THE M. W. KELLOGG COMPANY
-RED-72-1265
AVAILABILITY OF LIMESTONES AND DOLOMITES
TASK #1 FINAL REPORT
SUBMITTED TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
CONTROL SYSTEMS DIVISION
CONTRACT NO. CPA 7O-68
FEBRUARY 1, 1972
RESEARCH & ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT
-------
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT
AVAILABILITY OF LIMESTONES AND DOLOMITES
TASK #1 FINAL REPORT
Submitted to
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
CONTROL SYSTEMS DIVISION
Contract No. CPA 70-68
APPROVED:
-B ,lJ, . ,/1} .
e Manager
Chemical Engineering Development
/J - y 'f ..,,- " "
~. ~/. i ' ../1"" c.2-q.,
. Director
Development Engineering
Department
-------
THE M. W. KELLOGG COMPANY
A Division of Pullman Incorporated
Research & Engineering Development
.
Report No. RED-72-1265
AVAILABILITY OF LIMESTONES AND DOLOMITES
TASK #1 FINAL REPORT
EPA-OAP-CSD CONTRACT NO. CPA 70-68
February 1, 1972
Staff:
J. J. O'Donnell
A. G. Sliger
Period Covered:
June 1970 to January 1972
L. O. No.
4092-10
Distribution:
Office of Air Programs
L. C. Axelrod
A. B. Cassidy
C. W. Crady
J. B. Dwyer
S. E. Handman
A. N. Holmberg
R. H. Multhaup
J. J. O'Donnell
C. E. Scholer
W. C. Schreiner
F. H. Shipman
A. G. Sliger
M. J. vIall
R.I-D. (4)
1-30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44-47
Authors:
-------
MWKLG-RED-72-1265
AVAILABILITY OF LIMESTONES AND DOLOMITES
TASK #1 FINAL REPORT
CONTRACT NO. CPA 70-68
Submitted to
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS
CONTROL SYSTEMS DIVISION
by
THE M. W. KELLOGG COMPANY
RESEARCH & ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT
PISCATAWAY, N.J.
February 1, 1972
-------
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SUMMARY
A. Potential Demand - Power Plants
B. Carbonate Rock Reserves
C. Properties
D. Mining
E. Production
F. End Use
G. Unit Values
H. Transportation
I. Delivered Price
J. Future Costs
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEFINITIONS
POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR LIMESTONE
A.
B.
Use of Limestone for Pollution Control
C.
D.
Major Power Plants Designed for Coal
Major Power Plants Using Coal or Oil
Potential Limestone Demand
and/or Oil
CARBONATE STONE RESOURCES
A.
National Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
All Types
Limestone
Dolomite
Marble
B.
Regional Resources
1. New England
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont)
-i-
Page No.
1
4
5
5
5
...
I
9
10
11
11
12
14,
14
16
18
21
21
23
25
30
34
34
34
38
40
42
44
44
-------
VIII.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
2.
Middle Atlantic
(New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)
East North Central
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,
Wisconsin)
West North Central
(Iowa, Kansas, l1innesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
South Atlantic
(Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia, West Virginia)
East South Central
(Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Tennessee)
West South Central
(Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas)
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Mountain
(Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming)
Pacific
(California, Oregon, Washington)
9.
PRODUCTION, USE AND VALUE OF CARBONATE STONES
A. The Limestone Industry
1. Definition of Uses
2. Quarrying and Processing of Carbonate Stone
B. National Data
l.
2 .
Production
Value
C.
Regional Data
1. New England
(Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Vermont)
2. Middle Atlantic
(New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania)
-ii-
Page No.
48
52
57
62
67
71
75
80
83
83
85
90
92
92
97
97
106
108
-------
IX.
XI.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
3.
East North Central
(Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, O~io,
Wisconsin)
West North Central
(Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, South Dakota)
South Atlantic
(Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia)
East South Central
(Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Tennessee)
4.
5.
6.
D.
West South Central
(Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas)
Mountain
(Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming)
9. Pacific
(California, Oregon, Washington)
Quarries
7.
8.
TRANSPORTATION
A. Methods Employed .
B. Factors Influencing Transportation.
C. Transportation Rates
D. Availability of Equipment
E. Delivered Price of Limestone
Costs
X.
PROJECTED COSTS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
A. Base Price
B.
Transportation Rates
SUPPLY/DEMAND RELATIONSHIP OF CARBONATE ROCKS
FOR POLLUTION CONTROL
A. Proximity of Carbonate Rock Deposits to
Power Plants
-iii-
Page No.
110
113
115
118
120
122
125
127
128
128
133
135
136
140
143
143
149
151
151
-------
XII.
XIII.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
B.
C.
Potential Demand Relative to Production
I
Some Factors Which Could Affect Availability
and Cost of Limestone
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
A. Specific Gravity
B. Bulk Density
c. Porosity
D. Abrasive Loss
E. Hardness
F. Crushing Strength
G. Toughness
H. Specific Heat
I. Thermal Conductivity
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
A.
B.
Tabulation of Quarry Operations in the
Uni ted States
State Geologist List
-iv-
Page No.
154
158.
161
161
161
180
180
182
182
183
184
184
186
A-I
a-I
-------
TABLE NO.
LIST OF TABLES
TITLE.
PAGE NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Typical Physical Properties of Carbonate Rocks
8
Major Power Plants in the United States
Designed for Coal/Oil
26
Major Power Plants in the united States
Burning Coal or Oil as the Primary Fuel
29
Potential Limestone Demand by Power Plants
in the United States
33
Typical Chemical Composition of Carbonate
Rocks - New England Region
45
Typical Chemical Composition of Carbonate
Rocks - Middle Atlantic Region
49
Typical Chemical Composition of Carbonate
Rocks - East North Central Region
53
Typical Chemical Composition of Carbonate
Rocks - West North Central Region
58
Typical Chemical Composition of Carbonate
Rocks - South Atlantic Region
63
Typical Chemical Composition of Carbonate
Rocks - East South Central Region
68
Typical Chemical Composition of Carbonate
Rocks - West South Central Region
72
Typical Chemical Composition of Carbonate
Rocks - Mountain Region
76
Typical Chemical Composition of Carbonate
Rocks - Pacific Region
81
Production of Crushed and Broken Carbonate
Stones in the United States in 1969, by Type
93
Production of Crushed and Broken Carbonate
Stones in the united States in 1969, by Use
94
Types of Crushed and Broken Carbonate Stones
Produced in the United States in 1969, by State
96
-v-
-------
TABLE NO.
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
TITLE
PAGE NO.
17
98
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Unit Value of Crushed and Broken Carbonate
Stones in the United States in 1969, by Type
Unit Value of Crushed and Broken Carbonate
Stones in the United States in 1969, by'Use
99
Production of Crushed and Broken Limestone
and Dolomite in the United States in 1969,
by Region and State
100
Unit Value of Crushed and Broken Carbonate
Stones in the United States in 1969, by Region
and State
104
Percent of Crushed Stone Shipped by Various
Methods in 1969
129
Delivered Price of High-Calcium Limestone
to Selected Power Plants
141
Relative Supply of Surface Carbonate Rocks
In the united States
153
Production/Potential Demand Relationship of
Limestone and Dolomite For Pollution Control
156
Typical Properties of Carbonate Rocks -
New England Region
162
Typical Properties of Carbonate Rocks -
Middle Atlantic Region
163
Typical Properties of Carbonate Rocks -
East North Central Region
164
Typical Properties of Carbonate Rocks -
West North Central Region
165
Typical Properties of Carbonate Rocks -
South Atlantic Region
166
Typical Properties of Carbonate Rocks -
East South Central Region
167
Typical Properties of Carbonate Rocks -
West South Central Region
168
Typical Properties of Carbonate Rocks -
Mountain Region
169
Typical Properties of Carbonate Rocks -
Pacific Region
170
-vi-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
PAGE NO.
FIGURE NO.
1
Major Thermal Power Plants in the united States
Designed to Burn Coal and/or oil
24
2
Major Thermal Power Plants in the United States
Burning Coal or Oil as the Primary Fuel
27
3
potential Limestone Demand by Power Plants
32
4
Mineral Raw Materials for Construction
(Showing the Distribution of Carbonate
Rocks in the united states)
35
5
Distribution of Chalk and Limestone Deposits
in the United States
39
6
Location of High-Grade Dolomite Quarries
in the United States
41
7
Marble Deposits in the eastern United States
43
8
Sample Locations of Carbonate Rocks -
New England Region
46
9
Sample Locations of Carbonate Rocks -
Middle Atlantic Region
50
10
Sample Locations of Carbonate Rocks -
East North Central Region
54
11
Sample Locations of Carbonate Rocks -
West North Central Region
59
12
Sample Locations of Carbonate Rocks -
South Atlantic Region
64
13
Sample Locations of Carbonate Rocks -
East South Central Region
69
14
Sample Locations of Carbonate Rocks -
West South Central Region
73
15
Sample Locations of Carbonate Rocks -
Mountain Region
77
16
Sample Locations of Carbonate Rocks
Pacific Region
82
17
Commercially Navigable Inland Waterways
of the 48 Contiguous States
132
-vii-
-------
FIGURE NO.
LIST OF FIGURES (Cont'd)
TITLE
PAGE NO.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
,,'
Truck Transportation Rates For Shipment of
Crushed Stone in the united States
Rail Transportation Rates For Shipment of
Crushed Stone in the United States
Waterway Transportation Rates For Shipment of
Crushed Stone in the United States
Yearly Variation in Average Unit Value of
Crushed Stone
Yearly Variation in Average unit Value of
Limestone and Dolomite
Yearly Variation in Average unit Value of Marl
Yearly Variation in Average Unit Value of Shell
Yearly Variation in Average unit Value of Marble
Location of Carbonate Rock Samples -
New England Region
Location of Carbonate Rock Samples -
Middle Atlantic Region
Location of Carbonate Rock Samples -
East North Central Region
Location of Carbonate Rock Samples -
West North Central Region
Location of Carbonate Rock Samples -
South Atlantic Region
Location of Carbonate Rock Samples -
East South Central Region
Location of Carbonate Rock Samples -
West South Central Region
Location of Carbonate Rock Samples -
Mountain Region
Location of Carbonate Rock Samples -
Pacific Region
Specific Heat of Calcite and Dolomite
-viii-
137
138
139
144
145
146
147
148
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
185
-------
I.
INTRODUCTION
This report covers work which was perfo~med under
Contract No. CPA 70~68, Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Programs. Under this contract, work is divided
into various tasks, of which Task No.1 is described in this
report.
Most of the power generated in the United States comes
from plants which burn coal or oil as a primary fuel. With
the increasingly stringent regulations and restrictions on
emission of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere, combined with
the difficulty of obtaining low sulfur fuels, much emphasis
is being placed on the development of processes which remove
sulfur oxides from power plant stack gases. Several of these
processes are based on the use of limestone or dolomite as
the absorbent. The proximity of adequate limestone deposits
to potential users, i.e., fossil fuel-fired power plants,
and the relationship of limestone production to possible
demand are important considerations in establishing the rela-
tive merits of any limestone-based process. The objective
of this study was, then, to determine the availability and
costs of limestone and similar materials throughout the con-
tiguous United States, thus providing a basis for determin-
ing the feasibility and economics of limestone-based S02
removal processes for any particular power plant site.
The reason for undertaking this
the experimental work (most of which
OAP) now under way which is directed
study was to supplement
is sponsored by CSD,
toward developing dry
-1-
-------
limestone injection and limestone wet scrubbing processes
for S02-removal from stack gases. A study to determine
availability and cost of limestone is needed since success-
ful development of the process could result ~n its wide-
spread application, thus requiring substantial quantities
of limestone having the required properties. The results
of this study should furnish this information.
Materials covered in this study include limestone, dolo-
mite, chalk, marble, marl, and shell. Information is presen-
ted on location of deposits, production rates, F.O.B. quarry
costs, transportation methods and costs, expected cost in-
creases, uses, chemical composition, and physical properties.
Much of the data is reported nationally, regionally,
and on a state-wide basis. Since the study is primarily con-
cerned with limestone availability as it relates to potential
consumption by power plants, the regions have been chosen to
coincide with those defined by the National Coal Association
and used by them in their annual listing of power plants in
the united States. (1) These regions are defined as follows:
REGION
New England
Middle Atlantic
STATES INCLUDED
Connecticut, Maine, Massa-
chusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont
New Jersey, New Yo"rk, Penn-
sylvania
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, Wisconsin
East North Central
( 1)
Steam-Electric Plant Factorsj1970 Edition, National Coal
Association, Washington, D.C., November, 1970
-2-
-------
West North Central
South Atlantic
Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North
Dakota, South Dakota
Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Maryland (i~cl. Washington,
D.C.), North Carolina, South
Carolina, Virginia, West
Virginia
Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Tennessee
East South Central
West South Central
Mountain
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Texas
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah, Wyoming
California, Oregon, Washington
Pacific
In all cases, an attempt was made to obtain the latest
data available. Complete information on production rates,
uses, and average values of various carbonate materials are
available for 1968. Some of this information is also available
for 1969. Transportation costs are derived from data obtained
during the latter part of 1970. Statistics on power plants
are based on information compiled for 1969. The timeliness of
the data is noted throughout the report, as necessary.
Although other alkaline materials may be suitable for use
in removal of sulfur oxides from stack gases, only those mater-
ials listed above were investigated during this study. The
investigation was also limited to the contiguous united States,
i.e., Alaska and Hawaii were not included.
Published material was the source of some of the data
in the report, and all publications
the bibliography. However, much of
and was derived from communications
consulted are listed in
the data is unpublished
with federal and state
government agencies, trade associations, and various crushed
stone or limestone producers.
-3-
-------
II.
ACKNOWLEGMENTS
The assistance of many persons active within the lime-
stone industry is gratefully acknowledged. Ronald C. Briggs,
Physical Scientist, U.S. Bureau of Mines, provided valuable
statistical data on production, uses, and value of crushed
stone; Robert M. Koch, President, National Limestone Institute
Inc., Robert S. Boynton, Executive Director, National Lime
Association, and F. A. Renninger, National Crushed Stone
Association, were very helpful in obtaining information,
particularly on stone transportation, from companies within
the industry; Alfred J. Bodenlos, Geologist, U.S. Geological
Survey, furnished highly useful material on location of
carbonate rock deposits. Appreciation is also due to the
many state geological surveys, which supplied information on
the limestone industry within their states, and to the numerous
officials of crushed stone companies, who made available vital
information on transportation methods and costs.
-4-
-------
III.
SUMMARY
A.
Potential Demand - Power Plants
Most of the power capacity from coal- and oil-fired power
plants in the United States occurs in the eastern half of the
country. In fact, almost 90% of the major (>200 MW) coal- and
oil-fired power plants scheduled to be onstream in 1975 are
located east of the Mississippi River. Particularly high con-
centrations are found in the East North Central region of the
united States and in many of the larger metropolitan areas.
Based on 1969 fuel consumption statistics, at least 40
million- tons of limestone would have been required to remove
the 20 million tons of sulfur oxides emitted by power plants
in the United States. The East North Central region was poten-
tially the largest consumer with over one-third of the total
limestone. With the exception of New England, other eastern
and east central regions also had potentially large demands
for limestone.
B.
Carbonate Rock Reserves
Deposits of carbonate rocks, including limestone, dolomite,
shell, marble, and marl, occur in some form in every state.
Total reserves have never been detennined, but are known to be
enormous.
Based on a United States Geological Survey map showing the
areal extent of surface carbonate rocks, and some very simpli-
fying assumptions, an approximate estimate of more than
3.6 x lOll tons was obtained for total surface carbonate deposits
in the united States. About two-thirds of this occurs in the
eastern half of the country. Even on the assumption that only
10% of this stone could be commercially extracted, the surface
-5-
-------
reserves are adequate for over 500 years, at the present rate
of consumption. Although these figures should be regarded as
very rough approximations, they nevertheless demonstrate the
enormity of carbonate deposits in the united States.
Limestone and dolomite deposits are far more abundant in
the eastern half of the country where they commonly outcrop in
large, thick, horizontal beds. Limestone outcrops are particu-
larly plentiful in an area extending from eastern Kansas and
Nebraska eastward to the Appalachian Mountains, and reaching
southward from the Great Lakes into central Alabama. Many of
these deposits contain high calcium stone (>95% calcium carbon-
ate) .
Limestone also is found in most other eastern and east
central states, notably in Florida; it does not occur in most
Atlantic coastal regions, however.
Dolomite, a stone containing both calcium and magnesium
carbonates, abounds in states surrounding the Great Lakes,
and along the Appalachian Mountains from Vermont to central
Alabama. High grade deposits (a dolomitic stone containing
>95% total carbonates) are common.
Most limestone and dolomite deposits in western and west
central states tend to be discontinuous, scattered, and, in
mountainous sections, occur frequently as steeply dipping
beds. Although not as abundant as in the east, nevertheless,
high purity limestones and dolomites occur in many areas.
The most significant deposits of marble are found along
virtuaily the entire length of the Appalachian Mountains in
the east, and as scattered occurrences in the Rocky Mountains
in the west. Although eastern marbles are predominantly cal-
citic (high calcium), dolomitic types also occur. Both types
are found in the west. ~
-6-
-------
Shell limestone occurs primarily in Gulf Coastal waters,
but it also is found in bay waters along both the east and
west coasts. It is usually a very pure type of calcium car-
bonate.
Marl deposits exist in several areas, notably around the
Great Lakes, and along the southeastern coastal plain. This
soft, relatively impure form of calcium carbonate varies con-
siderably in character, that of the Great Lakes area being a
precipitated calcium carbonate, while that of the coastal
plain is an impure shell deposit. Limited occurrences in
other regions are generally impure chalks or soft limestones.
C.
Properties
Physical properties vary with composition, crystal struc-
ture and the nature of impurities. Typical ranges for the
more important properties are summarized in Table 1.
Some properties which influence grindability are shown in
the table. Abrasive loss, as measured by the Deval and Los
Angeles rnethods, is expressed as the percentage of material
passing a l2-mesh screen after a sample has been subjected to
a standardized test in a rotating drum. The Dorry hardness
test consists of subjecting a sample to the abrasive action of
finely crushed quartz. The higher the number is, the harder is
the material. Toughness is measured by dropping a known weight
on a standard specimen. The height of fall at failure is termed
the toughness. These terms, and the test procedures, are fully
explained in the report.
For purposes of comparison of the properties mentioned in
the preceding paragraph, a range of values reported for 20 of
-7-
-------
I
ex>
I
TABLE 1
TYPICAL PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
Specific Gravity
Bulk Density, lb/ft3
Porosity, vol. %
LIMESTONE
2.712
155-175
0.3-6.0
PRINCIPAL
NON -CARBONATE
ROCKS 1
CHALK
DOLOMITE
MARBLE
2.8-2.9
160-180
0.3-6.0
100-125
10-40
165-180
0.1-1.0
Abrasive Loss
Deval, %
Los Angeles, %
3.5-8.5 3.5-8.5 4-10 1. 5-22
17-35 16-35 23-67 10-70
10-28 1-4 10-40 10-30 28-673
10-17 11-17 9-17 6-20
4-13 4-14 3-9 3-32
crushing Strength,
Dorry Hardness4
'roughness 5
psi x 103
1
Including Amphibolite, Basalt, Breccia, Chert, Conglomerate, Diabase, Diorite,
Epidosite, Felsite, Gabbro, Gneiss, Granite, Peridotite, Quartzite, Sandstone,
Serpentine, Slate, Syenite
For Calc~te. Aragonite is 2.94
For Basalt, a dense, fine-grained rock
The hardest rocks have the largest values
The toughest rocks have the largest values
Eclogite,
Schist,
2
3
4
5
-------
the principal non-carbonate rock types is included in Table 1.
Few of the properties shown in Table 1 have been determined
for shell and marl.
D.
Mining
Carbonate stones are recovered by several methods, including
underground mining and dredging, but quarrying is employed most
commonly. After removal of overburden and primary blasting of
the stone, various crushing, grinding, sizing, and cleaning
operations are performed to produce a range of marketable prod-
ucts. A large, modern quarry is an expensive, complex, and
highly mechanized unit.
Over 4,700 quarries, producing 861 million tons of crushed
stone of all types, were in operation in the United States in
1969. Since production of crushed carbonate rocks totaled 652
million tons, it can be assumed that, roughly, over 3,500 of
these quarries produced limestone, dolomite, and related stones.
More than one-third of all quarries had annual production rates
of less than 25,000 tons. The large operations (over 900,000
tons/year) produced one-third of the total crushed stone,
although they represented less than 4% of the total number of
quarries.
-9-
-------
E.
Production
Crushed carbonate rock production in the united States in
1969 was distributed as follows:
Limestone.
Dolomi te. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Shell. . . .
Galcareous Marl.
Marble. .
. . .
Total
MM TONS
559
68
20
2.5
2.3
652
No production of any type was reported in three states, viz.,
Delaware, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. These states, plus
Louisiana, were the only states which did not produce any lime-
stone. Dolomite was produced in twenty-four states, chiefly in
the northeastern quarter of the country.
Production of limestone and dolomite, by region, was as
follows:
New England. . . . . .
Middle Atlantic. . . .
East North Central. . .
West North Central. . .
South Atlantic. . . . .
East South Central. . .
West South Central. . .
Mountain.
Pacific
.......
Total
MM TONS
2.4
90.9
185.6
92.5
87.5
81.3
58.3
10.7
18.8
628
Nationwide, Pennsylvania and Illinois were the leading producers
of limestone and dolomite, respectively. Within most regions,
production rates of individual states varied from near zero to
tens of millions of tons. The New England and Mountain regions,
however, had fairly uniform, and low, outputs. The East North
-10-
-------
Central region was also an exception, with all states reporting
large quantities of limestone and dolomite, ranging from 16 to
55 million tons.
Shell was dredged from bay waters along all three coasts.
However, 83% came from Texas and Louisiana, with the latter
being the leading producer. Small quantities of marl were
produced in Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada,
South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. Eighteen states, princi-
pally in eastern and western mountainous regions quarried marble,
with Alabama recording the highest production at 632,000 tons.
F. .
End Use
Carbonate rocks are unique among the different types used
in this country. Not only do they find use in applications
where their physical properties are important, but also in
markets which utilize them for their chemical properties and
composition. Almost two-thirds of the total production of
carbonate rocks were used for various construction purposes in
1969. Most of this stone was used as an aggregate material in
road construction. The second largest use was in cement manu-
facture, which consumed over 105 million tons. About 70 million
tons of high grade limestone and dolomite were used in lime
manufacture and other applications requiring a high purity
material.
G.
Unit Values
The average unit value, or net selling price at the quarry,
for all crushed carbonate stones produced in the United States
in 1969 was $1.49/ton and varied by type of stone as follows:
Limestone. . . . . . . . $1.45/ton
Dolomite. . . . . . . . $1.55/ton
Shell. . . . . . . . . . $1.42/ton
Marl,'. . . . . . . . . $l.Ol/ton
Marble. . . . . . $9.69/ton
-11-
-------
The high unit value of marble reflects its primary use as a
decorative material.
Unit value also varies with end use.
stone used for all
construction purposes averaged $1.44/ton while stone used in
applications requiring a high purity material had an average
value of $1.69/ton. Average prices ranged from $0.69/ton for
fill to $6.00/ton for exposed aggregate (decorative stone).
Stone for most applications, however, averaged under $2.00/ton.
The variation in price depends not only on supply and demand,
/
but also on the chemical and/or physical properties required
for the particular application.
25.00/ton.
However,
of limestone and dolomite were $1.00 - 2.00/
although spot prices ranged from $0.12 -
several states in the New England and
addition to New Jersey, reported average
Average prices
ton in most states,
Mountain Regions, in
values above $2.00/ton. Rhode Island reported the highest
average value: $7.S7/ton for limestone. The prices reported
in California and Washington were unusual in that average values
for limestone were below the national average, while average
values for dolomite far exceeded $2.00/ton. In all cases where
average unit values were high, production of the particular stone
was limited.
With the exception of Virginia, which reported $3.92/ton,
average prices of shell were $1.00 - 2.00/ton. Unit values for
marl were all below $l.lS/ton. Marble varied widely in price.
H.
Transportation
Trucks dominated in the transportation of carbonate rocks
from quarry to consumer, accounting for almost three-fourths of
all stone.
Rail and waterway hauls, amounting to one-fifth of
the stone shipments, were about equally divided.
-12-
-------
Trucks generally are used for shorter hauls of under
50-100 miles, while rail is employed for longer distances.
Where conditions permit, shipment of stone by barge or boat
is preferred, since this is usuaily the cheapest method of
transportation.
Typical capacities of the various vehicles used to transport
stone are:
Barge.
Boat.
up to 50 tons
60-100 tons
1200-1400 tons
Truck.
Rail Car.
up to 29,000 tons
Trucks were a popular mode of transportation in all sections of
the nation, while railroads were important in eastern states,
particularly in the southeast. Large amounts of stone were
moved via inland waters, notably in the Great Lakes area and
along the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway. The abundance of highways,
railroads, and inland waterways found in the east is not dupli-
cated in western states, thereby limiting the selection of a
transportation method in the latter area.
Generally, sufficient trucks, barges, and boats are avail-
able to haul stone, although in some areas, and in peak seasons,
the supply may be limited. In most sections of the country,
however, a shortage of rail cars does occur. For a power plant,
where the limestone demand would be known and deliveries, therefore,
could be scheduled well in advance, the affect of a shortage of
vehicles should not be severe.
So many factors influence transportation rates and costs
that it becomes very difficult to establish average rates, even
within a single area. Most freight rates for crushed stone in
the United States, however, fall within the following ranges, in
cents per ton-mile:
-13-
-------
Truck
Rail
Water
5.0-10.0
4.5- 6.0
0.9- 1.5
( @ 10 mi Ie s )
( @ 10 mi Ie s )
. ( @ 2 0 mi Ie s )
--., 2.0 -5.0 (@100
~ 0.75-1.5 (@250
~ 0.25-0.50(@500
mi Ie s )
miles)
mi les)
I.
Delivered Price
The delivered price of limestone to 37 selected power
plants was estimated based on the assumption that a high cal-
cium limestone would be required. Most of the plants are
located in the eastern half of the united States where the
major coal- and oil-fired power capacity is found. Prices
range from $1.95-13.20/ton. Half of the plants could be
supplied at under $4.00/ton, while all but 3 could obtain
limestone at under $6.00/ton. The latter 3 plants are located
in the west in areas where base prices are higher or limestone
deposits are remote. For several eastern seaboard plants,
particularly in New England, the availability of low-cost high
calcium limestone is contingent upon the acceptability of an
imported stone. Domestic sources are either inadequate or too
distant to provide a low-cost material.
J.
Future Costs
Carbonate rocks historically have been stable, low-priced
commodities. Based on average unit values for the years 1960-
1969, projected average base prices for 1975 are as follows:
Limestone and Dolomite
Marl
1969
~ 1. 46/ton
$1. Ol/ton
1975
$1.67-1. 82/ton
$1.28-1. 48/ton
The average value of shell has dropped considerably since 1960.
It is unlikely that it will continue to decrease through 1975.
More probably, it should parallel limestone and dolomite but
not exceed them in value. Average unit values for crushed
marble are highly variable, reflecting the sensitivity of
price to market conditions.
-14-
-------
Transportation rates during the next
about 6%/year, on the average,. Estimates
portation are as follows:
5 years should rise
by type of trans-
Truck
Rail
4- 6%/year
6- 8%/year
5-10%/year
Wa ter
These estimates, based on predictions by various stone producers,
assume a continuance of the present rate of inflation.
-15-
-------
IV.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the study descr~bed in this re-
port, the following conclusions and recommendations are made
regarding the availability and cost of limestone and dolomite
for air pollution control:
. Enormous deposits of carbonate rocks occur in the United
States, and reserves are more than adequate for the foresee-
able future. A very rough approximation of surface carbonate
deposits indidates a minimum of 3.6 x 1012 tons, sufficient
to satisfy national requirements for more than 500 years at
the present rate of consumption (and assuming a 10% availa-
bility of these reserves). Availability of high purity stone
may become a problem several decades hence, but, with the
probability that the required quality will depend on other
process and e~onomic factors, no shortage of suitable stone
is foreseen.
. The major deposits of carbonate rocks occur in the eastern
half of the United States, where the vast majority of fossil
fuel-fired power plants are located. Large reserves in these
eastern areas provide a nearby source of stone for most power
plants. Roughly two-thirds of all surface deposits of carbon-
ate rock are found in the eastern half of the country.
. Relative to the potential demand for carbonate rocks by
power plants, production of these materials is quite large
in most states. However, current production is inadequate to
supply the potential needs of power plants in several Atlantic
coastal regions, notably New England.
-16-
-------
. Limestone is the only type of carbonate rock which is
produced in large enough quantities to merit consideration
for widespread application in the removal of SOx from stack
gases. In many areas, however, ample amounts of other car-
bonate rocks are produced, particularly dolomite.
. Most of the power plants in the eastern half of the
United States could be supplied with high calcium limestone
at less than $6.00jton. Many could obtain stone at less than
$4.00jton. Costs for power plants located in western states
generally would be higher, owing to the lack of suitable,
nearby deposits and other factors.
The preceding costs are based on an unsized, nominally
2-6" x oCkltone, which is typical of the product from the
primary crusher at most quarries. If a sized or fine material
is desired, the cost may increase. However, most quarries
have little or no capacity for fine grinding, particularly in
the amounts required by the larger power plants.
. Based on projections of material cost and transportation
charges to 1975, the delivered price of limestone to most
power plants should not increase by more than $1.OO-2.00jton.
. The data and material contained in this report should
be used to obtain a first approximation of the occurrence,
characteristics, and cost of carbonate rocks in a particular
case, thereby enabling a power company to assess the desir-
ability of installing a limestone-based process for SOx re-
mova~. If further investigation is warranted, the state geo-
logical surveys, a list of which is included in the report,
individual stone producers, and local carriers should be con-
sulted for more detailed and specific information.
