July 2008 - Geoscience Society of New Zealand
July 2008 - Geoscience Society of New Zealand
July 2008 - Geoscience Society of New Zealand
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND (Inc)<br />
<strong>New</strong>sletter Number 146 <strong>July</strong> <strong>2008</strong><br />
Editorial Kerry Stanaway 2<br />
Presidents Page Nick Mortimer 3<br />
Feature<br />
Northland Resolved ? Roger Evans 3<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Rocks<br />
Tephrostratigrapy <strong>of</strong>f Raoul and Macauley Islands Ian Wright & Phil Shane 10<br />
Deep Drilling on the Alpine Fault Simon Cox….13<br />
Cast in Karst—Help! Jill Kenny 14<br />
Members Forum<br />
Oil and Gas Round-up Don Haw 17<br />
The Missing Link Chris Uruski 19<br />
The Creep <strong>of</strong> Creationism Alison Campbell 23<br />
Identity Problems for Two Auckland Volcanoes Bruce Hayward & GrahamMurdock 27<br />
Where Are They Now<br />
Roger Evans 31<br />
Roger Brand 32<br />
Rick Allis 33<br />
Kate Pound 34<br />
Reviews<br />
Geology <strong>of</strong> the Aoraki Area Qmap15 Bernhard Sporli 38<br />
Notices<br />
<strong>Society</strong> Business<br />
Potential Amalgamation <strong>of</strong> GSNZ and NZGS Mortimer Townend et al 45<br />
Taranaki Geol Soc Annual Report Susan Burgess 48<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 1
Stoking Global Cooling<br />
At the Uranium Conference in Adelaide hosted in June by the Aus IMM, the glee at the ‘most<br />
likely’ prospect <strong>of</strong> a uraniferous solution to the global warming conundrum was hard to miss.<br />
Without uranium-fired nuclear reactors to electrify our breakfast toasters a toasty<br />
carboniferous planetary future seemed assumed by all pundits and future prognosticators. One<br />
was left to wonder whether the more stormy future predicted in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>s NIWA climate<br />
change models was factored into the projections for the future wind power contribution. It was<br />
dismissed, based on German experience as not a “base-load” power source. It seemed too that<br />
nuclear power might have an as good, or even better future if the climate turned icy should<br />
decreasing output from the sun continue. After 25 years <strong>of</strong> gloom in the industry it was all up<br />
and “lets get and at it” for present and future uranium explorers. Earth’s own engine fuel was<br />
seen as the coming fuel for humanity. A falling demand was seen for fossil sun-energy stored<br />
by carbon, and only a modest one for the ongoing output from the sun. Electricity generators<br />
built to use solar had ten times the lifetime carbon footprint <strong>of</strong> equivalent nuclear power<br />
stations and wind power had twice the carbon footprint <strong>of</strong> nuclear claimed a report “Outlook<br />
for the uranium industry” by Deloitte Touche Tomatsu.<br />
The talk was even more heartening for our Australian kin (and by economic proximity<br />
ourselves). Australia it was proposed could earn carbon credits by exporting uranium for fuel.<br />
One ton <strong>of</strong> uranium could remove the need to burn 100,000tonnes <strong>of</strong> coal for electricity.<br />
Australia’s Olympic Dam deposit has doubled in size with the drilling since BHP took over<br />
two years ago and has now reached 7 billion tonnes with no end in sight. With 2.2 million<br />
tonnes <strong>of</strong> uranium it now constitutes the world’s largest uranium repository with 25% <strong>of</strong> all<br />
known. In addition it is the world’s third largest gold and fourth largest copper resource.<br />
Current world uranium consumption is 40,000tonnes to produce 16% <strong>of</strong> world electricity.<br />
BHP is considering raising annual Olympic Dam production to 19,000tonnes. The world’s<br />
discovered uranium deposits have just kept getting bigger since the 1950’s. Until the end <strong>of</strong><br />
the last uranium exploration boom they were not only getting bigger, but much higher grade.<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> the gold, silver and copper Olympic Dam yields economic return at only 0.04%<br />
uranium (400ppm) while in-situ leach operations working on roll-front deposits are economic<br />
at 0.1 to 0.2% uranium, but the unconformity deposits (not discovered until the late 1970s)<br />
have grades in the plus 15% range. Indeed one <strong>of</strong> this class <strong>of</strong> deposit in Gabon, Africa<br />
accumulated enough <strong>of</strong> the stuff to go critical naturally in the Precambrian—and still leave<br />
enough U235 for us today to mine and use, reprocessed as it were--- without melting a hole in<br />
the planet as Jane Fonda claimed would occur. These kinds <strong>of</strong> deposits occur in the Northern<br />
Territory. Exploration there had only begun when it was closed down in the 1980’s.<br />
At present the world has 439 nuclear electric power plants, with 33 under construction and 94<br />
on order or planned. Of all these 46 are in China and 129 in the US. If no significant action on<br />
climate change takes place (or most new electricity demand is met by conservation, solar,<br />
wind tide etc) the number should reach 519 (at 1MW each) by 2030. This according to the<br />
International Energy Authority. The DeloitteTT report estimates that to keep atmospheric<br />
carbon at 550ppm CO2 in 2030 would call for 960 nuclear power plants , while to keep it at<br />
350ppm would call for 1634 units.<br />
Finding the uranium is easy, but culling the Jimmy Carters from the Homer Simpsons and<br />
Heinrich Himmlers calls for eternal vigilance, and ever better science and ethics education.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 2
PRESIDENT'S PAGE<br />
I've just completed my President's tour <strong>of</strong><br />
all eight <strong>Society</strong> branches in <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>, plus visits to Masterton and<br />
Nelson. As I mentioned in the talks I gave<br />
around the country I am keen to ensure<br />
that, as a society, we are strong and<br />
function well internally. This means that<br />
at the national, branch and special interest<br />
group levels, we are meeting the needs <strong>of</strong><br />
our members. A nationwide tour such as I<br />
have just done reveals that the level and<br />
nature <strong>of</strong> branch activities and<br />
membership vary considerably from place<br />
to place. It was clear to me that some<br />
branches are doing very well, most are<br />
doing pretty well, and a couple are going<br />
through a rough patch. Unfortunately,<br />
given the huge demands on people's time<br />
these years, there's no easy way to<br />
increase participation. It seems to help if<br />
organising duties are shared and<br />
communication (publicity) is good.<br />
I also mentioned in the talk that I want to pay attention to our relations with other geoscience<br />
societies. First and foremost among these is the NZ Geophysical <strong>Society</strong>. For years there has<br />
been talk <strong>of</strong> amalgamating our two societies, but no action. I believe that it is now the time to<br />
see how close we actually want to get.<br />
In this newsletter there is a discussion paper authored by John Townend, Laura Wallace, Jan<br />
Lindsay and myself (the Presidents and Vice-Presidents <strong>of</strong> the two societies). I urge you to<br />
read it and form your own opinions on amalgamation. Talk among yourselves and with GSNZ<br />
branch and committee representatives. Email me. Write to the <strong>New</strong>sletter. Later this year there<br />
will be a survey <strong>of</strong> all members which should give us an idea <strong>of</strong> whether there is a mandate to<br />
proceed. Rest assured, nothing is a fait accompli. Maybe by the end <strong>of</strong> 2009 we will be uniting<br />
the talent pool <strong>of</strong> both societies. If we don't try we won't know.<br />
Nick Mortimer<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 3
Northland Resolved ?<br />
Roger Evans, Geotechnics, Auckland<br />
In the course <strong>of</strong> a lifetime obsession there are those occasional defining moments when<br />
suddenly the lights go on and all <strong>of</strong> the pieces <strong>of</strong> a puzzle seem to drop spontaneously into<br />
place. Jill Kenny’s article on faulting in Auckland in the March <strong>New</strong>sletter, with its emphasis<br />
on the thrust-related origin <strong>of</strong> arcuate fault structures, was for me the sequel to one such<br />
moment, and the adding <strong>of</strong> another piece to the dusty jigsaw that I had shelved and forgotten.<br />
Her thesis, that Auckland’s arcuate lineaments reflect southward thrusting propagated ahead <strong>of</strong><br />
the Northland Allochthon, fits the jigsaw. However one prominent arcuate lineament, the<br />
Papakura-Clevedon fault, was specifically excluded. Controversially, I would like to propose<br />
that this feature also could be linked to the same tectonic event, defining what may be the<br />
southern limit <strong>of</strong> crustal shortening related to the emplacement and deformation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Northland Allochthon.<br />
Before you peremptorily demur, let me set before you a comparison. A cross section drawn<br />
through Jill’s Fig. 4 from Howick to Clevedon, would virtually mimic a similar section drawn<br />
from Pupuke (east <strong>of</strong> Kaeo) southward to Okaihau, though the Waipapa basement block<br />
(Figure 1) as I mapped it over 13 years ago. There, the sequence consists <strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> low<br />
angle thrusts in Northland Allochthon, rising on to an elevated basement block with<br />
autochthonous north-dipping Te Kuiti Group cover.<br />
The difference is that at Rangiahua, on the southern side <strong>of</strong> the block, Te Kuiti Group dips<br />
steeply southwest, down the face <strong>of</strong> the arcuate greywacke escarpment. It then decreases in dip<br />
at the toe <strong>of</strong> the escarpment to form a monocline, where basal Waitemata Group is also<br />
preserved beneath the allochthon, before being cut out by the Pirau Fault. Attenuated and<br />
upturned nappes <strong>of</strong> the Northland Allochthon, resting against the southern flank <strong>of</strong> the block,<br />
occur in the same sequential order as nappes upon the northern flank.<br />
Misled by preconceptions <strong>of</strong> normal faulting, I initially mapped steeply dipping Te Kuiti<br />
Group in the Waihoanga gorge as being faulted against greywacke. Subsequent mapping<br />
proved me wrong. I now interpret the Waipapa basement block as an arcuate asymmetric<br />
anticline collectively deforming greywacke basement, autochthonous Te Kuiti and Waitemata<br />
cover, and the overlying nappes <strong>of</strong> the Northland Allochthon.<br />
Once I had identified this feature, others soon fell into place, with folding <strong>of</strong> the basement and<br />
its autochthonous and allochthonous cover being recognised from Kaeo southward as far as<br />
Kawakawa, and plotted on regional maps (self published as a series in 1993). Other arcuate<br />
features were also discerned, the southern boundary <strong>of</strong> the Takou block being one <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
Field mapping proved that these structures were superimposed on older structures which had<br />
been active in the Eocene and Oligocene during Te Kuiti deposition. The arcuate faults and<br />
folds affecting the basement were active during and after emplacement <strong>of</strong> the Northland<br />
Allochthon in the earliest Miocene; they are largely truncated by the early Miocene Wairakau<br />
Volcanics. A synopsis <strong>of</strong> these observations was published in the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Geology and Geophysics in 1992.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 4
Figure 1 (A):<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 5<br />
Principal<br />
structures and<br />
inferred lineaments<br />
affecting or<br />
defining basement<br />
outcrop in Northland<br />
(status and<br />
interpretation as<br />
discussed in the<br />
text).<br />
Key:<br />
Wa=Waipapa<br />
block.<br />
Pu=Pirau Fault.<br />
T=Takou block.<br />
M=Te Mata<br />
block.<br />
WBI= Whangarei<br />
Bay <strong>of</strong> Islands<br />
block.<br />
P=Pukenui block.<br />
O=Otaika block.<br />
H=Harbour Fault<br />
Wu=Waipu Block.<br />
Po= Piroa Fault
Figure 1(B): Schematic stratigraphy showing basement (shaded), Te Kuiti Group (dashed)<br />
Waitemata Group (stippled) and Wairakau Volcanics (triangles), relative to Northland<br />
Allochthon.<br />
I had also noted that post-emplacement folding <strong>of</strong> the thrust sheets <strong>of</strong> the Northland<br />
Allochthon west <strong>of</strong> the basement blocks, though it did not seem to involve underlying<br />
basement, was broadly parallel to the structural trends in the uplifted basement to the east.<br />
This implied considerable northeast-southwest crustal shortening across the whole <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Northland peninsula during and immediately following Allochthon emplacement. At this<br />
stage, however, a regional causative mechanism escaped me.<br />
That was as far as I got before I finished the maps and closed the door on my informal career.<br />
Basement folding throughout Northland?<br />
The ‘Eureka moment’ came nine years later at the Whangarei GSNZ conference (2002), when<br />
Bernard Sporli led us to an outcrop at north Ocean Beach. Here, basal Waitematas and<br />
overlying Northland Allochthon rest unconformably upon greywacke basement at a steeply<br />
southward dipping contact. Nearby at Parua Bay the same sequence lies flat in the foreshore,<br />
while in an inland road cutting the basal contact dips sharply to the south.<br />
This pattern, <strong>of</strong> autochthonous Tertiary strata dipping steeply down a south facing greywacke<br />
escarpment to become monoclinal at the toe, reminded me <strong>of</strong> what I had seen at Rangiahua.<br />
Then it struck me: could the Whangarei-Bay <strong>of</strong> Islands block be another <strong>of</strong> these folded<br />
basement structures?<br />
