Fort Hays State University Fort Hays State University
FHSU Scholars Repository FHSU Scholars Repository
Master's Theses Graduate School
Spring 2018
Prospecting for Coal Bed Uranium in Kansas Through the Use of Prospecting for Coal Bed Uranium in Kansas Through the Use of
ArcGIS and Uranium Proxies ArcGIS and Uranium Proxies
Logan Howell Fort Hays State University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses
Part of the Geology Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Howell, Logan, "Prospecting for Coal Bed Uranium in Kansas Through the Use of ArcGIS and Uranium Proxies" (2018). Master's Theses. 587. https://scholars.fhsu.edu/theses/587
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at FHSU Scholars Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of FHSU Scholars Repository.
PROSPECTING FOR COAL BED URANIUM IN KANSAS THROUGH
THE USE OF ARCGIS AND URANIUM PROXIES
Being
A Thesis Presented to the Graduate Faculty
of the Fort Hays State University in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Master of Science
by
Logan Howell
B.S., Appalachian State University
Date_____________________ Approved___________________________________ Major Professor
Approved___________________________________ Chair, Graduate Council
i
ABSTRACT
The potential implications for the discovery of coal bed uranium in Kansas not
only have a significant scientific and human health interest impact, but also a possible
future economic one as well. This study sought to look for coal bed uranium within the
Cretaceous Dakota Formation located in north-central of Kansas. This study utilized the
two coal bed uranium proxies of historic subbituminous coal production and radon, and
ArcGIS to produce a field-site selection map. This map was used to pick counties within
Kansas to collect samples from. Once samples were collected, they were scanned for
radiation using all available settings on two Geiger counter units at Fort Hays State
University. Samples collected from all field sites within Cloud, Republic, Jewell, and
Pottawatomie counties tested negative for uranium, thorium, and other radioactive
materials.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Schafer, my committee members, and the faculty and
staff of Fort Hays State University for their valuable input on the direction of this project.
I would also like to thank Debi Aaron for assistance in the field and in establishing
landowner contact for field sites. I would also like to thank the landowners for allowing
access to field sites and the collection of samples. I would like to extend a thank you to
the Fort Hays State University Graduate School for giving me this opportunity. I offer a
final thank you to my parents, family, and friends for support in this endeavor.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF APPENDIXES.................................................................................................. viii
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
Study Objective ........................................................................................................1
Rationale ..................................................................................................................2
Methodology ............................................................................................................8
Literature Review.....................................................................................................8
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................12
ArcGIS and Field Site Mapping ............................................................................12
Fieldwork ...............................................................................................................21
Lab Work ...............................................................................................................31
RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................33
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................36
iv
Conclusions ............................................................................................................36
Limitations .............................................................................................................36
Future Work ...........................................................................................................38
Summary ................................................................................................................38
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................39
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1 Results of Geiger counter tests of Pottawatomie (S series), Cloud (1T & 2T series), and Jewell (J series) county coal samples .............................................................33
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 1 Surface Geology of Kansas (Data from KGS) .........................................................4 2 Stratigraphic Column of Kansas (modified from Zeller et al., 1968) ......................5 3 Excerpt of Figure 2 Section with Focus on the Dakota Formation (modified from Zeller et al., 1968) ...........................................................................................6 4 Except of Figure 2 Section with Focus on the Wabaunsee Group (modified from Zeller et al., 1968) ...........................................................................................7 5 Kansas Counties .....................................................................................................13 6 Subbituminous and Pottawatomie County Bituminous Coal Production Zones. ..........................................................................................14 7 Selected Area Historic Subbituminous Coal Production Values ...........................15 8 Kansas Radon Levels .............................................................................................16 9 Kansas Selected Area Radon Levels......................................................................18 10 Raster Calculation Equation ..................................................................................17 11 Kansas Selected Area Prospecting Map ................................................................20 12 Kansas Prospecting Map vs NURE Sediment Samples Uranium (ppm) ...............21 13 Cloud and Republic Counties Sampling Sites .......................................................23 14 Cloud/Republic County Tailings Pile ....................................................................24 15 Jewell County Geology and Sample Sites .............................................................25 16 Pottawatomie County Sampling Site and Surface Geology ..................................26 17 Coal Sample recovered from Jewell County .........................................................28
18 Coal Sample recovered from Cloud/Republic County ..........................................29
19 Coal sample from Pottawatomie county featuring pyrite ......................................31
vii
20 Site selection vs NURE Sediment Sample Comparison Map ................................35
viii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix Page A Kansas Counties Selected Attribute Report ...........................................................42
1
INTRODUCTION
Study Objective
This project focuses on investigating the potential existence of coal bed uranium
in Kansas. The objective is to find out if coal samples that were field collected according
to ArcGIS site selection had any uranium, thus indicating the presence of coal bed
uranium in north-central Kansas. There has been little work in investigating the potential
presence of coal bed uranium in Kansas, and the value of the knowledge as to whether it
is present in Kansas or not warrants further investigation. As a resource, uranium has uses
in the energy, medical, food-processing, and military sectors. The potential implications
for the discovery of coal bed uranium in Kansas not only have a significant scientific
impacts, but also economic ones as well. The harvesting and refining of commercial or
weapons grade uranium is a profitable economic venture that has led to the development
of companies specializing in the extraction of uranium. If coal bed uranium was
discovered in commercial amounts in Kansas, it could lead to an economic boost for the
state. Utilizing potential coal bed uranium stores in the state could also be a source for
job creation within the state of Kansas. In the current economic situation, job creation and
an economic boost could significantly improve the finances of the state of Kansas overall.
In addition to its commercial uses, naturally occurring uranium can be a source of
environmental safety and health concerns. Uranium can be dangerous to humans through
the release of radiation and radioactive elements as it degrades. Radon, a radioactive
element that is produced by radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium as they
decay, is linked with a heightened risk of lung cancer in humans (Field et al., 2000; Lyle,
2007). Even from a health and public safety interest standpoint, knowing if coal bed
2
uranium is present in the state of Kansas and in what amounts is an important topic in
taking precautions in building and zoning for residential areas. As such, this study has a
potential impact on the health and safety of the entire population of the state of Kansas.
For these reasons, identifying its presence in an area is of great importance.
Uranium is typically sought after in the form of uranium ore, in which the concentrations
of uranium-238 and uranium-235 are in a secular equilibrium with their daughter
isotopes. Reactor-grade uranium ore is typically 3.2-3.6% uranium, whereas weapons-
grade uranium ore is >90% uranium. Ores can be enriched through the use of uranium-
235 to achieve reactor-grade or weapons-grade status (Cantaluppi and Degetto, 2000). In
the 1950’s, coal bed uranium was discovered in the Wasatch Formation of northeast
Wyoming (Love, 1952). Further joint works by the United State Geological Survey and
the Atomic Energy Commission sought to identify and measure uranium content in the
United States.
