MAR 19580005: MOUNT HEAD Received date: May 31, 1958 Public release date: Jun 01, 1959 DISCLAIMER By accessing and using the Alberta Energy website to download or otherwise obtain a scanned mineral assessment report, you (“User”) agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions: a) Each scanned mineral assessment report that is downloaded or otherwise obtained from Alberta

Energy is provided “AS IS”, with no warranties or representations of any kind whatsoever from Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Energy (“Minister”), expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, no warranties or other representations from the Minister, regarding the content, accuracy, reliability, use or results from the use of or the integrity, completeness, quality or legibility of each such scanned mineral assessment report;

b) To the fullest extent permitted by applicable laws, the Minister hereby expressly disclaims, and is released from, liability and responsibility for all warranties and conditions, expressed or implied, in relation to each scanned mineral assessment report shown or displayed on the Alberta Energy website including but not limited to warranties as to the satisfactory quality of or the fitness of the scanned mineral assessment report for a particular purpose and warranties as to the non-infringement or other non-violation of the proprietary rights held by any third party in respect of the scanned mineral assessment report;

c) To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the Minister, and the Minister’s employees and agents, exclude and disclaim liability to the User for losses and damages of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising including, without limitation, any direct, indirect, special, consequential, punitive or incidental damages, loss of use, loss of data, loss caused by a virus, loss of income or profit, claims of third parties, even if Alberta Energy have been advised of the possibility of such damages or losses, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Alberta Energy website, including the accessing or downloading of the scanned mineral assessment report and the use for any purpose of the scanned mineral assessment report so downloaded or retrieved.

d) User agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Minister, and the Minister’s employees and agents against and from any and all third party claims, losses, liabilities, demands, actions or proceedings related to the downloading, distribution, transmissions, storage, redistribution, reproduction or exploitation of each scanned mineral assessment report obtained by the User from Alberta Energy.

Alberta Mineral Assessment Reporting System

S.

p .. .

A - F

? C.

cJ• 1 Sj (/i4h_'

----. -

• . c

0- 7. 6-

ca

Z3 3•

' r 7

(r (o 4 /d

3 '

'2 p

-

• - L r -

• _: ip

.. 1. /

• 1% /J4 ? rk#J :1

I - -r

• . —&Lt- Poor Quality

Original

/ C

0 P

Y

April 14, 1958.

Dr. G. C. McCartney, 1502 - 80 Richmond St. West, TORONTO, Ontario.

The analysis listed in the enclosure is not complete; there is no mention of lime and alumina. As you probably know, it is customary- in carbonate analyses to determine the loss on ignition first, then the silica content; next the "combined oxides" are determined and the result is listed as such. The combined oxides consist of a mixture of A1203, Fe203, Ti02, Mn304, and P205. I wonder if the "insoluble" in that analysis refers to alumina and ferric oxide, whether hydrous or anhydrous.

Moreover, the paragraph in the enclosure on microscopic examination stated that "the carbonate matrix . . . . contains abundant limonitic stains".

The "brownspar" mentioned in the enclosure is properly an iron variety of magnesite, which itself is a magnesium carbonate. The magnesium content stated in the enclosed analysis is only 1.87 per cent (or about 3.11 per cent if as magnesia). -

As I mentioned before, we determined by an X-ray diffraction method that one of the bulk samples received by us from your Mr. Norman yielded a siderite pattern.

Edmonton, January 15th 19.5.

Dr. D. Kidd:

Concerning sulfur analysis sample 61, 62 and 63.

After carefully checking the samples I came to the conclusion of no Eulfur

present in the samples.-b 42

Following is a short account of the work done on the samples

1. Disolving the samples in HCl 1±1 1 oxidating with H202, separation of

the R203 group, precipitation with BaC1 2 negative result.

2. Dissolving sample 63 in HC1 1+1, heat, collect the evolved gases in a

4% NaOH solution, potentiometric titration with AgNO3

Result 0.25 tnl0 AgNO3 used to reach an end-point which could not be

identified as AgS0

30 Same procedure and sam sample.

Result 0e12 m1 AgNO3 used to reach an end-point which could not be

identified as AgS

Li.. Dissolving sample 63 in II0 3 1 + 1, heat, collected the evolved gases

in a Li% NaOH solution, potentmetric titration with AgNO3

Result 025 ml. AgNO3 used to reach an end-point which could not be

identified as AgSe

5 Same treatment to sample 61 and 62 as under part 2

Result. S.61 = 002 ml. AgNO3 0

5e62 = 002 tfll0 AgNO0

The end-point could not be identified as AgS

6 Dissolving OOl g. Na2s in HCl 1 + 1, heat, collect the evolved gases in

)-i-% NaOI solution, potentionietric titration with AgNO3.

End endpoint was identified as AgS.

7 , Consulting Mr. C.E. Noble, Provincial Analyst, his opinion is of no sulfur

present in the samples after above work done, Mr. CE. Noble also suggested

the lead acetate test which gave a netive result with the samples; a

Positive reaction with minute quantities of sodium sulfide A.C. grade was obtained.

zz Ole ;/ 1-c.O

ZL.:(0(0 ,.

LA

>.. 'e)

.2.

9 /\- ). 2 L8/ Ft)

5

A

--

1 MEMORANDUM

RESEARCH COUNCIL OF ALBERTA, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA, EDMONTON

TO CI" FROM

DATE -

63

P

1) I j-/4# L'/ •'i,J •' /

li/cf VL ;

I i d' 4' (C) W1c+ -t

•. -, C.

Poor Quality Original

0

i •• • 1 •..••

(.

Poor Quality Original

- F.--.

1

L

I

-2--

• ,--i't2J 4A J-

44t

• poor Quality

Original

MEMORANDUM

RESEARCH COUNCIL OF ALBERTA, UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA, EDMONTON

' TO Dr. D. J. Kidd, FROM Robert Green General Delivery, Hines Creek, Alberta. DATE July 18, 1958.

4 .

Dear Don,

Thank you for your letter and for the diagrams, which I've turned over to Jac Groot. I doubt if much drafting on these will be clone before you return, as John's northeast corner work is still holding the floor there.

Your report has now been typed up in 7th draft, which I went over last night and this morning. It now reposes on Con's desk for his weekend's relaxation.

The shale samples haven't arrived yet, but I think Johnny will be interested in looking at them when they do.

As to your requests:

2. Sample DK 58-9-31 Total iron as Fe 203 Ferrous iron

I. Sample DK 56-6-12 Ferrous iron

- 28.35%i /!4

12.11%j 3

(' 7,4- z -28.79%

j J. (1

Hank says that he is busy with the hygroscopic water analysis, but hasn't been able to attempt the CO 2 analysis yet as the absorption lottle got broken and the new one ordered hasn't arrived yet.

If sample 58-9-31 is to go in one of the tables could you tell me which table and give me an outcrop number, if necessary.

3. There is no mention of a "Trinity" well in the Schedules, -nor in the Conservation Board weekly reports up to July 12, 1958. All I can suggest is the possibility of its being a "trinity" of wells (eg. Phillips A, B and C), or a well in which 3 companies went together. In any case, I can't find it.

4. I've entered Gulf Chinchaga 10-20 on the cross-section, as you requested.

40