FLRD GEOLOSk ( IC SUfRiW


COPYRIGHT NOTICE
[year of publication as printed] Florida Geological Survey [source text]


The Florida Geological Survey holds all rights to the source text of
this electronic resource on behalf of the State of Florida. The
Florida Geological Survey shall be considered the copyright holder
for the text of this publication.

Under the Statutes of the State of Florida (FS 257.05; 257.105, and
377.075), the Florida Geologic Survey (Tallahassee, FL), publisher of
the Florida Geologic Survey, as a division of state government,
makes its documents public (i.e., published) and extends to the
state's official agencies and libraries, including the University of
Florida's Smathers Libraries, rights of reproduction.

The Florida Geological Survey has made its publications available to
the University of Florida, on behalf of the State University System of
Florida, for the purpose of digitization and Internet distribution.

The Florida Geological Survey reserves all rights to its publications.
All uses, excluding those made under "fair use" provisions of U.S.
copyright legislation (U.S. Code, Title 17, Section 107), are
restricted. Contact the Florida Geological Survey for additional
information and permissions.






410









UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARIES



S" O



P K YONGE
LIBRARY :

OF
FLORIDA
HISTORY













,- ^ ---* T--? '^^ ^-.... .....



.. .. ... .-a R.-



A .-. -I-.- '.. ... .. ...





STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Elton J. Gissendanner, Executive Director

DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Casey J. Gluckman, Director

BUREAU OF GEOLOGY
C. W. Hendry, Jr., Chief








REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91

THE HAWTHORN FORMATION OF CENTRAL FLORIDA

PART I-GEOLOGY OF THE HAWTHORN FORMATION
IN CENTRAL FLORIDA

By
Thomas M. Scott and Peter L. MacGill
Florida Bureau of Geology

PART II-CHARACTERIZATION, EVALUATION, AND
BENEFICIATION OF CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE-BEARING
HAWTHORN FORMATION

By
W. H. Eddy, B. E. Davis, and G. V. Sullivan
Tuscaloosa Research Center


Published for the
BUREAU OF GEOLOGY
DIVISION OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
in cooperation with
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF MINES


TALLAHASSEE
1981









No/, ?/







DEPARTMENT
OF
NATURAL RESOURCES



BOB GRAHAM
Governor


GEORGE FIRESTONE
Secretary of State

BILL GUNTER
Treasurer

RALPH D. TURLINGTON
Commissioner of Education


JIM SMITH
Attorney General

GERALD A. LEWIS
Comptroller

DOYLE CONNER
Commissioner of Agriculture


ELTON J. GISSENDANNER
Executive Director








LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY
TALLAHASSEE
OCTOBER 30, 1981


Governor Bob Graham, Chairman
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Dear Governor Graham:

The Bureau of Geology, Division of Resource Management,
Department of Natural Resources, is publishing as its Report of
Investigation No. 91, "The Hawthorn Formation of Central Florida."

Part I discusses the geology of the Hawthorn Formation in cen-
tral Florida. Part II evaluates the phosphate content of the
Hawthorn Formation, and discusses beneficiation processes. This
information will aid in the wise development and use of this natural
resource.

Respectfully yours,

Charles W. Hendry, Jr., Chief
Bureau of Geology


_ _~ -~il~H9~14~D~g~E~~












































Printed for the
Florida Department of Natural Resources
Division of Resource Management
Bureau of Geology

Tallahassee
1981








IV

























CONTENTS
Page
PART I GEOLOGY OF THE HAWTHORN FORMATION IN CENTRAL
FLORIDA ................ ............................ VI
Table of Contents ...................................... VI

PART II CHARACTERIZATION, EVALUATION, AND BENEFICATION
OF CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE-BEARING HAWTHORN
FO RM ATIO N .......................................... 33
Table of Contents ....................................... 34





















THE HAWTHORN FORMATION OF CENTRAL FLORIDA






PART I

GEOLOGY OF THE HAWTHORN FORMATION
IN CENTRAL FLORIDA


By
Thomas M. Scott and Peter L. MacGIII
Florida Bureau of Geology
Tallahassee, Florida






CONTENTS
Page
Abstract. 1
Abstract.....................................................1
Acknowledgements ...................... .. ....................... 2
introduction ................................. ......................... 3
Purpose and Scope........... ........... ... ......... ............. 4
Methods..................................... ...........................4
Previous Work................ ... ............ ....................... 4
Bone Valley Formation ................................... ..... ........ 4
Hawthorn Formation................ .. ...... ..................... 7
Tampa Stage Limestones..................... ......................... 11
General Hawthorn Lithology ............ ................................. 14
Stratigraphic Relationships ................. ..... ................. 18
Geologic Structure ....................... ..... .................. 23
Summary and Conclusions .............. .. .. ... .................. 27
References.................. ........ ... .. .. ............... 30
Appendix ........................................... .... .............. 32
List of core holes used In this report................. ......... ..... 32






































vii






ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Location of study area, core holes and cross sections ...................... 5
2. Classification of Miocene rocks in Florida .............................8
3. Physiographic Map ................................................... 18
4. Cross Section A-A'. ................................................. 19
5- Cross Section B-B'. ................................................... 20
6. Cross Section C-C'.............................. .....................21
7. Structure contour map-Top of Hawthorn Formation ...................... 23
8. Structure contour map-Top of Tampa Stage Limestones .................. 24
9. Isopach map of the Hawthorn Formation ............................... 25












































viii


















GEOLOGY OF THE HAWTHORN FORMATION
IN CENTRAL FLORIDA

By
Thomas M. Scott
and
Peter L. MacGill

ABSTRACT

The Miocene Hawthorn Formation in southwest central Florida
is predominantly a sandy, phosphatic dolomite. Other lithofacies
incorporated in the formation include dolomitic or calcareous
sands and clays, limestone, and chert. Varying amounts of phos-
phate occur in each of these units. The greatest concentration of
phosphate occurs with the plastic constituents, suggesting that the
phosphate grains are plastic particles.
Dolomitization is most common and complete in the northern
portion of the study area, an area where the Hawthorn Formation
lies greater than 100 feet above sea level. Conversely, limestone is
more common in the southern part of the study area.
Clay beds, which occur sporadically in the Hawthorn Forma-
4on, are not laterally extensive or correlatable over moderate dis-
tances. Sand beds within the Hawthorn Formation increase in num-
e3r from northwest to southeast.





2 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this report would like to.express their gratitude
to the staff of the Bureau of Geology for their assistance in drafting
illustrations, typing, proofing, and editing the manuscript. We
gratefully acknowledge the contribution of the staff geologists and
graduate student assistants for their suggestions and discussions
during the preparation of this report. Appreciation is expressed to
Hugh Mitchell-Tapping and Craig Coleman for their assistance in
the preparation of the structure maps and geologic logs. Much
gratitude is given to Muriel Hunter for many constructive conversa-
tions on the Tampa Stage carbonates and Hawthorn Formation.
The writers are grateful to the many company representatives
and private landowners who granted permission to drill
stratigraphic core holes and to public officials who cooperated with
the drilling program.





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


INTRODUCTION
Prior to 1892, when Dall and Harris discussed the "Hawthorne
Lads," it was known that the strata contained appreciable phos-
ihate. At that time, the sediment was mined near the town of Haw-
ihorne, Alachua County, and subsequently ground up and spread on
fields as fertilizer. By the turn of the century, the mining of
pnosphate had shifted to the south.
It wasn't until much later that geologists began to consider the
Hawthorn Formation as a possible source of phosphate. Even
though sketchy data prevented a qualitative and quantitative
analysis of the phosphate, G. R. Mansfield (1942) refrained ".. from
offering any estimate as to the quantity and quality of the admitted-
ly great store of phosphate contained in the Hawthorn Formation."
By the late 1950's, chemical analyses of the Hawthorn Forma-
tion began to appear in the literature, although sufficient analyses
were not present for quantitative estimates (Cathcart and
McGreevy, 1959).
In 1973, Brobst and Pratt, of the U.S. Geological Survey, esti-
mated that the phosphatic carbonate rock in Florida may contain as
much as 10 billion tons of phosphate. This same figure was later
repeated by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in 1977 (Stowasser).

Stowasser (1977) also states that, "... adequate fertilizer sup-
plies to meet future demand of agriculture, with depletion of
reserves and other restrictions reducing available supplies of phos-
phate rock, will become a serious strategic consideration in the
next century." This statement is in part based on certain projec-
tions, i.e., the world demand for phosphate from 1974 to 2000 is
expected to increase from 110 million tons to 250 million tons or a
127 percent increase, while U..S. demand is expected to increase
from 34 million tons in 1975 to 57 million tons in 2000 or a 68 percent
increase. Production in Florida, which produced 83.4 percent of U.S.
r- osphate in 1975, is expected to begin declining by the 1990's.
S owasser (1977) concludes that, "... programs to increase and
c serve domestic reserves of phosphate rock will be necessary to
; sure adequate fertilizer supplies for the U.S. agricultural
i: Justry."

The U.S. Bureau of Mines undertook a cooperative grant pro-
c am with the Florida Bureau of Geology (Grant Number G0166038)
t study the distribution, characterization, and beneficiation of
I osphates in the Hawthorn Formation carbonates in central Flor-
i a. Part I of this publication presents the results of the geologic
r search to map the distribution of phosphate in the Hawthorn For-
r nation for the study area.





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to provide an understanding of the
geologic framework of the Miocene Hawthorn Formation in south-
central Florida, its relation to the overlying and underlying units,
and the distributions of phosphate within the Hawthorn Formation.
The Florida Bureau of Geology drilled 26 core holes that ranged
from 200 to 600 feet deep in the study area. The core data was sup-
plemented by existing data obtained from water well cuttings on
permanent file at the Bureau of Geology. This data provided a base
for the construction of isopach and structure maps found in this
report. Coring activities were limited to the eastern portion of the
study area, due to suburban expansion from the coast and the pros-
pect of phosphate mining along a trend in the northwestern portion
of the area. All drilling was conducted in areas where the top of the
Hawthorn Formation was less than 150 feet below the land surface.
The study area incorporates part or all of six counties including
Polk, Hillsborough, Manatee, Hardee, DeSoto, and Sarasota
(Figure 1).

METHODS
Twenty-six core holes were drilled under a variety of topo-
graphic conditions. A 13/4-inch core was taken at each site using a
Failing 1500 Drillmaster drill rig. A log was kept on all cores by driller
J. R. Hodges. Washed samples of much of the post-Hawthorn sedi-
ments were recovered at 5-foot intervals prior to the start of coring.
From the core, samples were taken at 1-foot intervals and the re-
maining core was maintained in the original wet condition and sent
for testing to the U.S. Bureau of Mines Laboratory in Tuscaloosa, Ala-
bama. These samples are on permanent file at the Bureau of Geology
in Tallahassee. Gamma-ray logs were run on approximately half the
core holes upon completion of drilling. These are listed along with
other information on each core site in the Appendix.
The core samples were described by a geologist and entered
into one of the Bureau's computer programs which is designed to
aid the geologist in the interpretation of lithologic parameters. Strip
logs were constructed from each core description and included
lithology, porosity, induration, observed phosphate content, and for-
mation boundaries. The logs were constructed to facilitate visual
correlation between cores. From this information, the cross sec-
tions (Figures 4, 5, 6) were constructed.

PREVIOUS WORK

BONE VALLEY FORMATION
The Bone Valley gravel was named by Matson and Clapp (190)
from exposures at a locality west of Bartow, Florida. They based






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


Figure 1. Location map of study area, core holes, and
cross sections.

.me of their work on earlier descriptions by Dall and Harris (1892)
nd Eldridge (1893), who referred to these deposits as the "land peb-
ie phosphates" and "pebble phosphates," respectively.
Matson and Clapp (1909) described the character of the Bone
alley gravel as a fine grained matrix of clay and sand containing
ebbles of phosphate andlor chert, fragments of bone, and other





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


organic remains. They also described lower beds rich in phosphate
and upper noneconomic beds containing little phosphate. Because
mining at that time was limited by the high'water table, the contact
with the Hawthorn Formation was not often observed. As a result,
the Bone Valley gravel was thought to lie unconformably on "older
Pliocene beds." They also thought the relationship of the Bone Val-
ley gravel to the overlying Pleistocene sands to be unconformable.
Matson and Clapp (1909) observed many irregular stratigraphic
relationships between beds in the Bone Valley gravel, such as cross
bedding and a lenticular nature of some beds, and concluded that
much of these deposits were deposited in a fluvial environment. As a
result of this conclusion, they regarded the marine vertebrate fossils
found in the Bone Valley Formation as being reworked from older
beds.
Sellards (1915) refers to the land pebble phosphate deposits as
the Bone Valley Formation but does not discuss his usage of the
term formation. No reference to this change has been found in the
literature. Cooke (1945) also replaced the descriptive part of the
name gravel with the more general term formation, since gravel
made up only a small fraction of the deposit. This change in termi-
nology was recognized and is now in general use.
Cooke recognized that part of the Bone Valley Formation was
derived from the underlying Hawthorn Formation. He also made the
observation that most of the exposures of Bone Valley were limited
to the area where phosphate concentration was greatest. He defined
a lower phosphate-producing zone as lying unconformably between
the Hawthorn Formation and the Pleistocene Terrace sands.
Cathcart and McGreevy (1959) further refined the lithology of
the Bone Valley Formation by identifying the two zones: the "cal-
cium phosphate zone," which roughly corresponds to the phos-
phate ore "matrix," and the aluminum phosphate zone, which is a
leached zone that occupies the top part of the Bone Valley. The
leached zone is characterized by aluminum phosphate instead of
calcium phosphate, kaolinite instead of montmorillonite, and thi.
highest uranium content within the formation.
Since the exposures of the Bone Valley described by earlier
workers were in active phosphate mines, they are no longer in exist-
ence. These exposures change daily and, as a result, a type section
has not been established. A type locality in the area around Bartov/
as originally described by Matson and Clapp (1909) has been
accepted by most workers although the exposures change daily.
The age of the Bone Valley Formation has been a source of cor-
troversy for some time. Its age was originally designated as Plic-
cene by Matson and Clapp (1909). With some uncertainty the'
stated that the Bone Valley gravel is younger than the "Arcadii.
Marl," older than the upper beds of the Caloosahatchee Marl, anc
contemporaneous with the Alachua Clay. The age designation o






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


; iocene was based on Dall's 1892 publication of identifications of
v rtebrate fossils collected along the Peace river. Questions by
c.her workers regarding similarities to some Miocene vertebrates
v. sre present at that time.
Matson (1915) reported Late Miocene vertebrate fossils from
ti.e Mulberry area in Polk County, and discussed topographic crite-
ria that suggested a Late Miocene age for the Bone Valley Forma-
tion. Even though he supported a Pliocene age for the Bone Valley
Formation, he still thought the 125-foot elevation of the Bone Valley
Formation in Polk County corresponded more closely to that of the
Miocene beds than that of the Pliocene beds.
Simpson (1930) suggested that the marine vertebrate fossils
were reworked into the Pliocene sediments and had been falsely
identified as contemporaneous with the land vertebrate fossils.
This controversy has not yet been resolved.
Cooke (1945) enhanced the resolution of the Bone Valley For-
mation by reporting the land mammals were "clearly" Lower Plio-
cene (Simpson, 1930, p. 184), and the marine mammals were "...
clearly older than Pliocene and not later than Upper Miocene" (Kel-
logg, 1924),


HAWTHORN FORMATION
The Hawthorn Formation was originally described by L. C.
Johnson (1888), of the U.S. Geological Survey, who referred to the
phosphatic beds in Alachua and Columbia Counties as the Waldo
Formation. Dall and Harris (1892), using much of Johnson's work,
abandoned Johnson's Waldo Formation and described these same
phosphatic beds as the "Hawthorne beds" (Figure 2). Even though
Dall did not describe a type locality or use the term "formation,"
lk:ter workers have credited him for naming the Hawthorn Formation
asd describing the type locality around Hawthorne, Alachua
(Cunty. The Devil's Millhopper, near Gainesville, as discussed by
D Ill and Harris (1892), L. C. Johnson (1888), and Cooke (1945), and
E ooks' Sink in Bradford County, as described by Cooke (1945), are
a cepted as cotype localities for the Hawthorn Formation (Pirkle,
1 36).
In 1909 Matson and Clapp designated Dall's "Hawthorne beds"
a a formation and considered it to be at least in part contemporane-
c s with the Tampa and Chattahoochee formations. Matson and
C app's description included some limestone containing the
e hinoid Cassidulus sp., and now referred to as the Suwannee
Snestone.
Vaughan and Cooke (1914) correlated the Hawthorn Formation
v th Alum Bluff Formation in northwest Florida as defined by Mat-
I n and Clapp (1909, p. 91) and suggested the name Hawthorn be





























KL.AODI, 11 S lIM., Its
DALI. 10 14141,11I18 541100 ~CL AP~ll09 hm0,11 ILLARDI,SII 50045 r( 0110U.l33I 50041,1141 __ Pull, 59114 .1,14I10 1?
D-Lsd-IIII lt AO WCAR 9 A10,96I 05,06 ,*.1 OO IEaiOISO. logo1 l,,N m UI t$1frap Ps 40111 $ISN1,17?.
A~lga Al.. *1003 I4To.,mo


s0a0 1111 ShII 111118414 16015a
... V.Il
:1lat wlel Go116 I- OW n
Co. .1. I Imbell t49.111
A hall,! 5 1 .91 a.. '..a A-
.... .. ..6 r'fis'o al eis
u N k IiE I Old' t NSWt V


I .I r chll.I*Im N4,111 S.l X
u10314.06 IV41 3 o we I A.
Ciw.rivdd) epko Foria)

eb'_ 0.'.4 W.
pas tv I*C ~~ I I~,~ I 1 3r~a
It .... I ( hchellabomeahrm new"Id" llll l $Mnlld
is MO. .1rl bY h hn




Figure 2. Classification of Miocene rocks in Florida, showing startigraphic terms used by various authors.

Taken in part from Bergendahl (1956).