Rationale
Coal bed uranium is different from uranium ore in that it is secondarily deposited
(James, 1978). While the original uranium can come from different sources, the most
common source is igneous rock or ash deposits that leach uranium into surrounding
groundwater flows. Within Kansas, there have been at least 18 ash layers representing the
Pearlette Ash and the Ogallala Formation that have tested positive for uranium and
thorium. These ash layers serve as a potential source of uranium that could then be
secondarily deposited in Kansas coal deposits (James, 1978).
Kansas surface geology ranges from Pennsylvanian marine and non-marine
subsystems in the east that transition to Permian and then Cretaceous systems in the
3
central region of the state and then Neogene and Quaternary alluvial deposits in the west
(see Figure 1) (Merriam, 1963; Zeller et al., 1968). The contacts between these different
systems are riddled with unconformities. The Precambrian basement rock is primarily
igneous and metamorphic rocks. The Pennsylvanian deposits in Kansas consist of five
cycles of marine limestones and shales and alternating non-marine clastic deposits. The
coal samples from the Pottawatomie county sample site are traced to coal seams within
these deposits. The Cretaceous systems of Kansas are representative of the Cretaceous
Interior seaway. The Cretaceous Dakota Formation is the origin of the Jewell, Cloud, and
Republic county samples (Merriam, 1963; Zeller et al., 1968). The two stratigraphic
sections representing rock units sampled are also shown below (see Figures 2, 3, & 4).
4
Figure 1:Surface Geology of Kansas (Data from KGS)
Legend
Kansas Geological Units Rt pfH.ntllboo: KS_liUptJllltiPolJ6_60ld_lll_Rtp
---1111 Q.oJZO,lu,...,,(e,'1yP~~
IIII Cg,j;G&:t.1"'1t.
Kansas Surface Geology w ith Sampling Sites
1111 i,;:i,:o,~,..,me~C5?oe.JO;w,<,o fQf.,..-)oc
1111 '-"";.ln>ssl: S1 5·=
1111 RIDPl', C- o...-.~ - n-...........
1111 R>~ o,,...,,._.,.G-.M>.- .., Fc,,,,,o:l;t,
- -.,,-·-•-•=o -.. ~~,·-----=••~ - --~~··-
110 - 55 -N
A 0 11 0 Kilometers
Created by: Logan How ell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Created on: 02/13/20 18
5
Figure 2:Stratigraphic Colum
n of Kansas (m
odified from Zeller et al., 1968)
(~A! STA(l(
LOWU F'f~..._,.Ui:IFS ~IM SYSTEM
PALEOZO I C ERA
M lfl:l"" Slo(;E u•f'1~ ffiiM\11.~ 506 Ui'f\R JJ~SL'll(S LO'flO ct(TACLOOSSlRI[! UPPllc;IE1M;[(llJS SfRl£S
IURASSICSYSTE~•----------~Ci!T~A~Cf~O.USSYSTE.'11 __ MESOZO I C ER A
"--,..., ..... ,_-,-,."-.-' ,.,.,...- -,-,-~.;::::_:::_:::__-::_,.,.,....,,..,,-,,,,-,u~- --l.---- - ,rni.11 sr;U - ~· __ _ 11'1ERlllmSIPPW1$Elll(S _l LOWlRH.NMstl~l,NIAM$l,:00:c..__ L..__ IICOIE i'F~N!YIIANi._~ Sf.l fS
NISSISSH'f LI.II~ IL.._________ PENNsm.1..~1.1.N= m=''"~ -----------------P A L EO Z O IC ERA
PALEOZOIC E R A
6
Figure 3:Excerpt of Figure 2 Section with Focus on the Dakota Formation (modified from Zeller et al., 1968)
FairPOfl Chalk Member
hr~et-POSl Is. !Md
Pfeifer Shale Membe,
.ktmore Chalk Membtr
Hartland Shale Member
lincOln limestone Mbr.
Janssen Clay Member
Terra Cona Clay Mbr.
Greenhorn limestone
Graneros Shale
Dakota Formation
Kiowa formation
Cheyenne Sandstone
?
V) i....J
a:: i....J V)
V) => 0 i....J u c::: 1-1..J a:: u 0:: u..J s: 0 _,
7
Figure 4: Except of Figure 2 Section with Focus on the Wabaunsee Group (modified from Zeller et al., 1968)
Methodology
The steps used in this project can be broken into three phases. The first phase
included obtaining uranium proxies and relevant map data and using ArcGIS to produce a
)
S.lt1t1 Poiftt Shilt Mb1. 81m Umeslot11 Mbl l .. iofl Slrlllt Mt mkr
S.lly11ds ls. Mbr.
Howe llmestc,,.. Mtmber 8•1t•tn ~lt M~
Gltnrocli l s. • br.
l on1 Creel, ls. Nbr.
Arnt1ic11s lt. Mbr.
n,,. Point l s. Mb,.
Wt1t81and!Sh ... Mbr.
/ H1-...b Sh1le w.mbe;r _ - '-" / Asolnwall ls. Mbt.
- .=·:···.
H1At )'Vffl• Shilt Mbr. RHdin1 l imHtOIII Mbl.
W1k111,1$1 Lt. Mbr. Sotditf Cr"41; S11. Mbr
8 1,1rlil 11nala. Mbr.
$11¥11 U lt Sn1lt Mbf.
R1,1lo llmesto,.,. Mtmbtt
Cedlir Vtlt $halt Mbr.
)~:-·t.t{~- Whitt Cloud Shalt Mbr.
~-.:~~-:_:: ::t !111,~lt~==:.: : :
Churct, llrr19sto .. Mbt.
Tl.ltft ,,., .. II SII,, Mbr. SMlfon LIIM1tON Mbr. Joiws Point ShlJt Mbr. eu,- llm•tOM Mbr. low1 Point Sh1lt Mbr.
Hartlord ls. Mbt.
/ Urth I, B1.11t1MII Sll, Mbr1. Rodi Bluff ls. Mbr. O~Sll.llt Mbr.
Ouwt..t Limtst- Mbr.
C
Cm,ola limestone 8
Roca ~ ale
Red Eagle L1meslone
JohnsoA Shale
Fo,ake, Limestone
Janesville Shiile
Onaga Shale
Wood S1din1 Formation 0.
i Root Shillt .;l
C
Stollt r Limestont 5l 1:!
Pillsbury Shale "' Zundale limestone
Willard Shale 0. 0.
Emporia f e "' limestone
Auburn Shale = j i Bt,n L1mu tont z: i
Suanton Shale 0.
f 0 u
Howard l ,meslooe <'l
Seve,y Shale
lopeh limestone
CJlhoun Shille
Deer Cleek limestone
0. 0
Tecumseh SI\Jle <O
C
-
u.l C, < ,-V,
z < c:;; IX >
8
prospecting map to act as a guide for field site selection. This included importing data
layers, digitizing elements from non-shapefile sources, raster reclassification, raster
calculation, and comparison with data points from the National Uranium Resource
Evaluation (NURE) program. The second phase of the project included obtaining
permissions from landowners to sample and retrieve coal samples from the chosen field
sites for analysis. The third and final phase was the analysis of collected samples via two
Geiger counters in the lab at Fort Hays State University.