Piercy Island, at the northeast edge <strong>of</strong> this basement block, consists <strong>of</strong> Te Kuiti limestone<br />
resting on greywacke and dipping northeast. Conversely, at most places along the<br />
southwestern margin <strong>of</strong> the block, Te Kuiti Group dips moderately <strong>of</strong>f the greywacke to the<br />
southwest. Does this opposition <strong>of</strong> dips define a major basement anticline, with its axis<br />
running northwest to southeast down the summit <strong>of</strong> the ranges?<br />
Further pieces <strong>of</strong> the jigsaw began to fall into place. At Whatuwhiwhi (near Kaitaia), late<br />
Cretaceous strata dip steeply south <strong>of</strong>f greywacke basement. The southern extent <strong>of</strong> basement<br />
outcrop describes a broadly arcuate trend extending westward to Houhora. Could the younger<br />
strata define the steep southern limb <strong>of</strong> an asymmetrical anticline?<br />
What then about basement to the west and south <strong>of</strong> Whangarei?<br />
The hills immediately west <strong>of</strong> Whangarei consist <strong>of</strong> greywacke blocks with arcuate and steep<br />
southern flanks, and gently dipping northern slopes mantled by Te Kuiti cover. Do they<br />
represent arcuate asymmetric anticlines? No strata dipping steeply <strong>of</strong>f the southern<br />
escarpments have yet been mapped.<br />
However, White and Perrin, in their 1994 map <strong>of</strong> Whangarei City, show Te Kuiti Group<br />
resting against the southern flank <strong>of</strong> the Pukenui block. Is it faulted against the greywacke, or<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 6
does it dip steeply south <strong>of</strong>f the greywacke in opposition to the gently north-dipping Te Kuiti<br />
cover at the northern end <strong>of</strong> the same block? The map also shows strips <strong>of</strong> Allochthon<br />
lithologies flanking the southern escarpment <strong>of</strong> the Otaika block, arranged in the same relative<br />
order as the nappes that overlie the northern flank <strong>of</strong> the block. Are they faulted strips, or<br />
attenuated and upturned nappes folded over and with the block as well as faulted against it?<br />
These are challenges to be answered in the field.<br />
South <strong>of</strong> Whangarei is the prominent and arcuate Piroa Fault. This feature defines the Waipu<br />
Fault block, flanked by tilted greywacke blocks to the north. On the Waipu block, tens <strong>of</strong><br />
metres <strong>of</strong> north-dipping Waitemata cover is underlain by Te Kuiti Group, and is capped by<br />
Northland Allochthon along the northern foothills. On the southern escarpment, Whangarei<br />
map sheet 2A (1:250,000) shows two small outliers <strong>of</strong> Te Kuiti Group apparently clinging to<br />
the greywacke hillside. Do these indicate that the Waipu block is also an arcuate asymmetrical<br />
anticline with a faulted southern boundary? Here is another challenge for the field-footed and<br />
the eager.<br />
These patterns, observed and implied, raise significant regional questions.<br />
Are the arcuate basement blocks parautochthonous, and in some way part <strong>of</strong> the low-angle<br />
Northland Allochthon (as Bruce Hayward first postulated in 1989 in this <strong>New</strong>sletter?)<br />
Although the Piroa Fault has traditionally been mapped as a high angle fault, more recently<br />
this and other arcuate features around Whangarei have been interpreted as thrusts (see the<br />
2002 Whangarei Conference Fieldtrip Guides). If the arcuate features are thrusts, then are the<br />
subsidiary structures north <strong>of</strong> the Harbour, Piroa and Pirau faults half grabens defined by<br />
normal faults, or basement blocks tilted to the north along high angle secondary thrusts?<br />
Establishing the attitude and nature <strong>of</strong> the major basement faults is crucial to a correct<br />
interpretation. What is the demonstrable strike and dip <strong>of</strong> these faults, and how detached are<br />
these blocks from proven autochthonous basement? Are they overthrust across Northland<br />
Allochthon?<br />
The outcrop geometry <strong>of</strong> the arcuate structures implies that they are high angle rather than low<br />
angle features. If so, they would have minimal lateral displacement, with the requisite crustal<br />
shortening being achieved by basement folding rather than by frontal overthrusting. Secondary<br />
thrusting and stacking <strong>of</strong> north-tilted blocks behind the arcuate thrust fronts may reflect<br />
additional shortening.<br />
The only place in which I have seen basement greywacke thrust across Northland Allochthon<br />
at a low angle is along the northern flank <strong>of</strong> the Te Mata block north <strong>of</strong> Hikurangi. The contact<br />
(100/30SW), efficiently exposed by Transit in a cutting on SH1, was visible for a few short<br />
weeks before being just as efficiently reinterred behind a permanent retaining wall. The<br />
geometry and position <strong>of</strong> this feature relative to the arcuate structures suggests that it may be a<br />
back thrust.<br />
What is needed is some physical pro<strong>of</strong>, and pro<strong>of</strong> begins with intensive basic fieldwork-<br />
something which unfortunately I am no longer in a position to pursue.<br />
Northland resolved? To make that claim, I somehow have to fit all <strong>of</strong> these structures into a<br />
credible regional tectonic model. There are several facts to consider. First, that their initiation<br />
accompanied Allochthon emplacement, with oblique truncation <strong>of</strong> autochthon by Allochthon<br />
toward the crest <strong>of</strong> the anticlines. Second, that they seem to be successively younger<br />
southward (metres <strong>of</strong> Waitakian Waitematas beneath Allochthon on the blocks north <strong>of</strong><br />
Whangarei, and tens <strong>of</strong> metres <strong>of</strong> Waitakian-early Otaian Waitematas beneath Allochthon on<br />
the Waipu fault block.) Third, that re-folding <strong>of</strong> the Northland Allochthon nappes is broadly<br />
parallel to the western flank <strong>of</strong> the basement structures. Fourth, that the Northland Allochthon<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 7
was remobilised southward in the Otaian, requiring a driving force for that remobilization.<br />
Fifth, that these basement structures and refolding <strong>of</strong> the Allochthon largely pre-date the early<br />
Miocene volcanics <strong>of</strong> eastern Northland.<br />
Last <strong>of</strong> all, the theory fits in with established tectonic models <strong>of</strong> Allochthon emplacement<br />
followed by uplift and arc type volcanism, in response to compressive transform tectonics<br />
and/or southwest to south-directed oblique subduction east <strong>of</strong> Northland, in the early Miocene<br />
(see GNS Monograph 8).<br />
My proposition, therefore, is this: that the eastern basement blocks <strong>of</strong> Northland represent the<br />
southward propagation and emergence <strong>of</strong> deep seated south to southwest directed<br />
asymmetrically anticlinal arcuate thrust fronts, accompanying and following an episode <strong>of</strong><br />
southwest directed crustal flexure which resulted in the initial southwestward emplacement<br />
and subsequent southward migration <strong>of</strong> the Northland Allochthon.<br />
Southward toward Clevedon?<br />
In that brief revival <strong>of</strong> my obsession with Northland geology in 2002, I presumed that the<br />
southernmost arcuate basement feature was Te Arai headland, south <strong>of</strong> Mangawhai. However,<br />
upon reading Jill Kenny’s contribution, my speculative eyes were re-opened. With a little<br />
imagination one can perceive a possible arcuate southern boundary to the greywacke block at<br />
Cape Rodney, and with a great stretch <strong>of</strong> the imagination one could postulate a similar<br />
southern limit for the Kawau block.<br />
To be validated, such a claim will require a better definition <strong>of</strong> basement structure and<br />
morphology beneath extensive Waitemata cover. It would also need a distinction to be made<br />
(and proven) between locally basal, highly discordant, coarse grained Waitematas (Kawau<br />
Subgroup) crowning paleo- islands formed by the emergent and eroding crests <strong>of</strong> basement<br />
anticlines (east <strong>of</strong> Mahurangi Harbour, including the Hauraki Gulf islands); and regionally<br />
basal, generally finer grained strata <strong>of</strong> the Subgroup pre-dating Allochthon emplacement and<br />
basement uplift (west and south <strong>of</strong> Mahurangi Harbour).<br />
It is interesting to consider that if the accepted premise that Kawau Subgroup and earliest<br />
Pakiri Formation represent regionally basal (pre-Allochthon) Waitematas is correct, then<br />
volcanic-rich Pakiri Formation must underlie the Allochthon west <strong>of</strong> Mahurangi (e.g. cross<br />
section A, QMap Auckland). This would require significant volcanicity to pre-date the<br />
Allochthon. However, the volcanic arcs <strong>of</strong> Northland postdate the Allochthon, while known<br />
Waitematas underlying the Allochthon throughout Northland are exclusively volcanic poor<br />
facies (East Coast Bays Formation and Bream Subgroup). Conversely, if Pakiri Formation<br />
exclusively overlies the Allochthon, and oversteps eastward at Mahurangi on to eroded<br />
basement highs capped by locally basal Kawau Subgroup, the problem disappears.<br />
Does the Allochthon west <strong>of</strong> Mahurangi overlie volcanic rich or volcanic poor Waitematas? A<br />
stratigraphic drillhole or drillholes near Mangawhai or Wellsford could produce some<br />
interesting results. There is a worthwhile project for a lucky FoRST grantee.<br />
Similar questions could be raised regarding East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) at Auckland.<br />
The Parnell Grit members <strong>of</strong> ECBF require a contemporary volcanic source. If they are<br />
derived from the Northland arcs, they would have to be post Allochthon and therefore higher<br />
in the sequence. How deep are they found in the mainland Auckland area, and is ECBF<br />
containing Parnell Grit younger than ECBF without? Is the Parnell Grit close to basement at<br />
Motuihe Island truly basal, or is it a younger stratum overrunning a submerging basement<br />
high? Could the Gulf islands also represent eroded blocks <strong>of</strong> upthrust and folded basement?<br />
Widespread three-dimensional information is possibly more available in the Auckland area,<br />
and may facilitate a ready answer.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 8
Deep-seated basement thrusting as far south as Auckland? The demonstrably arcuate structure<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Clevedon-Papakura fault seems convincing, though it is at this stage speculative. The<br />
person who finds Tertiary strata dipping steeply <strong>of</strong>f the greywacke along the southern<br />
escarpment will help to strengthen my premise. He or she who proves otherwise will help to<br />
constrain it.<br />
The pudding will be in the pro<strong>of</strong>.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 9
NEW ZEALAND ROCKS<br />
Toward a Deep-Sea Tephrostratigraphy Record <strong>of</strong> Raoul<br />
and Macauley Eruptions<br />
Ian Wright, NIWA, Wellington i.wright@niwa.co.nz<br />
Phil Shane, SGGES, University <strong>of</strong> Auckland pa.shane@auckland.ac.n<br />
Macauley and Raoul, <strong>of</strong> the Kermadec island group, are the two larger emergent and<br />
volcanically active volcanoes <strong>of</strong> the Kermadec arc. To date the eruptive history <strong>of</strong> both these<br />
island volcanoes has been almost exclusively established from onshore eruptive deposits. The<br />
longer and more complete history <strong>of</strong> silicic volcanism from both volcanoes is not well<br />
established.<br />
For Raoul, the onshore volcanic sequence includes basaltic and basaltic-andesite submarine<br />
lavas and emergent stratovolcano deposits that extend back to at least ~1 Ma (Lloyd and<br />
Nathan, 1981). Post 3.7 ka volcanism includes eruption <strong>of</strong> 16 tephra formations, some <strong>of</strong><br />
dacitic compositions, including the eruption <strong>of</strong> the Fleetwood Tephra from the Denham<br />
caldera at ~ 2.2 ka (Worthington et al., 1999).<br />
For Macauley, the onshore volcanic sequence largely comprises basaltic shield lavas and<br />
phreatomagmatic deposits, but includes the dacitic Sandy Bay Tephra dated at 6400 14 C years<br />
(Lloyd et al. 1986) sourced from the now submerged Macauley caldera (Wright et al. 2006).<br />
The Sandy Bay Tephra is the only silicic eruptive deposits preserved on the island though<br />
pumiceous xenoliths in the underlying basaltic deposits suggest other silicic eruptives (Smith<br />
et al., 2003).<br />
Figure 1. Location <strong>of</strong> studied deep-sea sediment cores flanking Raoul and Macauleyislands .<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 10
A new research project has acquired a series <strong>of</strong> deep-sea sediment cores east and west <strong>of</strong> both<br />
islands (Figure 1) to establish both a stratigraphy and eruptive volume <strong>of</strong> the more explosive<br />
and widely dispersed tephra products from both volcanoes. Tephra sourced from the two<br />
volcanoes can be generally distinguished on the basis <strong>of</strong> major element glass chemistry with<br />
Macauley typically high K2O and Raoul having K2O < 1.5 wt%. A total <strong>of</strong> 16 cores have been<br />
acquired at distances <strong>of</strong> between 15 and 108 km from Raoul, and 24 and 93 km from<br />
Macauley. Core sites were selected on the basis <strong>of</strong> multibeam mapping on localised<br />
bathymetric highs (Figure 1), and hence the recovered sediment cores are interpreted to<br />
represent fall-out tephra deposited through the water-column rather than submarine ash-laden<br />
density-flows. Only those cores immediately east <strong>of</strong> Macauley Island (Cores 12 – 15) were<br />
probably deposited from such seafloor density-flows. As might be expected, recovered core<br />
length is greater at increasing distance from the islands, with Cores 1 and 16 being 308 cm and<br />
