilometers


36

DISCUSSION

Conclusions

Given the lack of consistent and significant readings of the samples with both

Geiger counters, it can be concluded that the samples obtained from the field study did

not contain measurable amounts of uranium nor any other radioactive material. No

evidence was found by this study that would indicate the presence of coal bed uranium in

Cloud, Jewell, or Pottawatomie counties. Whether this is due to there not being coal bed

uranium in the areas investigated or due to the limitations of equipment and survey sites,

it cannot be concluded as to whether coal bed uranium is present in North-central Kansas.

The comparison between the prospecting map and the NURE data has interesting

implications is further study into this methodology. The overlap between the suggested

prospecting sites and the higher sediment uranium values (ppm) from the NURE data

suggests that the prospecting map and methodology may be useful in future exploration

with the addition of supplementary proxies depending on the area.

Limitations

One limitation of the study was the availability of sampling sites, which was

impacted by two factors. The first was that the map was also limited in accuracy down to

the sub-county level; with radon values being limited to the county level and coal

production zones covering large areas within certain counties. The second factor

influencing the availability of sampling sites was land availability. The overwhelming

majority of land in the state of Kansas is privately-owned. This meant that it was required

not only to get permission to take samples for research, but to get the required permission

to even go prospecting on the majority of potential sites. This factor also manifested itself

37

in the lack of published data indicating where surface exposures of coal could be found in

Kansas. This is even evident in this study as part of gaining permission to sample these

locations involved agreeing to withhold specific location information regarding sampling

sites from publishing.

The final limitation of this study is that this study only utilized samples collected

from the surface in situ or collected from tailings piles, which acted as secondary sites

located on the surface. Most of these sample location deposits are the result of mining

operations that ceased decades ago. This means that the deposits have been exposed to

the elements thoroughly. Exposed coal beds can have potential uranium or thorium

concentrations affected by exposure to meteoric water. It is possible that any uranium

present in the coal sampled from the tailings pile sites was washed away due to exposure

to meteoric water. Leaching is a known method of mining for uranium and meteoric

water has similar characteristics to the fortified water commonly used in these operations,

so it is possible that exposure to meteoric water over time could slowly cause leaching of

uranium in coal bed exposures. In leach mining, results can be seen on a scale of months

to years. It is possible there was a similar case with the coal sampled from the bank of

Adams Creek in Pottawatomie county. As the only reason this coal seam was exposed

was due to flooding of the creek due to storms, it is possible that flooding and the

significantly increased water flow could have greatly stripped the seam of any uranium it

may have possibly contained. Multiple storms were reported in the area by the landowner

before a field expedition could be organized, which means that there was more exposure

of the seam to meteoric water and possibly more flooding in the area prior to sampling.

38

Future Work

Further exploration into this methodology could benefit from a larger geographic

area with more sampling sites, a stronger link to locals, and consideration of subsurface

coal layers. A larger geographic area with more sampling sites could benefit a project like

this as it would allow for a greater possibility of finding coal layers that contained

uranium. A way of gaining access to a larger amount of sampling sites would be to have a

stronger connection with local landowners. In this particular study area, the sampling

sites were primarily provided by local landowner networking. A larger network of

landowners having knowledge of the project could have yielded more invitations to study

potential sites. Finally, there is the possibility that any uranium that was present could

have been deposited in coal beds that did not have surface outcrops. The consideration of

subsurface coal layers could make future studies more inclusive of the geology of the

study area.

Summary

In summary, there was not sufficient evidence provided by this study to support

the hypothesis that there is coal bed uranium in Kansas. There were limitations present in

the study such as the limited availability of sampling sites, limited map accuracy, limited

landowner networking, and degradation of possible uranium due to exposure of surface

outcrop to natural elements. These limitations helped to illuminate potential fixes and

improvements that could be utilized in future work associated with the project. Future

iterations of this project could yield different results with a larger geographic area with

more sampling sites, a stronger link to locals, and consideration of subsurface coal layers.

39

REFERENCES

Arbuzov, S. I., Volostnov, A. V., Rikhvanov, L. P., Mezhibor, A. M., & Ilenok, S. S. 2011. Geochemistry of radioactive elements (U, Th) in coal and peat of northern Asia (Siberia, Russian Far East, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia). International Journal of Coal Geology, 86, Issue 4, p. 318-328.

Arbuzov, S. I., Maslov, S. G., Volostnov, A. V., Il’enok, S. S., & Arkhipov, V. S. 2012. Modes of occurrence of uranium and thorium in coals and peats of Northern Asia. Solid Fuel Chemistry, 46, Issue 1, p. 52-66.

