TAG 163 - Geological Society of Australia

The Australian Geologist
Newsletter 163, June 2012
Registered by Australia Post
Publication No. PP243459/00091
ISSN 0312 4711
Managing Editor Sue Fletcher
Technical Editor Bill Birch
Production Editor Kate Hawkins, Twofoot Words
Send contributions to tag@gsa.org.au
Central Business Office
Executive Director Sue Fletcher
Suite 61, 104 Bathurst Street,
Sydney NSW 2000
Telephone (02) 9290 2194
Fax (02) 9290 2198
Email info@gsa.org.au
GSA website www.gsa.org.au
Feature p31
Still no Mawson
Frank Stillwell’s Antarctic Diaries
1911-1913.
Special Report 1 p33
Engineering Geology
A loss of identity for an evolving
field
Design Alan Taylor, The Visible Word Pty Ltd
Typesetting Joan Taylor, The Visible Word Pty Ltd
Printed by Ligare Pty Ltd
Distributed by Trade Mailing & Fulfilment Pty Ltd
Special Report 2 p37
Geoconservation
Preserving sites of geoheritage
F R O N T C O V E R
Miocene limestone along the
Murray River gorge. Image courtesy
Dr BS Middleton
2 From the President
23 Society Update
Governance Changes
Business Report
2 Letter to the Editor
From the AJES Editor’s Desk
Education & Outreach
Stratigraphic Column
Heritage Matters
23 News from the Divisions
24 News from the Specialist Groups
27 News
30 Recognition
36 In focus: Geoscience Workshop
41 Tech Talk
42 Cam Bryan’s Geojottings
43 Book Reviews
46 Calendar
47 Office Bearers
48 Publishing Details

From the President
As you will read in this issue, the Society needs to overhaul
the way it is run so that we fully comply with legal
requirements of the Associations Incorporation Act
1991. In particular, there are non-compliant sections of the
Society’s current Rules that need to be updated. The process of
financial consolidation, which we have recently undertaken, is
an example of one step towards compliance with the Act.
A major task, which has yet to be undertaken, is to reshape
the governance of the Society, that is, to replace the current
governing bodies (Council plus Executive) with a fully elected
Governing Council (GC) and Executive. Over the past year, a
Subcommittee of the GSA Executive, chaired by Jim Ross, has
been assessing a range of governance options that will comply
with the Act. The proposed governance model, endorsed by the
GSA Executive Committee, is outlined on pages 3 to 7. A
timeline for implementation includes a series of stages that
will culminate in a fully elected GC at the 2014 AGM. While
this timeline might seem somewhat extended, the major
changes that are planned necessitate ample time for wide
consultation across all levels of the Society, from the Executive
to individual members.
A key element of the proposed governance model is to
ensure that all Divisions have the opportunity for
representation on the GC, with four out of nine GC members
being appointed by Divisions, in rotation, and the other five
members being elected by GSA members in a first-past-thepost
ballot. In this way, we seek to prevent the GC from being
dominated by any one group that, hypothetically, might not
have the best interests of the wider Society at heart.
In widely publicising the proposed governance changes, the
Executive welcomes your feedback — positive or negative — in
the expectation there will be constructive debate on how we
carry the Society into the future. This year marks 60 years since
GSA and
facebook
For national news and events
follow the GSA on facebook:
Geological Society of Australia
the Society was formally
established at the 1952 ANZAAS
Conference in Sydney, with
Professor ES Hills as our first
President. Remarkably, 60 years
later, a number of foundation
members are still members of the
Society. I hope that, some 60 years hence, many of our younger
current members will also still be active within the Society.
In 60 years time I expect that the National Rock Garden
(NRG) will be long-since established as an exciting national
tourist and educational site in Canberra. While things have
moved rather slowly during the past year, I am pleased to
report that over the next few months there will be significant
progress. First, our application for the National Rock Garden
Trust to be a registered environmental organisation looks set to
be approved by the Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population & Communities, which means that we can
then apply to the Australian Tax Office for tax deductibility
status and finally ‘open the books’ for donations. Second, the
NRG will have a display booth, adjacent to the GSA booth, at
the International Geological Congress (IGC) in Brisbane in
August, where we hope to promote the NRG to potential
donors or sponsors. By that time we also expect the NRG
website, currently under construction, to be fully operational.
A letter to the Editor in this issue of TAG from former GSA
President, Peter Legge, reminds me that I will also shortly join
the ranks of past GSA presidents, as my two-year term as
President will finish at the IGC in August. Peter’s letter is also
a timely reminder that, after a long period of consultation with
Divisions and members, the Society’s climate change statement
remains a work in progress. On behalf of the Executive, I thank
all of you who made submissions on the GSA climate change
statement. The next stage, over the coming few months, will be
for the Executive to produce a draft climate change statement
based on your submissions.
As this is my last TAG column as GSA President, I would like
to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Executive
Committee and the staff at Head Office for their invaluable
contributions over the last two years. In particular, I would like
to highlight the wonderful support of GSA Executive Director,
Sue Fletcher, without which my job would have been almost
impossible. Thanks, Sue.
BRAD PILLANS
President
2 | TAG June 2012

Society Update
Geological Society of Australia: Governance Changes
A
s some of you are aware, GSA must change its
governance arrangements. At the 2010 Council
meeting the current Executive Committee
was requested to identify an alternative model and
report back. The Executive established a Governance
Committee that reported directly to the Executive.
The following documents represent the outcome of
our work to date. We welcome feedback from the
membership.
Our initial focus has been on the process of forming and
operating an elected Governing Council (GC), which must
be established to replace the current Executive system, and
biennial Council meeting. Once this has been settled, after
appropriate consultation, new Rules can be finalised and
voted on by all members in 2013.
We have sought feedback from the Divisions and Specialist
Groups and the next step is to seek feedback from the
membership.
We are addressing a fundamental and necessary change to
the functioning of our Society. It is a process that needs full
engagement from the members, Divisions and Specialist
Groups. It will also help ensure that the eventual outcomes
will effectively serve the Society over the longer term and
at all levels.
Essential Changes to GSA
Governance: Election of a
Governing Council (GC)
Background
Current arrangements for governance of the GSA do not
comply with many of the mandatory requirements of
Associations Incorporation Act 1991 (the Act). In particular
they do not provide for the election and functioning of a
Governing Council to replace the current rotational
Executive system, and the biennial Council meeting. The
GC is required and will have responsibility for the oversight
of strategy, policy and governance of the Society. It will be
the paramount decision-making body for the Society.
A new set of legally compliant Rules is also required.
The principal purpose of this document is to set out
proposed arrangements for the membership, election and
operation of a GC for members to consider and endorse.
Following consultation with the Divisions and Specialist
Groups, and a proposal from the 2008–2010 Executive,
remedial actions were agreed at the Council meeting of
4 July 2010. The Council minutes record that the incoming
Executive was charged with providing a new governance
model for consideration at the 2012 Council meeting, which
is scheduled for Sunday 5 August.
The current Executive has established a GC and considered
alternative models to achieve the required outcome. The
guiding principles are encouraging deeper engagement of
the Divisions and Specialist Groups, while maintaining their
autonomy; ensuring that the Governing Council maintains
a national perspective; providing for a balance between
continuity of corporate knowledge and new representatives;
and ensuring equitable representation on the GC.
However, establishing a GC also requires legal compliance
under the Act, which necessarily introduces some
constraints and opportunities for the model. These are
outlined below, then are followed by a description of a
model which the Executive believes will achieve the most
effective balance between the governing principles and legal
requirements.
Subject to an extensive consultation process, and any
resulting modifications, the aim is to present the proposed
governance model for consideration at the Council Meeting
on 5 August 2012. Endorsement at that meeting should
then lead to the 2012–2014 Executive being charged with
finalising the new set of Rules for implementation of the
model, and presenting them to all members for a vote (by
postal proxy, or in person) with the aim of approval at the
2013 AGM, anticipated in early May. A provisional set
of new Rules should be available by the 2012 Council
Meeting, and those Rules that relate to the governance
model will be included in Council papers.
Following Council endorsement of the model there will be
adequate time for consultation with the Divisions and
Specialist Groups before the Rules are put to a vote at the
2013 AGM.
That vote will require 75% approval of the members that
vote. If approved, the Executive will then progress to
holding elections in 2014 so that the GC can be approved
by members at the 2014 AGM and commence operation.
TAG June 2012|3

Legal Constraints and Opportunities
n Members of the Governing Council must be elected
by the members: given that the proposed model provides
for a mix of members elected by all voting members, and
for appointed members from the Divisions, the final
composition of the GC will have to be approved by the
members at every second AGM.
n The GC cannot include ex-officio members: this
constraint precludes key people such as the Executive
Officer, the Immediate Past President, and the Editor of
AJES from being members of the GC. It does not prevent
them from attending GC meetings by invitation and, of
necessity, the Executive Officer would have a standing
invitation with the Immediate Past President and Editor of
AJES attending when necessary.
n Members of the Executive do not have to be elected
members of the GC: the GC will have the power to
appoint members to the Executive and it is proposed that
these three key people be members of the Executive,
together with the President, Secretary and Treasurer from
within the GC. However, there will also be the flexibility
for Presidents to follow the past custom of having a
Secretary in close proximity, by requesting the GC to
approve appointment of a non-elected member to the
Executive and to attend GC meetings.
Proposed Structure of the
Governing Council
The Council will have nine members sourced from two
categories:
n Elected Members: five members elected directly by the
members in a ‘first past the post’ election to be held every
two years. Each can serve a maximum of four years (two
terms, subject to successfully standing for re-election after
two years). Staggered terms will provide for two or three
elected Councillors completing their maximum service at
every election and being replaced by the same number of
newly elected councillors.
n Divisional Representatives: Four members representing
four Divisions with each of those four Divisions eligible to
appoint a representative for two terms of two years. The
eligibility of a particular Division to be represented on the
GC to be rotated, so that each Division can be directly
represented on Council for four years of every eight-year
cycle. Staggered terms will require that two Divisions
cease representation at each election in favour of two
new Divisions.
Election of the Governing Council
n Candidates for the five Elected Members will require
initial endorsement by their Division for their nomination
to be valid. A Division may endorse a maximum of two
applications at each election.
n At each two-year election, with the exception of the
inaugural election (see below), it is anticipated that two or
three Elected Members will retire after completing four
years’ service.
n The inaugural election will elect five councillors with two
of these retiring after two years to ensure overlap within the
Elected Member cohort of Council. The other three will be
eligible to stand for re-election for a second two-year term.
n Casual vacancies occur when an Elected Member retires
between elections. The resulting vacancy will be filled by the
ordinary member with the next highest vote count at the
previous election.
n Divisional Representatives will be selected by their
Division. Divisions will also be responsible for providing a
replacement, if required, during its four-year term on
Council.
n At each election, with the exception of the inaugural
election (see below), two of the four unrepresented
Divisions will each appoint one new Divisional
Representative to Council for an initial two-year term.
These two new Divisional Representatives will replace two
retiring Divisional Representatives from Divisions that have
completed their four year term.
n The inaugural election will also require four Divisional
Representatives to be appointed to Council with two
retiring after two years to ensure overlap and enable two
new Divisions to be represented. Each Division will have
ongoing Council representation for 50% of the time.
Election and Function
of the Executive
n The GC will normally include three members of the
Executive, plus the President, Secretary and Treasurer.
Together with the Immediate Past President, the Executive
Officer and the Editor of AJES they will form the Executive.
It will be responsible for the broader functioning of the
Society between quarterly Council meetings and for
oversight of the Society’s management.
n GC members will be best qualified to assess the balance
of skills, experience and contributions of individuals within
Council, and it is proposed that they be responsible for
election of the President, Secretary and Treasurer. These
office bearers will be elected by members of the GC every
two years from its nine members. With the exception of the
inaugural Executive, the President is required to have
previously served on the Council, and preferably on the
Executive. After completion of a two-year term as President
the past President will be appointed to the Executive as
Immediate Past President.
n The inaugural President will be elected for a two-year
term by the members of the GC and then be appointed to
the Executive for two years as Immediate Past President; the
President for the 2012–2014 Executive will be appointed to
the inaugural Executive as Immediate Past President.
4 |
TAG June 2012

Operation of the Governing Council
It is proposed that:
n The Council meets quarterly with three meetings by
teleconference and one face-to-face meeting each year.
n The Executive meets as required, with at least one
meeting between each Council meeting.
n The Council essentially retains the existing committee
structure with the requirement that, with the exception of
the Finance and Risk Committee (FRC), each committee
of Council has a Council member, preferably as Chair,
with other members co-opted by Council. In the case of
the FRC, it should have a majority of Council members,
including the Chair.
Desirable Qualifications
for Council Members
The Society is a very significant enterprise and its
continuing success will be depend on maintaining an
appropriate blend of experience, wisdom, enthusiasm and
commitment on the GC. With more than 2000 members,
it has annual turnover in excess of $0.5 million and is
responsible for an investment portfolio of about $800 000.
Its activities are extremely diverse and, apart from its
traditional role as a learned Society, they include
professional advocacy and representation; publication of
an international journal, special volumes and a national
quarterly magazine; geoscience education; national and
specialist conference support; maintaining awards; sponsorship;
maintaining a viable business; and providing support
to eight Divisions and a diverse array of Specialist Groups.
The objective is for the GC, with the support of the
Executive and Executive Officer, to always be well equipped
to address these diverse responsibilities. Ultimately, its
capability will be determined by the nominations and
endorsements of the Divisions.
On behalf of the Governance Committee:
Peter Cawood, Laurie Hutton, Brad Pillans,
Jim Ross and Chris Yeats
Legal Memorandum
The GSA sought legal advice and Jeffrey Lees from Babingtons
Law Pty Ltd has provided the following memorandum.
Purpose of this Memorandum
The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide all
members of the Geological Society of Australia Inc
(“the Society”) with the following information:
1. A basic understanding of the mandatory legal requirements
imposed upon the Society by the Associations
Incorporations Act 1991 (the “Act”); and
2. A summary of the legal requirements of the Act not complied
with by the current Rules of the Society;
Mandatory Legal Requirements
of the Act
The Society is incorporated under and governed by the Act.
The Act and Schedule 1 to the Act imposes the following
mandatory requirements of the governing Rules:
1. Statement of Objects: The Rules must provide a
statement of objects of the Society as a whole in respect to
which all decisions and actions of the Governing Council
are to be measured against. The current Rules of the
Society do not fully comply with this requirement;
2. Powers of the Governing Council: the Rules must
clearly state the powers of the Governing Council. The
current Rules (Clause 3) specify certain powers of the
“Society” (not the Governing Council) and then provide for
a mixture of objects of the Society. The current Rules of
the Society do not fully comply with this requirement;
3. Public Officer: section 57 of the Act requires the Society
to have a Public Officer who resides in the ACT and is at
least 18 years of age;
4. Membership Qualifications: the Rules must state the
qualifications as a prerequisite to being admitted as a
member of the Society. The current Rules of the Society
do not fully comply with this requirement;
5. Fees and Subscriptions: the Rules must specify the
amount(s) and procedures for determining the amount(s) of
any joining fees, subscription or other charges payable by
members of the Society. The current Rules of the
Society do not fully comply with this requirement;
6. Member’s Liability: the Rules must state what the
liability is of a member to contribute towards the payment
of debts and liabilities of the Society (if any);
7. Discipline: the Rules must set out detailed procedures
for the discipline of members, procedures for rights of
appeal of members for disciplinary action taken against the
member and the manner in which a member may make
representations to appear before the Society or its delegate
in relation to disciplinary action. The current Rules of the
Society do not fully comply with this requirement;
8. Election of Governing Council: the Rules must
provide for the election of the members of the Governing
Council of the Society, specify the term of office, grounds
upon which the office of a member of a Council is taken to
have become vacant, the number of officers and the functions
and powers of the Council. The current Rules of the
Society do not comply with this requirement in full;
9. General Meetings: the Rules must make provision for
the convening of general meeting of members, the rights of
members to vote, the formation of a quorum, the time
within which notices must be given and Rules in relation to
members who may be precluded from being entitled to vote;
10. Financial Statements: the Rules must provide for the
preparation of financial statements in accordance with
Australian Accounting Standards, the audit of those
TAG June 2012|5

financial statements and the delivery of those financial
statements to members prior to the notices of annual
general meeting each year. The current Rules of the
Society do not fully comply with this requirement;
11. Funds: the Rules must clearly identify the source of
funds for the entire Society, the basis upon which all funds
are to be managed and the practice and procedures for the
disbursements of funds of the Society. Given the nature of
the Society comprising several different interest groups with
different financial needs, the current Rules of the Society
do not fully comply with this requirement;
12. The Common Seal: the Rules must provide for the
custody and use of the common seal by the Society;
13. Custody of Books and Documents: the Rules must
provide for the custody of all books and documents or
ecurities of the Society; and
14. Inspection of Books and Documents: the Rules
must provide for the procedures available to all members to
conduct inspection of books or documents of the Society.
Other Interpretation Difficulties
with the Existing Rules
At present, the current Rules of the Society suffer from the
following additional difficulties/deficiencies:
1. No definitions: Numerous expressions or terms are used
throughout the document which are neither defined or, if
defined, have been used inconsistently in the context of
where those terms or expressions appear, making the
interpretation of the Rules difficult and vague to the
disadvantage of the members as a whole. Therefore, the
Rules requires a clear set of defined terms to be used
consistently throughout the document;
2. Administrative procedural matters: A number
of procedural matters dealt with in the Rules are more
appropriately dealt with by a Governing Council delegation
to the Executive Committee. These procedural matters
require frequent revision and/or change from time to time to
adapt to changes in circumstances. Currently, such changes
would be required to be put to a vote by the entire membership
of the Society;
3. The following matters should be omitted from the Rules
as they are not concerning the rights and entitlements of
members of the Society and are functions of the Executive:
a. Honorary Correspondent: not being a member of the
Society ought to be dealt with separately in the operational
procedures established by the Executive Committee;
b. Editorial Board: not being a matter of the rights and
entitlements of members of the Society but rather a
function of the Executive Committee to be approved and
delegated by Governing Council;
c. Awards: not being appropriate to being included in the
Governing Rules of the Society as these are matters not
going to the rights and entitlements of members of the
Society and should be administered by the Executive
Committee on delegation by the Governing Council.
4. Confusion as to Members Rights: Any person who is a
member of a Division, Specialist Group or Branch can only
join such Division, Specialist Group or Branch if they are,
first and at all times, a member of the Society as a whole,
since it is the member’s interest as a member of the Society
as a whole that governs their rights of the Society and not
whether that member has also joined a Specialist Group,
Division or Branch. The Rules, as currently drafted, present
great difficulty in reconciling some of these aspects and
present confusion to the extent that some members of
Specialist Groups, Divisions, or Branches may consider
themselves not to be bound by the Rules of all members of
the Society as a whole, which is totally incorrect.
5. Governing Council composition not necessarily
representative of all Members: The current Rules do not
require the members of the Governing Council to have been
elected by the members of the Society. Consequently, an
opportunity exists for a distortion of the representation of
particular interest groups of the members depending upon
the location at which the Annual General Meeting of the
Society is to be held, rather than in respect to the members
as a whole.
Recommendations and Conclusions
Clearly the Society needs to agree and implement a
conforming set of Rules as soon as practicable. This will
require 75% approval of the members that vote, either by
post, or in person at an AGM. Central to this process is the
acceptance of a new governance model that addresses the
requirement to establish a Governing Council (GC) to
replace the existing Executive structure and biennial
Council meetings.
The current Executive has developed a proposal for the
composition, election and operation of a GC and the
associated document: Essential Changes to GSA
Governance: Election of a Governing Council, prepared
by its Governance Committee, fully conforms to the
requirements of the Act.
The Executive has retained the resources of Babingtons
Lawyers (Mr Jeffrey Lees) to advise on this important issue,
and to assist in finalising a new set of Rules. The aim is to
have provisional Rules available for an initial review by
Council at its meeting in August 2012, with broader
consultation to follow before a vote by members in
association with the 2013 AGM.
Comments and queries should initially be directed to the
Executive Officer of the Society.
Jeffrey B Lees, Babingtons Lawyers
17 April 2012
6 |
TAG June 2012

Timeline
Key dates for consultation implementation:
June TAG: member consultation
5 August 2012: GSA Council Meeting
6 August 2012: GSA Annual General Meeting
August 2012–May 2013: Rules revised and voted on by
Members
1 February 2013: Revised Rules are finalised and
distributed to members 3 months prior to the AGM. Ballot
papers forwarded to all members in April to enable proxy
votes prior to the AGM Annual General Meeting. The AGM
is to be held no later than the first week in May to comply
with the Registrar General Rules; 75% of the members that
vote, by proxy (postal vote), or in person at the AGM, must
approve the new Rules.
1 May 2013: Annual General Meeting: Voting on the rules
May 2013 to AGM 2014: Finalise and complete the
processes for electing and appointing the nine inaugural
members of the Governing Council with final ‘election’ of
the Council at the 2014 AGM
The Geological Society of Australia welcomes feedback on
these important governance changes.
Comments to the Executive Committee,
email: businessmanager@gsa.org.au
Comments for publishing in TAG September issue
(deadline 30 July 2012) email: tag@gsa.org.au
Congratulations
Marc!
Long-term GSA member,
Dr Marc Norman of the
Australian National University,
Research School of Earth
Sciences, has been appointed
as the new Executive Editor of
Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta.
Marc has become the ninth Executive Editor in the
62-year history of the journal.
Image courtesy ANU–RSES.
TAG June 2012|7