240 cm in length, respectively. The representative stratigraphy <strong>of</strong> Core 1 is shown in Figure 2.<br />
Figure 2. Stratigraphy <strong>of</strong> Core 1 showing core photograph, magnetic susceptibility,<br />
down-core depths <strong>of</strong> sampled and analysed tephra, and 14 C ages.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 11
Closer to the islands recovered core length is typically 70 wt % SiO2), we can recognise both high K2O glasses from Macauley and<br />
lower K2O glasses from Raoul, with multiple eruptions from both volcanoes. For example,<br />
Core 1 records multiple rhyolite eruptions from both volcanoes (Figure 2), though located 80<br />
km west <strong>of</strong> Raoul and 73 km northwest <strong>of</strong> Macauley. Other glass compositions in Core 1<br />
include dacite and andesite, though we have yet to unambiguously correlate these tephra to<br />
either Raoul or Macauley as the source. Nevertheless all cores conclusively demonstrate the<br />
longevity <strong>of</strong> silicic eruptions from Raoul and Macauley volcanoes, with low K2O eruptions<br />
dated to at least 48-50 ka, and high K2O eruptions to at least 50-55 ka. Many tephra have a<br />
range <strong>of</strong> glass shard compositions indicating magma-mixing and possibly basaltic intrusion<br />
triggering. In the immediate future we will finalise the 14 C dating, and both inter-core tephra<br />
correlations and correlation to the source volcano. In the longer term we hope to establish<br />
volume estimates <strong>of</strong> the identified eruptions, and propose to undertake trace-element<br />
geochemical analysis <strong>of</strong> the tephra glasses.<br />
References<br />
Lloyd, E.F., Nathan, S., 1981. Geology and Tephrochronology <strong>of</strong> Raoul Island, Kermadec<br />
Group, <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Geol. Survey Bulletin 95. 105pp.<br />
Smith, I.E.M., Stewart, R.B., Price, R.C., 2003. The petrology <strong>of</strong> a large intra-oceanic silicic<br />
eruption: the Sandy Bay Tephra, Kermadec arc, Southwest Pacific. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Volcanology and Geothermal Research 124, 173-194.<br />
Worthington, T.J., Gregory, M.R., Bondarenko, V., 1999. The Denham caldera on Raoul volcano:<br />
dacitic volcanism in the Tonga-Kermadec arc. Journal <strong>of</strong> Volcanology and Geothermal<br />
Research 90, 29-48.<br />
Wright, I.C., Worthington, T.J., Gamble, J.A., 2006. <strong>New</strong> multibeam mapping and geochemistry<br />
<strong>of</strong> the 30° - 35°S sector, and overview, <strong>of</strong> southern Kermadec arc volcanism. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Volcanology and Geothermal Research 149: 263-296.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 12
Deep Fault Drilling Project (DFDP) on the Alpine Fault<br />
Simon Cox, GNS, s.cox@gns.cri.nz<br />
Over the past two years the concept <strong>of</strong> drilling the Alpine Fault has been rapidly gathering<br />
momentum. A preliminary proposal was submitted to the International Continental Scientific<br />
Drilling Program (ICDP) in January 2007, in which a case was made that the Alpine Fault<br />
<strong>of</strong>fers a unique opportunity to drill and observe a shallow seismogenic zone, and to integrate<br />
drilling results with exhumed fault rocks exposed at the surface. Following an encouraging<br />
response from the ICDP, a two-day meeting and three-day fieldtrip were held from 5-9<br />
November 2007 funded by the Earthquake Commission, GNS Science, Victoria University <strong>of</strong><br />
Wellington, and the Royal <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. The meeting was attended by 46 local<br />
scientists and SAFOD (San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth) principal investigators Pr<strong>of</strong><br />
Mark Zoback (Stanford University) and Dr William Ellsworth (US Geological Survey). A key<br />
theme that emerged at the meeting was the possibility <strong>of</strong> calibrating geological predictions<br />
based on surface exposures to rocks at >4 km depth. This would yield a wealth <strong>of</strong> information<br />
about near-surface fluid alteration and fluid processes; localisation with depth; rheological<br />
mechanisms; and involvement and deformation <strong>of</strong> the footwall.<br />
A second ICDP proposal was submitted in January <strong>2008</strong>, requesting support for a five-day<br />
workshop in early 2009. The plan is to assemble approximately 40 researchers from <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong> and overseas with complementary experience in pertinent fields, and particularly<br />
structural geology, tectonics, hydrological and thermal modelling, geophysics, earthquake<br />
physics, and drilling. In addition to a series <strong>of</strong> purely scientific questions to be resolved<br />
during the workshop, there are several key logistical issues to be addressed, not the least <strong>of</strong><br />
which is the technical feasibility <strong>of</strong> conducting a large-scale drilling experiment on the Alpine<br />
fault hanging wall. Other key topics to be discussed include the advisory structure required<br />
for a multi-year program <strong>of</strong> site characterisation, drilling, and science, both on the surface and<br />
down-hole; the membership <strong>of</strong> technical focus groups; and the attraction <strong>of</strong> adequate longterm,<br />
high-level funding. A principal outcome <strong>of</strong> the workshop will be a draft science plan for<br />
the coming years that encompasses further site characterisation, deep drilling, and ongoing<br />
monitoring. Un<strong>of</strong>ficial notification has just been received from ICDP (May <strong>2008</strong>) that the<br />
meeting will be funded and the proposal has been recommended “with extremely high<br />
ranking” — a very exciting outcome!<br />
For the uninitiated, deep fault drilling programs such SAFOD are experiments motivated by<br />
fundamental scientific imperatives that go well beyond obtaining a single core from one point<br />
along a fault! They typically involve numerous site characterisation and related studies,<br />
shallow test drill holes, characterisation <strong>of</strong> core, down-hole geophysics, and infrastructure for<br />
ongoing observation and monitoring programs. The current proposal to drill deep into the<br />
Alpine Fault is no different. It aims to drill, sample, and monitor the Alpine Fault to address<br />
fault zone evolution via brittle and ductile processes operating in the upper and mid-crust. The<br />
remarkable along-strike homogeneity <strong>of</strong> the Alpine Fault’s hanging wall, the rapid rate <strong>of</strong> slip,<br />
and the dextral-reverse kinematics that progressively exhume the fault’s own faulting products<br />
together enable us to examine the progressive evolution <strong>of</strong> fault zone materials by effectively<br />
targeting a single rock mass at two points on its exhumation trajectory. The idea is to place a<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 13
orehole at a measurable distance tectonically upstream (i.e. back along the exhumation<br />
trajectory) from a well-exposed and thoroughly studied surface outcrop <strong>of</strong> the fully evolved<br />
suite <strong>of</strong> fault rocks. By comparing fault rocks exposed at the surface with their correlatives at<br />
depth along a single exhumation trajectory, we can take advantage <strong>of</strong> a rare window into the<br />
physical character <strong>of</strong> the seismologically expressed brittle–ductile transition zone in a fault<br />
that is active today and which can be geophysically monitored in the coming decades. In that<br />
way, the proposed project would constitute a globally unique experiment in fault-rock and<br />
fault zone evolution.<br />
The experiment would probably involve a multi-phase drilling program conducted over<br />
several years and involving a number <strong>of</strong> boreholes commencing with shallow instrumentation<br />
holes and 1–2 km-deep exploratory holes, then going progressively deeper. This would enable<br />
the final and technologically most challenging phases <strong>of</strong> drilling and monitoring to be directly<br />
informed by sub-surface measurements in a similar manner to that used in the SAFOD project.<br />
A key difference <strong>of</strong> an Alpine Fault project from other such projects overseas is that, first, the<br />
target is the rheological mid-crust at greater structural depths (i.e. mid-crust, and the middle or<br />
even lower portions <strong>of</strong> the seismogenic zone) and, second, the well-studied but incomplete<br />
exhumed crustal section outcropping at the surface will directly inform interpretation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
borehole observations. To date no active fault drilling experiment has targeted the mid-crustal<br />
roots <strong>of</strong> a long-lived active fault, or addressed fault zone evolution throughout the seismogenic<br />
zone and towards the brittle-ductile transition. At the November 2007 workshop, several<br />
possible locations for an upstream/downstream experiment were discussed, and these will be<br />
the subject <strong>of</strong> more focussed discussion in 2009.<br />
The proposal is currently being spearheaded by John Townend (Victoria University <strong>of</strong><br />
Wellington) and Rupert Sutherland (GNS Science), who are coordinating input from a wide<br />
range <strong>of</strong> scientists including: Susan Ellis, Simon Cox (GNS Science); Richard Norris, Rick<br />
Sibson, Virginia Toy (University <strong>of</strong> Otago); Tim Stern, Tim Little (Victoria University <strong>of</strong><br />
Wellington); Tim Davies (University <strong>of</strong> Canterbury); Peter Malin (University <strong>of</strong> Auckland);<br />
and many other local and international colleagues. Copies <strong>of</strong> the two ICDP proposals<br />
submitted to date can be obtained from John Townend.<br />
Cast in Karst – help!<br />
Jill Kenny, Auckland j.kenny@geomarine.org.nz<br />
The Geologial Reserves Subcommittee <strong>of</strong> GSNZ has obtained a NZ Lottery Board<br />
Environment and Heritage Grant to update the karst entries in the NZ Geopreservation<br />
Inventory – a computerised database maintained by the subcommittee convenor, Bruce<br />
Hayward. I am hoping readers can assist by sending me karst site suggestions.<br />
The Inventory lists and describes the scientifically, educationally and aesthetically most<br />
important examples <strong>of</strong> the wide diversity <strong>of</strong> natural physical features and processes that<br />
together characterise each part <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. Although there have been a few additions and<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 14
some updates made to the Inventory on an ad hoc basis, it has not been substantially revised<br />
for 10 years.<br />
We know the Inventory is not fully comprehensive, and is particularly weak in some<br />
categories, especially in the coverage <strong>of</strong> many landform types. One <strong>of</strong> the most poorly<br />
represented categories is karst landforms. It is also one <strong>of</strong> the landform types most under<br />
threat <strong>of</strong> being damaged by development, subdivision, harvesting <strong>of</strong> ornamental boulders, and<br />
even normal farming activities, such as farm road construction and use <strong>of</strong> tomos as farm dump<br />
sites.<br />
Many larger or more robust important landforms require very little in the way <strong>of</strong> active or<br />
passive management, however many <strong>of</strong> the smaller or more fragile earth science sites, such as<br />
karst areas, need to be identified and measures taken to ensure their survival in a natural state<br />
for future generations to enjoy and learn from. The first requirement is to identify, document<br />
and map the extent <strong>of</strong> these features and to communicate this information to appropriate land<br />
management authorities so that the required level <strong>of</strong> protection or management can be selected<br />
and put in place.<br />
Following this rationale, I am currently updating and mapping areas <strong>of</strong> karst, natural arches<br />
and pseudo-karst throughout the country that require protection. Karst landscapes within<br />
National Parks are not being given high priority here because they area already preserved, but<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> karst outside National Parks need to be listed and mapped in detail.<br />
This is where I need help from GSNZ members. With surface karst landforms in mind<br />
(including natural arches, pseudo-karst in basalt and ignimbrite or other material), if you know <strong>of</strong><br />
new sites, vulnerable sites, or sites that need updating, please email me at<br />
j.kenny@geomarine.org.nz. The Geopreservation Inventory website<br />
(http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~bw.hayward/NZGI/ ) can be searched alphabetically, or under<br />
regional or map sheet categories. Surface karst entries currently in the Inventory are as follows:<br />
Northland Region – Abbey Caves and karst; Hikurangi Quarry buried karst; Kamo limestone<br />
pinnacles; Skull Creek-Mangawhati Point, Whangarei Harbour; Waiomio limestone pillars;<br />
Waipu karst; Wairere boulder valley; Waro Limestone Karst.<br />
Auckland Region and Kermadec Is – Limestone Point, Motuihe Island; Stony Batter basalt<br />
boulders, Waiheke.<br />
Waikato Region – Lake Disappear polje; Mangamutu caves and springs; Mangapohue natural<br />
bridge; Mangapohue QEII Reserve polygonal karst; Mangawhitikau Gorge; Puketiti Swamp<br />
karst; Ruakuri natural bridge, Taranaki Point karst, Te Akau pancake limestone bluffs;<br />
Waikorea-Waimai Road, Te Akau Oligocene limestone; Waipuna karst.<br />
East Coast and Hawkes Bay Regions – Blowhard Range Karst.<br />
Nelson and Marlborough Regions – Canaan Downs Polje; Devil's Boots, Aorere Valley; Ellis<br />
Basin and Horseshoe Basin Karst; Gouland Downs karst; Harwoods Hole/Starlight Cave;<br />
Lake Killarney sinkhole lake, Takaka; Motupipi limestone hogback; Pearse Resurgence;<br />