(1 )
This indicates stone with a maximum size of 2-6" and
no minimum size.
-17-
-------
v.
DEFINITIONS
To avoid some of the confusion which frequently results
from the inexact and qualitative definitions applied to
limestone and related materials in the United States, and
from the multitude of overlapping names used, some of the
terms as used in this report are defined below.
Limestone is a general term applied to sedimentary rocks
composed chiefly of calcium carbonate, CaC03, calcium-magnesium
carbonate, CaMg(C03)2, or mixtures of the two. The term is
also used, in a more restricted way, to denote rocks composed
mainly of calcium carbonate, in order to differentiate them
from dolomites. Dolomite is a name used to describe a lime-
stone primarily composed of the mineral dolomite, calcium-
magnesium carbonate (CaMg(C03)2) . It is generally applied
to carbonate rocks which contain approximately 20% or more
magnesium carbonate, MgC03. Pure dolomite would contain 54.3%
CaC03 and 45.7% MgC03. A point of contention, which is some-
times noted in the literature, is whether the calcium and
magnesium carbonates are chemically combined, or whether they
occur merely as a physical mixture. Limestone and dolomite
occur with varying quantities of impurities, the most common
of which are silica, alumina, iron oxides, and carbonaceous
matter.
Lime can be defined as the product which results from
calcination of a limestone or dolomite. Calcination is a
process of heating the stone to a temperature at which carbon
dioxide, C02' is released, thereby converting the carbonates
to oxides. A calcium carbonate stone will produce a lime
containing calcium oxide, CaO. Dolomite will produce a lime
containing both calcium oxide and magnesium oxide, MgO,
commonly called magnesia. In practice, commercial limes are
-18-
-------
usually derived from high purity stones containing a minimum
of about 95% total carbonates.
The following list defines the more important terms used
in this report:
Ar~gonite is a mineral composed of calcium carbonate, and
having an orthorhombic crystalline structure.
Argillaceous limestone contains clay as a major impurity.
Bituminous (carbonaceous)
compounds as a major impurity.
limestone contains organic
Calcareous is a term used to describe any material con-
taining calcium carbonate.
Calcite is a mineral composed of calcium carbonate, and
having a rhombohedral crystalline structure. It is the pre-
dominant mineral in most limestones.
Chalk is a soft, friable, fine-grained limestone consisting
primarily of the remains of minute marine organisms.
Coral limestone is a fossiliferous limestone consisting
primarily of coral.
Dolomitic limestone refers to a limestone which contains
more than approximately 20% magnesium carbonate.
usually interchangeable with "dolomite".
The term is
Ferruginous limestone contains iron oxides as a major
impurity.
-19-
-------
Flux stone is a high-purity limestone or dolomite used
as a flux in metallurgical processes. It contains 95% or
more minimum total carbonate.
Fossiliferous limestone is a stone in which the shells
or shell fragments (fossils) are readily discernible.
High calcium limestone refers to a limestone which
contains a minimum of approximately 95% calcium carbonate.
Magnesian limestone refers to a limestone which contains
magnesium carbonate within the approximate range of 5-20%.
Marble is a metamorphic rock consisting of crystallized
grains of calcite and/or dolomite. Commercially, the defi-
nition includes any calcareous rock that can be polished.
Marl is an indefinite term used to describe a loose,
soft, impure material which contains fine-grained fragments
of shell and marine organisms intermixed with sand and clay.
Oolitic limestone contains small, rounded pellets (oolites),
having a center of calcium carbonate or sand grains around
which are deposited concentric layers of calcite.
Shell limestone is a term used to describe limestone
derived from clam and oyster shells.
Siliceous (cherty) limestone contains silica as a major
impurity.
Travertine consists of calcium carbonate that is chemi-
cally precipitated from hot springs.
-20-
-------
VI.
POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR LIMESTONE
A.
Use of Limestone for Pollution Control
Power plants which use coal or oil as the primary fuel
account for most of the power generation in the United States,
with coal by far the most cornmon fuel. In general, the more
abundant reserves of these fuels are relatively high in sulfur
content and their use results in large quantities of sulfur
oxides being emitted to the atmosphere. Federal, state, and
city regulations are becoming increasingly more stringent,
causing some power .plants, for example, in the large metro-
politan areas, to cQnvert to low sulfur fuels. These are
available in only limited quantities and are costlier than
the far more abundant supplies of high sulfur fuels. This
fact, coupled with growing public concern over air pollution,
and proposed. legislation have spurred interest in an alternate
approach to the problem, the development of processes which
remove sulfur oxides from power plant stack gases.
Limestone and related materials have been found to be
promising candidates for such processes. The primary com-
ponents of limestone, calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate,
remove sulfur oxides from stack gases through a series of
reactions some of which are as follows:
CaC 03 + S02 ~ CaS03 + C02 (1)
CaC03 + S02 + 1/2 02 ~ Ca504 + C02 (2 )
CaC03 + S03 ~ CaS04 + C02 (3 )
MgC03 + S02 ~ MgS03 + C02 (4 )
MgC03 + 502 + 1/2 02 ~ Mg504 + C02 ( 5)
MgC03 + S03 ~ MgS04 + C02 (6 )
-21-
-------
Limestone-based sulfur removal processes are now well
into the development stage, and comprehensive large-scale
test work is being done. The most prominent limestone pro-
cesses are the dry-injection process and the wet~scrubbing
process. In the dry-injection process, hot combustion gases
are contacted with powdered limestone which is injected into
the furnace above the burners. The solid reaction products
and unreacted material is collected in dry form along with
the fly ash in standard dust collection equipment. The wet-
scrubbing process uses a recirculating limestone slurry to
contact the stack gases in a scrubber located downstream of
the power plant air preheater. In this case, the additive
material and fly ash are collected in the form of wet solids.
A promising variation is a combination of the two processes
wherein the limestone is injected in dry form and the gas-
solids stream is further treated in a wet-scrubbing circuit.
A detailed discussion of these processes and their relative
merits is given elsewhere. (1) (2)
Successful development of these processes is one poten-
tial solution to part of the air pollution problem. It would
permit power plants burning high sulfur fuels to continue to
do so and yet, at the same time, to reduce their sulfur emis-
sions to acceptable levels. It also would give power plants
which now are required to burn low sulfur fuels the option to
convert to high sulfur fuels without increasing their sulfur
emissions. Additionally, it would allow gas-fired power
plants to switch to coal or oil without causing severe pollu-
tion problems. The importance of this is emphasized by the
\
(1) "Conceptual Design and Cost Study, Sorption by Limestone
or Lme Dry Process", TVA, 1968.
"Conceptual Design and Cost Study, Use of Limestone in
Wet-Scrubbing Process", TVA, 1969.
( 2)
-22-
-------
dwindling natural gas reserves in this country.
Specifications for limestone to be used in these sulfur
removal processes have not yet been completely defined.
Limestone, dolomite, marl, lime, and coral are among the
materials that have been and are being tested. It is likely
that a high purity carbonate rock would be desirable, in
order to minimize the amount of inerts that must be handled,
but no limits on carbonate content have yet been set. Most
test work has been done on finely ground rock, but final
particle size specifications have not been determined. It
is possible that process specifications as to type of mater-
ial, required purity, size, etc., will result from an econ-
omic balance between process performance and cost of differ-
ent stones at a particular power plant site.
B.
Major Power Plants Designed for Coal and/or Oil
Figure I shows the approximate location of most of the
major power plants in the united States which were, or will
be, designed to burn coal and/or oil. These are plants
having installed generating capacities of 200 megawatts (MW)
or greater that are either in existence now or are scheduled
to come on stream by 1975. Some of these are designed also
to burn natural gas, in addition to coal and/or oil. Most,
but not all, plants which fit the above definition are shown.
There are a few which are scheduled to come on stream between
now and 1975 for which no information is available on plant
site, type of fuel, or both. These have been excluded from
the map. (1) (2)
(1) Steam-Electric Plant Factors/1970 Edition, National Coal
Association, Washington, D.C., November, 1970.
(2) Principal Electric Facilities, Federal Power Commission,
1970. (Series of Seven maps)
-23-
-------
%
o
NOTE:
MAJOR POWER PLANTS ARE DEFINED
AS THOSE HAVING INSTALLED GENERATING
CAPACITIES OF 200 MEGAWATTS OR MORE.
MAJOR
FIGURE I
THERMAL POWER PLANTS IN THE UNITED
DESIGNED TO BURN COAL AND/OR OIL
STATES
NORTH DAKOTA
co
SOUTH DAKOTA
WYOMING
o
~
,
,
,
OE\..' ,
9 PLANTS WITHIN
THE NEW YORK CITY
LIMITS
NEBRASKA
COLORADO
o
00
o
KANSAS
o
o
o NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
o
TEXAS
00
o
o
o
°000%
o
o
o
o
o
o
SOURCES:
I. Principal Electric Facilities, Federal Power
((970). (Series of seven maps)
Commission,
2. Steam -Electric Plant Factors//970 Edition, NationQl
COQl Association, Washington, D.C., (November 1970).
-------
The selection of 200 MW as a minimum size for repre-
sentation of power plants in Figure 1 was arbitrary. How-
ever, since these larger plants account for more than three-
fourths of the power capacity of all conventional power
plants in the United States, it is felt that they adequately
describe the coal- and oil-fired power capacity in this
country.
There are 361 plants shown on Figure 1. Inspection of
the map reveals that most of these are located in the eastern
half of the United States with a high concentration in the
East North Central, South Atlantic, and Middle Atlantic
regions. Particularly noteworthy is the very high densities
indicated in the major metropolitan areas such as New York
City, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Chicago, etc.
About 75% of these plants are within states that lie
wholly east of the Mississippi River. Pennsylvania has more
(28) than any other state. Table 2 is a tabulation by region
and shows that the East North Central region contains almost
one-quarter of these power plants. The Mountain region has
the fewest with just 3.1% of the total.
C.
Major Power Plants Using Coal or Oil
Figure 2 shows the approximate location of most of the
major power plants in the United States which burn either
coal or oil as the primary fuel. Included on the map are
a few plants which, although not yet constructed, are being
designed exclusively for either coal or oil. A few others,
where sufficient information to establish location or primary
fuel is lacking, have been omitted. The power plants shown
on Figure 2 have been defined in a similar manner to those
-25-
-------
TABLE 2
~JOR POWER PL~TS IN THE UNITED STATES DESIGNED FOR COAL/OIL (1)
Rep;ion No. of Plants % of Total
New England 16 J+-4
Middle Atlantic 62 17.2
East North Central 86 23.8
West North Central 30 8.3
South Atlantic 78 21.6
r~st South Central 28 7.8
West South Central 29 8.0
Mountain 11 3.1
Paci fie ~ 5.8
Total 361 100.0
(1) See Section VIB of text for definition
-26-
-------
FIGURE 2
MAJOR THERMAL POWER PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES
BURNING COAL OR OIL AS THE PRIMARY FUEL
o - COAL
. - OIL
NORTH DAKOTA
% 0
SOUTH DAKOTA
WYOMING
0 IOWA
NEBRASKA
0
COLORADO
00
0 KANSAS
o
NEW MEXICO
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NOTE:
MAJOR POWER PLANTS ARE DEFINED
AS THOSE HAVING INSTALLED GENERATING
CAPACITIES OF 200 MEGAWATTS OR MORE.
~
,
,
,
E\", ,
2 PLANTS WITHIN
THE NEW YORK CITY
LIMITS BURN COAL.
5 PLANTS BURN OIL.
ARKANSAS
o
SOURCES:
I. Principal Electric Facilities, Federal Power
(1970). (Seri es of seven mops)
Commission,
2. Steam-Electric Plant Factors //970 Edition, Notional
Coal Association, Washington, D.C., (November 1970).
-------
shown on Figure 1; i.e., they are plants having installed
generating capacities of 200 MW or greater that are either
in existence now or are scheduled to come on stream by 1975.
(These plants account for more than 60% of the power capacity
of all conventional power plants in the United States.)
Inspection of the map shows that, by far, most of these
plants use coal as the primary fuel. In fact, 84% of the 275
plants shown can be considered coal-fired power plants. The
oil-fired plants are all located along the eastern coast of
the United States and almost 50% of these are in the Middle
Atlantic region.
Comparison of Figure 2 to Figure 1 shows a striking dis-
similarity in the states in the western half of the country.
This is owing to the fact that although many plants in this
area were designed to run on a variety of fuels, they, in
fact, use gas as the primary fuel. 205 of the total of 231
coal-fired plants shown, or almost 90%, are located within
states that lie wholly east of the Mississippi River.
The pattern illustrated in the eastern half of the United
States is v~ry similar to that shown on Figure 1 in that the
East North central, South Atlantic, and Middle Atlantic re-
gions, and the major metropolitan areas show the highest con-
centrations of coal-fired power plants. Ohio and Pennsylvania
have more major coal-fired power plants (23 each) than any of
the other states, while New York (with 9) leads the list of
states with major oil-fired plants.
Table 3 summarizes the data by region and shows that the
East North Central region contains over 30% of these power
plants. The West South Central and Mountain regions have the
lowest percentage, 0.4%, each region having only one plant.
-28-
-------
TABLE 3
MAJOR POWER PLANTS IN 'DiE UNITED STATES(tsVRNING COAL.
OR OIL AS 'lHE PRIMARY FUEL 1)
Coal-Fired Oil-Fired Regional % of
Relition Plants Plants Total Total
New England 6 10 16 5.8
Middle Atlantic 37 21 58 21.1
East North Central 83 83 30.2
West North Central 16 16 5.8
South Atlantic 53 13 66 24.0
East South Central 26 26 9.4
West South Central 1 1 0.4
Mountain 8 8 2.9
Pacific -! - 1 0.4
- -
Total 231 44 275 100.0
(1) See Section VIe of text for definition
-29-
-------
D.
Potential Limestone Demand
The preceding two sections geographically locate the
major sources, or potential sources, of air pollution result-
ing from emissions of large quantities of sulfur oxides (Sax)
from power plants. This section deals with the potential
demand for limestone by power plants in the United States.
As a basis, the actual 1969 consumption of coal (tons) and
oil (barrels) in the United States, as reported by the
National Coal Association in "Steam-Electric Plant Factors/
1970 Edition", was used. These data cover virtually all of
the coal- and oil-fired power plants. In order to translate
coal and oil consumption into potential limestone demand,
the following assumptions were made:
1)
All power plants for which coal and oil
consumption data are available use a
limestone-based process for sulfur removal.
2)
Coal has a sulfur content of 3.0%.
3)
Oil has a sulfur content of 2.0% and a
density of 7.4 lb/gal.
4)
All sulfur in the fuel is burned to sax
and exits in stack gas.
5)
The limestone used has a composition of
95% CaC03 and 5% inerts.
6)
A 25% excess (based on stoichiometry) of
limestone is required to remove 90% of
the sax'
-30-
-------
These are reasonable assumptions representing average
values which were used to convert all consumption data to
a uniform basis. They mayor may not~apply in anyone par-
ticular case.
Based on these data and assumptions, the total amount
of sulfur emitted to the atmosphere by power plants in 1969
amounted to almost 10 million tons, equivalent to about 20
million tons of S02. This converts to a potential demand of
almost 41 million tons of limestone.
Figure 3 shows the potential limestone demand by state.
Ohio ranks first in annual limestone requirements with over
4 million tons. The states east of the Mississippi River
account for about 90% of the total limestone. Only one state
west of the Mississippi River, Missouri, has a potential
demand exceeding one million tons.
Table 4 itemizes potential demand by region. The East
North Central region far outranks any other region in poten-
tial limestone requirements with over one-third of the
national total requirement.
-31-
-------
FIGURE 3
I
LV
tV
I
WASH I.
INGTON I \
<1 : ~
\. ::.
. / MONTANA INORTH DAKOTA~ ~ .
. 0 I:' / ""\ 74 : 357 - J. ., "\-..4,.;, WT.: \
R_GON': t-..-..-..-.., '5~ .
~.z ! 0 _..-.r" -" .-..-..J \ 61.8 \WISCONSIN \.j~.H: 141
I '. -. I lOAN I I SOUTH DAKOTA: " n64 'Sz E~ '(OR\( \\lIp.~~' 636
'-.., 0: 35' MINNESOTA'\ G'~ ~ 2~32 .~'/ ~\.
. I -""""'-,.-.,! WYfJMING :"-"-..-. F"-"-'\ ~ "./"-"-"~..ko~ iu:--39
I; I -; 379 / -'-'.. "..- 2511: 'N';\ 487
/ .v~VADA' ~ : \. IOWA ~ ..-,.'- \PENNSYLVANIA:) . .
. '\ 78 ,: ".r,._..~..L..:.NE~OASKA ~._4..5_3.. f3665: \ ~~; :.._?5.F~:.::,:i'... 935
<66 '. : UTAH / L- \ -'"( Isl2786 ~' J:A-..k.. ~ J (,MO. \ DEL~ 177
\ I ,--"-"-"--" .ILLINO : f'\t'~', "
C", 67: COLORADO: : \. ~NDIAN., ../..":-y~~ .,,: '.
1(- \ L ! 358 I KANSAS '\'MISSOURI .( : ,J \ ~/'V\RG\N\A\.. 1010
~ "r-"-"-..L : 42 i 1093 ", /''f.ENTU':'r i.,.- ";"-"~"-;.ro
. '4 '. . 1Vv7
'~1 1t4
TEXAS
<1
POTENTIAL UMESTOOE DEMAND BY POWER PLANTS (BY STATE)
(M TONS)
-------
TABLE 4
POTENTIAL LIMESTONE DEMAND BY POWER PLANTS IN THE UNITED STATES(l)
Re~ion Limestone (M Tons) % of Total
New England 1.369 3.4
Middle Atlantic 6.583 16.2
East North Central 14.307 35.1
West North Central 2,738 6.7
South Atlantic 8,471 20.8'
East South Central 5.645 13.9
West South Central 5
Mountain 1,351 3.3
Pacific 266 0.6
Total 40,735 100.0
(1) See Section VID for explanation
-33-
-------
VII.
CARBONATE STONE RESOURCES
A.
National Resources
1.
All Types
At least one form of carbonate rock, which includes limestone,
dolomite, marble, marl and shell, is found in every state in the
United States. Indeed, if all geologic rock stratus which contain
carbonate stones of any type and purity were considered, the
resultant map would indicate that virtually the entire country
is underlain with these materials.
Such a depiction, however, would be misleading and certainly
of little value in locating useful rock deposits. For example,
carbonate stone which is burried under a thick layer of non-carbonate
rock or other type of overburden is ordinarily of limited, if any,
commercial value since the cost of extraction would be exceedingly
high. Consequently, the discussion will be restricted to the more
important deposits and outcrops.
Some states, such as Virginia, are fortunate in having useful
reserves of all types of carbonate stones. Others, e.g., North
Dakota, have very limited resources.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of carbonate rocks in the
United States. It includes limestone, dolomite, and marble. The
green-shaded areas indicate regions where the surface rock is
predominantly carbonate. Green dots indicate quarries, and where
they are shown outside of the areas of surface carbonate rock,
mean that these rocks are inter-bedded with non-carbonate types
and that quarrying occurs in selected beds of limestone, dolomite
or marble.
-34-
-------
- ",.
110'
'01'
~\)~:
\
r - -. -
-------
.-
i.
:.~
'"
,t'
'"J...
,,,,"
.
". ."'"
-......~-'
4'~
.
-'
"
'~~'.; .
t.. " . t''',- ~"
, (i \'~ :f' "
" . ..~ ~J 't ...'::.,,~
t" 'r '-, ' ." ,'L=:-, :~.if
'.' ": .:~"~ :.,;t. ',:~~ ',:~~~ -;:{1
~. '......-: t'""
- "'":)'
r
. . ,
.
/
, I
'0" ,':.
"
. "'''''.!Oi'_'..
,... ...-
.; ._-,
- '.
~........
t '''II''
t'~'1J,"I""
""'1111:1""
~
-""'.
I
-- j
'00 - =-~ I
:~
PICI)I)l>('Tll" ()I
(O'''TlU)CTlo...
'HURl"!'"
"
CO"'~I~Ucrl()... \"\II~I\l\
.C.t_If'..-fnlfw1,'",'IMI.........1'"
111-""'''''''~
. (~b.MWoI" "'.~, ,..Iurt",,« """'h""
dook.....,.........inwrbh>
.--
. ,'""
.....,d~\,...'t'f'
.(I4"'.""'''''~bn'I.......tIl'''
. Pvm~".'''''''OI,II'' "',,,.. 611d.. '.I'
....
I)oJt on In. .1Jf....."...I. ,.M.. ","-'\ ..I".. ,,,
'''' ..roIl~' .. I,.,f' ...."...... ..nil 1"" ... ....,,'"
ttl.p'"""
I,"'!' ," thco "1""''1'"''''
"",'(fUflI~I..
-------
The map shows that surface deposits of carbonate rocks
occur throughout the nation, but are particularly in evidence
in the eastern half of the country. A band of deposits be-
ginning in Vermont extends southward along the Appalachian
Mountains into central Alabama. Extensive deposits are found
in the states surrounding the Great Lakes, reaching southward
into northern Alabama. Large areas of Minnesota, Iowa, and
Missouri are covered with carbonate rocks and broad outcrops
occur in Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas.
Particularly in the central lowlands, carbonate rock de-
posits frequently occur as thick, horizontal formations cover-
ing large areas. In general, the deposits found in western
states are different. They con~only occur as steeply dipping
or vertical beds of small areal extent. However, notable ex-
ceptions to this are found, particularly in Colorado, Arizona,
and New Mexico where large outcrops occur.
Though not shown
coastal bay waters.
the Gulf Coast, but
bays and in coastal
on the map, shell deposits occur in many
They are particularly plentiful along
important deposits also exist in California
waters in some southeastern states. Marls
occur in several places throughout the country, but chiefly in
the coastal plain of the southeastern states and in a large
area of southwestern Michigan and northeastern Indiana. It
varies considerably in character, that of the Great Lakes area
being a precipitated calcium carbonate, while that of the
coastal plain is an impure shell deposit.
National or regional reserves of carbonate rocks have never
been determined. Although certain grades or purities may be
limited in amount, the total limestone and dolomite resources
-36-
-------
are enormous.
An estimate of reserves of surface carbonate
rocks may be obtained by considering Figure 4, which shows
,
approximately 316,000 square miles of carbonate deposits.
Since the figure shows areas in which carbonate rocks predom-
inate at the surface, it can be assumed that at least 50% of
the surface rock is carbonate. If it is further assumed that
the average thickness of all deposits shown is, say, 10 feet
(a reasonable, and probably conservative value), and the rock
has an average density of 165 lb/cu.ft., the total deposits
amount to 3.63 x lOll tons. Of this, approximately 2/3 occurs
in the eastern half of the country, with about 1/2 of this
latter amount found in the huge deposits in the Great Lake
states south to northern Tennessee.
It should be emphasized that these estimates of reserves
are very approximate, and ignore several factors. For example,
carbonate rocks imbedded in other rock types or lying below
the surface were not included. On the other hand, no dis-
tinction was made between usable and unusable reserves.
Ob-
viously, not all reserves are commercially workable. However,
the estimates should give the reader an appreciation of the
enormity of carbonate rock resources in the United States.
Many states have detailed maps and highly descriptive
accounts of the carbonate rock deposits within the state.
These may be obtained from the state geological surveys or
equivalent organizations. For the reader who is interested
in very specific information, a list of these organizations,
giving names and mailing addresses, is given in Appendix B.
Appendix A, which is a tabulation by county and state of
working quarries for all carbonate rocks, is also provided.
-37-
-------
2.
Limestone
Limestone occurrences, including chalk but excluding
dolomite, are shown in Figure 5. The map is similar to Figure
4 and shows that although limestone is found throughout the
country, the more numerous and extensive deposits occur in
the eastern half of the nation. In the western states, the
deposits tend to be discontinuous and relatively small in areal
extent.
Not all of the formations shown in Figure 5 qualify as
high purity limestone. In fact, Boynton (1) estimates that
only about 2% of the known reserves of commercially usable
limestone are chemical grade (>95% carbonate content). Most
stone of this type occurs in deposits in central and eastern
states. Specific locations will be noted in the subsequent
discussion of state-wide deposits, but much of the high purity
limestone occurs in an area extending from the Great Lakes
southward to Alabama.
Chalk deposits are shown in several of the central
states and in a curving belt through Alabama and Mississippi.
In general they are not high purity limestones, but locally
they may contain over 95% calcium carbonate.
Coral limestone occurs in southern Florida. It is a
high purity limestone which forms the foundation for the
Florida Keys. Shell limestone which occurs along the Gulf
Coast and in other coastal areas is also a high calcium stone.
( 1)
Boynton, Robert S., Chemistry and Technology of Lime and
Limestone, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966, p. 14.
-38-
-------
I
lA'
~
I
LEGEND
~ CHALK DEPOSITS
- LIMESTONE DEPOSITS
FIGURE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF CHALK AND LIMESTONE DEPOSITS IN THE UNITED STATES
(REPRINTED FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES BULLETIN NO. 395)
-------
.~
Naturally occurring calcium carbonate exists in two forms:
calcite and aragonite. The rhombohedral form, calcite, is by
far the more common and more stable crystalline type. Ortho-
rhombic aragonite alters irreversibly to calcite. Aragonite is
the common form chiefly where precipitation of calcium carbonate
from warm waters has occurred, e.g., coral reefs in tropical
waters or deposits from hot springs.
3.
Dolomite
Figure 6 shows the location of high grade (>25% magnesium
carbonate) dolomite quarries. Although originally drawn in 1941,
it is a useful guide to the important occurrences of dolomite. As
with limestone, the largest deposits are located in the eastern
half of the
of dolomite
country. Two major areas are noted. First, a belt
extends from Vermont to central Alabama, along the
Mountains. This coincides quite well with a similar
Appalachian
band of limestone previously noted. Second, large formations of
dolomite occur in the states encircling the Great Lakes. These
deposits coincide with or adjoin large limestone deposits in the
region.
Since the major deposits of both limestone and dolomite are
located in approximately the same areas, it could be anticipated
that stones of intermediate composition would exist. This, in
fact, does occur, and gradations ranging from a high calcium
limestone to a high purity dolomite are commonly found in the
same locality. However, the nature and extent of this type of
occurrence is difficult to predict. Limestone and dolomite may
occur in adjacent or overlaying deposits or they may be inter-
bedded within one formation. Frequently, the stone will vary
in composition in the horizontal or vertical direction or both.
To determine the nature of the deposit, core sampling is em-
ployed.
-40-
-------
I
*'"
r-'
f
.
.
.
.
.
.
oJ'
FIGURE 6
LOCATION OF HIGH-GRADE DOLOMITE QUARRIES IN THE UNITED STATES
(REPRINTED FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES INFORMATION CIRCULAR NO. 7192)
-------
4.
Marble
Marble deposits in the United States occur chiefly in moun-
tainous regions where intense folding has produced a compact,
highly crystalline stone from the original limestone or dolomite.
In this country, most marble is of the high calcium type.
The most productive marble belt is shown in Figure 7. It
extends from the Canadian border in northern Vermont southward
to southeastern New York. Beginning again in western New Jersey,
it follows a fairly narrow path through the Appalachian Mountains
before ending in Alabama. A few deposits are dolomitic, but high
calcium stone greatly predominates, occurring in thick beds.
Important marble belts also occur in the Rocky Mountains
and Coast Ranges of the west, particularly in the southwestern
region. Deposits are numerous, but many are too small or inac-
cessible to be of commercial importance. Marble occurrences are
also found in isolated deposits in some central states.
-42-
-------
'-,
.,,1
/\
'--.r'-l, '\
" VT / "
( ,
, \
I ,
. "-
( N, H,
.\ -, - ,"
i '-.- l-'-'
. I
ILL./INDIANA i
i !
( I
i j'"'I. ,/
./ "il" ......._"\/ WGESTA J'..i
c,,,.,.,,,,,<"\,J l VIR INI i
.J KENTUCKY \ / )
",.;-tJ"-";/ VI RGINI A
-'- r'
oJ '--. -"- ".....
'-'-.
OHIO
TENNESSEE
~
t}
~
~
~
~
~
~
jO--"-- .--.-:-.
I
I
l
\
ALABAMA ~
)
NORTH CAROLINA
",.-.-......
._(~ ". -.-
" "
'. SOUTH"
'.\ CAROLINA
GEORGIA "\
\
FIGURE 7
MARBLE DEPOSITS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES
(REPRINTED FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MiNES INFORMATION CIRCULAR NO. 7829)
-43-
-------
B.
Regional Resources
(See Table 5 and Figure 8 for typical chemical analyses.)
1.
New England
a.
Connecticut
Deposits of carbonate rocks are found in the border counties
of western Connecticut. They are highly crystalline and occur
chiefly as magnesian limestones, dolomites, and dolomitic marbles.
Outcrops are frequently high grade stone.
b.
Maine
Steeply dipping beds of hard, crystalline, high calcium
limestone occur in southern Maine around Knox County. High grade
dolomitic stones also are found. In northern Maine, a noncrystal-
line high grade limestone outcrops in Aroostook County.
c.
Massachusetts
Crystalline limestones and dolomites occur in Berkshire
County in western Massachusetts. High grade outcrops of both
types are present. Some dolomitic marble also occurs in the
region.
d.
New Hampshire
No commercially important outcrops of limestone or dolomite
occur in New Hampshire.
e.
Rhode Island
High calcium limestone outcrops only in Providence County
in northern Rhode Island.