Society Update
Business Report
The June issue of TAG covers a diversity of topics. Mark
Tingay reports on the inaugural Australian Geoscience
Teaching Workshop held in Adelaide earlier this year,
sponsored by the GSA. Greg McNally provides insights on what
it means to be working as an engineering geologist and ponders
where all the engineering geologists have gone (see page 33).
Bernadette Hince from the Australian Academy of Science gives
us a glimpse at the Academy’s latest publication The Stillwell
Diaries. The anniversary of 100 years of Antarctic Exploration is
a timely occasion to launch the diaries. The GSA is proud to
sponsor this publication commemorating Frank Stillwell, who
made a significant contribution to geology in Australia. The GSA
is also proud to name one of our Awards after Frank Stillwell for
best paper of the year in the Australian Journal of Earth Science
(AJES). This issue’s Stratigraphic Column will surprise you with
a comment from Fons VandenBerg and reply from Alan Partridge.
We anticipate further dialogue on this topic.
Our Special Report is by Lars Erikstad of the Norwegian
Institute for Nature Research/Natural History Museum,
University of Oslo. Lars writes on the importance of
geodiversity as the foundation for geoconservation (see page
37) and Heritage Matters provides more information about
what is happening in the area of geoheritage. We also publish
GSA Fellow Lin Sutherland’s profile.
This issue of TAG has been edited by Kate Hawkins from
TwoFoot Words. Some of you may have already received an
email from Kate or will in the future. Kate has a PhD in
materials science (in the field of mineral properties), a degree
in metallurgy and a diploma in professional writing and editing.
She is a scientific editor who has worked on, among other
things, the academic journal Island Arc. We welcome Kate to
TAG and look forward to her contribution.
Reports from the Divisions and Specialist Groups highlight
recent activities. An especially great read is a report on the
conference of the Specialist Group in Tectonics and Structural
Geology at Cape Liptrap.
In this issue of TAG, Anita’s AJES column is longer than
usual as she announces a number of AJES Award winners.
A couple of things to draw to your attention include the
Governance documents put forward by the Executive
Committee in response to recommendations from previous
Council Meetings and legal advice. Please read these
documents as they flag important future legal changes to the
society. On a completely different note, I am seeking members
to assist with selling advertising space in TAG on a commission
basis. I am sure there are many opportunities for advertising in
TAG. Please see the advertisement in this issue and do not
hesitate to contact me on sue@gsa.org.au
It is a great time for the
Australian geosciences and if you
are in Brisbane in August, come and
say hello at the GSA booth or visit
the National Rock Garden Booth to
find out what is new or how to get involved.
Understandably, the International Geological Congress (IGC)
has been a focal point for many members and non-members in
the geoscience community. However, not all members can
attend the IGC and many Divisions are continuing to hold
regular talks both before and afterwards. Local talks are a
fantastic opportunity to hear about new work in fields you may
not be familiar with. This year’s speakers include an impressive
line-up of talented geologists. Unfortunately space permits only
a few names and if you were not included, my apologies:
l Ravi Anand, CSIRO: Predictive geochemistry in areas of
transported overburden
l Alex Bevan, WA Museum: Impact structures in Western
Australia
l Alan Collins, University of Adelaide: Building Gondwana —
attempting to reconstruct the Neoproterozoic world from
geology and paleomagnetism
l Adrian Day, Orion Metals: Orion Metals — Our Rare Earth
Elements Story
l Katy Evans, UWA and Andy Tomkins, Monash University:
The redox budget of subduction zones and implications for the
ore-deposit source zones
l Robert Glennon, National Centre for Groundwater Research
and Training: Unquenchable: America’s water crisis and what
to do about it
l Paul Lennox: South America — geology and much more
l Scott M Keeling, Mining Plus Pty Ltd: Phytomining
l John Rogers, Research School of Earth Sciences, ANU:
Southern Ocean Fronts over the last 40 ka reconstructed using
radiolarian (Protista) proxies
l Graham Taylor, University of Canberra and Tony Eggleton,
ANU: All pisolithic bauxite deposits are transported — really
l Andrew White, Carbine Tungsten Limited: Re-awakening the
Mt Carbine Tungsten Mine
Division talks are suitable for all members, whether you are
a young professional, aspiring student or in the later stages of
your career. Try to get along to some of these talks: they will
stimulate and engage you … brain food … just the kind of thing
we need moving into winter!
SUE FLETCHER
Executive Director
8 |
TAG June 2012

New members
The GSA welcomes the following new members to the Society. May you all have a long and
beneficial association with the GSA:
NSW
S T U D E N T
Dane Burkett
QLD
M E M B E R
Charlotte White
Mark Maxwell
Lung Kei Peter Ng
Patrick Carr
Irene Allesgruber
Michelle Moss
Valerie Ward
Matshelwa Mafu
Arlem Sibgatulin
Paul Dirks
Roberta Zuccarello
G R A D U AT E
Melanie Cross
Gareth Henderson
Matthew Jones
William Baskerville
Liam Shearer
Helen Tribick
S T U D E N T
Mark Logan
Beth Cheney
SA
M E M B E R
Lynelle Beinke
Liam Hennessy
S T U D E N T
Dimitri Kouvaris
Jeridene Foreman
Christopher Kemp
Maddison Lawson-Wyatt
Jarred Lloyd
Zachary McLeahy
David Monohan-Newton
Chantel Nickolls
Matthew Vasey
Michael Wenz
Natalie Yfantidis
Rhys Zippel
VIC
M E M B E R
Antwanit Gabril
Finbarr Murphy
Katy Kijek
Andrew Bales
Fahmida Perveen
Jack Simmons
Alessandra Pensa
Dane Uehara
S T U D E N T
Jonathan Wong
Joel Vergunst
Dale Mitchell
Melanie Middleton
Wendy Stanford
WA
M E M B E R
Michael Doublier
Michael Short
Edward Howard
Sofi Redgrave
S T U D E N T
Ryan Dethian
Lost members
The following members mail
has been returned to
the GSA, as all their contact
details are invalid.
If you know them and have
their contact details, please
email: info@gsa.org.au or
phone the office
on (02) 9290 2194 and
assist us with locating them.
Dianne Tompkins
Sang Dinh
Andre Caccioppoli
Gary Huftile
Want to earn additional income
The GSA is looking for members in each state to sell advertising space in TAG and Geoz.
Members will receive a percentage of each advertisement sold in TAG.
Contact Sue at sue@gsa.org.au for more information.
Geological Society of Australia
The 2011 Financial accounts
and Auditors report will be
presented by the Treasurer
at both the AGM and the
Council Meeting. Members
wishing to receive a copy
of the Financial reports may
email info@gsa.org.au
or ring (02) 9290 2194.
Location: Brisbane Convention
& Exhibition Centre, during the
International Geological Congress
TAG June 2012|9

Letter to the Editor
The Geological Society of Australia has called for
contributions from Members for comments that will be
considered in the development of a GSA Statement on
Climate Change. A GSA Member Survey (TAG Feb 11,
TAG Mar 11) found that most Members thought that the
GSA should be involved in the climate change issue and
have a consensus Position Statement.
Suggested Guiding Principles
I believe that the GSA should adopt the following
‘principles’ in the development of a Statement:
1. The Statement should restrict itself to comments based
on geological information, with special reference to the
long-term geological record.
2. The Statement should highlight the complexity of
natural systems, and the difficulty in making predictive
comments.
3. The Statement should not comment on the matter of
anthropogenic influences, meteorological science and
politico/economic assessments that are outside the
expertise and objectives of the Society. Comment should
be left to other organisations and individuals.
4. The Statement is an inappropriate document to tout for
increased research funding on matters of climate change
and such comments should be excluded.
5. The Statement should be no more that two pages long,
but that footnotes be used as supplementary text.
6. GSA develops a public release Statement after
circulating a draft position, for follow-up editing and
consensus agreement, amongst Members.
I hereby present (next column) a series of comments in the
context of the above principles. I have had several
experienced geologists review the comments and would
appreciate publication in TAG of this prefacing letter, and
the comments.
PETER LEGGE
Past President GSA
via email
D I S C L A I M E R :
The Geological Society of
Australia encourages
letters from members.
The letters do not necessarily
represent the opinion
of the Society.
Comments towards
a GSA Climate Change Statement
Science seeks to explain natural phenomena using natural
laws, verifiable and reproducible observations and logical
analysis; it reaches explanations that are always subject to
amendment with new evidence.
Observations and interpretations of rocks and geological
systems show that the Earth’s climate changes by natural
processes that are both gradual (thousands and millions of
years) and abrupt. Indeed, the geological record provides the
key source of information on the Earth’s past climates with
numerous climatic cooling or warming trends identified
(Footnote a). However, our understanding of the complex
natural causes of these climate trends, and associated effects
such as inundation, as demonstrated in the geological
record, is incomplete. Suffice to note that episodic activity
on the Sun, changing planetary orbital positions, the Earth’s
tectonic plate movements, and volcanic activity are all
major influences on climate affecting the composition and
circulation of both oceans and atmosphere. Numerous other
natural influences also impact on climate in invariably
complex ways (Footnote b).
We note that during the Earth’s history, extending over
hundreds of millions of years, the Earth has been
predominantly a warm planet, with relatively short periods
of cold temperatures and extensive ice cover; in general
life appears to have been abundant in the warm times and
struggled to survive in very cold times. We note also that
the surface of the Earth is dynamic and that at different
places the land can rise and fall. Thus there is not just one
globally constant ‘sea level’; indeed the movement of
land relative to local sea level can be most evident in
certain small oceanic islands. Similarly, the geological
environment also varies across the globe and the
geological record of changes may be different from place
to place. Under certain natural conditions, the geological
record indicates that climate change can be dramatic and
abrupt, and be accompanied by environmental impacts
and mass extinctions.
We can highlight the fluctuation of climate in relatively
‘young’ geological time. In the Eocene, some 50 million
years (My) ago, the Earth’s temperature was some 6°C
warmer than today. Since the end of the Eocene the
climate has been in somewhat of a cooling trend and large
ice sheets formed in Antarctica and in the northern
10 |
TAG June 2012

hemisphere. Over much of the last 2–3 My (Pleistocene)
the climate has been cooler than today and often much
colder causing sea levels to be up to 120 m lower during
peak glaciation. This cold has been interspersed with
periods of warmer inter-glacial times, such as is the case
currently. A change of recent importance occurred some
100 000 years ago with a major global cooling event and
growth of ice sheets extending from the polar ice-caps to
lower altitudes/latitudes; this glacial period peaked at
about 20 000 years ago, and was then followed by progressive
warming and ice melting, that continues today.
Sea levels have been rising as the Earth has warmed in this
time. We know also that even during the last 15 000 years
interruptions to the gradual warming have occurred, with
both cooling and accelerated warming episodes. Indeed, in
more recent centuries, research has documented that rapid
temperature and climate variations result from natural
processes. We note that geological evidence suggests that
these historic cooling and warming episodes are not
known to have been initiated by a decrease or increase in
greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere.
It can be stated that the geological record provides benchmarks
towards general estimations of the future; we can
say with certainty that under the influence of natural
changes, the Earth’s climate will continue to change. However,
based on the observed geological record any specific
prediction of future cooling or warming remains uncertain.
Just as mankind should prepare for natural disasters such
as earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides and volcanic
eruptions, so preparations can be made for other variables
such as climate change, with either global cooling or
global warming or both, that may have a more
widespread effect.
It is suggested that the GSA makes no predictions or
suggested public policy recommendations for action on
climate beyond the generally agreed prudent preparations
for a response to natural hazards, including climate
change.
Footnotes:
a. Evidence for climate change is preserved in a wide range
of geological settings, including marine and lake sediments,
ice sheets, fossil corals, stalagmites and fossil tree rings.
Advances in field observation, and laboratory techniques
Congratulations!
GSA members Robert Bryan and Jon Stephenson
(deceased) received Australia Day Awards this year.
allow Earth Scientists to analyse and hypothesise how and
why climate has changed in the past. For example, cores
drilled through the ice sheets yield a record of polar
temperatures and atmospheric composition ranging back to
120 000 years in Greenland and 800 000 years in
Antarctica. Oceanic sediments preserve a record reaching
back tens of millions of years, and older sedimentary rocks
extend the record to hundreds of millions of years. This is
a vital baseline of knowledge about the past provides the
context for estimating likely changes in the future.
b. Other influences on climate apparent from the geological
record, and hypothesis, include rock formation (particularly
limestone/dolomite and carbonaceous rocks), surface
rock weathering and addition of H 2 O, CO 2 and O 2 to soils,
release of gases such as methane hydrates through anomalous
sub-surface thermal perturbations, and so on.
Australian Journal of Earth Sciences
iFirst
iFirst is Taylor & Francis’ proprietary early
online-publication system, which makes new
knowledge available to researchers in the
shortest possible time.
iFirst reduces the time from article submission to
publication, making papers available for authors and
readers earlier and for longer.
These papers can be published online through iFirst as
soon as the production process is complete, ensuring
submission-to-publication times are shortened. iFirst
articles published with page spans can be cited as usual,
because all final publication information (publication
year, volume number, page spans) is already available.
iFirst articles published as “Forthcoming Articles” can be
cited using their DOIs, in addition to the article and
journal titles.
To view accepted articles on the AJES website
click on the iFirst icon on the right hand side of the
website: www.ajes.com.au
Journal Alerts
You can subscribe to journal alerts to keep up-to-date with AJES
and many similar journal titles available from Taylor & Francis.
To register for this free service visit:
www.informaworld.com/alerting
TAG June 2012|11

Society Update
From the AJES Hon Editor’s Desk
AJES Awards
The GSA has several awards to recognise outstanding papers
published in AJES. The high standard of papers
recognised by these awards is important for the success
of the journal. The awards for AJES Volumes 57 and 58 are
announced in TAG and will be presented at the IGC in Brisbane in
August.
The FL Stillwell Medal has been awarded since 1966 to the
author or authors of the best paper of the year in AJES, as judged
by the Editorial Board. Authors of all nominated papers are
recognised as Stillwell Nominees.
Congratulations to Chris Fergusson (Vol 57) and Ross Cayley
(Vol 58) and co-authors for their outstanding papers. Chris has
provided background to these papers in this issue of TAG and we
will publish the background to Ross’s paper in a future issue of
TAG.
The DI Groves Medal has been awarded since 2005 to the
best paper published in AJES by a young author. The author must
be the senior author and have held a first degree in any relevant
science for less than six years.
Cara Danis (Vol. 57) and Katherine Howard (Vol. 58) have
been awarded the DI Groves Medal. Well done to Cara and
Katherine and their co-authors. Cara has provided background to
these papers in this issue of TAG and we will publish the
background to Katherine’s paper in a future issue of TAG.
The AB Edwards Medal is awarded each year for the best
paper as judged by the Specialist Group in Economic Geology
(SGEG) committee on aspects of economic geology published in
the AJES. The winners of the AB Edwards Medal are (Vol 57)
RR Anand and CRM Butt: A guide for mineral exploration
through the regolith in the Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia
AJES Vol 57, p 1015–1114 and (Vol 58) RC Morris and
M Kneeshaw: A critical review of genesis modelling for the
Hamersley BIF-hosted iron ores of Western Australia. AJES
Vol. 58, p 417–451. We will publish the background to these
papers in a future issue of TAG.
AJES Planning Meeting
On 4 April some members of the Editorial Board (EB; Brad Pillans,
Russell Borsch, Chris Ferguson and me) held a meeting with
Taylor & Francis (Joshua Pitt, Publisher; Sarah Blatchford,
Regional Director; and Alex Lazzari, Managing Editor) to discuss
how we could improve AJES. Before the meeting I canvassed the
EB for what works and what needs improving, as well as where
the journal should go in the future.
I’m yet to report back to the EB
on the outcomes of the meeting
because Taylor & Francis will come
back to us with some proposals.
However, the issues raised included publishing the journal online
with no print version, options for reducing the cost of colour in
print or for going to full colour in print, improving online
accessibility and ways to improve the impact factor through
attracting high-impact authors and thematic issues.
I was surprised to hear that fewer than 250 members use
online access but I expect many members use institutional
access rather than their membership access. For those who only
use the print version, online access gives access to papers ahead
of print publication, papers in full colour, alerts for new papers
in your area of interest, supplementary papers (these are also on
the GSA website) plus other interesting data. Online access
comes with your subscription.
Upcoming in AJES
Papers scheduled for publication in Volume 59, issues 5 and 6 are
listed below. Keep an eye on http://www.gsa.org.au for titles of
papers in future issues.
AJES Vol 59/5
Thematic issue: Archean ore deposits
Kevin Cassidy, Jon Hronsky and Stephen Wyche (Eds)
S Barnes, M Van Kranendonk & I Sonntag: Geochemical affinity
and tectonic setting of basalts from the Eastern Goldfields
Superterrane, Yilgarn Craton.
N Said, R Kerrich, K Cassidy, D Champion: Characteristics and
geodynamic setting of 1 the 2.7 Ga Yilgarn heterogeneous
plume and its interaction with continental lithosphere:
evidence from komatiitic basalt and basalt geochemistry of the
Eastern Yilgarn Craton.
N Thebaud & S Barnes: Geochemistry of komatiites in the
Southern Cross Belt, Youamni Terrane, Western Australia.
I Zibra: Syndeformational granite crystallisation along the
Mount Magnet Greenstone Belt, Yilgarn Craton: evidence of
large-scale magma-driven strain localization during
Neoarchean times.
D Mole, M Fiorentini, N Thebaud, C McCuaig, K Cassidy,
C Kirkland, M Wingate, S Romano, M Doublier &
E Belousova: Spatio–temporal constraints on lithospheric
development in the southwest–central Yilgarn Craton, Western
Australia.
12 |
TAG June 2012

MJ Pawley, MTD Wingate, CL Kirkland, S Wyche, CE Hall,
SS Romano & MP Doublier: Adding pieces to the puzzle:
episodic crustal growth and a new terrane in the northeast
Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia.
S Wyche, CL Kirkland, A Riganti, MJ Pawley, E Belousova &
MTD Wingate: Isotopic constraints on stratigraphy in the central
and eastern Yilgarn Craton, Western Australia.
D Wyman Geochemical and Isotopic Characteristics of Youanmi
Terrane Volcanism: the role of mantle plumes and subduction
tectonics in the western Yilgarn Craton.
P Duuring, W Bleeker, SW Beresford, ML Fiorentini,
NM Rosengren: Structural evolution of the Agnew–Wiluna
greenstone belt, Eastern Goldfields, Yilgarn Craton and
implications for komatiite-hosted Ni sulfide exploration.
AJES Vol 59/6
Thematic issue: Geodynamics of the
Australian Plate
Myra Keep and Wouter Shellart (Eds)
A Benincasa, M Keep & D Haig: New crustal-scale strike-slip
deformation at a young collisional margin and its implications
for the Indo–Australian collision: an example from Mundo
Perdido, East Timor.
J Bourget, RB Ainsworth, G Backe & M Keep: Tectonic evolution
of the “giant” Bonaparte continental shelf: impact on sediment
distribution during the Pleistocene.
P Durance & MA Jandamec: Magmagenesis within the Hunter
Ridge Rift Zone resolved from olivine-hosted melt inclusion and
geochemical modelling with insights from geodynamic models.
S Fishwick & N Rawlinson: Structure of the Australian
lithosphere: evolving tomographic models from evolving seismic
datasets.
G Lister, L White, S Hart & M Forster: Ripping and tearing the
rolling-back New Hebrides slab.
N Mortimer, P Gans, F Hauff & D Barker: Paleocene MORB and
OIB from the Resolution Ridge, Tasman Sea.
W Schellart & W Spakman: Mantle constraints on the plate
tectonic evolution of the Tonga–Kermadec–Hikurangi
subduction zone and the South Fiji Basin region.
L White, G Lister & S Hart: Australia hesitates as India leaps
forward.
R Hall & I Sevastjanova: Australian crust in Indonesia.
P Li, G Rosenbaum & D Rubatto: Triassic asymmetric subduction
rollback in the southern New England Orogen (eastern
Australia): the end of the Hunter-Bowen orogeny.
A Replumaz, V Vignon, V Regard & J Martinod: East–West
shortening in a North–South convergence.
AWARDS
FL Stillwell Medal winner
Chris Fergusson
Chris Ferguson received the Stillwell Award for his paper ‘Platedriven
extension and convergence along the East Gondwana active
margin: late Silurian–Middle Devonian tectonics of the Lachlan
Fold Belt, southeastern Australia’. The paper is an attempt to
reconcile the history of the Lachlan Fold Belt in a plate-tectonic
context. In the paper, the stratigraphic development of the mid-
Silurian to mid-Devonian sedimentary and volcanic successions of
the Lachlan Fold Belt is presented in a series of facies diagrams
that are interpreted in terms of extension that is interrupted by,
and locally synchronous with, several contractional events. The
significance of these events is explored in the context of processes
associated with convergent margins. The Lachlan Fold Belt is a
particularly complicated geological entity for which no doubt many
varied and contradictory tectonic scenarios will be developed over
future years, as has happened in the past.
The paper is a contribution to the crustal
architecture of central Victoria, as revealed by
results of a regional-scale deep-crustal
reflection seismic survey interpreted in the
context of previous geological studies. In 2006,
the National Research Facility for Earth
Sounding (ANSIR) acquired seismic data along
a 400-km transect across central Victoria, on
behalf of major funding providers Geoscience Australia and the
Victorian Government together with four junior industry partners.
The Victorian Government was represented by the Department of
Primary Industries and Department of Innovation, Industry and
Regional Development, through GeoScience Victoria (GSV, formerly
the Geological Survey of Victoria). The project was managed by the
predictive mineral discovery Cooperative Research Centre
(pmd*CRC). The transect spans the width of the Stawell, Bendigo
and Melbourne structural zones form the western Lachlan Orogen
— a region famous for its rich orogenic gold deposits. Mineralised
Early Paleozoic rocks are well exposed across the transect, but their
tectonic origins have been a topic of much recent debate.
The seismic survey was a success, revealing the crustal-scale
architecture of major rock packages and faults, many exposed and
well-mapped at surface. For example, the Early Cambrian
TAG June 2012|13