Takaka Hill karst and marble; Tarakohe limestone arch; The Grove karst; Waikoropupu<br />
Springs.<br />
Canterbury Region and Chatham Is – Annadale (Mt Cookson) karst; Bland's Bluff paleokarst;<br />
Castle Hill Basin karst; Pareora Dolines; Trig Z Otetaike paleokarst.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 15
West Coast – Honeycomb Hill Arch; Moria Gate limestone arch, Oparara; Mount Garibaldi<br />
karst; Mount Owen karst; Oparara Arch; Punakaiki pancake rocks, Dolomite Point.<br />
Please note that I am concentrating on surface karst features and that the Geopreservation<br />
Inventory currently also has 85 caves listed.<br />
Missing Person<br />
We forgot to include Dan Hikoura in the Committee Group photo last issue! Sorry Dan!<br />
The committee from left to right Rochelle Hansen, Kate Wilson, Kari Bassett, Janet Simes,<br />
Keith Lewis, Jan Lindsay, Nick Mortimer, Scott Nodder, David Skinner, Inset Alan Palmer,<br />
Kerry Stanaway, Dan Hikoura<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 16
MEMBERS FORUM<br />
Oil and Gas Round-up to June <strong>2008</strong><br />
Don Haw, Wellington<br />
Australian Worldwide Exploration<br />
This Company (AWE), another recent newcomer to <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, is now well integrated into<br />
the NZ Exploration scene deriving mainly from its success at Tui. As Operator for Tui (42.5%<br />
interest) its success has been dramatic, not just because <strong>of</strong> the enhanced production there, but<br />
also because this aggressive explorer has acquired several other attractive licence positions in<br />
NZ. It is the largest equity holder in the western Taranaki basin and the largest permit<br />
Operator in the region, partially because <strong>of</strong> the huge extent <strong>of</strong> permit 38483 some 150 kms<br />
west <strong>of</strong> Maui (see map) Here, in the Pukeko -1 well, 30 kms west <strong>of</strong> Maari, extensive oil<br />
shows were encountered.<br />
It seems, in the writer’s opinion, that AWE has recognised the fact that ‘subtle traps’ might be<br />
more widespread than hitherto recognised. Perhaps for too long explorers have been chasing<br />
simple closures. The new strategy was no doubt brought into focus by the success at Tui, with<br />
the immediately adjacent, separate accumulations at Amokura and Pateke. It is particularly<br />
interesting to note AWE are re–evaluating the area NW <strong>of</strong> Tane-1, no doubt with this in mind.<br />
West Cape -1 (P and A) and Amokura -1 (?? P and A) were both drilled late last year, close to<br />
Tui (see map) but the results are not yet known.<br />
The Maari Oilfield -- OMV<br />
The huge ( 10,000 tonne) well head platform arrived on site in April, on the Blue Marlin , the<br />
worlds largest heavy transport vessel. Following installation eight development wells will be<br />
drilled. We await these results with great anticipation.<br />
Maari, was discovered by the Tricentrol well Moki-1 in 1983. This sub commercial Miocene<br />
sandstone oil discovery has been through many Operators hands since and in the writer’s mind<br />
most have never recognised its full potential. Hence the way it was ‘<strong>of</strong>floaded’ for others to<br />
explore and expend their funds. Shell -Todd farmed in to the Cultus licence (38413) in 1996,<br />
but they never achieved the impetus to develop it, and backed <strong>of</strong>f after Maari-1 was drilled in<br />
1998. This in spite <strong>of</strong> this well finding oil and gas in the Mangahewa Formation. Shell had<br />
drilled the Maui – 4 well oil discovery on the Manaia structure (10kms SW <strong>of</strong> Moki) ) as long<br />
ago as 1970, but it was not considered to contain sufficient added value within the permit.<br />
Cultus was taken over by OMV in 1999 and following a major re-appraisal and the drilling <strong>of</strong><br />
Maari-2 the fields were rapidly upgraded to development status It has now almost reached<br />
production stage, based on a reserve <strong>of</strong> 50mmbls, which may in fact still be underrated.<br />
Horizon Oil, a minor partner, has optimistic views, which mirror what Todd was thinking in<br />
1996, in that several, as yet untested reservoir levels, could be hydrocarbon bearing, both with<br />
the Miocene and deeper in the Eocene Kapuni. OMV are pursuing these and, within the<br />
development plan, they intend to tie in and develop the Maui-4 closure some 12 kms south <strong>of</strong><br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 17
Maari and access its potentially undervalued reservoir interval. Total recoverable reserves <strong>of</strong><br />
the greater Maari Field (incl. Maui-4) is now put at 87 mmbbls.<br />
Canterbury – Origin’s Shelf Edge Permits 38259/38262<br />
Proven, potential source rocks <strong>of</strong> the Late Cretaceous post rift coaly sequence have been<br />
established in this region, as well as within the more restricted mid Cretaceous syn rift system.<br />
Maturity has however been a problem. Also, the syn rift sequence has never been properly<br />
mapped prior to the recent Origin appraisal <strong>of</strong> their new acreage. It is now apparent that this<br />
older sequence is much more attractive because <strong>of</strong> the maturity regime and the realisation that<br />
it could source prospective Late Cretaceous closures recently mapped in those permits --<br />
38259 and 38262. These are the Carrack and Caravel structures along the Zapata ridge (a<br />
significant uplift) which are now beginning to look very attractive. Particularly, in view <strong>of</strong> the<br />
known hydrocarbons and good reservoirs established in BP’s Galleon-1 well further updip on<br />
the shelf. It has a taken a long time to follow up this small discovery and Origins efforts look<br />
good. They are currently looking for partners, and I would think this would not be too<br />
difficult.<br />
It is particularly interesting to see how the UK’s British Gas Group has entered the scene with<br />
a $13.00 billion bid for Origin which, it is said, is primarily aimed at acquiring Origins<br />
exploration assetts. BG are much less interested in Contact Energy (Origin owns 51.4% <strong>of</strong><br />
Contact) which must make the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Company’s shareholders wonder where its<br />
primary value lies. BG have said they will not attribute any premium to the market price <strong>of</strong><br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 18
Contacts shares if the deal goes through. BG may in fact have plans to onsell Contact. Watch<br />
this space.<br />
Hyundai Hysco<br />
A major new player has entered the NZ exploration scene with the Korean company Hyundai<br />
Hysco joining forces with Global Resources in their extensive deepwater Taranaki permit PPL<br />
38451. This is the first significant move to explore this area with a commitment to shoot some<br />
3000 kms <strong>of</strong> new seismic, which hopefully will lead to deepwater drilling. Hyundai have<br />
committed to earn 30% in the permit, by paying for the seismic, thus carrying Global’s work<br />
programme commitment. GNS who have strongly promoted this region should be<br />
congratulated for this achievement.<br />
Kupe Development<br />
The Ensco rig has now completed the development wells <strong>of</strong> the Kupe production project and<br />
Origin are now preparing to drill their “semi exploration” well Momoho-1, six kms south <strong>of</strong><br />
the platform. This is targeting the Farewell and Puponga Formations and could “seriously”<br />
upgrade the reserves <strong>of</strong> the overall field.<br />
Great South Basin Seismic Surveys<br />
Extensive seismic surveys covering huge areas <strong>of</strong> the GSB were completed over the summer<br />
period for OMV and Esso separate Operators for the large permit areas in the region. OMV<br />
shot 16,054 kms <strong>of</strong> 2D seismic in the northern permits, wherehas Esso/Todd shot 960 kms <strong>of</strong><br />
2D and 1340 kms <strong>of</strong> 3D in the southernmost area.<br />
Data processing and interpretation will engage the geophysical teams over the next six to nine<br />
months leading to drilling committments which have to be finalised by late next year.<br />
Prospectivity in the GSBN has been constrained by supposed limitations on the generative<br />
potential <strong>of</strong> source rocks but with basement depths up to 8 kms over certain areas there must<br />
be renewed optimism on this risk. Also where and what exactly is basement. There must be<br />
some new ideas on this issue. The GSB hold much promise in the writers view.<br />
Todd into Landfill Gas<br />
Amongst their numerous downstream projects in NZ, did you know that Todd Energy are now<br />
installing a 1.MG gas fired power station at Wellingtons Southern landfill at Happy Valley.<br />
Todd say that this can provide power for up to 1000 households. Clearly a very<br />
environmentally friendly way <strong>of</strong> removing methane (a bad pollutant) from decomposing<br />
rubbish. Although very small by any industry standards this is definitely a carbon credit<br />
winner.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 19
The missing link.<br />
Chris Uruski, GNS Science<br />
Here we go again! Winter has arrived accompanied by low levels in South Island lakes, a<br />
power cut in Parliament, a 90% renewable electricity policy and time to rebid the GNS<br />
petroleum research programme. But wait, we have some good news. Last month Crown<br />
Minerals announced that <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> is now 70% self-sufficient in oil, largely on the back <strong>of</strong><br />
the Tui cluster <strong>of</strong> fields in Taranaki. Other projects in Taranaki are going well, Pohokura is<br />
contributing significantly to gas supply and reportedly adding 10,000 barrels per day <strong>of</strong><br />
condensate to the mix. Kupe is on target to start gas production next year and it too has<br />
associated condensate, estimated at 15 million barrels. Then there is Maari which should be<br />
starting production later this year. When Maari adds its expected 35,000 barrels <strong>of</strong> oil a day,<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> will become a net oil exporting country. The question then becomes “Does<br />
OPEC do a monthly membership?”<br />
Is there an argument for trying to maintain our status as a net oil producer? I’d say yes. Never<br />
mind the fact that, whether we wish it or not, we are heavily reliant on oil. If we have oil, we<br />
have wealth at the rate <strong>of</strong> $US 130/barrel. At present, we are a net importer to the tune <strong>of</strong><br />
$1,332 million dollars. If we are again reduced to importing almost all the oil we use, that bill<br />
could amount to $6,000 million, or about the same as the value <strong>of</strong> the entire dairy industry. In<br />
fact the value <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s oil exports exceeded that <strong>of</strong> sheep last year, too. My<br />
argument is that if indigenous oil is found and exported, we can even afford renewable energy.<br />
So how do we set about ensuring that we continue to discover and export this commodity in<br />
order to keep the home windmills turning? What we have done so far is to try to get the<br />
international oil companies to do the job for us and, while we have had some success, they’re<br />
not exactly beating a path to our door. By far the best solution, and the one that <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>er’s are rightly famous for, would be to do it for ourselves and that could mean a<br />
number <strong>of</strong> things. The private sector has so far been less than scintillating in its approach to<br />
oil exploration and for very good reasons. If they gamble and loose, the whole company goes<br />
down the drain and the directors are put in the stocks, at least metaphorically. In a business<br />
where the only way to make a pr<strong>of</strong>it is to risk tens <strong>of</strong> millions <strong>of</strong> dollars in each well,<br />
companies must be well capitalised. It is notable that the largest companies in the world are<br />
now not International, but National oil companies. National oil companies have more than the<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>it motive in mind when they operate. Their prime directive is to secure oil supplies for<br />
their country. Perhaps it’s time to start a sequel to Petrocorp! I don’t hold out much hope for a<br />
son <strong>of</strong> Petrocorp, particularly one with sufficient capital to be a serious contender in<br />
exploration <strong>of</strong> our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), so it looks like we’ll have to continue<br />
with plan A, get someone else to do it for us.<br />
First, though, we need to be sure as we can be that we have the raw ingredients. There would<br />
be little point in exploring for oil in our vast EEZ if it were underlain by an Archean massif,<br />
punctuated by Mesozoic and Tertiary volcanism. Luckily, we have been blessed with an EEZ<br />
that contains perhaps a million or so square kilometres that are underlain be sedimentary<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 20
asins thick enough to be expelling hydrocarbons today. This knowledge gradually<br />
accumulated over the decades as GNS and its pre-cursor organisations actively explored the<br />
EEZ using the cheapest geophysical equipment that could be bought, borrowed or assembled<br />
from bits and bobs found in the bottom drawer <strong>of</strong> the lab. In the 1970s, oil companies made a<br />
contribution with then state-<strong>of</strong>-the-art seismic vessels. Techniques have now moved on and<br />
imaging techniques have improved enormously resulting in a new, and different, appreciation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the geology <strong>of</strong> the EEZ and <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. In line with this improvement and with the<br />
rising price <strong>of</strong> oil, the day rate for seismic acquisition is now around $US 160,000 ($NZ<br />
200,000). This coincidentally is almost exactly the value <strong>of</strong> the GNS annual budget for<br />
seismic acquisition and that single day <strong>of</strong> ship time is not enough to get a ship far out into our<br />