-44-
-------
TABLE
5
TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CARBONATE ROCKS -
NEW ENGLAND REGION
st:.ate
Sample No. (1)
CaC03
Chemical Composition (weight%)
MgC03 Si02 A1203 Fe203
Other
Connecticut
1 54.37 44.94 0.08 I ++++ 0 . 2 5-Ho-+-1
2 89.96 0.21 5.83 +++~. 3 . 90-+--+--+-
Maine
1 73.8 24.8 1.4
2 53.13 42.94 2.87 1++++1.06-+--+--+-1
3 97.69 0.82 0.43 0.71 0.25
4 89.2 9.6 1.2
Massachusetts
1
2
93.86
58.77
5.34
40.34
0.69
0.39
1++++0.06-+--+--+-1
++++0. 16-+--+--+-
Rhode Island
1
88.23
8.80
2.75
0.31
0.01
Vermont
1
2
99.71
98.71
0.71
0.86
0.06
0.10
0.02
0.03
(1 )
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 8.
-45-
-------
FIGURE 8
SAMPLE LOCATIONS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
. . . . . .
NEW ENGLAND REGION
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 5)
-46-
-------
I.---~.
f.
Vermont
Carbonate deposits in Vermont range from the noncrystalline
limestones found in the northwestern counties to the highly
crystalline calcitic marbles of Rutland County. High calcium
limestones and marbles outcrop chiefly throughout the western
tier of counties. High grade dolomitic stone is found in central
to southern Vermont.
-47-
-------
2 .
Middle Atlantic
(See Table 6 and Figure 9 for typical chemical analyses.)
a.
New York
New York has extensive deposits
Limestone crops out in a band which
Erie to Albany County, then curving
of limestone and dolomitie
spreads eastward from Lake
south through Orange County.
Another formation, containing stone of 95% or more calcium car-
bonate, extends northward from Saratoga County through the
eastern Adirondacks to the Canadian border. A large outcrop of
limestone occurs along the east shore of Lake ontario and extends
southeast in a narrow belt to Montgomery County. Dolomite outcrops
in a narrowing band stretching eastward from Niagara to Oneida
County. Crystalline dolomite of high purity is found extensively
in the northern areas of St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties.
Dolomitic marbles occur in southeastern New York, especially
along the Connecticut and Massachusetts borders.
High calcium limestones are abundant in New York, particu-
larly in the western half of the state.
a.
New Jersey
Carbonate rock deposits exist in the northwestern counties
of the state. Dolomite and magnesian limestone occur in Sussex,
Warren, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties. A crystalline lime-
stone occurs in Sussex and Warren Counties and varies in composi-
tion from nearly pure calcium carbonate to dolomite.
ro
.... .
Pennsylvania
Enormous quantities of carbonate rocks occur throughout
central and southern Pennsylvania and much of this is high grade
stone. High purity dolomites can be found in the southeastern
counties and in a belt reaching southwestward from Northampton
County to Franklin County. Extensive deposits of high-calcium
-48-
-------
State
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
TABLE
6
TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CARBONATE ROCKS-
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION
--
Sample No. (1)
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
CaC03
77.9
52.8
57.8
55.45
94.78
74.26
55.23
96.45
Chemical Composition (weight %)
MgC03
14.6
41. 8
32.4
44.06
1. 46
4.08
43.22
1. 99
Si02
6.7
2.3
2.0
A1203
Other
Fe203
1.2 0.4
1++++++1.4~~~~~~1
++++++8.4~~~~~~
1.2
1+++++++<2.0~~~~~~~~~~~1
2.22
0.3
1.0
12.66
0.65
1. 30
5.19 1.87
1++++++O.92~~~~~1
++++++0.26~~~~~
(1 )
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 9.
-49-
-------
FIGURE 9
SAMPLE LOCATIONS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
... ...
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 6)
-50-
-------
limestone occur in the southeastern region, in the central and
south central region, and in a large area north of Pittsburgh.
The most important high purity limestone deposits occur as thin,
curving bands in central Pennsylvania. Most of the large western
deposit does not outcrop.
An argillaceous limestone appears abundantly as a narrow
belt through Berks, Lehigh, and Northampton Counties. In north
central and western Pennsylvania, carboniferous limestones are
widespread.
-51-
-------
.
----- ----
3.
East North Central
(See Table 7 and Figure 10 for typical chemical analyses.)
a.
Illinois
Illinois has large reserves of good quality limestone and
dolomite occurring in thick, massive beds. A vast outcrop of
dolomite covers much of the northern quarter of Illinois and,
particularly in the northeastern counties, is a very pure stone.
Large deposits of limestone occur in western and southwestern
Illinois, and in the extreme southern tip of the state. They
contain abundant reserves of high calcium stone.
Other smaller deposits of limestone occur in outcrops
scattered throughout the state. These beds are generally much
thinner than those of weste~n and northern Illinois. Dolomitic
stone is found also in southwestern Illinois.
b.
Indiana
Indiana contains large deposits of carbonate rocks.
chief source of high-calcium limestone occurs in a deposit
stretching from the Ohio River on the south-central border
northwestward to Montgomery County. This deposit contains
extensive amounts of high grade limestone.
The
A large outcrop of dolomite occurs in east-central Indiana
and extends into the northwestern counties. It is bordered on
the western and northern sides by deposits of limestone. These
deposits contain many occurrences of high grade limestones and
dolomites. However, they frequently outcrop in thin beds.
A soft, calcareous marl occurs in the north-central and
northeastern counties.
-52-
-------
TABLE 7
TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CARBONATE ROCKS
EAST NORTH CENTRAL REGION
State Sample No. (1) Chemical Composition (weight %)
CaC03 MgCO 3 Si02 A1203 Fe203 Other
Illinois
1 47.70 40.71 7.96 1. 97 0.70 2.27
2 85.39 1. 38 6.72 1 ++++5.92-+-+++-+ 1
3 98.19 1.17 0.65 1. 43 0.09
4 98.46 1. 95 0.42 0.42 0.13
5 95.73 3.45 0.08 1++++0. 74-+-+-+++ I
Indiana
1 97.82 1. 51 0.55 0.15 0.03
2 54,.9 43.9 0.62 0.15 0.22 0.14
3 96.3 3.1 0.17 0.03 0.17 0.09
4 95.7 0.96 2.55 0.27 0.25 0.08
Michigan
1 55.28 42.84 0.73 0.20 1. 03 0.05
2 92.25 2.87 0.52 0.51 0.53 0.36
3 92.09 3.52 0.90 0.20 0.39 0.18
4 96.92 1. 46 1. 46 1++++0.54-+-+-+-+-+1
Ohio
1 92.16 5.73 0.56 0.45 0.20 0.75
2 91.12 0.92 1. 90 1. 06 3.11 1. 04
3 68.45 2.76 13.80 7.00 4.55 4.01
4 53.91 45.44 0.14 0.05 0.12 TR
5 95.93 1.15 4.82 0.47 0.10
Wisconsin
1 49.47 44.58 3.17 1++++1.95-+-+-+-+-+1
2 52.29 42.27 3.96 ++++1.68-+-+-+-+-+
3 84.02 5.33 7.03 2.21 1. 22
(1)
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 10.
-53-
-------
FIGURE 10
SAMPLE LOCATIONS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
... . . .
EAST NORTH CENTRAL REGION
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 7)
-54-
-------
c.
Michlgan
Michigan contains large reserves of carbonate rocks, most
of which occur in the northern part of the state. In the southern
part of the Upper Peninsula the stone is largely dolomitic.
However, both high calcium limestone and high grade dolomite occur,
in a curving belt running eastward from Delta County.
Extensive deposits of limestone are found in an east-west
band through the northern part of the Southern Peninsula. Large
amounts of high calcium limestone exist and outcrop in the
eastern part of the band as broad, thick beds.
Locally high grade limestone and dolomite occur in south-
eastern Michigan. Important limestone deposits also can be
found in an area near Saginaw Bay. The southwestern counties
contain large amounts of calcareous marl.
d.
Ohio
Huge reserves of limestone and dolomite exist in Ohio in
deposits located throughout the state. The more important forma-
tions are in the western half of the state, however, and these
outcrop in large, thick beds.
Abundant deposits of dolomite occur in western Ohio, with
an exceptionally pure dolomite outcropping in the Toledo region.
Another broad area of dolomite extends from the Indiana border
in west-central Ohio south to Adams County. Good quality dolomites
and magnesian limestones are found. A north-south belt of lime-
stone, beginning around Sandusky and extending to the Columbus
region, has abundant deposits of high-calcium stone. A curving
band of limestone can also be found in the northwestern corner
of Ohio. High grade limestones occur locally in eastern Ohio,
but the outcrops are generally thin.
-55-
-------
e.
Wisconsin
Nearly all of the large carbonate rock resources of Wisconsin
are dolomites or magnesian limestone. The most important dolomite
deposits appear as a broad north-south band along the eastern
border of the state. Much of this stone is high purity. Other
deposits of generally inferior stone are scattered throughout
the southern and western counties.
o
-56-
-------
4.
West North Central
(See Table 8 and Figure 11 for typical chemical analyses.)
a.
Iowa
Carbonate rocks are abundant in Iowa, with most of the reserves
occurring in the eastern half of the state. The most important
deposits are found in a band extending from the north central
border region southeastward to the Davenport area. High calcium
stones outcrop chiefly in the north central and far southeastern
parts of this band. Dolomitic formations are exposed intermit-
tently in northeastern and east central counties, with high grade
stone appearing chiefly in the area around Linn County. Chalk,
locally of high calcium content, appears in northwestern Iowa.
b.
Kansas
Limestone deposits underlay the eastern third of Kansas.
Most of the stone is fairly pure, above 87% calcium carbonate, and
locally it is of high purity. High grade limestones are generally
restricted to extreme eastern Kansas, particuarly in the Kansas
City area and the southeastern counties. Dolomites are found
in south central and southwestern regions and, though not high
grade, are fairly pure. Chalk occurs in an irregular band extend-
ing from Jewell County in north central Kansas southwestward to
Finney County. Although locally it may be high calcium material,
it is covered frequently with large beds of shale. Marl deposits
are found in the western counties of Wallace and Logan.
c.
Minnesota
Deposits of carbonate rocks cover much of the southeastern
corner of Minnesota. Most of the stone is magnesian limestone
or dolomite. However, in addition to high-purity dolomite, high
calcium limestone is also found. A small area of chalk occurs in
extreme western Minnesota, in the region of Lac qui Parle County.
Marl exists in the central part of the state.
-57-
-------
TABLE 8
TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CARBONATE,ROCKS
WEST NORTH CENTRAL REGION
State Sample No. (1) Chemical Composition (weight %)
Iowa CaC03 MgC03 Si02 A1203 Fe203 Other
1 92.1 3.1 1.4 0.9 0.2
2 98.01 0.15 0.78 0.12 0.29
3 90.20 2.65 3.26 1++++0. 83-r-H.\ 2.56
4 95.30 4.01 0.13 0.46
Kansas
1 93.68 1. 23 2.38 1. 57 0.56
2 68.90 19.64 3.22 0.61 5.10
3 92.98 1. 57 3.27 0.44 0.71 0.20
4 92.98 1. 99 3.64 1. 50 1. 21 0.14
5 98.19 0.92 0.29 0.08 0.16 0.03
Minnesota
1 48.91 39.54 1+++10. 40-r-r-r-r I 1.10
2 54.98 41. 21 +++ 3.20-r-r-r-r 0.60
Missouri
1 99.18 0.20 0.23 0.17 0.07
2 91. 58 1. 80 3.98 0.36 0.56
3 95.90 4.60 0.30 0.95 0.17
4 52.59 42.59 2.48 0.61 0.36
5 80.98 11.53 6.87 1++++0. 62-r-r-r-r1
Nebraska
1 80.9 1.7 6.9 3.3 1.0 4.6
2 95.7 0.8 1.5 1.8 0.4 0.73
North Dakota
1 66.6 2.1 14.7 7.1 1.7 6.5
South Dakota
1 96.35 3.43 0.56 0.06 0.20
2 97.21 1. 00 1. 22 0.34 0.44
3 69.35 2.26 15.51 1++++5.80++-r-r1
(1) Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 11.
-58-
-------
FIGURE II
SAMPLE LOCATIONS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
... ...
WEST NORTH CENTRAL REGION
18
81
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
83
I
82
IOWA
28
NEBRASKA
84
82
KANSAS
38
85
28
18
48
84
5
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 8)
.' 59-.
-------
d.
Missouri
..'
Carbonate rocks are abundant and widely distributed throughout
all of Missouri. An argillaceous limestone covers a large area in
the south central part of the state. High calcium limestone out-
crops frequently in thick deposits west of the Mississippi River
in eastern and southeastern counties. Southwestern Missouri
also has large reserves of high calcium stone. Limestone occurs
in central and northwestern parts in fairly thin beds which are
locally of high grade rock. Cherty limestones and a siliceous
dolomite are found in northeastern portions of the state.
Marble of the high calcium variety exists in southeastern
Missouri. Deposits also occur in the southwestern counties of
Jasper and Greene.
e.
Nebraska
A wide belt of chalk extends from northeastern Nebraska
southward to the south central border.
The material is argillac-
eous and of variable composition, although in places it contains
up to 96% calcium carbonate. A small exposure of chalk is found
also in the extreme northwestern part of the state. Deposits in
the southeastern corner of Nebraska contain high calcium limestone
and high purity dolomite.
f.
North Dakota
An argillaceous limestone occurs in the northern part of
North Dakota as a soft, chalky rock. Small reserves also are
present in the southwestern region in the form of thin, cherty
beds.
g.
South Dakota
A variety of carbonate rocks occur in South Dakota in good
quantities. The largest and most important deposits are located
in the southwestern region of the Black Hills and contain virtually
-60-
-------
all of the high quality stone in the .state. Elliptical belts
of stone which occur in this region have outcrops of dolomitic
marble in addition to high grade dolomite and high calcium lime-
stone. A long, narrow band of chalky shale surrounds the Black
Hills. The chalk also outcrops extensively in several southeastern
counties and though of a better quality than the,southwestern
formation, is generally impure and siliceous. In isolated areas,
exposures of high calcium stone are found.
-61-
-------
5.
South Atlantic
(See Table 9 and Figure 12 for typical chemical analyses.)
a.
Delaware
In extreme northern Delaware, a dense, crystalline stone,
which is mostly dolomitic but with variable magnesium content,
outcrops in two small areas.
b.
Florida
Limestones are plentiful in Florida, and many of them are
soft, shell types. One of the most important is an extensive
deposit which outcrops in Levy County and several surrounding
counties in the west central part of the peninsula. It is a
soft, very pure stone which has analyzed as high as 99.6% calcium
carbonate. Directly to the south, principally in Hernando and
Pasco Counties, lies a generally hard, somewhat siliceous limestone
occurring in small, discontinuous lenses.
An oolitic limestone which is generally siliceous covers
the southeastern tip of Florida. Coral and oolitic limestones
form the foundation for the Keys. A siliceous, coquina limestone
is found in many places along the eastern coast, while a harder
limestone outcrops in various places in western Florida, parti-
cularly in Jackson County.
A calcareous marl covers much of the southern half of the
peninsula. Shell deposits occur chiefly in the bay waters near
Walton County ~nd in the Tampa and Fort Meyers areas.
c.
Georgia
The extensive deposits of carbonate rocks in Georgia occur
chiefly in two areas. A wide band of limestone, dolomite, and
marble cuts through the northwestern corner of Georgia. Both
-62-
-------
TABLE 9
TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CARBONATE ROCKS
SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION
State Sample No. (1) Chemical Composition (weight %)
CaC03 MgC03 Si02 A1203 Fe203 Other
Florida
1 98.19 0.55 1. 30
2 91.09 TR 6.54 I ++++++ 2 ..39-+-+-+-+-+-+ I
3 80.00 17.58 ++++++0.93-+-+-+-+-+-+
4 70.98 0.30 28.66
Georgia
1 96.13 1. 90 0.65 0.23
Maryland
1 88.73 0.86 8.57 ++++++2.38-+-++-+-+-+
2 60.73 35.79 0.98 ++++++1.19-+-+-+-+-+-+
3 95.55 4.39 0.68 ++++++0.51-+-+-+-+-+-+
North Carolina
1 57.21 36.13 2.93 0.56
2 97.28 0.88 1. 60 0.09
3 59.23 39.89 1. 28 3.17
4 89.47 5.52 0.68 1. 05 2.26
5 75.84 1. 92 19.74 1.17 0.49 0.88
South Carolina
1 91. 36 1. 63 3.09 0.38 1. 70 1. 61
2 57.67 3.95 33.32 0.95 0.63 4.53
3 65.85 0.46 30.18 0.26 1.10 2.50
4 90.56 TR 6.40 3.14
Virginia
1 91. 72 4.58 2.80 ++++++0.90-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2 86.61 3.91 8.24 ++++++1.04-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3 86.82 2.71 9.10 ++++++1.32-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
4 80.00 1. 01 11. 42 2.68 4.10
West Virginia
1 87.93 4.00 4.97 ++++++2.82-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
2 95.52 1. 88 0.92 ++++++0.96-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
3 98.94 0.68 0.49 ++++++0.40-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
(1) Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 12.
-63-
-------
FIGURE 12
SAMPLE LOCATIONS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
. . . . . .
SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 9)
--64-
-------
high calcium limestone and high grade dolomite are found.
second area occurs as a broad band of limestone extending
the southwest corner of the state into central Georgia.
contains some outcrops of high calcium stone.
A
from
It
d.
Maryland
Carbonate rocks outcrop in northern Maryland, chiefly in
areas north and west of Baltimore. The larger deposits of
limestone and dolomite occur in Washington and Frederick Counties
and are the best source of high quality stone of both types.
Thin bands of limestone, oriented southwest-northeast, are found
in the western counties of Garret and Allegany. A large area
in the center of Baltimore County is covered with a marble which
varies from calcitic to dolomitic. Some high grade stone may be
present.
8.
North Carolina
Highly crystalline limestones and dolomites occur in western
North Carolina primarily as thin, steeply dipping, isolated bands
extending northeastward from the southern border. These marble
formations vary in composition from calcitic to dolomitic and
frequently contain over 95% total carbonates. Calcareous marls
are abundant along the coastal plain of eastern North Carolina,
but are generally poor to fair in quality. Occasional beds of
high calcium limestone do occur, however.
f.
South Carolina
South Carolina has deposits of highly crystalline limestone
and dolomite occurring in thin, steeply dipping bands in the
northwestern counties. The most abundant resources, however, are
found in the coastal plains of southern and eastern South Carolina.
A large limestone deposit exists in and around Orangeburg County.
The stone is frequently of fairly good quality and in certain
-65-
-------
areas exceeds 97-98% calcium carbonate.
Calcareous marls abound
along the coastal plain, but most is poor to fair in calcium
carbonate content.
g.
Virginia
Large deposits of carbonate rocks occur in Virginia, chiefly
in the western part of the state. Limestone and dolomite outcrop
extensively in the two western tiers of counties extending from
the north border to the south border. In many of these regions,
high grade limestone or dolomite exists. Marble also occurs.
Marl is found on the coastal plain in southeastern Virginia.
It is a soft, impure limestone which occurs in shallow beds.
West Virginia
h.
Most of the deposits of carbonate rocks in West Virginia
occur in the eastern border counties. A large limestone deposit
exists in Monroe and Greenbrier counties and extends northeastward
in narrow bands to the Maryland line. The stone is hard and
relatively impure. The most important occurrences of carbonate
rocks are located in the far eastern part of the state, in
Berkeley and Jefferson Counties. Both high-calcium limestone and
high purity dolomite outcrop. Beds extend northeast-southwest
throughout both counties.
-66-
-------
6.
East South Central
(See Table 10 and Figure 13 for typical chemical analyses.)
d.
Alabama
Carbonate rocks occur widely in Alabama with
crossing the state from west to east. High grade
both limestone and dolomite exist.
bands generally
deposits of
A large formation extending west-east throughout the northern
counties contains high purity limestone. In the central part of
the state, a chalky limestone extends eastward from the Mississippi
border in a wide and narrowing belt before disappearing in Russell
County. .It ranges in purity up to 85% calcium carbonate. Narrow
beds of soft limestone occur in southern Alabama and are locally
of high purity.
Bands of limestone and dolomite extend from the northeastern
corner of the state southwesterly into the Birmingham area. High
quality stones of both types are found. An exceptionally high
grade dolomite, typically exceeding 98% in total carbonates,
outcrops in the Birmingham area. A very pure marble, containing
98-99% calcium carbonate is also found in central Alabama. It
occurs in a belt which extends northeast-southwest through
Talladega and Coosa Counties. Shell occurs in Mobile Bay.
b.
Kentucky
Vast quantities of limestone occur in Kentucky, with deposits
throughout the state. In western Kentucky, a wide semi-circular
outcrops curves from Livingston and Crittenden Counties through
the southern border area to Warren County, where it swings north
to Meade County. High-calcium limestones occur, particularly in
the west and east branches of the deposit. Another outcrop, which
is locally high grade limestone, is found in the Lexington area.
A thinning belt of limestone extends northeastward from Cumberland
County in the north. In many places it contains high-calcium
-67-
-------
TABLE 10
TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CARBONATE ROCKS
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL REGION
State Sample No. (1) Chemical Composition (weight %)
CaC03 MgC03 Sio2 A1203 Fe203 Other
Alabama
1 78.57 1. 38 15.18 ++++ 2 . 22++-+-+-+ 2.10
2 96.58 2.58 0.50 ++++1.45-+-+-+-+-+
3 99.19 0.14 0.28 ++++0. 28-+-+-+++
4 88.85 3.52 4.48 ++++ 1. 22-+-+-+-+.+
5 98.51 0.21 0.83 0.16 0.12
Kentucky
1 82.88 4.20 4.26 ++++4.33-+-+-+-+-+ 1. 38
2 98.05 0.36 1. 06 ++++0.51-+-+-+++ 0.54
3 90.72 4.61 1. 88 ++++2.70-+-+-+-+-+ 0.35
4 95.15 0.24 3.06 ++++1.39-+-+-+-+-+
Mississippi
1 94.15 0.75 1. 57 1. 94 1. 69 0.13
2 81. 24 0.75 8.80 2.86 4.08 0.15
3 86.46 6.30 1++++7.20-+-+-+-+-+1
4 77.76 2.70 13.41 1. 74 2.63 0.32
Tennessee
1 79.59 10.55 1.14 1++++8.67-+-+-+-+-+1
2 98.85 TR 0.14 0.06
(1)
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 13.
-68-
-------
I--~--
FIGURE 13
SAMPLE LOCATIONS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
'"
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL ON
'8
82.
2.8
8~
84
8'
~8
85
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 10)
-69-
-------
stone.
A narrow limestone band occurs in the southeastern border
counties.
c.
Mississippi
There are two large occurences of limestone in Mississippi.
A wide, thick chalk deposit extends north to south through
northeastern counties. It is a soft, argillaceous limestone
generally containing less than 85% calcium carbonate, although
in certain areas the purity may exceed 90%. A second outcrop
of limestone occurs in an east to west band through central
Mississippi.
d.
Tennessee
Extensive deposits of carbonate rocks occur in Tennessee, all
within the eastern and central parts. In a broad area running
northeast-southwest through eastern Tennessee, limestones and
'dolomites which are locally high grade can be found. Another
large area in the central part of the state contains limestone
which frequently outcrops as high calcium stone, particularly
in the southern region. An exceptionally pure high calcium
marble also occurs in eastern Tennessee, chiefly in the Knox
County region.
-70-
-------
7 .
West South Central
(See Table 11 and Figure 14 for typical chemical analyses.)
a.
Arkansas
Limestone occurs in northern Arkansas in a belt which extends
from White County westward to the Oklahoma line. It is a thick
deposit which contains a few outcrops of marble and high grade
dolomite in addition to high calcium limestone. The marble is
an almost pure calcium carbonate and generally occurs in thin.
beds.
In southwest Arkansas, chalk deposits exist in thick beds.
It is relatively impure, grading into marl.
b.
Louisiana
Limestone occurs in central Louisiana in Winn and Evangeline
Counties. The deposit in Winn County is a high calcium stone.
Shell is found throughout the coastal region.
c.
Oklahoma
Large deposits of carbonate rocks are found in Oklahoma,
chiefly in the eastern and southern regions. Limestone outcrops
in a wide band covering the northeastern corner of the state,
reaching south to Sequoyah County. Deposits of high calcium
stone occur in the southern portions of this band. Other belts
of limestone occur widely throughout the northeastern counties.
The flat lying beds are frequently shaly, although some high
grade limestone does exist.
Generally thin bands of stone occur in south central and
southeastern Oklahoma, but one large deposit outcrops extensively
in Pontotoc, Carter, and Johnston Counties. Both high calcium
-71-
-------
TABLE 11
TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CARBONATE ROCKS
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL REGION
State Sample No. (1) Chemical Composition (weight %)
CaC03 MgC03 Si02 A1203 Fe203 Other
Arkansas
1 80.38 0.92 14.68 1+2.15~1
2 98.71 0.73 0.09 +0.11~ 0.90
3 98.34 0.50
... juisiana
1 96.55 0.13 0.55 1. 61 0.02
2 98.19 1. 26 0.65 TR TR 0.11
Oklahoma
1 93.71 1. 07 2.96 0.63 1.11
2 57.05 42.01 0.88 0.05
3 97.82 1. 26 1.3 1.0
4 96.43 0.29 2.58 0.56 0.54
Texas
1 81. 7 1.3 11. 9 4.2 0.5
2 85.8 0.6 8.0 2.8 1.15
3 90.0 0.8 4.2 1.4 1. 72
4 93.47 2.11 3.22 0.78 0.28 0.37
(1)
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 14.
-72-
-------
FIGURE 14
SAMPLE LOCATIONS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
. . . . . .
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL REGION
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
'8
ARKANSAS
83
28
83
LOUISIANA
81
82
.,
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE II)
-73-
-------
limestone and high grade dolomite are found. Thin, steeply
dipping beds of stone are found scattered throughout the
southwestern counties. Most of this is dolomitic.
d.
Texas
Limestones outcrop in an enormous band extending from the
north central and northeastern border through central Texas to
the southwestern area. The eastern edge of this band consists
of a large, thick formation of soft chalk which reaches from
the northeastern border to the San Antonio region. Locally it
may be high purity limestone, but most commonly it ranges from
70% to 90% calcium carbonate. Paralleling this formation to
the west are other large groups of limestones which outcrop
in thick beds. They are frequently magnesian, but occurrences
of high calcium limestone are found. A high grade dolomite
occurs in the Burnet County region. In El Paso County in extreme
western Texas, deposits of good quality limestone and dolomite
exist.
Shell deposits occur in bay waters of the
Corpus Christi and Galveston. Marble outcrops
central Texas.
area between
occasionally in
-74-
-------
8.
Mountain
(See Table 12 and Figure 15 for. typical chemical analyses.)
a.
Arizona
The principal limestone deposits in Arizona occur in two
regions. Thick deposits containing large quantities of high
calcium st.one are scattered throughout the southeastern part
of the state. A more or less continuous but irregular band
extends from east central Arizona to the northwest corner and
contains thick beds of high calcium stone. Scattered outcrops
of marble are exposed in various places, chiefly in the south-
east. Magnesian limestones and dolomites also occur in Arizona
but are frequently interbedded with chert, gypsum, sand or silt.
b.
Colorado
Colorado has abundant reserves of carbonate rocks.
A band
of limestone extends from north central Colorado southward to
Douglas County. In places it approaches high calcium limestone,
but most of the formation is shaly. To the west of this band
are scattered outcrops of limestone which locally contain
calcium stone. The most important high purity limestones
in central Colorado. Outcrops of high grade dolomite and
are also found here.
high
occur
marble
c.
Idaho
Idaho's reserves of carbonate rocks are abundantly distributed
throughout the state, with the northwest, central and southeastern
regions being the most important. In the northwest, the rock
varies from limestone to dolomite to marble, with high calcium
limestone and high purity dolomite available. High calcium stone
also appears along the western border and includes some rock which
exceeds 98% in calcium carbonate content. Central and southeastern
Idaho contains large deposits of limestone.
of high quality stone occur. A siliceous,
also is found in the southeastern region.
Numerous outcrops
magnesian limestone
-75-
-------
TABLE 12
TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CARBONATE ROCKS
MOUNTAIN REGION
Chemical Composition (weight %)
State Sample No. (1) CaC03 MgC03 Si02 A1203 Fe203 Other
Arizona
1 95.77 1. 26 3.30 1++++0. 2 O+-H-+ I
2 96.66 1.4 ++++ 1 . 3 +++-~
3 48.69 36.42 12.53 1. 04 1. 26
Colorado
1 90.48 1.17 5.33 1. 54 0.71 0.33
2 90.28 0.75 6.54 ++++0.92++++
3 86.97 6.17 5.32 ++++0.91+++~
4 99.07 0.36 0.51 ++++0.10++++
Idaho
1 99.10 0.36 0.48 0.48 TR 0.28
2 92.75 6.17 0.37 1++++0.12++++1
Montana
1 98.62 1. 59 0.05
2 53.07 41. 36 4.98 0.96 0.50 0.05
3 79.07 1. 88 17.7 0.4 0.08
4 95.99 0.46 2.85 0.19 0.29
Nevada
1 98.45 1. 59 0.04 0.05
2 97.30 0.56 1. 25 1++++0.36++++1
3 86.61 5.15 7.38 0.80 0.68
New Mexico
1 81.82 1. 52 13.04 1. 08
2 97.99 0.91 0.71 1++++0. 61+~++ I
3 97.10 1. 59 0.73 0.23 0.16
4 65.60 34.00 0.14 0.06 0.07
Utah
1 94.51 1. 82 2.77
2 95.90 1. 88 2.0 0.7 0.1
Wyoming
1 60.38 1. 55 23.47 6.27 2.20 0.38
2 80.33 5.54 6.44 1. 46 2.32 0.69
3 94.33 1. 51 1. 42 0.68 0.40 1.11
(1)
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 15.