Literature Review
Coal bed uranium was first discovered in the Wasatch Formation of northeast
Wyoming in the 1950’s, and the Atomic Energy Commission and the United States
Geological Survey began joint research into the study of this phenomena (Love, 1952).
These projects sought to locate and measure coal bed uranium in the United States
(Denson et al., 1959). These studies were conducted throughout the West and
Midwestern regions, but Kansas was not investigated for the potential of coal bed
uranium. The closest investigation into this matter was the study by Landis (1959) that
indicated that there is uranium in the shale deposits of the Pierre Shale in Western
Kansas. Given the commercial and safety concern importance of coal bed uranium and
the confirmed presence in neighboring states, it is reasonable and sufficient cause for
investigation into the subject of coal bed uranium in the state of Kansas and to further
examine the properties of coal bed uranium.
Joint studies of the United State Geological Survey and Atomic Energy
Commission studies concluded that coal bed uranium is most typically produced by the
chemical breaking down of uranium-bearing rocks (Denson et al., 1959). As these rocks
9
physically and chemically break down, the uranium is released. This free uranium can be
picked up by moving groundwater that can then transport it over distance into aquifer
systems. These aquifer systems then allow for the transported uranium to integrate with
nearby rock layers (Gill, 1959; Mapel & Hail Jr., 1959; Pipiringos, 1961). This process
and the reported presence of radon in Kansas groundwater supplies is part of why the
presence of uranium-bearing ash deposits in Kansas is such an important indicator of
potential coal bed uranium deposits (James, 1978; Kalout, 1996).
The United States Geological Survey and Atomic Energy Commission studies
also noted that identified coal bed uranium was most often found in lignite and
subbituminous coal varieties. Breger et al. (1955) investigated this phenomena and
determined that this may be due to the preferential stability of the uranium and lignite
compound. Said study also determined that the metallo-organic compound formed by
uranium and the organic components of the lignites was stable and that the organic
components of the lignite possesses a chemical structure that is far more accepting of
uranium introduced to it. This chemical acceptance and strong bond is unique in that it
makes lignites and subbituminous coals more readily able to capture and bond to uranium
than other coal varieties; provided that the groundwater can reach the lignite (Breger et
al. 1955). Moore (1954) even demonstrated this absorption and bonding ability by
submerging a lignite sample into an aqueous solution containing uranium and the lignite
was able to extract greater than 99 percent of the uranium from solution. Nakashima
(1992) showed that uranium can undergo reduction upon joining with lignite.
Lignite is a subtype of coal that is characterized by high carbon content and low
heat production when burned (McCartney & Teichmüller, 1972). Lignite is commonly
10
referred to as “brown coal” and is rated as the lowest quality coal. Lignite is formed from
the compaction and heating of peat through the process of coalification. Lignite typically
has a higher concentration of volatiles and hydrogen than other coal types, as higher coal
grades have undergone more heating and compaction to force out extraneous materials
(McCartney & Teichmüller, 1972).
Other researchers, such as Moore et al. (1959) determined that the permeability of
the overlying and underlying rock layers can have a significant impact on if and where
uranium can be found in coal. If the contacting rock layers are fractured or in some other
way permeable, then groundwater can more easily get to the coal layer and interact with
it on a chemical level. If a coal bed is underlain by a very impermeable rock, such as a
tightly packed sandstone, then any uranium that collects in the coal bed layer will be
unable to leach out of it due to meteoric water or groundwater interactions (Moore,
1959). Other studies have sought to identify other rock units that could hold uranium,
such as the study by Landis (1959) that indicated that there was uranium present in the
Sharon Springs Member of the Pierre Shale in western Kansas.
The investigations of researcher from other countries into the geochemistry and
characteristics of coal bed uranium have yielded insights into how uranium most
frequently occurs in coal and what attributes contribute to uranium accumulation in
various coals. Arbuzov et al., (2011) determined that the five factors affecting the
accumulation of uranium in coal are tectonics, source rock chemistry, syndepositional
volcanism, coal metamorphism, climatic factors, local hydrology, and hypergenic
oxidation of the coals. Russian researchers have concluded that uranium will most often
naturally occur in a coal as the minerals uraninite and coffinite, or as trace particles that
11
can occur in different patterns throughout a sample (Arbuzov et al., 2012). The patterns
of uranium dispersal through a sediment can be uniform, in star-like clumps, reticular
distribution, linear distribution, clusters over phosphate, and inhomogenous distribution.
Finch and Ewing (1992) determined that the most common uranium-based mineral,
uraninite, undergoes oxidation at a rate that is determined by the amount of lower valence
cations that are incorporated into it during formation and radioactive decay.
12
METHODOLOGY
ArcGIS and Field Site Mapping
In order to prospect for coal bed uranium in Kansas, it was first necessary to
develop a map that would be used to select the prospecting sites where coal and therefore
coal bed uranium could possibly be gathered. ArcGIS ArcMap 10.5 was used to produce
a map that would be accurate to the county level. For the purpose of this project, the
imported layer was a Kansas county base map. The proxy layers for coal bed uranium
were created using data from the Kansas Radon Program and the Kansas Geological
Survey. These proxies consist of radon data for Kansans counties and coal production
data for Kansas counties. Radon was chosen as a proxy due to it being an intermediate
step in the decay chain of uranium. The Kansas base map was retrieved from the State of
Kansas GIS Data Access and Support Center (see Figure 5) (Tiger Census Counties,
2014).
13
Figure 5: Kansas Counties
Cheyenne Rawlins Decatut
ShE!l'man Th=• Sheridan
Wallace I Logan I Go,e
Greeley Wichi ta Scott Lone
HsmUton Ke~ny Finney
G<a y
Stanton Gra nt Hast eU
11,icxton Stev ens SewMd Meade
Legend KansasC ounties
Kansas Counties
Norton Phill.» Smith J ewell
Grah am Roob °'""'~ Mitchell
Lincoln
Trego E llis Russell
E lliWOt"lh
N~, Rush Barton
Rice
Hodgeman Pawnee J
-----i___ Staf!Ofd
Edward s Reno
-,~. "''" Kiowa Kingman
1 c, ...
