DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
Thesis defense presented by:
EMILY SMYK
Master of Science in Geology Candidate
"A comparison of the hydrothermal alteration systems around
the Mo-hosting White Pine Intrusion, Utah, and the
Buckingham Porphyry, Nevada"
Thursday, September 17, 2015
11:30 a.m.
CB 3031
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
Thesis defense presented by:
ADRIAN ARTS
Master of Science in Geology Candidate
"Macro- and Micro-structure Comparison of Ancient and Modern
Iron-Rich Stromatolites"
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
2:30 p.m.
CB 3031
Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Thunder Bay Branch
CIM Guest Lecturer - Dr. Steve Barnes
Ore-Forming Processes in Magmatic Nickel Sulfide Deposits, or, Why Sword Blades, Fire Hoses, Salad Dressing and Mayonnaise Might Help You Find Ore Deposits
Thursday, September 10th at 7:00 p.m.
Tony & Adams, 45 South Court Street
DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY
Thesis defense presented by:
BRET TIMMIS
Master of Science in Geology Candidate
"Design and Testing of a Permeable Reactive Barrier System for Treatment of Sulphate Rich Waters at the Former Steep Rock Iron Mine, Atikokan, Ontario"
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
2:30 p.m.
CB 3031
Geological Association of Canada
2014-2015 Hutchison Medal Lecture Tour
presents:
DR. ALI POLAT
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences University of Windsor
2014 winner of the W.W. Hutchison Medal
"Archean Anorthosite Petrogenesis: A Case Study on the 2.97 Ga Fisken%E6sset Layered Intrusion, West Greenland"
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
11:00 a.m. in CB 3031
Abstract:
Among many Archean rock associations, anorthositic layered intrusions have unique mineralogical and lithological characteristics in that they range from calcic-plagioclase-dominated anorthosite cumulates to olivine-dominated dunite cumulates, providing a unique opportunity to study petrogenetic and geodynamic processes in the early Earth. The Fisken%E6sset Complex, southwestern Greenland, is the best-known example of Archean anorthositic layered intrusions in the world. Despite multiple phases of deformation and metamorphism, the Fisken%E6sset Complex contains well-preserved cumulate layers consisting of olivine, pyroxene, hornblende, plagioclase and chromite. Petrographic observations indicate that the order of crystallization was olivine, orthopyroxene, hornblende/clinopyroxene and plagioclase. Formation of abundant orthopyroxene-magnetite symplectitic (vermicular) intergrowths, mainly at the expense of olivine, is attributed to chemical reactions between late stage, residual hydrous melts and olivine. Whole-rock and mineral trace element and oxygen isotope data indicate that the complex has preserved its primary igneous chemistry. Large negative Nb anomalies in all major rock types and hornblendes suggest that the magmas of the Fisken%E6sset Complex were derived from a hydrous sub-arc mantle peridotite, consistent with the formation of the complex in a supra-subduction zone geodynamic setting. The whole-rock samples from the complex yielded a Sm-Nd regression age of 2973%B128 Ma, with an average initial eNd=+3.3, consistent with a long-term depleted mantle source. The complex is characterized by a modern mantle-like whole-rock O-isotope composition (d18O=+5.8%B10.5%89; n=36). Average d18O values in olivine (d18O=+4.9%89), hornblende (d18O=+5.7%89), clinopyroxene (d18O=+6.5%89) and plagioclase (d18O=+6.4%89) are consistent with the fractionation of these minerals in magma chamber(s).
The Department of Geology
HONOURS THESIS SEMINARS 2015
click here for a scheduled list of presenters and titles
10:30 am to 12:00 noon
Tuesday, April 7
Tuesday, APRIL 7 - Presentations by:
MATT ARGES
Mineralogy and petrology of the spodumene-rich pegmatites and associated veinlets from the Rock Teck Li project, Georgia Lake Area, Quetico Subprovince, Ontario
TYLER WILLIAMS
Microstructural analysis of gold mineralization at St Andrew Goldfields, Kirkland Lake, ON
ALLEN WYWROT
Mineralogy and petrology of an newly-discovered Paralamproite occurrence near Marathon, Ontario
NATALIE ZWANENBURG
Physical controls on plant communities and soils on rock outcrops in the Thunder Bay area
The Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Mining & Exploration (CESME)
Presents Guest Speaker:
DR. DAWN MILLS
"Engagement: Crown, Community and Company"
click here for poster and abstract details
Monday, March 23rd at 10:00 a.m. in CB 3031
Since Haida and Mikisew Cree the Crown has delegated the responsibility of consultation to the Company. Companies have embraced this responsibility in a number of ways. They have sought early engagement with the particular First Nation or Inuit community, and they usually enter into a Participation Agreement. Although this satisfies possible employment, own source revenue and the potential contracts, the Participation Agreement does not address any operational or environmental aspect of the mining operation.
Outlined in this talk is a case study of the New Afton mine permit M-229. This example is to illustrate that the Crown has an ongoing role in the oversight of a mine that incorporates First Nation continued interest associated with mine water use, waste management, mine expansion, reclamation and closure that will ensure that the post-closure environment is capable of sustaining Aboriginal or Treaty Rights.