EEZ. Neither is it directed towards petroleum exploration but to understanding plate tectonics.<br />
Although GNS is charged with understanding the geology <strong>of</strong> the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> EEZ, the nonexistent<br />
budget for data acquisition has been a bit <strong>of</strong> an obstacle. We have had to make do<br />
with data relinquished by the industry and concentrated geographically in shallow water.<br />
We’ve arrived at the missing link. GNS has never had a budget for seismic acquisition and<br />
we’ve been told that to ask for one would be “frivolous”. The frustrations <strong>of</strong> this minimal<br />
access to the EEZ eventually resulted in the 2001 deepwater Taranaki survey completed by<br />
TGS-NOPEC in partnership with GNS. This 6,200 km seismic survey was sold on a<br />
speculative basis to the industry and to the pr<strong>of</strong>it <strong>of</strong> all parties. The best way to attract<br />
exploration companies to invest in the deep waters around <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> is to give them some<br />
comfort that they might actually find something <strong>of</strong> value.<br />
The idea <strong>of</strong> providing data to industry to attract exploration was taken up by Crown Minerals,<br />
which has done an excellent job in recent years. <strong>New</strong> data attracted Pogo, now Plains<br />
Exploration and Production, into a large East Coast Basin permit. Later, ExxonMobil and<br />
OMV were attracted to the Great South Basin, again by the judicious application <strong>of</strong> new<br />
seismic data. More recently, the Raukumara Sub-basin <strong>of</strong> the East Coast has regurgitated<br />
surprises, with up to 13 km <strong>of</strong> a relatively un-deformed sedimentary succession adjacent to the<br />
tectonically convoluted East Coast Basin. Crown Minerals has now spent its initial budget and<br />
can point to the above successes with pride, but their success may mean that now industry will<br />
be expected to carry the burden.<br />
So what has GNS achieved on the smell <strong>of</strong> an oily rag? First <strong>of</strong> all, we recognised the extent<br />
and potential <strong>of</strong> our deepwater frontier basins and secondly, we’ve helped stimulate work in<br />
the deepwater region. In deepwater Taranaki for example, we found a large Late Cretaceous<br />
delta, overlying an older rift succession. Conoco’s Waka Nui-1 well in Northland then started<br />
the idea that <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s petroleum systems might be older than previously thought, based<br />
on near-shore and onshore geology. <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Geology has been dominated by the effects<br />
<strong>of</strong> the present plate boundary but gradually, it’s beginning to look like the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> EEZ<br />
is underlain by similar geology to that <strong>of</strong> eastern Australia and the rest <strong>of</strong> this segment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Gondwana Margin. In retrospect, this should hardly be a surprise, but this realisation would be<br />
impossible without seismic reflection data.<br />
In conclusion, a better understanding <strong>of</strong> the geology <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s marine territories and<br />
the resources that may be present can be obtained only after surveying those territories with<br />
modern, high-quality seismic reflection data. Personally, I don’t particularly care how such an<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 21
operation is funded, or which organisation controls the budget. GNS has successfully and<br />
comfortably worked with Crown Minerals for the last three years in helping to plan surveys,<br />
interpreting data and using the results to promote the chosen areas to industry and I can see<br />
benefits in developing this partnership. The level <strong>of</strong> funding needed to run such a program<br />
would be around $10 million a year, or less than 10% <strong>of</strong> the royalties from the Tui project<br />
alone. Such figures put the cost <strong>of</strong> petroleum research into perspective, particularly when the<br />
ultimate value <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s petroleum endowment is concerned. My premise is that most<br />
<strong>of</strong> our deepwater basins are likely to be more productive than Taranaki as they are much less<br />
compromised by active tectonics. However, assuming that our known basins will only be as<br />
productive as Taranaki and no more, we may produce around 17 billion barrels <strong>of</strong> oil<br />
equivalent from them in time, which is now worth somewhere in the region <strong>of</strong> $ NZ 3 trillion.<br />
I’d say it’s worth finding out, wouldn’t you?<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 22
The Creep <strong>of</strong> Creationism – is it Relevant to Teaching<br />
Earth Sciences?<br />
Alison Campbell Dept. <strong>of</strong> Bio Sciences, University <strong>of</strong> Waikato acampbel@waikato.ac.nz<br />
We tend to think <strong>of</strong> creationism as being a peculiarly US problem. And certainly the<br />
creationism vs. evolution conflict is much more apparent there. But recent events, including<br />
the consultation over <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s new Science curriculum, have made it clear that<br />
creationism is alive and well in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. Why should this concern geo-scientists?<br />
Because rejection <strong>of</strong> evolution implies rejection <strong>of</strong> a substantial body <strong>of</strong> geological evidence –<br />
and because promotion <strong>of</strong> creationism carries with it a lack <strong>of</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> the nature and<br />
processes <strong>of</strong> science.<br />
“Fossils showcase knowledge ... and rebut creationist philosophy”<br />
“Palaeontologist Hamish Campbell says a new exhibition <strong>of</strong> the nation's fossils… is<br />
important as a counter to religious fundamentalists who argue the Earth is only 6000 years<br />
old” (RSNZ <strong>New</strong>s update, 9 October 2007).<br />
Creationism, in its many guises, is an issue for geologists as much as it is for biologists: not<br />
only does it promote misunderstanding <strong>of</strong> such key material as the age <strong>of</strong> the Earth and<br />
radiometric dating, but it also works against understanding <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> science.<br />
As an example, the biblical literalism <strong>of</strong> Young Earth creationists (YEC) leads not only to<br />
their denial <strong>of</strong> evolution but also to rejection <strong>of</strong> anything in modern geology that relates to the<br />
age <strong>of</strong> the Earth and the processes that shaped it. Thus the principal <strong>of</strong> an Auckland<br />
independent school could say, in 2005,<br />
“It’s perfectly possible to say God created the world at a point in time and at<br />
that point in time [the Earth] was fixed with so many C-14 and so many ordinary<br />
carbon molecules – why not? God is God.”<br />
Intelligent Design ‘Theory’ is superficially more scientific in its approach, although many <strong>of</strong><br />
its proponents are somewhat ambivalent about the age <strong>of</strong> the Earth. Intelligent Design<br />
creationism is a particular concern for biology educators and should be for earth scientists as<br />
well – many in the wider community (as well as in the education community) see it as a<br />
scientific alternative to evolution. Given the lack <strong>of</strong> scientific rigour in Intelligent Design (ID),<br />
it is likely that acceptance <strong>of</strong> ID creationism would be reflected by a reduced understanding <strong>of</strong><br />
how science works, and possibly a less favourable attitude to science (e.g. Williams <strong>2008</strong>).<br />
Nor does the use <strong>of</strong> ‘the designer did it’ as an explanation for any phenomenon that we don’t<br />
currently understand do much to encourage intellectual curiosity.<br />
There is no shortage <strong>of</strong> resources for schools or individuals wishing to teach creationist<br />
material. For example:<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 23
“How Old is the Earth”?<br />
“The modern science <strong>of</strong> geology is based upon our increasingly improving<br />
capacity for observation, the application <strong>of</strong> the scientific method and established<br />
ideas culled from generations <strong>of</strong> geological research. Today, satellites are<br />
capable <strong>of</strong> detecting the movement <strong>of</strong> the land even if that movement is measured<br />
in inches per year. Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful<br />
observations and math, scientists who believe the earth is billions <strong>of</strong> years old<br />
assert that one can calculate and extrapolate a presumed age <strong>of</strong> the Earth. The<br />
consensus is approximately 4.6 billion years.<br />
“Young earth creationist scientists state the earth is approximately 6,000 years<br />
old. In addition, young earth creationist scientist [sic] state that there are<br />
numerous lines <strong>of</strong> evidence pointing to a young earth and that the old earth<br />
paradigm is errant and has scores <strong>of</strong> anomalies (for details please see: Geologic<br />
system and Young Earth Creationism).” (Conservapedia, 2007)<br />
But not in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, <strong>of</strong> course!<br />
Really? In the period 1870-1940, creationists had: attempted to have an Otago pr<strong>of</strong>essor<br />
sacked for teaching evolution in his classroom (1871); forced the removal <strong>of</strong> any reference to<br />
human evolution from the national science syllabus (1928); and in 1947 successfully lobbied<br />
for the cancellation <strong>of</strong> a BBC radio series on evolution that was to have played on <strong>New</strong><br />
<strong>Zealand</strong>’s radio for schools programme (McGeorge, 1992; Numbers & Stenhouse, 2000).<br />
In 1972 Henry Morris (The Genesis Flood) was invited on a speaking tour <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>,<br />
followed by other US creationists. While scientists in general rejected their claims, one<br />
university geologist was apparently so swayed by creationist rhetoric that he included works<br />
by Morris and fellow creationist Duane Gish in his own courses (Numbers & Stenhouse,<br />
2000).<br />
In 1982 the then Auckland Department <strong>of</strong> Education issued a creationist textbook for use in<br />
senior biology classes, a book which was widely distributed by the Auckland College <strong>of</strong><br />
Education’s Science Resource Centre. When questioned about the propriety <strong>of</strong> science<br />
teachers including creationism in their classes, a spokesman for the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Education<br />
Department responded that “he found nothing wrong with science teachers including<br />
‘scientific creationism’ in their classes, ‘as long as they’re presenting it as one possible<br />
explanation and not the only explanation’” (Numbers & Stenhouse, 2000).<br />
The scientific community here felt that science, and evolution, had little to fear from<br />
creationism; it was viewed as a peculiarly American foible. Yet at the same time, the Creation<br />
Science Foundation (CSF) in Australia was expanding to become what was, by the 1990s, the<br />
world’s second-largest creation-science organisation. Its views found fertile ground among<br />
religious conservatives in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, and also among our Maori and Pasifika communities<br />
(e.g. Peddie, 1995), and in 1992 the CSF opened a <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> branch, Creation Science<br />
(NZ) (Numbers & Stenhouse, 2000).<br />
1993 saw the introduction <strong>of</strong> a new Science curriculum, and the associated ‘specialist’ science<br />
curricula, for <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> schools (MoE, 1993). Evolution is mentioned explicitly only at<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 24
Level 8 (Living World) <strong>of</strong> the Science document, which gives as a learning objective<br />
“students can investigate and describe the diversity <strong>of</strong> scientific thought on the origins <strong>of</strong><br />
humans” (MoE, ibid.) It goes on to say that students could be learning through “holding a<br />
debate about evolution and critically evaluating the theories relating to this biological issue”<br />
(my italics). This suggestion that there is more than one possible theory explaining the origins<br />
<strong>of</strong> life’s diversity has left the door open for teachers and institutions who wish to bring<br />
creationism into the science classroom. Thus, in 1995 Peddie could comment, “… in this<br />
country some private schools, and some teachers within the state school system and home<br />
schooling systems, continue to teach creationism and debunk evolution.”<br />
And more recently, in 2003 the Masters Institute, together with the organisation Focus on the<br />
Family, <strong>of</strong>fered a workshop on intelligent design for teachers and parents, featuring speakers<br />
such as the Discovery Institute’s William Dembski. The session was billed as “an excellent<br />
learning opportunity that <strong>of</strong>fers both a pr<strong>of</strong>essional development opportunity and a fresh look<br />
at some knotty problems in science and biology” (Education Gazette, 22 August 2003).<br />
(Focus on the Family has also distributed CD-ROMs promoting the Intelligent Design<br />
perspective to every secondary school in the country.)<br />
Concern from universities and the Royal <strong>Society</strong> over the increasing prominence <strong>of</strong> ID was<br />
met by a response from the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Education stating that “it is not the intention <strong>of</strong> the<br />