oninite–tholeiite igneous succession exposed along the Heathcote
Fault Zone in central Victoria can be traced to great depths in the
seismic data. Some structures can be traced to the Moho. The
seismic data help resolve the position and nature of the suture
between the Delamerian and western Lachlan Orogens — the eastdipping
Moyston Fault. The results show that parts of the western
Lachlan Orogen, such as the Bendigo Zone, have a thick-skinned
structural style. Other parts, such as the Melbourne Zone, are
revealed as thin-skinned — a veneer of early Paleozoic rocks overlying
a mid-and lower crust of markedly different seismic character,
interpreted as crust forming the Selwyn Block. Perhaps most
significantly, the new interpretation suggests that much of the
Early Cambrian MORB tholeiite, boninite and island-arc dominated
crust, which floored the proto-Bendigo Zone throughout the
Cambro–Ordovician, was not subducted during the Lachlan
orogenesis. It was instead thickened into a crustal-scale imbricate
thrust stack — very significant for metallogenic studies.
The paper concludes with the presentation of a new tectonic
model that argues for continentward-dipping subduction–
accretion along the eastern Gondwana margin in the Cambrian.
Subduction terminated in the Late Cambrian. In the Lower
Ordovician, the lower plate evolved into a trapped-plate segment
that remained undeformed and below sea-level throughout the
Ordovician, eventually incorporating a microcontinental block (the
Selwyn Block). During the Late Ordovician — Early Silurian
Benambran Orogeny the region developed into a back-arc fold-andthrust
belt of continental thickness — the western Lachlan Orogen.
An episode of late extension formed extensional faults and may
have triggered decompression melting that led to ‘post-tectonic’
magmatism. This model represents a compromise to long-standing
debates between those who support either an entirely oceanic or a
continental basement to the western Lachlan Orogen, and advances
the understanding of the transition between the Delamerian and
Lachlan orogenic systems. Most of all, the geological interpretations
and the new tectonic scenario in the Stillwell Award paper are made
possible by the wonderful contributions of many other workers over
several decades, without whose insights a meaningful interpretation
of the 2006 seismic data would have been impossible. The authors
acknowledge their debt to previous workers.
Chris Fergusson is Associate Professor in the School of Earth &
Environmental Sciences at the University of Wollongong, where he
lectures in tectonics and structural geology, physical oceanography
and introductory geology for engineers. He is a graduate of
Macquarie University in Sydney (BA (Hons) 1977) and the
University of New England in Armidale (PhD 1984). He initially
worked as a research assistant for Chris Powell and Ray Cas at
Macquarie University (1977–1978), studying orogeny in the
Lachlan Fold Belt. From there he moved to Armidale to research
the subduction complex rocks of the eastern New England Fold
Belt between Glen Innes and Grafton in northeastern New South
Wales. He then moved to Monash University where he worked with
Dave Gray and Ray Cas on the complexly deformed Ordovician
turbidites in the Tabberabbera region of eastern Victoria and from
there moved to Wollongong in early 1986. His research interests
have concentrated on structure, tectonics and stratigraphy of the
Tasmanides of eastern Australia and he has worked widely in New
South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. He also completed research
in the Appalachians of western Newfoundland and is continuing
with collaborative research into the Zagros orogen of western Iran.
He has also been involved in deep-sea drilling with two stints as a
sedimentologist on expeditions to the active subduction zone in
the Nankai Trough off southwestern Japan as part of the Ocean
Drilling Program and the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program. Chris
has had rewarding collaborations with other researchers including
Bob Henderson, Evan Leitch, staff and students at the University
of Wollongong and many others too numerous to mention.
FL Stillwell Medal winner
Ross Cayley
Ross Cayley graduated from Melbourne University in 1988. He
joined the Geological Survey of Victoria (GSV) in 1990, and now is
a Senior Geologist for GSV specialising in structural geology and
tectonics. Ross has helped GSV teams develop geological maps and
datasets and interpretations of geophysical datasets across
Victoria. This work led to the opportunity to help design, acquire
and interpret regional-scale deep seismic transects across parts of
the state in collaboration with Geoscience Australia, the pmd*CRC,
private industry and AuScope. The emerging results, combined with
of over 20 years of field research, underpin a statewide threedimensional
geological model of Victoria developed by GSV.
Details for Ross’s co-authors are given below.
Russell Korsch recently retired from Geoscience Australia where he
was in the Minerals and Natural Hazards Division. He has a BSc
(Hons), PhD and DipEd from the University of New England, with
a background in structural geology and tectonics. His main
research interests are the interpretation of deep seismic reflection
data to develop an understanding of the geodynamic evolution of
Australia, and the structural and geodynamic evolution, and crustal
architecture, of orogenic belts and adjacent sedimentary basins,
including processes operating at ancient convergent plate margins.
Russell has been involved in the interpretation of deep seismic data
collected by Geoscience Australia and its partners since the mid-
1980s.
David Moore is a graduate of the ANU and has a long career
working for government and mining companies in a wide range of
activities. For the last 20 years he has concentrated on interpreting
potential field data sets first for BHP and then for the GSV, showing
that magnetic, radiometric and gravity data can resolve mapping
problems more effectively. At present he is completing a postgraduate
degree at Monash University on the pre-Carboniferous
basement under Bass Strait.
Ross Costelloe works at Geoscience Australia in the Seismic
Acquisition and Processing section. He has extensive experience in
geophysical data acquisition, processing and interpretation.
14 |
TAG June 2012

His career includes data acquisition and processing projects in
Australia, Indonesia, Turkey, India and Botswana, working with
seismic, gravity, airborne magnetics and radiometrics data. He has
a BSc in applied mathematics from Sydney University and an MSc
in earth physics from ANU.
Aki Nakamura graduated from the Australian National
University in 2006. He joined Geoscience Australia in 2007 as a
seismic data processor. He has been involved in deep seismic
reflection data acquisition and processing through pmd*CRC and
the Onshore Energy Security Program. Aki is now involved in
managing national scale datasets of magnetic, radiometric and
gravity data.
Clive Willman spent most of the 1980s exploring for gold in
central Victoria, developing an interest in regional structural controls
of mineralisation. An MSc at Monash University (1987) and
joint research papers dealing with the nature of major thrust faults
across the major gold belts followed. After joining the GSV in 1989,
Clive completed detailed geological maps of the Bendigo and
Castlemaine goldfields, further developing his interest in gold and
structure. From 1994 to 2008 he joined GSV regional mapping
teams in central and eastern Victoria. After leaving the GSV in 2011
he has continued to document the geology of southeastern
Australia through film.
Associate Professor Tim Rawling is Director of Infrastructure
Development, Australian Geophysical Observing System (AGOS),
University of Melbourne. His recent research involved development
of regional/crustal-scale three — and four-dimensional geological
models as well as new exploration methodologies involving 3D
modelling and finite element simulation. Tim’s background is in
structural geology and information technology. He has previously
worked as a consultant exploration geologist, as the manager of
the 3D modelling and simulation programs at GSV, as the Minerals
Council of Australia (MCA)-funded lecturer at the University of
Melbourne, as a commercial programmer, and as a researcher at
Monash University and the University of Arizona.
ISSUE COPY FINISHED INSERTS
ART
SEPTEMBER 2012 30 Jul 10 Aug 24 Aug
DECEMBER 2012 26 Oct 2 Nov 9 Nov
MARCH 2013 28 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar
JUNE 2013 29 Apr 3 May 28 May
Vince Morand gained a PhD in geology from the University of
Sydney in 1987. He then worked on structural and metamorphic
projects in eastern Victoria and Queensland. From 1991 to 1996
he was a geology lecturer at Ballarat University, and from 1997 he
worked at GSV on mapping projects in western, central and eastern
Victoria. In 2011, Vince left the GSV (along with about half the
staff) and is now in the Department of Agricultural Sciences at
La Trobe University.
Phillip Skladzien gained a BSc (Hons) in geophysics from the
University of Adelaide in 1997. He has since worked as a geophysicist
in petroleum and mineral exploration, for private industry
and government. He has been with GSV for the past six years,
working on regional mapping projects and the development of a
3D geological model of Victoria.
Peter O’Shea gained a BSc (Hons) in geology from the University
of Hull in 1968. A short stint working for GSV was followed by
a few years as an exploration geologist, prior to completing an MSc
in mining geology and mineral exploration at the University of
Leicester in 1975. Peter then worked in various positions in
government and the mining industry before returning to GSV in
1990 to take up his current position managing the regional
geological mapping of Victoria.
DI Groves Medal winner
Cara Danis
The paper ‘Gunnedah Basin 3D architecture
and upper crustal temperatures’ is the first
from Cara’s postgraduate work and is
co-authored with Craig O’Neill and Mark
Lackie. The paper demonstrates the ability to
successfully model the 3D structure of the
Gunnedah Basin using gravity, seismic and borehole
data, and to combine this 3D geology with multi-dimensional
thermal modelling to provide the first realistic estimate of upper
crustal temperatures. With the geothermal potential of the Sydney
Gunnedah Bowen Basin poorly understood, this paper provides
significant results, valuable insights and a new technique — all of
which have since been applied to the whole system.
Cara Danis graduated from Macquarie University with a BSc
(Hons) in geology and geophysics in 2007. She returned a year later
to undertake postgraduate studies, focusing on three-dimensional
geological structure, thermal structure and geothermal potential.
She submitted her thesis titled ‘The thermal structure of the Sydney
Gunnedah Bowen Basin Eastern Australia’ in late 2011.
Craig O’Neill is an ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at
Macquarie University working in the areas of geodynamics and
planetary science. Mark Lackie is a Senior Lecturer and Acting Head
of the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at Macquarie
University.
ANITA ANDREW
Hon Editor AJES
AJES.Editor@gsa.org.au
TAG June 2012|15

Society Update
Education&Outreach
In my February column I wrote that, across the nation, many
teachers are trialling the Australian Curriculum: Science for
Foundation to Year 10 (F–10) classes or at least preparing for
full implementation next year. I am yet to receive feedback on
just how this is going, but in the meantime the Australian Academy
of Science has released a report commissioned by the Office
of the Chief Scientist and authored by Professor Denis Goodrum
et al entitled ‘The Status and Quality of Year 11 and 12 Science
in Australian Schools’. This is a timely report as the Australian
Curriculum for senior science is close to finished and we are
eagerly awaiting the final draft of the Earth and Environmental
Science (EES) senior curriculum. The roll-out of the new senior
course structure and the take-up of the EES course across
the nation will, to some degree, influence the way the F–10
curriculum is implemented by teachers.
Despite some question marks over the data in some tables, the
Goodrum report makes interesting reading and is something I
encourage anybody interested in science education to examine.
It can be downloaded from the Australian Academy of Science
website at http://www.science.org.au/publications/researchreports-and-policy.html
The report is also timely as it makes specific reference to the
incoming EES course. Thus any action to implement the report
recommendations cannot justify support for traditional science
subjects at senior levels at the expense of the EES course.
The traditional science subjects Physics, Chemistry and Biology
are in need of transition support no doubt, but the new EES
course will need even more as schools that elect to teach it will
be starting from scratch in most states.
Among the many discussion points in the report, I was
pleased to see the authors make this point, albeit not quite in
these words: if, as a nation, we are content to see only about half
the senior students studying science, then we must focus on the
pre-senior years of compulsory high school science, as they are
critical to ensuring all students develop an acceptable level of
scientific literacy. If this sounds familiar, it is perhaps because
I have said much the same thing on many occasions with respect
to Earth Science literacy in the wider community, given how few
schools teach geology or EES at senior level and the small percentage
of tertiary science enrolments that include any geology
in their choices.
School science must not be aimed solely at producing
university entrants, something many passionate advocates of EES
in schools often fail to understand. We do need well-trained
professionals to enable our world-class Earth Science industries
to thrive but most students, even including those that study
senior science, do not end up working in a field requiring a
science degree. However, they all go
on to become decision-making adults
in the wider community. Unless they
leave school with a good understanding
and appreciation of science it is
unlikely that the decisions they make that need that understanding
and appreciation will be the best decisions, all else being
equal. Only the most up-to-date content, engaging delivery
methods and effective teaching will achieve this.
The report recommendations — aimed at assisting schools
improve science teaching generally — underscores the reason for
the existence of groups like Earth Science Western Australia
(ESWA) and the Teacher Earth Science Education Programme
(TESEP). Traditional transmission models of teaching are being
supplanted by a more inquiry-based approach. Science teaching
has favoured the former method as it has fitted well with the
aim of producing fact-laden, university-ready students but it has
also created dull or irrelevant content, boring delivery methods
and ineffective teaching of the scientific method. The result, if
the survey of non-science students documented in the report is
any guide, is a community at large that thinks science is boring
and irrelevant. That same community is, in my opinion, largely
incapable of following a scientific argument and teasing out
sense from nonsense. This is highlighted by some of the material
in our media that passes for debate on subjects such as Coal Bed
Methane extraction, Climate Change and Groundwater recharge.
Groups such as ESWA and TESEP assist teachers meet the
new curriculum objectives by not only providing them with
up-to-date Earth Science information but by also providing them
with engaging activities and understandings framed by the
scientific method and the Plate Tectonics — Earth Systems
Science paradigm. However, improving the wider appeal and
understanding of science needs more than these special interest
groups, even though without them Earth Science teaching would
be even worse off.
Unfortunately, the Goodrum report is unlikely to influence
government decision makers without help. I encourage everyone
to look through it, ask yourselves what you can do to help and
ask your government representatives what they are doing to ensure
these recommendations are listened to.
GREG McNAMARA
Geoscience Education and Outreach Services
Executive Officer of TESEP
Send all comments to Greg McNamara at
outreach@gsa.org.au
16 |
TAG June 2012

Society Update
Stratigraphic Column
What’s in a name
In this extended Stratigraphic Column, guest author Fons VandenBerg and respondent Alan Partridge give you
two different perspectives on the history of, and ideas for clarifying, the nomenclature used in the Gippsland
Basin. While some further debate may ensue, I look forward to finding a satisfactory resolution to the issues
raised, and developing a clearer understanding of the stratigraphy of the whole Gippsland Basin.
CATHY BROWN
National Convener, Australian Stratigraphy Commission, cathy.brown@ga.gov.au or cathyeb@netspeed.com.au
Other Stratigraphy Commission contacts are available at:http://www.gsa.org.au/management/standing_committee.html or through
http://www.ga.gov.au/products-services/data-applications/reference-databases/stratigraphic-units.html
Confusing use of rock unit names in the Gippsland Basin
People name their children so they can be easily identified.
Only in weird exceptions do they give the same name to
more than one child. That’s a convention most of us
wholeheartedly support because it avoids much confusion.
Geologists apply the same convention to rocks, fossils
and rock units. It makes it much easier to print maps and
write papers, because each name stands for a whole range of
characters that need not be repeated every time we mention the
rock, fossil or rock unit.
Unfortunately this is not always the case, and this article is
about one such case. It concerns the duplicate use of the name
‘Latrobe’, but the duplication seems to have had an almost
organic growth, with the authors responsible seemingly unaware
that they were sowing the seeds of confusion. But the result is
a mess, with many modern readers unaware that there are now
two units with almost identical names, in the same stratigraphic
sequence, but meaning very different things.
How did this happen Although the name Latrobe, in a
stratigraphic sense, goes back to Murray (1876), it was first
formally used by Thomas and Baragwanath (1949) for the
Latrobe Valley Coal Measures — a unit of supergroup status that
encompassed the lignite-bearing Cenozoic sequence in the
Latrobe Valley in Gippsland. It overlay the Mesozoic Strzelecki
Group with a regional unconformity and extended from the base
of the Oligocene Childers Formation to the base of the Pliocene
Haunted Hills Formation (see Table). The 1949 paper used many of
the same names as in the lignite mines, with multiple use of the
same geographic names (eg, the Morwell Group comprised the
Morwell No. 1 and No. 2 Seams separated by the Morwell Clay).
Hocking et al (1976) and Hocking (1980) rationalised this scheme,
using the name Latrobe Valley Group for the original supergroup.
In this scheme, the group consisted of three formations (Traralgon,
Morwell and Yallourn), of which only the oldest, the Traralgon Formation,
can be traced eastwards from the Latrobe Valley — the
other two interfinger with the marine Seaspray Group.
In the meantime, however, a major departure from this
concept had already occurred as a result of drilling in the
offshore Gippsland Basin. James and Evans (1971) used the name
Latrobe Group to encompass the entire sequence of the offshore
Gippsland Basin overlying the Early Cretaceous ‘Strzelecki Group’
(= Otway Group — see VandenBerg 2009 for synonymy of the
Early Cretaceous sequences) and beneath the Oligocene–
Miocene Lakes Entrance Formation and Gippsland Limestone
(Seaspray Group). In doing so, they included a thick sequence of
Late Cretaceous and early Neogene sediments that had not been
encountered onshore, and had, in the first offshore well report,
been called ‘Unnamed unit (Upper Cretaceous)’ (Esso 1966) (see
Table on following page). Even more confusing is that James and
Evans (1971) seem not to have intended their Latrobe Group to
supplant the older name, stating that the new group “ ... is, in
the main, distinctly older than the onshore 1200 feet of Latrobe
Valley Coal Measures.”
In the second edition of the Geology of Victoria (Douglas &
Ferguson 1988), both the Mesozoic and Tertiary chapters were
reprinted with minimal changes — a pity, as more than a decade
of intensive drilling in the offshore basins had added a great deal
to the knowledge of the stratigraphy. Interpretation of the basin
was done mainly from seismic sections, using the developing
paradigm of sequence stratigraphy, with little attempt to apply
‘classic’ lithostratigraphic principles. Smith (1988), who
documented the new work in the chapter on economic geology,
appears to have been confused about the higher level
stratigraphic nomenclature. Under the heading ‘Latrobe Valley
Group’, he wrote, “The Latrobe Valley Group (or Latrobe Group,
see p. xxx) [sic] is defined as containing the Upper Cretaceous
to Tertiary sequences, predominantly non-marine to marginal
marine in origin [of the Gippsland Basin].” Smith subdivided
this group into three portions (see Table), of which only the
upper is equivalent to the original Latrobe Valley Group/Coal
Measures.
TAG June 2012|17

What’s in a name continued
Table has been arranged so that the first definitive subdivision is at left
Bernecker and Partridge (2001) provided the first serious
review of the Gippsland Basin stratigraphy since that of Hocking
(1976). They demoted the original Latrobe Valley Coal Measures
to subgroup status, as the Latrobe Valley Subgroup, within the
(otherwise open marine) Seaspray Group, and containing only the
Morwell, Yallourn and Hazelwood Formations. They replaced the
name Traralgon Formation with the new name Burong Formation,
which is part of the Cobia Subgroup, the topmost unit of the
Latrobe Group, and which is capped by a regional unconformity.
Holdgate and Gallagher (2003), who dealt mainly with the
onshore portion of the Gippsland Basin, have mainly followed
Bernecker and Partridge (2001) except for retaining the Traralgon
Formation name. This has the confusing consequence that the
Traralgon Formation is placed within the Latrobe Valley Group in
one part of the basin but in the Latrobe Group in another part.
In addition to the apparent synonymy, the broader concept
of the Latrobe Group (ie, sensu Bernecker & Partridge 2001)
transgresses the rules of stratigraphic nomenclature in that it
includes three major unconformities that separate the four
subgroups it contains. These unconformities are so well
documented that they have been named (eg, see fig. 15.8 in
Bernecker et al 2003). Staines (1985) advised that, “the union of
adjacent strata separated by regional unconformities or major
hiatuses into a single lithostratigraphic unit should preferably be
avoided even if no more than minor lithologic differences can be
found to justify the separation.” Other rules not followed by any
of the authors who used the term ‘Latrobe Group’ are: (1) none of
the authors has provided a clear and complete definition,
characterisation and description of the unit; and (2) the geographic
name is inappropriate as the broader group is distant from the
Latrobe Valley (see https://engineering.purdue.edu/ Stratigraphy/
strat_guide/def. html for the online abridged version of the
International Stratigraphic Guide, which provides advice on such
matters).
It is high time that this confusion ended. I advise that: (1) the
name ‘Latrobe Group’ be abandoned, and that the four subgroups
it contains be raised to group status (see Table); (2) the name
‘Latrobe Valley Group’ only be used in its original sense,
ie, incorporating essentially the lignite-bearing sequence of the
Gippsland Basin. It should not include the Carrajung Volcanics
and underlying sediments (Yarram Formation and its correlative
Barracouta Formation), which are separated from the coal
measures by a significant unconformity (Marlin Unconformity of
Bernecker et al. 2003). It should also exclude the coal-bearing
Burong Formation (Middle Eocene — Early Oligocene) and its
correlative, which is capped by a significant unconformity
(Partridge & Bernecker 2001; Bernecker et al 2003).
FONS VANDENBERG
18 |
TAG June 2012

Response to rock unit names in the Gippsland Basin
Reading Fons VandenBerg’s preceding article, asking how
dual terms ‘Latrobe Valley Group’ and ‘Latrobe Group’
came into existence in the Gippsland Basin, it is apparent
that the history of the events have been lost over the years. When
viewed from the present day, the most accessible, yet derivative
summaries from the three editions of the Geology of Victoria
provide no obvious reasons why the two complimentary and
overlapping names should have ever been proposed. Today, everyone
readily accepts that the exceptionally thick Yallourn, Morwell
and Latrobe Seams are Late Oligocene to basal Middle Miocene
in age, and are a lateral facies of the Lakes Entrance Formation
and Gippsland Limestone of the Seaspray Group. The evidence is
overwhelming. There now exists a thoroughly tested Cenozoic
palynological zonation scheme (Stover & Partridge 1973;
Partridge 2006), and extensive stratigraphic drilling between the
coal measures succession within the Latrobe Valley and the
marine succession in the basin proper (Holdgate 1985). But that
was not always the case.
In earlier days, the coals in outcrop and shallow bores in the
Latrobe Valley were interpreted to be Paleocene to Eocene in age,
to belong to the Anglesea Stage, and to everywhere underlie the
marine sediments in the onshore Gippsland Basin (FA Singleton
1935, 1941; Crespin 1943). This viewpoint was the accepted norm
at the time of the first hydrocarbon discovery in the offshore
Gippsland Basin in 1965 in the Esso Gippsland Shelf No. 1 well,
now renamed Barracouta 1, and it was reinforced by the publication
in the preceding year of the then seminal work on the
onshore Gippsland Basin by Carter (1964). There were, of course,
dissenting opinions (Süssmilch 1937, Crespin 1945, and others).
The ‘Latrobe Valley Coal Measures’ when proposed by Thomas
and Baragwanath (1949, p 43), were certainly thought to be older
than the marine section and were therefore also applied to the
coal measures underlying (what became) the Seaspray Group to
the east of the Latrobe Valley. Carter (1964) included all the
subsurface section between the top of the Strzelecki Group and
base of the Lakes Entrance Formation within the ‘Latrobe Valley
Coal Measures’ and applied the term throughout the onshore
portion of the basin. The exceptional thickness of the coals in the
Latrobe Valley was simply attributed to slower depositional rates
in the valley, and did not have any age connotations. There were
no paleontological tools available at the time to independently
determine the age of the coal seams in the Latrobe Valley.
The contentious term ‘Latrobe Group’ was introduced by
James and Evans (1971). This paper was written in late 1970 and
published at the eleventh APEA Conference in early 1971. The
second author, Dick (PR) Evans, was the principal supervisor of
my Master of Science, which both established the current
palynological zonation for Late Eocene through Late Miocene and
ultimately proved that the coal measures in the Latrobe Valley
did indeed correlate with the marine succession (Partridge 1971).
Although my thesis was not submitted until November 1971, my
general results were known to the authors writing the APEA
paper, and I recall there were discussions of the appropriateness
of using the term ‘Latrobe Valley’ throughout the whole basin.
My recollection is that the concepts of the two groups were
considered equivalent, but that the authors were trying to find a
general term for their discussion of the stratigraphy of the
offshore basin, and were concerned that ‘Latrobe Valley’ carried
a restricted geographic connotation. In the end they just dropped
‘Valley’ from the name because it did not seem appropriate to
the greater basin. Their Latrobe Group concept was 5 km of
monotonous and undifferentiated coal measures of Late
Cretaceous to Eocene age, with three localised marine formations
at the top of the group.
The above discussion provides the missing history needed to
understand what drove the creation of two variations of the one
name for one stratigraphic concept. To resolve this ambiguity it
would be nice to find a solution that is both true to the history of
how our understanding of the unit developed and is compliant with
the stratigraphic code. There are a number of issues involved.
First, there is the question of whether the terms ‘Latrobe
Valley’ and ‘Latrobe’ represent a single or two separate
geographic names The Australian Stratigraphy Commission
suggests we are only dealing with one name [and in any case
such similar names are not approved in the same basin — Ed].
The next question is which name has priority Barry Hocking was
the first to insist that the two names were synonymous and to
push for the use of ‘Latrobe Valley Group’ as the senior synonym
(Hocking 1972; Hocking et al 1976). But his recommendation has
never been adhered to, and the use of the contraction ‘Latrobe
Group’ has the ascendency in customary usage across most of
the basin. I am unsure about the precedent for the contraction
of double-barrelled geographic names overriding strict priority
in the Australian stratigraphic code, but any ruling insisting that
only the former name be used is unlikely to be followed.
We also need to discuss the solutions proposed by Fons
VandenBerg. His second recommendation, that the Latrobe Valley
Group “only be used in its original sense” is ambiguous. The
accompanying table implies that it should be restricted to just the
Morwell, Yallourn and Hazelwood formations, which only occur
within the Latrobe Valley. This is contradictory to the historical
application of the name to all of the coal measures across the
whole basin. His first recommendation, that the ‘Latrobe Group’ be
abandoned and replaced by the four offshore subgroups (Emperor,
TAG June 2012|19