Comsndle .. , ... I Ha, pe,
N
A 11 0 - 55 -0
Republic W,sh,agton I Marshall I " • =h• I & =n niphan
A tdis on Clou::I ,(:: l M,on C la y ottswatomie .,., J=t·~ Ottawa -w ot.Lc.,~ S1Ynee yando
Geary Wabaunsee Did:inson Dougla5 Johnson
Saline Merr i<; Osag e
Fra rl~n Miam i
I Lyon l\.1cPhason Mar ion
Chm
- Coffey An~son Linn
I , .. ,,., I Gre-enwood Woods a, A llen Bol.J'bon
Bu llet" Se-dgwict
W ilion N=ho Q-awfOfd EO
Surrner ~~, :lontgomery Labette Cherokee Cha utauqua
11 0 Kilometers
Created by: Logan How ell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last M odif ied : 02/13/2.018
14
Figure 6: Subbituminous and Pottwatomie County Bituminous Coal Production Zones
After being imported, the data layers were transformed to fit the NAD83 datum.
Coal bed maps from the Kansas Geological Survey were used to outline coal exposures
within Kansas counties. (see Figure 6) (Schoewe, 1952). To make the coal raster, the coal
production map picture was georeferenced using the Kansas base map acquired from the
State of Kansas GIS Data Access and Support Center. The georeference tools allows an
image to be associated with spatial coordinates to fit the image into the known spatial
orientation of the image’s subject. Polygons were then drawn based on the overlay of the
coal production map image from the Kansas Geological Survey (Flueckinger & Brady,
2010). The original KGS image had both subbituminous and bituminous production
Kansas Subbituminous Coal and Pottawatomie County Bituminous Coal Production Zones
Cheyenne Raw lins Decatut Norton Phill.» Smith J~y ShE!l'man Th=• Sheridan Graham Roob °'""'~ ,;·L
I I ""t Liaoo/ Wallace Logan Go,e Trego E llis
~ ~ th
Greeley Wichi ta Scott L,,e N~, Rush Barton
Rice
Pawnee J Finney
Hodg eman -----i___ Staf!Ofd HsmUton Ke~ ny Reno
Edwards
G<ey -,~. Ptett
Stanton Gra nt Hast eU Kiowa Kingman
11,icxton Stevens SewMd Mead e
1 c, ...
Comsndle .. , ... I ""'"'" N
A Legend 11 0 55 0 --Coal A rea (Pottawatomie Bitum inous)
Coal Area (lignite & Subbiluminous)
l) "h;agton I I "•=h• I Republic Marshall &= , niphan
A tct15 on Clo1/ ,<::, \J l M,on Cla y ottsw~mie
/4 ... .;.,. "'. J::l·~ -w ot.Lc.,~ S1Ynee yando
Geary Wabaunsee Did:inson Dougla5 Johnson
Saline Merr i<; Osage
Fra rl~n Miam i
I Lyon l\.1cPhason Mar ion
Chm
- Coffey An~son Wnn
I , .. ,,., I Gre-enwood Woods a, A llen Bol.J'bon
Bullet" Se-dgw ict
W ilion N= ho Q-awfOfd EO
Surrner ~~, :lontgomery Labette Cherokee Chautauq ua
11 0 Kilometers
Created by: Logan How ell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last M odif ied : 02/13/2.018
15
zones, though only the subbituminous (yellow) and Pottawatomie bituminous (purple)
production zones were digitized into ArcGIS. This was because the subbituminous values
were used in the prospecting calculation and the Pottawatomie zones were added in later
due to a landowner invitation to sample a bituminous coal seam in Pottawatomie county
(see Figure 6). The historic coal production values for the counties within the
subbituminous coal production zones were used to produce the coal raster that
represented the levels of coal production throughout the state (see Figure 7) (Schoewe,
1952).
Figure 7: Selected Area Historic Subbituminous Coal Production Values
Kansas Selected A rea Historic S ubbituminous Coal Production Values
Phillip!.
Gfaham Roob
Trego Enis
R~h N~•
Pawnee Hodgeman
Legend
Historic Sub bituminous Coal Values (Thousands of tons) Value D o 50 25 - Less than 10 - -- 10-100 - 100+
Washing ton
Clay
Di .;i;i rt$on
M81ion
N
A 50 Kilometers
Marshall Nemah
Po118wa tomie
Riley
G•"'Y
Mon is
Ly~
Chase
Gf nwood
Created by: Logan Howell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last Modified: 02/13/2018
16
The Kansas base map data layer had fields added to the attribute table that
corresponded to measured radon levels according to the Kansas radon map acquired from
the Kansas Radon Program (KRP, 2015). The KRP breaks radon levels into three
screening levels based on indoor radon and cause for concern. For the sake of future
raster calculation, the breakdown of three categories was preserved. The radon level
attribute field data was used to create a raster layer that showed the varying radon levels
in Kansas so that it could be used with the coal production raster to establish the best
counties to consider for prospecting (see Figure 8). The county base map was used as the
tool extent and mask to ensure Arc would not overextend the conversion. An extraction
by mask was performed to create a map of radon purely within the counties that fell
within the subbituminous coal production zone (see Figure 9).
17
Figure 8:Kansas Radon Levels
Legend Kansas Radon Levels
VALUE
0.0 • 1.9pCi/L
1111 2.0 - 3.9 pCi/L
1111 4.0+ pCi/L
Kansas Radon Levels
N
A 11 0 55 0 11 0 Kilometers --
Created by: Logan How ell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kan sa s Geological Survey Last M odif ied : 02/13/2.018
18
Figure 9:Kansas Selected Area Radon Values
After completing the creation of both rasters, they were each reclassified into
basic counts of one, two, and three (see Appendix A). One represented low values (of
radon and subbituminous coal production), while two represented medium and three
represented high. This reclassification of values allowed for the varying amounts and
units to be added together with equal consideration by the program. The radon and coal
raster datasets were finally added together using the ArcGIS Raster Calculator tool in
order to produce a final raster that represented what areas would be the best sites for
prospecting based on their recorded radon levels and coal production (De Smith et al.,
2007). In this case, the raster calculator added the attribute values from the coal and
N«ton Phillips
Gfehem ·-· Trego E llis
Rus h
Pawnee Hodg eman
Legend Selected Area Radon Values
1111 4.0+ pCi/L
Kansas Selected A rea Radon Values
N
A 50 25 50 Kilometers - - Created by: Logan Howell
Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last Modified: 02/13/2018
19
radon layers in order to produce a viability layer. The equation used to produce the final
map was Coal_Layer + Radon_lvl (see Figure 10). The reasoning behind this is that the
areas with the highest amount of reported subbituminous coal production and the highest
radon levels would be the best possible location to find coal bed uranium in Kansas. As
all counties within the subbituminous coal production area were already classified as
having high radon and could have either no, low, medium, or high subbituminous coal
production, this meant that the resulting raster representing the viability of finding coal
bed uranium placed counties into one of four categories. This resulted in the areas with
the highest historic subbituminous coal production and highest radon levels being marked
as the best possible locations for the viability of coal bed uranium (see Figure 11) (De
Smith et al., 2007).