science curriculum that the theory <strong>of</strong> evolution should be taught as the only way <strong>of</strong> explaining<br />
the complexity and diversity <strong>of</strong> life on Earth” (cited by Peter Spratt, pers.comm, 2006) – and<br />
that schools are free to decide their own approach to theories <strong>of</strong> the origins <strong>of</strong> life, within<br />
existing curriculum guidelines. Showing a distinct lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> evolution, the<br />
Ministry’s representative continued:<br />
“The science curriculum does not require evolution to be taught as an uncontested<br />
fact at any level. The theory <strong>of</strong> evolution cannot be replicated in a laboratory and<br />
there are some phenomena that aren't well explained by it” (ibid.)<br />
We now have a new Science curriculum, released in 2007 as part <strong>of</strong> a national curriculum<br />
document. This document, as well as emphasising the importance <strong>of</strong> students developing an<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> science, recognises evolution as one <strong>of</strong> the organising themes<br />
<strong>of</strong> modern biology (following Dobzhansky, 1973): “Students develop an understanding <strong>of</strong><br />
the diversity <strong>of</strong> life and life processes. They learn about where and how life has evolved,<br />
about evolution as the link between life processes and ecology, and about the impact <strong>of</strong><br />
humans on all forms <strong>of</strong> life” (MoE, 2007). One significant difference from the existing<br />
curriculum is that the term evolution is introduced in primary school: students in years 1 and<br />
2 will “recognise that there are lots <strong>of</strong> different living things in the world and that they can be<br />
grouped in different ways,” and “explain how we know that some living things from the past<br />
are now extinct” (MoE, 2007). By year 13 they will be exploring “the evolutionary processes<br />
that have resulted in the diversity <strong>of</strong> life on Earth (ibid.).<br />
Thus evolution has a prominent position in the new Science curriculum, although this was<br />
not unopposed:<br />
“CMI does not suggest evolutionists be forced to teach about creation. What we do<br />
suggest is that freedom be retained for the presenting <strong>of</strong> both evolution-based and<br />
Creation-based frameworks <strong>of</strong> science. We support the teaching <strong>of</strong> evolution<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 25
provided it is done accurately, ‘warts and all’, i.e. with open discussion <strong>of</strong> its many<br />
scientific problems included” (CMI 2006).<br />
And a submission for a private school stated that “… there is still no evidence to support the<br />
theory, [and]… to base [curriculum content] on an unproven theory is bizarre” (Curriculum<br />
Project On-line, 2007). The writers went on to suggest that the curriculum would be better to<br />
speak <strong>of</strong> ‘diversity’, which they viewed as a much more suitable term.<br />
Moreover, the new curriculum is not yet accompanied by any outlines <strong>of</strong> how it could be<br />
taught: there are no teacher resources or detailed suggestions on achievement and assessment<br />
objectives – and is thus open to individual interpretations <strong>of</strong> what is appropriate content and<br />
pedagogy. Previous Ministry comments on evolution in the curriculum leave a lot to be<br />
desired. There is also anecdotal evidence that many teachers are also uncomfortable about the<br />
new curriculum – either because they are aware <strong>of</strong> the potential for student, parent, and<br />
community opposition, or because they themselves have a creationist worldview. At a time<br />
when biology in its various forms is set to play an important role in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s scientific<br />
and economic development, this is something that should concern us all.<br />
References:<br />
Barton, C. (2005) Intelligent design – coming to a school near you. NZ Herald, Saturday<br />
August 27, 2005<br />
Conservapedia (2007) How old is the Earth?<br />
http://www.conservapedia.com/Geology#How_Old_is_the_Earth; access date 20 November<br />
2007<br />
Creation Ministries International (2006) General e-mail mailout.<br />
McGeorge, C. (1992) Evolution in the Primary School Curriculum. History <strong>of</strong> Education<br />
21(2) 205-218<br />
Ministry <strong>of</strong> Education (1993) Science in the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Curriculum. Learning Media Ltd.<br />
Ministry <strong>of</strong> Education (2007) The <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Curriculum 2007. Learning Media Ltd.<br />
Numbers, R.L. & J. Stenhouse (2000) Antievolutionism in the Antipodes: from protesting<br />
evolution to promoting creationism in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. British Journal for the History <strong>of</strong> Science<br />
33: 335-350.<br />
Peddie, W.S. (1995) Alienated by Evolution: the educational implications <strong>of</strong> creationist and<br />
social Darwinist reactions in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> to the Darwinian theory <strong>of</strong> evolution. Unpublished<br />
PhD thesis, University <strong>of</strong> Auckland.<br />
Williams, J.D. (<strong>2008</strong>) Creationist teaching in school science: a UK perspective. Evolution<br />
Education & Outreach 1: 87-95<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 26
IDENTITY PROBLEMS FOR TWO AUCKLAND<br />
VOLCANOES<br />
Bruce W. Hayward and Graeme Murdoch, Auckland<br />
To those from outside Auckland, you might wonder why anyone would care what names are<br />
used for each <strong>of</strong> the city’s volcanoes. Each scoria cone and almost every maar crater was<br />
given a name by pre-European Maori, and a number <strong>of</strong> these are still used most commonly to<br />
identify some <strong>of</strong> the volcanoes (e.g. Orakei, Puketutu, Pukaki). All <strong>of</strong> the scoria cones and<br />
many <strong>of</strong> the maar craters were also given European names in early colonial days – named after<br />
prominent Europeans <strong>of</strong> the time (e.g. Mt Victoria, Mt Wellington, Mt Albert), after leading<br />
early Auckland citizens (e.g. Mt Hobson, Purchas Hill) or after the early European landowners<br />
(e.g. Elletts Mt, McLaughlins Mt, Browns I.). Several were given European names based<br />
upon a natural feature present (e.g. One Tree Hill, Crater Hill, Ash Hill, North Head).<br />
Names <strong>of</strong> volcanoes on the Auckland Isthmus are well-entrenched having been used by locals<br />
for more than 150 years and now also adopted as the name <strong>of</strong> the surrounding suburb (e.g. Mt<br />
Eden, Mt Roskill, Mangere Mt, Orakei Basin, Panmure Basin). Some <strong>of</strong> the volcanoes on the<br />
outskirts <strong>of</strong> the field have only recently been surrounded by Auckland suburbia and their<br />
names have not been well known or in common usage. Two <strong>of</strong> these have recently been<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficially recognised by the local city council by names that have questionable origins.<br />
The first <strong>of</strong> these is a maar crater on the North Shore that is signposted by the city council as<br />
Tuff Crater, but has the Maori name <strong>of</strong> Te Kopua o Matakamokamo meaning ‘the tidal basin<br />
<strong>of</strong> Matakamokamo’ (Cameron et al. 1997, p.138). This rather long name is not widely known<br />
nor used. It does however have another European name, Tank Farm, that was given to it<br />
during World War II when bulk fuel storage tanks were camouflaged inside the crater. This<br />
name was used by Searle (1959) and has become entrenched in the geological community for<br />
this volcano. It would appear that Tank Farm as a name was in use before Tuff Crater was<br />
picked up by some locals and is now promulgated through the surrounding community. The<br />
origin <strong>of</strong> the name goes back to Hochstetter’s (1864) map <strong>of</strong> Auckland volcanoes. On that<br />
map the word “Tuffcrater” is written alongside this feature. It was clearly intended to be a<br />
descriptive term and not a proper name, as the same term is written in seven other places on<br />
the map (eg. beside St Heliers crater, Orakei Basin, Pigeon Mt crater, Mangere Lagoon, SE <strong>of</strong><br />
Mangere Mt, Waitomokia, and “The five Tuffcraters <strong>of</strong> Kohuora”). In Auckland, the name<br />
Tank Farm has more recently become more familiar to the general population as the name for<br />
an area by the tidal basin, the site <strong>of</strong> more recent installations for the storage <strong>of</strong> bulk fuels. If<br />
the general public are going to understand the geological community we may be forced to<br />
drop the name Tank Farm for this North Shore volcano and adopt Hochstetter’s general<br />
descriptive term or promote the use <strong>of</strong> the original Maori name.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 27
Map <strong>of</strong> the Auckland volcanic field showing location <strong>of</strong> the volcanoes with identity crises<br />
(after the late Les Kermode).<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 28
The second volcano with identity problems is a maar crater on the Tamaki Estuary that has<br />
been in farmland until last year. The crater has been made a park and the crater and a nearby<br />
road have been assigned the Maori name Pukekiwiriki. This name was first linked to the crater<br />
by Firth (1930) and has been widely used by geologists since then and more recently adopted<br />
by the surrounding community. In early 1990s, Les Kermode, Jill Kenny and Bruce Hayward<br />
consulted Waiohua kaumatau, Te Warena Taua, and were informed that Pukekiwiriki was<br />
never the name for this crater and that it was solely the name for Red Hill, 10 km to the south<br />
at Papakura. Following that advice we collectively started using the peninsula name, Waiouru,<br />
to refer to this volcano. Several months ago, Auckland historian Graeme Murdoch pointed out<br />
that the correct Maori name for this crater is Pukewairiki, meaning ‘the hill with the associated<br />
small lagoon’. Graeme recalls that when he visited the volcano in the 1980s with Barney<br />
Kirkwood and Ngeungeu Zister <strong>of</strong> Ngai Tai/Te Waihua they referred to the feature as<br />
‘Pukewairiki’ and we recommend that geologists now adopt this as the most appropriate<br />
name, and maybe we should approach Manukau City Council to consider correcting the<br />
mistake now, before it becomes more entrenched. Interestingly Ernie Searle (1964) used the<br />
name Pukewairiki for this volcano, but it was regarded by later geologists to have been in<br />
error (Kermode et al., 1992).<br />
References:<br />
Cameron, E.K., Hayward, B.W., Murdoch, G., 1997. A field guide to Auckland. Exploring the<br />
region's natural and historic heritage. Godwit Publishing, 280 p.<br />
Firth, C.W. 1930. The geology <strong>of</strong> the north-west portion <strong>of</strong> Manukau County, Auckland.<br />
Transactions <strong>of</strong> the N.Z. Institute 61: 85-137.<br />
Hochstetter, F.v. 1864. Geologie von Neu-Seeland. Beitrage zur Geologie der Provinzen<br />
Auckland und Nelson. Novara-Expedition, Geologie Thiel 1 (1), 274 p.<br />
Kermode, L.O. et al. 1992. Inventory <strong>of</strong> Quaternary volcanoes and volcanic features <strong>of</strong><br />
Northland, Auckland, South Auckland and Taranaki. Geological <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> NZ<br />
Misc.Publication 61.<br />
Searle, E.J. 1959. Pleistocene and Recent studies <strong>of</strong> the Waitemata Harbour. Part 2: North<br />
Shore and Shoal Bay. NZ Journal <strong>of</strong> Geology & Geophysics 2: 95-107.<br />
Searle, E.J. 1964. City <strong>of</strong> Volcanoes: a Geology <strong>of</strong> Auckland. Hamilton, <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, Pauls<br />
Book Arcade.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 29
Pukewairiki maar crater in 1990s prior to the industrial subdivision that now surrounds it.<br />
Te Kopua o Matakamokamo maar crater, known to geologists as Tank Farm and to the local<br />
community as Tuff Crater.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 30
WHERE ARE THEY NOW?<br />
Roger Evans 1959-<br />
A retort by a Stage 1 lab assistant (“Northland? You don’t want to do your thesis there, it’s<br />
unmappable”) first lit the fire <strong>of</strong> a persistent obsession to the contrary. I left Auckland<br />
University with a M.Sc. in 1982, eager to join the Geological Survey and put the theory <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Northland Allochthon to the test; but the Government’s “shrinking lid” policy, and perhaps<br />
my personality, quashed hopes <strong>of</strong> a public service career. Thwarted yet undefeated, in 1985 I<br />
moved north to Kerikeri, determined to do it myself.<br />
Nine years, several papers and five self published maps later, I realized that obsession and<br />
enthusiasm alone do not constitute a pr<strong>of</strong>essional career. Abandoning geology, I built two<br />
houses and renovated a third, while working as a lab technician for NZ China Clays (now<br />
Imerys NZ Ltd) at Matauri Bay. I also self published two books: a biography <strong>of</strong> missionary<br />
George Clarke, and a synopsis <strong>of</strong> the Treaty <strong>of</strong> Waitangi. In 1997 I met and married Leigh:<br />
we now have two wonderful children, Elliott (4) and Bryn (2).<br />
In 2006 we decided to move to Auckland. Consequently I have returned to geology, at a<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional level but in a different sphere, as a field technician for Geotechnics (Tonkin and<br />
Taylor Ltd.) in <strong>New</strong>market. Life is a routine <strong>of</strong> drilling, Scalas and hand augers; yet each<br />
assignment is an adventure in geological discovery. Most memorable job? Scala penetrometers<br />
from a punt in two Waikato oxidation ponds.<br />
The old dreams have died, though the innate interest remains. Geology is now a pr<strong>of</strong>ession not<br />
an obsession; a means to an end rather than an end to my means.<br />