What’s in a name continued
Golden Beach, Halibut and Cobia) raised to group status also has
problems. If the latter occurs, surely a Supergroup would still be
needed for the whole succession ‘Latrobe Supergroup’ would be
the obvious choice, making it necessary to find a new group name
for the Morwell, Yallourn and Hazelwood formations that are
restricted to the Latrobe Valley. A possible available name would
be the Maryvale Group, since it is intimately associated with the
brown coal fields in the Latrobe Valley.
The cause of all these issues is that the Gippsland Basin
contains continuous non-marine ‘coal measures’ consisting of
varying proportions of sandstones, siltstones, shales and coals
from all ages between the outcrops of the Miocene coals in the
Latrobe Valley, right back to the thin Turonian age coals recorded
from the subsurface in both the onshore and offshore portions
of the basin. These bland and repetitive lithologies have made
it very difficult to define a comprehensive framework of
lithostratigraphic units. The literature is littered with names that
have not proved to be workable as originally proposed (eg, Bodard
et al 1986; Thompson 1986). Notwithstanding these false starts,
a framework is emerging, although still not fully published
(Bernecker & Partridge, 2001, 2005; Bernecker et al 2003). A key
part of the framework is subdivision of the Latrobe Group into
four subgroups extending from the Turonian up into the Early
Oligocene. These in stratigraphic order are the Emperor, Golden
Beach, Halibut and Cobia subgroups. As yet the unconformities
between these subgroups are not as “well documented” as
implied by Fons VandenBerg, as they largely rely on palynological
evidence of missing sections and usually cannot be identified
solely by lithology. For the latter reason this author described
them as subgroups and would prefer that they were not raised
to group status.
In wrapping up, I am recommending a more practical solution,
which I believe is still true to the original concept of ‘Latrobe’
and will be more widely accepted by most workers in the
Gippsland Basin. I suggest that the name Latrobe Group be
retained for all the coal measure successions in the Gippsland
Basin from the Turonian to the Miocene, and that the grouping
of the Morwell, Yallourn and Hazelwood formations that are
restricted to the Latrobe Valley be renamed the Maryvale
Subgroup.
ALAN D PARTRIDGE
Biostrata Pty Ltd
C O M B I N E D R E F E R E N C E S – B O T H A R T I C L E S
Bernecker T & Partridge AD 2001. ‘Emperor and Golden Beach Subgroups: the onset of
Late Cretaceous sedimentation in the Gippsland Basin’ PESA Eastern Australian Basin
Symposium, p 391–401 + appendix on CD.
Bodard JM, Wall VJ & Kanen RA, 1986. Lithostratigraphic and Depositional Architecture
of the Latrobe Group, Offshore Gippsland Basin. In Second South-Eastern Australia Oil
Exploration Symposium, Glenie RC (Ed), Technical papers presented at PESA Symposium,
14–15 November 1985, Melbourne, p 113–136.
Bernecker T, Smith MA, Hill K & Constantine AE 2003. ‘Oil and gas’ In Birch WD (Ed),
Geology of Victoria. Geological Society of Australia Special Publication, Vol 23, p 469–487.
Carter AN 1964. ‘Tertiary foraminifera from Gippsland, Victoria and their stratigraphical
significance’ Geological Survey of Victoria Memoir No. 23, p 1–154.
Crespin I 1943. Stratigraphy of the Tertiary Marine in Gippsland, Victoria. Department
Supply & Shipping, Australia, Paleontology Bulletin 4.
Crespin I 1945. ‘Note on the paleogeography of the brown coal deposits of Gippsland,
Victoria’ Proceedings Royal Society of Victoria, Vol 57, p 49–56.
Douglas JG & Ferguson JA (Eds) 1988. Geology of Victoria. Geological Society of Australia,
Victoria Division, Melbourne.
Esso Exploration Australia Inc. 1966. Esso Gippsland Shelf No. 1 well [Barracouta 1] Bureau
of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics Petroleum Search Subsidy Acts Publication,
Vol 76.
Hocking JB 1972. ‘Geologic evolution and hydrocarbon habitat, Gippsland Basin’
APEA Journal, Vol 12, pt 1, p 132–137.
Hocking JB 1980. ‘Definition and revision of the Tertiary stratigraphic units, onshore
Gippsland Basin’ Geological Survey of Victoria Report 1976/1 (later renumbered to 35).
Hocking JB, Gloe CS & Threlfall WF 1976. ‘Gippsland Basin’ In Douglas JG & Ferguson JA
(Eds) Geology of Victoria. Geological Society of Australia Special Publication Vol 5,
p 248–273.
Holdgate GR & Gallagher SJ 2003. ‘Tertiary’ In Birch WD (Ed) Geology of Victoria,
Geological Society of Australia Special Publication, Vol 23, p 289–335.
James EA & Evans PR 1971. ‘The stratigraphy of the offshore Gippsland Basin’ Journal of
the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association Vol 11, p 71–74.
Murray RAF 1876. ‘Report on the geology and mineral resources of south western
Gippsland’ Progress Report of the Geological Survey of Victoria Vol 3, p 134–173.
Partridge AD 1971. Stratigraphic palynology of the onshore Tertiary sediments of the
Gippsland Basin, Victoria. MSc thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney,
302 pp (unpubl).
Partridge AD 2006. Late Cretaceous — Cenozoic palynology zonations Gippsland Basin.
In Australian Mesozoic and Cenozoic Palynology Zonations — update to 2004 Geologic Time
Scale, Monteil E (Coordinator) Geoscience Australia Record 2006/23, ISBN 1 921 236 05 1,
Chart 4 of 4.
Singleton FA 1935. Cainozoic. In Outline of the Physiography and Geology of Victoria.
Australasian Association for Advancement of Science, Handbook for Melbourne Meeting,
1935, p 128–135.
Singleton FA 1941. The Tertiary Geology of Victoria. Proceedings Royal Society of Victoria,
Vol 53, pt 1, p 1–125.
Smith GC 1988. ‘Oil and gas’ In Douglas JG & Ferguson JA (Eds) Geology of Victoria,
Geological Society of Australia, Victorian Division, Melbourne, p 514–546.
Staines HRE 1985. ‘Field geologist’s guide to lithostratigraphic nomenclature in Australia’
Australian Journal of Earth Sciences Vol 32, p 83–106.
Stover LE & Partridge AD 1973. ‘Tertiary and late Cretaceous spores and pollen from the
Gippsland Basin, southeastern Australia’ Proceedings Royal Society of Victoria, Vol 85, pt 2,
p 237–286.
Süssmilch CA 1937. ‘The Geological History of the Cainozoic Era in New South Wales’
Proceedings Linnean Society of NSW, Vol 62, pt 1–2, p 8–33.
Thomas DE & Baragwanath W 1949. ‘Geology of the brown coals of Victoria Part 1’
Mining and Geological Journal Vol 3 No 6, p 28–55.
Thompson BR 1986. The Gippsland Basin — Development and Stratigraphy. In Second
South-Eastern Australia Oil Exploration Symposium, Glenie RC (Ed), Technical papers
presented at PESA Symposium, 14–15 November, 1985, Melbourne, p 57–64.
VandenBerg AHM 2009. ‘Rock unit names in the Bendigo Zone portion of central Victoria,
Seamless Geology Project’ Geological Survey of Victoria Report Vol 129, p 10.
20 |
TAG June 2012

Society Update
Heritage Matters
The main subject of this issue’s column is the Geotourism
Subcommittee’s important initiative in facilitating partnerships
in various aspects of the Australian National
Landscapes (ANL) program. However, I would like to begin with
a few notes on the International Geological Congress (IGC),
Brisbane, August 2012, and the GSA-facilitated talks by
Professor José Brilha in Sydney and Adelaide.
Symposia on Geoheritage, Geoparks
and Geotourism at the 34th
International Geological Congress
Brisbane 5–12 August 2012 (http://www.34igc.org/)
All abstracts submitted have been processed and authors have
been notified of acceptance. There has been exceptional
interest on the Symposia on Geoheritage, Geoparks and
Geotourism, both from delegates in Australia, and overseas,
with a total of 74 oral presentations and posters. Standard
registration (reduced cost) closes on 15 July. For information
about field trips, geoheritage and field guides to Australia,
other publications on geoheritage in Australia, information on
the UNESCO’s Kanawinka Global Geopark of Victoria and South
Australia, and other notices see
http://web.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/Joyce/heritage/IGCGeo
heritageSymposia2012.html
Outcome of call for sponsorship
Molly Bakka Male, Uganda,
and billet required
To enable Ugandan geologist Molly Bakka Male to attend
the IGC, a total of $4450 was raised from the kind
contributions of a number of individuals, the Geological
Society of WA, and Syrinx Environmental Pty Ltd as a major
sponsor.
If anyone in Brisbane is able to sponsor the cost of
accommodation or host Molly from 3–12 August, this
would be greatly appreciated.
Molly extends her profound thanks to those who have
given her financial assistance.
Pre IGC GSA-facilitated talks
by Associate Professor José Brilha*
‘Challenges in Geoconservation —
Towards Science, Education and Geotourism’
NSW (TBA)
For information contact Dr Ian Percival at
ian.percival@industry.nsw.gov.au
South Australia
19 July 2012
Venue: The Mawson Theatre, Mawson Laboratories,
Adelaide University
Time: 6.15 pm
Donation: $5 per head
Information: apetts@flindersmines.com.au
*José Brilha is from the University of Minho (Portugal), and
Editor-in-Chief of Geoheritage, the first international peerreviewed
journal dedicated to geoconservation, which has been
published since 2009 by Springer. José is a member of the
Geoheritage International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS)
Task Group, a member of the Executive Committee of The
European Association for the Conservation of Geological
Heritage (ProGEO), and has been working on geoconservation
in Portugal and abroad for the last 13 years.
The Geological Society of Australia sponsored José Brilha’s
attendance at the International Geological Congress.
Geoscientists invited to
participate in Australia’s
National Landscape Program
Following the recent establishment of the Geotourism
Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Geological
Heritage, the GSA has submitted a protocol designed to
facilitate the engagement of Australian geoscientists with
Australia’s National Landscape (ANL) Program (refer
http://gsa.org.au/heritage/index.html). The ANL Program is a
partnership managed by Tourism Australia and Parks Australia
to identify and promote Australia’s most exceptional natural
and cultural experiences to an international tourism audience,
particularly to ‘experience seekers’.
TAG June 2012|21

The ANL Program aims to use existing networks and resources
to provide a collaborative and sustainable approach to tourism
planning, development and conservation, and currently includes
the following 13 ‘launched’ regions: Australian Alps (New South
Wales/Victoria); Australia’s Green Cauldron (New South Wales/SE
Queensland border region); Great Barrier Reef (Queensland);
Australia’s Red Centre and West Arnhem/Kakadu/Nitmiluk –
Australia’s Timeless North (Northern Territory); Australia’s Coastal
Wilderness (New South Wales/Victoria); the Flinders Ranges and
Kangaroo Island (South Australia); the Great Ocean Road
(Victoria); the Greater Blue Mountains (New South Wales); the
Kimberley, Ningaloo-Shark Bay and South West Edge (Western
Australia). Three other regions are also under active consideration
and progressing towards launching, ie the island of Tasmania,
Sydney Harbour, and the Wet Tropics area of North Queensland.
The ANL Program presents itself as an opportunity for the
Society to become actively involved in not only promoting
responsible and sustainable geotourism, but also raising the
level of awareness of Australia’s geoheritage assets in these
areas designated as National Landscapes, and about the need
for appropriate planning and management to ensure that
geoheritage values are both known and protected during the
course of the visitor experience.
The Geotourism Subcommittee believes that the inclusion of
focused information on places of geoheritage significance will
resonate with this discerning ANL target market, tapping into
the desire of ‘experience seekers’ to learn and engage with all
aspects of natural history, and in particular with geological
stories associated with the areas they are visiting. It is believed
that this approach will lead to raising the level of awareness by
ANL Steering Committees of what geologists and other
geoscientists are able to contribute by way of a multidisciplinary
approach to the interpretation and education
aspects of a whole range of tourism experiences. In addition,
geoscientist engagement will ensure that environmental
management of ANL areas can take into account all things both
biotic and abiotic.
Benefits to the GSA and ANL Program managers will include
‘opening the door’ on a variety of multidisciplinary research and
funding opportunities (such as the newly established Australian
Government TQUAL grants), that can be applied to ANL Steering
Committee endorsed projects. To begin with, funding, for
example, could be applied for within the scope of the ANL
Program for undertaking a geoheritage inventory as an input for
tourism, planning and management, and science and education.
One of the most significant deficiencies in ‘nature-based’
tourism, particularly relating to geoheritage, is the availability
of quality information for ready access by prospective visitors.
There is an opportunity for geological professionals, with
their excellent knowledge of the some 16 major regions
currently designated as either launched or proposed National
Landscapes, to provide expert advice and/or comment on the
interpretation of landscape features and geosites and
geoheritage issues generally, to discuss potential responsible
geotourism opportunities, assist with appropriate geosite
selection, to identify partnership opportunities, and to
participate in collaborative geotourism related projects. This
opportunity may extend to direct involvement in the ANL
Steering Committees, involvement in Experience Development
Strategy (EDS) planning workshops, and comment on the EDS
during the public consultation period and/or participating in
partnership opportunities. Geological Society of Australia
members can contribute to the ANL Program by filling the
geological gaps in the program by use of geological information
deriving from its members and access to the considerable
amount of information held by the large range of government
and non-government organisations that employ geoscientists in
Australia, all of which can enhance he development of
geotourism activities such as geotrails which will considerably
enhance the extraordinary, natural, enriching sensory
experiences offered in these outstanding National Landscape
regions.
For more details about GSA involvement in the ANL program
contact Angus M Robinson, GSA Heritage Geotourism Subcommittee
Chairperson email: angus@leisuresolutions.com.au
and information on the Australian National Landscapes Program
can be found on the ANL corporate website:
http://www.tourism.australia.com/en-au/marketing/5651_5544.aspx
MARGARET BROCX
National Convener, Geological Heritage
geoheritage@iinet.net.au
22 |
TAG June 2012

News
from the Divisions
VSSEC–NASA
Space Prize 2011
In February this year, Cynthia Rathini
Mahendran won the Category Award for
Geology and Planetary Geology in the 2011
Victorian Space Science Education Centre
(VSSEC) – NASA Australian Space Prize
Competition. The VSSEC–NASA Australian
Space Prize is open to all Australian undergraduates
and is based on their final year or
Honours thesis. The Geology and Planetary
Geology Category Award is sponsored by the
Specialist Group in Planetary Geoscience
(SGPG) of the Geological Society of Australia.
Rathini’s Honours project was part of a
greater aim to refine and possibly develop a
new dating system for planetary surfaces.
Establishing the ages of geological features
on planetary bodies from which rock and
mineral samples are not available is
commonly done through the construction
of impact crater isochrons, a chronology
method based on the density and size of
impact craters observed on planetary
surfaces. Rathini’s thesis stemmed from
previous work by supervisor (Dr Graziella
Caprarelli, UTS), which suggested that the
degree of erosion of impact craters could
systematically reflect the time elapsed since
impact. To test this hypothesis they selected
three regions of Mars known to have very
different ages, and used NASA satellite
imagery and altimetry to measure the
diameters and depths of thousands of observable
impact craters. The preliminary data
collected for Rathini’s thesis confirmed a
general inverse relationship between the
depths and ages of craters, as expected. This
relationship is complex, however, also
depending on the geological histories of the
regions studied. More work is needed in order
to determine and use new equations as a
new method for dating geological units on
Mars. This work is presently being carried out.
The principles of this method should also
apply to other planets.
As Category winner, Rathini was given the
opportunity to apply for selection in the final
VSSEC–NASA Australian Space Prize.
The prize-winner
participates in a
10-week Space Cadetship
at the NASA
Space Academy in
Ames (California,
USA). Although
Rathini did not win
the final prize,
participating was a
fantastic experience that encouraged her
resolve to continue her education in
planetary geoscience.
Image courtesy Cynthia
Rathini Mahendran.
Rathini says, “I am very grateful to the
VSSEC and the SGPG for the support they
provide young Australian Earth and Planetary
Science students in entering the competition.
Participating in the competition for the final
prize prompted me to look deep into myself
to clarify those personal attributes and skills
that I will need to rely upon to further my
education and to progress in life. This to me
is the ultimate prize, one that I will cherish
for many years to come.”
IGC Update
Mawson Centenary at IGC
This year marks the centenary of the first Australian-led Antarctic
expedition so it is fitting that International Geological Congress (IGC)
should commemorate the exploits of Sir Douglas Mawson and his
expedition with an emphasis on the Earth Sciences, not the dramas.
IGC is hosting four symposia on polar themes:
1. The geology of Antarctic life: history and habitats
2. Arctic tectonics
3. Rodinia to Gondwana: evolution of the southern supercontinents
4. Polar climate archives and their global significance.
In addition, there will be an exhibition of Antarctic geological maps in
open spaces at the conference centre provided by nations who are
members of the Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research (SCAR).
For the public, there will be an evening event entitled ‘Frontiers in
Antarctic Earth Sciences: What would Mawson do now’ The event
will recognise that cutting-edge science was a major focus of the
1911–1914 Australasian Antarctic Expedition by sampling some of the
latest results from Antarctic research. Speakers will give lectures on
the latest airborne geophysics, Antarctic corals and how sea-floor
geology influences sea-floor life and what Antarctic climate records
tell us about Australian beaches.
PHIL O’BRIEN
Polar Theme Coordinator
phil.obrien.ant@gmail.com
Congratulations
David Cooke and
Bruce Gemmell
Global industry acknowledges geoscience
research team with inaugural AMIRA award
David Cooke and Bruce Gemmell from the Centre for Ore
Deposit Studies at the University of Tasmania have been
awarded the inaugural AMIRA Medal for excellence in
geoscience research.
David and Bruce received the award for their investigation of
geochemical vectors in magmatic hydrothermal systems in
porphyry copper deposits. They were presented with the
award in front more than 100 exploration managers and
geoscience researchers at AMIRA’s biennial global conference
of exploration managers, held this year in Western Australia.
AMIRA Chairman, Dr Neville Plint, Head of Research and
Development at Anglo Platinum, said selection for the
newly instituted award was based on “…significant and
lasting impact on exploration practice; originality, exemplary
technology transfer and research leadership, management
and collaboration.”
TAG June 2012|23

News
from the Specialist Groups
Australasian Sedimentologists
Group (ASG)
Dear friends and members of the ASG — just a quick note.
With the International Geological Congress (IGC) fast approaching, the
ASG would like to announce that we will be offering financial support
to students who are presenting papers at the meeting that are related
to Sedimentology. Interested students can apply for funding to cover
registration or travel, up to $1000. We will also be holding an evening
meeting during the IGC with drinks and nibbles, the details of which will
be announced closer to the meeting. I would also like to ask our
membership if you would be interested in attending a smaller meeting
later in 2012 or early 2013 Please send inquiries to my email address.
Sincerely,
BRADLEY OPDYKE
Chair Australasian Sedimentologists Group
Bradley.Opdyke@anu.edu.au
One hundred and ten delegates were transported to Waratah Bay
on Sunday 29 January. After registration, delegates enjoyed a welcome
barbecue catered by Brett Kuhne. The committee endeavoured to support
local industry during the conference by providing local wines and
produce. Monday morning’s presentations began bright and early with
large-scale tectonics the main theme. Dietmar Muller, Wouter Schellart,
Christian Teyssier and Neil Mancktelow all delivered wonderful keynote
addresses. The evening poster sessions were equally as interesting and
discussions continued well into the night, accompanied by wine and
award-winning cheese.
Tuesday morning’s presentations mostly centred on larger scale
tectonic environments including rifting, shear zones and active faults.
Mark Quigley delivered a great talk on the structural anatomy of the NZ
active faults. Afternoon sessions covered some of Victoria’s geology and
introduced the mid-conference field trip to Walkerville and Cape Liptrap
scheduled for Wednesday.
Tectonics and Structural Geology
(SGTSG)
New Committee
The new Specialist Group in Tectonics and Structural Geology (SGTSG)
committee has elected its officers for this coming term:
Professor Gordon Lister (Chair)
Dr George Gibson (Treasurer)
Dr Richard Blewett (Secretary)
Committee members are
Professor Stephen Cox
Dr Marnie Foster
Dr Geoff Fraser
Dr Simon McClusky
Waratah Bay Conference
The SGSTG held its biennial conference Cause and effects of deformation
in the lithosphere 29 January – 3 February 2012. The main conference
at Waratah Bay, Victoria was preceded by a workshop held the weekend
before in the School of Geosciences Dynamic Earth Teaching Laboratory
at Monash University. The workshop focused on numerical modelling
presentations and software demonstrations. The workshop was attended
by 50 delegates and included guest speakers such as Sandra Piazolo,
Mark Jessell, Ali Karrech, Peter Schaubs, Patrice Rey, Weronika Gorczyk,
Guillaume Duclaux, Fabio Capitanio, Klaus Gessner, Paul Bons, Louis
Moresi, Laurent Ailleres, Mark Lindsay and Thomas Carmichael. Many
enjoyed Friday night drinks, during which discussions continued. The
finale was marked by a lovely dinner at the Exchange Hotel in Port
Melbourne. It was a hot summer evening and with views of Port Philip
Bay, it was the perfect introduction to the main conference and the trip
to Waratah Bay in South Gippsland.
Fold stack in all its glory. Image courtesy Stefan Vollgger and Caroline Venn.
24 |
TAG June 2012