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


Sopped. In later publications, Matson and other authors referred to
t s Hawthorn Formation as the Alum Bluff Formation.
In 1929 Cooke and Mossom reinstated and redefined the Haw-
t:orn Formation to include Dall's (1892) "Hawthorne beds," the Sop-
c.Ioppy Limestone and Alum Bluff Formation of peninsular Florida
as defined by Matson and Clapp (1909, p. 91). This new definition
excluded the Cassidulus-bearing limestone that had been
described by Matson and Clapp (1909).
Cooke (1945) correlated the Hawthorn Formation with the
Chipola Formation and parts of the Shoal River Formation in the
Florida Panhandle. He tentatively transferred some beds of Late
Miocene age that were previously included in the Hawthorn by Mat-
Sson and Clapp (1909) to the Duplin Marl. Cooke considered their
contact unconformable. Cooke also postulated that the Hawthorn
was deposited by an expanded Tampa Sea and that the Tampa/Haw-
thorn contact was conformable.
Bergendahl (1956) published the results of extensive work in
Hardee and DeSoto Counties. Although his study did not encom-
pass the entire thickness or areal extent of the Hawthorn, he did
identify several lithologic units that overlie the Hawthorn Formation
and their relationship to it. He found areas in DeSoto County where
only diagnostic fossils could differentiate the top of the Hawthorn
from overlying units. This is in contrast to the pebble conglomerate
and weathering residuums which normally characterize the top of
the Hawthorn in the central phosphate district.
Bishop (1956) identified marine and nonmarine Hawthorn
deposits in Highlands County. Sandy limestones described in the
northern part of the county, possibly equivalent to the Tampa, were
placed in the Hawthorn Formation. Bishop postulated that the same
sea deposited both formations, with carbonate deposition occur-
ring in west Florida. This is similar to Cooke's (1945) interpretations.
Ketner and McGreevy (1959) redefined the Hawthorn Formation
in southwestern Florida to include "... the Hawthorn Formation as
defined by Cooke (1945) ... Middle Miocene rocks in the hard-rock
Shosphate belt including those generally assigned to the Alachua
formation and Middle Miocene rocks in the land-pebble phosphate
:strict." Although they did not recognize the Bone Valley Forma-
:n in their study area, they included these deposits in the Haw-
orn Formation. Their Tamp'a Limestone included "... the Lower
iocene Tampa Limestone as defined by Cooke (1945) and Lower
iocene strata commonly included in the Alachua Formation of Sel-
rds (1914, p. 161)."
Carr and Alverson (1959) recognized four lithologic units in the
awthorn Formation, but their relationships were not well under-
.ood. They identified a lower and upper limestone unit, a phosphor-
a unit, and a sand unit. They regarded the phosphorite and possi-
ly the sand unit as weathering products of the limestone units and





BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


mapped the sand and phophorite units together in their report. D f.
ferences in regional strike of the Tampa and Hawthorn, the irregular-
ity of the base of the Hawthorn, and lack of-uniformity between tWe
structure contours on the base of the Hawthorn and the isopachs of
the Tampa Limestone were used as evidence to suggest an uncon-
formity between the two formations.
Reynolds (1962), in studying the relationship of the Tampa-Haw-
thorn sequence in peninsular Florida, identified lithosomes and
used clay mineralogy to conclude that the two formations interfin-
gered. He identified a western carbonate lithosome (Tampa), an
eastern plastic lithosome (Hawthorn), and a central Florida shelf
where these two lithosomes interfingered. The carbonate lithosome
contained an attapulgite-montmorillonite-sepiolite clay mineral
suite, whereas the plastic lithosome contained a montmorillonite-
illite suite.
Wilson (1977) in a U.S. Geologic Survey ground water study,
identified the Hawthorn Formation and the Tampa Limestone in
Hardee and DeSoto Counties as one unit. The "limestone unit" of
the undifferentiated Tampa Limestone and the Hawthorne Forma-
tion were defined as the upper unit of the Floridian Aquifer system.
This carbonate unit is underlain by the "sand and clay unit" of the
Tampa Limestone, which acts as a confining bed for the lower unit
of the Floridan Aquifer system. Wilson (1977) characterized the top
of the Hawthorn Formation as the first limestone or dolomite
encountered in wells, but when a soft impermeable marl is present
it also is considered to be the top of the Hawthorn Formation.
Very early in the nomenclatural history of the Hawthorn Forma-
tion, it was considered to be of "older Miocene" age by Dall and
Harris (1892, Figure 2). They observed the Hawthorn Formation in
Alachua County lying unconformably on rocks of supposed Vicks-
burgian age, and thought it contemporaneous with the Chipola Fo:-
mation. A short while later, they altered their concept of the Oligo-
cene-Miocene boundary and positioned the Tampa, Hawthorn, and
Chipola formations, previously called "older Miocene," in the Oligc-
cene. Matson and Clapp (1909) continued this age assignment ,
equating the Tampa and Chattahoochee formations in the panhar-
die of Florida to the Hawthorn Formation.
Vaughan and Cooke (1914), in describing several sections neer
White Springs on the Suwanee River, thought the Hawthorn Forma-
tion was contemporaneous with the Alum Bluff Formation. Faunal
and stratigraphic data formed the basis for their correlation.
Cooke (1945) divided the Miocene series into three different
stages in peninsular Florida: Early, Middle, and Late. He believe
that the age of the Hawthorn Formation was Middle Miocene.
Bergendahl (1956), in defining the age of the Hawthorn Forma-
tion, stated that it "... includes all marine rocks in central and
southern peninsular Florida that are younger than the Tampa Lime-





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


-: )ne of Early Miocene Age, but older than the lowermost sedi-
r .3nts of Late Miocene Age."
In the past, this type of definition has been general practice in
d Joining both the age and boundaries of Florida formations, but the
Il,;k of diagnostic data from the authors has made it difficult to
d ctermine the exact age and boundaries of the formations. As a
result, the age assignment of the Hawthorn Formation has varied
considerably since its inception. For this report, in accordance with
present Florida Bureau of Geology usage, the Hawthorn Formation
is considered to be Middle Miocene.
The areal extent of the Hawthorn Formation was extended by
Cooke (1945) from descriptions by Dall and Harris (1892) of sections
in central Florida to include strata occurring east of the Apalachi-
cola River, northward to Berkeley County, South Carolina, and
southward to cover almost all of the peninsula of Florida, except
where it has been completely eroded. The Hawthorn Formation is
everywhere present in the subsurface of the study area but pinches
out in northern Polk and Hillsborough counties.
The authors mentioned in this section are those who defined or
redefined the Hawthorn Formation. Many others have written publi-
cations relating to the Hawthorn Formation but they have followed
the authors mentioned here for their definition of the Hawthorn For-
mation. They are too numerous to discuss in this report.
TAMPA STAGE LIMESTONE
The Tampa beds were first described by Allen (1846) as "... a
hard white limestone with an earth texture ...," exposed at Fort
Brooke at the head of Tampa Bay. Johnson (1888) was the first to
use the name Tampa Limestone. Dall and Harris (1892) raised the
Tampa Limestone to group status and included the Chipola beds,
the Tampa Limestone, and the Alum Bluff beds.
Matson and Clapp (1909) redefined the Tampa "Formation"
i ear Tampa Bay to include an upper clay member, a middle fossilif-
, ous limestone member containing the "Silex Beds," a distinct
iicified zone in the Tampa Limestone, and a lower sandy clay
:ember. Mossom (1926) further expanded the Tampa boundaries
id correlated the Tampa with the Chattahoochee Formation. He
*cluded in the Tampa parts of the strata that were later transferred
the Suwanee Limestone by Cooke and Mansfield (1936).
Cooke and Mossom (1929) changed the name Tampa "Forma-
)n" to Tampa "Limestone" because the "... formation consists
most entirely of limestone." Their definition of the Tampa Lime-
one includes most of the Chattahoochee Formation of Mossom
926) and part of the Hawthorn Formation of Matson and Clapp
909). Some limestones in the peninsula included in Matson and
lapp's definition of the Hawthorn were later separated out as the
uwanee Limestone by Cooke and Mansfield (1936).







BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


Cooke (Cooke and Mossom, 1945) after separating tle
Suwanee Limestone from the Tampa Limestone (Cooke and Mos-
som, 1936), limited the areal extent of the Tampa Limestone in
southwest Florida to the northwestern half of Hillsborough Couniy
and southwestern Pasco County and adjoining parts of Pinellss
County. He described the Tampa Limestone as a dense, predomi-
nantly yellow limestone, locally fossiliferous and chalky, with alter-
nating hard and soft layers.
Puri (1953), in his study of the Miocene of the Florida panhan-
dle, designated the Tampa Stage with an updip facies the Chatta-
hoochee Facies, and a downdip facies the St. Marks Facies. He
extended the St. Marks Facies into peninsular Florida, replacing the
Tampa Limestone. Puri and Vernon (1964) raised the St. Marks
Facies to formational status. Many authors still refer to the Tampa
Stage limestones in peninsular Florida as Tampa "Limestone."
Carr and Alverson (1959) described the typical lithology of the
Tampa Limestone as a white to light yellow, soft, moderately sandy
and clayey, finely granular, and locally fossiliferous limestone. They
also described limestone, clayey sand, sandy clay and clay-pebble
conglomerates as occurring in the Tampa Limestone, and chert as
occurring throughout the section. The identification of a sandy clay
as Tampa Limestone in Hernando and northern Pasco Counties led
Carr and Alverson to extend the Tampa Limestone boundaries
beyond those of Cooke (1959). Carr and Alverson (1959) used struc-
tural data, as previously mentioned, to demonstrate an unconform-
ity between the Tampa Limestone and Hawthorn Formation. They
also noted, "No previous workers have conclusively stated the
nature of the Tampa-Hawthorn contact in the area mapped for this
report but an unconformity has been demonstrated between the
Lower and Middle Miocene in northern Florida (Cushman and Pon-
ton. 1943, p. 31; Mansfield, 1937, p. 84; Vernon, 1951, p. 153; and Purl,
1953, p. 38)."
In Polk County, Stewart (1966) had difficulty identifying the
Tampa Limestone. In many places no limestone was found in the
Tampa, and in others the Tampa could not be identified. He con-
structed many of his stratigraphic sections by comparing geophysi
cal logs with ones from Hillsborough County. Stewart concurred
with the work of Carr and Alverson (1959), but expanded the area
extent of the "blue clay" found within the Tampa Limestone in Poll
County.
The age of the Tampa Stage limestones has been a cause o
some debate. T. A. Conrad (1842) visited the "Silex Beds" of the
Tampa Bay area. He placed these beds in the Upper Eocene. Angels
Heilprin (1886) collected mollusks from Ballast Point and assigned
an age of Lower Miocene to the beds exposed there. Dall and Harris
placed the Tampa Stage Limestone in the "Older"Miocene. Later
Dall (1896) discussed his reasons for changing these beds frorr







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 13

)der" Miocene to Oligocene. Matson and Clapp (1909) agreed
v th Dall, in that this unit should be referred to as the Oligocene.
S:-llards (1916) disregarded T. A. Conrad's (1846) age assignment of
t: "Silex Beds" at Ballast Point to the Late Eocene and referred to
H iilprin (1887), who assigned an Early Miocene age to the beds.
Cooke and Mossom (1929) placed the Tampa Stage limestones into
the Lower Miocene once more. This designation has been contin-
ued by subsequent authors, (Cooke, 1945; Vernon, 1951; Puri, 1953).
At present, the Lower Miocene age of the limestones is accepted in
Florida. However, Hunter (personal communication, 1978) states
that there is some paleontologic evidence that suggests an Oligo-
cene age assignment for the Tampa Stage limestones. Several
recent workers (Poag, 1974; Huddlestun, et al., 1976; King and
Wright, 1979; Hunter, 1978, personal communication), through bio-
stratigraphic correlations around the Gulf Coast, consider the St.
Marks Formation in northern Florida to be of Oligocene age, and the
Georgia geologic map includes the Chattahoochee Formation in
the Oligocene Series. This suggests that the Tampa Stage lime-
stones in southwest Florida may also be of Oligocene age.






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


GENERAL HAWTHORN LITHOLOGY
The Hawthorn Formation contains a variety of lithologie;.
Almost any combination of sand, silt, clay, limestone, dolomite, and
phosphate can be found within the Hawthorn Formation. However,
the predominant lithology in the study area is a silty, sandy, pho.s-
phatic dolomite that is a yellowish-gray (5Y 7/2), to white (9N) color
(GSA Rock Color Chart), and comprises approximately 90 percent of
the volume of the sediments. The variations in color reflect the
degree of dolomitization and percentages of other lithologic con-
stituents. The other lithologies, limestone, sand, clay, and phos-
phate, constitute the remainder of the sediments in the Hawthorn
Formation and will be discussed individually in this section. Even
though cores of the Hawthorn Formation can be divided into differ-
ent lithologic beds, or lithofacies, each bed in most places contains
varying percentages of the other lithologic constituents. The con-
tacts between these beds usually appear to be gradational.
Dolomite is the most common lithologic constituent of the
Hawthorn Formation within the study area. The degree of dolomiti-
zation varies widely from complete alteration (dolomite) to low alter-
ation dolomiticc limestone). The degree of dolomitization was deter-
mined from laboratory tests using dilute hydrochloric acid and
Alizarin Red S solution. The greatest alteration was recognized in all
the cores from Hillsborough and Polk Counties, and cores in north-
western, south central, and southeastern Hardee County.
The dolomite varies in crystal size from cryptocrystalline to
fine grained (0.125 mm to 0.25 mm) with the most common size in
the microcrystalline to very fine range (0.0625 mm to 0.125 mm). The
dolomite varies from anhedral to euhedral crystals. Anhedral to sub-
hedral crystallinity is the most common. However, beds of loosely
consolidated, silt sized (less than 0.00625 mm) euhedral dolomite
rhombs do occur. The authors often apply the term "dolosilt" to thi;
lithology.
It would be difficult without a detailed petrographic study to
differentiate the conditions of the depositional environments fror
the effects of postdepositional alteration. It is not clear whether
differences in the original carbonate material and the adjacent
chemical environment governed the degree of dolomitizatior;
whether dolomitization was a result of ground water movement
through and controlled by the specific lithologic units within th i
Hawthorn Formation; or if some of the dolomite is of a primary,
origin.
The limestone units in the Hawthorn Formation are predomi
nantly white (N9), but occasionally appear yellowish-gray (5Y 7/2), t(
very pale orange (10YR 8/2). Everywhere within the Hawthorn Forma
tion, the limestone was observed to be a calcilutite, as opposed tC
the more allochemical or calcarenitic nature of the Tampa StagE






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


stonese. The carbonate particle size is almost always crypto-
. .stalline to microcrystalline. Almost without exception, the lime-
. )nes contain varying amounts of sand, clay, and phosphate, and
dolomitic to some degree. These limestone beds are scattered
t oughout the section, and are commonly one to two feet thick. In
a -as where the limestone beds are more common, they can be as
r,:uch as 30 feet in thickness.
The clay beds in the Hawthorn Formation vary in color from yel-
lowish-gray (5Y 7/2), to light green (5G 7/4), to moderately dark gray
(N4). For the most part they contain quartz silt and sand, micrite,
dolomite, and phosphate in varying percentages. The clay is occa-
sionally observed in laminated structure with minor additional con-
stituents. Clay beds almost everywhere overlie the Hawthorn For-
mation. Their occurrence within the Hawthorn Formation is not as
common, and, in the study area, is usually erratic and apparently
without a correlatible distribution. Clay beds are present within the
upper Hawthorn Formation in eastern Sarasota County and western
DeSoto County, with scattered occurrences in central and north-
western Hardee County and in the western part of the study area in
Polk County. The clay beds that occur in the middle and lower parts
of the Hawthorn Formation appear to be confined to the northern
and southern extremes of the study area in Polk and central Sara-
sota and DeSoto Counties. Clay beds represent a small fraction of
the Hawthorn Formation (less than 5 percent).
X-ray analysis of "clay" samples from the Hawthorn cores pro-
vided very interesting results. Samples that originally appeared to
be predominantly clay when fresh and wet were dried and reexam-
ined. The examination of the dry samples and x-ray analysis
revealed that many of the "clays" were clayey to slightly clayey,
silty, fine grained dolomites.
The sand beds in the Hawthorn Formation vary in color from
:ght gray (N7), to very pale orange (10YR 8/2), to dusky yellow-green
G.GY 5/2). The quartz grains are mostly very fine to medium size
.0625 mm to 0.5 mm), and are angular to subangular. Coarse grains
p to 1 mm) do occur, but are not common. Sphericity is generally
gh. The Hawthorn sands generally contain variable amounts of silt
id phosphate bound by a clay or carbonate matrix. Several cores in
!llsborough, Polk, northwestern Hardee, and eastern Sarasota
)unties contain sand beds less than two feet thick near the top of
e formation. It is only in central and southeastern Hardee and
Soto counties that sand beds three feet thick or greater occur
within the upper Hawthorn Formation and occasionally in the mid-
e. Two cores in southeastern Hardee and northeastern DeSoto
Dunties (W-12906 and W-12908) contain sand beds throughout the
>rmation.
The chert in the Hawthorn Formation occurs in thin discontin-
ous beds and nodules mostly a few inches thick, but locally up to






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


two feet thick, and comprises a very small percentage of the whole
section. It is usually a medium (N5) to dark gray (N3) color. The che t
in the Hawthorn Formation almost always contains quartz sand
grains and phosphate pebbles.
Chert is more prevalent in Hillsborough, Polk, eastern Hardee,
and Sarasota counties. Southern and southeastern Hardee County
and DeSoto County appear to have little chert.
The distribution of chert in the study area could be related to
the higher areas of the Hawthorn Formation that were exposed to
weathering during and after the deposition of the Bone Valley For-
mation. As the montmorillonites and palygorskites in the Hawthorn
Formation were weathered, altering to kaolinite, silica would have
been released into the ground water. The silica would be carried in
the ground water through the more permeable beds until it found a
suitable chemical environment for precipitation.
Phosphate is commonly found throughout the Hawthorn For-
mation. Some beds in the study area contain phosphate in excess
of 25 percent. However, it is most often present in quantities of less
than 10 percent. Phosphate may be present with grain sizes ranging
from clay size to gravel. The observable phosphate generally falls in
the coarse silt (0.04 mm to 0.0625 mm) to gravel (greater than 2 mm)
range. Color of the phosphate ranges from black to tan and white in
the more weathered sections.
Core data indicate that the phosphates within the Hawthorn
Formation are virtually always associated with the more plastic lith-
ologic units. Sands, clayey sands, and sandy carbonates contain
the greatest amounts of phosphate. Clays, and particularly carbon-
ates that contain no or very small percentages of sand, invariably
lack appreciable phosphate. This indicates that the phosphate
grains are acting as plastic grains within a given depositional basin.
In attempting to correlate the various beds within the Hawthorn
Formation from core to core across the study area, it was concluded
that the thin and variable nature of these units and the distance
between the cores (6 to 10 miles) made correlations virtually impos
sible. Because dolomite is the main lithologic unit in the Hawthorr
Formation and comprises most of the section, it could not be uti
lized for correlations within the Hawthorn Formation. The lime
stone, clay, and sand units were generally thin beds, gradationa
with the adjacent units, and appeared to be only of local extent.
The lack of homogeneity in the Hawthorn Formation may be
attributed to one or more of the following hypotheses:
(1) A high variability of energy within the depositional
basin creating the many different depositional environments
observed;
(2) The Hawthorn Formation in Florida, at least in part,
may be a fluvial-deltaic sequence with the accompanying







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


fluctuating depositional environments as proposed by
Bishop (1956), Puri and Vernon (1964), and others;
(3) Bioturbation.
Every core examined contained evidence of bioturbation, sug-
,.sting that prolific biological activity existed and burrowing
r marine animals continually mixed the various lithologies. Various
hiaped tubes or burrows, filled with material that differs in size
end/or composition from the surrounding sediment, are numerous.
There is an absence of abundant fossil remains, except for occa-
sional bioherms of pectens, oysters, and barnacles. However, soft-
bodied organisms which did not lend themselves to preservation
may have been responsible for much of the bioturbation.
Regional lithologic trends within the Hawthorn Formation are
evident where minor constituents become more abundant in certain
directions. Each regional trend may have its own significance. The
authors believe the dolomite represents post-depositional altera-
tion. The limestone beds represent areas where the dolomitization
was absent. The clay beds within the Hawthorn Formation repre-
sent areas of low energy detrital deposition. The irregular distribu-
tion of the clay beds suggests the sporadic input of fine grained
sediment or the irregular distribution of clay in low energy deposi-
tional centers. The sand beds within the Hawthorn Formation show
a gradual northwest to southeast increase in sand content. This
seems to indicate a closer association with a plastic source to the
east or northeast and higher energy. This trend supports Reynolds'
(1962) theory that the Hawthorn Formation is predominantly carbon-
ate in the western peninsula and more plastic in the eastern
peninsula.
Based upon the preceding observations of lithologies within
the study area, it is concluded that sediments included in the Haw-
thorn Formation in the area of this report cannot be subdivided into
!rgionally extensive lithologic members, beds, or zones.