-76-
-------
,----
FIGURE 15
SAMPLE LOCATIONS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
. . . . . .
OUNTAIN REGION
82
83
84
38
28 ~TAH 18
28
'8 COLORADO 8'
28
28
83
84
38
NEW MEXICO
8'
82
28
8,
83
84
.3
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPONL> TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 12)
-. 77-
-------
d.
Montana
The most important deposits of carbonate rocks occur in
central and western Montana. One large formation outcrops as
thick beds in many places in the western region and contains
several beds of exceptionally high calcium limestone (>98-99%).
Another formation, which is commonly dolomitic, occurs in the
central and western counties and has exposures of high quality
stone of both types. A thin-bedded limestone which is frequently
interbedded with chert and shale is also found. Nearly pure
marbles ranging in composition from calcitic to dolomitic outcrops
as thick beds in the southwest.
e.
Nevada
Nevada has large reserves of carbonate rocks occurring
principally in the eastern third of the state. Limestone and
dolomite are found in a band of discontinuous deposits which
extend northward from the southeastern tip of the state to the
northeast corner. High grade dolomite and a very high purity
limestone outcrop in Clark County. High calcium limestone also
is exposed in several places in White Pine County, and probably
occurs in several other places throughout the belt. Although
western Nevada has fewer and more impure deposits of limestone,
a high calcium limestone is known to exist in southern washoe
County. Mineral County, in the southwest, has occurrences of
marble.
f.
New Mexico
Abundant reserves of limestone and dolomite occur in New
Mexico in numerous deposits throughout the state. The most
important outcrops, however, are found in central to south
central New Mexico, with the southwestern region also having
significant deposits. These areas contain most of the high
calcium limestone and high grade dolomite in the state in
frequently large, thick beds. Other regions have large quanti-
-78-
-------
ties of limestone~ but the deposits are usually impure with
only locally high grade stone available. Of note is an ex-
tensive area of impure limestone which covers most of the far
eastern counties from the Texas to Colorado borders.
g.
Utah
Extensive deposits of limestone and dolomite are found in
Utah, chiefly in the north central region. High quality stone
of both types outcrops in numerous places in the region. A
silty, argillaceous limestone is also exposed. In limited
amounts, veins of crystalline, nearly pure calcium carbonate
occur not only as common calcite but also in the rare form of
aragonite.
Important deposits are also located in western Utah and
contain high calcium limestone and high purity dolomite.
h.
~yoming
Limestone occurs abundantly in Wyoming in deposits scattered
throughout all areas of the state. Outcrops of high calcium
limestone are numerous. Notably important deposits of high
calcium stone are found in the southeastern part of the state
and in Teton County in the northwest. A narrow band of impure
chalk or soft, shaly limestone occurs in thick beds in the
northeastern region. Marble deposits exist in several places
in Platte County.
-79-
-------
90
Pacific
(See Table 13 and Figure 16 for typical chemical analyses.)
a.
California
California has large reserves of carbonate rocks, but the
deposits are scattered throughout the state in the form of
discontinuous, irregular, steeply dipping bodies of small areal
extent. Commonly they are interbedded with various impurities
and have variable magnesium contents. Limestone and dolomite
are restricted largely to inland regions with little in coastal
areas. However, substantial deposits occur in the coastal region
around San Francisco and contain good quality high calcium lime-
stone. Locally high grade limestone and dolomite also are found
in many other parts of the state. Shell deposits exist along
the coast, chiefly in San Francisco Bay.
b.
Oregon
The most significant deposits of limestone occur in the
southwest and northeast regions of Oregon. The southwest area
has reserves of high grade limestone occurring in a series of
small lenses, chiefly in Josephine County. Larger deposits of
limestone occur in the northeastern region and contain signifi-
cant quantities of high calcium stone. A few lenses of impure,
siliceous limestone occur in the northwest.
Washington
c.
Carbonate rock deposits occur chiefly in the northwestern
and northeastern Washington area, notably in San Jaun and Stevens
Counties. The northwestern region contains a large amount of
crystalline, high calcium limestone. Both high grade dolomite
and high calcium limestone occur in the northeast. Marble also
is found in Stevens County.
-80-
-------
TABLE 13
TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CARBONATE ROCKS
PACIFIC REGION
State Sample No. (1) Chemical Composition (weight %)
CaCO 3 MgC03 Si02 A1203 Fe203 Other
California
1 72.68 1. 05 19.72 I +++ 3 . 27+++ I 2.43
2 99.2 0.7
3 95.20 1. 32 1. 27 )+++0.23+++1 1. 78
4 91.04 1. 05 4.00 +++1.50+++
Oregon
1 96.68 0.84 1. 73 1. 69 0.30
2 97.28 1. 09 0.92 0.34 TR
3 96.10 0.69 2.67 0.55 0.70
Washington
1 94.3 2.1 1.3 TR 0.12
2 95.5 1.1 2.3 0.4 0.23
3 98.1 TR 0.2 1+++1.4++++1
(1)
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 16.
-81-
-------
FIGURE 16
SAMPLE LOCATIONS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
. . . . . .
PACIFI REGION
WASHINGro
83 18 N 28
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 13)
..82...
-------
VIII.
PRODUCTION, USE AND VALUE OF CARBONATE STONES
A.
The Limestone Industry
Stone was the fourth leading mineral commodity produced in
the United States in 1969, ranking behind crude petroleum, natural
gas, and coal in total value. Over 1.4 billion dollars worth of
stone were quarried, representing 5.3% of the total value of all
minerals produced in the nation. Production of all stone amounted
to 863 million tons.
The stone industry can be divided into two branches, dimension
stone and crushed stone, but other than the basic raw materials,
there is little in common between the two. Methods of quarrying,
processing, and marketing, in addition to uses and values, are
fundamentally different.
Dimension stone can be defined as naturally occurring rock
which is cut or otherwise fashioned into blocks, slabs, sheets,
or other units of specified sizes and shapes. It is used prin-
cipally as architechtural and building stone, monumental stone,
curbing, flagging, and paving stone. Production was reported
from all but a few states, with Indiana (limestone), Georgia
(granite), and Ohio (sandstone) being the leading producers. In
1969, the total output was about 1.9 million tons, valued at 99
million dollars. This represented only 0.2% of the total stone
tonnage, but 6.9% of its total value. The national average value
exceeded $50/ton. Limestone, dolomite, and marble were all
quarried as dimension stone and accounted for roughly one-third
of all dimension stone reported in 1969.
Crushed stone can be defined as irregularly shaped rock
fragments which arE' broken into smaller sizes after quarrying.
It accounted for the overwhelming majority of stone produced
-83-
-------
in the United States in 1969. Production came from over 4700
quarries located throughout all of the states in the country.
A variety of rocks were quarried including calcareous marl,
granite, limestone, dolomite, marble, sandstone, quartz, quartzite,
shell, traprock, and others.
The primary use of crushed rock in the United States is for
construction purposes, particularly as an aggregate material in
road construction. These markets consumed almost 620 million
tons, or about 72% of the total crushed stone produced in the
United States. For these uses, the physical properties of the
stone are important. Such characteristics as strength, toughness,
abrasion resistance, inertness, proper shape, size, and size
distribution determine whether or not the material is suitable
for a particular construction application.
is unimportant.
Chemical composition
In relation to total crushed stone, limestone and related
materials accounted for about three-fourths of the total produc-
tion in 1969. Output of carbonate stones (used here to include
limestone, dolomite, shell, marble, and calcareous marl) amounted
to almost 653 million tons. Production of limestone far exceeded
that of any other type of stone.
Since the bulk of the crushed stone production is used in
construction, and since carbonate stones account for a very large
part of the total crushed stone, construction applications comprise
a major market for these carbonate stones. For these markets,
physical characteristics are of paramount importance, and the
chemical composition has no bearing on the stone's utility. Hence,
the carbonate rocks must compete against all of the other types
of rocks previously enumerated. In addition, sand, gravel,
blast furnace slag, and lightweight aggregate, which are also
used as construction materials, afford further competition.
-84-
-------
A carbonate stone is an essential raw material for many
other important industrial uses (cement, lime, glass, etc.),
which consume large tonnages each year. In these instances,
the rocks are valued for their chemical characteristics and,
therefore, do not compete against the other rock types. Here
too, though, competition frequently exists between the various
types of carbonate stones. For example, both limestone and
o
shell have been used as a source of high-purity calcium carbonate
for use in the manufacture of lime.
From the previous conside+ations, it is apparent that many
similarities exist between the limestone (or carbonate stone)
industry and the crushed stone industry as a whole. Problems,
production methods, and marketing techniques are, for the most
part, closely linked between the two. Even that branch of the
limestone industry which produces 'chemical' limestone has many
aspects in common with the crushed stone industry.
1.
Definition of Uses
Subsequent sections include a discussion of the more
important uses of limestone and related materials as reported
in the various states. A brief explanation of these uses follows:
Bituminous Aggregate - sized stone, of gradations from 2
inches to 8 mesh, used with asphalt or tar in the construction
of roads.
Concrete Aggregate - sized stone, of gradations from 3-1/2
inches to 4 mesh, used with cement to form a concrete construc-
tion material for a wide variety of applications.
Dense Graded Road Base Stone - sized stone, of gradations
from 3-1/2 inches to 0(1) I used as a base course in road con-
struction.
(1)
This designation indicates stone with a maximum size of
3-1/2" and no minimum size.
-85-
-------
Macadam Aggregate - sized stone, of various gradations from
about 3 inches to 0(1), used in the construction of macadam roads.
Manufactured Fine Aggregate (stone Sand) - stone crushed
to the size of sand grains and used in place of silica sand for
numerous construction purposes.
Surface Treatment Aggregate - sized stone, of gr~dations
from 1 inch to 16 mesh, used frequently with asphalt to improve
or cover worn-out surfaces.
Agricultural Applications - Limestone and dolomite serve
several important functions as agricultural materials. They
are used to correct soil acidity, replenish elements, improve
physical or biological conditions in the soil, increase the
efficiency of fertilizers, and for other purposes. A high-
calcium limestone or high-purity dolomite is desirable, but
not essential. The stone is generally 8 to 100 mesh.
Cement Manufacture - Limestone is the prime ingredient in
the manufacture of cement., Although a high-purity stone is not
required, dolomites and magnesian limestones can not be used.
Argillaceous limestone, for example, find great applicability
in cement manufacture.
Chemical Stone for Alkali Works - Limestone is an important
raw material in the manufacture of sodium carbonate ,(soda ash) by
the ammonia or Solvay process. A high-calcium limestone, generally
of high purity, is used. A size of 1 - 6 inches is preferred.
Dead-burned Dolomite - Dolomites or magnesian limestones
are sintered and calcined at high temperatures to produce dead-
burned dolomite, actually calcium and magnesium oxides. The
material is used for refractory linings in open-hearth steel
furnaces.
(1)
This designation indicates stone with a maximum size of 3"
and no minimum size.
-86-
-------
Ferrosilicon - Dolomite is calcined, and the lime produced
is used as a raw material for the production of elemental
magnesium by the ferrosilicon process.
Fill - Limestone and dolomite are sometimes used for land-
fill of swamps and land grading.
purity of stone is unimportant.
For this purpose, type and
Filter Stone - Limestone and dolomite are used as filter
stone in the treatment of sewage. It provides an anchorage
in which bacteria can lodge. Chemical composition is unimport-
ant, though certain impurities should be avoided, but the stone
must be strong, compact, fine-grained, and closely sized (about
1-1/2 - 3 inches).
Flux - Large quantities of stone are used in iron, steel,
and other metallurgical furances to remove the acid impurities,
chiefly silica and alumina, from ore. Both limestone and
dolomite find application. The stone must be of high-purity
(95%), strong, and relatively large-sized (generally 1/2 - 8
inches) .
Glass - Both limestone and dolomite are used as basic raw
materials in the manufacture of glass. Specifications on purity
vary, but total carbonates are generally 90% or greater and, for
optical glass, should be at least 99%. Usually, low iron, sulfur,
and phosphorus contents are required.
Lime Manufacture - Lime is produced by the calcination of
limestone or dolomite to drive off carbon dioxide. Physical
and chemical requirements are rigid. Depending on the type of
kiln employed, various stone gradations are used. For vertical
kilns, the stone should be a minimQm of 2 inches. Rotary kilns
can calcine stone as small as 1/4 inch. Chemical purity generally
exceeds 97% in total carbonates.
-87-
-------
I
Mineral Filler - Limestone and dolomite are used as fillers
or extenders for a wide variety of products including paints,
puttys, paper, rubber, asphalt, and tiles. It is usually a
high-purity stone which is finely divided.
Paper Manufacture - An acid liquor, prepared by reacting
limestone with sulfur dioxide, is used to digest wood chips in
the manufacture of paper. A high-purity, high-calcium stone of
large size (up to 14 inches) is preferred.
Poultry Grit - Granular limestone of uniform sizes is used
to allow poultry to grind its food. Chemical purity is unimport-
ant. Almost any type of stone can be used.
Railroad Ballast - sized stone, of gradations from 2-1/2
inches to 4 mesh, used for the construction and maintenance of
railway beds.
Refractory - In addition to dead-burned dolomite, raw stone
may be used for refractory linings in metallurgical furnaces or
as a patching material.
Riprap and Jetty Stone - large, irregular rocks used primarily
for river and harbor work, shore protection, and spillways.
Roofing Granules - stone chips which are used as gravel with
tar for coating roofs.
Sugar Refining - lime produced from a pure high-calcium
limestone is used to remove impurities in the manufacture of
sugar.
However, the lime is usually produced from raw stone
at the refinery.
Terrazzo and Exposed Aggregate -
3/4 inch wide. Coloring of the stone
for this application.
stone chips of about 1/2 -
is an important consideration
-88-
-------
Whiting
tions demand
having other
- a pulverized limestone or dolomite.
a white, highly pure, very fine (-325
rigid specifications.
-89-
Many applica-
mesh) stone
-------
2 .
Quarrying and Processing of Carbonate Stone
Carbonate stones are produced by a number of different
methods including quarrying, mining, and dredging. Shell, of
course, is recovered by dredging off the bottom in shallow waters.
Under special economic circumstances underground mining is
pursued but the most common method of stone recovery, by far, is
quarrying.
.'
There are two basic types of quarries -- open-shelf and
open-pit. They differ chiefly in topographical features. Where
stone is imbedded in a hillside above the level of the surrounding
terrain, an open-shelf quarry is used to extract the stone by
digging into the side of the hill. Open-pit quarries are the
more common of the two types and are used where the stone lies
below the natural level of the terrain. They may be quite shallow
(10 - 20 feet), or the quarry floor may lie well below (200 feet
or more) the grade of the surrounding land.
There is a great variety in operations, sequence, and
equipment employed at different quarries. Factors such as
stone characteristics, topography, condition of rock strata,
type and thickness of overburden, height of quarry face, type
and extent of markets, labor conditions, location of roads and
rail facilities, and availability of electric power must all be
considered to ensure the most desirable and profitable design.
However, certain basic similarities exist. A typical quarry
may be described as having the following operations:
1)
2)
3 )
4 )
5)
6)
7 )
8)
removal of overburden
drilling
blasting
secondary
hauling
crushing
conveying
breakage
sizing
-90..
-------
9)
10)
11)
12)
washing
storage
reclamation
blending
The reader is referred elsewhere(l) for an excellent descrip-
tion of these operations in detail.
In 1969, a total of 4,711 crushed stone quarries was re-
ported by the Bureau of Mines(2). No breakdown by type of
stone was available. Of the total, over 37% had an annual
production of less than 25,000 tons. However, these quarries
acco~nted for only 1.8% of the nationwide production.
Quarries which produced over 900,000 tons numbered 172, only
3.7% of the total number of quarries, but produced 33% of the
total tonnage. The 364 largest quarries accounted for almost
50% of the total production. From these data, it is obvious
that, although small quarries predominate in number, the major
stone production comes from the larger operations.
( 1)
Boynton, Robert S., Chemistry and Technology of Lime and
Limestone, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966
Mineral Industry Surveys, Stone in 1969, U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D.C., August 28, 1970.
(2)
-91-
-------
1------
B.
National Data
In this section, data are presented on production, uses,
and unit values of various crushed and broken carbonate materials
in the United States in 1969. In subsequent sections, these data
are broken down into regional and state summaries. Much of this
information has been derived either from data furnished by the
United States Bureau of Mines or from one of their pUblications~l)
Production figures and values are, in some cases, not
directly reported by the Bureau of Mines. This is done to
avoid disclosure of individual company confidential data. In
these instances, the figures are reported indirectly, by com-
bination with, or inclusion in, other categories. Generally
this occurs where production is limited and, consequently has
virtually no effect on the validity of the statistics as presented
in this report.
Cost data are presented as unit values, in dollars per ton
of crushed stone ($/ton). This is defined basically as the net
selling value, or selling price, per ton of stone, f.o.b. quarry.
1.
Production
Tables 14 and 15 show 1969 production data for various crushed
and broken carbonate materials in the United States, including lime-
stone, dolomite, shell, calcarcous marl, and marble. Materials such
as chalk, coral, etc. are not shown specifically, since they are not
listed as separate commodities by the Bureau of Mines.
The total national production of crushed carbonate rocks,
as shown in Table 14, amounted to almost two-thirds of a billion
tons in 1969, of which over 85% was limestone. Dolomite ranked
second with over 10%.
Marl and marble production were very low,
(1)
Mineral Industry Surveys, Stone in 1969, U.S. Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D.C., August 28, 1970.
-92-
-------
TABLE 14
PRODUCTION OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN CARBONATE STONES
IN 1HE UNITED STATES IN 1969, BY TYPE
Type Production (M Tons)
Limestone 558,793
Dolomite 68,380
Shell 19.731
Calcareous Marl 2.490
M9.rble 2,2~!
Total. All Types 651,665
-93-
-------
TABLE 15
PRODUCTION OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN CARBONATE STONES
IN 'mE UNITED STA'1$S iN 1969, BY. USE
Production (M Tons)(l)
35,152
96.590
46. 429
23.422
147,596
38.811
Use
Agricultural Purposes
Concrete Aggregate (Coarse)
Bituminous Aggregate
Macadam Aggregates
Dense Graded Road Base Stone
Surface Treatment Aggregates
Unspecified Construction Aggregate
and Roadstone
Ripcap and Jetty Stone
Railroad Ballast
Filter Stone
Manufactured Fine Aggregate (Stone Sand)
Terrazzo and Exposed Aggregate
Cement Manufacture
Lime Manufacture
Dead-Burned Dolomite
Ferrosilicon
Flux
Refractory
Chemical Stone for Alkali Works
Fill
Glass
Undistributed
Total. All Uses
54,434
11.639
6.173
686
2.815
164
105.147
31.714
2.935
148
30,360
419
3.273
2.739
992
11,218
652.856(2)
(1) Includes limestone. dolomite. shell. marl. and marble
(2) Includes 1.189 M tons of crushed limestone produced in
Alaska and Hawaii; separate data for contiguous U.S.
were not available
-94-
-------
amounting to less than 5 million tons combined, or 0.7% of the
total.
Table 16 shows, qualitatively, the various types of carbonate
rocks produced in each state. Limestone was produced in all but
4 states, viz, Delaware, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and North
Dakota. Louisiana, however, was the leading producer of shell
in the United States. The other three states reported no
carbonate rock production of any kind. Dolomite production
was reported in 24 states covering all regions of the country,
but was centered primarily in the states surrounding the Great
Lakes. Shell was produced in 8 states, mainly along the Gulf
Coast. The limited production of marl and marbl~ in 8 and 18
states respectively, occurred in various states throughout the
country. Alabama was the leading producer of marble.
Table 15 lists the 1969 production of crushed carbonate
rocks by use. Reflecting the large use of limestone and related
materials for their physical rather than chemical properties
was the huge consumption of carbonate rocks for various con-
struction purposes. The total production for construction uses
amounted to nearly 428 million tons, or almost two-thirds of
the entire national production. Dense graded road base stone
constituted the largest single use, amounting to almost 148
million tons, or 22.6% of the total national production. -On
the other hand, those uses for which a high-purity limestone or
dolomite is required, or desirable, accounted for 70 million
tons, or slightly more than 10% of the national total.
Marl finds its major use in cement manufacture since the
normal silica and alumina impurities are desirable components
which, combined with its softness, make it an ideal raw material.
Most of the shell produced in the United States was used for
construction purposes, with significant tonnages also being
consumed in cement and lime manufacture. Marble was used
chiefly for decorative purposes and other specialty markets.
-95-
-------
TYPES OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN CARBONATE STONES
PRODUCED IN 'mE UNITED STATES IN 1969, BY STATE
TYPe of Carbonate Stone
Calcareous
State Limestone Dolomite Shell Marl Marble
Alabama x x x x
Ari zona x x
Arkansas x
California x x x x
Colorado x x x
Connecticut x x
Delaware -...------------ No Production --------------
Florida x x
Georgia x x
Idaho x
Illinois x x
Indiana x x x
Iowa x x
Kansas x
Kentucky x
Louisiana x
Maine x
Maryland x x x
Massachusetts x x
Michigan x x x
Minnesota x x x
Mississippi x x
Missouri x x x
Montana x x
Nebraska x
Nevada x x x x
New Hampshire -------------- No Production --------------
New Jersey x x
New Mexico x
New York x x x
North Carolina x x
North Dakota -------------- No Production --------------
Ohio x x
Oklahoma x x
Oregon x
Pennsylvania x x x
Rhode Island x
South Carolina x x
South Dakota x
Tennessee x x
Texas x x x x x
Utah x x
Vermont x x x
Virginia x x x x x
Washington x x x
West Virginia x x
Wisconsin x x
Wyomi ng x x
-96-
-------
2 .
Value
Table 17 shows the unit values of various carbonate
materials in 1969. These are average values for the entire
United States and range from a low of $l.Ol/ton for marl to
a high of $9.69/ton for marble, with a national average of
$1.49/ton for all carbonate rocks. The high unit value for
marble reflects its specialty uses. The materials produced
in the largest quantities (i.e., limestone, dolomite, and
shell)all average between $1.42 - 1.SS/ton.
The unit values for all carbonate materials are broken
down by use in Table 18. They range from a low of $0.69/ton
for stone used as fill to a high of $6.00/ton for stone used
for terrazzo floors and as exposed aggregate. Uses which
command a high price include filter stone, refractory stone,
and stone for glass manufacture. Of the twenty-one uses
shown, however, only four have average unit values exceeding
$2.00/ton, and these account for only 2.3 million tons, or
0.3% of the total crushed carbonate rock production in 1969.
Stone used for construction purposes, amounting to 428
million tons (see Table IS), averaged $1.44/ton and fell
within the small range of $1.29 - 1.69/ton. The 70 million
tons of carbonate stone used for purposes where a high-purity
limestone or dolomite is required (lime, dead-burned dolomite,
ferrosilicon, flux, refractory, chemical stone, and glass)
had an average unit value of only $1.69/ton. It is interesting
to note that even though this latter stone is high-purity,
the unit value for most uses is quite low. In only two cases
(refractory, glass) did it exceed $2.00/ton.
c.
Regional Data
use,
In subsequent sections of this report,
and value for crushed carbonate ston~s
state and region.
Table 19 shows limestone
data on production,
are presented by
and dolomite
-97-
-------
TABLE 17
UNIT VALUE OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN CARBONATE STONES
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1969, BY TYPE
Type Unit Value (~)
Limestone) (1.45(1)
Dolomite) 1.46 (1.55(1)
Shell 1.42
[
Calcareous Marl 1.01
Marble 9.69
Average. All Types
1.49
(1) The separate values for limestone and dolomite
are estimates.
-98-
-------
TABLE 18
UNIT VALUE OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN CARBONATE STONES
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1969, BY USE
Use
Agricultural Purposes
Concrete Aggregate (Coarse)
Bituminous Aggregate
Macadam Aggregates
Dense Graded Road Base Stone
Surface Treatment Aggregates
Unspecified Construction Aggregate
and Roadstone
Ripcap and Jetty Stone
Railroad Ballast
Filter Stone
Manufactured Fine Aggregate (Stone Sand)
.Terrazzo and Exposed Aggregate
Cement Manufacture
Lime Manufacture
Dead-Burned Dolomite
Ferrosilicon
Flux
Jiefractory
Chemical Stone for Alkali Works
Fill
Glass
Average, All Uses
Unit Value ~)(1)
1.79
1.54
1.51
1.48
1.:33
1.44
1.54
1.30
1.29
2.01
1.69
6.00
1.13
1.82
1.58
1.36
1.50
2.45
1.72
0.69
3.16
1.49
(1) Includes limestone, dolomite, shell, srI, and marble.
-99-
-------
TABLE 19
PRODUCTION OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN UMESTONE AND DOLOMITE
IN. THE UNITED STATES IN 1969, BY RffiION AND STATE
Production (M Tons)
Re~ion and State Limestone Dolomite Total
New ~land 1(1) (275)(2)
Connecticut I
Maine (800) (800)
Massachusetts I I (750)
New Hampshire -
Rhode Island «100) (<100)
Vermont I I (525)
Totals I I (2.400)
Middle Atlantic
New Jersey (800) (800 )
New York 28.241 5.216 33.457
Pennsylvania 47,158 9. 509 56.667
Totals (76,200) 14.725 ( 90.900)
East North Central
Illinois 40,172 14,672 54.844
Indiana 22.880 2.277 25.157
Michigan 30.659 8,407 39,066
Ohio 38,081 12,514 50,595
Wisconsin 14.209 1,'128 15,937
Totals 146.001 39.598 185,599
West North Central
Iowa I I (26,200)
Kansas 15.334 15,334
Minnesota 3.289 838 4.127
Missouri 40,268 932 41.200
I Nebraska 4,663 4,663
I . North Dakota
I
South Dakota 989 989
Totals I I (92,500)
-100~
-------
TABLE 19 (Cont'd)
PRODUCTION OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN UMESTONE AND DOLOMITE
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1969, BY RIDlON AND STATE
Re~ion and State
Production (M Tons)
Limestone Dolomite
Total
South Atlantic
---:Delaware
Florida
Georgia
'Ma.ry:Ja.nd
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
W"est Virginia
40,729
4,334
9,804
(4,500)
(1,900)
13,471
6,191
4,358
2,214
40,729
4,334
9,804
(4,,500 )
(1,900)
17,829
8,405
Totals
(80,900)
6,572
(87,500)
East South Central
Alabama 15,614 2,138 17,752
Kentucky 30,158 30,158
Mississippi (300) (300)
Tennessee 33,109 33,109
Totals (79,200) 2,138 (81,300)
West South Central
Arkansas 5, 676 5,676
Louisiana -
Oklahoma . I I (16,300)
'rexas I I (36, 300)
Totals I I (58,300)
Mountain
Arizona 2,339 2,339
Colorado I I (1,650)
Idaho (250) (250)
Montana 1,442 1,442
Nevada I I (1,000)
New Mexico 956 956
Utah I I (2,400)
Wyoming 649 649
Totals I I (10,700)
-101-
-------
TABLE 19 (Cont'd)
PRODUCTION OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN LIMESTONE AND DOLOMITE
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1969. BY REGION AND STATE
Production (M Tons)
Rep:ion and State lJ.mestone Dolomite Total
Pacific
California I I (17.400)
Oregon (350) (350)
Washington 749 .iJQQl _(1.050)
Totals I I (18.800)
(1) "I" indicates that insufficient data were available to
estimate production.
(2) ( ) indicates that production figure was estimated.
-102-
-------
production broken down in this manner. In many cases exact
production figures were not available and for these, estimates
were made wherever possible. These estimates are based on
consideration of 1969 total stone production, 1969 production
of various rocks other than carbonate, and production rates
of all types of stone reported in previous years. (1) (2) From
Table 19, the total limestone and dolomite produced in the
United States in 1969, including estimated production rates,
was 627,999,000 tons. This agrees very well with the actual
figures of 627,173,000 tons reported by the Bureau of Mines.
Data on production of the other carbonate rocks are not
tabulated by state due to 'the limited production of these
materials and the meager amount of available data. However,
where exact figures are known, or where estimates can be
made, they are noted in the text.
Table 20shows unit values for the carbonate rocks by
state and region. These data are derived from information
furnished by the Bureau of Mines. It should be noted here
that the unit values shown for the various materials in
each state do not necessarily correspond to the total pro-
duction of these materials. Certain uses, e.g., those
consuming stone requiring special processing and commanding
premium prices, are excluded. This was done to avoid
inflating the value for the type and quality of stone suitable
for use in air pollution control.
No data are available for uses in 1969 by state. However,
based on information on uses for previous years, a qualitative
discussion of use pattern is given for each state.
(1 )
1967 Minerals Yearbook,
Washington, D.C., 1969.
1968 Materials Yearbook,
Washington, D.C., 1970.
Vol. I-III, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
(2 )
Vol. I-III, U.S. Bureau of Mines,
-103-
-------
. TABLE .20
UNIT VALUE OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN CARBONATE STONES
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1969, BY REGION AND STATE
Unit Value ($/Ton)
Limestone Dolomite Shell Calcareous Marl Marble
Region and State Low High Avg. ~ High Avil,. Low ill:Bh Avg. Low High Avg. Low High AVR.
New Enil,land NR(l) 5.87 _(2) .
Connecticut NR NR 3.30 4.20
Maine 1.10 3.00 1.32
Massachusetts 1.75 5.02 4.14 5.24 5.24 5.24
New Hampshire
Rhode Island 5.90 9.50 7.57
Vermont 0.76 16.75 1.46 1.48 2.76 1.53 1.41 1.41 1.41
Middle Atlantic
New Jersey 1.50 14.89 2.49 25.00 25.00 25.00
New York 0.64 3.54 1.56 1.25 5.00 1.97 3.00 3.00 3.00
Pennsylvania 0.50 4.19 1.46 0.61 3.50 1.73 NR NR NR
East North Central
Illinois 0.37 6.25 1.44 1.10 2.50 1.45
Indiana 0.78 4.48 1.32 0.65 1.61 1.28 NR NR NR
Michigan 0.72 2.96 1.02 0.57 26.00 1.45 NR NR NR
Ohio 0.50 4.59 1.54 0.34 3.28 1.48 .,..