Ross Cayley, from GeoScience Victoria, and Vince Morand prepared
a very detailed excursion guide to the region. This can be purchased from
the GSA (SGTSG Field Guide no. 17, Geological Society of Australia ISBN
978–0–9806264–9–0). The group travelled by bus to visit the Waratah
Fault and associated structures at The Bluff. Deformed low-grade, Early
Devonian deep-marine Liptrap Formation turbidites juxtaposed with
low-grade shallow marine Waratah Limestone could be seen at this site.
Ross explained the outcrop (see photograph) and people asked questions,
engaged in discussion and enjoyed the beautiful weather and south
Gippsland beaches. Gary Gibson also pointed out recent seismic activity
that had occurred on the Waratah Fault and in the Gippsland region.
The group then divided into two. Some proceeded along the wavecut
platforms to Digger Island while others travelled by bus to the Fold
Stack near the Cape Liptrap Lighthouse. At Digger Island the Late
Cambrian unconformity separating deformed mafic volcanics and
metagabbro from overlying Late Cambrian siliciclastics and Lowest
Ordovician shelf limestone could be seen. At the Fold Stack an amazing
three-dimensional outcrop of spectacular F 1 folds in the Liptrap Formation
is exposed. People enjoyed both site visits. It was a long (hot) walk
back up the cliffs at the end of the day, but Bruce Hobbs and Chris
Wilson assured us they were following the track, even though parts of
it forced us to crawl through the scrub.
The day ended with a welcome reward — a visit to Basia Mille
Winery at Fish Creek. This beautiful winery, run by Tony and Geraldine
Conabere, has the feel of Tuscany and is set on a hill with spectacular
views of Wilsons Promontory. The wine was exquisite and delegates
enjoyed the cheese and olives in a very relaxed atmosphere. Bruce Hobbs
presented the Bruce Hobbs Medal for Structural Geology to Mike
Sandiford from Melbourne University for his research contribution that
relates the thermal and structural evolution of the continents. In
particular, Mike’s work has provided a new framework for understanding
of the relationship between the crustal stress field and earthquake
hazards, and of Australia’s landscape evolution.
As a finale, Gordon Lister presented ‘Closing Tethys’ as an evening
talk. It initiated more discussions, which continued with poster sessions
and more socialising late into the evening.
On Thursday, the session themes were mainly experimental and
numerical modelling. Paul Bons, Mark Jessell and David Prior gave great
keynote addresses. The conference dinner was held later that evening
at the Fish Creek Hotel, a classic Aussie pub (with the big fish on the
roof). Amy Robson, owner of the pub, prepared an amazing menu and
local wines once more. The Chris Powell Medal for Postgraduate
Research in Tectonics and Structural Geology, shared by Kara Mathews
from Sydney University and John Stewart from Monash University, was
presented at the Conference Dinner. Kara’s paper was based on her
Honours work and is entitled ‘Dynamic subsidence of Eastern Australia
during the Cretaceous’, published in Gondwana Research 19, 372–383
in 2011. This paper coupled kinematic mantle convection modelling and
differentiates two end-member models, one in which the Cretaceous
subduction zone east of Australia was located directly east of the
reconstructed continental margin, and a second with subduction about
1000 km to the east, implying the existence of a large back-arc basin.
John Stewart’s paper was based on his PhD work and is entitled ‘Late
Paleo–Mesoproterozoic plate margin deformation in the southern Gawler
Craton: Insights from structural and aeromagnetic analysis’,
published in Precambrian Research 177, 55–72 in 2010. This paper presents
an innovative approach to multi-scale structural analysis —
microstructure, field observations and geophysical interpretation — to
Ross Cayley providing information on the mid-conference field trip. Image
courtesy Stefan Vollgger and Caroline Venn.
unravel and reconstruct the tectonic history of a complex polydeformed
terrane at the Mesoproterozoic boundary immediately before one of the
largest thermal events to affect the Australian continent.
Congratulations to Kara and John!
Friday’s sessions were directed towards individual study areas. Many
of Australia’s very talented PhD students took the opportunity to present
their research on this day.
The main conference closed on Friday after a full and enjoyable week
with the best student presentation awards to Paul Stenhouse (oral
presentation on fluid flow during growth of normal faults in Oman) from
the ANU and Rowan Hansberry (poster presentation on the Arkaroola
Basin, SA) from the University of Adelaide. The awards were followed by
the AGM, during which it was decided that ACT would organise the next
SGTSG in 2014. A provisional committee including Gordon Lister, George
Gibson, Richard Blewett, Geoff Fraser, Stephen Cox and Marnie Forster
was formed.
Most people said their goodbyes and were taken back to Melbourne
Airport. Others who participated in the post-conference field trip
departed for Eastern Victoria. Ross Cayley and Vince Morand led a very
organised and interesting field trip over the next five days to explore
the Eastern Lachlan Fold Belt. Locations included:
n Rawson to Mansfield to examine the structure of the eastern
Melbourne Zone
n Mansfield to Bright to look at the Tabberabbera Zone and
Omeo Zone
n Bright to Omeo to study the structural style of the eastern Tabberabbera
Zone (low-grade turbidites), the Omeo Zone (high-grade metamorphics
and various granites) and the Ensay Shear Zone (dextral
strike-slip)
TAG June 2012|25

A great way to end the day of the mid-conference field trip. Chris Wilson,
Mike Sandiford, Bruce Hobbs, Peter Betts and Mervyn Paterson at Basia Mille
Winery, Fish Creek. Images courtesy Stefan Vollgger and Caroline Venn.
n Omeo to Mt Beauty to look at the exposed Omeo Metamorphic
Complex migmatite, gneiss and granites; Nelse Shear Zone (dextral
strike-slip) and various undeformed dykes
n Mt Beauty to Melbourne to study the Kiewa Shear Zone and the
Kancoona Shear Zone — this was the last leg of the trip.
On behalf of the SGTSG Committee, I would like to thank GeoScience
Victoria for their support of the conference, in particular Ross and Vince
for all their hard work organising the field aspects of the conference and
for the field guide publications. Various sponsors also made the conference
a great success; these included AngloGold Ashanti, Oz Minerals
and the School of Geosciences at Monash University. I also thank Sue
Fletcher from GSA who answered many of our questions along the way.
Thanks to the outgoing committee of Chris Wilson (Vice Chair), Alan
Aitken (Treasurer) and Tim Rawling (Secretary) for their commitment to
the conference. The staff and students at Monash helped with logistics
before and during the conference. Finally, I express my greatest appreciation
to Caroline Venn, whose hard work and organisation ensured the
success of the conference. We are looking forward to the next SGTSG in
ACT and we hope everyone who attended the Waratah Bay Conference
enjoyed it as much as we did.
PETER BETTS
Monash University
A view from the cliff top at Cape Liptrap.
26 |
TAG June 2012

NEWS
In the news this issue
n National Rock Garden
n Largest limestone
gorge in Australia
n World’s biggest eye
on the sky
The aim of the National Rock Garden is,
in part, ‘to acknowledge and celebrate
Australia’s rich geological heritage.’
The public mostly take the landscapes across
the Australian continent for granted without
thinking too much about how they were
formed. I know this from conducting geological
tours for the public around Canberra. I can go
to the Kosciuszko National Park information
centres and can find everything about furry animals,
plants, fish, settlers, stockmen, frogs,
snakes, skiing and bushwalking but absolutely
nothing about how the landscapes in the Australian
Alps were formed. Being a ‘grey nomad’
I know tourists spend heaps and heaps of
money visiting remote and spectacular landscapes
not realising they have been formed by
geological and associated climatic processes
operating over millions and billions of years. It
is up to Earth Scientists to tell them. I hope the
National Rock Garden and its educational links
will help fill this void.
The website associated with the National Rock
Garden is slowly being assembled and part of it
will be devoted to showing images of the geology
from across the whole continent, onshore
and offshore.
Meanwhile, the National Rock Garden has
obtained a booth at the International Geological
Congress in Brisbane. Work is going ahead
to spread the word about Australia’s geological
heritage around the world with posters and
publicity. A lot of delegates will be making a
considerable effort to come to Australia for this
conference, so let’s show them something of
the continent’s geology and landscapes that
they might not otherwise see.
Kosciuszko summit — how did this treeless landscape evolve Image courtesy Doug Finlayson.
WE WANT YOUR SPECTACULAR
PHOTOS OF GEOLOGICAL
FEATURES AND LANDSCAPES
FROM EVERY PART OF AUSTRALIA
The images have got to have that ‘wow’
factor — high definition images. Ancient and
modern reefs and limestones. Ancient and
modern river systems. Folding and faulting both
ancient and modern. Deserts and gibber plains.
Underground and open-cut mining . Coastlines
and islands. Fossils ancient and modern. Let’s
have these images long buried in the depths of
your computer archives and bottom drawers.
Contact Doug by email.
Lord Howe Island — well worth a geological
excursion. Image courtesy Doug Finlayson.
Stomatolites at Hamelin Pool, Western Australia.
Image courtesy Brad Pillans.
DOUG FINLAYSON
doug.finlayson@netspeed.com.au
TAG June 2012|27

Largest limestone
gorge in Australia:
the Murray River east
of Adelaide,
South Australia
As a retired hard-rock geologist who spent
most of his career mapping in central and
northern Australia, I was surprised to find
between Blanchetown and Murray Bridge,
90 km to the south, a stretch of the Murray
River that is confined to a spectacular
meandering gorge generally less than 2 km
wide and up to 50 m deep. I encountered this
gorge when travelling by boat along the
Murray River in South Australia during
January this year.
This gorge has been incised into flat-lying,
richly fossiliferous, whitish marine limestone
belonging to the mainly Miocene (23–5 Ma)
Murray Group. The group forms a widespread
low plateau extending a few kilometres
west to the Adelaide Hills, and many more
kilometres eastwards into Victoria. Fossil
evidence indicates that this limestone
(another surprise for me) is mainly Miocene
in age, and hence correlates with the marine
limestone that forms the extensive Nullarbor
Plain west of Adelaide. The limestone forming
the gorge is up to 300 m thick and rests
unconformably on pre-Tertiary bedrock,
including granite (exposed in a quarry at
Mannum). The limestone is capped by shallow
soils and patches of calcrete.
The flat floor of the limestone gorge contains
the meandering channel of the present-day
Murray River and its adjacent narrow floodplain.
The meanders of the present channel
are much smaller than those of the enclosing
gorge, with the result that the river swings
from one side of the gorge to the other. The
gorge’s vertical walls are breached in places,
as near the township of Mannum. Neither the
course of the river channel nor that of the
gorge itself appears to be controlled by
faulting.
The incision of the limestone to form the
gorge clearly postdates deposition of the
Murray Group, and represents a period of
gentle uplift starting less than 5 Ma ago.
During this period the rate of uplift kept pace
with the rate of incision.
Murray River gorge 33 km south of Blanchetown in March 2012. View looking west from the top
of the eastern wall, across the flat floor of the gorge 50 m below to the present river channel and
adjacent partly inundated floodplain. Cliffs on the far side of the gorge are nearly 2 km away.
Image courtesy Dr BS Middleton.
Flat-lying Miocene limestone exposed on the vertical sides of the Murray River gorge south of
Blanchetown. Image courtesy Dr BS Middleton.
The Murray gorge is much more extensive than
the famous Devonian limestone gorges in the
Kimberley region of NW Australia, and is just
as spectacular scenically and geologically. It is
also much more accessible to most Australians.
These are benefits that deserve to be promoted
by the local tourism industry.
R E F E R E N C E
Brown, CM & Stephenson, AE 1991, ‘Geology of the
Murray Basin’ Bureau of Mineral Resources, Australia,
Bulletin, Vol 235.
DAVID BLAKE
28 | TAG June 2012

World’s biggest eye
on the sky
You may have seen some news lately about a
giant radio telescope called the Square Kilometre
Array (SKA). When complete in 2025 it
will be the world’s largest telescope, vastly
more sensitive than today’s best instruments.
The SKA will be able to pick up fainter signals
and see further into space than ever before,
allowing astronomers to study the formation
of the early Universe, and will even be capable
of detecting the first stars, galaxies and
other structures to exist.
Radio telescopes are those big bowl-shaped
things — or dishes — that you might have
seen on country road-trips. They collect radio
waves originating in space, rather than the
visible light that other telescopes collect.
They give astronomers a very different view
of the Universe and what’s out there.
As the name implies, the SKA will have a
collecting area of about one square kilometre
or a million square metres. A single dish or
panel with this collecting area would be too
heavy to steer or support itself, so instead of
a single antenna, the SKA’s collecting area
will be made up of a vast array of smaller
antennas — arranged in clusters spread over
3000 kilometres or more. The antennas will
be linked electronically to make up one
enormous telescope.
The combination of the largest-ever collecting
area, versatility and sensitivity will make
the SKA the world’s best imaging and survey
telescope over a wide range of radio frequencies,
producing the sharpest pictures of the
sky of any radio telescope.
So where do you build a telescope that’s got
to be 3000 km wide and away from radio
signals generated by human activity Turns
out the desert in Western Australia, or in
South Africa, are the best places for the
dense core of the SKA. Australia and New
Zealand have been bidding against a group of
eight African countries since 2006 for the
right to host this giant science project, and
the decision is about to be made. In fact, you
may have even heard the result by the time
this issue of TAG is published. Ultimately, the
decision-making process is confidential, but it
will be made by the SKA member countries,
namely Canada, China, Italy, the Netherlands
and the UK. Where the SKA ends up will
be based on a range of factors, including
suitability of the site and many other
considerations.
If the Aus–NZ bid is successful, the core will
be in the Murchison Shire, northeast of Perth,
with antennas stretching across Australia and
to New Zealand in a squashed spiral pattern.
For more information and to hear more about
Australian and New Zealand work towards
the SKA visit http://www.ska.gov.au
KIRSTEN GOTTSCHALK
International Centre
for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR)
Artist’s impression of the SKA dishes. Each dish
is 15 m wide and over four stories tall. Image
courtesy Swinburne Astronomy Productions and
the SKA Project Development Office (SPDO).
TAG June 2012|29

Recognition
GSA Fellow
Frederick Lin Sutherland:
Geological Career
and Profile
Lin Sutherland was enticed into geology, a new
subject at Launceston High School, in 1954. The
teacher, Bill Phillips, pointed out the window to
dolerite hills bathed in sunshine and exclaimed,
“There is your laboratory!” Lin went on to study
at the University of Tasmania and concentrated
on geology and inorganic chemistry as his
graduate subjects. For his BSc (Hons) he studied
dolerite structures north of Hobart and secondary
minerals in Tasmanian mafic rocks, before
starting an MSc study on Cenozoic sequences
in the Tamar Trough (1961–1966). His early
employment involved curating geological
collections at the Queen Victoria Museum,
Launceston; the Tasmanian Museum, Hobart;
and the West Coast Pioneers Memorial
Museum, Zeehan. This enabled him to become
familiar with a wide range of minerals, rocks
and fossils from classical overseas and
Australian localities. He could also participate
in varied scientific, educational and public
programs in geological topics.
In a change of venue, Lin began part-time PhD
study while employed as a Lecturer in
Mineralogy and Petrology at James Cook
University in North Queensland in 1971. In this
study Lin analysed Cenozoic volcanic sequences
in the North Bowen Basin under the supervision
of the late Jon Stephenson, and he was
awarded a doctorate in 1980. Lin’s career as a
‘museum geologist’ began in earnest on his
appointment as Curator of Mineralogy and
Petrology at the Australian Museum, Sydney in
1973. During his active service at the museum,
he progressed to a Principal Research Scientist
position, retiring in late 2001. He maintains a
base at the museum as a Senior Fellow and also
continues geological studies as an Adjunct
Professor in the School of Science and Health,
University of Western Sydney, since an
appointment there in 2003.
At the Australian Museum, Lin undertook many
duties supervising and researching the mineral,
rock, meteorite, gemstone and geo-archival
collections, assisted by technical staff. The
previous Curator, Oliver Chalmers, was a
valuable mentor providing a wealth of
experience and contacts. The collections were
built up through new programs and geological
appointments under expanding fieldwork,
exchanges, purchases and donations involving
other Australian and overseas museums.
Collectors, dealers, prospectors, mining
companies, mineral shows and other interested
parties also contributed to the collections. Two
major mineral galleries were installed during
this period, both still extant. The Planet of
Minerals Gallery in the Long Hall was opened by
the Premier of New South Wales in 1984 and
the world-class Chapman Collection, bought by
the New South Wales Government, was added
in an adjacent annexe in 1996. Many temporary
displays kept fresh geological topics before the
public eye. These included a highland moon rock
from an Apollo mission, the Mawson Antarctic
rocks for the 1976 International Geological
Conference in Sydney, a Centenary of Broken
Hill Mining exhibit in 1983 and a gemstone
display for the International Gemmological
Conference in Sydney in 1985.
Among his educational activities, Lin gave many
geological talks, workshops, demonstrations
and field excursions for Australian Museum
members, volunteers and staff, the general
public, schools, business bodies, astronomy
associations, and lapidary, gem and field geology
clubs and societies. He responded to many
media requests for newspaper and radio
comments and TV appearances. He has written
many short articles and several books on
popular geological topics including Gemstones
of the Southern Continents (Reed Books, 1991),
The Volcanic Earth (UNSW Press, 1995),
Earthquakes and Volcanoes (Readers Digest,
2000), Gemstones & Minerals of Australia (with
Gayle Webb, Reed New Holland, 2000) and
Geology of Barrington Tops Plateau (with
Ian Graham, TAMS, 2003).
In his scientific research, Lin lists over 140 peerreviewed
publications in Australian and international
journals and books, with over a
hundred as main author. He has presented his
research at more than a hundred scientific
meetings around Australian and worldwide
venues and helped compile several GSA field
guides. His early studies on Tasmanian geology
broadened into wider aspects of volcanism and
magmas, high-pressure lithospheric studies,
geochronology, volcanic and stratigraphic
correlations and effects of meteoritic impacts in
extinction events. The origin of gemstones
became a major interest and more lately
geodiversity and its role in national parks and
reserves. He was an examiner for University
Hons, MSc and PhD theses, an Australian
research Grants Assessor (1990–1994) and a
reviewer for a wide range of geological journals.
Lin Sutherland (right) with Australian gem
research colleague Ahmadjan Abduruiyim at his
Gemological Association of America Institution
(GIA) laboratory stand at the Tucson Gem &
Mineral Show, Arizona, February 2012. Image
courtesy Gayle Sutherland.
Lin has long supported the Geological Society
of Australia. He was Secretary and Chair,
Tasmanian Division (1968–1973), SGGMP NSW
Representative 1981, Secretary NSW Division
(2002–2003), GSA Convention Publications
Officer 2004 and AJES editorial member (2006–
2012). He was elected a Fellow of the Society in
2010. A Life Member of the Mineralogical
Society of NSW (since 1975), he was President
in 1991–1992 and Betty Mayne Lecturer in
2003. He represented the Australian Museum
on the NSW Government Geological
Co-ordination Committee (1973–1989) and was
on The Australian Museum Records editorial
board (1983–1992). As a Royal Society of New
South Wales Council member (1975–1995), he
became President (1987–1988 and 1992–1993)
and was awarded the Society Medal in 1991. He
remains an editorial advisor for the Australian
Gemmologist (1987–2012). A delegate in the
International Mineralogical Association, he
served in the Commission on Museums
(1975–2000) and in the Commission on Gem
Materials as Secretary (1998–2000) and Vice
Chair (2000–2012). He was Australian
co-ordinator for the International Geological
Correlation Program IGCP 314, Alkaline and
Carbonatitic Rocks (1993–1995).
A keen supporter of The Planetary Society based
in USA, Lin’s name is among those inscribed on
the Mars Pathfinder, which landed in 1997. His
main regret is that the Australian Museum’s
senior management has closed geoscience
appointments such as allowed him to enjoy
such a fruitful geological career.
30 |
TAG June 2012

Feature
Still no Mawson: Frank Stillwell’s
Antarctic diaries 1911–1913
Just over one hundred years ago, 23-year-old geologist
Frank Stillwell left Hobart on the ship Toroa to join Douglas
Mawson’s Australasian Antarctic Expedition. The
expedition is now famous for Mawson’s survival against all odds
on a sledging trip that resulted in disaster, a story Mawson told
in The home of the blizzard, published in 1915.
Much later, Fred and Eleanor Jacka (Jacka & Jacka 1988)
published the edited text of Mawson’s diaries. In 2011–2014,
the centenary years of the expedition, other records of the
expedition are coming to light. Frank Stillwell’s Antarctic diaries
and field notebooks are held by the Australian Academy of
Science. With generous support from Geoscience Australia, the
Geological Society of Australia and the National Library of
Australia, the Academy published them in May this year as
Still no Mawson: Frank Stillwell’s Antarctic diaries 1911–13, edited
by Bernadette Hince.
Frank Stillwell at his plane table, Australasian Antarctic Expedition. “Hurley
photographed half a dozen of the fellows, including self, at the plane table”
(Stillwell diary, 3 September 1912). Photograph by Frank Hurley, Mitchell
Library (item ON 144/Q24), State Library of New South Wales.
Mawson left Hobart on the expedition ship Aurora in
December 1911, meeting the men from the Toroa at Macquarie
Island, where a party of five men disembarked to establish a radio
station and perform meteorological observations. The Aurora
then headed south. Mawson (Dux Ipse, the ‘leader himself’) and
17 other men established a ‘Main Base’ at Cape Denison, a rocky
promontory in Commonwealth Bay. The ship left a third party of
eight men on the Shackleton Ice Shelf, 1500 miles [about
2400 km] west of Cape Denison.
On 11 January 1912, Frank Stillwell went ashore in Antarctica
for the first time. He wrote: “Heavy mast spars for wireless were
lashed together for a raft and towed ashore. A good deal of long
hut timber was dealt with in same way [sic]. The method served
to give the timber a useful wash. The deck material had got into a
filthy condition. After lunch my turn came to go ashore and form
one of the landing party. The landing is made in a small beautiful
natural harbour.”
The crowded hut at Main Base existed in a ‘river of wind’. It
took five months to erect the two radio masts, which a storm
then destroyed within five weeks.
In the summer of 1912–1913, three men — Robert Bage,
Frank Hurley and Eric Webb — headed due south to the region of
the South Magnetic Pole. They calculated that they were within
about 50 miles [about 80 km] of the Pole. Short of time, they
turned back for Main Base. On the return, Stillwell noted that
Bage’s party “missed their 67 mile depot through bad weather
and mist and bolted home on something less than quarterrations
covering the 67 [miles] in 2½ days.”
Stillwell himself led two mapping and surveying journeys east
along the coast in the summer. On his second night out with
Charles Laseron and John Close, all three almost died from carbon
monoxide poisoning. Realising what was happening, Close
managed to put his ice axe through the roof of their snow shelter
before he collapsed unconscious. “The small hole that Close made
... probably saved our lives by allowing enough air to filter
through and gradually revive us,” wrote Stillwell.
Stillwell was a serious, private and quiet man. Charles Laseron
visited a rocky isle with him and collected some skua eggs at a
rookery. “On his return journey to the tent, Frank carried the eggs
in his pyjama coat,” wrote Laseron (1947, p 175), “and on arrival
found one broken. It made a terrible mess, and as the poor chap
was a non-swearer, he had no relief.”
TAG June 2012|31