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


STRATIGRAPHIC RELATIONSHIPS
The Hawthorn Formation is overlain within the study area by
the Bone Valley Formation and undifferentiated sands and clays.
The study area represents a transitional zone of depositional envi-
ronments where younger strata overlying the Hawthorn Formation
pinch out updip onto the Polk Upland (Figure 3). A thick and contin-
uous section of these younger sediments to the south of the study
area is represented on the Polk Upland by a thinner section. Many of
the contacts between the younger strata are gradational, interfin-
gering, and difficult to discern because of similar lithologies. Little
work has been done to define the northern limits of many of the
younger units in southern Florida.
The sediments that overlie the Hawthorn Formation are sands,
clays, clayey sands, and sandy clays variously assigned to the Bone
Valley Formation, surface sands, and/or the undifferentiated sand


Figure 3. Physiographic map of study area. After White (1970)







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 19


id clay unit (Figures 4, 5, and 6). The lack of diagnostic criteria for
.rmational assignments and the difficulty in assessing the spatial
distribution of these lithologic units make it virtually impossible to
.-curately map them. The Bone Valley-Hawthorn contact, for exam-
.;e, is sometimes difficult to discern. This contact is normally
Liconformable. However, much of the Bone Valley sediments are
Lblieved to have been derived from the Hawthorn and the resulting
ithologies may be similar.
Bergendahl (1956) referred to these overlying units as "...
undifferentiated phosphatic sand and clay" and "... sand of Late
Miocene age." Wilson (1977) called them the "... shell and sand
unit" and ".. phosphorite unit." Wilson's phosphorite unit may
have included a portion of the upper Hawthorn Formation.
Throughout the study area the authors recognized the top of
the Hawthorn Formation by the first occurrence of a sandy, silty,
phosphatic carbonate (generally dolomitic or dolomite). Occasion-
ally, the top will be represented by a very calcareous or dolomitic
phosphatic sand. Other authors, including Bergendahl (1956), Peek
(1958), and Wilson (1977), identified the top of the Hawthorn in the
same manner as discussed here.


NORTH
A
W-13334 SOUTH
-3/ WPo-1-- A-
W-13269
W-13238
125-3 WHd-2 241-20c
0 W- 12985
'WHd.34S-24E. 700
.... W-8800
0o-1'0 -~- HW-35 --94F., .

so IL ;






2 --111 Undifferenlialed Sands and Clays
--so Upper Unit of Bone Volley Formation
Z0- -5_ Lower Unit of Bone Valley Formation
S-75 Hawlhorn Formation
30-- o-----..... -- Tampa Stage Carbonates





-1'5


Figure 4. Cross section A-A'.


*-2DO










NORTHWEST
B

W-13331

0, 10 2


-0-o -100


BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


SOUTHEAST
B'


-I Undifferentiated Sand and Clays
I 'o Upper Unit of Bone Valley Formation
SLoer Unit of Bone Volley Formation
SHowthorn Formation
[ Tompa Stage Carbonater

e x"NErrrts


Figure 5. Cross section B-B'.


The upper surface of the Hawthorn Formation is an irregular
erosional surface throughout the study area (Figure 7). This has
been well documented by other authors, including Carr and Alver
son (1959) and Stewart (1966). The irregular surface is often filled
with a clayey phosphatic residuum of the Hawthorn Formatiot
which is difficult to distinguish from the Bone Valley Formation.
The Hawthorn Formation is underlain in the study area by th(:
Tampa Stage limestones currently assigned to the St. Marks Forma.
tion. The boundary between the two is apparently gradational and
has created much controversy and discussion.
Previous workers, including Matson and Clapp (1909), Cooki
and Mossom (1929), Cooke (1945), Bishop (1956), and Reynold;
(1962), have considered the Hawthorn Formation and Tampa Stag,
limestones to have been deposited by the same sea or to be con
formable with each other. The general consensus of these author:
is that the Tampa Stage limestones (excluding northern equiva
lents) were deposited in a restricted sea covering southwest Flor








REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


EAST


WEST


W-12948
W-12984
o-3 -2 -2 %V-12963
W-13018-
Z; b8 --


W- 12908
Wp5-7S-27E-212\
W-12909
W -7- -Oc


2 t


] Undifferentiated Sands and Clays
Hawthorn Formation
Tampa Stage Corbonates


Figure 6. Cross section C-C'.



ida, which later transgressed in Hawthorn time to cover much of
Florida. Bishop and Reynolds elaborate on the simultaneous depo-
s-tion of clastics in eastern peninsular Florida and carbonates in
' western peninsular Florida. This concept equates the Tampa Stage
imestones with the basal Hawthorn Formation.
In unpublished reports (Florida Bureau of Geology) by Wright,
? acGill, Lane, May, and Yon, the Tampa Stage limestones were dif-
rentiated from the Hawthorn Formation on the basis of the Tampa
Shology having a decrease in phosphate content and an increase in
acrofossil content. These criteria have been used in constructing
e map on the top of the Tampa Stage limestones (Figure 8). These
iteria were used in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Manatee, Sarasota,
ardee, and DeSoto counties. Further discussion of the Tampa-
awthorn contact is contained in the structure section of this
port.
Unpublished work (Florida Bureau of Geology, 1976) by Ken
ampbell in southern Polk County revealed a gradational relation-


_T'j-225

1al-250


*->7t






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


ship between the Tampa Stage limestones and the Hawthorn Fo-
mation. He observed a gradational decrease of phosphate down-
ward toward the contact. The limestones of the Tampa Stage th-at
contained no phosphate (1 percent or less) were present in south-
western Polk County but interfingered to the east into phosphatic
dolomites and limestones. The dolomites in the Tampa Stage in the
eastern portion of the study area are common and represent wide-
spread beds that may have a similar depositional and postdiage-
netic history to that of the Hawthorn Formation dolomites. As one
moves eastward in southern Polk County, the Tampa Stage lime-
stones become lithologically more like the limestones of the Haw-
thorn Formation. The differentiation of the two formations is diffi-
cult in eastern Polk County.
Work done in DeSoto County by MacGill (1975) revealed that the
Tampa Stage limestones (and Hawthorn Formation) section con-
tained more detrital material than in Hillsborough County near the
Tampa Limestone type locality. A 600-foot core (W-12050) located in
southeastern DeSoto County penetrated a thick sequence of sandy,
silty, and clayey limestones and dolomites, sands, clays, and marls.
Only a few beds of the nonphosphatic, light-colored limestone, the
common Tampa Stage limestone lithology, were encountered.
In Highlands County, Bishop (1956) did not identify any beds as
the Tampa Stage limestones. However, he identified a thick
sequence of Hawthorn Formation resting unconformably on the
Suwanee Limestone.
The base of the Hawthorn Formation in the study area is con-
sidered to be the contact with the first nonphosphatic (less than 1
percent), light-colored limestone, which is here referred to as the
Tampa Stage limestones. Quartz sand is a common constituent
within the Tampa Stage, and becomes more prevalent toward the
east in the study area. Macrofossils, such as corals and mollusks,
are common in the Tampa Limestone in Pinellas and Hillsborougn
counties, but are not everywhere present. Dolomite also occurs and
is more prevalent in Polk, Hardee, and DeSoto counties. It is very
difficult to distinguish the Hawthorn Formation dolomites frorl
dolomitized Tampa Stage limestones. Clay is occasionally preser t
in the Tampa Stage limestones in Hillsborough County as thi
seams, but becomes more common in Polk, Hardee, and DeSot)
counties.






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
The structure of the Hawthorn Formation is shown on three
-aps, a structure and an isopach of the Hawthorn (Figures 7 and 9),
id a structure of the Tampa Stage limestones (Figure 8). These
..ere compiled utilizing geologic logs from the Bureau of Geology
'ell file and newly described samples from cores in areas that pre-
viously had sparse data.
The top of the Hawthorn Formation (Figure 7) ranges in eleva-
tion from a maximum of nearly 150 feet above sea level in west cen-
tral Polk County to a minimum of minus 50 feet below sea level in
Sarasota County. A very prominent high on the top of the Hawthorn
underlies much of Polk County, eastern Hillsborough County, and


Figure 7. Structure contour map-Top of Hawthorn Formation







BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


northern Hardee County. The high underlies the northern portion oi
the Land Pebble Phosphate District. It appears to underlie the areas
where the higher grade phosphates are mined from the Bone Valley
Formation. The high roughly underlies the Polk Uplands of Puri and
Vernon (1964), shown on Figure 3.
The top of the Hawthorn Formation is an erosional surface
throughout the study area. Much of the exposed Hawthorn was
weathered and reworked into the Bone Valley. Erosional patterns
developed on this surface resemble large drainage basins. Unpub-
lished structure maps of DeSoto, Hardee, and Manatee counties
(Florida Bureau of Geology, MacGill, 1975) with a 10-foot countour
interval reveal an erosional pattern resembling a dendritic drainage


* ELL LOCATIONS
0 H MILES
16KM


V LEE COUNTY
Figure 8. Structure contour map-Top of Tampa Stage Limestones


-lo


-300







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF
HAWTHORN FORMATION
0B--"


U L EE COUNTY
Figure 9. Isopach map of the Hawthorn Formation.


-attern on top of the Hawthorn. On these maps, two prominent
:dges extend southwest from the high in Polk and Hillsborough
counties. The eastern ridge extends from Polk County into Hardee
nd northwestern DeSoto counties. The western ridge extends
om the high in Hillsborough County into central Manatee County
nd northwestern Sarasota County.
The isopach of the Hawthorn Formation (Figure 9) shows the
nit generally thinning northward toward the updip erosional limit.
Beyond this point in the study area the Hawthorn Formation occurs
;nly as scattered outliers and sinkhole filling. The isopach map
hows a thick section of Hawthorn sediments from northern Sara-







BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


sota to eastern Manatee counties. This roughly corresponds to i
trough on top of the Tampa Stage limestones as seen in Figure E.
This trough appears to have been nearly coinpletely filled, although ;
some part of the depression seen on top of the Hawthorn sediment
may be related to this feature.
The Hawthorn Formation generally thins northward under tho,
high shown on the Hawthorn structure map (Figure 7). This thinning
is in part erosional but may be due to onlap onto the southern exten-
sion of the Ocala Arch. Due to the lack of distinguishable marker
horizons of regional extent, it is difficult to determine which of
these factors played a more important role in the thinning of these
sediments.
The thin area of the Hawthorn Formation in south central Har-
dee and north central DeSoto counties (Figure 9) is due to a high on
top of the Tampa Stage limestones (Figure 8).
Figure 8 shows the configuration of the top of the Tampa Stage
limestones in the study area. The top of the Tampa Stage lime-
stones as shown on the map range from approximately 50 feet
above sea level to nearly 400 feet below sea level. The most notice-
able feature is a large ridge extending south from the Polk-Hardee
county line into DeSoto County. In DeSoto County the high turns to
the southwest and gently plunges southwestward under Sarasota
County. Two other noticeable features are the northeast-southwest
trending lows in Sarasota, Manatee, and Hillsborough counties.
These troughs become shallower to the northeast. The interpreta-
tion of the features observed on this map may be affected by the
scattered nature of the data available at the top of the Tampa Stage
limestones within the study area.







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Phosphate is an essential element in all plant and animal life
processes. It has no substitute and its uses vary widely. The most
Extensive use is for fertilizers and detergents, with the remainder
,eing used for a wide range of products, including animal feeds and
ood products.
It has been stated by Stowasser (1977) that, "... adequate ferti-
izer supplies to meet future demand of agriculture, with depletion
of reserves and other restrictions reducing available supplies of
phosphate rock, will become a serious strategic consideration in
the next century." The projected increase in world demand for phos-
phate rock by the year 2000 is 127 percent, while U.S. demand will
increase 68 percent by the year 2000. An expected decline in pro-
duction of Florida phosphate by the 1990's prompted Stowasser
(1977) to state that "Programs to increase and conserve domestic
reserves of phosphate rock will be necessary to assure adequate
fertilizer supplies for the U.S. agricultural industry."
A cooperative program between the Florida Bureau of Geology
and the U.S. Bureau of Mines was initiated to study the distribution,
characterization, and beneficiation of phosphates in the Hawthorn
Formation in south central Florida. Part I of this study provides an
understanding of the geologic framework of the phosphatic sedi-
ments and their distribution in the Miocene Hawthorn Formation.
One problem in studying the stratigraphy of the Hawthorn For-
mation is defining the Hawthorn Formation. Since the inception of
the "Hawthorne beds" by Dall and Harris in 1892, the name Haw-
thorn has been extended and includes a variety of other lithologies
that occur over a wide geographic area, and may include beds
assigned to several different stages.
The top of the Hawthorn Formation within the study area corre-
lates well with the first occurrences of a sandy, phosphatic dolo-
mite. However, isolated occurrences of a calcareous or dolomitic
phosphatic sand at the top of the Hawthorn Formation may errone-
ously be correlated with the overlying unit.
Overlying the Hawthorn Formation in the study area are two lat-
-rally equivalent units, the Bone Valley and the undifferentiated
and and clay unit. Both overlie the Hawthorn unconformably. Both
Iso contain some reworked Hawthorn sediments.
The Hawthorn Formation is underlain by the Tampa Stage lime-
tones and possibly by the Suwanee Limestone in scattered areas
'hen the Tampa Stage limestones are absent. The authors, as well
s previous workers, believe the Tampa Stage carbonates are con-
ormable with the Hawthorn sediments. In some areas these carbo-
ates appear to interfinger with the Hawthorn carbonates. The top
f the Tampa Stage carbonates is marked by the occurrence of a
sequence of nonphosphatic (less than 1 percent) light colored car-







BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


bonate material (limestone or dolomite). Quartz sand is common
within these carbonates and clay seams are also present. Dolomite
is common to predominant in the Tampa Stage carbonates in the
study area.
Within the study area the top of the Hawthorn Formatior
ranges from just over 150 feet above sea level in southwestern Polk
County to more than 50 feet below sea level in southern DeSoto
County and eastern Hardee County. Interpretation of the structure
contours suggests several drainage systems which may have been
related to the depositional history of the Hawthorn Formation. The
thickness of the Hawthorn Formation in the study area varies from
zero along its northern boundary in Hillsborough and Polk counties
to greater than 350 feet in parts of western Manatee and Sarasota
counties.
The Hawthorn Formation contains a variety of lithologies.
Almost any combination of sand, silt, clay, limestone, dolomite, and
phosphate can be found within the boundaries of the Hawthorn For-
mation. The most predominant lithology in the study area is a silty,
sandy, phosphatic dolomite, which comprises approximately 98 per-
cent of the volume of sediments. Lithologic units identified in the
Hawthorn Formation include limestone, dolomite, quartz sand, clay,
phosphate, and chert. Each of these lithofacies contains various
percentages of the other lithologic constituents.
The dolomite lithology is the predominant lithology in the Haw-
thorn Formation in the study area. The degree of dolomitization
varies within the study area from higher degrees of dolomitization in
Hillsborough and Polk counties to lesser degrees of alteration in
the counties to the south. The variation in dolomitization may be
related to ground-water recharge and to the higher elevation of the
Hawthorn Formation on the Polk Upland.
The crystallinity of the dolomite generally varies throughout
the Hawthorn Formation. Some beds of poorly consolidated
euhedral dolomite rhombs, commonly called "dolosilt," do exist but
are not common.
The limestone beds within the Hawthorn Formation are almost
always a calcilutite. This is in contrast to the allochemical or calcar-
enitic nature of the Tampa Stage limestones.
Clay beds overlie the Hawthorn Formation almost everywhere
in the study area, but clay beds within the Hawthorn Formation are
scattered throughout the section and throughout the study area
with no obvious regional trends. Clay beds comprise less than 5 per-
cent of the Hawthorn Formation in the study area.
Sand beds within the Hawthorn Formation exhibit a northwest
to southeast trend of increasing sand beds. This trend reflects
Reynolds' (1962) concept that the Hawthorn Formation is more clas-
tic in eastern peninsular Florida and more calcareous in western
peninsular Florida.







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


The chert in the Hawthorn Formation displays a trend similar to
iat of dolomitization. The presence of chert in thin discontinuous
.eds and its relationship to areas of dolomitization suggest its ori-
;in is related to weathering of the clays in the Hawthorn Formation,
.nd to recharge areas where the released silica enters the ground
vater.
No regional marker beds were identified within the Hawthorn
formation due to the highly variable nature of the lithologic units
and the distance between the cores. Intraformational correlation
was not reliable.
Phosphate concentration in the Hawthorn Formation was visu-
ally estimated with a binocluar microscope. The concentration of
phosphate is low in these cores and the degree of variation over
short distances is high throughout the upper portion of the Haw-
thorn in the study area.
Observations made in correlating lithologies with phosphate
concentrations indicate the greatest amounts of phosphates were
associated with the sand lithologies within the Hawthorn Forma-
tion. The phosphate in the Hawthorn Formation is considered a
detrital element due to the close association of the phosphate with
the detrital elements (sand and clayey sand) and the stratified
nature of phosphate concentrations.







BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


REFERENCES

Allen, J. H., 1846, Geology of Tampa Bay, Florida: Am. Jour. Sci., 2nd ser., v. 1
p. 38-42.
Bergendahl, M. H., 1956, Stratigraphy of parts of DeSoto and Hardee Counties,
Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 1030-B, p. 65-68.
Bishop, E. W., 1956, Geology and Ground-Water Resources of Highlands County,
Florida: Florida Geological Survey Report of Investigation 15.
Carr, W. J., and Alverson, D. C., 1959, Stratigraphy of Middle Tertiary rocks in part of
west-central Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 1092, p. 11.
Cathcart, J. B., and McGreevy, L. J., 1959, Results of geologic exploration by core
drilling, 1953, land pebble phosphate district, Florida: U. S. Geological Survey
Bull. 1046-K, p. 221-298.
Conrad, T. A., 1846, Descriptions of new species of organic remains from the Upper
Eocene limestone of Tampa Bay, Florida: Am. Jour. Sci., 2nd ser., pp. 399-400.
Cooke, C. W., and Mossom, S., 1929, Geology of Florida: Florida Geological Survey
Annual Report 20, pp. 28-227, 29 pls. incl. geol. map.
---, and Mansfield, W. C., 1936, Suwanee limestone of Florida (abstract): Geol.
Soc. American Proc. for 1935, pp. 71-72.
---, 1945, Geology of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bull. 29.
Cushman, J. A., and Ponton, G. M., 1932, The foraminifera of the upper, middle, and
part of the lower Miocene of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Bull. 9.
Dall. W. H., and Harris, G. D., 1892, Correlation paper-Neocene: U.S. Geological
Survey Bull. 84.
- 1896, Descriptions of Tertiary Fossils from the Antillean Region: U.S. Nat.
Mus. Proceedings, Vol. XIX, No. 1110.
Eldridge, G. H., 1893, Preliminary sketch of the phosphates of Florida: American Inst.
Mng. Engrs., vol XXI, pp. 196-231.
Geological Society of America, 1975, Rock Color Chart, Boulder, Colorado.
Heilprin, A., 1887, Explorations on the west coast of Florida and in the Okeechobee
wilderness: Wagner Free Inst. Sci. Trans., vol. 1, 134 p.
Huddlestun, P. F., 1976, The Neogene Stratigraphy of the Central Florida Panhandle:
unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Johnson, L. C., 1888, The Structure of Florida: Am. Jour. Sci., 3rd ser., v. 36,
p. 230-236.
Kellogg. A. R., 1924, Tertiary pelagic mammals of eastern North America: Geol. Soc.
America Bull., vol. 235, no. 4, pp. 755-766.
Kenter, K. B., and McGreevy, L. J., 1959, Stratigraphy of the area between Hernando
and Hardee Counties, Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 1074-C, p. 49-123.
King, K. C., and Wright, R., 1979, Revision of the Tampa Formation West-Central
Florida: Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol. Soc., Vol XXIX, p. 257-261.
MacGill, P. L., 1975, The Miocene of DeSoto County, Florida (abstract): Florida
Scientist, v. 28, supp. 1, p. 13.
Mansfield, G. R., 1937, Mollusks of the Tampa and Suwanee Limestones of Florida:
Florida Geological Survey Bull 15.
1942, Phosphate Resources of Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Bull. 934, p. 60.








REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 31


.: tson, G. C., and Clapp, F. G., 1909, A Preliminary report on the geology of Florida
with special reference to the stratigraphy: Florida Geological Survey Annual
Report 2, pp. 25-173, map (p. 69).
-, 1915, The Phosphate Deposits of Florida: U.S. Geological Survey Bull.
604, p. 101.
!h:ossom, D. S., 1926, A review of the structure and stratigraphy of Florida with
special reference to the Petroleum possibilities: Florida Geological Survey
Annual Report 17, pp. 169-275.
P.oek, H. M., 1958, Ground-Water Resources of Manatee County, Florida: Florida
Geological Survey Report of Investigation 18.
Pirkle, E. C., 1956, The Hawthorn and Alachua Formations of Alachua County, Florida:
Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 197-241.
Poag, C. W., 1972, Planktonic Foraminifera of the Chickasawhay Formation: United
States Gulf Coast Micropaleontology, Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 257-277.
-, 1974, Ostracode Biostratigraphy and Correlation of the Chickasawhay Stage
(Oligocene) of Mississippi and Alabama: Journal of Paleontology, v. 48, no. 2,
pp. 344-356.
Puri, H. S., 1953, Contribution to the Study of the Miocene of the Florida Panhandle:
Florida Geological Survey Bull. 36.
- and Vernon, R. 0., 1964, Summary of the Geology of Florida and a Guidebook
to the Classic Exposures: Florida State Board of Conservation, Division of
Geology, Special Publication no. 5 (revised).
Reynolds, W. R., 1962, The Lithostratigraphy and Clay Mineralogy of the Tampa-
Hawthorn Sequence of Peninsular Florida: unpublished Masters thesis, Florida
State University, June 1962, 126 p., Tallahassee.

Sellards, E. H., 1914, The relation between the Dunnellon Formation and the Alachua
clays of Florida: Florida Geological Survey 6th Annual Report, p. 161-162.
- 1915, The Pebble Phosphates of Florida: Florida Geological Survey Annual
Report 7, pp. 25-116.
---, 1916, Fossil Vertebrates from Florida; a new Miocene Fauna; new Pliocene
species; the Pleistocene fauna: Florida Geological Survey Annual Report 8,
pp. 77-119.
Simpson, G. G., 1930, Tertiary Land Mammals oi Florida: Am. Museum of Natural
History Bull., vol. 59, art. 11, pp. 149-211.
.tewart., 1966, Ground-Water Resources of Polk County, Florida: Florida State Board
of Conservation, Division of Geology, Report of Investigation 44.
,;towasser, W. F., 1977, Phosphate, Mineral Commodity Profiles: MCP-2, U.S. Bureau
of Mines. U.S. Department of the Interior, May.
aughan, T. W., and Cooke, C. W., 1914, Correlation of the Hawthorn Formation:
Washington Acad. Sci. Jour., vol. 4. no. 10, pp. 250-253.
ernon, R. 0., 1951, Geology of Citrus and Levy Counties. Florida: Florida Geological
Survey Bull. 33.
.hite, W. A.,. 1970, Geomorphology of the Florida Peninsula: Florida Bureau of
Geology Bull. 51.
Iilson. W., 1977, Ground-Water Resources of DeSoto and Hardee Counties, Florida:
lorida Bureau of Geology Report of Investigation 83.







BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


APPENDIX


List of Core Holes Used in This Report


Bureau
of
Geology
Well No. Name
8880 Ona #1
11570 Duette #1
11908 Myakka #1
11946 Hardee #1
12050 Hogan #1
12113 Hardee #2
12906 Crewsville #1
12907 Sweetwater


Location
SE NE NW S. 16, T35S, R24E
S. 1, T33S, R22E
NE NE S. 31, T37S, R20E
SE S. 3, T35S, R26E
SE NW S. 16, T38S, R26E
NW NE S. 15, T36S, R15E
NE SE S. 23, T35S, R27E
SE NW S. 3, T36S, R26E


County
Hardee
Manatee
Sarasota
Hardee
DeSoto
Hardee
Hardee
Hardee


Gamm
Ray
Log
Avail-
able


a

Elev. T.D.
(ft.) (ft.)
79 102
137 462
29.5 603
67 490
62 600
71 157
94 318
97 300


12908 Tropical NW NW S. 4, T37S, R27E DeSoto 91 303
River Groves
12909 Bevis #1 SW NW S. 30, T37S, R26E DeSoto 66 300
12942 Mosley #1 NW SE S. 15, T36S, R24E Hardee 75 300
12948 Morgan #1 SE SE NW S. 34, T37S, R24E DeSoto 56 300
and #1A
None Sarasota #1 NW NW S. 21, T38S, R22E Sarasota 34 222
Longeno-
owner
12983 Sarasota #1 20' W of Sarasota #1 Sarasota 34 202
Same loc. as #1
12984 Sarasota #3 NW NW S. 22, T37S, R20E Sarasota X 15 302
Myakka River State Park
None Sarasota #3A Same location as #3; Sarasota 15 145
10' S of Sarasota #3
None Sarasota #4A NE SE S. 6, T38S, R21E Sarasota 32 207
50' E of Sarasota #4
12985 James #1 NW NW S. 27, T34S, R24E Hardee 102 250
13018 Sarasota #4 NE SE S. 6, T38S, R21E Sarasota X 32 202
Myakka River State Park
13073 Hart #1A NW SW S. 28, T34S, R24E Hardee X 50 206
13078 Chapman #1 SW SW S. 27, T33S, R25E Hardee X 58 202
13107 Griffin #1 NE NW S. 19, T35E, R25E Hardee X 35 202
13237 Tomilson #1 NE NW S. 25, T35E, R23E Hardee X 80 202
13238 M. H. SW SW S. 20, T33S, R24E Hardee X 115 202
McLeod #1
13245 Gardinier #1 SW NE S. 21, T32C, R23E Polk X 105 201
13269 Agrico #1 NW SW S. 26, T32S, R25E Polk X 127 200
13331 David #1 SW SW S. 9. T32S. R22E Hillsbor-
ough 105 165
13333 New Zion SE SW W. 15, T34E, R23E Hardee X 110 198
13334 Bradley SW NE S. 11, T31S, R23E Polk X 135 180
Jct. #1







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


THE HAWTHORN FORMATION OF CENTRAL FLORIDA




PART II

CHARACTERIZATION, EVALUATION, AND BENEFICIATION
OF CENTRAL FLORIDA PHOSPHATE-BEARING
HAWTHORN FORMATION

By
W. H. Eddy,' B. E. Davis,2 and G. V. Sullivan 3








researchh technologist (now retired).
Minerals engineer.
supervisory metallurgist.
ie authors are with the Tuscaloosa Research Center, U.S. Department of the In-
.rior, Bureau of Mines, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.


research at the Tuscaloosa Research Center is carried out under a memorandum of
understanding between the Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, and the
university of Alabama.







34 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


CONTENTS
Page
Abstract..................... .... ......... ................. .....36
Introduction ................................... .. .................... 37
Description of the cores.................. ..............................38
Experimental results ................. .... ............................ 40
Sampling procedures .................................... ............... 40
Characterization studies .............. .......... ................ 40
Petrographic analyses ............... .............................. 41
Analysis of screen fractions ............................................ 41
Evaluation of specific gravity separations in heavy liquids .................. 43
Flotation .......................................... .................. 46
Bradley Junction #1, Method 1 ......................................... 46
Bradley Junction #1, Method 2 .................. .... ................... 46
Mosley #1, Method 1 ................ ........... ............... ..... 49
Mosley#1, Method 2 ................................................ 49
Summary .............................................................56
References........................................ .............. 57
Appendices .................. ...... ..................................59
A. Core hole physical data .......................................... 59
B. PO, values of Hawthorn Formation drill cores ........................... 63
C. Screen analysis of Hawthorn Formation drill core
composite sections ........................... ................ 73
D. Heavy liquid separation data for Hawthorn Formation drill
core composite sections ...................................... 83
E. Flotation test data ................ ... ..... ................. 101
F. Petrographic analysis .............. ..............................105








REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 35


ILLUSTRATIONS
F gure Page
Location of core holes ...........................................38

TABLES
T;ble Page
PO2 analyses of cores obtained from Florida Bureau of Geology............ 40
;. Chemical analyses from selected sections of drill cores, length
and location of section of Hawthorn Formation ...................... 42
3. Chemical analysis and distribution of minus 400-mesh
slimes of selected sections of Hawthorn Formation
drill cores ............................. ....................... 44
4. PO, grade and distribution in sink 2.75 fraction of
heavy liquid separation .............................................45
5. Flotation test data for Bradley Junction #1,
Method 1 .................................. .. ................. 47
6. Reagent scheme for Bradley Junction #1,
Method 1 ......................................................... 48
7. Flotation test data for Bradley Junction #1,
Method 2 .................................. ................... 50
8. Reagent scheme for Bradley Junction #1,
Method 2 ......................................................... 51
9. Flotation test data for Mosley #1, Method 1 ............................ 52
10. Reagent scheme for Mosley #1, Method 1 .............................53
11. Flotation test data for Mosley #1, Method 2 .............................. 54
12. Reagent scheme for Mosley #1, Method 2 ............................... 55






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


CHARACTERIZATION, EVALUATION, AND
BENEFICIATION OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
PHOSPHATE-BEARING HAWTHORN FORMATION

by
W. H. Eddy,
B. E. Davis,
and
G. V. Sullivan

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, con-
ducted characterization, evaluation, and beneficiation studies on
drill cores from the Hawthorn Formation in central Florida. These
studies advanced the Bureau's goal of assessing the worldwide
availability of minerals. The samples were obtained by contract with
the Florida Bureau of Geology and included 10 cores in Hardee, 4 in
Sarasota, 3 in Polk and DeSoto, and 1 in Hillsborough County. Each
10-foot interval was analyzed for P205 content. Sixteen composite
core sections containing more than 5 percent P205 were given
detailed studies. Heavy liquid studies determined practical limits of
physically upgrading the 16 core sections. The sink material, at a
specific gravity of 2.75, in the minus 35 plus 400 mesh fraction con-
tained an average of 94 percent of the phosphate at a grade of 19
percent P205. Sieve analyses of these cores showed that an average
of 35 percent of the weight, 58.8 percent of the MgO, and 8 percent
of the phosphate was contained in the minus 400 mesh slimes. In
laboratory batch flotation tests, scrubbing-desliming and flotation
selectively removed the carbonates. Phosphate minerals wern,
floated with a fatty acid-mineral oil combination. The phosphat,'
recoveries ranged from 25 to 76 percent. The concentrate grad,'
ranged from 22 to 31 percent P205.







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


INTRODUCTION
Phosphate is an essential element in all plant and animal life
Srocesses. It is used not only in fertilizer and the manufacture of
I osphoric acid but also in a wide variety of other products. World
c consumption is rising yearly and based on 1976 data is expected to
increase by 68 percent in the United States by the year 2000. The
majority of domestic production comes from the land pebble
deposits in Florida. The phosphate land pebble region of Florida is
underlain by the phosphate-bearing dolomitic limestone Hawthorn
Formation. The name "Hawthorne Beds" (Dall and Harris, 1892) was
applied to phosphatic rocks being quarried and crushed near the
town of Hawthorne in Alachua County, Florida. This formation may
contain scores to hundreds of billions of tons of phosphate. Most of
this material cannot be mined or processed with present beneficia-
tion methods (Cathcart and Gulbrandsen, 1973).
In 1975 the Bureau of Mines and the Florida Bureau of Geology
entered into a contract to "evaluate phosphate deposits from the
Miocene-Hawthorn Formation in Southwest Florida." Results of
this study have enhanced the Bureau's mission to classify domestic
and foreign mineral resources and reserves. The evaluation would
help to determine if phosphate concentrates could be produced
from the Hawthorn Formation that would be comparable to present
operations. Presently, the industry is mining ore that is 10 to 15 per-
cent P20s. The P205 content is upgraded by washing the pebble size
and flotation of the sand size mineral. The P205 content of marketa-
ble concentrate ranges from 29 to 32 percent P205. Recovery of
phosphate in the flotation feed is approximately 80 percent (Zellars
and Williams, 1978).
The Florida Bureau of Geology conducted the drilling opera-
tions and sent splits of the cores to the Tuscaloosa Research Cen-
ter for characterization, evaluation, and beneficiation studies.
These studies included chemical analysis, petrographic analysis,
screen size analysis, specific gravity separation, and flotation stud-
ies. This report presents the results of these studies.






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


DESCRIPTION OF THE CORES
Twenty-one cores in five counties in central Florida were
drilled in the Hawthorn Formation. The drilling procedure consisted
of drilling one core hole in selected townships to a depth of 300 feet
or to the bottom of the Miocene-Hawthorn Formation where it
meets the Oligocene-Suwanee Limestone Formation, whichever is


Figure 10. Location of core holes.






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 39

hallower. Drill cores from the area included ten cores in Hardee,
)ur cores each in Polk and DeSoto, and one core in Hillsborough
county Figure 10 is a map of central Florida showing core hole
cationss. A typical drill core consisted of a hard material of tan,
.cream or white, sandy argillaceous limestone or chalk. All the sam-
p~es checked by X-ray diffraction were found to be dolomitic. The
upper part of the cores was a clayey sand ranging in color from dark
gray-green, olive green, yellow-green to brownish-green and con-
tained traces to large amounts of black phosphate nodules. The
highest concentration of nodules appeared in areas of weakest
cementation. A total of approximately 3,680 feet of core was
processed.






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

SAMPLING PROCEDURES

Drilling was conducted by the Florida Bureau of Geology. A
geologist supervised the drilling operation and obtained small sam-
pres of the cores as soon as they were taken from the drill hole. The
cores were then broken down into about 5-foot lengths, sealed in
polyethylene sleeves to maintain original bed moisture, and trans-
ported to the Tuscaloosa Research Center. The cores were crushed
in stages to minus 14-mesh and representative samples were pre-
pared by cone and quartering technique. The material was stored in
air-tight containers.

CHARACTERIZATION STUDIES
The initial phase of the characterization study was to establish
the phosphate content on approximately 10-foot intervals of the
cores. The county, core name and number, core interval and P205
statistical data of the cores are shown in table 1. Appendix A shows


TABLE 1.-P20s analyses of cores obtained from Florida Bureau of Geology

Core Data, P20s
e Feet Analyses, %
core Name County
No.
Length Interval High Low Avg.

12906 Crewsville #1 Hardee 149 169-318 7.0 0.8 3.7
12907 Sweetwater #1 Hardee 169 131-300 7.8 .7 3.1
12908 Tropical River Groves DeSoto 193 110-303 8.3 .3 4.3
12909 Bevis #1 DeSoto 208 92-300 6.3 .5 3.7
12942 Mosley #1 Hardee 245 55-300 9.6 .8 3.3
12948 Morgan #1A DeSoto 243 57-300 7.1 .4 3.3
12985 James #1 Hardee 158 94-252 8.7 .6 4.3
12983 Sarasota #2 Sarasota 159 43-202 4.9 1.0 2.3
(') Sarasota #1 Sarasota 169 45-214 5.9 1.1 2.)
12984 Sarasota #3 Sarasota 226 76-302 3.8 .5 1.3
13018 Sarasota #4 Sarasota 179 23-202 4.8 .2 1.3
13078 Chapman #1 Hardee 191 11-202 8.2 1.2 3.7
13073 Hart #1A Hardee 185 17-202 8.5 .9 3.3
13107 Griffin #1 Hardee 189 13-202 8.5 .3 3.)
13238 M. H. McLeod #1 Hardee 159 43-202 6.9 .8 3.1
13237 Tomilson #1 Hardee 157 45-202 7.3 1.7 3.3
13245 Gardinier #1 Polk 161 40-201 6.2 2.3 3.7
12957 Agrico#1 Polk 165 35-200 12.7 .9 3.?
13331 David #1 Hillsborough 114 51-165 12.9 1.8 5.3
13333 New Zion #1 Hardee 83 115-198 6.8 2.4 4.3
13334 Bradley Junction #1 Polk 180 0-180 15.4 .2 5.
No number assigned.
*Florida Bureau of Geology well numbers.






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


;ti core hole physical data and Appendix B gives the P20s anaylsis
o each 10-foot interval of the cores.
The 21 cores represented 3,682 feet. The average P20s content
fC r the area was 3.6 percent with a range of 0.2 percent P205 to 15.4
p -rcent P20s.
The second phase of characterization consisted of composit-
ir.g adjacent sections containing more than 5 percent P20s, giving
16 composite sections. These core sections were evaluated by
chemical analyses of the head sample, of the fractions made from
the specific gravity separations in heavy liquids, and of screen frac-
tions from sieving operations. The chemical analyses of the interval
composites, their length and section locations are shown in table 2.

PETROGRAPHIC ANALYSES
Petrographic analyses were conducted on the 16 composite
sections. Inasmuch as the minerals were primarily the same in all
the sections, the petrography has been generalized.
The primary phosphate mineral in the cores was cellophane,
one of the cryptocrystalline varieties of apatite; its composition is
variable. Major mineral constituents in the cores were cellophane,
dolomite, feldspars, quartz, and minor amounts of attapulgite,
montmorillonite, and smectite. The cores also contained small
amounts of calcite, fluorite, gypsum, etc.
The material was most difficult to visually appraise as it was
impossible on many occasions to determine cellophane from car-
bonate in some of the screen fractions. In most instances the phos-
phate grains were substantially free of locked minerals in size frac-
tions finer than 65 mesh. Most of the phosphate was opaque. An
average of 6 percent of the grains was an unidentifiable isotropic,
low index, microcrystalline material with varying amounts of car-
bonate. Much of the carbonate grains in the larger size fractions
was actually carbonate agglomerates that were fairly well
cemented. The minus 400-mesh material was essentially all carbon-
ate and clay. An example of the petrographic analysis is given in
Appendix F.
To determine the composition of heavy minerals, several
1-imples of the core intervals were separated in heavy liquid at a
: iecific gravity of 3.30. Petrographic analyses of the heavy mineral
f action showed it contained garnet, staurolite, kyanite, titanite,
tile, zircon, epidote, tourmaline, xenotine, and monazite.

ANALYSIS OF SCREEN FRACTIONS
A study of the particle size showed that much of the dolomite
as softer than the other minerals and a large proportion of it
ported along with the clay to the slimes (minus 400-mesh). The
Jantity of magnesia removed in the primary slimes ranged from














TABLE 2.-Chemical analyses from selected sections of drill cores, length and location of section of Hawthorn Formation

Section of Core Analyses, Percent
Core Core Name County
No.*
Total Feet Interval Location, Ft. PaOs CaO MgO COs Insol.

12906 Crewsville #1 Hardee 48 169-217 5.9 31.0 12.7 29.5 15.4
12907 Sweetwater #1 Hardee 53 131-184 5.3 29.4 12.0 27.5 20.1
12908 Tropical River Groves DeSoto 112 110-222 5.6 34.3 7.7 26.2 19.8
12909 Bevis #1 DeSoto 122 92-214 6.7 32.7 10.3 26.3 23.1
12942 Mosley #1 Hardee 25 55- 80 8.7 19.7 4.6 9.7 49.3
12948 Morgan #1A DeSoto 16 90-106 7.6 25.7 8.3 18.8 31.6
12985 James #1 Hardee 39 94-133 5.8 25.9 11.8 24.9 24.0
13073 Hart #1A Hardee 35 138-173 7.0 31.1 14.6 27.3 16.5
13078 Chapman #1 Hardee 16 11- 27 7.4 28.4 12.4 22.4 24.8
13107 Griffin #1 Hardee 23 48- 71 5.3 12.1 2.6 5.1 67.0
13245 Gardinler #1 Polk 16 90-106 6.1 28.8 12.8 30.5 16.8
12957 Agrico #1 Polk 14 35- 49 13.1 21.4 2.5 3.3 48.9
13331 David #1 HIllsborough 40 72-112 9.5 24.4 6.3 14.5 36.6
13333 New Zion #1 Hardee 10 150-160 4.8 30.4 16.2 35.9 9.5
13334 Bradley Junction #1 Polk 76 20- 96 6.0 22.9 11.0 23.2 31.7
13334 Bradley Junction #1 Polk 16 96-112 7.3 26.3 13.2 23,4 27.4
*Florida Bureau of Geology well numbers.







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


3 .7 to 80.5 percent MgO with an average of 58.8 percent MgO. The
a iount of phosphate lost to the slimes ranged from 3.2 to 14.6 per-
c nt P205. An average of 35.2 percent of the feed was lost to the
s mes. This material contained 8.0 percent of the phosphate in the
f. 3d and analyzed 1.6 percent phosphate, on average. The results
a 3 shown in table 3.
Sieve analysis results of the material consisting of the
,wight-percent, chemical analysis, and distribution of each screen
fraction are shown in Appendix C.

EVALUATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY SEPARATIONS
IN HEAVY LIQUIDS
The samples were ground to pass 35-mesh and the minus
35-plus 150-mesh and the minus 150-plus 400-mesh fractions were
subjected to specific gravity separations in heavy liquids. The
results of the heavy liquid separations would give an indication of
what grade concentrate could be produced by beneficiation. Sam-
ples were treated at specific gravities of 2.68, 2.75, and 2.93. Each of
the gravity fractions were analyzed for P205, CaO, MgO, C02, and
hydrochloric acid insoluble matter.
The results of the heavy liquid separation of the samples
showed that concentrates up to 30 percent P205 could be produced
from some samples. Results of the heavy liquid separations at a
density of 2.75 are shown in table 4. Appendix D contains the com-
plete results.

















TABLE 3.-Chemical analysis and distribution of minus 400-mesh slimes of selected sections of Hawthorn Formation drill cores

Analysis, percent Distribution, percent
Core Name County Interval, Weight-
No. County Feet Percent
PiO CaO MgO CO Insol. PaO0 CaO MgO CO, Insol.

12906 Crewsville #1 Hardee 169 -217 40.3 1.6 28.3 ..15.4 32.1 12.5 10.5 37.0 51.4 46.6 32.6
12907 Sweetwater #1 Hardee 131 -184 38.6 0.5 26.0 15.7 33.0 13.7 3.3 34.7 51.4 46.3 27.3
12908 Tropical River Grove DeSoto 110 -222 42.3 1.7 40.9 10.7 33.7 12.6 11.0 47.5 61.3 55.6 26.6
12909 Bevis #1 DeSoto 92 -114 40.8 1.1 28.8 12.9 30.2 15.0 8.5 40.5 56.1 62.6 25.3
12942 Mosley #1 Hardee 55 80 22.4 1.3 22.0 15.0 31.3 19.2 3.2 25.5 78.0 73.1 8.6
12948 Morgan #1A DeSoto 90 -106 36.9 1.2 25.7 16.6 33.2 16.4 5.5 36.7 69.7 64.6 19.0
12985 James #1 Hardee 94 -133 42.6 1.3 26.3 19.0 26.1 24.3 8.5 40.7 62.5 60.9 21.4
13073 Hart #1A Hardee 138 -173 38.3 1.8 27.4 19.4 35.7 11.4 10.0 35.4 50.6 48.8 27.2
13078 Chapman #1 Hardee 11 27 32.0 1.3 27.8 19.4 38.4 9.0 5.4 32.7 52.8 53.1 11.4
13107 Griffin #1 Hardee 48 71 18.4 1.8 14.8 8.7 16.1 42.6 5.9 21.2 65.6 52.5 11.5
13245 Gardinler # Polk 90 -106 38.8 2.0 28.7 16.4 37.4 11.7 12.6 36.9 49.5 48.6 17.5
12957 Agrico #1 Polk 35 49 20.9 2.2 4.8 4.2 0.8 60.8 3.5 4.7 62.9 6.9 25.3
13331 David #1 Hillsborough 72 -112 41.3 2.2 23.5 14.8 32.1 17.9 9.9 40.4 80.5 78.0 21.3
13333 NewZion#1 Hardee 151V2-160 45.2 0.9 30.6 17.5 40.4 3.6 8.5 44,5 53.3 53.6 18.1
13334 Bradley Junction #1 Polk 20 96 24.1 1.7 22.1 18.4 30.8 20.1 6.7 22.6 36.7. 34.0 15.4
13334 Bradley Junction #1 Polk 96 -112 42.1 2.5 26.0 16.0 34.4 15.0 14.6 42.3 58.2 60.5 23.6
*Florida Bureau of Geology well numbers.








REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


TABLE 4.-P205 grade and distribution in sink 2.75 fraction of heavy liquid separation

P20s P205
Core Int. fraction anal- distri-
No. Name County location ction, ysis butio
% %

12906 Crewsville #1 Hardee 169'-217' 35/150 19.0 93.8
150/400 4.3 93.8
composite 12.7 93.8

12907 Sweetwater #1 Hardee 131'-184' 35/150 20.7 90.2
150/400 6.6 90.3
composite 14.6 90.2
12908 Tropical River Groves DeSoto 110'-222' 35/150 23.0 90.8
150/400 11.4 92.8
composite 19.6 91.2
12909 Bevis #1 DeSoto 92'-214' 35/150 20.4 87.8
150/400 8.1 86.7
composite 16.3 87.6
12942 Mosley #1 Hardee 55'- 80' 351150 26.9 90.2
150/400 21.3 97.8
composite 25.6 91.6
12948 Morgan #1A DeSoto 90'-106' 35/150 24.6 91.9
150/400 8.4 90.5
composite 22.3 91.5

12985 James #1 Hardee 94'-133' 35/150 21.1 95.6
150/400 4.2 95.2
composite 15.7 95.5

13073 Hart #1A Hardee 138'-173' 35/150 15.8 97.8
150/400 8.1 98.5
composite 13.8 97.9

13078 Chapman #1 Hardee 11'- 27' 35/150 22.6 97.8
150/400 7.8 98.5
composite 19.8 97.9
13107 Griffin #1 Hardee 48'- 71' 35/150 28.5 83.5
150/400 19.6 93.8
composite 24.7 86.7
13245 Gardinier #1 Polk 90'-106' 35/150 15.7 96.7
150/400 4.0 98.1
composite 12.7 96.8
13269 Agrico #1 Polk 35'- 49' 35/150 30.5 96.8
150/400 30.0 96.3
composite 30.5 96.8

13331 David #1 Hillsborough 72'-112' 35/150 29.6 98.8
150/400 21.0 99.3
composite 27.1 98.8
13333 New Zion #1 Hardee 150'-160' 351150 11.3 97.8
150/400 6.7 99.1
composite 10.5 97.8

13334 Bradley Junction #1 Polk 20'-96' 35/150 18.0 98.0
150/400 8.2 96.0
composite 16.1 97.8

13334 Bradley Junction #1 Polk 96'-112' 35/150 22.5 98.0
150/400 16.3 97.8
composite 21.5 98.0

'Florida Bureau of Geology well numbers.






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


FLOTATION
The next phase of the study was the beneficiation of selected
composites by flotation. Composite samples were taken from the
20- to 96-foot level of the Bradley Junction #1 core in Polk County
and the 55- to 80-foot level of the Mosley #1 core in Hardee County.
These two sites are areas in which it might be profitable to remove
the 20 to 55 feet of overburden to mine the ore. Also, they appear to
be representative samples of the two-county area, which accounted
for 75 percent of the composite samples.

BRADLEY JUNCTION #1, METHOD 1
A determined weight of sample was taken from the stored
material. The ore was ground to minus 14-mesh in the presence of
sodium hydroxide for pH control and dispersion. The primary slimes
(minus 400-mesh) were removed, the minus 14-plus 400-mesh mate-
rial was stage ground in a pebble mill to pass 65 mesh and the sec-
ondary slimes (minus 400-mesh) were removed. A carbonate pre-
float was made using sodium carbonate as a pH regulator, starch as
a phosphate depressant, and an emulsified saponified fatty acid
collector (1 percent fatty acid, 0.25 percent NaOH and 0.05 pure pine
oil) to float the carbonates. The carbonate flotation underflow was
thickened to 65 percent solids and conditioned with a fatty acid-
mineral oil combination (2 parts oleic acid to 3 parts fuel oil) at room
temperature. A phosphate rougher concentrate was floated and
cleaned six times to produce a phosphate product.
Approximately 47 weight-percent of the ore was removed as
primary and secondary slimes. Sixty-six percent of the MgO, 62 per-
cent of the CO2, and 49 percent of the CaO could be removed in
these slimes, with a loss of 25 percent of the P20s. The cleaner con-
centrate analyzed, in percent, 31.4 P205, 48.6 CaO, 1.4 MgO, 6.6 CO?,
and 1.9 acid insoluble material and accounted for 68 percent of the
phosphate fed to the flotation circuit. The high MgO content i3
attributed to the fact that dolomite was locked within the phosphor-
ite grains in the larger screen fractions of this sample. A summation1
of results is shown in tables 5 and 6 and Appendix E.

BRADLEY JUNCTION #1, METHOD 2
Method 2 was similar to method 1 except the ground product
was scrubbed to disaggregate the soft gangue material and to clean
the phosphate mineral surfaces. Scrubbing was done in the flote-
tion cell and replaced the carbonate float. A secondary slime (minus;
400-mesh) was then removed. The pulp was conditioned with th,
fatty acid-mineral oil mixture at a natural pH and a rougher phos-
phate concentrate was floated and cleaned eight times. The cleane*
phosphate concentrate analyzed, in percent, 30.5 P205, 48.0 CaO,
1.3 MgO, 8.7 C02, and 2.0 acid insoluble material and accounted fo:












TABLE 5.-Flotation test data for Bradfey Junction #1, Method 1

Analysis, percent Distribution, percent
Product Weight
Percent
PaOs CaO MgO CO Insol. P2Os CaO MgO CO Insol.

Phos. conc......................................................... 8.9 31.4 48.6 1.4 6.6 1.9 45.1 18.3 1.2 2.6 0.5
Cleanertails................................................ 14.5 8.2 28.3 11.5 27.6 22.6 19.1 17.4 15.5 17.7 10.5
Roughertails.............................................. 18.1 0.7 2.4 0.7 1.2 95.0 2.0 1.9 1.2 1.0 55.0
Thickener overflow..................................... 3.9 5.7 24.7 12.8 27.8 22.5 3.6 4.1 4.6 4.8 2.8
Carbonate con................................................. 7.8 3.9 28.6 16.5 35.6 13.0 4.9 9.4 11.9 12.3 3.2
Minus 400 mesh secondary slimes ................ 15.1 6.0 27.5 14.0 28.6 18.4 14.6 17.6 19.6 19.1 8.9
Minus400 mesh primary slimes........................ 31.7 2.1 23.3 15.7 30.3 18.9 10.7 31.3 46.0 42.5 19.1
Composite................................................ 100.0 6.2 23.6 10.8 22.6 31.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0







48 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


















TABLE 6.-Reagent scheme for Bradley Junction #1, Method 1

Reagents used, lb./ton: point of addition

Reagent Carbonate flot. Phosphate
flot.
Grind
Cond. Cond. Flot. Cond. Flot.

Sodium hydroxide ---- 5.0
Sodium carbonate. --...... 0.5
Starch --..... 0.5
Emulsion No. 1 -----.. 0.5
Oleic acid _____ -----.. 0.32
Fuel oil 0.48----. 0.48

Time, min. 6.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.0
Temp., C. 25
pH -----10.1
'Emulsion No. 1 is 1 percent fatty acid, 0.25 percent sodium hydroxide, and 0.05i
percent pine oil.







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


S7 percent of the phosphate fed to the flotation circuit. Summation
f results is shown in tables 7 and 8 and in Appendix E.

MOSLEY #1, METHOD 1
The process included crushing, grinding, classifying, condi-
tioning, and flotation as in Bradley Junction #1, Method 1. The
reagent suite and flotation conditions were the same as in table 6
except that the quantities of fatty acid and mineral oil were doubled
to 0.64 and 0.96 pounds per ton of feed, respectively. A rougher
phosphate concentrate was floated and cleaned eight times. The
cleaner concentrate analyzed, in percent, 29.7 P20s, 47.1 CaO, 0.9
MgO, 5.5 CO2, and 3.3 acid insoluble material, and accounted for 60
percent of the total phosphate fed to the flotation circuit. A summa-
tion of results is shown in tables 9 and 10 in Appendix E.

MOSLEY #1, METHOD 2
The process included crushing, grinding, scrubbing, classify-
ing, conditioning, and flotation as in Bradley Junction #1, Method 2.
A rougher phosphate concentrate was floated and cleaned six
times. The cleaner concentrate analyzed, in percent, 28.9 P205, 45.6
CaO, 1.5 MgO, 7.8 CO2, and 3.5 acid insoluble material, and
accounted for 51 percent of the the total phosphate fed to the flota-
tion circuit. A summation of results is shown in tables 11 and 12 and
in Appendix E.
The phosphate recoveries in the flotation circuit of the four
tests were low. A range of 29 to 40 percent of the phosphate feed to
the phosphate flotation circuit dropped out in the cleaner tails. In a
continuous flotation operation the cleaner tails could be recircu-
lated and some of this phosphate would probably be recovered.
Data from Appendix E show that there was not much difference
in the results of the two methods. The concentrates from both
methods contained about the same P205 content. However, method
' had a slightly higher recovery than method 2. The only advantage
4f either is that method 2 would be simpler because a scrubbing
Step would be simpler than a flotation step.

















TABLE T.-Flotation test data for Bradley Junction #1, Method 2

Analysis, percent Distribution, percent
Podut Weight
Product Percent
PiOs CaO MgO CO. Insol. PaOs CaO MgO CO= Insol.

Phos. conc......... ... ........................ 8.3 30.5 48.0 1.3 8.7 2.0 43.2 17.4 1.0 3.1 0.5
Cleaner tails .................................................. 21.6 8.1 27,8 15.1 34.4 16.1 29.9 26.3 29.6 32.0 11.0
Rougher tails ........ .................. ... 19.9 0.7 2.1 0.8 0.8 93.8 2.4 1.8 1.5 0.7 58.8
Minus400 mesh secondarygl1mes ................ 18.9 4.3 27.5 13.7 28.6 18.4 13.9 22.7 23.5 23.3 11.0
Minus400 mesh-priimaryslimes ............ 31.3 2.0 23.3 15.6 33 13 18.9 10.6 31.8 44.4 40.9 18.7
Composite ............ ........................... 100.0 5.9 22.9 11.0 -232 31.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
' includes scrub slimes.








REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 51





















TABLE 8.-Reagent scheme for Bradley Junction #1, Method 2

Reagents used, Ib./ton:
point of addition
Reagent
Grind Cond. Flot.

Sodium hydroxide.......................................................... 5.0
Oleic acid ........................................................................--------------------------------0.64
Fuel oil ........................................................................----------------- 0.96
Time, min ........................................................................ 6.0 3.0 3.0
Temp., C ........................................................................ 24
pH .................................... .............. ......... ..... ----. 9.1


















TABLE 9.-Flotation test data for Mosley #1, Method 1

Analysis, percent Distribution, percent
Product Weight -.-
Percent
P30i CaO MgO CO Insol. P.O. CaO MgO CO: Insol.

Phos. conc...................................................... 13.0 29.7 47.1 0.9 5.5 3.3 44.6 30.5 2.4 6.6 0.9
Cleaner tails ... ....................................... 14.4 15.3 26.5 1.9 5.7 41.2 25.4 19.0 5.7 7.6 12.2
Rougher talils................................................ 30.2 1.2 2.1 0.2 0.4 95.1 4.2 3.1 1.3 1.1 58.9
Thickener overflow ................................ 3.0 10.1 23.8 6.5 13.1 31.3 3.5 3.6 4.0 3.6 1.9
Carbonate concept,. ................... 7.6 3.5 12.9 5.1 11.4 64.5 3.1 4.9 8.0 7.9 10.0
Minus 400 mesh secondary slimes................. 12.9 10.4 25.3 6.5 14.3 34.2 15.5 16.2 17.4 17.0 9.0
Minus 400 mesh primary slimes..................... 18.9 1.7 24.2 15.6 32.3 18.2 3.7 22.7 61.2 56.2 7.1
Composite......................................... ...... 100.0 8.7 20.1 4.8 10.8 48.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0








REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 53


















TABLE 10.-Reagent scheme for Mosley #1, Method 1

Reagents used, Ib./ton: point of addition

Reagent Carbonate flot. Phoshate
Grind
Cond. Cond. Flot. Cond. Flot.

Sodium hydroxide ............................... 5.0
Sodium carbonate... ...................................... 0.5
Starch ......................................... ......... 0.5
Emulsion No. 1 .................................... 0.6
Oleic acid .......................... ................ 0.64
Fuel oil ................ .......................... ....... 0.96
Time, min ........................................... 6.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Temp., C ..................................... .. 25
pH ..................................................... 10.7
'Emulsion No. 1 is 1 percent fatty acid, 0.25 percent sodium hydroxide, and 0.05
percent pine oil.

















TABLE 11.-Flotation test data for Mosley #1, Method 2

Analysis, percent Distribution, percent
Weight----------------\---\--
Product Percent
Pa,0 CaO MgO COi Insol. POs CaO MgO COi Insol.
Phos. conc. 12.0 28.9 45.6 1.5 7.8 3.5 39.8 27.6 3.8 8.2 0.8
Cleanertails. 17.0 15.6 27.9 2.9 8.1 36.7 30.4 23.9 10.4 12.1 13.1
Rougher tails. 35.2 1.8 3.4 0.4 2.1 92.2 7.3 6.0 3.0 6.5 68.4
Minus 400 mesh secondary slimes ... 16.9 9.8 23.5 6.5 13.7 30.4 19.0 20.0 23.2 20.3 10.8
Minus 400 mesh primary slimes... 18.9 1.6 23.6 14.9 31.9 17.4 3.5 22.5 59.6 52.9 6.9
Composite -- -. 100.0 8.7 19.8 4.7 11.4 47.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
'Includes scrub slimes.








REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 55





















TABLE 12.-Reagent scheme for Mosley #1, Method 2

Reagents used, Ib./ton:
point of addition
Reagent
Grind Cond. Flot.

Sodium hydroxide .................................................................... 5.0
Oleic acid.............................................................................. 0.64
Fuel oil ................................................................................. 0.96
Time, min................................................................................... 6.0 3.0 3.0
Temp., C ................................................................................... 25
pH ............................................................................................... 9.0






56 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY

SUMMARY
Characterization of the Hawthorn Formation drill cores showed
the presence of phosphate. The 10-foot core intervals ranged in
P205 content from 0.2 percent to 15.4 percent with an area average
of 3.6 percent. The study showed that gangue minerals associated
with the phosphate included quartz, clay, and carbonate.
Screen analysis of the cores indicated that much of the clay
and carbonate was contained in the minus 400-mesh slimes. Scrub-
bing-desliming or flotation helped to selectively remove some of
the remaining carbonate. Heavy liquid separation studies indicated
that a phosphate concentrate could be produced that contained up
to 30 percent P20s. However, to reach this grade by flotation
required an excessive number of cleaning steps and subsequently
low recoveries of the phosphate resulted. The feasibility of recover-
ing the phosphate in the Hawthorn Formation will be dependent
upon a successful method to separate carbonate from the phos-
phate in the flotation feed or the concentrate.







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 57


REFERENCES
*,athcart, J. B., and Gulbrandsen, R. A., 1973, Phosphate Deposits, Ch. in U.S. Min.
Res. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 820, p. 521.
-all, W. H., and Harris, G. D., 1892, Correlation paper-Neocene: U.S. Geological Sur-
vey Bull. 84, 349 pp.
Cellars, M. E., and Williams, J. M. (Zellars-Williams, Inc.), 1978. Evaluation of the Phos-
phate Deposits of Florida Using the Minerals Availability System. Final
Report. BuMines Open File Report 112-78, Contract J0377000, P. 57; PB 286
6481AS.





58 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


APPENDIX A
CORE HOLE PHYSICAL DATA





60 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY




Appendix A-Core hole physical data


Name


Crewsville #1 .....
Sweetwater ....... .......
Tropical River Groves....-
Bevis #1 ._
Morgan #1 and #1A.......
Mosley #1 ........ .....
James #1......... ..
Sarasota #1 ...............
Sarasota #2....................


County


Hardee............
Hardee-...........
DeSoto............
DeSoto..........
DeSoto...........
Hardee..............
Hardee ..............
Sarasota ............
Sarasota...........


Sarasota #3................... Sarasota..........
Sarasota #3A .................. Sarasota ...........
Sarasota #4................. Sarasota ...........
Sarasota #4A............... Sarasota ...........