Wisconsin 0.14 3.50 1.17 0.77 2.00 1.21
west North Central
Iowa 0.43 2.67 1.49 1.21 2.20 1.72
Kansas 0.20 5.00 1.40
Minnesota 0.75 15.00 1.32 0.64 1.70 1.38 NR NR NR
Missouri 0.74 7.65 1.39 0.85 1.50 1.13 1.49 30.93 1.93
Nebraska 1.24 2.70 1.87
North Dakota
South Dakota 0.73 2.00 1.22
South Atlantic
Delaware
Florida 0.50 3.33 1.31 1.00 2.72. 1.84
Georgia 0.82 2.20 1.50 1.03 15.67 8.44
Maryland 0.59 9.59 1.57 NR NR NR 25.00 25.00 25.00
North Carolina 1.35 2.35 1.62 4.00 4.00 4.00
South Carolina 0.35 1.79 1.51 1.00 1.15 1.10
Virginia 0.70 4.57 1.52 1.00 1.91 1.37 3.92 3.92 3.92 0.68 0.80 0.80 20.00 20.00 20.00
..vest Virginia 0.34 24.00 1.62 1.00 2.15 1.62
(1) "NR" indi.cates that value was not reported.
(2) "_" indicates no production.
-104-
-------
TABLE. 20. (Cont'd)
UNIT VALUE OF CRUSHED AND BROKEN CARBONATE STONES
IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1969, BY REGION AND STATE
Unit Value ($/Ton)
Limestone Dolomite Shell Calcareous ¥J8.rl Marble
Region and State Low High Avg. ~ Hip:h Avp:. Low Hip:h Avg. ww ill£!!. Avg. Low High Avg.
East South Centl'a1 0.60 1.60
Alabama 2.40 1.17 1.20 _2.50 1.00 1.85 1.44 9.52 14.82 13.10
Kentucky 0.40 2.31 1.46
Mississippi 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Tennessee 0.25 4.00 1.33 24.75 25.54 24.91
West South Central
Arkansas 1.00 5.62 1.36 NR NR NR
Louisiana 1.00 2.30 1.29
Oklahoma 0.37 3.51 1.30 NR NR NR
Texas 0.12 17.65 1.35 0.86 2.09 1.17 1.06 1.75 1.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
Mountain
Arizona 1.25 3.23 1.64 13 .72 28. 60 15.16
Colorado 0.50 4.81 2.04 2.20 2.90 2.83 6.00 6.00 6.00
Idaho 1.10 1.10 1.10
Montana 0.53 3.08 1.24 5.20 36.08 31. 71
Nevada 0.75 2.35 1.64 1.50 2.85 1.77 NR NR NR 20.00 20.00 20.00
New Mexico 0.69 4.00 1.51 NR NR NR
Utah 1.00 25.00 2.25 2.66 2.66 2.66
Wyoming 1.00 3.64 2.11 20.00 20.00 20.00
Pacific
California 0.57 6.00 1.07 2.00 12.53 2.91 1.37 2.16 1.95 2.80 25.00 20.03
Oregon 0.56 3.25 1.00
Washington 0.72 24.49 1.28 6.00 6.00 6.00 3.70 21.63 19.47
Total United States 0.12 25.00 1.45(3) 0.34 26.00 1.55(3) 1.00 3.92 1.42 0.68 1.15 1.01 1.03 36.08 9.69
(1) "NR" indicates that value was not reported.
(2) "_II indicates no production.
(3) estimated value
-105-
-------
1.
New England
The New England region produced very little crushed
carbonate rock in 1969. Limestone and dolomite amounted to
0.4% of the national total, or approximately 2.4 million
tons, the lowest production of any region in the United
States. Some crushed marble was produced in Vermont, while
one state, New Hampshire, had no carbonate rock production
of any kind. Unit values tended to be high. This was
probably owing to limited production under non-competitive
conditions.
a.
Connecticut
Limestone and dolomite production in Connecticut was
estimated to be approximately 275,000 tons, all from Litch-
field County quarries. No unit value was reported for
limestone, but dolomite averaged $4.20jton, much higher than
the national average. Uses included soil neutralizer, lime
manufacture, filler, whiting, and flux.
b.
Maine
Maine produced approximately 800,000 tons of crushed
limestone, with an average value of $1.32jton. The limestone
came primarily from Knox County and was used chiefly in
cement manufacture. Large quantities were used also for
agricultural purposes, concrete aggregate, and dense graded
road base stone.
c.
Massachusetts
Both limestone and dolomite were produced in Massachusetts,
with the total quantity estimated to be 750,000 tons. The
stone was quarried only in Berkshire County, and had unusually
high average unit values, viz., $4.l4jton for limestone, and
-106-
-------
$5.24/ton for dolomite. Dolomite production was probably
quite small compare4 to limestone production. Chief uses were
agricultural purposes, concrete aggregate, road base stone,
and lime manufacture.
d.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island's production of limestone was estimated to be
less than 100,000 tons and came exclusively from Providence
County. The average unit value of $7.57/ton was the highest
value reported for limestone by any state in the country. The
stone was used for ornamental purposes, flux, mineral filler,
and in agricultural applications.
e.
Vermont
Rutland County was the principal source of limestone and
dolomite in Vermont, and the total production was approximately
525,000 tons. Perhaps as much as 500,000 tons of crushed marble
were also produced,in the same county. Most of the limestone
and dolomite was used as aggregate and road base stone, but
large tonnages also were used for agricultural purposes, whiting,
fillet's, and p~per manufacture. Concrete aggregate and road
base stone probably consumed most of the crushed marble. The
average unit value of all three materials fell within the range
of $1.41 - 1.53/ton.
,-107*
-------
2.
Middle'Atlantic
Large quantities of crushed carbonate rocks were produced
in the Middle Atlantic region in 1969. Almost 91 million tons
of limestone and dolomite were produced, accounting for about
14.5% of the total national production. Individually, lime-
stone and dolomite production represented 13.6% and 21.5% of
the respective total national outputs of these two materials.
Crushed marble and shell also were produced. Unit values, in
general, ran somewhat higher than the national averages.
a.
New Jersey
In New Jersey, an estimated 800,000 tons of limestone were
quarried, primarily from operations in Sussex County. The unit
value of $2.49/ton was about $l.OO/ton above the national
average. Agriculture was the major use, but other important
uses included filler, concrete aggregate, and lime. Some
crushed marble, produced in Warren County, was used for terrazzo,
and its average unit value of $25.00/ton reflects the higher
prices commanded by specialty markets.
b.
New York
New York was one of the largest producers of crushed
carbonate rocks in the united States in 1969. With over 28
million tons of limestone and 5.2 million tons of dolomite,
the total of 33.5 million tons ranked New York eighth in total
limestone and dolomite production among the states. Stone was
quarried throughout the state with Dutchess County being the
leading producer, and was used principally as an aggregate
material and in cement and lime manufacture. It was also used
for agricultural purposes, riprap, railroad ballast, filler,
flux, and whiting. The average unit value for limestone was
$1.56/ton, and for dolomite, $1.97/ton. An indeterminate
-108-
-------
amount of crushed marble, with an average value of $3.00/ton,
also was produced and was used mostly for road material and
agriculture.
c.
Pennsylvania
In 1969, Pennsylvania ranked first both in total production
of all carbonate rocks and in production of limestone in the
United States. Its 47.2 million tons of limestone, combined
with 9.5 million tons of dolomite, gave it a total of 56.7
million tons, which exceeded the limestone and dolomite pro-
duction of every other state. This total accounted for about
9% of the national limestone and dolomite output. A small
amount of shell also was produced.
The average unit value of limestone was $1.46/ton, dolomite
being slightly higher, averaging $1.73/ton; no data were
reported for shell. By far, the largest amount of limestone
and dolomite was used as an aggregate material. Other important
uses were cement and lime manufacture, flux, and agriculture.
-109-
-------
3 .
East North Central
The East North Central region was the leading producer
of crushed carbonate rocks in 1969. In fact, the output of
limestone and dolomite was more than double that of any other
region and accounted for 185.6 million tons, or about 30% of
the national total. Limestone production, at 146 million tons,
represented more than one-fourth of the total limestone in the
United States, while dolomite, at 39.6 million tons, accounted
for well over half of the national dolomite production. Sig-
nificant tonnages of marl also were produced. Unit values for
all materials were generally close to the national average.
a.
Illinois
Illinois was the largest single producer of dolomite in
the United states, with 14.7 million tons reported. Its total
tonnage of limestone and dolomite, 54.8 million tons, ranked
second only to Pennsylvania of all the states. Concrete
aggregate and road stone consumed most of the stone; other
major uses included agriculture, cement manufacture, and flux.
Limestone was quarried throughout the state, while dolomite
production was restricted to northern Illinois. The largest
producer was Cook County. Unit values were $1.44/ton for
limestone and $1.45jton for dolomite.
b.
Indiana
Indiana produced 22.9 million tons of limestone and 2.3
million tons of dolomite in 1969. Production occurred through-
out the state and was used chiefly for concrete aggregate and
road stone. Agricultural uses, cement manufacture and riprap
also consumed significant quantities. The unit values were
$1.32jton for limestone and $1.28/ton for dolomite. Marl pro-
duction, from northern Indiana, amounted to 32,000 tons and was
used mainly for soil conditioning. No unit values were reported
for marl.
-110-
-------
c.
Michigan
The limestone and dolomite production in Michigan was
30.7 million tons and 8.4 million tons respectively which
placed it sixth in total production of all the states.
Production was centered chiefly in the Upper Peninsula and in
northern counties. The largest single use was as flux stone,
with other major consumers being cement and lime manufacture,
concrete aggregate, and road stone. Although the unit value
of $1.45/ton for dolomite was in line with regional and
national averages, the unit value of $1.02/ton reported for
limestone, was fairly low. This probably was caused by two
factors: 1) some of the largest and most efficient quarries in
the bnited States are located in Michigan and 2) a large amount
of captive stone was produced for which a low unit value may
have been assigned.
The 99,000 tons of marl produced in Michigan in 1969 came
primarily from quarries in the southwestern part of the state.
Its major use was in agricultural applications. No unit values
were reported.
d.
Ohio
Ohio ranked third of all the states in total limestone and
dolomite production with 50.6 million tons. Over 38 million
tons of limestone were quarried, and the dolomite production
of 12.5 million tons was exceeded only by Illinois. Production
was reported from numerous quarries throughout the state, with
Sandusky County being the leading producer. Most of the stone
was used as aggregate material. Large quantities also were
used for flux, cement and lime manufacture, and agricultural
purposes. The average unit values were $1.54/ton for limestone
and $1.48/ton for dolomite.
-111-
-------
e.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin produced a total of 15.9 million tons of lime-
stone and dolomite in 1969. Although 14.2 million tons were
classified as limestone and only 1.7 million tons as dolomite,
most of the limestone was of the magne~ian variety. The
primary source of these materials was quarries in southern and
eastern counties, with Waukesha County being the largest
producer. Principal uses were aggregate and roadstone but
agriculture also provided a major market. Unit values were
slightly low, averaging $1.17/ton for limestone and $1.21/ton
for dolomite.
-112-
-------
4.
West North Central
The West North Central region produced large tonnages of
carbonate rocks in 1969. In fact, the total limestone and
dolomite production of about 92.5 million tons made it the
second largest producing area in the country, accounting for
14.7% of the total national output. Marl was quarried in
Minnesota and some crushed marble was produced in Missouri.
North Dakota reported no carbonate rock production of any
kind. Most unit values did not deviate significantly from
the national average.
a.
Iowa
Both limestone and dolomite were quarried in Iowa, with
the total output estimated to be 26.2 million tons. Limestone
was produced chiefly in the eastern half of the state, while
dolomite production was recorded in northern and eastern
counties. Madison County was the largest producer. Most of
the stone was used for concrete aggregate and road stone with
other important uses being agriculture and cement manufacture.
Limestone averaged $1.49/ton, while dolomite was slightly
higher at $1.72/ton.
b.
Kansas
Kansas produced 15.3 million tons of limestone in 1969,
predominantly from quarries in the eastern part of the state.
Johnson County was the largest producer. The stone was used
chiefly for concrete aggregate, road stone, and cement manu-
facture, with lesser amounts required for agricultural purposes,
riprap, flux, railroad ballast, and whiting. The average unit
value for limestone was $1.40/ton.
c.
Minnesota
Limestone and dolomite production in Minnesota totaled
4.1 million tons of which 3.3 million tons were limestone.
-113-
-------
Quarrying was done primarily in the southeastern corner of
the state, with Blue Earth County being the leading producer.
Concrete aggregate and road stone consumed most of the output.
Limestone and dolomite averaged $1.32/ton and $1.38/ton re-
spectively. An undisclosed amount of marl was produced in
central Minnesota and used exclusively for agricultural
purposes. No unit values were reported.
d.
Missouri
Missouri's total production of limestone and dolomite was
the largest of any state in the region, and ranked Missouri
as the fourth leading producer in the nation. Total production
was 41.2 million tons of which only 932,000 tons were dolomite.
Production occurred throughout the state, with the leading area
being around St. Louis. The two largest markets for this were
concrete aggregate and road stone but agriculture, cement
manufacture, and riprap also consumed large quantities. Lime-
stone was valued at an average of $1.39/ton while dolomite
averaged $l.13/ton. Some crushed marble, averaging $l.93/ton,
also was produced and used for terrazzo and exposed aggregate.
e.
Nebraska
About 4.7 million tons of limestone were quarried in
Nebraska in 1969. virtually all production came from the
southeastern counties. Riprap, concrete aggregate and road
stone were the major uses. The average unit value was $1.87/
ton.
f.
So~th Dakota
South Dakota produced only 989,000 tons of limestone in
1969, all from three western counties. The stone avaraged
$l.22/ton and was used chiefly for concrete aggregate, road
stone, and cement.
,
__I~~ ~J
-------
~
5.
South Atlantic
Large quantities of carbonate rocks of all types were
produced in the South Atlantic region in 1969. Limestone
and dolomite production totalled 87.5 million tons, of which
80.9 million tons were limestone. Dolomite was quarried only
in two of the northernmost states in the region -- Virginia
and West Virginia. The total limestone and dolomite represented
14.0% of the national production of these materials.
Shell was produced in Maryland, Virginia, and chiefly in
Florida. Production of marl was reported in South Carolina
and Virginia. Crushed marble came from Georgia, Maryland,
North Carolina, and Virginia. Delaware reported no crushed
carbo~ate rock production.
For the most part, unit values in the region did not
deviate very much from the national averages. Shell and marble,
though, tended to be high.
a.
Florida
Florida was the largest limestone producing state in the
region with 40.7 million tons reported. Nationwide it ranked
second only to Pennsylvania in limestone production and fifth
in the total production of all types of carbonate rocks. Two
types of limestone, hard-rock and soft-rock, were quarried,
with soft-rock limestone predominating. This latter material
was used chiefly for dense graded road base stone, agricultural
purposes, and lime manufacture. Hard-rock limestone was used
mainly as concrete and bituminous aggregates.
No data were
available on relative costs, but it is estimated that soft-rock
limestone was valued at roughly $l.OOjton, while hard-rock
limestone averaged around $1.50jton. The overall average unit
value for all limestone was $1.31jton. Production was reported
throughout the state, with Dade County being the leading pro-
ducer.
-115-
-------
b.
Georgia
Georgia produced 4.3 million tons of limestone in 1969.
Stone came primarily from quarries in the western part of the
state, with Early, Floyd, and Whitfield counties being the
leading producers. Primary use was concrete and road stone;
other uses included agriculture, cement manufacture, riprap,
and flux. The average unit value was $1.50jton. Some crushed
marble 1 averaging $8.44jton, was produced in northwestern
Georgia. It was used primarily for agricultural stone, fillers,
and whiting.
c.
Maryland
Limestone production in Maryland amounted to 9.8 million
tons in 1969. Quarrying was chiefly in the northern and central
parts of the state. Most of the stone was used for construction
purposes but small amounts also were used for agriculture,
cement manufacture, and metallurgical flux. The average value
was reported to be $1.57jton. Undisclosed quantities of shell
and crushed marble were produced. No unit values were reported
for shell, but marble averaged a very high $25.00jton.
d.
North Carolina
An estimated 4.5 million tons of limestone were quarried
in North Carolina. Production was reported in western counties
and in an area along the Atlantic coast. Chief uses were as
aggregates and road base material and the average unit value
was $1.62jton. Also produced was some crushed marble, valued
at $4.00jton.
e.
South Carolina
South Carolina produced an estimated 1.9 million tons of
crushed limestone. Quarrying was done in only three counties
-- Berkeley, Cherokee, and Dorchester. Primary markets for
-116-
-------
the stone, which averaged $1.51/ton, were cement manufacture
and agricultural purposes. Marl, averaging $l.lO/ton, was
produced in Dorchester and Orangeburg Counties.
f .
Virginia
Virginia produced all types of carbonate rocks in 1969,
with limestone and dolomite combined totaling 17.8 million
tons. At 4.4 million tons, the state was the largest dolomite
producer in the South Atlantic region. The stone came mainly
from quarries in western Virginia and was valued at $1.52/ton
for limestone, and $1.37/ton for dolomite. Its principal uses
were as concrete aggregate and road stone. Other important
uses were cement and lime manufacture, agricultural dressing,
and flux.
An undisclosed quantity of shell was produced in Isle of
Wight County. It was used for agricultural purposes and had
a unit value of $3.92/ton, almost three times the national
average for shell.
Total marl production was not reported, but the material
averaged $O.80/ton in value. Its uses included cement manu-
facture and agriculture. Crushed marble from Rockingham
County was valued at $20.00/ton.
g.
West Virginia
Limestone and dolomite production in West Virginia amounted
to 8.4 million tons of which 6.2 million tons were limestone.
Production came chiefly from quarries in northeastern West
Virginia. Major uses were concrete aggregate and road stone,
flux, railroad ballast, agriculture, and cement and lime
manufacture. Both limestone and dolomite averaged $l.62/ton.
-117-
-------
6.
East South Central
Production of all types of carbonate rocks were reported
in the East South Central region in 1969. The combined pro-
duction of limestone and dolomite was 81.3 million tons,
accounting for 13.0% of the national production. Dolomite was
quarried only in Alabama, and amounted to slightly more than
2.1 million tons. Alabama was also the only producer of shell
in the region. Marl production was reported in Mississippi,
while crushed marble was produced in Alabama and Tennessee.
Unit values were mostly in line with the national averages,
with a few exceptions. Average unit values for marble were
high. Also, in the two southernmost states of the region,
Alabama and Mississippi, unit values for limestone were low.
a.
Alabama
Other than marl, all types of carbonate stones were
produced in Alabama in 1969. A total of 17.8 million tons
of limestone and dolomite were quarried; 15.6 million tons of
this were limestone. Quarries were scattered throughout the
state, but most of the limestone came from operations in the
northern half of the state. Dolomite production was confined
to three counties in central Alabama. The average unit values
were $1.l7/ton for limestone and $l.60/ton for dolomite. Most
of the stone was used for concrete aggregate and roads but
other important uses were cement and lime manufacture, agricul-
tural purposes, flux, and riprap.
Shell produced in Mobile County averaged $1.44/ton, and
was used in road construction and cement manufacture. Crushed
marble production was reported in Talladega County and totalled
632,000 tons. This material, averaging $13.l0/ton, was used
for fillers and whiting.
-118-
-------
b.
Kentucky
Kentucky produced only limestone, but the total tonnage
of almost 30.2 million tons ranked it eighth nationwide.
Numerous quarries were in operation throughout the state, with
the leading counties being Livingston, Christian, and Jefferson.
The stone averaged $1.46/ton and was used chiefly as concrete
aggregate and road material. Other important uses were agri-
cultural stone and riprap.
c.
Mississippi
An estimated 300,000 tons of limestone were produced in
Mississippi. The material was quarried in only three counties
and averaged $l.OO/ton. An undisclosed amount of marl also
was quarried, and had the same average value. No information
was found regarding end-uses of either material.
d.
Tennessee
Tennessee was the leading producer of limestone in the
region in 1969, with a total of 33.1 million tons. It ranked
sixth in the country in total limestone produced. Numerous
quarry operations were scattered throughout the central and
eastern parts of the state. The material had an average unit
value of $1.33/ton and was used primarily for concrete and
roads. Agriculture and cement manufacture were other major
uses.
Some marble was produced in eastern Tennessee and
terrazzo, mineral food, and agricultural purposes; it
high unit value of $24.9l/ton.
used for
had a
-119-
-------
7.
West South Central
Limestone and dolomite production in the West South Central
region was about 58.3 million tons, comprising 9.3% of the
national total. Dolomite was quarried only in Oklahoma and
Texas. Louisiana was the only state reporting no production
of either materialihowever, it was the largest producer of
shell in the United States. Shell also was produced in signi-
ficant quantities in Texas. In fact, the total shell represented
over 83% of the national production of this material. Crushed
marble was quarried in Arkansas and Texas, and the latter state
was the only source of marl in the region. Unit values were
generally low, except for marble.
a.
Arkansas
Arkansas produced 5.7 million tons of limestone in 1969
from quarries located primarily in the northern portion of
the state. The stone was used for concrete and road aggregate,
riprap, and cement and lime manufacture. Its average unit
value was $1.36/ton. Crushed marble was produced in Independ-
ence County, but no other information is available on this
material.
b.
Louisiana
As previously mentioned, shell was the only carbonate
material produced in Louisiana in 1969. Total output was over
9.2 million tons and averaged $1.29/ton in value. Production
was from four counties in southern Louisiana, and the material
was used primarily for concrete aggregate, road construction,
and cement and lime manufacture.
c.
Oklahoma
--..---
Oklahoma produced an estimated 16.3 million tons of lime-
stone and dolomite. Production of limestone carne from numerous
quarries spread predominantly throughout the eastern half of
-1') O~
-------
I--
I
the state. Dolomite was quarried only in Johnston County.
Large quantities were used for concrete and road aggregate
and for agricultural purposes. On the average, limestone
was valued at $1.30/ton. No unit values were reported for
dolomite.
d.
Texas
Texas was the largest producer of limestone and dolomite
in the region, with 36.3 million tons produced in 1969. It
ranked seventh nationally in production of these rocks. In
addition, shell, marl, and marble also are quarried. The
state was the second largest producer of shell in the nation.
Limestone was quarried throughout the state,
in central Texas. Dolomite was produced only in
El Paso Counties. Limestone averaged $1.35/ton,
unit value for dolomite was $1.17/ton.
but chiefly
Burnet and
while the
Shell was dredged along the Gulf Coast. Total output
was almost 7.2 million tons and the material averaged $1.19/ton
in value.
Undisclosed amounts of marl and crushed marble were quarried
in Texas. Marl, from Bexar County, was valued at $l.OO/ton.
Crushed marble, from quarries in Burnet and Llano Counties,
had a high unit value of $20.00/ton.
The principal uses of crushed stone were concrete aggregate
and road stone, cement and lime manufacture, and riprap. Crushed
marble was used for terrazzo chips, and roofing and other special
aggregates.
-121-
-------
1---
I
8.
Mountain
The Mountain region produced a relatively small amount
of crushed carbonate rocks in 1969. Limestone and dolomite
production amounted to only 10.7 million tons and represented
just 1.7% of the national total. Marl was quarried in Nevada,
and five states produced small amounts of marble. Unit values
were variable, but in general tended to be relatively high.
a.
Arizona
Arizona produced over 2.3 million tons of limestone in
1969 from quarries throughout the state. The material averaged
$1.64/ton and was used chiefly for concrete aggregate, and
cement and lime manufacture. Crushed marble was produced in
southern Arizona and valued at $lS.16/ton.
b.
Colorado
Limestone and dolomite production in Colorado amounted
to an estimated 1.65 million tons. Limestone had an average
unit value of $2.04/ton, while dolomite averaged $2.83/ton,
both well above the national figures. Crushed marble, from
central Colorado quarries, was valued at $6.00/ton. Major
uses were cement manufacture, flux, riprap, road and concrete
aggregate, lime manufacture, and surface treatment aggregate.
c.
Idaho
Little limestone was quarried in Idaho in 1969. An estimated
250,000 tons were produced in three countries. Virtually all
of the output was used in sugar refining and cement manufacture.
o
The material had a low unit value of $l.lO/ton.
d.
Montana
Production of limestone in Montana amounted to over 1.4
million tons.
Most of the stone came from quarries in south-
, ,1.72
-------
western counties. The material, which averaged $1.24/ton, was
used chiefly for cement and lime manufacture, sugar refining,
and metallurgical purposes. A small amount of crushed marble,
used in concrete, whiting, roofing granuales, and terrazo, was
also produced in southwestern Montana. It had an exceedingly
high average unit value of $31.71/ton.
e.
Nevada
Nevada produced a variety of carbonate materials, but
total output was quite small. Approximately 1.0 million tons
of limestone and dolomite were quarried from operations in
four widly separated counties. Major uses were sugar refining,
cement and lime manufacture, flux, and for agricultural purposes.
Both materials had somewhat high average unit values. Limestone
and dolomite averaged $1.64/ton and $1.77/ton respectively.
Marl, for use as mineral fillers, was quarried in Nye
County but no unit values were reported. A small amount of
crushed marble, produced in Mineral County and valued at $20.00/
ton, was used for terrazzo.
f.
New Mexico
New Mexico produced nearly 1.0 million tons of limestone
from quarries scattered throughout the state and a small amount
of dolomite was produced from one quarry in Grant County. Chief
uses were dense graded road base stone and cement manufacture.
Other uses were flux, lime manufacture, and various construction
purposes. The only unit values reported were for limestone,
which averaged $1.51/ton.
g.
Utah
With approximately 2.4 million tons of limestone and dolomite,
Utah ranked as the leading producer of these materials in the
Mountain region in 1969. Stone was quarried primarily in the
-123-
-------
northern part of the state, with dolomite production only
from Tooele County. Uses included lime and cement manufacture,
flux, agricultural applications, and aggregates. Unit values
were highs limestone averaged $2.25/ton and dolomite was even
higher, at $2.66/ton.
h.
Wyoming
Wyoming reported only 649,000 tons of limestone in 1969.
Most of the production came from southeastern counties and was
used for sugar refining, cement and lime manufacture, and
construction purposes. It was valued at $2.ll/ton. Some
crushed marble was produced in Platte County and valued at
$20.00jton.
-124-
-------
9.
Pacific
The Pacific region produced about 18.8 million tons of
limestone and dolomite in 1969, most of which came from
California. Total production represented only 3.0% of the
national output. Shell also was produced in California, and
this state, in addition to Washington, reported production
of crushed marble. Averaged unit values were somewhat erratic,
being low for limestone but quite high for the other materials,
in comparison to national average values.
a.
California
Total limestone and dolomite production from California
in 1969, from quarries throughout the state, amounted to an
estimated 17.4 million tons. By far, the single major use
was in cement manufacture. However, substantial quantities
also were consumed in lime manufacture, flux, agricultural
purposes, and aggregate material. Limestone had a very low
average unit value of $1.07/ton. On the other hand, dolomite
value was very high, at an average of $2.91/ton.
Shell, dredged from San Francisco Bay, was valued at $1.95/ton
and used in cement manufacture and as poultry grit. Marble was
quarried in three counties and averaged $20.03/ton in value. It
was used as an aggregate material and also for specialty uses.
b.
Oregon
Oregon produced a small amount of crushed limestone,
estimated to be about 350,000 tons. The stone was quarried
in only two counties, Baker and Multnomah, and averaged just
$l.OO/ton in value. Cement and lime manufacture, sugar refin-
ing, agriculture, and the paper and metallurgical industries
consumed the bulk of the material.
-125-
-------
c.
Washington
Total production of limestone and dolomite in Washington
was slightly more than 1.0 million tons, of which 749,000 tons
were limestone. Quarrying was done primarily in the northern
counties, with dolomite production being reported only in
Stevens County. The primary uses of stone were cement and lime
manufacture, agricultural purposes, and in the paper and metal-
lurgical industries. Limestone was valued at $1.28jton.
Dolomite had an exceedingly high unit value of $6.00jton.
Stevens County reported production of crushed marble, averaging
$19.47/ton, which was used as terrazzo and for various other
construction purposes.
-126-
-------
D.
Quarries
Appendix A contains a tabulation of quarries which produce
limestone, dolomite, shell, marl, and marble. This listing
was compiled from information supplied by the United States
Bureau of Mines and includes virtually all quarries in the
United States which produced crushed carbonate stone in 1969.
For each material, the number of quarries is summarized by
county and state. This has been provided to help the reader
who is interested in a particular area to determine qualita-
tively the extent of production in and around that area,
-127-
-------
IX.
TRANSPORTATION
A.
Methods Employed
Table 21 indicates, by state, the modes of transportation
used to ship crushed stone in 1969. Although the data apply to
all crushed stone, they should be similar for carbonate rocks,
since these constitute about 75% of all crushed stone in the
United States.
The table was derived from information furnished
by the United States Bureau of Mines.
The column headed "Other
or Unspecified" includes stone transported
similar methods, stone used at the quarry
and shipments not specified by individual
by conveyors and
site by captive producers,
producers.
NationallYI truck transportation dominated in the movement
of crushed stone, accounting for about 72% of all stone shipped.
It was the most commonly used mode in most states, and accounted
for virtually all stone shipped in several areas, e.g., Iowa.