Frank Stillwell’s diary, 27 January 1913. Stillwell papers, Australian Academy of
Science Basser Library ms 40, Canberra.
In the 1912–1913 summer, field trips set out to explore along
the coast and the near-coastal inland ice, mostly man-hauling
sledges. They were to return to the hut by the end of December.
A fortnight later Mawson’s party was the only one that had failed
to return. Reflecting the anxiety in the hut, Stillwell began his
diary day after day with “No Mawson” ... “No Mawson” and on
27 January, “Still no Mawson. The most optimistic among us now
are beginning to have fears not easily calmed.”
The fate of Mawson’s fellow sledgers Belgrave Ninnis and
Xavier Mertz is now well known, but Stillwell and his companions
had no way of knowing it. When February began with no sign of
the missing party, most assumed that the three men had died.
Mawson finally reached the hut, to see the Aurora steaming
out of Commonwealth Bay. Frank Stillwell was aboard. As the
ship left the bay on 8 February 1913, news finally came. Stillwell
wrote: “A wireless message has just been received to say that
Dr Mawson has arrived at the hut, that Mertz and Ninnis are dead.
My God what terrific suffering there has been! The ship has put
about and we are steaming fast back into Commonwealth Bay.”
In continuing poor weather, the ship could not retrieve
Mawson and the other six men from the hut.
After Stilwell’s return, he had a distinguished life as a
mineralogist. He became president of Royal Society of Victoria,
and was elected a Fellow of the Academy of Science in its first
year, 1954. He did not marry, and the Academy holds all of his
papers, including his Antarctic journals.
Stillwell Island in the Way Archipelago (Commonwealth Bay)
and the Stillwell Hills were named after him, as was the mineral
stillwellite. His connection with the Geological Society of
Australia endures through the Stillwell medal, awarded annually
by the Society for the most outstanding geological paper of the
year.
How to buy the book
Still no Mawson: Frank Stillwell’s Antarctic diaries 1911–13 is
available from the Australian Academy of Science
(http://www.science.org.au) for $24.95 plus postage.
BERNADETTE HINCE
Australian Academy of Science
coldwords@gmail.com
R E F E R E N C E S
Jacka, F & Jacka E (Eds) 1988. Mawson’s Antarctic diaries, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Laseron CF 1947. South with Mawson, Australasian Publishing Company, Sydney.
Members of the Eastern Coastal Party at Cape Denison, before the December
1912 sledging trip. L to R — John Close, Frank Stillwell and Charles Laseron.
Photograph by John Hunter, courtesy Mitchell Library (item ON 144/Q35),
State Library of NSW.
32 |
TAG June 2012

Special Report 1
Engineering Geology —
a Loss-of-identity Problem
The latest Geological Society of Australia (GSA) Register of
Members has revealed that in recent years only 26 members on
average have given ‘engineering or environmental geology’ as
their employment area — just 1.2% of the society’s membership. A scan
through the members’ list for people who I know work in these fields
suggests that this proportion is more or less correct. It is also much lower
than my recollections from the late 1960s, when engineering geologists
— which in those days included hydrogeologists (how the child has
outstripped its parent!) — made up perhaps 10% of the geological
workforce. Significantly, 30% of the employees in my geotechnical section
at Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) are geology graduates, yet I am the only one
who has ‘geologist’ in a work title or is a GSA member. In my experience,
this 20–30% proportion of geologists is fairly typical of consulting
geotechnical firms in Australia. At a rough guess there would be at least
300 geologically qualified people working in the geotechnical field in
Australia, but only about one in twelve would be a member of GSA.
Another anomaly is the number of members who have elected to be
part of the Environmental, Engineering and Hydrogeology Specialist Group
(EEHSG). This has averaged 160 over 2006–2011, representing about six
times the number identifying themselves as employed in this sector. It
would appear that there are many more GSA members who are interested
in EEH than who actually work in it.
On another note, in the 40-odd years that I have been receiving AJES
and its predecessor, I doubt that there has been more than a handful of
papers dealing with engineering geology, even in its widest
definition. There is no equivalent to the Engineering Group of the
Geological Society of London and its influential Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology. I can recall only one or two local
people completing a PhD in engineering geology at an Australian
university, and certainly there were none completed in my eleven years
lecturing at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in 1987–1998.
Coursework Masters there were by the dozen, but not a single completed
research degree.
Where have all the engineering geologists gone Well, one clue is that
in about 1970 most worked for public authorities such as the Geological
Surveys or Main Roads departments — working alongside other geologists
and sharing in their identity. Now they work for large and small private
engineering consultancies — alongside engineers who outnumber them
three- or four-fold. In addition, there has been a slow but profound change
in engineering design and construction, a long-term transfer from the
public to the private sector. After a few years in such firms, geologists
begin to identify themselves as geotechnical or environmental engineers
and, in many cases, seek formal recognition as chartered engineers. Most
see the Australian Geomechanics Society, an arm of Engineers Australia,
Millbrook Dam, Adelaide Hills SA showing jointing pattern in downstream toe
excavation. All images courtesy Greg McNally.
TAG June 2012|33

Artesian borehole, Nepean floodplain Wallacia NSW, near Nepean Fault.
as better representing their professional interests than the GSA; the
possibility that membership of both might be complementary does not
gain many adherents.
The work done by geologists in geotechnical consultancies is
primarily fieldwork; it is investigation rather than design. Many
engineering geologists seek to widen their experience beyond borehole
logging and investigative fieldwork by acquiring geotechnical design skills
on the job. Much of this is both professionally enriching and career
advancing, and since it is largely based on numerical modelling, geologists
are at no disadvantage relative to engineers. We might hope that the
results from these models might at least be improved from having more
realistic input data.
While at UNSW, I noted that practising engineering geologists on
leave from their geotechnical firms overwhelmingly opted to do the
MEngSc in geotechnical engineering rather than the MAppSc or MSc in
engineering geology. However the converse does not occur. Although some
geotechnical engineers develop an interest in geology, I know of only one
engineer who was sufficiently interested to take a post-BE geology degree.
It is true that in some universities a combined BE (geotechnical) and BSc
(geology) is offered. However, few students take this very useful double
degree; I can think of only three among my acquaintances.
What else has been happening in Australian engineering geology over
the past 40 years Certainly there has been a big growth in
employment because most engineering structures, large and small, now
get some sort of geotechnical investigation. Up to about 1970 the only
structures that were subjected to thorough geological assessment were
dams — but this was also the end of the so-called ‘Big Dams Era’ and of
the Snowy Mountains Authority. In those days you were not a real
engineering geologist unless you had worked on a dam (I had to wait until
1977 for my dam). Roads, by contrast, were then constructed mainly by
day labour and hired plant on the ‘suck it and see’ principle; they cost
what they cost and in rural areas they were, in part, a form of government
assistance. The only drilling done was at bridge sites, and this was often
logged by draftspeople.
The growth of outsourced design and construction put an end to this
happy form of diseconomy. Geological surprises (‘latent conditions’)
became most unwelcome, since contractors had a habit of presenting large
claims for unexpected soil and rock conditions. Instead, contractors are
now given bulging volumes of borehole logs and test data, with
minimal interpretation, at the tendering stage and expected to form their
own judgement. On NSW highway projects, for example, the
average would now be almost one borehole or test pit per hundred
metres of road alignment.
This vast increase in geotechnical investigation has not, sadly, been
matched by an equal increase in geological knowledge. Where in the 1970s
nearly every investigated project, with its frugal drilling budget, marked
a step forward in our geological understanding and was carefully
interpreted, extrapolated and the results shared, the trend now
is towards ‘factual’ reports. These are Sydney phone-book-sized
compendiums of borehole logs, in situ results and laboratory test results
— but with minimal text and no subjective interpretation. The latter is
reserved for ‘interpretation reports’ which are, so far as possible, submitted
to designers and clients but withheld from tenderers lest a geological
misinterpretation be used as the basis for a subsequent contractor’s claim.
In this view enthusiastically pushed by public authority clients, borehole
logs are objective ‘facts’; all else is opinion and therefore not to be relied
upon. Geological interpretation, being at heart educated guessing, is
generally not encouraged.
As a result of all this drilling, a huge amount of near-surface soils and
bedrock information now resides in consultants’ and public authority’s
files (if they can be found). A large geotechnical consultancy might have
the results of 30 000 to 60 000 investigations in its archives, though most
of these would be minor walkovers. Thirty years ago some of these results
might have been shared in publications such as Engineering Geology of
the Sydney Region (1987). Attempts to produce a similar volume for
Brisbane have foundered because, among other reasons, individual firm’s
archives regarded as proprietary information to be guarded and used only
for the firm’s commercial advantage. Unlike mineral exploration reports,
there is no obligation to place these in the public domain.
Warren Dam spillway, Williamstown SA, showing
intense folding in Archean schist.
34 | TAG June 2012

In terms of technological change Australian engineering geologists
have not advanced much in 40 years. (This is not surprising, given their
reluctance to undertake research or write papers.) The main innovations
have come in geophysics, remote sensing (including borehole imagery)
and, especially, drilling and in situ testing. Digital cameras have greatly
improved the standard of core photography and improved bench-top geophysical
logging is on the way. The real cost of drilling has diminished
from the days when a10-m borehole was a day’s work for a three-person
crew to being 2–3 hours output from a two-person crew. Core losses,
even in very weak rock, are now the exception rather than the rule.
Drillers are now sober and literate. There are not yet many lady drillers,
but quite a significant proportion of engineering geologists and
geotechnical engineers are women. That indeed is a big change from
40 years ago.
What lies ahead
Dam spillway in peridotite, Kwe West, New Caledonia; elsewhere this rock
exhibits karst weathering.
GREG MCNALLY
Senior Engineering Geologist
Sinclair Knight Merz
Former railway ballast quarry, Darkes Peak SA, showing wedge failures in dipping quartzite.
TAG June 2012|35

IN FOCUS
First Australian Geoscience
Teaching Workshop
Geoscience teaching in Australian universities has
recently been facing several challenges, particularly
those associated with a rapid increase in undergraduate
student numbers. With some university classes doubling in size
over the past few years, teaching practices have had to adapt
quickly, and teachers are adopting new approaches to improve
student learning in both the classroom and the field. These
changes in teaching methods and practices are vital for
maintaining and improving graduate standards, despite
increasing student-to-staff ratios.
In late January, 40 geoscience lecturers from across
Australia gathered in Adelaide for the inaugural Australian
Geoscience Teaching Workshop. This workshop was the first
time that Australian geoscience academics had come together
for the sole purpose of discussing new teaching approaches,
techniques and strategies. This workshop also represented the
first event run by the newly formed Australian Geoscience
Learning and Teaching Network. This network links geoscience
departments in 12 universities spread across seven states and
territories to improve geoscience teaching.
The workshop was conducted over two days and included
26 presentations over seven sessions, as well as dedicated time
for open discussion on key teaching issues. Diverse topics were
covered, including methods for developing skills in fieldwork
and geophysics, methods for improving three-dimensional
visualisation, smoothing the transition from school to university,
assessment practices and online teaching. Participants also
extensively discussed important strategies such as improving
teaching facilities and developing nationwide learning and
teaching academic standards in the Earth Sciences. Highlights
from the workshop included:
n Marion Anderson’s presentations on Monash University’s
urban fieldwork exercises, which involves analysis of modern
‘trace fossils’ in concrete
n Michael Roach’s use of cameras attached to remotecontrolled
helicopters to build three-dimensional
photogrammetric models for outcrops on University of
Tasmania fieldtrips
n Ian Clarke’s (University of South Australia) presentation on
laying the foundations for identifying fundamental ‘threshold
concepts’ in Earth Science education.
Participants unanimously agreed that the workshop had been
extremely beneficial in learning and sharing teaching
experiences and approaches, and a second workshop is planned
for 2013. The workshop has also led to the formation of ongoing
working parties on core issues such as improving first-year
teaching and developing national teaching standards in Earth
Sciences. The proceedings of the workshop have been published
as volume 100 of the Geological Society of Australia Abstracts
series.
The workshop could not have taken place without the
generous sponsorship and support of the Geological Society of
Australia, Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists, the
Minerals Tertiary Education Council, the Australian Institute of
Mining and Metallurgy and the Australian Geoscience
Information Association.
MARK TINGAY
Several attendees took part in a field trip to the Hallett Cove Conservation
Park south of Adelaide on the weekend after the workshop. Hallett Cove
is famous for its excellent exposures of Precambrian sequences folded during
the Delamerian orogeny and glaciated during the Permian. Image courtesy
Mark Tingay.
36 | TAG June 2012

Special Report 2
Geodiversity, the Foundation
for Geoconservation
Conservation concerns protecting and managing our
shared geoheritage. It ranges from strong regulation
with the aim to preserve vulnerable sites to more
general conservation and planning measures where the natural
values are more robust.
Active geoconservation, and even the acceptance of
geoconservation as a relevant issue, is unevenly distributed
around the world. In some places it has a long history and
strong institutional and legislative foundation and other places
it is ignored or even unknown.
Geoconservation is a part of nature conservation, but within
nature conservation geoconservation is normally given low
priority. To increase the priority of geoconservation, geologists
and geographers over the world need to increase their
awareness of geoconservation both in practical work and in
scientific and educational spheres. In Europe the ProGEO
network (http://www.progeo.se) has existed since 1988 with
the aim to promote geoconservation. Two of the main
achievements over the last few years have been the
establishment of the scientific journal Geoheritage (Springer-
Verlag) and the acceptance of geoconservation by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
(http://iucn.org/). ProGEO is now a member of IUCN and while
it is based in Europe, it has several members outside Europe,
including in Australia. Maybe establishing a ProGEO group in
Australia could be the first step towards a global network on
geoconservation
Geoconservation is about protecting our shared geoheritage
(http://www.progeo.se/protocol_preamble.html), which is
defined on the basis of the world’s geodiversity. Geodiversity is
an increasingly accepted term that parallels the term
‘biodiversity’. Together they form what can be referred to as
natural diversity, something we do not want to impoverish.
Geodiversity is a complex concept, as it is about variation in the
abiotic part of nature. Discussing geodiversity is therefore a
matter of celebrating this complexity at the same time as
understanding it on all geographic scales and in all scientific
disciplines (http://www.progeo.se/nordgeodiv.htm). Unique
sites and objects are important for global diversity (a world
heritage scale), but geodiversity also works at local levels, even
down to small plots of land. My garden, for example, does not
have much real nature in it, but I have one geodiversity element,
a dyke of Permian age intruded into Silurian shale. My
neighbour has a Weichselian erratic in his garden. We both have
elements of geodiversity in our built environment that give our
gardens geological elements to treasure.
In my local municipality the geology is dominated by Early
to Middle Paleozoic sedimentary rocks in the low-lying areas
and Late Paleozoic lavas in the hilly inland. The landforms are,
on a large scale, dominated by inland lava plateaus and the Oslo
Fiord. The sedimentary rocks, ranging from Cambrian shales
through Ordovician and Silurian limestones and shales, are
nicely folded, forming a series of NE to SW ridges. The old use
of limestone (lime-burning) was important here, and a limeburning
oven is indeed the official symbol of my municipality. It
is easy to demonstrate that the local geodiversity has had a
profound impact on our landscape character and is linked not
only to the physical landscape but also to economic life and
history. Elements of this geodiversity, through its importance for
the character of the local landscape and for local understanding
of the landscape and its history, form an important key to
promoting geoconservation. Local landscape strategies should
include geodiversity, and through local planning a lot of our
geological heritage can be managed.
On the other hand, much of this heritage is not so obviously
recognised. In the limestones we find fossils and stratigraphic
information that make some areas more valuable than others. To
recognise and protect these assets and decide on management
strategies, it is necessary to understand their locations, values
and vulnerabilities. It is necessary to make inventories and
create legislation and databases that enable good management
of these assets. In some places, such inventories result in strictly
protected nature reserves and natural monuments, whereas
elsewhere the inventories are used to establish spatial planning
procedures to secure scientific value. In cases where there is no
fixed and legislative foundation for good management, the
information in the inventory databases can be used on a caseby-case
basis to secure geological heritage when it is
threatened.
In Norway, our first Nature Conservation Act came into force
in 1910. That Act stated that protected areas could be
established for the conservation of wild plants and animals and
geological and mineralogical sites. One of the first sites to be
protected under this legislation was a large glacial erratic
protected by Royal Decree in 1923. The legislation was updated
in 1954 and 1972 and although geology was not specified as a
TAG June 2012|37

From Aurlandsfjorden, part of ‘The West-Norwegian fjords’ World Heritage
Site. The Norwegian fjords are a major element in the landscape character of
Norway along its long coast and are a reference area for glacial erosional
processes and associated landforms. The listing of two fjord systems
recognises the international significance of these fjords, which are also
important tourist attractions. All images courtesy Lars Erikstad.
justification for conservation, the Acts were formulated in a way
that geoconservation was still possible and many protected sites
with a geological aim were indeed established. Our latest
legislative update is now called the Nature Diversity Act 2009
(Norway), which aims to protect our biological, geological and
landscape diversity. It not only protects areas by law, but also
provides for the designation of special planning measures where
they are deemed necessary, as well as for the general obligation
of the planning system to take into account natural diversity.
One particularly important new element in this legislation is
the term ‘nature type’ (habitat), which is defined as an area
where nature is relatively homogeneous and some characteristic
features make it different from other areas. This is normally
understood as habitat, but the Act makes it perfectly clear that
this also applies to geological phenomena. This definition has
triggered a new system of defining nature types based on a
unified understanding of gradual changes in environmental
factors, combined with a descriptive system taking account of
natural variation in addition to the defined categories
(http://www.biodiversity.no). The system is linked closely to
geodiversity, as many of the relevant environmental factors used
are abiotic (humidity; disturbance by flood, erosion and slope
movement; nutrients etc) and one of the seven defined sources
for variation linked to the description system is landform
variation. This new system has now started to be implemented
in nature management strategies. We now have our first
nature-type red list where several geomorphological features
such as caves, Earth pyramids and gullies in marine clays are
defined as threatened nature types. Moreover, work has started
to include geology in handbooks of nature management in
municipalities (based on nature types) and defining nature types
with special management needs because of their general value,
vulnerability or national responsibility for management.
Hopefully geological features will appear on these lists as well.
The ammonite wall, Digne, France. The bedding plane full of fossils is extremely
vulnerable to intensive hammering and collecting and therefore it
needs strong conservation measures. The geosite is now within the Geopark
Haute-Provence.
Geoheritage value can be defined at different scales. Some
sites have a clear international value and the top international
system of world heritage includes several areas based on
geological values. These are linked both to landscapes
(geomorphosites) as well as on stratigraphy and fossils
(eg, Messel in Germany and the Jura Coast in the UK). However,
there is no international system in existence that systematically
designates and compares geological sites of international value
on a broader basis. Such a system was planned some years ago
under the leadership of the International Union of Geological
Sciences (IUGS) (the GEOSITE project), but sadly was stopped
after some years. International systems like GEOSITEs would be
important both in protecting valuable sites, and in promoting
geoconservation on national and regional scales.
The tradition of geoconservation has always included an
element of use, in the way that interpretation of sites for a
wider public has been included in management strategies.
Scientific use and reference have been important value criteria,
as have education and public experience. In the last few
decades, these have been included in the most recent and
successful new strategy for geoconservation — the geopark
movement. Geoparks are linked to the aim of sustainable use of
geoheritage, together with other natural and cultural elements,
to promote local economic development. In itself this is not
geoconservation, but the aim of sustainability links a clear
geoconservation management imperative to geopark practice.
Geoconservation is therefore important for geoparks, both as a
management tool and as a principle. At the same time as
contributing to local economic development, the geopark is in a
unique position in promoting geoheritage understanding with a
positive local attitude. Geoparks therefore represent a major
resource for geoconservation in raising awareness of our shared
geological heritage.
38 | TAG June 2012