My future plans? To raise two wonderful children to love God and to confidently follow their<br />
own dreams.<br />
Roger is the author <strong>of</strong> the article ‘Northland Resolved’ in this issue<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 31
Roger Brand<br />
Geological consultant for oil exploration in<br />
the SW Pacific. region<br />
Born in Cambridge, England 1952.<br />
Educated at St Edmund Hall, Oxford<br />
First real employment BP North Sea 1975.<br />
Emigrated to <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> 1982.<br />
Established on a smallholding with family<br />
and goats in Waimamaku, Hokianga since 1987.<br />
In our peak-oil world the petroleum geologist is seen<br />
standing next to the lumberjack, looking back on our<br />
once abundant carbon based resource(s). Maybe its<br />
time to write memoirs recounting the drilling and<br />
discovery <strong>of</strong> those giant and super-giant fields; how it<br />
was done in the name <strong>of</strong> progress and wealth and how<br />
it gave us what we have or don’t have today.<br />
I have been a geologist for as long as I can remember, being raised within a stones throw <strong>of</strong> a<br />
chalk (Late Cretaceous) pit that provided all the necessary outlets for messing about with<br />
rocks, fossils, meteorites and machines. My first crush was a giant ammonite called<br />
Austiniceras (no doubt from Texas) but I recovered and soon went chasing other cephalopods<br />
within the Jurassic down some dark boreal shaly ally.<br />
The link with oil came later when I realised that the ammonitiferous Kimmeridgian, Oxfordian<br />
and Liassic shales were also prime source rocks. Unfortunately the drillers didn’t have the<br />
same empathy with ammonites as I did and the chances <strong>of</strong> getting one up the barrel were slim,<br />
and besides they were only interested in the distillate. For some reason, all that distillation<br />
went to my head and only added to my enthusiasm for exploration.<br />
Now here in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> the lure <strong>of</strong> our great podocarp forests has become paramount: such<br />
a wealth <strong>of</strong> biomass, even at high (paleo)latitudes, provides a vast input, the smallest fraction<br />
<strong>of</strong> which becomes accessible as solid, liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons. What I do is to<br />
investigate the pathways that the lithosphere and its fluids have undergone during the past<br />
100MA or so. It is a multidisciplinary task costing zillions <strong>of</strong> dollars, none <strong>of</strong> which prepares<br />
me for the nine failures out <strong>of</strong> ten attempts.<br />
During those low points I <strong>of</strong>ten reminisce that we’re just too late since most <strong>of</strong> the oil and gas<br />
escaped to surface during the orogenic Plio-Pleistocene when global warming wasn’t an issue.<br />
Returning to the present, we geoscientists find ourselves in the political centre stage with<br />
exceptionally high commodity prices driving exploration <strong>of</strong> our undiscovered endowment, as<br />
well as a larger public awareness <strong>of</strong> the environmental price to pay for continued reliance on<br />
carbon based energy resources. In this the International Year <strong>of</strong> Planet Earth it is apposite (and<br />
sobering) that one <strong>of</strong> the themes is ‘Earth Resources – threat or treat?’<br />
Obviously the answer lies in the soil; and to that end I continue to enjoy fieldwork which<br />
simplistically may be considered trophy hunting and/or the only true validation <strong>of</strong> what goes<br />
on in the myriads <strong>of</strong> models that are contrived during <strong>of</strong>fice-bound days.<br />
The accompanying photo shows me with the result <strong>of</strong> a little backyard fossicking, part <strong>of</strong> a<br />
coral which lived and travelled on the Northland Allochthon during the early Miocene.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 32
Reflections from Utah<br />
Rick Allis, Salt Lake City Utah USA, rickallis@utah.gov<br />
My career seems to have been a tour <strong>of</strong> the geologic time scale. After spending my doctorate<br />
studying the thermal regime <strong>of</strong> the Archean in Canada, I returned to Wairakei in 1977 to work<br />
with DSIR Geophysics Division at the top <strong>of</strong> the time scale. It’s been a slide down the scale<br />
since then. On checking in at Kelburn, Trevor Hatherton and Ian Reilly simply said “we’ve<br />
been having some problems with migrating thermal ground around Taupo, apparently as a<br />
result <strong>of</strong> geothermal development at Wairakei – try to figure out what is going on.” They were<br />
the days when research priorities were set at a low level based on the perceived needs at that<br />
time. We were lucky if we saw Trevor or Ian more than once a year. Looking back, the early<br />
1980s at the Wairakei Research Centre were an incredibly stimulating time, working with<br />
geochemists, engineers, and the occasional applied mathematician on a diversity <strong>of</strong> research<br />
issues related to a resurgence in interest in geothermal development.<br />
By the late 1980s, the reorganisation <strong>of</strong> DSIR had begun, with a progression <strong>of</strong> directives<br />
ranging from outside revenue generation, increased accountability, and to prioritizing research<br />
directions. I had a brief stint at Kelburn as a business manager, and then spent several years<br />
with DSIR Geology and Geophysics as a scientist and Group Manager. That’s where I got<br />
involved with the thermal evolution and oil generation in most <strong>of</strong> N.Z.’s Tertiary basins. By<br />
1997 and in my upper 40s, I decided it was now or never for a major career change. After<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 33
three years on s<strong>of</strong>t funding at University <strong>of</strong> Utah, I was appointed as director <strong>of</strong> the Utah<br />
Geological Survey, and have been there ever since. It’s a great job, being in a state with rich<br />
geologic resources, rapid urban growth along a geologically hazardous corridor, and stunning<br />
scenery in the classic Mesozoic and upper Paleozoic landscapes. Our funding model is closer<br />
to the old DSIR days with about 20% external contract work, but the rest is mostly driven by<br />
our own priorities. Our budget has doubled and staffing has increased by a third since I<br />
joined, largely due to royalty funding tied to oil and gas production on Utah federal lands.<br />
This is a great time to be a geologist – during my career there has never been a greater<br />
relevance, perceived need, and quest for applied geologic information from politicians through<br />
to the general public.<br />
My wife and I have a “retreat” in the Uinta Mountains an hour’s drive from Salt Lake City. I<br />
can see myself in retirement doing frequent hikes, or simply admiring from our deck the<br />
skyline <strong>of</strong> upthrust lower Paleozoic – Precambrian rocks. The tour <strong>of</strong> the time scale will be<br />
complete!<br />
Kate Pound<br />
Have you ever been asked to write a short article that reflects on your post-PhD career?<br />
Relatively recently I was asked if I would do just that for the NZGS <strong>New</strong>sletter. Now that I<br />
have almost completed the ‘assignment’, I would recommend it. Theoretically I just needed to<br />
string the facts together into a story (and that is what we all do for our pr<strong>of</strong>ession, isn’t it?),<br />
but it involved much more introspection than I was comfortable with. It felt like a cross<br />
between a psychological analysis and the ‘Departmental Evaluation and Learning Assessment’<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 34
process that we have to complete on an annual basis in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences<br />
Department at St. Cloud State University (Minnesota, USA) where I am tenured faculty. Two<br />
observations stand out to me: (1) the large number <strong>of</strong> changes in direction that my career has<br />
taken, and where those changes have taken me, and (2) the high quality <strong>of</strong> the broad-based lab<br />
and field training I received at Otago. At Otago I was mentored in a pr<strong>of</strong>essional and cohesive<br />
collegial academic community and I had the freedom to select and design my own research –<br />
these are luxuries that students now rarely have. I see this chronicle <strong>of</strong> my ex-pat geological<br />
career and the changes in direction that it has taken as I maintained my pr<strong>of</strong>essional, family,<br />
and everyday life – and an income – as food for thought for aspiring geologists.<br />
I physically left Otago in 1990 prior to submitting my dissertation. I used the Sedimentology<br />
Lab as a nursery for my 2-week old son (it was January) as I packed up my research-related<br />
rocks and paperwork. He was 4 weeks old when we finally left for the University <strong>of</strong><br />
Washington in Seattle where my husband-at-the-time had a Postdoc. I had <strong>of</strong> course<br />
anticipated completing my dissertation prior to my son’s birth; I was now faced with trying to<br />
complete my dissertation while caring for my son. The physical isolation from geologists and<br />
the lack <strong>of</strong> any extended time to focus on writing led me to take a position as a lab assistant in<br />
an unfamiliar field in the Mass Spectrometry Lab at the University <strong>of</strong> Washington – so that I<br />
could pay for childcare, so I would have time (?) to work on writing my dissertation.<br />
As the two-year Postdoc drew to a close, it looked almost certain that I would be able to get a<br />
Postdoc at Monash University in Australia, so my husband found a Postdoc position at<br />
Monash. We upped and moved to Melbourne, at which point I was 5 months pregnant with<br />
my second son, and my dissertation was still not quite completed. I was graciously provided a<br />
desk and space in the Earth Sciences Department. After my son’s birth, with the blessings <strong>of</strong><br />
my <strong>of</strong>fice mates I installed a porta-crib next to the desk – luckily he was a very quiet baby – a<br />
far cry from the teenager <strong>of</strong> today. He attended the Geological <strong>Society</strong> Conference with me in<br />
Christchurch in 1992 when he was 6 months old; I presented two talks while he was held by<br />
someone (who were you? I forget). In 1993 my dissertation was finally submitted and passed.<br />
I then translated my research interest in provenance <strong>of</strong> Paleozoic sediments from the ophiolitederived<br />
Cambro-Ordovician sequence into an examination <strong>of</strong> the provenance <strong>of</strong> sediments<br />
within the quartzo-feldspathic Bendigo-Ballarat portion <strong>of</strong> the Lachlan Fold belt as a parttime<br />
Postdoc at Monash. I remember well the three weeks I spent teaching at the third-year<br />
Monash field geology school in western <strong>New</strong> South Wales; I took my then three-year-old son<br />
with me, and carried him everywhere on my shoulders in the field. I did not think anything <strong>of</strong><br />
it, but I have since heard from several students about the impression this made on them. In<br />
1995 I moved on to a different Postdoc at Monash, this time working with the Australian<br />
Crustal Research Center & the minerals industry, with field work in the Mt. Isa Inlier in NW<br />
Queesnland. Once again, this was in a geologic field I was not familiar with. While I was<br />
captivated by the research questions and the geology (and, somewhat to my surprise, by the<br />
outback), and it was a valuable and broadening work experience, I learned that it is very<br />
difficult to make major shifts in research topic and focus. Despite this realization, in February<br />
1996 when my husband obtained a Postdoc at the University <strong>of</strong> Minnesota, we once again<br />
uprooted, leaving an Australian summer for a Minnesota winter.<br />
At this point in my career I was very frustrated. I had aspired to holding a teaching position<br />
where I would be able to continue my research interests in the provenance, regional geology<br />
and tectonics <strong>of</strong> Cambro-Ordovician sequences. I wanted to build on my knowledge, not have<br />
to learn a whole new regional geology. I had not published in peer-reviewed journals, and<br />
teaching positions were hard to come by, particularly if I was restricted to the Minneapolis-St.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 35
Paul suburban area. Whilst having a breadth <strong>of</strong> experience, I was not connected to the US ‘job<br />
network’. I think back now to the years 1996-1998 as ‘the dark years’. I worked for 6<br />
months at the Limnological Research Center as a Lab assistant, got divorced, worked as a<br />
teacher’s assistant in the public elementary schools, worked as the ‘geologist in residence’ at<br />
the Children’s Museum, taught introductory geology at an inner-city tribal community college,<br />
and continued to apply for University teaching positions, to no avail. Finally, I secured a<br />
position as Editor at the Minnesota Geological Survey in January 1998. While not the position<br />
I had aspired to, it suited my family situation, and has since proved to be an invaluable<br />
experience. While I enjoyed using the editorial work to learn about Minnesota regional<br />
geology, and found satisfaction in completing other people’s publications, I remained<br />
unpublished in peer-reviewed journals, and became frustrated at not being able to use my<br />
wide-ranging geologic expertise. In June 2000 I resigned from the MGS, with the intention <strong>of</strong><br />
setting up my own <strong>Geoscience</strong> Writing Consultancy (Earthfolio Consulting).<br />
During the summer <strong>of</strong> 2000 I discovered that I am not a business person, I was far too<br />
interested in the geology to treat the job as a for-pr<strong>of</strong>it business. In September 2000 I accepted<br />
an adjunct teaching position at the nearby University <strong>of</strong> St. Thomas, teaching Introductory<br />