Various types of trucks, ranging in capacity up to 50 tons, are
used to transport stone. The most prevalent types employed are the
rear-dump truck and the blower truck. The latter is a closed
type which can quickly unload by pneumatic discharge.
Because of the abundance of limestone deposits and quarries,
many users are near a source of supply. Trucks are ideally suited
to this type of short haul. The federal highway program and the
construction and improvement of secondary roads, coupled with the
development of larger and more reliable trucks, have extended
their use. Trucks provide flexibility, and since loading can be
done quickly, they can provide fast, same-day delivery. Unloading
facilities at the consumer's plant are minimal. Their relatively
low capacity, however, can be a drawback if large quantities of
limestone are required, as would be the case with the larger power
plants.
-128-
-------
TABLE 21
-,-
PERCENT OI<' CRUSHED STONE SHIPPED BY VARIOUS METHODS IN 1969
State
Truck
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colora.do
Connecticut
Dela.ware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky (1)
Louisiana (1)
Maine
MaryJand
Massachusetts
Michigan .
Minnesota
Mis sissippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada .
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode IslRnd
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washjngton
~~est Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
U.S. Overall
Method of Transportation
Railroad WaterwaY Other or Unspecific
6.9
6.2
6.1
10.6
NA
NA
5.2
8.4
59.4 21.7
68.5 15.3
96.6 2.7
74.0 12.8
NA
70.4 24.5
39.3 13.1
85.9 9.8
52.5 14.3
11.8 69.6
95.9 3.9
76.0 17.4
88.4 4.9
43.3 32.4
96.3 3.7
35.7 60.2
71.6 11.3
NA NA NA NA
63.1 7.0 29.9
40.8 ,22.4 36.8
75.6 9.4 3.0 12.0
72.5 24.2 3.3
67.0 . 13.7 18.7 0.6
-------~------ No Production -----------------
76.1 21.0 1.8 1.1
75.1 24.9
NA NA
91.3 7.4
88.7 5.2
96.9 2.9
72.2 9.3
76.1 5.1
NA NA
NA NA
90.1 0.9
93.8 2.6
25.8 1.0
78.9 13.7
NA
72.2
93.8
18.3
89.4
NA
NA
NA
53.6
91.2
NA
1.3
6.1
0.2
3.0
18.6
:>90.0
15.5
0.2
NA
9.0
3.6
73.2
7.4
7.4
Nil.
13.5
75.6
22.1
0.4
5.6
NA
19.1
0.7
0.1
100.0
13.3
16.2
13.1
2.2
13.4
5.1
47.6
2.1
19.8
18.6
0.2
5.4
1.6
23.0
4.1
1.2
5.1
1.3
8.8
8.3
NA - Data are not available
(1) - Percentages are based on part of the crushed stone production. Complete
data are lacking.
129
-------
Rail transportation was employed to move over 11% of all
crushed stone, nationally. It was particularly significant in
the southeastern United States and in several of the Rocky
Mountain states. Although not the most commonly employed method
in the major limestone producing areas in the north and east,
rail nevertheless was used to haul millions of tons of stone
in this region.
The eastern half of the United States is densely covered
with rail lines, with main lines extending in all directions and
interconnecting at many points. This is not true in the west.
Beyond Duluth, Omaha, Oklahoma City, and Fort Worth, lines thin
out considerably, becoming sparse in most regions of the Rocky
Mountains. Main lines generally run east-west and interconnect
at few places. There are few major rail centers compared to the
eastern and central states.
Hopper cars and gondolas are commonly used to haul limestone.
Hoppers may be either open or closed top, and discharge by either
gravity or pneumatic transfer. Jumbo cars, having capacities up
to 250 tons or more, are available, but most stone is shipped in
60 to 100 ton capacity cars.
Rail shipment, rather than truck haul, is generally used for
longer distances. To take maximum advantage of this mode of trans-
portation, direct rail connections via branch lines, spurs, and
sidings are necessary between stone producer and consumer. In
addition, since carload quantities are desirable, larger inventor-
ies and more extensive storage facilities are required on both
ends. Where limestone shipments are very large, the unit train
concept could be employed.
Many power plants have existing rail facilities to haul in
coal. For these plants, particularly the larger ones with a
potentially high demand for limestone, rail transportation may
be the logical choice. Rail haul is indicated also in cases
where no nearby source of limestone exists.
-130-
-------
As shown in Table 21, about 9% of all crushed stone was
moved by water. In Louisiana and Michigan, most of the stone
produced was hauled by this method since the major limestone
deposits are near water. It was also an important mode in the
New York-Connecticut area and in Kentucky.
Figure 17 shows the commercially navigable inland waterways
in the United States. Almost all are located in the eastern
half of the country. The most important waterways are the Great
Lakes, the Mississippi River system, and the Gulf Intercoastal
Waterway. The Great Lakes are strategically located in a high-
producing limestone region. The Mississippi River system is a
vast, sprawling network of rivers which reach northward to
Minneapolis-St. Paul and Chicago, eastward to Pittsburgh and
Knoxville, and westward to Sioux City, Iowa and Catoosa, Okla-
homa. The Missouri River and the Mississippi River below St.
Louis are open rivers. Other waterways in the system have been
improved for navigation through the use of locks and darns. The
Gulf Intercoastal Waterway is a series of connected bays, sounds,
tidal estuaries, and land cuts which extend from st. Marks,
Florida to Brownsville, Texas.
Barges commonly are used to haul stone on rivers and along
the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway. They may be either the open-
hopper or covered-hopper type. Capacities vary, but most crushed
stone is shipped in 1200-1400 ton barges. Usually, individual
barges are lashed together to form an integrated tow which is
moved by a single towboat. Unloading is done by clamshell
bucket or by an air system.
On the Great Lakes, stone generally is shipped in large
cargo vessels. Bulk carriers and self-unloaders now in use
have capacities of up to 29,000 tons with even larger capacity
ships being planned for the future. Bulk carriers are unloaded
by shore-based equipment while self-unloaders, having a long,
movable boom equipped with a conveyor, require no such facilities.
-131-
-------
I
f-'
w
rv
I
LEGEND
"b
~
()
.....
'I)
.....
()
~
()
f'1
b.
~
GUL F of
FIGURE 17
COMMERCIALLY NAVIGABLE INLAND WATERWAYS OF THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES
(REPRINTED FROM U.S. BUREAU OF MINES INFORMATION CIRCULAR NO. 8431)
-------
Barge or boat shipment normally is used for longer distances
and where both the stone producer and consumer are located on or
near water. It is comparatively slow and, since vessel capacities
,
are high, requires large inventories and storage facilities. It
also requires adequate docks and unloading equipment. Some
northern waters, e.g., the Missouri and upper Mississippi Rivers,
and parts of the Great Lakes, are closed to navigation during
winter months, thereby necessitating a large stockpile of stone
at the consumer's plant. Some of the larger power plants which
are located on inland waters might be economically supplied with
limestone by boat or barge.
B.
Factors Influencing Transportation Costs
Obviously, the selection of a
hauling limestone to a power plant
of both quarry and utility, and by
the delivered cost of the stone is
transportation method for
is limited by the location
the routes available. Since
determined by adding the
transportation charge to the quarry cost, and
have an effect on transportation rates, it is
predict accurately what the delivered cost of
for a specific case.
since many factors
very difficult to
stone would be
Shipment of stone is under varying degrees of federal and
state control. Most interstate shipment by rail and truck is
regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) which
requires carriers to publish a set of tariffs. Interstate move-
ment by barge and boat, however, is largely exempt from ICC
regulations. Several states have agencies which control intra-
state shipment. Usually, intrastate transportation is significantly
cheaper than interstate.
The type of equipment used to haul the stone also has an
effect on freight rates. Open type trucks, rail cars, and barges
are cheaper than covered types. In many instances, there is a
shortage of equipment and this has an adverse effect on freight
-133-
-------
charges. However, many of the larger quarries, particularly,
operate their own vehicles and this can result in reduced rates
through more efficient utilization of the equipment. Loading
facilities at the quarry and unloading facilities at the power
plant must be adequate for the method employed. Any increased
hauling which the shipper must" do will increase costs.
Large single-shipment volumes, as well as large annual
volumes and regularity of movement frequently result in rate
reductions. This is not always true, however. For example,
in some states where rates are under control of a state com-
mission, tonnages have no bearing on cost.
Because of the relatively large quantities potentially
required by most power plants, it is expected that limestone
usually would be hauled in unit lots, i.e., in truckload, car-
load, barge load, or boatload quantities. However, shipments of
less than a unit lot sometimes may be considered, as, for example,
in cargo vessels on the Great Lakes since, in this case, huge
tonnages are required to qualify as a unit lot. Rates for
shipments of less than a unit lot are much higher than for
lot-sized quantities. The number of vehicles used for a single
shipment also has an influence on rates.
Route conditions are important. Shipments in mountainous
areas are more costly than in flat, level regions. Costs are
usually higher for hauls through heavily populated areas because
the running time of the vehicle is increased. Truck rates
are influenced by the type and condition of roads. Rail shipment
is cheapest when single main lines are used. When branch lines
are used, or when two or more railroads are involved, costs will
be higher. Barge rates are affected by the allowable draft, the
chamber size of locks, and congestion at locks caused by high
traffic density.
Dead-running time of the vehicles also has an influence on
freight rates. In instances where the shipper can obtain a
-134-
-------
profitable back-haul, substantially lower rates may be obtained
than if the vehicles return empty.
In many cases, commodity rates' have been established on a
point-to-point basis for specific items. For instance, rail
rates have been set in the midwest for flux stone (limestone)
used in iron and steel manufacture. They are much lower than
the rates that would otherwise apply, and it is possible that
limestone shipped to power plants in the same areas might
qualify for these rates.
Intermodal transportation, i.e., shipment by more than
one method, sometimes affords the lowest overall cost. For
example, a quarry adjacent to water might be able to barge stone
to within a few miles of a power plant at a low cost. The stone
could then be transferred to trucks which would complete the haul.
Competition between carriers is often keen. Depending on
other factors, this could result in large reductions in transporta-
tion costs through negotiations. In addition, shippers will often
modify their rates to reflect changes in the traffic volumes. New
commodity rates may be established if justified.
C.
Transportation Rates
Application of the factors discussed in the preceeding
section results in a wide range of transportation rates. This
variation in rates obscures differences between regions and
states and makes it difficult to establish average values, even
within a single state. Anomalies, such as long hauls being less
costly than short hauls, are common. Consideration of these
factors suggests that, rather than use average values, it would
be more appropriate to describe transportation rates by a range
of values which would include most rates actually encountered.
-135-
-------
Figures 18, 19, and 20 present transportation rates for
truck, rail, and waterway respectively. Based primarily on
data obtained from various limestone producers, the rates are
shown as a range of values and as a function of distance. For
truck movement, rates vary from 5.0 - 10.0~/ton-mile, for 10
mile shipments, to 2.0 - 5.0~/ton-mile for hauls of 100 miles.
Rail rates range from 4.5 - 6.0~/ton-mile, at 10 miles, to
0.75 - 1.5~/ton-mile at 250 miles. Shipment via waterway de-
creases in cost from 0.9 - 1.5~/ton-mile, at 20 miles, to
0.25 - .50~/ton-mile at 500 miles.
The lower curves shown in Figures 18, 19, and 20 correspond
to rates which could be obtained under favorable conditions; i.e.,
high volume movement, periodic shipments in lot-sized quantities,
intrastate shipment or commodity rates, etc. The upper curves
correspond to unfavorable conditions. In a few cases, rates
may be outside the ranges indicated.
The range of distances for which rates are shown represents
the typical operating range for the particular mode of transporta-
tion. Trucks are frequently used for distances up to about 50
miles and, less commonly, for hauls of 100 miles. Beyond 100
miles, rail shipment is customarily employed. Because of the
abundance of limestone quarries, it is expected that rail shipment
for more than 250 miles rarely will be necessary. Waterway
transportation is usually the cheapest of the three methods and
in some cases this could justify shipments of a few hundred miles.
No rates are shown for very short hauls since they are infrequent.
Where they do occur, a flat fee is usually charged.
D.
Availability of Equipment
In most areas, there is an adequate supply of trucking
equipment. Truck availability is occasionally a problem in
some areas particularly when large volume movements are involved.
If adequate notice is given, sufficient trucks usually can be
obtained. It is not expected to be a problem in hauling lime-
stone to power plants.
-136-
-------
FIGURE 18
TRUCK TRANSPORTATION RATES FOR SHIPMENTS
OF
-
CRUSHED STONE IN THE UNITED STATES
10
9
I 8
~
W
--..J W
I ~ 7
~
I
Z 6
o
.....
"
U> 5
.....
Z
W
<.> 4
~
W
..... 3
«
a::
2
o
o
10
20
30
40 50 60
DISTANCE, MILES
70
80
90
100
-------
6
5
I
I-'UJ
W...J
Q) - 4
I:E
I
z
o
~
.......
en 3
~
z
UJ
()
~
UJ
~ 2
«
a:
o
o
FIGURE 19
RAIL TRANSPORTATION RATES FOR SHIPMENT
OF
-
CRUSHED STONE IN THE UNITED STATES
25
50
175
75
100
125
DISTANCE, MILES
150
200
225
250
-------
I
I-'
W
1.0
I
1.5
lLI
..J
~
I
~ 1.0
~
.......
(f)
~
Z
W
o 0.5
~
W
~
«
Q:
o
o
FIGURE 20
WATERWAY TRANSPORTATION RATES FOR SHIPMENT
OF
-
CRUSHED STONE IN THE UNITED STATES
HIGH RANGE
LOW RANGE
50
100
200
300
350
250
DISTANCE, MILES
150
400
450
500
-------
By contrast," most sections of the country are confronted
with a shortage of railroad cars. The situation is particularly
bad in many parts of the eastern, midwestern, and southern
sections of the country, where the shortage of open top hoppers
and gondolas is severe at times. Seasonal demands for open top
cars for other commodities frequently limits the availability
of cars for hauling limestone. In some cases, shippers must
repair and clean cars before loading, which increases the cost.
The situation should be better for moving limestone to power
plants, however, since the limestone demand is known and ship-
ments, therefore, could be scheduled well in advance.
Availability of boats for stone shipments on the Great Lakes
is normaLly no problem. Barges are sometimes in short supply,
particularly in the peak summer season. However, they can usually
be obtained if the requirements are known well ahead of time.
E.
Delivered Price of Limestone
In order to determine what the actual cost of limestone
would be for a power plant, a representative list of 37 of the
larger power plants was made. All of the plants selected have
capacities exceeding 200 MW and were chosen to give a representa-
tive sampling of locations and conditions; i.e., urban, rural,
on water, inland, mountainous terrain, etc. Most of the plants
are located in the eastern half of the united States, where the
major coal- and oil-fired power plants are found.
Limestone producers were asked to estimate the base price
of stone and the transportation charges to these locations. It
was assumed that a high calcium limestone (>95% CaC03) would be
required.
The results of this inquiry are shown in Table 22. The
delivered price of limestone ranges from a low of $1.95/ton for
the Riverside plant in Iowa to a high of over $13/ton for the
Leland Olds plant. In cases where no reply was obtained for
-140-
-------
TABLE 22
DEUVERED PRICE OF HIGH-CALCIUM LIMESTONE TO SEIECTED POWER PLANTS
~r Plant
Location
Benning
Gorgas
Cherokee
J. McDonough
Devon
Fisk
R. S .v~allace
~vill County
D.H. Mitchell
~Jaba.sh
f1.iverside
Lawrence
Cane Run
Elmer Sm th
Hiverside
Edgar
L Street
Delray
High Bridge
Hawthorn
Sioux
Essex
Port Jefferson
Waterside
Allen
Leland Olds
Tidd
1.ti.ami Fort
Acma
Horseshoe Lake
Elrama
Schuylkill
Wateree
Bull Rur
Cabin Creek
Kammer
Lakeside
Washington. D.C.
Gorgas. Alabama
Denver. Colorado
Cobb County. Georgia
Millford. Connecticut
Chicago, Illinois
East Peoria. Illinois
Lockport, Illinois
Gary. Indiana
Terre Haute. Indiana
Iowana. Iowa
Lawrence. Kansas
Louisville. Kentucky
Owensboro. Kentucky
Baltimore. Maryland
N. Weymouth, Massachusetts
Boston. Massachusetts
Detroit. ~tichigan
St. Paul, Minnesota
Kansas City, ~lissouri
West Alton. Missouri
Newark. New Jersey'
Port Jefferson, New York
New York, New York
Belmont, North Carolina
Stanton, North Dakota
Brilliant, Ohio
North Bend, Ohio
Toledo, Ohio
Horseshoe Lake, Oklahoma
Elrama, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Rockland City, South Carolina
Oak Ridge. Tennessee
Cabin Creek, West Virginia
Captina, West Virginia
St. Francis. Wisconsin
* - Source of stone is outside of U.S. (Bahamas)
-141-
Delivered Price (~)
4.50 *
).23
6.)6
4.50
4. 50 *
2.40
3.)0
).30
2.65
2.25 (75-94% CaCO)
1.95
3.66
3.00
).72
3.85
4.50*
4.50 *
2.40
3.00
4.60
3.10
4.50*
4. 50 *
4.50*
5.)9
1).20
).80
2.45
2.45
8.00
5.55 (92% CaCO)
4.50*
).90 (88~~~ CaCO)
4. ;~~
6.00
4.00 (80~~ CaCO)
2.60
-------
high calcium stone, the purity of the stone is indicated in
parentheses after the delivered price.
More than half of the plants listed could be supplied with
limestone at a cost of less than $4.00/ton and almost all at less
than $6.00/ton. The outstanding exception to this is the Leland
Olds plant in Stanton, North Dakota. Since there are no limestone
quarries in the state, stone would have to be shipped a considerable
distance. In this case, the source of limestone for which a price
is given in the table is Rapid City, South Dakota, and transporta-
tion costs would be $lO.80/ton.
The prices given in Table 22 are spot prices which do not
take into account such factors as annual tonnages, number of
shipments, etc. Negotiations between limestone producers, shippers,
and power plant could produce some cost adjustments.
-142-
-------
x.
PROJECTED COSTS OF CARBONATE ROCKS
A.
Base Price
Historically, prices of carbonate rocks have been very
stable. They have increased at a much lower rate than the
national economy or most commodities. For example, during
the past 15 years, crushed limestone and dolomite have in-
creased only 14% in average unit value. The abundance of
rock deposits and the multiplicity of quarries have resulted
in intense competition not only between limestone producers
for the chemical and metallurgical markets, but also between
limestone producers and producers of other types of rock for
the large aggregate markets. As a result, prices have in
general remained level or increased only slightly.
Figures 21-25 show the yearly variation in average unit
value of all crushed stone, limestone and dolomite, marl, shell,
and marble respectively. Unit values for 1960-1969 were cal-
culated from data published in the corresponding year's Minerals
Yearbook. Extrapolations to 1975 have been made in two ways:
first, the data were extrapolated by following the trend and
shape of the curve; second, a straight line extrapolation was
made~using the average slope of the curve for the last few
years. The former method represents an upper limit on the
change in unit value which could normally be expected in the
6 year period. The latter method yields a more conservative
estimate.
The curves shown in Figures 21 and 22 for crushed stone
and for limestone and dolomite, follow the same general pattern,
as expected. Prices remained essentially constant through 1966,
after which a slight upward trend is noted. Extrapolation to
1975 gives.a price range of about $1.75 - 2.00jton for crushed
stone, and, for limestone and dolomite, a range of $1.67 - 1.82jton.
-143-
-------
2.00
1.90
z
o
t: I. 80
en
0::
:3 1.70
oJ
o
o 1.60
..
w
:::>
!:: 1.40
z
:::>
1.30
~
o
1960
YEARLY
.
FIGURE 2 I
VARIATION IN AVERAGE UNIT VALUE
OF
-
CRUSHED STONE
.
1965
YEAR
'-144-
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ "
/ "
/ ,,"
./ ,,"
,,;' "
/. "
~"
1970
1975
-------
1.90
1.80
z
o
!::: 1.70
(/)
0::
:3 1.60
..J
o
o 1.50
~
I.iJ
::>
..J 1.40
~
!:: 1.30
z
=>
1.20
o
1960
FIGURE 22
YEARLY VARIATION IN AVERAGE UNIT VALUE
OF
-
LIMESTONE AND DOLOMITE
.
'"
'"
"'"
"'"
"'" ,..
./ ,.."
./ "
/,,"
""
~
.
.
1965
1970
1975
YEAR
-145-
-------
1.50
z
o 1.40
I-
"-
en
a: 1.30
<{
..J
..J
o I. 20
o
..
UJ 1.10
::>
..J
<{
> 1.00
I-
~ 0.90
w
~ 0.80
a:
w
~
0.70
~
o
1960
FIGURE 23
YEARLY VARIATION IN AVERAGE UNIT VALUE OF MARL
/
/
/
/ '"
/ ",'"
/ /'"
/'"
,v'"
...-:4
"':;.'
8""":/
"
.
.
1965
1970
1975
YEAR
-146-
-------
z
o
t:: 1.70
Cf)
0:
:5 1.60
...J
o
o 1.50
..
lLJ
::>
...J 1.40
«
>
~ 1.30
z
::>
lLJ 1.20
C)
«
0:
lLJ
~
FIGURE 24
YEARLY VARIATION IN AVERAGE UNIT VALUE OF SHELL
1.80
1.10
~
o
1960
.
1965
YEAR
-147-
......
......
"-
"
"
"
" '?'
,,0;
"
"
"
1970
1975
-------
11.00
z
o
~
......
~ 10.00
~
~ 8.00
LLI
C)
-------
The latter corresponds to a modest average annual increase of
2.3 - 3.7%, based on the 1969 value.
The curve for marl, shown in Figure 23, has a slightly
different shape. Prices decreased in the early 1960's, levelled
out for a while, and have recently begun to increase. Projected
values in 1975 are $1.28 - 1.48/ton, representing a 4.0 - 6.6%
average annual increase.
Shell prices have dropped more than 20% over the 9-year
period ending in 1969. Figure 24 shows that a sharp drop occurred
in 1961 after which prices essentially remained steady through
1965. Prices since then have decreased. In this case, extrapo-
lation of the curve appears to give unreasonable results, since
the projected value of shell in 1975 is lower than that of marl,
an unlikely situation. More probably, the price of shell will
parallel that of limestone and dolomite, but should not exceed
them in value.
Unit values for crushed marble are shown in Figure 25. The
wide variation in values from year to year illustrates the high
sensitivity of price to demand for crushed marble, and the
special applications for which the material is used. No attempt
was made to extrapolate the data because of the scatter of data
points and because crushed marble, in order to be considered for
use in a power plant, would have to have a much lower unit value
than those shown in the figure.
B.
Transportation Rates
Transportation rates are, in general, expected to rise at
a higher rate than the average base price of limestone and dolomite
in the next 5 years. Considering all methods of transportation,
an average annual increase of about 6% is predicted, based on
estimates by a number of stone and limestone producers.
-149-
-------
I~_-
.
Producers anticipate that truck rates will climb by 4-6%/
year on the average. A few producers predict even higher rate
increases, up to 20%/year. These latter predictions, however,
should occur only in rare instances, and only under very special
local conditions.
Increases in rail rates should average 6-8%/year during the
5 year period. Virtually all estimates by producers fall within
a range of 3-8%/year. Some observers feel that, beyond 1971,
drastic increases will occur in the south, bringing intrastate
rates up to interstate levels.
Rates of water shipment of stone are expected to rise 5-10%
annually. Increases as low as 2%/year and as high as 20%/year
have been forecast, however. The high rate should only apply
under unique circumstances.
Particularly for truck and rail transportation, rates should
follow wage increases granted to labor. The estimates offered
by stone producers are predicated on the present state of the
economy and a continuance of the present inflation rate. Any
changes will, of course, affect these estimates.
-150-
-------
XI.
SUPPLY/DEMAND RELATIONSHIP OF CARBONATE ROCKS
FOR POLLUTION CONTROL
A.
Proximity of Carbonate Rock Deposits to Power Plants
Figu:ce 2, presented in Section VI C, shows the location of
the major coal- and oil-fired power plants. Figures 4 through 7,
presented in Section VII A, show the location of the major deposits
of carbon~te rocks, including limestone, dolomite, and marble.
Comparison of these figures indicates that the major deposits
largely caincide in location with the power plants.
This is particularly true in the East North Central region
where huge reserves of stone occur. Both high calcium limestone
and high grade dolomite abound, and many deposits are found near
the major power generation centers throughout the region.
The New England region is not as fortunate. While the power
plants are located primarily in coastal areas, the rock deposits
occur in the mountainous western sections. Most of the deposits
are highly crystalline stone or marble, and many are dolomitic.
If final process specifications indicate the desirability of
using, for example, a non-crystalline high cal~ium stone, then
even these materials would be excluded from consideration.
Availability of stone should not be a problem for power
plants in the Middle Atlantic region. All types of stone occur
and nearby deposits can be found. Plants in western and eastern
Pennsylvania, particuarly, are fortunate in that large reserves
of high grade stones are present.
In the South Atlantic region, most plants are located near
an adequate source of stone, particularly if the crystalline
limestones and dolomites of the mountainous areas prove suitable.
-151-
-------
Several coastal plants
or marl. However, for
ample, North Carolina,
could use shell or coral limestone,
some inland power plants in, for ex-
no nearby deposits exist.
Large quantities of high calcium limestone occur through-
out the East South Central region and power plants should
experience no difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies.
Should dolomite prove feasible for SOx removal, plants lo-
cated in Alabama and Tennessee also could obtain this material.
The less abundant and more widely scattered carbonate
resources of the western states are of minor importance, since
there are few coal-fired powe~ plants in this area. With the
exception of the two power plants located in North Dakota,
which are far removed from any commercially important carbon-
ate deposits, the few plants that do exist are fairly near
reserves of high calcium stone.
It is very difficult to determine quantitatively the
usable reserves of stone within a given region or area, and
relate this to potential consumption by power plants in the
area. However, to give an overall view of the extent of
usable reserves, a comparison can be made between estimated
reserves and rock production rates. This is shown in
Table 23.
The area of surface reserves was estimated using Figure
4. For various assumed overall average thicknesses, this
area was converted to an equivalent amount of carbonate rock,
based on the assumptions listed in the table. The estimated
reserve was then compared to the 1969 production rate for all
carbonate rocks.
-152-
-------
TABLE 23
RELATIVE SUPPLY OF SURFACE CARBONATE ROCKS
IN THE UNITED STATES
Area of Surface Reserves
=
316,000 Sq. Mi. (1)
Assumed
Average Thickness
Of Deposits (Ft.)
Equiv. Reserves (2)
( 1012 'l'ons)
Years Supply
At 1969
Production Rate(3)
1
10
25
50
100
0.363
3.63
9.08
18.2
36.3
557
5,570
13,900
27,900
55,700
Estimated from Figure 4
( 1)
(2)
Based on the following assumptions:
(a) Figure 4 shows areas in which the predominant
rock type at the surface is carbonate. Hence,
it was assumed that these areas contain a
minimum of 50% carbonate rock.
Therefore,
the areal extent of surface carbonate rocks
is at least 0.5 x 316,000 sq.mi., or 158,000
sq.mi.
(b)
Average density of carbonate rock = 165 lb./cu.ft.
(3)
Total carbonate rock production in 1969 was 652 MM tons
-153-
-------
As shown, even for an assumed average thickness of only
one foot, the total surface reserves would be sufficient for
over 500 years of production. If it were further assumed
that only 10% of the reserves were usable, they could still
supply stone for almost 60 years. On the assumption of an
average thickness of 10 feet (a reasonable, and probably con-
servative value), it can be seen that overall r~serves are
more than adequate to provide stone for even long term needs.
The estimates shown in Table 23 should be regarded as
approximations only, since several factors were neglected.
Among Lhese were deposits interbedded with, or under, other
rock types, the nature and composition of the deposits, etc.
B.
Potential Demand Relative to Production
As mentioned in Section VI-D, the potential demand for
lirnestone by coal- and oil-fired power plants in 1969 was
about 41 million tons. This represents only 7.3% of the
national limestone production of 559 million tons. Dolomite
production was roughly 50% greater than the potential demand
while shell production was only one-half of the demand. The
quantities of calcareous marl and crushed marble quarried
were relatively insignificant. Obviously, limestone is the
only stone produced in sufficient quantities to warrant
nationwide consideration as an agent for SOx removal. Dolo-
mite and shell, however, are quarried in large enough amounts
to make them important materials in some regions. Marl and
crushed marble may be useful in certain localities where the
other rocks do not exist, but their limited occurrence and
production do not permit wide-scale use of these materials.
-154-
-------
In Table 24, an attempt was made to relate 1969 lime-
stone and dolomite production to potential demand by power
plants. Production rates were taken from Table 19 and val-
ues for potential demand were taken from Figure 3. The
ratio of production to potential demand is defined as the
PPD ratio and indicates the relative supply of limestone
and dolomite. The use of the data in this manner i.gnores,
of course, the purity of the stone produced, the differ-
ence in reactivity and capacity between calcium carbonate
and magnesium carbonate, and other factors. However, no
information on average composition of stones produced in
each state is available. With these limitations in mind,
the figures for PPD ratio should give an approximate pic-
ture of the supply/demand relationship throughout the
country.
With the exception of New England, the eastern regions
of the country all have large relative supplies of lime-
stone and dolomite. There are, though, some exceptions to
this among the individual states. New Jersey and Delaware
have a potential need which exceeds their production. Ad-
jacent states, however, are large producers of stone and
could provide the necessary tonnages. Mississippi and both
of the Carolinas have low relative supplies of stone. If
they could not otherwise be supplied, marl deposits, which
occur extensively in all three states, could be used.
Georgia and West Virginia, with comparatively low relative
supplies, could easily obtain needed stone from surround-
ing states. It is interesting to note that the region
with the highest potential limestone demand, i.e., the East
North Central region, also has the highest limestone and
dolomite production.