Beede, J. W. 1897 On the Correlation of the Coal Measures of Kansas and Nebraska. Transactions of the Annual Meetings of the Kansas Academy of Science, vol. 16, p. 70-84.

Breger, I. A., Deul, M., and Rubinstein, S. 1955. Geochemistry and mineralogy of a uraniferous lignite. Econ. Geology, v. 50, p. 206-226.

Cantaluppi, C., & Degetto, S. 2000. Civilian and military uses of depleted uranium: environmental and health problems. ANNALI DI CHIMICA-ROMA, v. 90. Issue 11, p. 665-676.

Denson, N.M., Bachman, G.O., and Zeller, H.D., 1959, Uranium-bearing Lignite in Northwestern South Dakota and Adjacent States, in Denson et al., 1959, Uranium in Coal in the Western United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1055, p. 11-58.

De Smith, Michael John, Goodchild, M. F., and Longley, P., 2007. Geospatial analysis: a comprehensive guide to principles, techniques and software tools. Troubador Publishing Ltd.

Field, R. W., D. J. Steck, B. J. Smith, C. P. Brus, E. L. Fisher, J. S. Neuberger, C. E. Platz, R. A. Robinson, R. F. Woolson, and C. F. Lynch. 2000. Residential radon gas exposure and lung cancer the iowa radon lung cancer study. American Journal of Epidemiology 151, p. 1091–1102.

Finch, R. J., & Ewing, R. C. 1992. The corrosion of uraninite under oxidizing conditions. Journal of Nuclear Materials 190, p. 133-156.

Flueckinger, L. A., Brady, L. L., Sophocleous, M., Denne, J., McElwee, C. D., Severini, T., Cobb, P. M., Fleming, A., Paschetto, J., Butt, M. and Watson, P. Coal in Kansas, Kansas Geological Survey Open File Report 1973-5.

Gill, J.R., 1959, Reconnaissance for Uranium in the Ekalaka Lignite Field, Carter County, Montana, in Denson et al., 1959, Uranium in Coal in the Western United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1055, p. 167-180.

James, G.W., 1978, Uranium and Thorium in Volcanic Ash Deposits of Kansas: Implications for Uranium Exploration in the Central Great Plains, Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 211, Part 4, p. 1-3.

Kalout, K. M., 1996, Kansas Private Water Wells Survey, 1996 International Radon Symposium I, 7, p. 1- 10.

Ketris, M. P., & Yudovich, Y. E., 2009. Estimations of Clarkes for Carbonaceous biolithes: World averages for trace element contents in black shales and coals. International Journal of Coal Geology, Volume 78, Issue 2, p. 135-148.

Landis, E.R., 1959, Radioactivity and Uranium Content, Sharon Springs Member of the Pierre Shale Kansas and Colorado, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1046-L

40

Love, J.D., 1952, Preliminary Report on Uranium Deposits in the Pumpkin Buttes Area Powder River Basin, Wyoming. United States Geological Survey Circular 176

Lyle, Shane, 2007, The Geology of Radon in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey, Public Information Circular 25

Macfarlane, P. Allen, Whittemore, D.O., Townsend, M.A., Doveton, J.H., Hamilton, V.J., Coyle III, W.G., Wade, A., Macpherson, G.L., and Black, R.D., 1998, The Dakota Aquifer Program Annual Report, FY89. Kansas Geological Survey, online.

Mapel, W.J., & Hail Jr., W.J. 1959, Tertiary geology of the Goose Creek district, Cassia Country, Idaho, Box Elder County, Utah, and Elko County, Nevada, in Denson et al., Uranium in Coal in the Western United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1055, p. 217-254.

McKeown, F. A., & Klemic, H. (1954). Rare-earth-bearing apatite at Mineville, Essex County, New York. Geological Survey Bulletin 1046-B, p. 9-23.

McCartney, J. T., & Teichmüller, M., 1972. Classification of coals according to degree of coalification by reflectance of the vitrinite component, Fuel, Vol. 51. Issue 1, p. 64-68.

Merriam, Daniel F., 1963, The Geologic History of Kansas, Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 162.

Moore, G. W., 1954, Extraction of uranium from aqueous solution by coal and some other materials: Econ. Geology, v. 49, p. 652-657.

Moore, G.W., Melin, R.E., and Kepferle, R.C., 1959, Uranium-bearing lignite in southwestern North Dakota, in Denson et al., Uranium in Coal in the Western United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1055, p. 147–166.

Nakashima, Satoru, 1992, Complexation and reduction of uranium by lignite, Science of the total Environment 117, pp. 425-437.