Hart #1A .......................
Chapman #1 ................
Griffin #1 .....................
M. H. McLeod #1 ..............
Tomilson #1 ....................
Gardinler #1 ......................


Hardee ...............
Hardee ...............
Hardee ..............
Hardee ...............
Hardee ...............
Polk .................


Agrlco #1 ....................... Polk...................


David #1 .....................
New Zion #1.................
Bradley Junction #1.........


Hillsborough.....
Hardee..............4
Polk...................
w f 7777"afi


I No number assigned.
*Florida Bureau of Geology well numbers.


Location


NW/4 SE4 S. 23, T35S, R27E........
SEI/4 NW/4 S. 3, T36S, R26E ..........
NW NW S. 4, T37E, R27E.................
SW NW S. 30, T37S, R26E......
SE SE NW4 S.34, T37S, R 24 E....
NW/4 SE3/ S. 15, T36S, R24E.... ....
NW NW S. 27, T34S, R24E ..........
NW NW S. 21, T38S, R22E..................
20 ft. W of Sarasota #1;
Same loc. as #1.
NW NW S. 22, T37S, R20E,
Myakka River State Park.
Same Ioc. as #3;
10 ft. S. of Sarasota #3.
NE SE S. 6, T38S, R21E
Ringling Tract.
NE SE S. 6, T38S, R21E;
50 ft. E of Sarasota #4.
NW SW S. 28, T34S, R25E ................
SW SW S. 27, T33S, R25E..................
NE NW S. 19, T35S, R25E ................
SW SW S. 20, T33S, R24E.................
NE NW S. 25, T35S, R23E....................
SW NW S. 21, T32S, R25E
Bowling
Green Quad.
NW SW S. 26, T32S, R23E Baird
Quad.
SW SW S. 9, T32S, R22E................
SE SW S. 15, T34S, R23E.....................
SW NE S. 11, T31S, R23E....................


FEET


Core
No.*


12906
12907
12908
12909
12948
12942
12985
12983
12984

(1)
13018
(1)
13073
13078
13107
13238
13237
13245

12957
13331
13333
13334


Elevation


94
87
91 (topo)
66
56
75
102 (topo)
34 (topo)
34 (topo)
15


32 (topo)
32
50
58
35
115
80
105

127
105
110
135


Total
depth


318
300
303
300
300
300
250
222
202
302
145
202
207
206
202
202
202
202
201

200
165
198
180


Cored


169-318
131-300
110-303
92-300
57-300
55-300
94-252
45-214
43-202
76-302
76-145
23-202
40-207
17-202
11-202
13-202
43-202
45-202
40-201

35-200
51-165
115-198
0-180


Core
length


149
169
193
208
243
245
158
169
159
226
69
179
167
185
191
189
159
'157
161


165
114
83
180





62 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


APPENDIX B
P20sVALUES OF HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORES





64 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 65





Appendix B-P20O values of Hawthorn
Formation drill cores

Core No. and Name Interval, feet Percent P0Os

12906-Crewsville #1..................... 169-175 4.3
do....................... ........... 175-185 7.0
do .......................................... 185-195 6.2
do ......................................... 195-206 5.5
do .......................................... 206-217 6.3
do......................................... 217-228 1.4
do ................................... ........ 228-238 2.1
do ......................................... 238-248 2.6
do................................... 248-260 5.1
do ......................................... 260-271 2.5
do ........................................ 271-290 .8
do........................................... 290-300 3.4
do ........................................... 300-312 2.8
do .......................................... 312-318 1.3
12907-Sweetwater #1................. 131-142 3.7
do ............................................ 142-152 5.1
do ........................................... 152-162 7.8
do ........................................... 162-172 5.2
do ........................................... 172-184 5.2
do ....................................... 184-192 1.3
do ........................................... 192-210 3.8
do .......................................... 210-220 1.5
do ......................................... 220-230 3.2
do ......................................... 230-240 2.3
do ........................................... 240-252 2.4
do ........................................... 252-262 2.5
do ........................................... 262-272 2.3
do ........................................... 272-282 1.8
do ............................................. 282-292 .8
do ........................................... 292-300 .7
12908-Tropical River Groves ....... 110-122 8.3
do ......................................... 122-132 7.6
do ........................................... 132-142 3.9
do ........................................... 142-152 5.2
do ........................................... 152-162 5.8
do .......................................... 162-172 5.5
do ........................................... 172-182 6.9
do ........................................... 182-192 7.4
do ........................................... 192-202 5.0
do ........................................ 202-212 5.1
do ......................................... 212-222 7.8
do ........................................... 222-232 1.7
do ......................................... 232-242 1.5
do ........................................... 242-253 .9
do ....................................... 253-263 3.6
do ........................................ 263-273 3.1
do ....................................... 273-283 1.0
do.......................................... 283-293 .9
do ....................... ................. 293-303 .3






BUREAU OF GEOLOGY











Appendix B-P205 values of Hawthorn
Formation drill cores-Continued


Core No. and Name

12909- Bevis #1 .......................
do .. .. ............
do. ___ _.. ....
do ..........................
do .....~................
do ______
do ...................... ..... ......
do ..............................
do ._ .._......... ..................
do .....................................
d o - - -
do ... .. .....................
do .........................
do ... ... ...............
do ..... ...._.....................




do- ..... ........
do _______ ...__....
do
do .............
do ...................................
do __ey ................
do.-- -- ---

do. ... ...................
do ...................... ..............

do ........
do ..... .....................
do ..
do .... ...........
do4 .. M .e ...................
do ............ ....................
do .. .. ...............
do .... ......................
do ...... .....................
do ..... ... ...............
do --.-...----. ......-
do .. ......... ... .................
do .........................
do
do .. .... .............................





do _... .... ............
do .. ...................


Interval, feet Percent P20i

92-102 4.7
102-124 6.2
124-134 4.3
134-144 4.2
144-154 4.4
154-164 3.5
164-174 4.9
174-184 6.3
184-194 6.1
194-204 3.5
202-214 6.0
214-224 4.2
224-236 .5
236-247 .9
247-259 1.1
259-269 2.7
269-279 3.5
279-289 1.7
289-300 2.0
55- 59 8.5
59- 68 8.1
68- 80 9.6
80- 88 4.2
88- 98 4.0
98-108 4.5
108-118 2.6
118-128 4.4
128-138 4.5
138-148 4.3
148-158 5.6
158-168 6.6
168-179 5.7
179-189 2.3
189-199 .8
199-209 1.1
209-219 1.4
219-229 1.8
229-238 1.7
238-248 1.8
248-260 2.9
260-272 1.9
272-282 2.4
282-291 2.1
291-300 1.2


____________________________________I_________







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 67





Appendix B-P205 values of Hawthorn
Formation drill cores-Continued

Core No. and Name Interval, feet Percent P20s

12948- Morgan #1.......................... 57- 65 4.2
do ........................................... 65- 73 3.1
do ......................................... 73- 82 3.3
do ............................................ 82- 90 1.5
do .......................................... 90- 98 7.0
do ........................................... 98-106 7.1
do ............................................. 106-111 3.7
do .......................................... 111-127 4.7
do ............................................. 127-137 6.6
do ............................................ 137-147 3.1
do ............................................. 147-157 1.6
do ............................................ 157-167 3.9
do ............................................. 167-177 6.3
do ............................................. 177-187 5.4
do ............................................. 187-197 3.7
do ............................................. 197-207 4.2
do ............................................. 207-218 1.5
do ............................................. 218-228 1.5
do ............................................. 228-238 2.2
do ............................................. 238-248 1.1
do ............................................. 248-258 1.2
do ............................................ 258-272 1.7
do ............................................ 272-286 .4
do ............................................. 286-300 .4
NNA'-Sarasota #1 ........................ 45- 57 4.0
do ........................................... 57- 69 4.5
do ............................................. 69- 77 1.9
do ............................................. 77- 87 3.0
do ............................................ 87-103 4.2
do ........................................... 103-117 2.2
do ........................................... 117-128 1.1
do .........................-.......... ....... 128-137 1.2
do ............................................. 140-152 2.7
do ............................................. 152-166 3.8
do ............................................. 166-178 5.9
do ............................................. 178-189 3.1
do ............................................. 189-202 2.0
do ....................................... ..... 202-214 1.6
12983-Sarasota #2...................... 43- 58 2.7
do ............................................ 58- 71 3.8
do ............................................ 71- 84 2.7
do ............................................ 84- 99 4.0
do .......................................... 95-111 2.4
do .....................-........................ 111-122 1.7
do ......................................... 111-122 1.0
do ............................................. 122-136 1.0
do ........................................... 136-147 2.6
do ........................................... 147-162 3.6
do --......................-.-----..------- 162-176 4.9
do ..................... .................. 176-188 3.0
do .......................................... 188-202 2.1

' No number assigned.







68 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY




Appendix B-P205 values of Hawthorn
Formation drill cores-Continued

Core No. and Name Interval, feet Percent P20O

12984-Sarasota # ......... 76- 89 1.3
do .. .. ............... 8.89- 95 1.6
do ___ ......... 95-107 3.1
do _____---...... 107-122 1.4
do. ___ ............. 122-131 1.5
do ... .................................... 131-139 1.7
do ............-.................. 139-148 .5
do _____ ....... ..... 148-161 1.3
do .____-_ ... 161-170 3.2
do. ----. 170-177 3.6
do. ............ 177-186 1.9
do --___----- ..186-200 3.8
do ................ 200-210 1.9
do. ---.......... 210-222 2.3
do 222-235 3.0
do- .. .......... 235-247 2.0
do.. ................. 247-257 .9
do. .... ......... 257-271 .5
do ____271-282 2.0
do ...................... 282-292 1.6
do ____292-302 .6
12985-James #1. _. .. 94-102 6.1
do ........................ 102-111 4.9
do ___111-120 6.1
do. ------ 120-133 6.1
do ____...... ........ .. 133-144 4.0
do _____ 144-154 2.4
do _____ 154-165 3.8
do .. ..................... 165-177 3.4
do ...... .......... 177-186 7.0
do .. .................. 186-195 8.7
do ..... ......... .. 195-208 2.3
do .................................. 208-220 3.1
do __ ...... .- ...220-230 .7
do. ...... 230-244 .7
do. .......... 244-252 1.2
13018-Sarasota #4 -........ 23- 31 4.8
do. __..31- 38 1.9
do __..... 38- 41 3.2
do ...................... 41- 52 .9
do _......... 52- 62 2.8
do -----........- 62- 72 1.2
do. o.. .. 72- 82 1.9
do --...... 82- 93 .2
do__ 9___ ...93-104 .5
do ............................. 104-118 2.3
do .................................. 118-127 2.0
do. 127-139 3.1
do. ..... 139-151 2.4
do. ..._._._ ........ 151-166 .3
do ... ....... 166-178 1.1
do .... 178-190 .5
do. .. 1................. 190-202 .4








REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 69




Appendix B-P20s values of Hawthorn
Formation drill cores-Continued

Core No. and Name Interval, feet Percent P205

13073-Hart #1A .......................... 17- 26 3.1
do ......................................... 26- 39 4.4
do ............................................ 39- 52 4.4
do ........................................ 52- 64 3.9
do ........................................... 64- 76 5.4
do ............................................. 76- 89 4.7
do .......................................... 89-105 3.8
do ..................................... 105-115 1.2
do ....................... .................. 115-126 1.9
do ............................................. 126-138 2.0
do ........................................... 138-150 5.8
do .......................................... 150-161 8.5
do ........................................... 161-173 5.0
do ............................................. 173-184 2.9
do .......................................... 184-190 3.3
do .............. ....... ... ....... 190-202 2.6
13078-Chapman #1 .................... 11- 20 8.2
do ........................................... 20- 27 5.0
do ........................................... 27- 40 3.3
do ....................................... 40- 51 4.4
do ........................................... 51- 62 3.1
do ........................................... 62- 79 7.8
do ............................................. 79- 92 4.1
do ........................................... 92-103 2.5
do ............................................ 103-115 4.3
do ............................................. 115-122 1.2
do ....................................... ..... 122-138 3.1
do ........................................... 138-150 2.1
do ............................................. 150-164 3.4
do ............................................. 164-176 2.4
do ........................................... 176-189 2.6
do ............................................ 189-202 1.8
13107-Griffin #1 ............................ 13- 35 3.2
do ............................................. 35- 48 .9
do ............................................. 48- 59 4.7
do ............................................ 59- 66 5.3
do .......................................... 66- 71 5.8
do .......................................... 71- 84 3.7
do ........................................... 84- 92 1.9
do .......................-.................. 92- 98 4.5
do ............................................. 98-104 5.2
do ..............................-...... ---- 104-110 3.2
do .......................................... 110-120 2.5
do ....... -.........---...................... 120-133 4.3
do ............................................. 133-139 5.9
do ............................................ 139-145 4.4
do .-..... ..........-- .........---------- .. -- 145-151 3.4
do .....-... --.....- .... ........-------- ..... 151-156 5.2
do ............................................. 156-165 4.4
do ............................... .. 165-172 8.5
do -.............--...........---- ...... 172-181 2.4
do "-------------------------------- 17-18119 1.3
do ............................................. 181-192 1.3
do ............................................. 192-202 .3






70 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY








Appendix B-P205 values of Hawthorn
Formation drill cores-Continued

Core No. and Name Interval, feet Percent P2Os

13237-Tomilson #1 .---... 45- 77 3.4
do .... ............................ 77- 87 3.0
do. --..- 87- 99 4.7
do.- 99-108 5.3
do ...... ... .................... 108-117 1.7
do ___ 117-126 1.7
do ______ -. 126-135 3.1
do _____--.-- 135-146 4.0
do __ .........146-152 4.1
do -_____ ........152-162 4.0
do ___.....162-174 7.3
do --. -....-.............. 174-184 2.8
do __. __ ..... 184-193 2.4
do _______ ..193-202 3.0
13238-M. H. McLeod #1 ..._ ... 43- 57 5.1
do, .... 57- 68 2.3
do ........................ 68- 77 3.7
do .. .... 77- 92 2.5
do., -..... 92-101 2.7
do _.__ 101-111 4.3
do. ..__ 111-119 4.3
do _____ -- 119-130 6.9
do ___130-140 3.2
do _____--____ .-140-149 1.1
do ____149-155 .8
do.___ -- .----...... 155-168 2.7
do o ............. 168-175 2.7
do ______ 175-182 2.3
do.- .182-195 2.6
do ____195-202 2.5
13245-Gardinier #1.ar# 40- 62 3.7
do .. 6............... 62- 74 3.2
do. -. 74- 82 3.2
do 82- 90 3.8
do _90-/98 6.2
do .____... 98- 106 5.7
do. 106-116 4.3
do _116-125 2.9
do ___.125-138 3.0
do ____. ...... 138-152 2.3
do _____152-164 3.4
do _______ 164-170 3.8
do ..... ... 170-177 4.2
do ...__ 177-187 2.8
do 187-201 3.1







REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91 71












Appendix B-P20s values of Hawthorn
Formation drill cores-Continued

Core No. and Name Interval, feet Percent P205

12957-Agrico #1............................ 35- 49 12.7
do ............................................. 49- 65 2.5
do ............................................ 65- 74 2.4
do ........................................... 74- 79 6.6
do ............................................ 79- 88 4.4
do ..--------... ...-..---.....--..---- .. 88-100 4.0
do ......... ............................... 100-112 3.1
do .......................................... 112-119 2.5
do ....................................... 119-132 3.3
do -......................................... 132-139 1.8
do .............. .----------........ 139-148 1.6
do .......................................... 148-158 .9
do ......................................... 158-170 1.1
do ........................-........... 170-179 1.4
do ............................................ 179-188 1.5
do ............................................ 188-200 2.2
13331-David #1 ....................... 51- 72 3.3
do ................. ..................... 72- 87 7.5
do .......................................... 87- 92 12.9
do .................. ..................... 92-112 6.6
do ..................................... 112-152 3.0
do ............................................ 152-165 1.8
13333- New Zion #1 ..-..-.......... ------ 115-126 4.1
do ....................................... 126-136 2.4
do -......................................... 136-150 4.9
do ---.. ----..... ------.......------ 150-151.5 3.7
do .......................................... 151.5-153 6.2
do ............................................ ito -154 6.8
do ................................... 154-155 5.1
do ................-------.... ----- 155-156 6.7
do ...........-.... ............... 156-157 4.3
do ....................------------- 157-158 3.3
do ...................................... 158-159 4.2
do ....................................... 159-160 4.5
do ...................... -....-....... 160-171 3.2
do .........-..-------.........------ --....... 171-185 2.4
do ......................................--. 185-198 2.9





72 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY










Appendix B-P20s values of Hawthorn
Formation drill cores-Continued


Core No. and Name Interval, feet Percent P2Os

13334-Bradley Junction #1.......... 0- 10 .7
do. -.. ..... 10- 20 1.2
do .. ............. ... 20- 30 8.1
do ... ............. 30- 40 10.1
do. ___40- 50 15.4
do. ...... 50- 61 5.1
do _____61- 73 4.0
do ______.__ 73- 83 4.9
do ___________....... 83- 96 8.1
do. ._____. .... 96- 97 7.9
do ____. .... 97- 98 8.2
do ____ .98- 99 5.2
do ................. 99-100 3.2
do. ............... 100-101 17.8
do _____ ......101-102 16.7
do .-... 102-103 3.4
do. .. 103-104 9.1
do.. ... 104-105 3.2
do ___. 105-106 2.4
do ___106-107 4.6
do... ... 107-108 7.2
do.. ....... 108-109 8.5
do ____..109-110 5.1
do ____110-111 .9
do 111-112 5.4
do 112-124 4.1
do _____ ---- 124-138 3.4
do ....... ............. 138-139 5.4
do ______ .....139-140 3.1
do ___140-141 4.0
do ____141-142 6.2
do._ 142-143 3.8
do .. ........... ................... 143-144 1.1
do .. 144-145 11.9
do _____.- 145-146 1.8
do. .... .. 146-147 3.1
do. 147-148 1.7
do. .148-149 1.1
do ___.149-159 3.3
do ____ 159-172 1.2
do ...._____ ._ .. ..... 172-180 .2





REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


APPENDIX C
SCREEN ANALYSIS OF HAWTHORN FORMATION
DRILL CORE COMPOSITE SECTIONS






74 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY




%4AWTH-ORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CO.,i NO. 12907, SWEETWATER #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2275
INTERVAL IN FEET 131.0 TO 184.0


SCREEN SIZE ANA
WEIGHT


GRAMS
16.90
23.70
17.90
17.60
22.20
40.50
57.20
25.50
63.50
179.40
464.40


PERCENT
3.6
5.1
3.9
3.8
4.8
8.7
12.3.
5.5
13.7
38.6
100.0


L~YSIS

P205
5.60
5.20
6.60
5.90
8.20
11.00
18.20
14.10
2.00
0.50
5.78
5.30


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAD MGO C02
33.60 13.70 34.10
31.50 14.30 33.00
31.80 12.80 32.10
31.00 11.90 30.50
28.60 8.60 23.00
24.00 3.50 10.50
30.70 2.10 7.70
31.80 5.60 14.80
32.70 16.70 41.60
26.00 15.70 33.00
28.73 11.80 27.53
29.40 12.00 19.70


INSOL
8.70
11.80
12.80
15.90
27.20
46.00
36.00
26.80
6.20
13.70
19.37
20.10


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02.
3.5 4.3 4.2 4.5
4.6 5.6 6.2 6.1
4.4 4.3 4.2 4.5
3.9 4.1 3.8 4.2
6.8 4.8 3.5 4.0
16.6 7.3 2.6 3.3
38.8 13.2 2.2 3.4
13.4 6.1 2.6 3.0
4.7 15.6 19.3 20.7
3.3 34.7 51.4 46.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12906, CREWSVILLE #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2274
INTERVAL .IN FEET'169.0 TO 217.0

SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS


WEIGHT
GRAMS PERCENT
12.60 2.9
24.70 5.6
20.00 4.5
20.20 4.6
23.20 5.2
39.70 9.0
36.80 8.3
16.90 3.8
69.70 15.8
178.30 40.3
442.10 100.0


