[meteorite-list] Eagle Butte - One more time

From: magellon_at_earthlink.net <magellon_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:02:31 2004
Message-ID: <3C9A9B2A.B51D08A2_at_earthlink.net>

--------------E3A52AE5A7DC5D842D0708C5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>"We found no detectable Ni."
But, Mr. Keith (Eagle Butte) Crawford told me "(EB's were) Tested at the University of Calgary's Chem Lab. Some pieces were sent to Ontario for further intensive testing and have never heard anything else. Just basic elements were tested at the U of C. They came up with the composition 77% Fe 20% Ni and 3% other, rounding it off to 80 - 20." If he would lie about this do you suppose he (posing as his wife) would lie about some naughty relative pretending to be a museum board member?
Amazing,
Ken Newton

LabNEMS wrote:

> List:
>
> From a customer we received a sample of the material recently
> referred to and discussed on this list as Eagle Butte.
>
> Sample chemical analysis summary:
>
> The received material is porous and not homogeneous. There are varying
> proportions
> of FeO, MgO, Ca, Al, and Dolomite within "clumps". The terms "clast" and
> "breccias"
> are not used to define these concentrations as the boundaries are poorly
> defined.
>
> We found no detectable Ni.
>
> In our opinion this is ferrous slag similar to the iron slag used for
> road bases. (actually Canada is an important source of ferrous slag
> accounting for about 26% of USA imported needs)
>
> Bernd Pauli wrote:
>
> "Unfortunately there is no crater information in the 5th issue of the
> Catalogue. Those among us who still have access to the BBB (the
> Big Blue Book = 4th edition of the Catalogue) know that Eagle Butte
> is mentioned as a doubtful feature:
>
> A disturbed area, 10 km in diameter and 30-40 million years old, may be
> meteoritic, P.B. Robertson and R.A.F. Grieve, Journ. Roy. Astron. Soc.
> Canada, 1975, vol. 69, p. 1, but compare T.B. Haites and H. van Hees,
> Journ. Alberta Soc. Petrol. Geologists, 1962, vol. 10, p. 511. Bore
> holes and electric log data for the structure, H.B. Sawatzky in, Impact
> and Explosion Cratering, eds. D.J. Roddy, R.O. Pepin and R.B. Merrill,
> Pergamon Press (New York), 1977, p. 461."
>
> To Bernd's contribution I would add the work of Hodge and Sawatzky:
>
> "Eagle Butte, Alberta
> Lat/Long: N49 deg. 42', W110 deg. 30'
> Diameter: 19 km
> Age <65 Ma
> Condition: Eroded"
>
> "Eagle Butte is in the Cypress Hills area of southern
> Alberta (Canada). Cypress Hills Provincial Park occupies
> part of the eastern portion of the structure. The structure was
> recognized as a geophysical anomaly long before it was found
> to be an impact feature. Both surface geology and sub-surface
> information from wells support its identification as such."
>
> "The geophysical contours show a central uplift and a surrounding
> ring depression."
>
> "Meteorite Craters and Impact Structures of the Earth", Hodge, Paul,
> 1994, University of Cambridge Press.
>
> And
>
> "Two probable Late Cretaceous astroblemes in Western Canada:
> Eagle Butte, Alberta and Dumas, Saskatchewan". Geophysics, 41,
> 1261 - 1271"
>
> Is there existing meteoritic material associated with the Eagle Butte
> structure? I don't know. All that I can say for sure is that the material we
> received is not meteoritic.
>
> A word of caution:
>
> Some of the longer-term members of the List may remember
> our involvement with material that came to be referred to as
> the "Emerald Meteorite". (summary story about the "Emerald
> Meteorite", for those unfamiliar with it is at:
>
> http://www2.suite224.net/~editorsb/updates/meteorite.htm )
>
> Our chemical analysis showed it to be a foundry
> by-product, probably from the lining of a refractory kiln and not meteoritic.
> Some members may still have samples of this material in their collections.
>
> Legal consequences resulting from this were unpleasant. Fortunately
> Tim McCoy's (Smithsonian) independent analysis concurred with ours
> and the finders/promoters backed off.
>
> My point ( something I'm sure that many List members have experienced)
> is that it is sometimes very, very, difficult to convince someone
> untrained or unfamiliar with meteoritics that what they have is of
> terrestrial occurrence. If they choose a legal path it can become
> costly and uncomfortable for all. I find it far better in these
> circumstances,
> that when asked, to offer an "opinion" on the material rather than to
> speak in "absolutes" that may be heard as a denouncement.
>
> Everyone has an opinion but denouncements can get you sued.
>
> Of course, this is just my "opinion".
>
> Russ K./NEMS
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list