Pipiringos, G.N., 1961, Uranium-Bearing Coal in the Central Part of the Great Divide Basin. United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1099-A, pp. A-1-A-104

Schoewe, Walter H., 1946, Coal Resources of the Wabaunsee Group in Eastern Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 63.

Schoewe, Walter H., 1952, Coal Resources of the Cretaceous System (Dakota Formation) in Central Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 96.

Smith, Steven M., 1997, National Geochemical Database: Reformatted Data from the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-492.

Stopes, Marie C. 1919, On the four visible ingredients in banded bituminous coal: studies in the composition of coal. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character No. 1. 90.633 p.470-487.

Surficial Geology – Generalized. 2017, July 18. Retrieved from http://kansasgis.org/catalog/index.cfm?data_id=1821&show_cat=1

Tiger Census Counties: Counties. 2017, July 18. Retrieved from http://kansasgis.org/catalog/index.cfm?data_id=1561&show_cat=1

Zeller, D.E., Jewett, J.M., Bayne, C.K., Goebel, E.D., O’Connor, H.G., and Swineford, A., 1968, The Stratigraphic Succession in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 189.

41

2015 Kansas Radon Average Values by County. 2017, July 18. Retrieved from http://www.kansasradonprogram.org/files/kansasradonprogram/county-map/Ks_Cty_AvgRadon2014.pdf

http://www.kansasradonprogram.org/files/kansasradonprogram/county-map/Ks_Cty_AvgRadon2014.pdf

http://www.kansasradonprogram.org/files/kansasradonprogram/county-map/Ks_Cty_AvgRadon2014.pdf

42

APPENDIX A

Kansas Counties NAME Radon Radon_Code Coal_Prod

Greenwood High 3 0

Doniphan High 3 0

Republic High 3 2

Decatur High 3 0

Phillips High 3 0

Lyon High 3 0

Hamilton High 3 0

Wallace High 3 0

Riley High 3 0

Ellis High 3 0

Pratt Medium 2 0

Lane High 3 0

Trego High 3 0

Greeley High 3 0

McPherson High 3 0

Cowley High 3 0

Osage High 3 0

Marion High 3 0

Rush High 3 0

Stanton High 3 0

Franklin High 3 0

Pottawatomie High 3 0

Sherman High 3 0

Allen Medium 2 0

Labette Medium 2 0

Johnson High 3 0

Cherokee Medium 2 0

Cheyenne High 3 0

Atchison High 3 0

Cloud High 3 3

Geary High 3 0

Russell High 3 2

Barton High 3 2

Shawnee High 3 0

Butler High 3 0

J ewell High 3

Mitchell High 3

Scott High 3 0

43

NAME Radon Radon_Code Coal_Prod

Stevens High 3 0

Douglas High 3 0

Comanche Medium 2 0

Pawnee High 3 0

Wyandotte High 3 0

Graham High 3 0

Morton Medium 2 0

Sumner High 3 0

Miami High 3 0

Gove High 3 0

Ford High 3 0

Neosho Medium 2 0

Linn High 3 0

Brown High 3 0

Bourbon High 3 0

Clay High 3 0

Lincoln High 3 2

Smith High 3 0

Morris Medium 2 0

Barber High 3 0

Logan High 3 0

Chase High 3 0

Crawford High 3 0

Woodson Low 0

Jefferson High 3 0

Rawlins High 3 0

Thomas High 3 0

Ottawa High 3 0

Rice High 3 0

Ness High 3 0

Wilson Medium 2 0

Osborne High 3 0

Clark High 3 0

Haskell High 3 0

Saline High 3 0

Kingman Medium 2 0

Stafford High 3 0

Dickinson High 3 0

Finney High 3 0

Montgomery Low 0

Edwards High 3 0

44

NAME Radon Radon_Code Coal_Prod

Harvey High 3 0

Sheridan High 3 0

Kiowa High 3 0

Harper Medium 2 0

Washington High 3 0

Elk Medium 2 0

Seward Medium 2 0

Nemaha High 3 0

Norton High 3 0

Coffey Medium 2 0

Kearny High 3 0

Ellsworth High 3 2

Hodgeman High 3 0

Meade High 3 0

Anderson High 3 0

Marshall High 3 0

Wichita High 3 0

Grant Medium 2 0

Leavenworth High 3 0

Chautauqua Low 0

Rooks High 3 0

Reno Medium 2 0

Gray High 3 0

Wabaunsee High 3 0

Sedgwick Medium 2 0

Jackson Medium 2 0

prospecting for coal bed uranium in kansas through the use

Documents