-155-
-------
--------
TABLE 24
PRODUCTION/POTENTIAL DEMAND RELATIONSHIP OF LIMESTONE AND DULOMITE
FOR POLLUTION CONTROL (1969)
Production(l) Potential Demand(2) PPD Ratio(3)
Region and State (M Tons) (N Tons)
New England (275) (4)
Connecticut 487 0.56
Maine (800 ) 61 13.1
Massachusetts C7 50) 636 1.18
New Hampshire 141 0
Rhode Island ( <100 ) 39 <2.56
Vermont ~) 1~ -1Q.2.
Totals (2,400) 1. 75
Middle Atlantic
New Jersey (800) 935 0.86
New York 33,457 2,132 15.7
Pennsylvania 56,667 ~.5l6 16.1
Totals (90,900) .583 13.8
South Atlantic
Delaware 177 0
Florida 40.729 1,009 40.4
Georgia 4,334 931 4.66
Maryland 9,804 1,010 9.71
North Carolina (4,500) 2,003 2.25
South Carolina (1,900) 459 4.14
Virginia 17,829 1,088 16.4
West Virginia 8,405 1,794 ~
Totals (87,500) 8,471 10.3
East South Central
Alabama 17.752 1,931 9.19
Kentucky 30.158 1,785 16.9
Mississippi (300) 71 4.23
Tennessee 33,109 1.858 17.8
Totals (81,300) 5,645 14.4
East North Central
Illinois 54,844 3,665 15.0
Indiana 25,157 2.786 9.03
Michigan 39,066 2.511 15.6
Ohio 50,595 4,181 12.1
~'Jisconsin 15,937 1,164 13.7
Totals 185,600 14,307 13.0
West Nort.h Central
Iowa (26,200) 453 57.8
Kan::Jas 15,334 42 365
Minnesota 4,127 648 6.37
Missouri 41,200 1,093 37.7
Nebraska 4, 663 110 42.4
North Dakota 357 0
Sout.h Dakota 989 35 28.3
To tal s (92,500) 2,738 33.8
-156-
-------
TABLE 24 (Cont'd
PRODUCTION/POTENTIAL DEMAND RELATIONSHIP OF LIMESTONE AND DOLOMl'!'E
FOR POLLUTION CONTROL (1969)
Product:.on(l) Potential Demand(2) PPD Ratio(3)
he~ion and State (M Tons) _(M Tons)
West South Central
Arkansas 5,676 4 1419
Louisiana - <1 °
Oklahoma (16,300) <.1 Large
Texas (36,300) <1 Larp:e
Totals (58,300) <7 Large
Mountain
Ari~ona 2.339 50 46.8
Colorado (1,650) 358 4.61
Idaho (250) 00
Montana (1,44.2) 74 19.5
Nevada (1,000) 78 12.8
New Mexico 956 345 2.77
Utah (2,400) 67 35.8
Wyoming 649 379 1.7!
Totals (10,700) 1,351 7.92
Pacific
California (17,400) 266 65.4
Oregon <:350) <1 Large
Washington (1,050) <1 Large
Totals (18,800) <268 >70
~ taken from Table 19
(2) taken fl'om Figure 3
(3) PPD Ratio :: Production of Limestone and Dolomite
Potential Demand by Power Plants
(4) ( ) indicates that production figure was estimated.
-157-
-------
The New England region faces a shortage of limestone
and dolomite, with two states producing less stone than
potentially required. The marble resources of the region
could improve the situation somewhat, but power plants
would have to rely on shipments of stone from other states
such as New York, or, perhaps, on imports.
Most states in other regions of the country have
ample limestone production. North Dakota, having no pro-
duction, is an exception to this. A few other states also
have low relative supplies of
den-,and is quite small, or the
expanded to meet the need.
limestone, but eithe: the
production could easily be
Long range availability of limestone in the united
States may be a problem if a metallurgical grade stone is
required for SOx removal. One authority (I) estimates that
only 2 of the known deposits will still be producing metal-
lurgical grade stone 40 years from now. However, it is
likely that the stone purity required for power plant use
will be dictated largely by reactivity, cost, and other
factors. If this is the case, the vast reserves of car-
bonate rocks should last for the foreseeable future.
C.
Some Factors Which Could Affect Availability and
Cost of Limestone
The limestone industry is a very competitive one which
produces a low cost, low profit commodity. Because of its
low value, and the abundance of quarries, limestone cannot
(1 )
Landes, Kenneth K., Metallurgical Limestone Reserves
in the United States, 2nd ed., National Lime Associa-
tion, Washington, D.C., p. 1 (1963)
-158-
-------
stand high transportation costs, and is generally not
shipped for long. distances. Most consumers purchase stone
from nearby quarries. Wide-scale use of limestone for pol-
lution control could have a significant local effect on the
limestone industry, particularly where several quarries
could supply a suitable stone.
Although final process specifications as to particle
size have not yet been determined, it is likely that a fine
matE~rial, e.g., 325 mesh, will be required. For various
reasons, grinding to this size probably will be done at the
power plant. Consequently, a power plant could seek the
lowest cost stone, regardless of size.
In the course of producing crushed limestone, many
quarries also produce a reject material consisting of fines
from the screening operations. This material is sometimes
marketed as a byproduct, possibly after further grinding,
but commonly it is stored in waste piles. This could be
an economical source of stone for a pm\7er plant, while at
the same time affording the quarry operator an outlet for
an otherwise valueless material. The long-term availa-
bility would, of course, depend on the relative p!oduction
and depletion rates of the material.
rrhe same situation might also occur where a power plant
is located near a quarry producing dimension limestone or
mar.ble. Waste material resulting from the drilling, blast-
ing, and cutting of the stone could be an ideal source of
low-cost limestone.
-159-
-------
Since a major use of limestone is in road construction,
many quarries experience a variable demand. As roads pro-
gress further from the quarry. site, economics begin to favor
purchase of stone from another quarry closer to the con-
struction area. In northern climates, there is also a
seasonal demand, since road construction halts during the
winter months. The predictable and constant demand by a
power plant could have a stabilizing effect on the quarry
operation, resulting in a lower cost stone for the power
plant.
The limestone requirements of a power plant could
justify the expansion of quarry operations in some instances.
In areas where deposits exist but no production occurs, a
power plant's needs possibly could result in a completely
new quarry operation. Though not likely, it is conceivable
that a utility might even operate its own quarry in unique
situations.
-160-
-------
XII.
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Physical properties, particularly those which affect a stone's
suitability for use in road construction, have been published for
many limestones, dolomites, and marbles in the United States~ few
properties, however, have been reported for shell or marl. The
physical properties vary widely, depending upon chemical composi-
tion, crystal structure, and the nature of the impurities contained
in the stone.
given,
stones
Values of some physical properties for selected stones are
by cegion and state, in Tables 25-33. In each table, the
are identified by numbers which correspond to those on the
regional maps in Figures 26-34.
A.
Specific Gravity
The true specific gravity of pure calcite at room temperature
is 2.71. Aragonite, the orthorhomic form of calcium carbonate, and
dolomite have somewhat higher values, near 2.94 and 2.8 - 2.9, re-
spectively. Impurities have but a small effect on the true specific
gravity.
B.
Bulk Density
Bulk density, as used here, refers to the weight per unit
volume of rock, including internal pores but excluding inter-
particle voids, i.e., particle density. Bulk density of carbonate
rocks vary widely, but the following ranges are typical of most
stones:
Limestone
Dolomite
lb/ft3
155-175
160-180
165-180
Marble
-161-
-------
TABLE 25
TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
NEW ENGLAND REGION
(1) Bulk specific(2) Abrasive
State Sample No. Gravity Loss Hardness Toughness
(Deva1)
Connecticut
1 2.85 5.5 11. 3 7
2 2.75 5.7 15.2 6
Maine
1 2.70 5.6 10.5 5
Massachusetts
1 2.87 7.2 11. 2 2
2 2.80 5.4 18.2 21
Rhode Island 1 2.37 8.8 11. 3 5
Ve~mvnt
1 2.80 3.2 17.3 22
2 2.74 3.0 17.3 9
3 2.69 7.2 11. 0 2
(1)
(2)
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 26
See text for explanation of properties
-162-
-------
TABLE 26
TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION
State
(1) Bulk Specific(2) Abrasive
Sample No. Gravity Loss Hardness Toughness
(Deval)
1 2.82 2.9 16.0 20
2 2.85 3.5 17.1 14
1 2.64 4.8 18.7 24
2 2.69 4.8 16.1 10
3 2.75 3.1 14.8 6
1 2.65 5.9 16.7 12
2 2.75 6.2 15.0 8
3 2.80 6.9 16.7 20
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
(1)
(2)
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 27.
See text for explanation of properties.
-163-
-------
TABLE 27
TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
EAST NORTH CENTRAL REGION
(l)Bulk S~ecific(2) Abrasive
State Sample No. Grav~ ty Loss Hardness Toughness
Illinois (Deval)
1 2.60 9.1 14.2 6
2 2.60 4.9 18.1 6
3 2.67 5.9 12.7 4
Indiana
1 2.75 8.7 16.2 21
2 2.65 3.9 13.9 8
3 2.30 ij.6 1.8 4
Michigan
1 2.75 4.2 14.3 6
2 2.60 4.5 12.5 9
3 2.70 9.5 8.3 5
Ohio
1
2
3
2.65
2.60
2.70
8.0
4.2
6.2
6.8
18.3
9.3
5
13
4
Wisconsin
1
2
3
2.85
2.65
2.70
3.8
3.9
6.7
12.8
14.5
13.3
6
11
9
(1)
(2 )
Sample numbers correspond to those on Figure 28
See text for explanation of properties
-164-
-------
TABLE 28
TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
WEST NORTH CENTRAL REGION
(1) Bulk Specific(2) Abrasive
State Sample No. Gravity Loss Hardness Toughness
Iowa (Deval)
1 2.70 6.0 13.0 2
2 2.75 14.6 13.6 6
3 2.65 4.6 15.6 8
Kansas
1 2.71 4.2 15.3 10
2 2.45 9.0 11. 7 3
3 2.70 9.0 12.8 4
Minnesota
1 2.55 4.7 16.8 14
2 2.58 7.2 14.0 8
3 2.70 5.0 13.3 5
Missouri
1 2.65 5.3 12.0 2
2 2.70 3.4 16.6 14
3 2.80 4.0 15.5 10
Nebraska
1 2.62 6.2 12.0 3
2 2.45 5.1 11. 0 7
South Dakota
1 2.71 6.6 14.3 4
2 2.31 14.2 6.7 6
(1)
(2 )
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 29.
See text for explanation of properties.
-165-
-------
TABLE 29
TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION
State
(1)BUlk SP7cific(2) Abrasive
SampLe No. Grav~ty Loss
(Devol)
Hardness
Toughness
Delaware
1
2.85
4.2
14.3
6
Florida
1
2
3
2.34
2.48
2.45
18.5
7.5
10.4
9.7
14.9
6
2
Georgia
1
2
3
2.70
2.85
2.00
5.3
4.1
22.2
14.7
9.6
19.3
5
5
5
Maryland
1
2
3
2.70
2.71
2.85
4.0
2.5
18.8
16.5
17.7
4.5
12
17
2
North Carolina
1
2
3
2.74
2.24
2.44
5.0
33.6
9.8
15.0
17.6
12.7
5
5
5
South Carolina
1
2.75
5.7
8.7
8
Virginia
1
2
3
2.85
2.78
2.75
3.6
3.3
4.6
15.0
17.3
15.7
9
23
4
West Virginia
1
2
3
2.70
2.75
2.65
3.3
3.5
2.3
16.8
16.5
18.8
11
16
23
(1 )
(2 )
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 30.
See text for explanation of properties.
-166-
-------
TABLE 30
TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL REGION
{1}BU1k Specific{2} Abrasive
Sti'lte Sample No. Gravity Loss Hardness Toughness
{Devol}
Alabama
1 2.42 5.1 18.0 29
2 2.80 5.0 16.0 8
3 2.65 7.8 15.0 7
Kentucky
1 2.70 5.1 14.1 12
2 2.68 4.9 14.0 6
3 2.71 3.2 13.7 8
Mississippi
1. 2.40 12.2 6.7 5
2 2.50 5.6 12.0 5
3 2.60 10.7 5
Tennessee
1 2.70 4.4 15.6 6
[ 2 2.75 5.1 15.5 4
3 2.71 6.0 13.3 2
{1}
(2 )
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 31.
See text for explanation of properties.
-167-
-------
TABLE 31
TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL REGION
(1) Bulk Specific(2) Abrasive
State Sample No. Gravity Loss Hardness Toughness
Arkansas
1 2.69 5.4 15.3 7
2 2.68 10.5 7.3 3
3 2.65 13.9
Louisiana
1 2.65 4.7 12.1 10
2 2.65 10.4 9.0 3
Oklahoma
1 2.64 4.1 16.2 7
2 2.55 8.2 11. 0 5
3 2.62 5.9 15.3 8
"J:exas
1 2.58 7.2 12.0 7
2 2.33 7.8 5.7 3
3 2.65 4.8 13.2 6
(1)
(2)
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 32.
See text for explanation of properties.
-168-
-------
TABLE 32
TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
MOUNTAIN REGION
(1) Bulk Specific(2) Abrasive
State Sample No. Gravity Loss Hardness Toughness
( Deval)
Arizona
1 2.47 12.1 15.7 6
2 2.55 5.2 15.3 6
3 2.70 6.8 10.7 4
Colorado
1 2.70 4.6 13.3 6
2 2.60 4.5
3 2.45 7.3 3.0 6
Montana
1 2.65 7.5 12.9 5
2 2.62 3.4 17.0 14
New Mexico 1 2.71 6.2 16.7 8
2 2.67 4.6 16.7 8
3 2.40 17.0 4
Utah
1 2.70 2.9 16.8 12
2 2.31 7.3 12.0 3
Wyvming
1 /..60 6.4 15.3 4
(1)
(2 )
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 33.
See text for explanation of properties.
-169-
-------
State
TABLE 33
TYPICAL PROPERTIES OF CARBONATE ROCKS
PACIFIC REGION
Bulk Specific(2) Abrasive
Samph~ No. (1) Gravity Loss
(Deva1 )
California
Oregon
1
2
3
2.70
2.3
3.3
4.4
2.70
1
2.65
5.9
Washington
(1 )
(2 )
1
2
3
2.75
2.75
2.80
2.8
4.8
5.6
Sample numbers correspond to those shown on Figure 34.
See text for explanation of properties.
-~ 1 ~ 0 ~
Hardness
16.7
15.9
14.4
16.7
18.0
12.0
17.1
Toughness
8
12
4
7
19
5
7
-------
FIGURE 26
LOCATION OF CARBONATE ROCK
. . . . . .
NEW ENGLAND REGION
SAMPLES
~j:).\~E.
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 25)
17]-
-------
FIGURE 27
LOCATION OF CARBONATE ROCK SAMPLES
MIDDLE ATLANTIC REGION
28
18
'?I 8
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 26)
-172.
-------
FIGURE 28
LOCATION OF CARBONATE ROCK SAMPLES
. .. . . .
EAST NORTH CENTRAL REGION
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 27)
~173"'
-------
".-
FIGURE 29
LOCATION OF CARBONATE ROCK SAMPLES
WEST NORTH CENTRAL REGION
2.
2.
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
.1
,.
.2
IOWA
\.
NEBRASKA
3.
,.
2. MISSOURI
.2
KANSAS
.1
3.
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 28)
1:' ::,
-------
FIGURE 30
LOCATION OF CARBONATE ROCK SAMPLES
... ...
SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 29)
--175-
-------
I --------------
FIGURE 3 I
LOCATION OF CARBONATE ROCK SAMPLES
. . .
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL ION
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 30)
176:
-------
1---
FIGURE 32
LOCATION OF CARBONATE ROCK SAMPLES
... ...
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL REGION
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
82
ARKANSAS
8'
82
8'
83
LOUISIANA
82
8'
83
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 31)
..177
-------
FIGURE 33
LOCATION OF CARBONATE ROCK SAMPLES
,.. ...
OUNTAIN REGION
8'
82
WYOMING
8,
~~H
8,
COLORADO
8'
82
82
83
NEW MEXICO
8,
82
8,
82
83
83
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 32)
. 1} U
-------
FIGURE 34
LOCATION OF CARBONATE ROCK SAMPLES
. ..
PACIFI REGION
.3
(SAMPLE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THOSE SHOWN IN TABLE 33)
'.179
-------
Chalk, a very porous material, has a much lower bulk density. A
typical range would be 100 - 125 Ib/ft3, although even lower values
have been reported.
C.
PoroBity
Porosity, as determined by water absorption tests, has been
reported for many carbonate rocks. The test procedure consists of
immersing .l rock sample, usually 2 inches or less in diameter, in
water for 24 hours after which it is surface dried and weighed.
Porosity, i.e., the pore volume expressed as a percentage of the
total volume of the rock, can be calculated from the weight of
water absorbed and the density of the rock.
Values of porosity of up to 15% have been reported for lime-
stones and dolomites, but most stones fall within the range of
0.3 - 6.0%. Values for marble are generally less than 1.0%, with
many marbles having porosities of 0.1% or lower. The porosity of
chalk varies considerably, with values as high as 50% reported. A
typical range would be 10 - 40%.
D.
Abrasive Loss
Abrasion tests historically have been used to determine the
suitability of a stone for use as a road aggregate material. Results
from these tests, in addition to other properties such as hardness,
toughness, and crushing strength, which are mentioned later, can
give a qualitative measure of the grindability and grinding charac-
teristics of a particular stone.
Two tests have been used extensively to determine the resistance
of stone aggregates to abrasion. The Deval test employs a cast iron
cylinder of fixed dimensions which is mounted on a shaft at an angle
of 30° to the axis of rotation. Depending upon stone density, a
sample of specified particle size and weight is placed in the cylinder
with 6 steel balls, after which the cylinder is rotated 10,000 times
-180-
-------
at 30 r.p.m. The abrasive loss is reported as the percent-
age of the original sample which passes a no. 12 sieve.
The Los Angeles test is similar to the Deval test. A
cylindrical drum of fixed dimensions with an internal baf-
fle is used. Various, but specified, gradations of stone
are tested by placing the sample, together with a fixed
number of steel balls, in the drum which is then rotated
500 or 1000 times at 30 r.p.m. The exact procedure depends
on the particular gradation of stone used. Results are
reported as in the Deval test.
Typical values of abrasive loss for limestone, dolo-
mite, and marble, together with several other rock types
(for comparison) are shown below:
Limestone
Dolomite
DEVAL TEST (%)
3.5- 8.5 (5.7 avg)
3.5- 8.5 (5.5 avg)
4 . 0 -10 . 0 ( 6 . 3 a vg )
LOS ANGELES TEST (%)
17-35 (26 avg)
16-35 (25 avg)
23-67 (47. avg)
Marble
Quartzite
Sandst.one
3.1
4.3
3.3
7.0
14
38
28
38
Basalt
Grani te
Values for 23 of the major rock types (including limestone,
dolomite, marble, amphibolite, basalt, breccia, chert,
conglomerate, diabase, diorite, eclogite, epidosite, fel-
site, gabbro, gneiss, granite, peridotite, quartzite, sand-
stone, schist, serpentine, slate, and syenite) were generally
in the range of 1.5-22.0%, for the Deval test, and 10-70%,
for the Los Angeles test.
-181-
-------
,.
I
E.
Hardness
The Dorry hardness test is rLlade on a carefully pre-
pared stone sample measuring 1 inch in diameter by 4 inches.
The face of the core is held against a rotating, horizontal
plate by a fixed load. Sand is fed continuously to the
plate which is rotated 1000 times. The hardness is calcu-
lated from the loss in weight of the sample. The hardest
rocks have the highest hardness values.
Although the test is no longer in general use, many
values have been reported for various rocks. Typical val-
ues for carbonate rocks and some other types are:
Limestone 10-17 (14 avg)
Dolomite 11-17 (14 avg)
Ivlarb Ie 9-17 (13 avg)
Basalt 17
Granite 18
Quartzi te 19
Sandstone 15
Most values for the principal types of rocks are within the
range of 6-20.
F.
Crushing Strength
To determine crushing strength, a 1 or 2 inch diameter
sample having a height equal to diameter is tested under
-182-
-------
COl'npression until failure.
a few other types are:
Ranges for carbonate rocks and
Limestone
Dolomite
psi x 10-3
10-28
10-40
10-30
Marble
Basalt
Granite
28-67
11-40
16-45
5-20
Quartzite
Sandstone
The compressive strength of chalk is very low, typically
1,000-4,000 psi.
Toughness
G.
The toughness or resistance to impact of a rock is deter-
mined by subjecting a sample, having a diameter and height of
about 1 inch, to the fall of a hammer of specified weight.
Ini tially, the hanuner is dropped 1 cm. after which the fall
is increased 1 cm. at a time until the sample fails. '1' he
height of fall at failure is called the toughness.
Typical values of toughness for carbonate and non-
carbonate rocks are:
Limestone 4-13 (8 avg)
Dolomite 4-14 (9 avg)
Ivlarb Ie 3- 9 (6 avg')
Basalt 19
Granite 9
Quartzite 16
Sandstone 11
Values for the principal rock types are generally between
3 and 32.
-183-
-------
H.
Specific Heat
Curves for specific heats of calcite and dolomite are
presented in Figure 35 as a function of temperature. As
shown, values for dolomite are slightly higher than for
cal.::i te.
I .
Thermal Conductivit~
Values reported for marbles vary widely, but most are
5-8 cal/sec em. oK at room temperature. Few values have
been published for other carbonate rocks, but thermal con-
ductivities of limestone and dolomite appear to be some-
what lower than that of marble.
-184-
-------
0.40
0.36
u..
o
~ 0.32
...J
,
::>
I-
m
~ 0.28
w
J:
<.)
u..
~ 0.24
a.
fJ)
0.20
~
o
o
FIGURE 35
SPECIFIC HEAT OF CALCITE AND DOLOMITE
200
400
1600
600 800 1000
TEMPERATURE, of
1200
1400
-18:)-
-------
XIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY
--
1.
, 1967 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-III, U.S. Bureau
of Mines, 1969.
2.
, 1968 Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I-III, U.S. Bureau
of Mines, 1970.
, Mineral Industry Surveys, Stone in 1969, u.S.
Bureau of Mines, 1970.
3.
4 .
, Bulk Transportation, Chemical Week, Volume 102,
No. 11, March 16, 1968, pp. 66-80.
5.
, Principal Electric Facilities, Federal Power
Commission, 1970 (Series of Seven Maps) .
6.
, Ground-Water Aquifers and Mineral Commodities
of Maryland, Maryland State Planning Department, 1969.
7 . , Stearn-Electric Plant Factorsj1969 Edition,
National Coal Association, 1970.
8 . , Stearn-Electric Plant Factorsj170 Edition,
National Coal Association, 1970.
9.
Aase, James H., Transportation of Iron Ore, Limestone and
Bituminous Coal on the Great Lakes Waterway System, U.S.
Bureau of Mines information circular .8461, 1970.
10.
Berry, Willard E., Marls and Limestones of Eastern North
Carolina, Raleigh, 1947.
-186 -
-------
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17 .
18.
19.
20.
21.
Bowen, O.E., Limestone, Dolomite, and Lime Products, chapter
in Mineral and Water Resources of California, U.S. Geological
Survey and The California Division of Mines and Geology, 1966.
Bowles, Oliver, Chalk, Whiting, and Whiting Substitutes, U.S. C
Bureau of Mines information circular 6482, 1931.
Bowles, Oliver and Banks, D.M. (Revised by McConnell, Duncan),~
Lime, 1].S. Bureau of Mines information circular 6884R, 1941.
Bowles, Oliver, Limestone and Dolomite, U.S. Bureau of Mines ~
information circular 7738, 1956.
Bowles, Oliver and Banks, D.M., Limestone, I. General Informa-
tion, U.S. Bureau of Mines information circular 6723, 1933. V
Bowles, Oliver, Marble, U.S. Bureau of Mines information
circular 7829, 1958.
-----
Bowles, Oliver, Metallurgical Limestone, Problems in Production ~
and Utilization, U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 299, 1929.
Bowles, Oliver, The Lime Industry, U.S. Bureau of Mines
information circular 7651, 1952.
v-
Boynton, Robert S., Chemistry and Technology of Lime and
Limestone, Interscience Publishers, 1966.
v
Chelini, J.M., Limestone, chapter in Mineral and Water
Resources of Montana, U.S. Geological Survey and Montana
Bureau of Mines and Geology, 1968.
Chelini, J.M., Limestone, Dolomite, and Travertine In Montana,
Montana School of Mines, 1965.
-187-
-------
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30
31
Colby, Shirley, F., Occurrences and Uses of Dolomite In the
United States, U.S. Bureau of Mines information circular
6192, 1941.
. ",-
'"
Conrad, Stephen G., Crystalline Limestones of the Piedmont
and Mountain Regions of North Carolina, Raleigh, 1960.
Cotter, Perry G., Stone, (chapter of Mineral Facts and
Problems) U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 630, 1965.
Eckel, E.C., Cement Materials of the united States, U.s.
Geological Survey Bulletin 522, 1913.
~
Feitler, Stanley A., Feldspar Resources and Marketing In
Eastern United States, U.S. Bureau of Mines information
circular 8310, 1967.
Fulkerson, Frank B., Transportation of Mineral Commodities
on Inland Waterways of South-Central States, U.S. Bureau
of Mines information circular 8431, 1969.
Gillson, Joseph L., Editor, Industrial Minerals and Rocks,
The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, 1960.
v
Gray, Jerry J., Peterson, N.S. and Kingston, G.A., Mineral
Transportation Costs In the Pacific Northwest, U.S. Bureau
of Mines information circular 8381, 1968.
Gries, J.P., Limestone, chapter in Mineral and Water Resources
of South Dakota, U.S. Geological Survey and united States
Bureau of Reclamation, 1964.
Hatmaker, Paul, Utilization of Dolomite and High-Magnesium ~
Limestone, U.S. Bureau of Mines information circular 6524, 1931.
-188-
-------
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Heron, S.D. Jr., Limestone Resources of the Coastal Plain
of South Carolina, State Development Board Bulletin No. 28,
1962.
Irani, M.C. and Hartwell, J.W., Mineral Materials for Chemical
Manufacturing, U.S. Bureau of Mines information circular 8457, ~
1970.
Ives, William and Runnels, Russell T., Lime Raw Materials in
the Kansas City Area, State Geological Survey Bulletin 142,
Part 3, 1960.
Keith, S.B., Limestone, Dolomite and Marble, chapter in Mineral
and Water Resources of Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey and
Arizona Bureau of Mines, 1969.
Kerr, James R., Rand, Lenox, H. and Vallely, James L., The
Sulfur and Sulfuric Acid Industry of Eastern united States,
U.S. Bureau of Mines information circular 8255, 1965.
Kottlowski, F.E., Limestone and Dolomite, chapter in Mineral
and Water Resources of New Mexico, U.S. Geological Survey and
New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, 1965.
Kottlowski, F.E., Reconnaissance of Commercial High Calcium
Limestone In New Mexico, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and
Mineral Resources, Circular 60, 1962.
Lamar, J.E., Handbook on Limestone and Dolomite for Illinois
Quarry Operators, Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin
91, 1967.
Lamborn, Raymond E., Limestones of Eastern Ohio, Geological
Survey of Ohio Bulletin 49 (Fourth Series), 1951.
Landes, Kenneth K., Metallurgical Limestone Reserves In the
United States, Second Edition, The National Lime Association,
1963.
v
-189-
-------
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
Major, Robert L., Mineral Resources and Mineral Industries
of IllInois, Illinois State Geological Survey, 1966-69
(Series of 8 papers).
Marshall, L.G., Mining and Beneficiating Methods and
at Two Crushed-Limestone Operations, Madison County,
U.S. Bureau of Mines information circular 8199, 1963.
Costs
Iowa,
Mason, R.S., ~tone, chapter in Mineral and Water Resources,
U.S. Geological Survey and Oregon Department of Geology and
Mineral Industries, 1969.
Morris, H. T., Limestone and Dolomite, chapter in Mineral
and Water Resources of Utah, U.S. Geological Survey and
Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, 1964.
Murray, J.A., Specific Heat Data for Evaluation of Lime
Kiln Performance, Rock Products, August 1947, p. 148.
Olson, R.H., Limestone, chapter of Mineral and Water Resources,
U.S. Geological Survey and Nevada Bureau of Mines, 1964.
~
Riley, H.C. and
Watauga Quarry,
Bureau of Mines
Schroeder, H.J., Crushed Limestone Operations,
Watauga Stone Co., Carter County, Tenn., U.S.
information circular 8198, 1963.
Rooney, Lawrence F., High-Calcium Limestone and High-Magnesium
Dolomite Resources of Indiana, Geological Survey Bulleton 42-B,
1970.
Runnels, Russell T. and Schleicher, John A., Chemical Composi-
tion of Eastern Kansas Limestones, State Geological Survey
Bulletin 119, Part 3, 1956.
-190-
-------
"_-
51.
52.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
Salsbury, Medford H., Kerns, William H., Fulkerson, Frank B
and Branner, George C., Marketing Ores and Concentrates of
Gold, Silver, Copper, Lead and Zinc in the United States,
U.S. ~lreau of Mines information circular 8206, 1964.
Savage, C.N., Limestone and
MineraL and Water Resources
cal Survey and Idaho Bureau
Related Materials, chapter in
of Idaho, United States Geologi-
of Mines and Geology, 1964.
Stout, Wilber, Dolomites and Limestones of Western Ohio,
Geological Survey of Ohio Bulletin 42 (Fourth Series), 1941.