Small remnant of a volcanic sill intrusion in the centre of Oslo. It has no
great geoscientific value, but is peculiar in the 5–10-cm-wide horizontal
layer of alum shale preserved within it. It was due for removal in the 1950s,
but because of a local geologist initiative, it was left as it was. Today it is a
nice element in the city landscape.
The erratic Ruggesteinen protected by Royal Decree in 1923. The name refers
to the fact that the stone is balanced on a glacially scoured rock surface
and can be rocked by one person.
Of course the responsibility of the geopark management
systems toward geoheritage in the park is large. Sustainability is
easy to state, but sometimes very difficult to achieve. This is
true not only for geoparks, but also for world heritage sites and
all sorts of geosites, protected or not. Especially for geological
specimens of commercial value, the management challenges
can be large. Geology has a long tradition of digging, finding,
collecting and selling, and most geologists will argue that there
are no real geologists out there without a hammer in their hand.
When is this as it should be, and when does this represent a
problem for geoheritage Obviously small protected and
vulnerable sites cannot be open for hammering and free
collection, but there are some sites (even protected) that may be
quite robust, or where natural erosion is so fast that hammering
and collecting are not real threats to the site. But again the
complexity of geodiversity should not be forgotten and the
possibility that sites have different vulnerabilities in different
areas, or even different geoheritage elements, must be taken
into account.
Management needs to be based on knowledge and it is
indeed an important task for future geoheritage research to
constantly maintain and improve the knowledge base of every
site under management. This way we can understand how
management works and might be improved, and how
conservation and use can be combined to support the stated
management aims of geoparks and geosites. Two major
elements are of special importance. First, all areas under
management should have management plans, which must be
clear in their aims, and flexible enough to cope with differences
of geoheritage values and vulnerability. Criteria used to
determine management needs must be transparent. Good
contact must also be maintained with local landowners and
stakeholders, the scientific community, visitors and users, so
that people understand and accept the conservation measures
and management. Good legislation and good decisions are of no
value if people ignore them and rules are not followed.
Geologists should be involved in the management of sites, not
only when geological issues are discussed, but also in the
ongoing management and promotion to the public. Therefore
geoheritage, geodiversity and geoconservation should be part of
educational and scientific systems, so that geological
communities can become further aware of them.
Management of geosites must also be flexible enough to
cope with changes in knowledge as well as changes in
management challenges as they arise. Monitoring of geological
values in world heritage sites, geosites and geoparks is therefore
vitally important. When disagreement occurs over whether
geodiversity loss is occurring, monitoring systems should
provide reliable data that people can use to handle problems in
a way that fulfils that area’s conservation aims. This will result
in acceptance when geodiversity loss is occurring, and
improvement. Monitoring is not easy and methods must steadily
be developed to improve it. Monitoring experiences should also
be internationally published to secure dissemination of relevant
knowledge to the geoconservation community.
This is a vital part of an open debate that is fruitful when
based on shared knowledge and with respect for the everchanging
status of knowledge and philosophy occurring in our
societies. Therefore it is so important that national and
international forums exist where these issues can be debated
with respect for the idea that geodiversity is part of our natural
heritage that we can all protect and enjoy.
LARS ERIKSTAD
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research/Natural History
Museum, University of Oslo, NINA (Norsk Institutt for
Naturforskning), Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 Oslo,
Norway/NHM, Postboks 1172 Blindern 0318 Oslo Norway,
lars.erikstad@nina.no
TAG June 2012|39

Importance of geological heritage
and the need for its promotion
The natural heritage of any country includes its
geological heritage, made up of many key geosites, as
well as landscapes, that are profoundly shaped and
defined by their geology. Fossils, rocks and minerals are just as
much part of our natural heritage as living plants and animals.
However, everywhere geological heritage is undervalued and
under threat, even in countries that have relevant conservation
legislation. Practice is so variable between countries: in one, a
scientifically unique site might be being quarried away or filled
with waste; in another, valid geological research is obstructed
by oppressive bureaucratic regulations; while in a third,
commercial dealers at some sites are busy carting off every
fossil they can for sale — leaving little behind for scientific
pursuits or wider educational use.
In a minority of countries, geoconservation is seen as an
essential activity. However, in many there is still absolutely no
official recognition even that geosites are cultural and scientific
goods of national importance (and worth protecting). And yet,
the vital evidence for the 4 500-million-year history of the Earth
is an undisputed, shared international heritage. This was first
widely recognised at the ProGEO Digne geoheritage symposium
in 1991, and it immediately informed UNESCO’s re-examination
of geological sites under the World Heritage Convention. Later
it influenced the initiation of ideas on geoparks within ProGEO
and then UNESCO, it informed the International Union of
Geological Sciences (IUGS)/ProGEO Geosites project, and then a
declaration on geoconservation from the ministers of the
Council of Europe. Most recently, it led to the launching of the
journal Geoheritage.
Many years of conservation effort and the initiation of
effective methodologies and actions have usually gone
unnoticed by a wider society. Nowadays, a lot of new people are
joining in with heritage and conservation activities, some
coming from a wider public, some from non-geological
disciplines, and some focusing on protecting or simply
promoting an isolated site or local area. Some have ideas purely
of touristic exploitation. Therefore, there are lots of people
trying to start at the beginning, some unaware of even the
words ‘geoheritage’ and ‘geoconservation’, and equally of their
historical development over the years.
Maybe it is time to consider where the priorities now lie —
in promotion and popularisation of geology as a discipline, in
pushing geotourism. It would be wise not to forget the
nationally and internationally important places that have no
potential for tourism, but the very highest importance to the
science of geology.
WAP WIMBLEDON
GSA Sponsored Keynote Speaker
Geoheritage Session
International Geological Congress (IGC) Brisbane 2012
Q u izine
a Charles Darwin
b Albert Einstein
c Pierre de Fermat
d James Hutton
BY TOR MENTOR
e Sir Julian Huxley
f Thomas Huxley
g Lord Kelvin
h Sir Douglas Mawson
i Lord Rutherford
j Bishop Samuel Wilberforce
Can you match the quotations with the authors
1 I think the sea’s bottom is just as interesting as the moon’s behind.
2 . . . we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.
3 Man is descended from a hairy, tailed quadruped, probably arboreal in its habits.
4 Are you descended from an ape on his mother’s side or his father’s side
5 All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
6 If you cannot measure it, then it is not science.
7 If my theory . . . is correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world.
Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.
8 I have discovered a truly marvellous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
9 We had discovered an accursed country. We had found the Home of the Blizzard.
10 The great tragedy of science — the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact.
(Answers see page 46.)
40 | TAG June 2012

Tech Talk
GPlates: free software for linking observations to plate kinematic
and dynamic Earth models
GPlates (http://www.gplates.org) is free
paleogeographic information software running on
Windows, Linux and MacOSX (Boyden et al 2011).
It was first developed in 2003 at the University of
Sydney School of Geosciences. Collaborators
Caltech’s Seismolab joined in 2004, and the
Geological Survey of Norway’s Geodynamics
Group in 2007. From 2007 to 2011 the AuScope
National Collaborative Research Infrastructure
System (NCRIS) supported further development of
GPlates and its underlying information model,
which is based on geographic markup language.
During this time GPlates developed into a mature
and stable infrastructure that has been
downloaded over 25 000 times. It has users in
130 countries working in academia, government
agencies and industry.
GPlates enables users to interactively manipulate
plate-tectonic reconstructions and visualise
geodata through geological time. Users can build
regional or global plate models, digitise features
and import their own data (Williams et al 2012).
GPlates handles paleomagnetic data, creates and
display virtual paleomagnetic poles and derives
absolute plate rotations from them. The ability
to handle plate deformation is also being
implemented. This functionality will enable
researchers to address controversies in
paleogeography, plate tectonics and deep Earth
evolution. GPlates allows users to interactively
investigate alternative fits of the continents, test
hypotheses of supercontinent formation and
breakup through time and unravel the evolution
of tectonically complex areas such as the Tethys,
the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Raster file
images in various formats can be loaded,
assigned to tectonic plates, age-coded and
reconstructed through geological time.
The software also allows image sequences to be
exported for animations or for generating
publication-quality figures as vector graphics
files. Users can visualise plates and plate
boundaries through time over mantle
tomography image stacks. Plate tectonic models
in GPlates can be linked with mantle convection
software such as CitcomS (http://www.
geodynamics.org/cig/software/ citcoms) and
Underworld (http://www.underworldproject.org).
GPlates allows users to construct time-dependent
plate boundary topologies and export plate
polygons and velocity–time sequences (Gurnis
et al 2012). Mantle convection model output
images can be imported and animated with
overlain plate-tectonic reconstructions. As
GPlates is interoperable with ArcGIS, GPlates
can read and write shape files and export
reconstructed data to be plotted with other tools.
GPlates can be used for multidimensional
spatio–temporal data analysis via a link to the
open-source data-mining software Orange
(http://orange.biolab.si). This data-mining
environment copes with large datasets, high
dimensionality, spatial and temporal associations
and different data types. A diverse library of
components allows for interactive filtering,
combining, transforming and pattern analysis of
geodata. Attached to the data-mining tool is a
visual programming environment that abstracts
underlying software complexities from users, who
can rapidly prototype analysis workflows without
requiring programming expertise.
A plug-in framework, currently under
development, will allow users to construct new
spatio–temporal data processing components.
This means the functionality and flexibility of this
environment is increasing rapidly, aided by an
open-source model. The resultant ensemble of
technologies might be used as a frontier teaching
and research tool.
A new, substantially re-engineered version of
GPlates is now being developed that allows
deforming plates to be embedded into evolving
plate boundary networks. Geophysical and
geological data can be used define the limit
between rigid and deforming areas, and the
deformation history of non-rigid blocks (Williams
et al 2011). The velocity field predicted by these
reconstructions can then be used as a timedependent
surface boundary condition in
geodynamic models, or alternatively as an initial
boundary condition for a particular plate
configuration at a given time.
GPlates will soon be available on NCI’s Multimodel
Australian ScienceS Imaging and
Visualisation Environment (MASSIVE)
(http://www.massive.org.au), allowing users to
reconstruct and visualise large data sets on-thefly.
GPlates represents starting points for an
integrated understanding of Earth processes in
four dimensions, and for creating a virtual
geological laboratory.
R E F E R E N C E S
Boyden JA, Müller RD, Gurnis M, Torsvik TH, Clark JA,
Turner M, Ivey-Law H, Watson RJ & Cannon JS 2011.
‘Next-generation plate-tectonic reconstructions using
GPlates’ In Keller GR & Baru C (Eds) Geoinformatics:
cyberinfrastructure for the solid Earth Sciences, Vol. in
press, Cambridge University Press.
Gurnis M, Turner M, Zahirovic S, DiCaprio L,
Spasojevic S, Müller RD, Boyden J, Seton M, Manea VC
& Bower D 2012. ‘Plate tectonic reconstructions with
continuously closing plates’ Computers and
Geosciences Vol 38, p 35–42.
Williams SE, Müller RD, Landgrebe TCW &
Whittaker JM. 2012. ‘An open-source software
environment for visualizing and refining plate tectonic
reconstructions using high-resolution geological and
geophysical data sets’ GSA Today Vol 22, p 4–9.
Williams SE, Whittaker JM & Müller RD 2011. ‘Full-fit,
palinspastic reconstruction of the conjugate
Australian-Antarctic margins’ Tectonics Vol 30, 1–21.
R DIETMAR MÜLLER
EarthByte Group, School of Geosciences,
University of Sydney
Do you
know your
Geologist
No. 1
Hint: Brothers.
(Answer page 46.)
TAG June 2012|41

Cam Bryan’s Geojottings
Letters as Symbols
The last Geojottings mused on numbers and it seems
quite logical to move on to letters for these jottings!
The 26 letters of the English alphabet form the
basic building blocks of the words we use. The Oxford English
Dictionary contains over 300 000 main entries so there are plenty
of words to choose from. But what use do we make of letters by
themselves when they become symbols
Their use as abbreviations for the chemical elements; those
algebraic characters x, y and z; and the geological periods
immediately come to mind. Add a few letters from the Greek
alphabet and there is a host of possibilities.
To start with the periods and systems. Immediately we come
across a cheat! The letter for Cambrian is not C — that is
reserved for Carboniferous — but C– . The Triassic is not T — which
stands for Tertiary — but TR . Cretaceous easily became K.
However, as various committees tinkered with the timescale,
more problems emerged. With the demise of the term Tertiary (a
great loss in my opinion), T became redundant. But Tertiary was
replaced by Paleogene and Neogene, and P was already used for
Permian. So PG and PE were added to the list of symbols. Then
the Carboniferous was subdivided into Mississippian and
Pennsylvanian (shock, horror!). While M was acceptable, there
were enough P’s to cause confusion, so a symbol  [P was
invented for Pennsylvanian.
Ranks below periods often do not have symbols, although
some have been devised by the US Geological Survey (USGS)
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1999/of99-430/of99-430_sec38.pdf).
Those above period have been easily accommodated with PZ, MZ
and CZ. However, Proterozoic caused a bit of trouble with the
solution  ... those damned P’s again.
The chemical elements have fared somewhat better than the
periods in that ‘manufactured’ letter symbols were not needed.
Some elements take their name from other languages; eg,
wolfram (W) for tungsten from German. Plumbum (Pb) for lead,
stannum (Sn) for tin and hydrargyrum (Hg) for mercury are all
from Latin. Many are obviously English: H for hydrogen, O for
oxygen and U for uranium.
Letters from non-English alphabets creep into our lists of
symbols. One that immediately comes to mind is as in πr 2 . ππ is
the first letter of the Greek word ‘periphery’ (or perhaps
‘perimeter’), and was the first used for the ratio of the perimeter
to the diameter of a circle by William Jones in 1706. Lower case
π is not to be confused with upper case Π, which denotes the
product of a sequence. Similarly, while Σ is the sum of a sequence,
its lower case counterpart σ is the symbol for standard deviation.
So careful attention to capitalisation is essential!
P –
3.1.2.4
X marks the spot, but in Cartesian coordinates a spot is
marked by x, y and z to indicate where a point is in threedimensional
space. Of course if we want to get more
complicated we can use n-dimensional space where n can be
any number — there are 10 or more dimensions in space–time
in various versions of string theory: but that is another story!
In fact the whole of mathematics beyond simple arithmetic
is built on letters and symbols, which to non-mathematicians
are just a meaningless jumble: try ∂t g ijjjust for starters! A
mathematician friend told me that a first degree in
mathematics “just enabled you to read the literature!”
Chemical formulae are another obvious example of strings
of letters and numbers. While H 2 O is not too intimidating,
[Na][Na 2 ][(Fe 2 +) 4 Fe 3 +][(OH) 2 Si 8 O 22 ] would put off all but
dedicated petrologists and mineralogists. (It is the formula for
arfvedsonite — I just love the sound of the name.)
Even paleontologists have got into the act. The commonest
vertebrate fossils are teeth and in mammals teeth are
differentiated into incisors, canines, premolars and molars —
i, c, p and m, respectively. So teeth can be identified as i2, p3,
m1 etc (numbering from front to back of mouth), and you can
get dental formulae that dispense with letters entirely and
record the number of teeth in the upper and lower jaws on one
side of the skull (the other side being a mirror image in terms of
teeth). For example,
1.0.2.4
is the formula for the kangaroo: three incisors, one canine,
two premolars and four molars in the upper jaw; and one incisor,
zero canines, two premolars and four molars in the lower jaw.
Not to be outdone, micropaleontologists have adopted a
letter/number code for the Cenozoic planktonic foraminifera
zones. For example, the Late Oligocene zone P22 and the Early
Miocene zone N4 (where P and N indicate Paleogene and
Neogene, respectively — there was a bit of a mix-up as to where
the P zones end and the N zones begin: N3 = P22!). The
nannofossil (coccolith) workers came up with a similar scheme
using the prefix N (as in the Early Oligocene zone NP23) to
indicate nannofossil. Whether N6 is more informative than
Catapsydrax stainforthi zone (using another zonal scheme) is a
moot point!
But probably one of the most useful things about the letters
is their alphabetical order. I can think of no better way to
organise items than in alphabetical order — which is why
I loathe having ‘A’ or ‘The’ as the initial word in a title. Perhaps
my love of alphabetical order is a hangover from the time when
I was 10 years old and was kept in after school to learn the
alphabet — it obviously got deeply impressed into my psyche!
42 | TAG June 2012

Book Reviews
The Evolving
Continents:
understanding
the processes of
continental growth
TM Kusky, M-G Zhai & W Xiao (Eds)
The Geological Society of London
Special Publication 338, London, 2010, 424 pages
ISBN 978–1862393035
The Geological Society has
presented the reader with another
quality Special Publication. In this
case the volume is a tribute to the
career of Brian Windley, who has
compiled an enviable career
record through his contributions
to understanding the evolution of continental crust.
The volume comprises five sections: oceanic and
island-arc systems and continental growth; tectonics
of accretionary orogens and continental growth;
growth and stabilisation of continental crust; Precambrian
tectonics and the birth of continents; active
tectonics and geomorphology of continental
collision and growth zones.
In the first section, the introductory paper by Stern
is a very good overview of the anatomy and
ontogeny of modern intra-oceanic arc systems. It is
a long paper but generously furbished with good
figures and process diagrams. The second paper is
interesting in that it provides a bit of a wake-up
call for geologists working in accretionary and collisional
terranes by stating that some of the unresolved
issues may be due to geologists not
appreciating the complexities in modern arc systems.
The second section deals with previous and
ongoing efforts to understand the framework and
evolution of accretionary orogens. A common
thread begins to form in this section where workers
studying accretionary orogens are advised on the
importance of recognising geological attributes of
other systems such as ocean plate stratigraphy
for deciphering the tectonics of accretionary
orogens.
The paper by Santoshi et al was one of the most interesting
in the second section, if not in the whole
book. They start with definitions of collision-type
and accretionary-type orogens. The paper
progresses to a discussion of plate-tectonic
processes in Earth’s history and suggests that most
of the evidence for intra-oceanic crust must have
been destroyed. For me, the best part of the paper
was the discussion of the small percentage of orogens
on the current Earth surface versus how much
has been destroyed or lost. The authors suggest
that traces of deeply subducted ‘lost orogens’ are
uncommonly returned to the surface due to plume
tectonics; other remnants now reside in an orogenic
graveyard at the core–mantle boundary at
some 2900 km depth.
Section three contains papers on crustal
collisions and relates work associated with
MgO–Al 2 O 3 –SiO 2 –H 2 O systems. Unfortunately,
my eyes glazed over on this section and this
was only made worse by pages of analyses and
compositional plots.
The fourth section deals with Precambrian
tectonics and an important aspect of this was the
emphasis on integrating laboratory and fieldwork.
The standout paper was by Garde and Hollis who
describe a buried Paleoproterozoic spreading ridge.
An abundance of good diagrams and photos, many
in colour, make sure that the dreaded pages of
analyses do not detract from the paper. Another
positive aspect is that this is the only paper in the
whole volume that makes any mention of the
setting of mineralisation.
In the fifth section, the introductory paper by Petterson
is very good as it provides a review of more
than 100 years of observations in Kohistan. The
reference list alone makes this a quality contribution.
The other papers draw on multidisciplinary
approaches to resolving the many as yet
unanswered questions associated with active continental
collision and growth zones.
Overall, this Special Publication is a great contribution
and does a commendable job of presenting
papers that walk the difficult line of being
pragmatically useful and readable but which also
appeal to the pure scientist. Many of the papers
use the concept of uniformitarianism to look at
old terranes, which is a generally accepted method
of investigation. Even if there are avenues of
conjecture, the reader will find it hard to argue
with the interdisciplinary approach that many of
the authors take. The only real downside is that
there is very little mention of mineralisation
processes and environments, despite the
abundance of mineral deposits in orogens worldwide.
To be fair, though, this is a slight digression
from the theme of the volume and does not
downplay the quality of this publication.
BRETT DAVIS
Burke & Wills:
the scientific legacy of the Victorian
Exploring Expedition
EB Joyce & DA McCann (Eds)
CSIRO Publishing, 2011, 368 pages
Price A$59.95
ISBN: 978–0643103320 hardback
This handsome, beautifully
illustrated volume is a tribute to
the dedication of the editors,
Bernie Joyce and Doug McCann,
and to the enthusiastic
additional thirteen authors.
The Foreword is provided by Peter Thorne of the
Royal Society of Victoria, a principal sponsor of the
book and originator of the expedition in 1860
through its Exploration Committee. A welldocumented
summary of the Expedition
(Introduction) by historian Dave Phoenix follows.
Nine chapters then examine politics and the social
aspects, and the success, or otherwise, of the
separate scientific pursuits essayed during the expedition.
The art of the expedition by Elizabeth
Ninnis (Appendix E) might rightly be considered as
a separate chapter.
There are four other informative appendices: a
timeline of events, a list of participants, illustrated
biographies of the various scientists involved, and a
facsimile of the final instructions supplied to the
explorers in 1860.
The editors have contributed three chapters: 1,
‘Conflicting priorities …’; 3, ‘Geology …’ ; and 9,
‘Conclusion: rewriting history’. The first considers
Melbourne society and ‘culture’ from the heady days
of the early Victorian gold rush and the constant
urge for exploration pushed by the forerunners of
the Royal Society. This chapter deals briefly with
minor forerunners such as William Blandowski’s
expeditions to the Murray–Darling region, and the
activities of the Society’s Exploration Committee
from 1857. There was a strong German influence on
science in Melbourne at the time through von
Mueller, Neumayer, Blandowski, von Guerard, Ulrich
and of course Becker and Beckler on the expedition.
But do the authors make too much of the ‘
Humboltian’ influences discussed here
In chapter 3, on the geology of the expedition,
I feel that the editors (both geologists) have tried a
bit too hard. While Ludwig Becker was called upon
to do too much, and only made it half way before
his death, his geological abilities were limited, as
Tom Darragh showed in an earlier study. Despite
this there are some wonderful insights in Becker’s
landscape paintings. Perhaps the best geology was
undertaken by Beckler at Koonenberry, whereas
Wills, despite his recognition of schists in that
vicinity, seems almost obsessed with the idea that
any metamorphic area was probably auriferous.
This point is taken up by the authors concerning
Wills’s very rushed appraisal of the Selwyn Range
region in northern Queensland.
Despite the 1863 attempt by Dr Wills to justify his
son’s work, Wills’s reputation as a surveyor has
suffered over the years. Frank Leahy’s study of Wills
is perhaps the jewel of the book. Leahy has spent
years following Wills’s trail, locating camps and
remeasuring the many observations Wills made by
dead reckoning and astronomical observations.
Leahy makes us work hard on this material.
Furthermore he gives the lie to the frequently
quoted statement (even from the time of the
expedition) that the northern party thought they
had reached the Albert River, located much further
west than the Flinders River. This chapter provides
a complete vindication of Wills’s surveying ability.
TAG June 2012|43