Figure 10: Raster Calculation Equation
'\ Raster Calculator
Map Algebra expression
Layers and variables
•c oal Bed Uranium Viability
•Re dass_coal2 • CoalValues •Ra donValues
-
• Kansas Radon • Ks_Zip_AvgRadon2014_300. t -
"CoalValues• + "RadonValues•
Output raster
I = I @1 l.-,E3-I
Conditional - ..,
000 0EJB0 Con 0 Pick
800 C:J QEJ[JJ SetNull
000 • GJEJ[J M ath
Abs
I 0 10 GJGJITJ• Exp c ., ... 1n
\ad. fhsu.edul,students~showell'J)ocumentsV',rcGIS\J)efault.gdb\CbuViability
~-O_K _-] I Cancel I I Environments ... 11 Show Help > >
20
Figure 11: Kansas Selected Area Prospecting Map
The ArcGIS map was compared with the National Uranium Resource Evaluation
(NURE) data that was collected by the USGS after sample collection for comparison
purposes in order to visualize how the prospecting map lines up with a larger collection
of sediment samples. The National Uranium Resource Evaluation is a collection of
sediment and water samples throughout the United States that have been examined using
various means to test for uranium, though for the purposes of this project, only sediment
samples were included in the comparison. There are 333 uranium samples that fall within
the viability zone, with yellow and green icons representing samples with higher parts per
million uranium values than the surrounding orange and red icons. These were compared
Phill ips
Grsham
Trego Ellis
Rush Nm
Pawnee Hodi,leman
Legend Coal Bed Uranium Viability D Lowest Viabilrty
- Low Viabilit y
- High Viability - Highest Viability
Kansas Selected A rea Prospecting Map
N
A 50 25 50 Kjlometers - -
W ashillijton
Clay
Did inson
Po ttaw atomie
Riley
Wabaunsee
Monis
Created by: Logan Howell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last Modified: 02/08/2018
21
visually because of the difficulties in hotspot surface mapping due to the partial nature of
the NURE data (see Figure 12) (Smith, 1997).
Figure 12:Kansas Prospecting Map vs NURE Sediment Samples Uranium (ppm)
Fieldwork
The map resulting from the ArcGIS analysis was used to pick an initial county to
act as a starting point for the field prospecting (see Figure 11). Areas where the raster
calculation gave the highest viability of coal bed uranium were highlighted as the best
potential areas for prospecting. The locations highlighted on the map were used to select
the field sites for the investigation of coal bed uranium for this project and represents
both potential commercial use and identifying potential environmental and health safety
Kansas Selected Area Coal Bed Uranium Viability vs NURE Sediment Samples Uranium Count
Norton Phillips Smith
Glaham ·-· Trego
Rush
Pawnee Hodgeman
Legend Coal Bed Uranium Viabil ity
LJLOwtlll:W ?llly
- LOw Vlal:IM/
- Hlgl VbbRJ
- ~ t 61 VtUIMy
Sediment Sa"1)1es Ur anium Count (PPM)
U OOOOI - 3.600000 50 - 25 -
Jewell
~tchel
Reno
N
A
:• o:, • • • • •'· • • •• ,:
.. . . . ·. . : .
o i o o OS o t O ooo <F'•
O ,:JP O~ o 0 0 08
o o0 '.to ~ § o wasi16f11on S •• ,:,: • .. ·. . .. . : .: .. .
'"•. :· : :-····.: .. ··: .. 1 ) -Clsy
Diclinson
Saline
McPhefSon
Harvey
50 Kilometers
Po tl!lwatomie
Riley
Geary Wabaunsee
Lyon
Chase
""'"' t'.xei!nwood
Created by : Logan Howell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last Modif ied: 02/13/2018
22
concerns. Analysis indicated that Cloud County would be the best starting location due to
the historically high production of lignite and subbituminous coal and the high radon
readings within the county. After an initial prospecting trip to Cloud County, networking
resulted in invitations to examine field sites on private property in both Jewell and
Pottawatomie counties. Whereas Love (1952) used a Geiger counter and a scintillometer
in the field, this study collected in situ samples from an exposed coal seam deposits and
secondarily deposited samples from mining tailings piles and brought them back to a lab
at the Fort Hays State University Geoscience Department to prevent false readings from
outside sources. Cloud County samples were recovered from two major tailings piles that
were remnants of a pioneer mining operation that was present in the area (see Figures 13
& 14) (Beede, 1897).
23
Figure 13:Cloud and Republic Counties Sampling Sites
Legend
Samplng Shes
Geology Representatio n: KS_ MapU nitsPolys_solid_fill_Rep_ 1
O..,B:AluYium (late P le6tocene a nd Holocenie)
Qds;Dune sand
- QU oess
- Qal2;A luYium (earty Pl!!istocerie}
- Kgg:Graneros Shale. G 1eenh«n Limestone
- Kd;Dakoa Formation
- Kck:Cbe}e!IM Sandstone. Kiowa Fofflla;tioo
Cloud & Republic Counties Sampling Sites
N
A 10 5 0 10 Kilometers -- Created by : Logan Howell
Data Source: Kansas DASC & Ka nsas Geological Survey Created on: 6/23/2017
24
Figure 14: Cloud/Republic County Tailings Pile (63.5 cm Estwing pickaxe for scale)
The Jewell County samples were recovered from two tailings piles that were the
result of previous landowner mining operations that were located in the southeastern
portion of the county (see Figure 15). The tailings piles at the Cloud and Jewell county
sites were surveyed and fragmentary coal specimens were collected and bagged for
25
analysis back at the lab.
Figure 15: Jewell County Geology and Sample Sites
Legend
sampRig Ste&
Geologj Re pre sentation: K S_MapUnit sPolys_solid_ fill_Rep_2
- Kgg;Gratiero& SM I!, G e eo~om Ltn enme
- Kd;Datoi.afonnancm
Jewell County Geology and Sample S ites
N
A 10 5 0 10 Kilometers -- Created by : Logan How ell
Data Source: Kansas DASC & Ka nsas Geological Survey Create d on: 6/23/2017
26
Samples from the Pottawatomie County site were collected from an exposed coal
seam on the bank of a small creek and were collected in situ. All sample sites were on
private land and specific coordinates have been withheld due to landowner request. The
Cloud and Jewell county samples were identified as coming from the Dakota Formation
based upon recorded lithology during mining, mine shaft depth, and surficial geology
(see Figures 13 & 15).