Sweeney, John W. and Hasslacher, Robert N., The Phosphate
Industry in the Southeastern United States and Its Relation-
ship to World Mineral Fertilizer Demand, U.S. Bureau of Mines
information circular 8459, 1970.
Weitz, J.H., High Grade Dolomi.te Deposits of the United States, v""
U.S. Bureau of Mines information circular 7226, 1942.
Wharton, Heyward M. et aI, Missouri Minerals, Missouri
Geological Survey Special Publication No.1, 1969.
Wilson, Hewitt and Skinner, Kenneth G., Occurrences, Properties, V
and Preparation of Limestone and Chalk for Whiting, U.S. Bureau
of Mines Bulletin 395, 1937.
Woolf, Donald 0., Results of Physical Tests of Road-Building
Aggregate to January 1, 1951, Bureau of Public Roads, 1953.
-191-
-------
APPENDIX A
TABULATION OF QUARRY OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Alabama Bibb 1
Calhoun 1
Colbert 3
Covington 1
DeKalb 1
Etowah 1
Franklin 2
Jackson 2
Jefferson 5
Lee 1
Limestone 1
Madison 4
Marengo 1
Marshall 1
Morgan 4
St. Clair 1
Shelby 8
Talladega 2
Washington 1
Arizona Cochise 1
Coconino 2
Gila 2
Greenlee 1
Pima 1
Pinal 1
Yavapai 2
A-l
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Arkansas Baxter 1
Benton 4
Boone 1
Carroll 3
Clark 1
Craighead 1
Crittenden 1
Fulton 2
Howard 1
Independence 5
Izar~ 4
Lawren.ce 5
Little River 2
Marion 1
Newton 1
Pope 1
Randolph 2
Sharp 1
Stone 1
Washington 2
California Calaveras 2
Ed Dorado 5
Inyo 1
J(ern 3
Riverside 2
San Benito 1
San Bernardino 8
San Luis Obispo 1
A-2
-------
LIMESTONE
state County No. of Quarries
California San Mateo 1
(Cont'd) Santa Barbara 1
Santa Clara 1
Santa Cruz 2
Shasta 1
Tuolumne 2
Ventura 1
Colorado Boulder 1
Chaffee 1
Douglas 1
El Paso 2
Fremont 1
Garfield 2
Larimer 4
San Miguel 1
Connecticut Litchfield 2
Florida Alachua 6
Brevard 2
Broward 16
Charlotte 1
Citrus 3
Collier 6
Dade 14
Hernando 6
Jackson 2
Lee 3
A-3
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
"'lor ic.ia (Cont'd) Levy 3
Manatee 2
Marion 10
Monroe 2
Palm Beach 6
St. Lucie 1
Sumter 3
Suwannee 4
Taylor 2
Georgia Bartow 2
Early 1
Fannin 1
Floyd 2
Hall 1
lIouston 2
Mitchell 1
Walker 1
Whitfield 1
Idaho Bannock 1
Bonneville 1
Nez Perce 1
Illinois Adams 10
Boone 2
Brown 1
Calhoun 4
A-4
-------
~
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Illinois (Cont'd) Carroll 14
Christian 2
Clark 3
Clay 1
Clinton 2
Coles 2
Cook 3
Cumberland 1
DeKalb 1
Fayette 2
Greene 3
Hancock 3
Hardin 6
Henderson 4
Henry 1
Jackson 1
Jersey 3
Jo Daviess 21
Johnson 2
Kane 3
Kendall 1
Knox 1
La Salle 4
Lee 6
Livingston 8
Logan 1
McDonough 2
McHenry 1
Macoupin 1
A-5
-------
I
I
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Illinois (Cont' d) Madison 3
Marion 1
Massac 1
Menard 2
Mercer 2
Monroe 1
Montgomery 4
Ogle 23
Peoria 2
Pike 6
Pulaski 1
Randolph 4
Rock Island 4
St. Clair 5
Schuyler 1
Scott 2
Shelby 1
Stephenson 15
Union 3
Vermilion 1
Warren 2
Washington 3
Whiteside 3
Will 3
Winnebago 18
A-6
-------
LUtESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Indiana Adams 2
Allen 4
Bartholomew 1
Blackford 1
Carroll 1
Cass 2
Clark 4
Crawford 4
Decatur 2
Delaware 3
Floyd 1
Franklin 2
Grant 1
Hamilton 3
Harrison 4
Howard 1
Huntington 2
Jasper 2
Jay 1
Jennings 1
Lawrence 13
Madison 1
Miami 1
Monroe 15
Morgan 1
Orange 3
Owen 2
Perry 2
Putnam 8
A-7
-------
I~--
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Indiana (Cont'd) Randolph 2
Ripley 2
Scott 1
Shelby 3
Sullivan 1
Switzerland 1
Wabash 1
Warrick 1
Washington 1
Wayne 1
Wells 1
White 2
Iowa Adair 3
Adams 2
Allamakee 12
Appanoose 3
Benton 1
Black Hawk 3
Bremer 1
Buchanan 11
Butler 6
Cass 2
Cedar 4
Cerro Gordo 6
Chickasaw 2
Clarke 1
Clayton 18
Clinton 11
A-a
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Iowa (Cont' d) Dallas 1
Decatur 5
Delaware 7
Des Moines 4
Dubuque 8
Fayette 21
Floyd 3
Franklin 5
Fremont 1
Grundy 1
Hamilton 1
Hancock 1
Hardin 3
Harrison 2
Henry 1
Howard 5
Humboldt 5
Jackson 7
Jasper 1
Jefferson 2
Johnson 4
Jones 8
Keokuk 3
Lee 3
Linn 10
Louisa 2
Madison 9
Mahaska 2
Marion 3
A-9
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of ~arries
Iowa (Cont'd) Marshall 1
Mills 2
Mitchell 12
Montgomery 2
Muscatine 1
Page 2
Pocahontas 1
pottawattamie 3
Poweshiek 2
Scott 5
Story 2
Tama 1
Taylor 2
Union 1
Van Buren 5
Wapello 1
Washington 6
Wayne 1
Webster 2
Winneshiek 11
Worth 2
Various 35
Kansas Allen 4
Anderson 2
Atchison 4
Bourbon 2
Brown 1
A-10
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
-
Kansas (Cont'd) Butler 5
Chase 4
Chautauqua 1
Cherokee 2
Clay 4
Cloud 1
Coffey 2
Cowley 3
Crawford 1
Dickinson 4
Doniphan 7
Elk 2
Ellis 2
Franklin 8
Geary 1
Greenwood 2
Jackson 1
Jefferson 5
Jewell 22
Johnson 8
Labette 3
Leavenworth 5
Linn 4
Lyon 2
McPherson 1
Marion 4
Marshall t.
Miami J
Montgomery 5
Morris 5
A-ll
-------
LIMESTONE
Sta te County No. of Quarries
Kansas (Cont'd) Nemaha 3
Neosho 5
Ness 1
Osage 1
Phillips 1
pottawatomie 3
Republic 1
Rice 1
Riley 14
Shawnee 6
Smith 1
Wallace 1
Washington 3
Wilson 3
Woodson 2
Wyandotte 3
Various 44
l
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Kentucky (Cont' d) Carter 4
Casey 1
Christian 3
Clinton 2
Crittenden 1
Cumberland 1
Edmonson 1
Estill 2
Fayette 4
Fleming 1-
Franklin 2
Garrard 1
Grayson 2
Green 1
Greenup 1
Hardin 5
Harlan 1
Harrison 1
Hart 1
Henry 1
Jackson 2
Jefferson 4
Jessamine 2
Laurel 1
Lee 1
Letcher 3
Livingston 3
Logan 1
Madison 1
A-13
-------
LIMESTONE
S ta te County No. of Quarries
Kentucky (Cont' d) Marion 2
Meade 3
Menifee 1
Mercer 2
Metcalfe 1
Monroe 1
t-1ontgomery 1
Morgan 4
Muhlenberg 1
Nelson 1
Nicholas 1
Ohio 2
Oldham 4
Pendleton 2
Pike 2
Powell 2
pulaski' 2
Rockcastle 3
Rowan 2
Scott 1
Simpson 1
Taylor 1
Todd 1
Trigg 1
Warren 4
Wayne 1
Wolfe 1
A-14
-------
LIHESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Maine Aroostook 1
Kennebec 1
Knox 2
Maryland Allegany 1
Baltimore 3
Carroll 2
Frederick 6
Garrett 3
Howard 1
Washington 6
Massachusetts Berkshire 4
Michigan Alpena 1
Arenac 4
Charlevoix 1
Cheboygan 2
Delta 1
Eaton 1
Emmet 1
Houghton 1
Huron 1
Jackson 1
Leelanau 1
Mackinac 1
Honroe 3
Presque Isle 3
Schoolcraft 1
Wayne 1
A-iS
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Minnesota Blue Earth 1
Dakota 2
Dodge 3
Fillmore 8
Goodhue 9
Houston 18
Le Sueur 1
MO\'er 4
Olmsted 6
Rice 2
Scott 1
Steele 1
Wabasha 4
~'Jashington 3
Winona 5
Mississippi Clay 1
Rankin 1
Warren 1
Missouri Adair 1
Barry 1
Barton 1
Bates 4
Boone 4
Buchanan 3
Caldwell 4
Callaway 3
Camden 1
A-16
-------
LIMESTONE
S ta te County No. of Quarries
Missouri (Cont'd) Cape Girardeau 4
Cass 2
Christian 4
Clark 1
Clay 5
Clinton 4
Cole 1
Cooper 1
Dade 1
Dallas 1
Daviess 2
DeKalb 3
Franklin 3
Gentry 1
Greene 4
Grundy 3
Harrison 5
Henry 6
Hickory 1
Holt 5
Howard 1
Howell 1
Iron 1
Jackson 16
Jasper 4
Jefferson 6
Johnson 4
Knox 2
Laclede 2
A-17
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
-
Missouri (Cont' d) Lafayette 1
Lawrence 1
Lewis 1
Lincoln 5
Linn 1
Livingston 3
Marion 2
Mercer 4
Miller 1
Moniteau 1
Monroe 3
Montgomery 3
Newton 1
Nodaway 5
Ozark 1
Perry 1
Pettis 2
Phelps 2
Pike 4
Platte 2
Pulaski 1
Ralls 2
Randolph 3
Ray 3
Reynolds 1
St. Charles 6
St. Francois 2
St. Louis 13
A-18
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Missouri (Cont'd) Ste. Genevieve 3
Saline 4
Scotland 1
Scott 1
Shannon 1
. Shelby 1
Vernon 3
Warren 2
Wayne 1
wright 1
Various 12
Montana Broadwater 1
Carbon 1
Deer Lodge 1
Gallatin 1
Jefferson 2
Nebraska Cass 12
Dixon 1
Douglas 1
Gage 3
Lancaster 2
Nemaha 1
Nuckolls 1
otoe 1
Pawnee 1
Richardson 2
Saline 1
Sarpy 4
A-19
-------
1-
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Nebraska 'Cont' d) Saunders 1
Seward 1
Thayer 1
Washington 2
Nevada Clark 2
Lyon 1
White Pine 1
New Jersey Sussex 2
Warren 1
New Mexico Bernalillo 3
Chaves 1
Dona Ana 1
Eddy 1
Grant 1
Lincoln 3
Luna 1
Otero 2
Rio Arriba 3
San Juan 1
Santa Fe 1
Taos 1
Torrance 1
A-20
-------
LIMESTONE
S tate 'County No. of Quarries
New York Albany 2
Cayuga 1
Clinton 1
Columbia 2
Dutchess 2
Erie 4
Genesee 4
Greene 5
Herkimer 3
Jefferson 1
Lewis 3
Livingston 1
Madison 3
Montgomery 1
Niagara 1
Oneida 1
Onondaga 4
Ontario 2
Orange 1
Orleans 1
Saratoga 2
Schoharie 4
Seneca 1
Tompkins 1
Ulster 3
washington 2
Wayne 1
A-21
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
North Carolina Cleveland 1
Craven 1
Henderson 2
Jones 1
New Hanover 2
.Onslow 1
Swain 1
Ohio Adams 1
Allen 5
Athe~s 2
Auglaize 1
Belmont 4
Brown 1
Clermont 1
Crawford 1
Delaware 4
Erie 3
Fayette 1
Franklin 1
Gallia 1
Greene 6
Guernsey 2
Hancock 3
Hardin 1
Harrison 1
Highland 2
Hocking 1
Holmes 1
Jackson 2
A-22
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
-
Ohio (Cont'd) Lawrence 4
Loqan 2
Lucas 3
Madison 2
Mahoninq 6
"Marion 3
Mercer 1
Miami 4
Monroe 1
Montgomery 3
Morgan 3
Muskingum 4
Noble 3
Ottawa 2
Paulding 2
Perry 2
Pickaway 1
Preble 2
Putnam 3
Sandusky 3
Seneca 2
Shelby 1
Stark 2
Summit 2
Tuscarawas 3
Union 2
Van Wert 2
Vinton 1
Wayne 1
Wood 4
Wyandot 3
A-23
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Oklahoma Atoka 1
Bryan 1
Caddo 3
Carter 2
Cherokee 1
Choctaw 4
Cleveland 1
Coal 1
Comanche 1
Creek 1
Grady 1
Hughes 1
Johnston 1
Kay 2
Kiowa 10
McCurtain 2
McIntosh 3
Marshall 1
Mayes 2
Murray 9
Muskogee 1
Nowata 2
Oklahoma 1
Okmulgee 1
Osage 3
Pawnee 1
Payne 1
Pittsburg 2
A-24
-------
LIMESTONE
state County No. of Quarries
Oklahoma 'Cont' d) Pontotoc 4
pottawatomie 2
Rogers 1
Seminole 7
Sequoyah 1
Tulsa 5
Washington 2
Various 1
Oregon Baker 3
Multnomah 1
Pennsylvania Adams 2
Armstrong 4
Bedford 2
Berks 7
Blair B
Bucks 6
Butler 5
Centre 8
Chester 3
Clarion 2
Clinton 3
Columbia 2
Cumberland 3
Dauphin 3
Fayette 2
Franklin 4
Fulton 2
A-25
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
-
I'ennsy 1 vania Huntingdon 4
'Cont'd)
Lancaster 14
Lawrence 5
Lebanon 4
Lehigh 8
Lycoming 2
Mercer 1
Mifflin 4
Monroe 1
Montgomery 4
Montour 3
Northampton 10
Northumberland 1
Perry 1
Schuylkill 1
Snyder 1
Somerset 2
Union 3
Venango 1
Washington 1
westmoreland 4
York 8
Rhode Island Providence 1
South Carolina Berkeley 1
Cherokee 1
Dorchester 1
A-26
-------
LIMESTONE
state County No. of Quarries
South Dakota Custer 1
Lawrence 2
Pennington 5
'l'ennessee Anderson 2
Bedford 1
Benton 1
Blount 1
Bradley 2
Campbell 3
Cannon 1
Carter 1
Claiborne 1
Clay 1
Cocke 2
Coffee 2
Cumberland 2
Davidson 7
Decatur 1
DeKalb 1
Dickson 1
Fayette 1
Fentress 1
Franklin 4
Giles 1
Grainger 1
Greene 5
Grundy 1
Hamblen 1
A-27
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
l.'ennessee (Cont' d) Hand 1 ton 2
Hancock 1
Hardin 1
Humphreys 1
Jefferson 5
Johnson 1
Knox 8
Lincoln 2
Loudon 1
McHinn 2
Macon 1
Marion 4
Marshall 2
Maury 1
Meigs 2
Monroe 1
Montgomery 1
Moore 1
Overton 1
Pickett 1
Polk 1
Putnam 2
Rhea 1
Roane 1
Robertson 1
Rutherford 3
Sequatchie 1
Sevier 2
Smith 1
Stewart 1
A-28
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Tennessee (Cont'd) Sullivan 1
Sumner 3
Unicoi 1
Union 1
Warren 2
Washington 5
Wayne 1
White 2
Williamson 2
Wilson 3
Texas Anderson 1
Bee 1
Bell 2
Bexar 7
Bosque 3
Brown 4
Burnet 1
Callahan 2
Coleman 4
Collin 4
Comal 2
Comanche 2
Coryell 3
Dallas 2
Dawson 1
DeWitt 1
Eastland 1
Ector 1
A-29
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Texas 'Cont'd) Ellis 4
El Paso 2
Freestone 1
Gaines 1
Gillespie 1
Grayson 2
Guadalupe 1
Haskell 1
Hidalgo 1
Hill 2
Hood 4
Howard 2
Hutchinson 1
Jack 2
Johnson 2
Jones 1
Kaufman 2
Kleberg 1
Lamb 1
Lavaca 1
Leon 1
Limestone 1
Lipscomb 1
McCulloch 2
McLennan 1
Mills 3
Mitchell 1
Nolan 1
Palo Pinto 1
A-30
-------
L
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Texas (Cont'd) Parker 2
Potter 1
Robertson 1
San patricio 1
San Saba 2
. Scurry 2
Shackelford 1
Tarrant 3
Taylor 2
Travis 4
Uvalde 4
Williamson 5
Wise 14
Young 1
Various 6
Utah Cache 1
Daggett 1
Duchesne 1
l-Ullard 1
Morgan 1
Salt Lake 2
Tooele 2
Utah 3
Wasatch 1
Vermont Chittenden 2
Franklin 1
Ru tland 1
A-31
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
-
Virginia Alleghany 1
Appomattox 1
Augusta 5
Bland 2
Botetourt 3
Campbell 3
Frederick 5
Giles 3
Highland 1
Lee 3
Louisa 1
Montgomery 4
Pulaski 5
Rockbridge 1
Rockingham 4
Russell 3
Scott 2
Shenandoah 4
Smyth 2
Tazewell 3
Warren 2
Washington 3
Wise 2
Wythe 2
washington King 1
Okanogan 1
Pend Oreille 1
San Juan 1
Snohomish 1
A-32
-------
1-
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Washington Stevens 2
(Cont I d)
Whatcom 2
West Virginia Berkeley 4
Grant 2
Greenbrier 4
Hardy 1
Mineral 2
Monongalia 2
Pendleton 2
Pocahontas 2
Preston 3
Randolph 3
Wisconsin Brown 9
Buffalo 7
Calumet 5
Columbia 4
Crawford 15
Dane 31
Dodge 5
Door 3
Dunn 3
Fond du Lac 11
Grant 27
Green 24
Green Lake 1
Iowa 24
Jackson 1
A-33
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
Wisconsin (Cont'd) Jefferson 2
Juneau 2
Kewaunee 1
La Crosse 3
Lafayette 20
Manitowoc 1
Marquette 1
Milwaukee 2
Monroe 10
Oconto 2
Outagamie 9
Pepin 4
Pierce 10
Polk 1
Racine 2
Richland 16
Rock 14
St. Croix 8
Sauk 17
Shawano 2
Sheboygan 1
Trempealeau 4
Vernon 29
Walworth 1
Waukesha 21
\vaupaca 2
Winnebago 13
Various 25
A-34
-------
LIMESTONE
State County No. of Quarries
\Jyoming Albany 3
Crook 1
Laramie 1
Platte 1
Teton 1
A-35
-------
DOLOMITE
State County No. of Quarries
.
Alabama Bibb 1
Jefferson 3
Shelby 1
California Monterey 1
San Benito 1
Tulare 1
Colorado Douglas 1
Fremont 1
Connec ticu t Litchfield 2
,Illinois Boone 1
Cook 3
DeKalb 1
Du Page 1
Kankakee 2
Lee 4
Ogle 1
Whiteside 2
Will 1
~linnebago 1
Indiana Adams 1
Cass 1
Delaware 1
Madison 1
Newton 1
Pulaski 1
Rush 3
A-36
-------
DOLOMITE
State County No. of Quarries
-
Iowa Black Hawk 1
Cerro Gordo 1
Dubuque 1
Howard 2
Jackson 1
Worth 1
Massachusetts Berkshire 1
Michigan Chippewa 1
Dickinson 1
Mackinac 1
Monroe 3
Schoolcraft 2
Minnesota Blue Earth 3
Le Sueur 2
Scott 3
Washington 1
Winona 1
Missouri Cole 1
Franklin 2
Oregon 1
Phelps 1
Pike 1
St. Francois 1
Nevada Clark 1
Pershing 1
A-37
-------
DOLOMITE
State County No. of Quarries
New Mexico Grant 1
New York Dutchess 1
Monroe 3
Montgomery 1
Niagara 2
Rockland 1
St. Lawrence 2
Warren 1
Washington 1
Wayne 1
Ohio Adams 2
Clark 1
Clinton 1
Erie 1
Fayette 2
Hardin 1
Highland 1
Logan 1
Lucas 2
Mercer 1
Ottawa 2
Pike 1
Ross 1
Sandusky 5
Seneca 2
Van Wert 1
Wood 2
Wyandot 1
A-38
-------
"-
DOLOMITE
State County No. of Quarries
Oklahoma Johnston 1
Pennsylvania Adams 1
Armstrong 1
Berks 1
Bucks 1
Butler 1
Centre 1
Chester 1
Cumberland 3
Jefferson 1
Lancaster 1
Lebanon 1
Lehigh 1
Montgomery 1
York 1
Texas Burnet 1
El Paso 1
ptah Tooele 1
Vermont Ru tland 1
virginia Alleghany 1
Botetourt 2
Clarke 1
Giles 1
Montgomery 2
Roanoke 2
A-39
-------
I
DOLOMITE
S ta te County No. of Quarries
Virginia (Cont'd) Rockingham 2
Russell 1
Scott 2
Shenandoah 1
Wythe 1
Washington Stevens 2
West Virginia Grant 1
Harrison 2
Jefferson 3
Mineral 1
Wisconsin Brown 1
Calumet 1
Dodge 1
Fond du Lac 1
Manitowoc 1
Waukesha 4
.
A-40
-------
MARBLE
State County No. of Quarries
Alabama Talladega 3
Arizona Maricopa 3
Pima 3
Pinal 1
Yuma 1
Arkansas Independence 1
California Inyo 4
San Bernardino 1
Tuolumne 7
Colorado Chaffee 1
Fremont 5
Georgia Chattooga 1
Gilmer 2
Pickens 6
Idaho Various 4
Maryland Harford 1
Missouri Greene 1
Jasper 1
Jefferson 1
Madison 1
ste. Genevieve 2
A-41
-------
MARBLE
State County No. of Quarries
.
Montana Madison 1
Park 2
Nevada Mineral 1
New Jersey Warren 1
New York St. Lawrence 1
Westchester 1
North Carolina Cherokee 1
',rennessee Blount 3
Grainger 1
Knox 3
Loudon 1
Union 1
Texas Burnet 30
Llano 2
Vermont Rutland 5
Windsor 1
Virginia Rockingham 1
Washington Stevens 8
Wyoming Platte 1
A-42
-------
MARL
-
-
State County No. of Quarries
Indiana Elkhart 2
Kosciusko 1
Lagrange 3
Marshall 4
Noble 1
St. Joseph 1
Steuben 3
Uichigan Allegan 2
Barry 2
Berrien 2
Branch 1
Calhoun 2
Cass 2
Hillsdale 1
Jackson 1
Kalamazoo 3
St. Joseph 1
Minnesota Cass 1
Wadena 1
Mississippi Rankin 1
Warren 1
Nevada Nye 1
South Carolina Dorchester 1
Orangeburg 1
A-43
-------
I-
I
MARL
==-
State County No. of Quarries
Texas Bexar 1
Virginia Clarke 1
Nansemond 1
York 1
Hampton 1
A-44
-------
SHELL
State County No. of Quarries
Alabama Mobile 2
California San Mateo 2
Florida Duval 1
Hillsborough 1
Lee 1
Pinellas 1
Walton 1
J..ouisiana Cameron 1
Orleans 1
St. Mary 3
St. Tammany 4
Maryland Baltimore 1
Pennsylvania Berks 1
Texas Aransas 1
Calhoun 4
Nueces 2
Various 1
virginia Isle of Wight 1
A-45
-------
APPENDIX B
STATE GEOLOGIST LIST
Alabama
.
Philip E. LaMoreaux, State Geologist
Geological Survey of Alabama
P.O. Drawer 0
University, Alabama 35486
Arizona
Stanton B. Keith, Geologist
Arizona Bureau of Mines
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Arkansas
Arkansas Geological Commission
State Capitol
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
California
Quinton A. Aune, Geologist
Division of Mines and Geology
California Department of COnservation
Resources Building
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
B-1
-------
."-
Colorado
Norman R. Blake
Deputy Commissioner of Mines
Colorado Bureau of Mines
Department of Natural Resources
1845 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Connecticut
Joe Webb Peoples, Director
Connecticut Geological & Natural
Box 129, Wesleyan Station
Middletown, Connecticut 06457
History Survey
Delaware
Robert R. Jordan, State Geologist
Delaware Geological Survey
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware 19711
Florida
R.O. Vernon, Chief
Bureau of Geology
Florida Department
P.O. Drawer 631
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
of Natural Resources
B-2
-------
Georgia
(Miss) Martha A. Green, Geologist
Georgia Department of Mines, Mining
19 Hunter Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Idaho
-
Lewis S. Prater, Associate Director
Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Illinois
John C. Frye, Chief
Illinois State Geological Survey
Natural Resources Building
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Indiana
Donald D. Carr, Head
Industrial Minerals Section
Indiana Department of Natural
Geological Survey
611 North Walnut Grove
Bloomington, Indiana 47401
and Geology
Resources
B-3
-------
Iowa
-
Samuel J. Tuthill, Director
Iowa Geological Survey
16 West Jefferson Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
and State Geologist
Kansas
William W. Hambleton, State Geologist
State Geological Survey of Kansas
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66044
and Director
Kentucky
Wallace W. Hagan, Director
Kentucky Geological Survey
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40506
and State Geologist
Louisiana
Leo W. Hough, State Geologist
Louisiana Geological Survey
Box G, University Station
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803
B-4
-------
Maine
Walter A. Anderson, Assistant State
Maine Geological Survey
Department of Economic Development
State Capitol
Augusta, Maine 04330
Geologist
Maryland
Kenneth N. Weaver, Director
Maryland Geological Survey
The John Hopkins University
Baltimore, Maryland 21218
Massachusetts
John J. Lyons
Research' Materials Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
99 Worcester Street
Wellesley Hills, Massachusetts 02181
Michigan
Harry O. Sorensen, Economic Geologist
Geological Survey Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Michigan 48926
B-5
-------
Minnesota
Minnesota Geological Survey
university of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
Uississippi
William H. Moore, Director & State Geologist
Mississippi Geological Economic & Topographical
2525 North West Street
P.O. Box 4915
Survey
Jackson, Mississippi 39216
Missouri
-
W.C. Hayes, State Geologist
Missouri Geological Survey and
Box 250
Rolla, Missouri 65401
Water Resources
Montana
Uuno M. Sahinen, Director and State
Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
Butte, Montana 59701
Geologist
Nebraska
Raymond Burchett
Conservation and Survey
University of Nebraska
Nebraska Hall
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
Division
B-6
-------
Nevada
Keith G. Papke, Economic Geologist
Nevada Bureau of Mines
University of Nevada
Reno, Nevada 89507
New Hampshire
Glenn Stewart, State Geologist
New Hampshire Division of Economic
James Hall
University of New Hampshire
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
Development
New Jersey
Kemble Widmer, State Geologist
Bureau of Geology' Topography
P.O. Box 1889
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
New Mexico
Don H. Baker, Jr., Director
New Mexico State Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources
Socorro, New Mexico 87801
New York
John G. Broughton, Assistant Commissioner
New York State Museum and Science Service
The State Education Department
Albany, New York 12224
B-7
-------
North Carolina
Stephen G. Conrad, State Geologist
Division of Mineral Resources
North Carolina Department of Conservation and
Development
P.O. Box 2719
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
tlorth Dakota
Edwin A. Noble, State Geologist
North Dakota Geological Survey
University Station
Grand Forks, North Dakota 58201
Ohio
-
Horace R. Collins, Division Chief & State G~ologist
Division of Geological Survey
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
1207 Grandview Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43212
Oklahoma
Charles J. Mankin, Director
Oklahoma Geological Survey
University of Oklahoma
830 South Oval
Norman, Oklahoma 73069
B-3
-------
Oregon
Raymond E. Corcoran, State Geologist
Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral
1069 State Office Building
portland, Oregon 97201
Pennsylvania
Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
nhode Island
Thomas A. Mutch, Chairman
Department of Geological Sciences
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912
South Carolina
J.D. Little, Jr., Director
South Carolina State Development
P.O. Box 927
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Board
South Dakota
Duncan J. McGregor, State Geologist
South Dakota Geological Survey
Science Center, University
Vermillion, South Dakota 57069
B-9
Industries
-------
'l'ennessee
-
Robert E. Hershey, State Geologist
Tennessee Department of Conservation
Division of Geology
G-5 State Office Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
~L'exas
Roselle Girard, Research Geologist
Bureau of Economic Geology
University of Texas
University Station, Box X
Austin, Texas 78712
Utah
William P. Hewitt, Director
Utah Geological Survey
103 Utah Geological Survey
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah 84112
Building
Vermont
Office of the State Geologist
Vermont Geological Survey
Geology Building, University of
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Vermont
B-10
-------
Virginia
Department of Conservation, Economic Development
Division of Mineral Resources
Box 3667
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
~ashington
Marshall T. Huntting, Supervisor
Division of Mines and Geology
Washington Department of Natural
Box 168
Olympia, Washington 98501
Resources
Nest Virginia
Robert B. Erwin, Director & State Geologist
West Virginia Geological & Economic Survey
P.O. Box 879
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505
Wisconsin
G.F. Hanson, Director & State Geologist
Geological and Natural History Survey
University of Wisconsin
1815 university Avenue
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
B-ll
-------
~lyoming
The Geological Survey of Wyoming
P.O. Box 3008, University Station
University of Wyoming
Laramie, Wyoming 82070
B-12
------- |