Biography:
Dr. Mills holds her PhD from the Faculty of Law at UBC. Her PHD work focused on Gitxsan property law and their management structures as it was spoken during the Delgamuukw trials and the reconciliation period afterwards. Dr. Mills’ research is related to administrative law, and legislative reform at the intersection of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Mineral Resource Development.
Dr. Mills is currently the inaugural Finning Resident Scholar for Mining and Communities at the Norman B. Keevil Institute of Mining Engineering. The focus of this position is to engage with First Nation, Inuit or Metis communities related to mineral resource development. This position also facilitates the placement of Senior Undergraduate Students in between First Nation communities and at a Mine Site. Her teaching responsibilities include delivering the graduate seminar Mine 585 Canadian Aboriginal People and Mineral Resource Development, and APSC 261/262 & 450.
CIM Thunder Bay Branch, the Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Mining and Exploration
and the Centre for Exploration Targeting are pleased to offer a short course in:
New Concepts in Understanding High-grade Ore Shoots
Friday, March 6, 2015
Masonic Hall, 1600 Dease Street, Thunder Bay, ON
GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT SEMINAR SERIES
Canadian Society of Exploration Geophysicists 2015
Distinguished Lecture Tour
DR. PETER CARY
2015 CSEG Distinguished Lecturer
"Known Knowns, Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns in Land
Exploration Seismology"
Friday, MARCH 6, 2015
at 10:30 a.m. in CB 3031
click here for poster
Famously, United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in February 2002 made the following statement in response to the lack of evidence linking the government of Iraq with weapons of mass destruction: “…as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” We geophysicists and geologists are generally not eager to compare ourselves with politicians. We are, after all, scientists who come to an understanding of nature from evidence of what is true rather from what we want to be true. But in this case Rumsfeld’s efforts to infer definite conclusions about the existence of weapons of mass destruction from a mass of evidence that was largely inaccurate, insufficient and inconsistent shares an uncanny similarity to the job that geophysicists do when processing and interpreting seismic exploration data, especially in land scenarios where seismograms typically contain more noise than signal. In both the political and geophysical situations, definite conclusions need to be made despite the lack of hard and fast evidence. Furthermore, in both cases the lack of definitive evidence is no reason for not clinging strongly to belief in the truth of the conclusions. Land seismic exploration can be a frustratingly inaccurate science. The seismic data is acquired with sources and receivers on the surface of the earth so the irregular, inhomogeneous, unconsolidated near-surface layers distort the wavefields going down from the sources as well as the reflected wavefields coming up to the receivers. The near-surface of the earth has a serious blurring effect on the image of the targets at depth that we really want to resolve clearly. This we know. This is a known known. The seismic processor’s job is to remove the unknown effects of statics, scaling and waveform distortions from the millions of seismograms that typically comprise each seismic dataset. Decades-old surface-consistent methods allow the processor to turn these unknowns into knowns. However, the assumptions built into these methods are highly simplistic and in a strict sense are known to be false. As scientists, we need to be skeptical about our results in order not to fall into traps of irrational thinking. For example, we should not conclude that a surface-consistent solution is correct just because it makes the data look better. There are many ways to make the data look better for the wrong reasons. So instead of being proud of our accomplishments, perhaps we are better off being skeptical that our accomplishments are as great as we think they are. There can always be unknown unknowns. There is a fourth category that Rumsfeld did not mention: unknown knowns. We all have biases against evidence that comes in conflict with our previously held beliefs. This is a natural tendency that protects us from the charlatans out there who try to sell us falsehoods. How, for example, can we possibly get more frequency bandwidth out of the earth than what we put in? Too much skepticism, however, can also trap us in our own falsehoods: sometimes we think we know but actually we don’t know. Using examples from land exploration seismology I will attempt to explain how simple concepts can provide surprising challenges to how we think and test our integrity as scientists. The concepts are general enough to be of interest to any geoscientist, regardless of her background.
BIOGRAPHY:
Peter Cary has B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in physics, a B.A. degree in philosophy from the University of Toronto, and a Ph.D. in geophysics (1987) from Cambridge University, England. He worked for Chevron both in Calgary and in La Habra, California from 1982 to 1984 and was Manager of Geophysical Research with Pulsonic Geophysical Ltd. from 1988 to 1996 and Chief Geophysicist with Sensor Geophysical Ltd. 1996 to 2011. He is presently Chief Geophysicist, Processing with Arcis Seismic Solutions, TGS. He has presented and published many papers on seismic processing, and served as technical program chairman of the SEG 2000 Annual Meeting and of the 1993 CSEG Annual Meeting. He served as CSEG president in 2004-05 and was 2nd V.P. of the CSEG in 1996-97. He was an associate editor (seismic processing) of Geophysics from 1998-2001, and is presently on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Seismic Exploration. One of his specialties is processing and writing software for multicomponent seismic data.