Figure 16: Pottawatomie County Sampling Site and Surface Geology
The Dakota Formation is a Cretaceous age sedimentary system that is distributed
throughout the Great Plains and Rock Mountain regions, though for the purpose of this
project the focus was on the Dakota Formation within Kansas (Zeller et al., 1968;
Legend
G.ok>gy Rtl)QH nt.tloi.: KS_Ml pUnltiPOl'.f$ _60lld_fll _ Rt p
0:IU:0"'9':er""'1'/At-.l.U"'Ca,e P~,e-~
- Cgd;(;US,.,,,.y a.&~aldr l:
- f'::0.-C•OCD ! J Q'°"e Qr,:, ~ (Pq)
-•.--,i0a,nteG"°""' - 'c!1;0:lu..a1Clr°"e G""""
Pottawatomie County Geology and Sample S ite
N
A 10 5 0 10 Kilometers -- Created by: Logan Howell
Data Source: Kansa s DASC Created: 06/23/2017
27
Macfarlane et al., 1998). The formation is approximately 200-300 feet thick. It overlays
the Kiowa Formation and has a transitional upper contact with the Graneros Shale. The
Dakota Formation is comprised of layers of clay, siltstone, and sandstone with lignite
seams and channels sandstone deposits. The formation is broken up into the Janssen (also
known as the Janssen Clay) and the Terra Cotta (also known as the Terra Cotta Clay)
members. The Dakota Formation in Kansas represents alluvial plains and deltas that
existed on the eastern side of the Cretaceous interior seaway. The sandstone layers
present represent deltaic fronts while the lenses are identified as channel sandstones. The
siltstone layers are attributed to alluvial plain sedimentation. The lignites present in the
Dakota Formation most likely represent near-coastline swamps (see Figures 17 & 18)
(Zeller et al., 1968, Macfarlane et al., 1998).
28
Figure 17: Coal sample recovered from Jewell County
o o o·o rmi12 5
.. •
\
29
Figure 18: Coal Sample recovered from Cloud/Republic County
The Pottawatomie County samples were identified as clarain coals from the
Wabaunsee Group according to recorded lithology during mining and mine shaft depth
(see Figure 19) (Stopes, 1919). The Wabaunsee Group is a Pennsylvanian age group of
cyclothems that consists of the Wood Siding Formation, the Root Shale, the Stotler
Limestone, the Pillsbury Shale, the Zeandale Limestone, the Willard Shale, the Emporia
Limestone, the Auburn Shale, the Bern Limestone, the Scranton Shale, the Howard
Limestone, and the Severy Shale (Schoewe, 1946; Merriam, 1963). The Wabaunsee
Group is roughly 500 feet thick. The formations of the Wabaunsee Group are comprised
of alternating shales and limestones that are representative of both transgressive and
-
\
... '
0 0 mm 2·
30
regressive oceanic movements. The Wabaunsee Group is primarily composed of shales
and limestone, with four major and multiple minor coal beds throughout the group. The
four major coals within the Wabaunsee are the Lorton, Nyman, Elmo, and Nodaway
coals. The major coal systems can extend up to 200 miles without interruption, indicating
that they were most likely the result of coastal swamps (see Figure 4) (Schoewe, 1946;
Merriam, 1963).
These units are important relative to this study because they provide the coals for
uranium to be absorbed into. The proximity to possible uranium sources such as the
Pearlette Ash Bed also makes the depositional environment and stratigraphic context of
these units valuable to this study, as they are in stratigraphic position to receive
potentially migrating uranium. Being Cretaceous and Pennsylvanian deposits, the age of
these units also has allowed for ample time for the migration of uranium from host rocks
and for the absorption of any free uranium by nearby coals (Zeller et al., 1968, Schoewe,
1946; Merriam, 1963; Macfarlane et al., 1998).
31
Figure 19: Coal sample from Pottawatomie county featuring pyrite
Lab Work
Coal samples were measured in the X-ray LAB of the FHSU Geosciences
Department for radioactivity through the use of two Geiger counters. Any radioactivity
reading occurring in the coal samples would most likely be due to a natural source, since
the field sites were largely isolated locations. The two most common natural radioactive
elements are uranium and thorium. Therefore, any radioactive elements detected would
most likely be one of these two, though any radioactive samples would have been sent
• 0 a o·o fT'i'!'I I 2· 3 5
•• •
32
out for full compositional analysis. The first Geiger counter used in the coal analysis was
a refurbished Victoreen Instrument Company OCDM CD V-700, Model 6B. The second
Geiger counter used was a Radiation Alert brand Radiation Alert Monitor. Both Geiger
counters were tested against a known radioactive standard that was provided with the
Victoreen instrument and registered the sample as radioactive on all sensitivity settings.
Both Geiger counters can register radioactivity ranging from 0-50 milliroentgens per hour
(mr/hr). A reading of .5 mr/hr can equate to 0.05 percent equivalent uranium in a sample
(McKeown & Klemic, 1954). Once both units were verified as working properly in the
identification of radioactive samples, they were used with the coal samples collected
from the county field expeditions. Average background radiation according to
manufacturer specifications is categorized as 0.01 to 0.02 milliroentgens per hour.
Therefore, any readings higher than this would have warranted further investigation. The
samples were analyzed on all available settings including X1, X10, and X100. These
settings correspond to the actual radiation measured as the reading on the dial multiplied
by one, ten, or 100.
33
RESULTS
The samples from all counties surveyed did not result in any consistent readings
from either of the Geiger counters on any of the sensitivity settings. There was no
difference in results between fresh seam samples and tailings pile samples. Results for the
Geiger counter tests are included in the table below (see Table 1).
Table 1: Results of Geiger counter tests of Pottawatomie (S series), Cloud (1T & 2T series), and Jewell (J series) county coal samples
Victoreen V-700, Model 6B Radiation Alert Monitor 4
Sample X1 X10 X100 X1 X10 X100
S1 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
S2 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
S3 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
S4 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
S5 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
S6 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
S7 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
S8 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
S9 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
S10 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
1T-1 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
1T-2 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
1T-3 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
34
2T-1 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
2T-2 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
2T-3 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
2T-4 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
2T-5 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
2T-6 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
2T-7 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
2T-8 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
J1 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
J2 Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
35
The results of the comparison of the field site selection map and the United States
Geological Survey NURE data are displayed below. NURE coverage is partial in the state
of Kansas. What coverage is available indicates uranium values higher than global
estimates for coals, which are 2.9 parts per million (ppm) for brown coals and 1.9 ppm
for hard coals (Ketris & Yudovich, 2009). Coverage of north-central Kansas that overlays
the subbituminous coal production zone includes some of the highest uranium in parts per
million readings in the entire area (see Figure 20).
Figure 20: Site selection vs NURE Sediment Sample Comparison Map
Kansas Selected Area Coal Bed Uran ium Viability vs NURE Sediment Samples Uranium Count
Norton Phinips Smith
Gfaham Roob
Trego Ellis
Rush
Pawnee
Legend Coal Bed Uranium Viability
LJLowutvtablly
- LoWVlili:llt/
- lilgl Vbblt/
- Hlgles::ivta!lllly
Sediment Samples Uranium Count (PPM)
1.5(10001 - .3.600000 50 - 25 -
" lchel
Rice
Reno
N
.... -. o i o o O s o io•oo&O O,;;fPO~ o 00 08 o oo t §o
w asi,;Jon i 000: •
1) .: .. . ~: :. · .. ·?.:· :. ·,•,·· ··,.,'.:• : : ···.: .. ...... ·. .. . -,. . .. . ,: .. .. .:
.. .. · . . ··: : .· C lay
Ri ley
Did inson
Saline
J1,1cPherson Marion
Harvey Buller
Marshan
Po ttawatomie
Geary
Lyoo
Chase
G,eenwood
A 50 Kilometers
Created by: Logan Howell Data Sources: Kansas DASC & Kansas Geological Survey Last Modified: 02/13/2018
36
DISCUSSION
Conclusions
Given the lack of consistent and significant readings of the samples with both
Geiger counters, it can be concluded that the samples obtained from the field study did
not contain measurable amounts of uranium nor any other radioactive material. No
evidence was found by this study that would indicate the presence of coal bed uranium in
Cloud, Jewell, or Pottawatomie counties. Whether this is due to there not being coal bed
uranium in the areas investigated or due to the limitations of equipment and survey sites,
it cannot be concluded as to whether coal bed uranium is present in North-central Kansas.