Linden Gillbank’s detailed chapter on the botany of
the expedition brings out von Mueller’s involvement,
outlining the results of his then-recent expeditions
and his involvement in gaining the appointment of
Hermann Beckler, who had just returned from a
successful collecting expedition in northeastern New
South Wales. Gillbank’s analysis of Beckler’s collecting,
including a detailed listing of the plant taxa
(although covering only the region nearly to Cooper
Creek) is a highlight of the book.
The chapter on zoology is a multi-authored affair,
introduced by Bernard Mace, who contributes also
on reptiles and fishes. Mammals are dealt with by
Peter W Menkhorst, and birds by Rory O’Brien and
Craig Robertson. Mace points out some of the
limitations in the instructions, including mostly
ignoring reporting on reptiles or birds, while
Ludwig Becker was loaded down with responsibility
for multiple disciplines. While accepting that the
results relating to zoology were disappointing, the
authors lay the responsibility clearly at the feet of
the leader Burke, thanks to ‘his lack of interest’,
and his ‘harsh treatment of … Becker’. Nevertheless
the chapter covers some fascinating zoological
research, enhanced also by Becker’s fine detailed
sketches and annotations.
Charles Lawrence’s chapter ‘Hydrologic insights of
inland Australia’, deals with the constant needs of
the party and its beasts for water. The chapter is
based on the diaries of various members of the
party and by those, such as A W Howitt, who was
later involved in searches for the expedition.
The surface internal drainage basins receive
considerable attention, naturally enough, but this
discussion is followed by consideration of the
artesian and other groundwater sources, to which
the explorers could only pay very limited attention.
In the chapter ‘Meteorology …’ by John Bye, once
again Wills’s work is considered, together with the
contributions by Neumayer, Becker and William
Brahe.
Chapter 8 ‘The space between: …’ by Harry Allen
is an interesting study of the relations between
both the exploration party and some of the later
rescuing operations with the Aboriginal people, in
the days before anthropology became established.
In view of the early travel through a reasonably
known western Victoria and southwestern NSW,
and the rushed northern journey, it is the Darling
River – Cooper River region that receives study to
assess the European–Aboriginal contacts. The
Europeans were probably only vaguely aware that
perhaps a dozen different languages were spoken
in that region. Perhaps surprisingly, there was less
conflict than might have been expected between
an assumed ‘superior’ race, also armed with guns,
and the Aboriginal peoples. It is clear that the
latter were aware that they needed to conserve
limited resources, particularly water, and they made
this point quite clear on a number of occasions.
It seems that the two Germans, Becker and Beckler,
most appreciated Aboriginal culture, the former
showing relatively sympathetic illustrations of
Aboriginal people.
The final chapter, by the editors, summarises the
expedition, agreeing with the 20th-century
assessment that Burke was a disaster as leader,
with essentially no interest in science or of the
work required to attain such knowledge. However,
despite this limitation, this new appraisal of the
expedition has brought to light a considerable
amount of previously unrecognised scientific work
by its members. We are reminded that William
Morton was rejected as leader, although his CV
suggests he would have been much better suited
than Burke, particularly with his interest in science
and his considerable knowledge of country.
One can only hypothesise also on whether an
exploration party led by A W Howitt might not
have been even more successful. However, the
Exploration Sub-Committee, (which had Frederick
McCoy, rather than Alfred Selwyn considering
geological aspects of the journey) should have
shouldered considerable blame for the mess. It met
often, but many members were certainly too busy
with their own affairs. We see also Landells’s
resignation, despite the enthusiastic appointment
as second-in-command by Burke himself. Doug
McCann’s tabulation (Appendix B) shows the
rapidity with which many appointments to the
party were cut. Much, I am sure, thanks to the
lack of leadership.
In retrospect it was probably a pity that colonial
rivalry, already affected by a ‘race’ against the
South Australian McDouall Stuart, prevented the
Victorian body adopting Selwyn’s suggestion that
the expedition travel to the centre via Port
Augusta, rather than via the Darling. Selwyn
himself had travelled relatively easily to beyond
Wilpena Pound in the northern Flinders Ranges
the previous year.
It is also a pity, I feel, that part, at least, of the map
from Wills’s 1863 volume is not reproduced in the
present volume. In particular, what is one to make
of the list of names jammed together in the vicinity
of Cloncurry They include the astronomer Ellery,
surveyor Ligar, Chemist McAdam, Judge Barry and
numerous Melbourne identities. Conspicuous by his
absence is Selwyn, for the names occupy much of
the Range, which gets numerous mentions
throughout the volume. The attribution of this
name, surprisingly, seems uncertain. Did a Queensland
Surveyor-General name it at the suggestion of
RL Jack, Government Geologist of Queensland
Does anyone know more
This book is enhanced by the numerous fine maps,
(including those forming the end-papers), and the
excellent reproductions of the many Becker figures
(some even outdoing those in Marjorie Tipping’s
1979 work).
This is a long overdue work, beautifully produced,
and is a credit to the authors and the powers behind
them. Anyone interested in the history of Australian
exploration and the history of science in
Australia will find much to learn and enjoy.
DAVID BRANAGAN
[I was surprised to find my name listed in the
acknowledgements, as I have no memory of my
contribution. As some 40 people are likewise
thanked, hopefully readers will not consider this
review biased.]
Geodynamic Evolution of
East Antarctica: a key to the
East–West Gondwana connection
M Satish-Kumar, Y Motoyoshi, Y Osanai, Y Hiroi &
K Shiraishi (Eds)
Geological Society Special Publication 308, 2008,
450 pages
ISBN: 978–1-86239–268–7
There are 22 articles with a total
of almost a hundred co-authors
representing 50 years of Japanese
Antarctic research based on
Syowa Station, Ongul Islands
in East Antarctica. It is a
contribution to the International
Polar Year 2007–2008. The region studied extends
from western–central Dronning Maud Land to
Enderby Land (0° longitude to approximately 60°E
longitude), essentially within the Antarctic Circle.
The introductory paper by Satish-Kumar et al
provides the status of research and identifies and
summarises other contributions with clear location
maps. A contribution on geochronology, of which
Mark Fanning is a co-author (Shiraishi et al),
presents in detail the zircon dating for the main
geological terranes enabling the definition of
Grenvillian and Pan African magmatic and metamorphic
events. They discuss new Nd model ages in
relation to the amalgamation of East and West
Antarctica. The following two papers, Jacobs et al
and Grantham et al, discuss plutonic activity and
early Paleozoic orogeny in Dronning Maud Land
and compare it with Mozambique, southern Africa
and Sri Lanka. The latter paper proposes a structural
model involving 590–550 Ma nappe tectonics
in East Antarctica. All figures and maps are useful
and clearly drafted, although they perhaps lack
some details, and field photographs are small.
There follow geodynamic studies by the Japanese
Antarctic Research Expeditions of high-grade
metamorphics of the Napier and Rayner Complexes,
Enderby Land. Zircon ages for metamorphic peaks
are identified at either 2.55 Ga or ca 2.51–2.45 Ga
with three earlier stages of protolith formation
ca 3.28–3.23, 3.07 and 2.68–2.63 Ga. Field studies
reveal that gneisses of the Napier Complex have a
history of nine stages of deformation. A magnetic
anomaly map and structural interpretation, as well
as form line maps of foliation within the Napier
and adjacent Rayner Complex appear in different
papers. A faulted boundary is interpreted between
these terranes.
The Napier Complex is identified as a high-grade
Archean craton that includes two types of
metamorphic units or crustal fragments of differing
history, one with partial overprinting by the Rayner
metamorphism. Geophysical studies of the elastic
properties of the high-grade rocks from the Enderby
Land region suggest that the lower crustal rocks
were metasomatised during the Pan–African
orogeny. Four dyke suits were emplaced into granulites
ca 2.0 Ga and 1.2 Ga. There is also a series of
papers of 30 pages on the ultra-high temperature
mineral associations in the Napier Complex.
44 | TAG June 2012

Geochemistry of high-grade marbles from the
Lützow-Holm Complex near Syowa Station has
given a clue to an apparent age of deposition
around 730–830 Ma, which is related to the
‘Mozambique Ocean’ that separated East and West
Gondwana (or the rift phase of the Adelaide
Geosyncline). Miyamoto et al discuss age data for
the post-peak thermal history of this complex in
the Cambrian with local resetting in the Ordovician
indicating that post-orogenic igneous activity
continued after the assembly of Gondwana.
Petrography and geochemistry of ultramafic and
mafic rocks of this terrane (Suda et al and
Kawakami et al) indicate a variety of magmatic
evolutionary trends and tectonic settings from
Mesoproterozoic and older protoliths. The postkinematic
mafic dykes from Dronning Maud Land
potentially relate to the suture zone between East
and West Gondwana (Owada et al).
Early Paleozoic metasomatism and pegmatite
characteristics are described and the later
contributions to the volume give detailed
geochemistry related to metamorphism and P–T
inferences on a wide range of rock types. This is the
stuff of specialists in this field but it provides a
wealth of basic data on the cratonised rocks of the
region.
Overall there is a wealth of interest to the
generalist, particularly in the opening four papers,
which give a succinct picture of the relationship of
the Dronning Maud and Enderby Land regions to
other western Gondwana Blocks. For the Australian
reader there is little reference to East Antarctica
and work in the Wilkes Land and Terre Adelie
provinces or areas outside the Japanese studies,
which are confined within 0–60°E longitudes.
However the work does demonstrate two distinct
age populations in the Late Proterozoic and
Cambrian, which is of interest and also highlights
the vast scale of the ultra-high temperature
metamorphism in the Napier Complex.
CR DALGARNO
Do you know
your Geologist
No. 2
Hint: Well-known geologists in the Geological
Survey of Victoria using an unusual way of
getting around while mapping in central Victoria
sometime in the last decade.
(Answer page 46.)
TAG June 2012|45

Calendar
2012
19-21 June
ACG Open Pit Mining Seminar Series
Perth, Western Australia
16–17 July
Central Australian Basins Symposium (CABS 3)
Petroleum Potential: Conventional and Unconventional
Alice Springs, Northern Territory
1-4 August
6th International SHRIMP Workshop
O’Reilly’s Rainforest Retreat
Lamington National Park, Queensland
5–10 August
34th International Geological Congress
Unearthing our Past and Future
Brisbane
http://www.34igc.org/
12-17 August
75th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society
Cairns, Queensland
20–21 August
ACG Practical Rock Mechanics and Ground Support Courses
Australian Centre for Geomechanics
Perth, Western Australia
4-5 September
AMEC Convention 2012
Association of Mining and Exploration Companies
Perth, Western Australia
11–13 September
NT Minerals Summit
The Last Frontier — Capitalising on Mining, Exploration and
Career Opportunities in the Northern Territory
Minerals Council of Australia
Darwin, Northern Territory
24-28 September
Mine Closure 2012
Seventh International Conference on Mine Closure
Australian Centre for Geomechanics
Brisbane, Queensland
25–27 September
Mine Closure 2012
Seventh International Conference on Mine Closure
Australian Centre for Geomechanics
Brisbane, Queensland
Death of
Professor Bruce Chappell
Professor Bruce Chappell, a long-term member and Fellow
of the GSA, died in Canberra on April 22. Bruce will be
sadly missed. A full obituary will be prepared for the next
issue of TAG.
FOR SALE
Deer, Howie and Zussman
Rock Forming Minerals
Volume 1 (1965), volumes 2–5 (1967).
Good condition
Offers to Bernie Masters at
bmasters@iinet.net.au
Offers invited. Postage capped at $20.
Quizine ANSWERS (From page 40.)
1 e
2 d
3 a
4 j
5 i
6 g
7 b
8 c
Did you know
your Geologist
1 (From page 41.)
TAG apologises...
9 h
10 f
Phillip (left) and Geoffrey Playford at Dunsborough, southern
Perth Basin, 1993. They are former Director, Geological
Survey of Western Australia and Professor Emeritus, University
of Queensland, respectively.
2 (From page 45.)
The photo is of Geological Survey of Victoria geologists
enduring difficult field conditions after a busy day regionally
mapping parts of the eastern Melbourne Zone in 2004.
The houseboat served as the mother-ship for mapping the
500-km-plus bath-ring of water-washed bedrock exposed
along the shoreline of Lake Eildon, while three tinnies acted
as runabout field vehicles. The continuous exposure here —
all presently completely underwater — was key to unravelling
the complex stratigraphic succession in this mountainous,
heavily forested region. From left to right are Ross Cayley,
Ken Sherry, Chris Osborne, Ben Williams, Fons VandenBerg,
Suzanne Haydon and the Howqua Princess.
Please send your ‘Know your Geologist’ to
tag@gsa.org.au
TAG 162, March 2012
We spelled new member Alireza Mortezagholi’s name
incorrectly.
46 | TAG June 2012

Geological Society of Australia Inc. Office Bearers 2011/2012
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
AND EXECUTIVE
President
Brad Pillans
Australian National University
Vice President
Laurie Hutton
Mines & Energy (DEEDI)
Secretary
Michelle Cooper
Geoscience Australia
Treasurer
Chris Yeats
CSIRO
Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Past President
Peter Cawood
University of St Andrews
Hon Editor
Australian Journal of Earth Sciences
Anita Andrew
COUNCILLORS OF THE
EXECUTIVE DIVISION
Ian Graham
University of New South Wales
Jon Hronsky
Western Mining Services, LLC
Patrick Lyons
Lincoln Minerals Ltd
Ken McQueen
University of Canberra
Marc Norman
Australian National University
Anna Petts
Adelaide University
Jim Ross
STANDING COMMITTEES
Geological Heritage
National Convenor
Margaret Brocx
Australian Stratigraphy
Commission
National Convenor
Cathy Brown
STATE CONVENORS
ACT, External Territories
Albert Brakel
New South Wales
Lawrence Sherwin
Geological Survey of New South Wales
Northern Territory
Tim Munson
Northern Territory Geological Survey
Queensland
Ian Withnall
Geological Survey of Queensland
South Australia
Wayne Cowley
Primary Industries & Resources
South Australia
Tasmania
Stephen Forsyth
Victoria
Fons VandenBerg
Western Australia
Roger Hocking
Geological Survey of Western Australia
DIVISIONS AND
BRANCHES
Australian Capital Territory
Chair: John Rogers
Australian National University
Secretary: Eva Papp
Geoscience Australia
New South Wales
www.nsw.gsa.org.au
Chair: Ian Graham
University of New South Wales
Secretary: Dioni Cendon
ANSTO
Northern Territory
Chair: Christine Edgoose
Northern Territory Geological Survey
Secretary: Jo Whelan
Northern Territory Geological Survey
Queensland
www.qld.gsa.org.au
Chair: Laurie Hutton
Geological Survey of Queensland
Secretary: Friedrich von Gnielinski
Geological Survey of Queensland
South Australia
www.sa.gsa.org.au
Chair: Len Altman
Marden Senior College
Secretary: Anna Petts
University of South Australia
Tasmania
Chair: Garry Davidson
CODES
Secretary: Mark Duffett
Mineral Resources Tasmania
Victoria
www.vic.gsa.org.au
Chair: David Cantrill
Royal Botanic Gardens
Secretary: Adele Seymon
GeoScience Victoria
Western Australia
www.wa.gsa.org.au
Chair: Katy Evans
Curtin University
Broken Hill Branch
Chair: Barney Stevens
Geological Survey of New South Wales
Secretary: Kingsley Mills
Hunter Valley Branch
Chair: John Greenfield
Geological Survey of New South Wales
Secretary: Phil Gilmore
Geological Survey of New South Wales
SPECIALIST GROUPS
Applied Geochemistry Specialist
Group (SGAG)
www.sgag.gsa.org.au
Chair: Louisa Lawrance
Secretary: Craig Rugless
Association of Australasian
Palaeontologists (AAP)
www.es.mq.edu.au/mucep/aap/index
President: Guang R. Shi
Deakin University
Vice-President: Alex Cook
Queensland Museum
Secretary: Elizabeth Weldon
Deakin University
Australasian Sedimentologists Group
(ASG)
Chair: Bradley Opdyke
Australian National University
Secretary: Sarah Tynan
Australian National University
Coal Geology (CGG)
www.cgg.gsa.org.au
Chair: James Beeston
Secretary: Joan Esterle
Earth Sciences History Group (ESHG)
www.vic.gsa.org.au/eshg.htm
Chair: Peter Dunn
Secretary: John Blockley
Economic Geology Specialist Group
sgeg.gsa.org.au
Chair: Frank Bierlein
Areva NC Australia
Secretary: Oliver Kreuzer
Regalpoint Exploration Pty Ltd
Environmental Engineering
& Hydrogeology Specialist Group
(EEHSG)
Chair: Ken Lawrie
Geoscience Australia
Secretary: Steven Lewis
Geoscience Australia
Geochemistry, Mineralogy &
Petrology Specialist Group
(SGGMP)
www.gsa.org.au/specialgroups/sggmp.html
Chair: Hugh O'Neill
Australian National University
Secretary: Greg Yaxley
Australian National University
Geological Education (SGE)
Chair: Greg McNamara
Geoscience Education
& Outreach Services
Planetary Geoscience Specialist
Group (SGPG)
Chair: Graziella Caprarelli
University of Technology
Solid Earth Geophysics Specialist
Group (SGSEG)
www.gsa.org.au/specialgroups/sgseg.html
Chair: Nick Rawlinson
Geoscience Australia
Secretary: Richard Chopping
Geoscience Australia
Tectonics & Structural Geology
Specialist Group (SGTSG)
www.sgtsg.gsa.org.au
Chair: Peter Betts
Monash University
Secretary: Tim Rawling
Volcanology (LAVA)
www.es.mq.edu.au/geology/volcan/hmpg.html
Chair: Rick Squire
Monash University
Secretary: Karin Orth
University of Tasmania
TAG June 2012|47

Publishing Details
The Australian Geologist
48 | TAG June 2012 Background Information
GENERAL NOTE
The Australian Geologist (TAG) is a quarterly member magazine which includes society news,
conference details, special reports, feature articles, book reviews and other items of interest to Earth
Scientists. Each issue has a long shelf-life and is read by more than 3000 geologists, geophysicists,
palaeontologists, hydrologists, geochemists, cartographers and geoscience educators from Australia
COPYRIGHT
and around the world.
Schedule and Deadlines for 2012/2013
I S S U E CO P Y FI N I S H E D A R T IN S E R T S
September 2012 30 July 10 August 24 August
December 2012 26 October 2 November 9 November
March 2013 28 January 1 February 1 March
June 2013 29 April 3 May 28 May
Artwork
Material can be supplied electronically via Email or mail CD (MAC or PC). The advertisements or
photographs can be sent as jpeg, eps or tiff. Word files are not accepted as finished art (please
convert to pdf). Do not embed logos, images/pictures in Word documents. If artwork cannot be
supplied in any of the preferred formats listed above, an additional production/typesetting fee
will be charged. Material must be minimum of 300 dpi for JPEG, EPS or TIFF formats. Logotypes
or line symbols 800dpi or larger, eps or tiff. If advertisements are two colour, black plus one spot
colour, please supply as black and magenta. If finished art is to be provided for the advertising
material supply by the copy deadline (see above). CDs will be returned upon request only. Please
contact the Geological Society of Australia for more information or to discuss other options.
Advertising Rates and Sizes
Full colour advertising is available for inside-front and inside-back covers as well as the middle
spread. Advance bookings are essential for colour advertising. Spot colour for other pages is
available on request. Basic rates quoted are for finished art supplied in one of the file formats
specified above. Discount rates apply where the same material is run in two issues within a calendar
year. Where typesetting is required, only one typesetting fee is charged for multiple advertisements.
Please note that an additional 10% GST applies to all advertising.
BUSINESS CORRESPONDENCE
DETAILS 1 ISSUE 2 ISSUES TYPESETTING
Full Page
250mm deep x 180mm wide (Type area)
Full page Trim 275mm x 210mm plus 5mm Bleed
EDITORIAL MATTERS
Colour $1350 $1280 $tba
Spot colour Price on request
Black and White $750 $703 $tba
1/4 Page 125mm deep x 88mm wide
Black and White $200 $180 $tba
1/2 Page Horizontal 125mm deep x 180mm wide
Black and White $375 $350 $tba
1/3 Page Horizontal 80mm deep x 180mm wide
Black and White $290 $270 $tba
2 Column Horizontal 125mm deep x 119mm wide
(3 Column Page) Black and White $410 $390 $tba
1 Column Vertical 250mm deep x 57mm wide
(3 Column Page) Black and White $410 $390 $tba
INSERTS (as supplied) P E R I S S U E
P E R I S S U E
A4 size $1285 $1180
Colour Advertorials or Feature Articles
Three to four-page colour advertorials are accepted at a negotiable cost.
It is requested however that these articles have a geological theme.
Black and White Advertorials Cost negotiable.
Contact Sue Fletcher, Executive Director Geological Society of Australia Inc
Suite 61, 104 Bathurst St, Sydney NSW 2000
Tel: 02 9290 2194 Fax: (02) 9290 2198 Email: info@gsa.org.au
The Australian Geologist (TAG) is published by the Geological Society of
Australia Inc four times a year, March, June, September and December.
The Publication is copyright by the GSA Inc unless specifically stated
otherwise. However, material in this issue may be photocopied by
individuals for research or classroom use. Permission is also granted to
use short articles, quotes, figures, tables, etc, for publication in scientific
books and journals or in other scientific newsletters provided acknowledgement
is made. For permission for any other use or publication of
longer articles please contact the Editor.
Every effort has been made to trace and acknowledge copyright
holders of material in this publication. If any rights have been omitted,
apologies are offered.
The Geological Society of Australia is a learned Society. The
Australian Geologist is published by the Geological Society of Australia,
to provide information for the members and a forum for the expression
of their professional interests and opinions. Observations,
interpretations and opinions published herein are the responsibility of
the contributors and are not necessarily supported by the Geological
Society of Australia or the Editor.
While the Editor and the Geological Society of Australia have taken
all reasonable precautions and made all reasonable efforts to ensure
the accuracy of material contained in this publication the aforesaid
make no warranties, expressed or implied with respect to any of the
material contained herein.
Advertising/Membership: All business enquiries and correspondence
relating to advertising space, inserts and/or subscription matters,
should be addressed to the Executive Director of the Society.
Contributions: All editorial enquiries or contributions should be sent to
tag@gsa.org.au or mailed to the GSA business office.
Contributions are preferred as email. MS Word documents for PC
(or compatible) are the preferred file attachment. Photos, maps, etc,
should be submitted as separate files and saved as either a .tif .pdf or
.jpg at a resolution greater than 300 dpi. If contributors produce a
file greater than 3MB it would be appreciated if they could be copied
to CD and forwarded to the Editor. Short clearly typed contributions
(up to ~1000 words) are accepted, should a member be unable to
send an email. The editor reserves the right to reject, revise and
change text editorially.
Photographs: Cover photograph submissions should preferably be
digital taken at a resolution greater than 300 dpi. Web resolution
images and colour prints (unless exceptional) are not of sufficient
quality for full colour printing.
Colour transparencies are also acceptable. Photographs for articles
may be prints, slides or digital images; they may be black and white
and colour.
Back issues are available for sale at $5 plus postage and
handling. To order email publications@gsa.org.au