P205
8.86
7.58
8.97
10.70
12.84
13.98
17.11
11.76
1.44
1.63
6.26
5.90


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAD MGO C02
36.50 12.10 33.70
36.70 12.70 33.30
34.80 11.10 28.20
34.50 9.20 24.10
32.40 6.60 18.80
27.30 2.80 9.80
31.30 3.00 8.90
32.50 7.80 19.40
32.70 17.50 39.80
28.30 15.40 32.10
30.81 12.09 27.77
31.00 12.70 29.50


INSOL
5.60
6.50
10.80
1.00
22.90
40.80
30.50
20.60
3.50
12.50
15.48
15.40


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAD MGO C02
4.0 3.4 2.6 3.5
6.8 6.7 5.9 6.7
6.5 5.1 4.2 4.6
7.8 5.1 3.5 4.0
10.8 5.5 2.9 3.4
20.1 8.0 2.1 3.2
22.7 8.5 2.1 2.7
7.2 4.0 2.5 2.7
3.6 16.7 22.8 22.6
10.5 37.0 51.4 46.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
1.6
3.1
2.6
3.1
6.7
20.7
22.9
7.6
4.4
27.3
100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
1.0
2.2
3.2
4.4
7.8
23.7
16.4
5.1
3.6
32.6
100.0









HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12908, TROPICAL RIVER GROVE DESOTO CO
ORE NUMBER 2276
INTERVAL IN FEET 110.0 TO 222.0


SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS
WEIGHT
GRAMS PERCENT P205
17.00 3.8 6.30
25.60 5.7 6.50
19.20 4.3 7.80
26.80 6.0 7.30
32.30 7.2 11.30
43.70 9.8 12.80
40.00 9.0 16.30
21.50 4.8 13.90
31.90 7.1 3.70
189.40 42.3 1.70
447.40 100.0 6.56
5.60


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAD MGO C02
40.80 6.80 31.50
38.00 7.00 29.70
36.80 6.40 26.60
32.60 5.10 21.60
30.60 4.00 16.60
28.20 2.10 10.00
32.70 2.00 9.30
32.40 2.80 12.70
34.50 11.40 34.50
40.90 10.70 33.70
36.48 7.39 25.67
34.30 7.70 21.80


INSOL
9.50
12.20
16.80
25.40
31.20
40.10
31.70
30.40
13.00
12.60
20.03
19.80


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAD MGO COe
3.6 4.1 3.5 4.7
5.7 6.0 5.4 6.6
5.1 4.3 3.7 4.4
6.7 5.4 4.2 5.0
12.4 6.1 3.9 4.7
19.1 7.6 2.8 3.8
22.2 8.0 2.4 3.2
10.2 4.3 1.8 2.4
4.0 6.7 11.0 9.6
11.0 47.5 61.3 55.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12909, BEVIS #1 DESOTO CO
ORE NUMBER 2277
INTERVAL IN FEET 92.0 TO 214.0


SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS
WEIGHT


GRAMS PERCENT
16.30 4.2
18.60 4.8
13.60 3.5
18.80 4.9
27.60 7.1
45.80 11.9
31.50 8.2
21.10 5.5
35.30 9.1
157.50 40.8
386.10 100.0


P205
5.50
5.60
6.10
7.60
8.80
9.70
13.80
11. 00
2.40
1.10
5.26
6.70


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAD MGO Ce0
35.28 11.40 26.82
36.18 11.20 26.20
35.13 10.55 22.08
32.59 8.35 15.27
26.01 4.65 5.97
21.23 2.28 2.06
27.21 2.21 2.06
29.00 4.45 3.91
33.04 14.15 27.57
28.85 12.90 30.24
29.03 9.38 19.82
32.70 10.30 26.30


INSOL
8.99
9.79
12.72
21.38
40.97
54.04
42.27
36.64
10.09
14.98
24.16
23.10


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAD MGO CO2
4.4 5.1 5.1 5.7
5.1 6.0 5.8 6.4
4.1 4.3 4.0 3.9
7.0 5.5 4.3 3.8
12.0 6.4 3.5 2.2
21.9 8.7 2.9 1.2
21.4 7.6 1.9 0.8
11.4 5,5 2.6 1.1
4.2 10.4 13.8 12.7
8.5 40.5 56.1 62.2
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 460
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
1.8
3.5
3.6
7.6
11.2
19.6
14.2
7.3
4.6
26.6
100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
!:1. I=An .LC


INSOL
1.6
1.9
1.9
4.3
12.1
26.5
14.3
8.3
3.8
25.3
100.0




P'4NTPORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12942, MOSLEY #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2278
INTERVAL IN FEET 55.0 TO 80.0

SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS


PERCENT
4.6
8.4
11.7
25.3
14.3
6.6
4.0
1.4
1.3
22.4
100.0


WEIGHT


P205
21.30
17.00
12.30
9.70
10.30
8.40
4.80
7.30
8.40
1.30
9.01
8.70


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO Ce0
36.03 2.53 7.20
29.03 2.20 5.14
19.58 1.27 3.50
15.55 0.74 2.26
16.59 0.66 2.06
13.01 0.79 2.06
8.37 0.75 2.06
12.71 1.78 4.32
24.97 8.80 19.65
21.98 15.05 31.27
19.30 4.33 9.58
19.73 4.69 9.67


HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12948, MORGAN #1A DESOTO CO
ORE NUMBER 2284
INTERVAL IN FEET 90.0 TO 106.0

SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS


WEIGHT
GRAMS PERCENT
3.80 0.9
5.80 1.3
6.70 1.5
16.20 3.7
38.30 8.6
119.50 27.0
56.40 12.7
8.40 1.9
24.20 5.5
163.30 36.9
442.60 100.0


P205
17.00
16.40
14.80
11.90
11.00
11.60
17.60
10.40
2.10
1.20
8.10
7.60


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAD MGO C02
38.28 7.20 17.60
36.78 6.40 16.78
34.24 6.40 17.81
29.00 5.80 15.35
25.86 5.40 13.30
21.08 1.77 4.71
29.30 1.36 4.91
28.41 7.00 16.17
31.99 17.40 39.29
25.71 16.60 33.15
25.83 8.78 18.94
25.71 8.30 18.78


INSOL
9.80
11.17
17.31
31.43
39.31
54.27
38.51
34.55
9.71
16.40
31.84
31.63


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
10.9 8.6 2.7 3.5
15.6 12.4 4.2 4.4
16.0 11.9 3.4 4.3
27.2 20.4 4.3 6.0
16.4 12.3 2.2 3.1
6.2 4.4 1.2 1.4
2.1 1.7 0.7 0.9
1.2 1.1 0.6 0.6
1.2 1.7 2.7 2.7
3.2 25.5 78.0 73.1
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
1.8 1.3 0.7 0.8
2.7 1.9 1.1 1.2
2.8 2.0 1.1 1.4
5.4 4.1 2.4 3.0
11.6 8.7 5.3 6.1
38.7 22.0 5.4 6.7
27.7 14.4 2.0 3.3
2.4 2.1 1.5 1.6
1.4 6.8 10.8 11.3
5.5 36.7 69.7 64.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


INSOL
19.09
33.86
55.92
66.22
65.39
71.22
81.60
68.02
31.22
19.18
50.01
49.32


GRAMS
22.00
39.30
55.90
120.40
68.30
31.40
19.10
6.90
6.30
106.80
476.40


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X.28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
'COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
1.8
5.6
13.1
33.5
18.7
9.4
6.5
2.0
0.8
8.6
100.0


INSOL
0.3
0.5
0.8
3.6
10.7
46.0
15.4
2.0
1.7
19.0
100.0









HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12957, AGRICO #1 POLK CO
ORE NUMBER 2310
INTERVAL IN FEET 35.0 TO 49.0

SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS


WEIGHT
GRAMS PERCENT
5.70 2.5
11.90 5.2
22.20 9.6
52.20 22.6
46.00 19.9
23.10 10.0
4.70 2.0
9.20 4.0
7.50 3.3
48.30 20.9
230.80 100.0


P205
24.30
21.40
19.10
17.10
16.00
16.00
15.70
4.20
4.40
2.20
13.29
13.10


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
38.72 1.13 5.31
34.98 1.04 4.46
30.80 0.68 3.82
26.91 0.65 3.18
24.82 0.60 2.65
25.27 0.56 2.76
25.27 0.90 2.86
6.88 0.41 0.95
7.33 0.42 0.84
4.78 4.20 0.84
21.31 1.40 2.55
21.38 2.54 3.31


INSOL
19.57
28.04
36.99
45.31
49.22
49.13
47.01
84.40
83.29
60.81
50.22
48.91


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P20S CAO MGO CO2
4.5 4.5 2.0 5.1
8.3 8.5 3.8 9.0
13.8 13.9 4.7 14.4
29.1 28.5 10.5 28.2
24.0 23.2 8.6 20.7
12.0 11.9 4.0 10.8
2.4 2.4 1.3 2.3
1.3 1.3 1.2 1.5
1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1
3.5 4.7 62.9 6.9
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12985, JAMES #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2285
INTERVAL IN FEET 94.0 TO 133.0


SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS
WEIGHT


GRAMS
26.30
27.60
21.30
37.00
55.40
53.00
15.40
29.90
11.10
205.20
482.20


PERCENT
5.4
5.7
4.4
7.7
11.5
11.0
3.2
6.2
2.3
42.6
100.0


P2OS
12.00
9.00
7.30
9.90
11.10
13.30
14.60
7.40
1.80
1.30
6.51
S.~OC


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
36.48 11.00 22.55
41.71 14.00 29.17
30.50 14.80 38.48
26.16 9.00 17.58
21.98 4.00 7.86
24.97 3.00 6.41
31.54 5.60 11.17
26.61 11.20 21.52
28.26 19.60 40.44
26.31 19.00 37.35
27.51 12.94 26.07
25.86 11.85 24.86


INSOL
16.19
13.24
16.50
34.19
50.27
47.31
33.71
30.18
9.01
12.21
24.32
23.99


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
10.1 7.2 4.6 4.7
7.9 8.7 6.2 6.4
5.0 4.9 5.1 6.5
11.7 7.3 5.3 5.2
19.6 9.2 3.5 3.5
22.5 10.0 2.5 2.7
7.2 3.6 1.4. 1.4
6.9 6.0 5.4 5.1
0.6 2.4 3.5 3.6
8.5 40.7 62.5 60.9
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
1.0
2.9
7.1
20.4
19.5
9.8
1.9
6.7
5.4
25.3
100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
!C^. Ml .T ..P


INSOL
3.6
3.1
3.0
10.8
23.7
21.4
4.4
7.7
0.9
21.4
100.0




-' A'WTH-RN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 13073, HART #IA HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2292
INTERVAL IN FEET 138.0 TO 173.0


SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS


W.L m I


P205
6.30
6.20
7.00
9.30
14.30
19.10
14.70
9.00
4.50
1.80
6.94
7.00


HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 13078, CHAPMAN #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2291
INTERVAL-IN FEET 11.0 TO 27.0


SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS
WEIGHT
GRAMS PERCENT P205
27.40 6.0 4.50
38.30 8.2 5.50
35.80 7.8 9.30
72.30 15.8 12.20
67.20 14.7 12.80
42.90 9.4 17.10
7.20 1.6 13.00
5.60 1.2 7.90
15.00 3.3 2.70
146.90 32.0 1.30
458.60 100.0 7.66
7.40


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
29.60 17.60 33.24
29.90 16.20 30.17
27.06 10.40 19.08
25.42 5.00 9.64
23.32 2.65 6.57
30.05 2.70 6.77
29.75 7.80 14.98
25.86 12.80 20.11
29.30 19.00 38.17
27.81 19.40 38.37
27.26 11.76 23.13
28.41 12.40 22.43


INSOL
10.73
14.52
27.82
42.24
49.33
36.13
28.81
30.87
8.95
8.99
25.29
24.79


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO CO2
3.5 6.5 8.9 8.6
6.0 9.2 11.5 10.9
9.5 7.7 6.9 6.4
25.1 14.7 6.7 6.6
24.5 12.5 3.3 4.2
20.9 10.3 2.3 2.7
2.7 1.7 1.0 1.0
1.3 1.2 1.3 1.1
1.1 3.5 5.3 5.4
5.4 32.7 52.8 53.1
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
32.44 17.60 34.28
29.90 16.40 31.00
28.26 12.80 27.50
29.15 10.80 21.96
33.94 8.80 -17.03
35.58 4.80 10.26
29.15 4.60 10.06
25.71 8.40 17.24
28.26 16.60 30.58
27.36 19.40 35.71
29.62 14.71 28.08
31.10 14.60 27.30


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X. 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


GRAMS
48.70
46.70
32.00
36.70
25.40
44.80
25.00
6.50
20.10
177.70
463.60


PERCENT
10.5
10.1
6.9
7.9
5.5
9.7
5.4
1.4
4.3
38.3
100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO CO2
9.5 11.5 12.6 12.8
9.0 10.2 11.2 11.1
7.0 6.6 6.0 6.8
10.6 7.8 5.8 6.2
11.3 6.3 3.3 3.3
26.6 11.6 3.1 3.5
11.4 5.3 1.7 1.9
1.8 1.2 0.8 0.9
2.8 4.1 4.9 4.7
10.0 35.4 50.6 48.8
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


INSOL
4.0
7.9
10.2
12.7
6.5
12.8
11.7
3.0
4.0
27.2
100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
2.5
4.8
8.6
26.3
28.6
13.4
1.8
1.5
1.1
11.4
100.0


INSOL
6.15
12.59
23.83
25.87
18.99
21.22
34.85
34.60
14.93
11.43
16.09
16.50









HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 13107, GRIFFIN #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2306
INTERVAL IN FEET 48.0 TO 71.0


SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS
WEIGHT


GRAMS
5.00
7.00
4.80
10.20
58.00
185.70
46.70
24.90
15.30
80.70
438.30


PERCENT
1.1
1.6
1.1
2.3
13.
42.4
10.7
5.7
3.5
18.4
100.0


P205
9.70
9.00
9.70
7.60
5.00
6.50
7.80
5.10
4.80
1.80
5.57
5.30


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
37.23 5.20 20.53
33.19 4.70 19.40
24.67 4.30 12.48
16.30 2.23 6.29
9.27 0.67 2.27
10.61 0.47 1.86
13.75 0.65 2.27
13.60 1.36 3.09
15.55 4.90 10.11
14.80 8.70 16.09
12.83 2.44 5.65
12.11 2.60 5.10


INSOL
23.47
27.95
40.75
63.03
80.03
77.93
72.57
75.83
57.16
42.60
68.11
67.04


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO CO5
2.0 3.3 2.4 4.1
2.6 4.1 3.1 5.5
1.9 2.1 1.9 2.4
3.2 3.1 2.1 2.6
11.9 9.6 3.6 5.3
49.4 35.0 8.3 14.0
14.9 11.4 2.8 4.3
5.2 6.0 3.2 3.1
3.0 4.2 7.0 6.2
5.9 21.2 65.6 52.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 13245, GARDINIER #1 POLK CO
ORE NUMBER 2307
INTERVAL IN FEET 90.0 TO 106.0


SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS
WEIGHT


GRAMS
36.40
39.80
33.50
40.30
30.90
30.70
22.20
16.00
35.30
180.70
465.80


PERCENT
7.8
8.5
7.2
8.7
6.6
6.6
4.8
3.4
7.6
38.8
100.0


P205
6.90
7.00
7.60
8.50
11.10
15.30
15.20
8.70
2.30
2.00
6.14
6. 10


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
31.99 13.10 31.00
31.69 13.00 30.70
30.35 10.95 25.70
25.71 7.80 18.20
28.41 7.00 15.10
34.83 5.85 16.70
37.67 6.65 16.40
31.25 10.55 25.20
31.25 17.70 41.60
28.70 16.35 37.40
30.17 12.81 29.88
28.85 12.75 30.51


INSOL
12.19
13.07
21.73
36.13
33.14
24.45
20.94
22.08
6.20
11.72
17.34
16.82


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
8.8 8.3 8.0 8.1
9.8 9.0 8.7 8.8
8.9 7.2 6.1 6.2
12.0 7.4 5.3 5.3
12.0 6.2 3.6 3.4
16.4 7.6 3.0 3.7
11.8 6.0 2.5, 2.6
4.9 3.6 2.8 2.9
2.8 7.8 10.5 10.4
12.6 36.9 49.5 48.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
0.4
0.7
0.7
2.2
15.5
48.5
11.3
6.3
2.9
11.5
100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
'. '. .'C 2,.'.."L.


INSOL
5.5
6.4
9.0
18.0
12.7
9.3
5.8
4.4
2.7
26.2
100.0




i.I^ttTI4fP( FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 13331, DAVID #1 HILLSBOROUGH CO
ORE NUMBER 2314
INTERVAL IN FEET 72.0 TO 112.0


SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS
WEIGHT
GRAMS PERCENT P205
6.00 1.9 16.20
10.30 3.2 15.80
11.60 3.6 18.00
29.50 9.3 15.90
45.90 14.4 12.50
69.30 21.7 12.90
13.70 4.3 16.30
0.70 0.2 11.00
0.20 0.1 9.00
131.70 41.3 2.20
318.90 100.0 9.18
9.50


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
37.67 8.85 20.28
35.13 8.75 18.15
35.43 5.55 12.38
27.96 2.77 7.04
20.18 1.52 4.27
20.48 1.11 3.41
26.91 2.20 6.19
25.12 5.54 14.52
26.90 8.10 22.20
23.47 14.75 32.13
23.99 7.57 17.01
24.37 6.30 14.52


INSOL
9.30
11.50
11.37
38.56
57.03
58.00
41.35
40.76
35.70
17.87
34.61
36.60


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
3.3 3.0 2.2 2.2
5.6 4.7 3.7 3.4
7.1 5.4 2.7 2.7
16.0 10.8 3.4 3.8
19.6 12.1 2.9 3.6
30.5 18.5 3.2 4.4
7.6 4.8 1.1 1.6
0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
9.9 40.4 80.5 78.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 13333, NEW ZION #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2315
INTERVAL fN FEET 150.0 TO 160.0

SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS


WEIGHT
GRAMS PERCENT
20.60 7.2
23.40 8.2
17.20 6.2
22.80 8.0
19.40 6.8
24.50 8.6
13.20 4.6
6.30 2.2
8.40 3.0
128.50 45.2
284.30 100.0


P205
4.80
5.10
6.30
7.70
10.50
11.80
12.30
8.60
3.50
0.90
4.77
4.80


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
31.54 15.90 38.43
31.99 15.50 36.72
32.14 14.85 34.16
32.89 13.60 30.53
33.04 10.55 23.91
28.70 7.85 15.58
29.75 7.85 14.23
32.59 12.10 28.78
31.99 16.10 40.04
30.65 17.50 40.36
31.13 14.83 34.02
30.35 16.15 35.87


INSOL
5.39
5.66
6.78
10.50
16.45
28.65
26.44
12.16
4.40
3.59
8.95
9.47


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
7.3 7.3 7.8 8.2
8.8 8.5 8.6 8.9
8.0 6.4 6.1 6.1
12.9 8.5 7.2 7.2
15.0 7.2 4.9 4.8
21.3 7.9 4.6 3.9
12.0 4.4 2.5 1.9
4.0 2.3 1.8 1.9
2.2 3.0 3.2 3.5
8.5 44.5 53.3 53.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X .150
150 X 200
200 X.400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
0.5
1.1
1.2
10.3
23.7
36.4
5.1
0.3
0.1
21.3
100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
4.4
5.2
4.6
9.4
12.5
27.6
13.7
3.0
1.5
18.1
100.0








HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 13334, BRADLEY JCT #1 POLK CO
ORE NUMBER 2316
INTERVAL IN FEET 20.0 TO 96.0


SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS
WEIGHT


GRAMS
49.80
47.20
38.10
38.70
52.20
45.10
23.70
13.50
21.30
104.70
434.30


PERCENT
11.5
10.9
8.8
8.9
12.0
10.4
5.4
3.1
4.9
24.1
100.0


P205
6.90
6.80
7.20
8.80
8.60
11.00
6.60
4.80
2.60
1.70
6.17
6.00


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
29.60 14.90 28.78
28.10 14.75 28.37
27.36 13.25 25.45
23.47 7.95 15.02
19.88 4.90 8.34
22.13 4.00 7.93
16.30 5.55 10.01
18.54 9.55 16.27
24.52 18.35 32.64
22.13 18.45 30.76
23.63 12.13 21.85
22.87 11.05 23.21


INSOL
15.94
17.99
22.22
41.41
52.95
50.84
57.70
46.88
19.93
20.14
31.50
31.66


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAD MGO C02
12.8 14.4 14.1 15.1
12.0 12.9 13.2 14.1
10.2 10.2 9.6 10.2
12.7 8.8 5.8 6.1
16.8 10.1 4.9 4.6
18.5 9.7 3.4 3.8
5.8 3.8 2.5 2.5
2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3
2.1 5.1 7.4 7.3
6.7 22.6 36.7 34.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 13334, BRADLEY JCT #1 POLK CO
ORE NUMBER 2316
INTERVAL IN FEET 96.0 TO 112.0

SCREEN SIZE ANALYSIS


WEIGHT
GRAMS PERCENT
27.30 6.0
32.60 7.1
24.50 5.3
29.10 6.4
35.40 7.7
63.00 13.8
37.50 8.2
9.30 2.0
6.30 1.4
192.80 42.1
457.80 100.0


P205
4.80
5.10
7.50
10.30
11.30
13.30
16.40
14.30
8.30
2.50
7.21
S.00


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
27.51 16.70 30.74
27.36 17.55 30.45
28.55 15.35 27.43
26.45 10.05 18.56
22.72 4.25 10.12
22.87 2.68 6.78
28.11 2.20 6.57
29.60 4.85 11.89
26.91 9.70 22.32
26.01 15.95 34.41
25.93 11.53 23.94
22.87 11.05 23,..12


INSOL
20.17
17.66
19.83
31.74
46.48
49.16
41.51
34.53
29.24
14.99
26.72
31.66


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
4.0 6.3 8.6 7.7
5.0 7.5 10.8 9.1
5.6 5.9 7.1 6.1
9.1 6.5 5.5 4.9
12.1 6.8 2.9 3.3
25.4 12.1 3.2 3.9
18.6 8.9 1.6 2.2
4.0 2.3 0.9' 1.0
1.6 1.4 1.2 1.3
14.6 42.3 58.2 60.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
HEAD SAMPLE


INSOL
5.8
6.2
6.2
11.7
20.2
16.8
10.0
4.6
3.1
15.4
100.0


PRODUCT
14 X 20
20 X 28
28 X 35
35 X 48
48 X 65
65 X 100
100 X 150
150 X 200
200 X 400
-400 MESH
COMPOSITE
WMAFn AMDI


INSOL
4.5
4.7
4.0
7.6
13.5
25.3
12.7
2.6
1.5
23.6
100.0


WEIGH






REPORT OF INVESTIGATION NO. 91


APPENDIX D
HEAVY LIQUID SEPARATION DATA FOR HAWTHORN
FORMATION DRILL CORE COMPOSITE SECTIONS







84 BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


*





HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12906, CREWSVILLE #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2274
INTERVAL IN FEET 169.0 TO 217.0


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/h.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
35/150 MESH
150/400 MESH
-400 MESH PRI
-400 MESH SEC
TOTAL
HEAD SAMPLE


SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
25.1
8.0
65.0
1.9
100.0


SIZE,

P205
1.60
5.50
18.70
30.00
13.57


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 150
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
9.18 1.56 4.85 85.09
32.29 6.95 25.58 28.52
42.75 7.20 20.65 2.21
47.84 1.01 6.32 4.18
33.58 5.65 16.81 25.16


SCREEN SIZE, MESH MINUS 150, PLUS 400
WEIGHT ANALYSIS, PERCENT
PERCENT P205 CAO MGO C02 INSOL
9.1 0.70 13.75 7.50 14.57 58.61
9.3 1.80 32.89 14.95 40.44 8.05
81.6 4.30 34.53 16.70 40.85 0.95
Negligible quantity. Included in S 2.
100.0 3.74 32.49 15.70 38.42 6.86


SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
18.9
8.5
71.4
1.2
100.0

C
WEIGHT
PERCENT
34.5
21.5
38.3
5.7
100.0


SIZE,

P205
1.43
3.95
12.38
30.00
9.79


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 400
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
10.02 2.65 6.64 80.21
32.54 10.31 31.82 19.92
39.14 11.37 29.52 1.66
47.84 1.01 6.32 4.18
33.15 9.50 25.10 18.05


COMPOSITEE ANALYSIS


P205
13.57
3.74
2.90
1.60
6.69
5.90


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
33.58 5.65 16.81
32.49 15.70 38.42
31.25 14.40 35.39
27.81 14.30 33.63
32.12 11.65 29.53
31.00 12.70 29.50


INSOL
25.16
6.86
9.03
13.23
14.37
15.40


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
3.0 6.9 6.9 7.2
3.2 7.7 9.9 12.2
89.6 82.7 82.9 79.9
4.2 2.7 0.3 0.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAD MGO C02
1.7 3.9 4.3 3.4
4.5 9.4 8.9 9.8
93.8 86.7 86.8 86.8
75--F 2.93 fraction.
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
2.8 5.7 5.3 5.0
3.4 8.3 9.2 10.8
90.2 84.3 85.4 83.9
3.6 1.7 0.1 0.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
70.0 36.1 16.7 19.6
12.0 21.7 29.0 28.0
16.6 37.3 47.3 45.9
1.4 4.9 7.0 6.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


INSOL
84.9
9.1
5.7
0.3
100.0



INSOL
77.8
10.9
11.3

100.0


INSOL
83.8
9.4
6.5
0.3
100.0



INSOL
60.4
10.3
24.1
5.2
100.0


CD









HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12907, SWEETWATER #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2275
INTERVAL IN FEET 131.0 TO 184.0


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
35/150 MESH
150/400 MESH
-400 MESH PRI
-400 MESH SEC
TOTAL
HEAD SAMPLE


SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
41.2
7.2
49.5
2.1
100.0

SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
22.3
12.5
64.1
1.1
100.0

SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
34.1
9.2
55.0
1.7
100.0

C
WEIGHT
PERCENT
33.3
19.9
40.5
6.3
100.0


SIZE,

P205
2.20
3.50
20.30
29.70
11.83

SIZE,

P205
1.00
1.90
6.40
15.00
4.73

SIZE,

P205
1.91
2.69
14.24
26.20
9.17


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 150
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
13.01 4.80 10.06 69.28
29.90 6.80 25.24 33.00
43.65 7.00 17.85 1.60
47.24 0.93 5.32 4.67
30.11 5.95 14.91 31.81


MESH MINUS 150, PLUS
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
17.04 10.40 20.73
33.94 16.60 40.64
35.88 16.60 36.94
29.00 2.90 8.19
31.36 15.07 33.47


400

INSOL
46.66
5.90
1.00
36.04
12.18


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 400
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 IF
13.99 6.17 12.67 6;
31.96 11.79 33.08 1I
40.26 11.19 26.18 1
42.89 1.40 6.00 1l
30.58 9.36 21.85 24


OMPOSITE ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
P205 CAD MGO C02
11.83 30.11 5.95 14.91
4.73 31.36 15.07 33.47
1.10 26.91 16.20 33.97
1.40 27.06 16.00 33.56
5.41 28.87 12.55 27.50
5.30 29.40 12.00 19.70


IN
31
12
15
15
20
20


4SOL
3.75
3.20
.34
. 15
. 47



ISOL
.81
.18
.79
.69
'.40
i.10


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
7.7 17.8 33.2 27.8
2.1 7.1 8.2 12.2
84.9 71.8 58.2 59.3
5.3 3.3 0.4 0.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
4.7 12.1 15.4 13.8
5.0 13.5 13.8 15.2
86.8 73.4 70.6 70.7
3.5 1.0 0.2 0.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
7.1 15.6 22.5 19.8
2.7 9.6 11.6 13.9
85.3 72.4 65.7 65.8
4.9 2.4 0.2 0.5
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
72.8 34.7 15.8 18.1
17.4 21.6 23.9 24.2
8.2 37.8 52.3 50.0
1.6 5.9 8.0 7.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


INSOL
89.7
7.5
2.5
0.3
100.0



INSOL
85.4
6.1
5.3
3.2
100.0



INSOL
88.9
7.2
3.0
0.9
100.0



INSOL
51.9
11.9
31.4
4.8
100.0




HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12908, TROP RIVER GROVES DESOTO CO
ORE NUMBER 2276
INTERVAL IN FEET 110.0 TO 222.0


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
35/150 MESH
150/400 MESH
-400 MESH PRI
-400 MESH SEC
TOTAL
HEAD SAMPLE


SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
31.1
19.5
46.6
2.8
100.0

SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
23.3
18.2
56.7
1.8
100.0

SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
29.1
19.2
49.2
2.5
100.0

C
WEIGHT
PERCENT
34.9
12.0
43.6
9.5
100.0


SIZE,

P205
1.10
4.20
22.50
31.50
12.53

SIZE,

P205
0.90
1.70
11.10
20.20
7.18

SIZE,

P205
1.06
3.59
19.14
29.45
11.16


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 150
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
6.13 1.00 3.30 86.01
46.94 2.81 33.63 9.83
45.60 4.40 14.44 2.23
48.74 0.83 5.16 4.13
33.67 2.93 14.46 29.82


MESH MINUS 150, PLUS
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
10.17 2.71 7.84
47.69 4.70 38.38
44.10 11.30 29.71
34.98 1.60 3.30
36.68 7.92 25.72


400

INSOL
74.72
5.75
1.13
28.02
19.60


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 400
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
6.96 1.35 4.23 83.70
47.12 3.27 34.78 8.84
45.16 6.44 18.94 1.91
46.25 0.97 4.82 8.45
34.44 4.21 17.34 27.21


:OMPOSITE ANALYSIS


P205
12.53
7.18
1.40
2.20
6.05
5.60


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
33.67 2.93 14.46
36.68 7.92 25.72
34.83 10.60 34.11
33.49 9.60 33.18
34.52 7.51 26.16
34.30 7.70 21.80


INSOL
29.82
19.60
14.00
16.56
20.44
19.80


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
2.7 5.7 10.6 7.1
6.5 27.2 18.7 45.4
83.7 63.1 69.9 46.5
7.1 4.0 0.8 1.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBOUION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
2.9 6.4 8.0 7.1
4.3 23.7 10.8 27.2
87.7 68.2 80.9 65.5
5.1 1.7 0.3 0.2
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
2.8 5.9 9.3 7.1
6.2 26.2 14.9 38.5
84.3 64.5 75.2 53.7
6.7 3.4 0.6 0.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
72.2 34.0 13.6 19.3
14.2 12.8 12.7 11.8
10.1 44.0 61.6 56.9
3.5 9.2 12.1 12.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


INSOL
89.7
6.4
3.5
0.4
100.0



INSOL
88.8
5.3
3.3
2.6
100.0



INSOL
89.5
6.2
3.5
0.8
100.0



INSOL
50.9
11.5
29.9
7.7
100.0









HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12909, BEVIS #1 DESOTO CO
ORE NUMBER 2277
INTERVAL IN FEET 92.0 TO 214.0


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
35/150 MESH
150/400 MESH
-400 MESH PRI
-400 MESH SEC
TOTAL
HEAD SAMPLE


SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
42.4
12.2
42.5
2.9
100.0

SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
26.8
11.9
59.0
2.3
100.0

SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
37.7
12.1
47.5
2.7
100.0

C
WEIGHT
PERCENT
34.6
15.1
41.4
8.9
100.0


SIZE,

P205
0.90
7.40
19.80
30.40
10.58

SIZE,

P205
1.30
4.20
8.60
20.60
6.40

SIZE,

P205
0.99
6.44
15.57
27.88
9.31


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 150
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
6.58 1.54 3.32 85.38
42.31 5.95 28.94 11.79
45.90 6.55 18.26 2.39
48.29 0.87 4.77 3.99
28.86 4.19 12.84 38.77


MESH MINUS 150, PLUS
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
9.42 3.40 6.95
40.66 7.70 33.43
48.44 12.95 34.25
35.58 1.70 3.30
36.76 9.51 26.12


400

INSOL
74.80
10.44
1.15
26.50
22.58


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 400
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
7.19 1.94 4.10 83.09
41.82 6.47 30.28 11.39
46.86 8.96 24.29 1.92
45.02 1.08 4.39 9.78
31.26 5.80 16.87 33.85


COMPOSITE ANALYSIS


P205
10.58
6.40
1.10
1.70
5.23
6.70


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
28.86 4.19 12.84
36.76 9.51 26.12
30.05 13.20 33.39
28.70 12.80 30.16
30.53 9.49 24.89
32.70 10.30 26.30


INSOL
38.77
22.58
16.25
19.00
25.24
23.10


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
3.6 9.7 15.6 11.0
8.6 17.9 17.3 27.5
79.5 67.6 66.5 60.4
8.3 4.8 0.6 1.1
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
5.5 6.9 9.6 7.1
7.8 13.2 9.6 15.2
79.3 77.7 80.4 77.4
7.4 2.2 0.4 0.3
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO COS
4.0 8.7 12.6 9.2
8.4 16.2 13.5 21.7
79.5 71.2 73.4 68.4
8.1 3.9 0.5 0.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAD MGO C02
69.9 32.7 15.3 17.8
18.5 18.2 15.1 15.9
8.7 40.7 57.6 55.5
2.9 8.4 12.0 10.8
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


INSOL
93.4
3.7
2.6
0.3
100.0



INSOL
88.8
5.5
3.0
2.7
100.0



INSOL
92.4
4.1
2.7
0.8
100.0



INSOL
53.1
13.5
26.7
6.7
100.0




riAW.THOrN FORMATION DRILL CORE
CORE NO. 12942, MOSLEY #1 HARDEE CO
ORE NUMBER 2278
INTERVAL IN FEET 55.0 TO 80.0


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
35/150 MESH
150/400 MESH
-400 MESH PRI
-400 MESH SEC
TOTAL
HEAD SAMPLE


SCREEN SIZE,
WEIGHT
PERCENT P205
60.6 0.90
3.6 13.80
30.1 26.20
5.7 31.00
100.0 10.70

SCREEN SIZE,
WEIGHT
PERCENT P205
42.3 0.30
2.3 6.20
48.5 20.80
6.9 24.60
100.0 12.05

SCREEN SIZE,
WEIGHT
PERCENT P205
57.6 0.83
3.4 12.96
33.1 24.91
5.9 29.77
100.0 10.92


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 150
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
2.39 0.11 0.00 96.12
23.79 1.70 4.77 48.04
42.91 2.01 6.64 6.11
46.64 0.54 4.05 4.66
17.88 0.76 2.40 62.08

MESH MINUS 150, PLUS 400
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAD MGO C02 INSOL
2.09 0.45 0.41 95.97
18.54 5.30 13.28 53.14
44.10 6.20 15.04 8.56
38.87 0.68 3.53 16.52
25.38 3.37 8.02 47.11

MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 400
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
2.35 0.15 0.05 96.10
23.21 2.10 5.72 48.61
43.20 3.01 8.65 6.70
45.15 0.57 3.95 6.93
19.11 1.19 3.32 59.63


COMPOSITE ANALYSIS
WEIGHT ANALYSIS, PERCENT
PERCENT P205 CAO MGO C02
61.3 10.70 17.88 0.76 2.40
12.0 12.05 25.38 3.37 8.02
20.8 1.20 23.32 14.55 31.36
5.9 11.00 29.45 8.30 16.71
100.0 8.90 20.59 4.39 9.94
8.70 19.70 4.60 9.70


INSOL
62.08
47.11
18.69
22.10
48.90
49.30


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
5.1 8.1 8.7 0.0
4.7 4.8 8.0 7.2
73.7 72.2 79.2 83.2
16.5 14.9 4.1 9.6
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
1.0 3.5 5.7 2.2
1.2 1.7 3.6 3.8
83.7 84.3 89.3 91.0
14.1 10.5 1.4 3.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
4.4 7.1 7.3 0.9
4.0 4.1 6.0 5.8
75.5 74.9 83.9 86.3
16.1 13.9 2.8 7.0
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO 002
73.7 53.2 10.7 14.8
16.2 14.8 9.2 9.7
2.8 23.6 69.0 65.6
7.3 8.4 11.1 9.9
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


INSOL
93.8
2.8
3.0
0.4
100.0



INSOL
86.2
2.6
8.8
2.4
100.0



INSOL
92.8
2.8
3.7
0.7
100.0



INSOL
77.8
11.6
7.9
2.7
100.0










HAWTHORN FORMATION DRILL CORE 0
CORE NO. 12948, MORGAN # 1A DESOTO CO
ORE NUMBER 2284
INTERVAL IN FEET 90.0 TO 106.0


PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
FLOAT 2.68
S/2.68-F/2.75
S/2.75-F/2.93
SINK 2.93
TOTAL



PRODUCT
35/150 MESH
150/400 MESH
-400 MESH PRI
-400 MESH SEC
TOTAL
HFAD RAMPI F


SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
45.5
4.7
45.6
4.2
100.0

SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
33.2
10.8
52.9
3.1
100.0


SCREEN
WEIGHT
PERCENT
43.9
5.5
46.6
4.0
100.0


WEIGHT
PERCENT
51.5
7.9
34.7
5.9
100.0


SIZE,

P205
1.40
9.30
24.00
30.90
13.32

SIZE,

P205
0.70
2.40
7.80
17.80
5.17


SIZE,

P205
1.33
7.50
21.55
29.57
12.20


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 150
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
4.63 0.56 1.45 91.79
28.70 1.58 13.86 42.17
43.95 4.60 12.41 3.27
47.99 0.72 4.76 3.75
25.51 2.46 7.17 45.40


MESH MINUS 150, PLUS
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAD MGO C02
19.73 10.20 23.17
39.02 12.20 38.38
37.08 15.20 36.20
30.20 1.80 7.44
31.32 12.80 31.22


400

INSOL
47.95
9.32
22.19
33.56
29.70


MESH MINUS 35, PLUS 400
ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02 INSOL
6.15 1.53 3.64 87.38
31.39 4.35 20.25 33.61
42.91 6.20 16.00 6.13
46.18 0.83 5.03 6.78
26.24 3.83 10.36 43.30


COMPOSITE ANALYSIS


P205
13.32
5.17
0.90
4.50
7.84
7.60


ANALYSIS, PERCENT
CAO MGO C02
25.51 2.46 7.17
31.32 12.80 31.22
27.66 15.80 35.17
36.78 12.20 29.79
27.38 8.48 20.12
25.71 8.30 18.78


INSOL
45.40
29.70
15.90
17.83
32.29
31.73


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT


P205
4.8
3.3
82.2
9.7
100.0


CAO MGO
8.3 10.4
5.3 3.0
78.5 85.4
7.9 1.2
100.0 100.0


C02
9.2
9.1
78.9
2.8
100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
4.5 20.9 26.5 24.6
5.0 13.5 10.3 13.3
79.8 62.6 62.8 61.4
10.7 3.0 0.4 0.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
4.8 10.3 17.5 15.4
3.4 6.6 6.2 10.8
82.2 76.2 75.4 71.9
9.6 6.9 0.9 1.9
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


DISTRIBUTION, PERCENT
P205 CAO MGO C02
87.4 48.0 14.9, 18.3
5.2 9.0 11.9 12.3
4.0 35.1 64.7 60.7
3.4 7.9 8.5 8.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


INSOL
92.0
4.4
3.3
0.3
100.0


INSOL
53.6
3.4
39.5
3.5
100.0



INSOL
88.5
4.3
6.6
0.6
100.0



INSOL
72.4
7.3
17.1
3.2
100.0