The comparison between the prospecting map and the NURE data has interesting
implications is further study into this methodology. The overlap between the suggested
prospecting sites and the higher sediment uranium values (ppm) from the NURE data
suggests that the prospecting map and methodology may be useful in future exploration
with the addition of supplementary proxies depending on the area.
Limitations
One limitation of the study was the availability of sampling sites, which was
impacted by two factors. The first was that the map was also limited in accuracy down to
the sub-county level; with radon values being limited to the county level and coal
production zones covering large areas within certain counties. The second factor
influencing the availability of sampling sites was land availability. The overwhelming
majority of land in the state of Kansas is privately-owned. This meant that it was required
not only to get permission to take samples for research, but to get the required permission
to even go prospecting on the majority of potential sites. This factor also manifested itself
37
in the lack of published data indicating where surface exposures of coal could be found in
Kansas. This is even evident in this study as part of gaining permission to sample these
locations involved agreeing to withhold specific location information regarding sampling
sites from publishing.
The final limitation of this study is that this study only utilized samples collected
from the surface in situ or collected from tailings piles, which acted as secondary sites
located on the surface. Most of these sample location deposits are the result of mining
operations that ceased decades ago. This means that the deposits have been exposed to
the elements thoroughly. Exposed coal beds can have potential uranium or thorium
concentrations affected by exposure to meteoric water. It is possible that any uranium
present in the coal sampled from the tailings pile sites was washed away due to exposure
to meteoric water. Leaching is a known method of mining for uranium and meteoric
water has similar characteristics to the fortified water commonly used in these operations,
so it is possible that exposure to meteoric water over time could slowly cause leaching of
uranium in coal bed exposures. In leach mining, results can be seen on a scale of months
to years. It is possible there was a similar case with the coal sampled from the bank of
Adams Creek in Pottawatomie county. As the only reason this coal seam was exposed
was due to flooding of the creek due to storms, it is possible that flooding and the
significantly increased water flow could have greatly stripped the seam of any uranium it
may have possibly contained. Multiple storms were reported in the area by the landowner
before a field expedition could be organized, which means that there was more exposure
of the seam to meteoric water and possibly more flooding in the area prior to sampling.
38
Future Work
Further exploration into this methodology could benefit from a larger geographic
area with more sampling sites, a stronger link to locals, and consideration of subsurface
coal layers. A larger geographic area with more sampling sites could benefit a project like
this as it would allow for a greater possibility of finding coal layers that contained
uranium. A way of gaining access to a larger amount of sampling sites would be to have a
stronger connection with local landowners. In this particular study area, the sampling
sites were primarily provided by local landowner networking. A larger network of
landowners having knowledge of the project could have yielded more invitations to study
potential sites. Finally, there is the possibility that any uranium that was present could
have been deposited in coal beds that did not have surface outcrops. The consideration of
subsurface coal layers could make future studies more inclusive of the geology of the
study area.
Summary
In summary, there was not sufficient evidence provided by this study to support
the hypothesis that there is coal bed uranium in Kansas. There were limitations present in
the study such as the limited availability of sampling sites, limited map accuracy, limited
landowner networking, and degradation of possible uranium due to exposure of surface
outcrop to natural elements. These limitations helped to illuminate potential fixes and
improvements that could be utilized in future work associated with the project. Future
iterations of this project could yield different results with a larger geographic area with
more sampling sites, a stronger link to locals, and consideration of subsurface coal layers.
39
REFERENCES
Arbuzov, S. I., Volostnov, A. V., Rikhvanov, L. P., Mezhibor, A. M., & Ilenok, S. S. 2011. Geochemistry of radioactive elements (U, Th) in coal and peat of northern Asia (Siberia, Russian Far East, Kazakhstan, and Mongolia). International Journal of Coal Geology, 86, Issue 4, p. 318-328.
Arbuzov, S. I., Maslov, S. G., Volostnov, A. V., Il’enok, S. S., & Arkhipov, V. S. 2012. Modes of occurrence of uranium and thorium in coals and peats of Northern Asia. Solid Fuel Chemistry, 46, Issue 1, p. 52-66.
Beede, J. W. 1897 On the Correlation of the Coal Measures of Kansas and Nebraska. Transactions of the Annual Meetings of the Kansas Academy of Science, vol. 16, p. 70-84.
Breger, I. A., Deul, M., and Rubinstein, S. 1955. Geochemistry and mineralogy of a uraniferous lignite. Econ. Geology, v. 50, p. 206-226.
Cantaluppi, C., & Degetto, S. 2000. Civilian and military uses of depleted uranium: environmental and health problems. ANNALI DI CHIMICA-ROMA, v. 90. Issue 11, p. 665-676.
Denson, N.M., Bachman, G.O., and Zeller, H.D., 1959, Uranium-bearing Lignite in Northwestern South Dakota and Adjacent States, in Denson et al., 1959, Uranium in Coal in the Western United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1055, p. 11-58.
De Smith, Michael John, Goodchild, M. F., and Longley, P., 2007. Geospatial analysis: a comprehensive guide to principles, techniques and software tools. Troubador Publishing Ltd.
Field, R. W., D. J. Steck, B. J. Smith, C. P. Brus, E. L. Fisher, J. S. Neuberger, C. E. Platz, R. A. Robinson, R. F. Woolson, and C. F. Lynch. 2000. Residential radon gas exposure and lung cancer the iowa radon lung cancer study. American Journal of Epidemiology 151, p. 1091–1102.
Finch, R. J., & Ewing, R. C. 1992. The corrosion of uraninite under oxidizing conditions. Journal of Nuclear Materials 190, p. 133-156.
Flueckinger, L. A., Brady, L. L., Sophocleous, M., Denne, J., McElwee, C. D., Severini, T., Cobb, P. M., Fleming, A., Paschetto, J., Butt, M. and Watson, P. Coal in Kansas, Kansas Geological Survey Open File Report 1973-5.
Gill, J.R., 1959, Reconnaissance for Uranium in the Ekalaka Lignite Field, Carter County, Montana, in Denson et al., 1959, Uranium in Coal in the Western United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1055, p. 167-180.