--------------E3A52AE5A7DC5D842D0708C5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
>"We found no detectable Ni."
<br>But, Mr. Keith (Eagle Butte) Crawford told me "(EB's were) Tested at
the University of Calgary's Chem Lab. Some pieces were sent to Ontario
for further intensive testing and have never heard anything else.&nbsp;
Just basic elements were tested at the U of C.&nbsp; They came up with
the composition&nbsp; 77% Fe&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <u>20% Ni</u>&nbsp; and&nbsp;
3% other, rounding it off to 80 - 20." If he would lie about this do you
suppose he (posing as his wife)&nbsp; would lie about some naughty relative
pretending to be a museum board member?
<br>Amazing,
<br>Ken Newton
<p>LabNEMS wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>List:
<p>&nbsp;From a customer we received a sample of the material recently
<br>referred to and discussed on this list as Eagle Butte.
<p>Sample chemical analysis summary:
<p>The received material is porous and not homogeneous.&nbsp; There are
varying
<br>proportions
<br>of FeO, MgO, Ca, Al, and Dolomite within "clumps".&nbsp; The terms
"clast" and
<br>"breccias"
<br>are not used to define these concentrations as the boundaries are poorly
<br>defined.
<p>We found no detectable Ni.
<p>In our opinion this is ferrous slag similar to the iron slag used for
<br>road bases.&nbsp; (actually Canada is an important source of ferrous
slag
<br>accounting for about 26% of USA imported needs)
<p>Bernd Pauli wrote:
<p>"Unfortunately there is no crater information in the 5th issue of the
<br>Catalogue. Those among us who still have access to the BBB (the
<br>Big Blue Book = 4th edition of the Catalogue) know that Eagle Butte
<br>is mentioned as a doubtful feature:
<p>A disturbed area, 10 km in diameter and 30-40 million years old, may
be
<br>meteoritic, P.B. Robertson and R.A.F. Grieve, Journ. Roy. Astron. Soc.
<br>Canada, 1975, vol. 69, p. 1, but compare T.B. Haites and H. van Hees,
<br>Journ. Alberta Soc. Petrol. Geologists, 1962, vol. 10, p. 511. Bore
<br>holes and electric log data for the structure, H.B. Sawatzky in, Impact
<br>and Explosion Cratering, eds. D.J. Roddy, R.O. Pepin and R.B. Merrill,
<br>Pergamon Press (New York), 1977, p. 461."
<p>To Bernd's contribution I would add the work of Hodge and Sawatzky:
<p>"Eagle Butte, Alberta
<br>Lat/Long: N49 deg. 42', W110 deg. 30'
<br>Diameter: 19 km
<br>Age &lt;65 Ma
<br>Condition: Eroded"
<p>"Eagle Butte is in the Cypress Hills area of southern
<br>Alberta (Canada).&nbsp; Cypress Hills Provincial Park occupies
<br>part of the eastern portion of the structure. The structure was
<br>recognized as a geophysical anomaly long before it was found
<br>to be an impact feature. Both surface geology and sub-surface
<br>information from wells support its identification as such."
<p>"The geophysical contours show a central uplift and a surrounding
<br>ring depression."
<p>"Meteorite Craters and Impact Structures of the Earth", Hodge, Paul,
<br>1994, University of Cambridge Press.
<p>And
<p>"Two probable Late Cretaceous astroblemes in Western Canada:
<br>Eagle Butte, Alberta and Dumas, Saskatchewan". Geophysics, 41,
<br>1261 - 1271"
<p>Is there existing meteoritic material associated with the Eagle Butte
<br>structure?&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp; All that I can say for sure is
that the material we
<br>received is not meteoritic.
<p>A word of caution:
<p>Some of the longer-term members of the List may remember
<br>our involvement with material that came to be referred to as
<br>the "Emerald Meteorite".&nbsp; (summary story about the "Emerald
<br>Meteorite", for those unfamiliar with it is at:
<p><a href="http://www2.suite224.net/~editorsb/updates/meteorite.htm">http://www2.suite224.net/~editorsb/updates/meteorite.htm</a>
)
<p>Our chemical analysis showed it to be a foundry
<br>by-product, probably from the lining of a refractory kiln and not meteoritic.
<br>Some members may still have samples of this material in their collections.
<p>Legal consequences resulting from this were unpleasant.&nbsp; Fortunately
<br>Tim McCoy's (Smithsonian) independent analysis concurred with ours
<br>and the finders/promoters backed off.
<p>My point ( something I'm sure that many List members have experienced)
<br>is that it is sometimes very, very, difficult to convince someone
<br>untrained or unfamiliar with meteoritics that what they have is of
<br>terrestrial occurrence. If they choose a legal path it can become
<br>costly and uncomfortable for all.&nbsp; I find it far better in these
<br>circumstances,
<br>that when asked, to offer an "opinion" on the material rather than
to
<br>speak in "absolutes" that may be heard as a denouncement.
<p>Everyone has an opinion but denouncements can get you sued.
<p>Of course, this is just my "opinion".
<p>Russ K./NEMS
<p>______________________________________________
<br>Meteorite-list mailing list
<br>Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
<br><a href="http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list">http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list</a></blockquote>
</html>

--------------E3A52AE5A7DC5D842D0708C5--
Received on Thu 21 Mar 2002 09:47:06 PM PST


Help support this free mailing list:



StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
reddit
Yahoo MyWeb