James, G.W., 1978, Uranium and Thorium in Volcanic Ash Deposits of Kansas: Implications for Uranium Exploration in the Central Great Plains, Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 211, Part 4, p. 1-3.
Kalout, K. M., 1996, Kansas Private Water Wells Survey, 1996 International Radon Symposium I, 7, p. 1- 10.
Ketris, M. P., & Yudovich, Y. E., 2009. Estimations of Clarkes for Carbonaceous biolithes: World averages for trace element contents in black shales and coals. International Journal of Coal Geology, Volume 78, Issue 2, p. 135-148.
Landis, E.R., 1959, Radioactivity and Uranium Content, Sharon Springs Member of the Pierre Shale Kansas and Colorado, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1046-L
40
Love, J.D., 1952, Preliminary Report on Uranium Deposits in the Pumpkin Buttes Area Powder River Basin, Wyoming. United States Geological Survey Circular 176
Lyle, Shane, 2007, The Geology of Radon in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey, Public Information Circular 25
Macfarlane, P. Allen, Whittemore, D.O., Townsend, M.A., Doveton, J.H., Hamilton, V.J., Coyle III, W.G., Wade, A., Macpherson, G.L., and Black, R.D., 1998, The Dakota Aquifer Program Annual Report, FY89. Kansas Geological Survey, online.
Mapel, W.J., & Hail Jr., W.J. 1959, Tertiary geology of the Goose Creek district, Cassia Country, Idaho, Box Elder County, Utah, and Elko County, Nevada, in Denson et al., Uranium in Coal in the Western United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1055, p. 217-254.
McKeown, F. A., & Klemic, H. (1954). Rare-earth-bearing apatite at Mineville, Essex County, New York. Geological Survey Bulletin 1046-B, p. 9-23.
McCartney, J. T., & Teichmüller, M., 1972. Classification of coals according to degree of coalification by reflectance of the vitrinite component, Fuel, Vol. 51. Issue 1, p. 64-68.
Merriam, Daniel F., 1963, The Geologic History of Kansas, Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 162.
Moore, G. W., 1954, Extraction of uranium from aqueous solution by coal and some other materials: Econ. Geology, v. 49, p. 652-657.
Moore, G.W., Melin, R.E., and Kepferle, R.C., 1959, Uranium-bearing lignite in southwestern North Dakota, in Denson et al., Uranium in Coal in the Western United States, United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1055, p. 147–166.
Nakashima, Satoru, 1992, Complexation and reduction of uranium by lignite, Science of the total Environment 117, pp. 425-437.
Pipiringos, G.N., 1961, Uranium-Bearing Coal in the Central Part of the Great Divide Basin. United States Geological Survey Bulletin 1099-A, pp. A-1-A-104
Schoewe, Walter H., 1946, Coal Resources of the Wabaunsee Group in Eastern Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 63.
Schoewe, Walter H., 1952, Coal Resources of the Cretaceous System (Dakota Formation) in Central Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 96.
Smith, Steven M., 1997, National Geochemical Database: Reformatted Data from the National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) Hydrogeochemical and Stream Sediment Reconnaissance (HSSR) Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-492.
Stopes, Marie C. 1919, On the four visible ingredients in banded bituminous coal: studies in the composition of coal. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character No. 1. 90.633 p.470-487.
Surficial Geology – Generalized. 2017, July 18. Retrieved from http://kansasgis.org/catalog/index.cfm?data_id=1821&show_cat=1
Tiger Census Counties: Counties. 2017, July 18. Retrieved from http://kansasgis.org/catalog/index.cfm?data_id=1561&show_cat=1
Zeller, D.E., Jewett, J.M., Bayne, C.K., Goebel, E.D., O’Connor, H.G., and Swineford, A., 1968, The Stratigraphic Succession in Kansas. Kansas Geological Survey Bulletin 189.
41
2015 Kansas Radon Average Values by County. 2017, July 18. Retrieved from http://www.kansasradonprogram.org/files/kansasradonprogram/county-map/Ks_Cty_AvgRadon2014.pdf
42
APPENDIX A
Kansas Counties NAME Radon Radon_Code Coal_Prod
Greenwood High 3 0
Doniphan High 3 0
Republic High 3 2
Decatur High 3 0
Phillips High 3 0
Lyon High 3 0
Hamilton High 3 0
Wallace High 3 0
Riley High 3 0
Ellis High 3 0
Pratt Medium 2 0
Lane High 3 0
Trego High 3 0
Greeley High 3 0
McPherson High 3 0
Cowley High 3 0
Osage High 3 0
Marion High 3 0
Rush High 3 0
Stanton High 3 0
Franklin High 3 0
Pottawatomie High 3 0
Sherman High 3 0
Allen Medium 2 0
Labette Medium 2 0
Johnson High 3 0
Cherokee Medium 2 0
Cheyenne High 3 0
Atchison High 3 0
Cloud High 3 3
Geary High 3 0
Russell High 3 2
Barton High 3 2
Shawnee High 3 0
Butler High 3 0
J ewell High 3
Mitchell High 3
Scott High 3 0
43
NAME Radon Radon_Code Coal_Prod
Stevens High 3 0
Douglas High 3 0
Comanche Medium 2 0
Pawnee High 3 0
Wyandotte High 3 0
Graham High 3 0
Morton Medium 2 0
Sumner High 3 0
Miami High 3 0
Gove High 3 0
Ford High 3 0
Neosho Medium 2 0
Linn High 3 0
Brown High 3 0
Bourbon High 3 0
Clay High 3 0
Lincoln High 3 2
Smith High 3 0
Morris Medium 2 0
Barber High 3 0
Logan High 3 0
Chase High 3 0
Crawford High 3 0
Woodson Low 0
Jefferson High 3 0
Rawlins High 3 0
Thomas High 3 0
Ottawa High 3 0
Rice High 3 0
Ness High 3 0
Wilson Medium 2 0
Osborne High 3 0
Clark High 3 0
Haskell High 3 0
Saline High 3 0
Kingman Medium 2 0
Stafford High 3 0
Dickinson High 3 0
Finney High 3 0
Montgomery Low 0
Edwards High 3 0
44
NAME Radon Radon_Code Coal_Prod
Harvey High 3 0
Sheridan High 3 0
Kiowa High 3 0
Harper Medium 2 0
Washington High 3 0
Elk Medium 2 0
Seward Medium 2 0
Nemaha High 3 0
Norton High 3 0
Coffey Medium 2 0
Kearny High 3 0
Ellsworth High 3 2
Hodgeman High 3 0
Meade High 3 0
Anderson High 3 0
Marshall High 3 0
Wichita High 3 0
Grant Medium 2 0
Leavenworth High 3 0
Chautauqua Low 0
Rooks High 3 0
Reno Medium 2 0
Gray High 3 0
Wabaunsee High 3 0
Sedgwick Medium 2 0
Jackson Medium 2 0