Labs. I also worked as a receptionist at a Law firm, where I learned to never, ever divulge that<br />
an attorney had stepped out to get a cup <strong>of</strong> c<strong>of</strong>fee. In the meantime I applied for teaching<br />
positions as they came up. One <strong>of</strong> the difficulties I faced was that I no longer had an active<br />
research program, and I was not connected to a research project in the US; the geologic benefit<br />
<strong>of</strong> being a ‘jack <strong>of</strong> all trades and master <strong>of</strong> none’ was not helpful in a field that was demanding<br />
specialist expertise. In the summer <strong>of</strong> 2001 I was, unbeknownst to me, handed the key to my<br />
academic future. Through connections at the Minnesota Geological Survey I was asked to lead<br />
a two week summer field course for teachers in the Twin Cities area. I jumped at the<br />
opportunity, and it is this connection with teachers and geoscience education that has framed<br />
my subsequent career.<br />
In September 2002 I started my tenure-track position at St. Cloud State University. The<br />
position is unique in that it is a ‘split’ position; 50% <strong>of</strong> my time is spent in Science Education<br />
(teaching future teachers <strong>of</strong> Earth Science), and 50% is spent teaching introductory and upperlevel<br />
geology courses. St. Cloud is an undergraduate teaching institution, and it is located 75<br />
miles northwest <strong>of</strong> Minneapolis/St. Paul (picture a university in Gore). This means that I am<br />
spending money and time commuting and polluting – something I don’t believe in, and never<br />
ever thought I would do. But I NEVER thought I would live in the Midwest; I had always<br />
assumed I would live near mountains or ocean or both. Teaching in an Earth and Atmospheric<br />
Sciences Department where our <strong>of</strong>ferings include a BSc in geology and a BSc in Earth and<br />
Space Science teaching with a geology faculty <strong>of</strong> 1.5 people is a challenge in a myriad <strong>of</strong><br />
ways. We each teach the equivalent <strong>of</strong> four courses plus labs per semester, and most <strong>of</strong> our<br />
students are working between 20 and 40 hours a week to pay for their college tuition (and, <strong>of</strong><br />
course for their various social habits). This is where I continue to be immensely grateful for<br />
the broad-based training and experience I received at Otago. I have (and I continue to) teach a<br />
wide variety <strong>of</strong> upper-level and introductory geology courses, as well as the field geology<br />
course. My work with and connections to the Minnesota Geological Survey has more than<br />
earned its keep as I teach and supervise student research. I have continued to teach the field<br />
course for teachers (TIMES – Teaching Inquiry-based Minnesota Earth Science) during the<br />
summer, and I am able to bring colleagues from the Minnesota Geological Survey in for<br />
single days as ‘local experts’ for TIMES. I have also been able to avail myself <strong>of</strong> incredible<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 36
learning opportunities. Funding and small grants are available from the University. I have<br />
traveled to Iceland on a geologic field trip and participated in geoscience education meritreview<br />
panels at the National Science Foundation. I have also worked with colleagues on<br />
Minnesota on Teacher Workshops at Local and National Conferences (which I always hope<br />
will be near an ocean or mountains). I have still to establish a solid research program –I am<br />
trying to work on provenance <strong>of</strong> Minnesota’s Quaternary glacio-fluvial sediments, and stream<br />
terraces/post-glacial uplift. I also have those unpublished publications hanging over me, but<br />
my work in geoscience education helped me achieve tenure in 2007.<br />
As a graduate student working in Paleozoic rocks in Northwest Nelson I had <strong>of</strong> course always<br />
wanted to work on the lateral co-relative rocks in Northern Victoria Land in Antarctica, but<br />
the opportunity never arose. In January 2006 I was helping one <strong>of</strong> my students prepare<br />
samples for XRF and microprobe work at Macalester College, and I attended the weekly<br />
seminar; it was a summary <strong>of</strong> recent and upcoming work in Antarctica by David Harwood,<br />
from ANDRILL. I decided to apply to the Education and Outreach program, and was<br />
accepted. So, in October-December 2007 I spent just over 2 months ‘on-ice’. Much <strong>of</strong> the<br />
material in the sediment cores was derived from lithologies I had read extensively on for my<br />
PhD. On my return to Minnesota I jumped into an outreach project with middle and high<br />
schools with the Limnological Research Center (remember - I worked there as a lab assistant<br />
during my ‘dark days’). We cored through lake ice to obtain lake sediment cores, a perfect and<br />
relevant analog for the ANDRILL coring process.<br />
As I finish writing this, I am still recovering from the tribulations getting year-end grades<br />
submitted. I am increasingly concerned about the time and intellectual commitment that<br />
university students are not able or willing to make to their education. At the same time I see an<br />
incredibly dedicated group <strong>of</strong> teachers, working to prepare their students as best they can.<br />
Even though I still hanker after time to complete my own research publications, it is a<br />
rewarding time to in geoscience education. I have been able to make significant contributions<br />
to students’ lives and their broader appreciation <strong>of</strong> earth science. Most <strong>of</strong> these opportunities<br />
arose because I took jobs (and chances) outside my field <strong>of</strong> expertise. Taking this time to<br />
reflect on how I got to where I am has been illuminating – It has afforded me the opportunity<br />
to think about what I want to do with the rest <strong>of</strong> my career.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 37
REVIEWS<br />
QMAP Geology <strong>of</strong> the Aoraki Area<br />
Bernhard Spörli, Geology, SGGES University <strong>of</strong> Auckland<br />
With 1: 250 000 Geological Map 15, compiled by S.C. Cox and D.J. A. Barrel, we now have a<br />
modern update <strong>of</strong> the pulsating geological heart <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>. I have spent happy hours<br />
poring over the map and the accompanying text and will no doubt continue this activity<br />
sometime into the future. My review addresses only the printed part <strong>of</strong> this work and does not<br />
cover the underlying electronic ARC INFO/ GIS information.<br />
This map represents much <strong>of</strong> the area covered by the Mount Cook, Hokitika, Hurunui and<br />
Christchurch sheets <strong>of</strong> the old “four mile to the inch” series. In contrast with the latter, which<br />
were “solid geology’ maps, this sheet is a true “exposure” map, where the obscuring, mostly<br />
Quaternary, cover has been diligently outlined. This minimizes interpretative extrapolations<br />
and also gives a much more naturalistic expression <strong>of</strong> the landscape development. There are<br />
no topographic contours, but at the scale <strong>of</strong> this map and its dense fabric <strong>of</strong> patterns, this is not<br />
a serious omission. ‘Aoraki’ covers a large chunk <strong>of</strong> Torlesse rocks, a piece <strong>of</strong> the Alpine<br />
Fault, and on its other side, part <strong>of</strong> the western province <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> (showing only few<br />
exposures), as well as the Canterbury Plains along the east coast. The Torlesse terrane rocks<br />
are coloured according to their ages, but have two kinds <strong>of</strong> patterns superposed: 1) white form<br />
lines in the lower grade rocks, 2) other patterns showing the higher textural grades. All these<br />
features, as well as the metamorphic zoning, are individually isolated in smaller summary<br />
maps in the text volume. They neatly demonstrate the value <strong>of</strong> GIS-based multi-layer<br />
mapping. Some <strong>of</strong> them are even small works <strong>of</strong> art. When I saw the summary map <strong>of</strong> form<br />
lines, I was immediately tempted to enlarge it and start analysing its structural patterns. It sits<br />
above an intriguing contoured map <strong>of</strong> bedding dips which shows how much <strong>of</strong> these<br />
greywackes are indeed steeply dipping and how the areas <strong>of</strong> shallow dip, like that <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Lord Range, are restricted to narrow belts. The most striking unit on the map, although <strong>of</strong><br />
small areal extent, are the Geraldine basalts, lying out in the Canterbury Plains like a drop <strong>of</strong><br />
blood. In contrast, the many active faults in the region get a bit overwhelmed by the other map<br />
patterns, but again, they can be studied on their own in a separate summary diagram in the<br />
text. The cross sections look much more realistic than in the previous maps, because the<br />
collisional wedge model for the Southern Alps based on the recent intensive geophysical work<br />
has been considered in their construction.<br />
The accompanying text volume, as is to be expected in an area with so many key earth<br />
science features, contains a number <strong>of</strong> spectacular geological illustrations. They include the<br />
front cover, showing the steeply west- dipping metamorphic foliation on Mount Burns with<br />
Mount Cook/Aoraki in the background, although the photo is slightly out <strong>of</strong> focus. Other<br />
treasures to be discovered are the hoodoos in the Kowai Formation <strong>of</strong> Harper Valley on the<br />
back cover, the Lake Pukaki moraines, the Castle Hill Basin with the Torlesse Range (the type<br />
locality <strong>of</strong> the super-terrane!) in the background, total exposure <strong>of</strong> Torlesse sandstone and<br />
black mudstone units in the Malte Brun and Gammack Ranges, columnar-jointed rhyolite in<br />
the Mt Somers Volcanics, the Late Quaternary extent <strong>of</strong> glaciers, the beautifully shadowed<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 38
aerial photo <strong>of</strong> the active Ostler Fault, the creeping landslide (Sackung) on the back side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Sealy Range and the shocking changes between 1948 and 1998 in the Waiho River fan at<br />
Franz Josef. Some other pictures, such as that <strong>of</strong> the Waiho loop moraine, <strong>of</strong> the Alpine Fault<br />
at Gaunt Creek and the space view <strong>of</strong> the map area would have qualified for inclusion in this<br />
list but, at least in my copy, are too dark. As in many other GNS publications, Lloyd Homer<br />
has contributed a number <strong>of</strong> superb photos.<br />
The volume covers everything from plate tectonics to hazards. Also presented is the Maori<br />
view, and their subtle perception <strong>of</strong> topographic patterns, including their tilted-canoe image<br />
also known from elsewhere in <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, such as the Whakarara Range <strong>of</strong> the North<br />
Island. It is interesting to see that the Basin and Range concept has now crept north to<br />
Canterbury from Otago, where it was first grafted onto <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> by our Californian<br />
connections. For me, the treatment <strong>of</strong> the Neogene is a major contribution because it links<br />
scattered impressions <strong>of</strong> erosional remnants I have into a unified scheme supported by a fence<br />
diagram. At last I know where the Glentanner Beds (now named Kowai Formation) <strong>of</strong> my<br />
young days fit in! All this is even more valuable as it is synthesised with current <strong>of</strong>fshore<br />
information. Two <strong>of</strong> the many other interesting summary maps show the configuration <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Late Cretaceous (and younger?) Waipounamu erosion surface and the sediments deposited<br />
directly on it.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> sections can serve as textbook examples for students, such as the photo gallery <strong>of</strong><br />
mesoscopic textures from t.z. IIA to t.z. IV, immediately opposite the maps <strong>of</strong> metamorphic<br />
and textural zoning, and the various bits <strong>of</strong> information in the pink text boxes. Among the<br />
latter I especially like the one on the Maud Glacier lake tsunamis. Such intracontinental<br />
tsunamis are becoming increasingly important in the history <strong>of</strong> lakes in mountainous terrains,<br />
as recent studies in the European Alps and in California have shown. After reading through<br />
the volume I went back to the ‘Abstract’ and found it a bit terse, in view <strong>of</strong> all the marvellous<br />
features and processes presented in the main text and on the map. It would have been nice to<br />
use the blank space remaining on that page for presentation <strong>of</strong> some further high points.<br />
The compilers and their co-workers are to be congratulated for assembling an inspiring<br />
publication worthy <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> the top geological regions on Earth. It makes me want to go and<br />
use my Swiss hammer on these mountains some more!<br />
Bibliographic Reference:<br />
Cox S.C.; Barrell, D. J A. (compilers) 2007: Geology <strong>of</strong> the Aoraki area. Institute <strong>of</strong><br />
Geological & Nuclear Sciences 1:250 000 geological map 15. 1 sheet + 71p. Lower Hutt,<br />
<strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> GNS Science.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 39
NOTICES<br />
This international conference will showcase advances in understanding the causes<br />
and consequences <strong>of</strong> extreme climatic and catastrophic biotic events in the<br />
greenhouse world <strong>of</strong> the early Cenozoic: from the K/T boundary mass extinction to<br />
the Pal-Eocene thermal maximum t & Eoc-Oligocene greenhouse-icehouse transition.<br />
A fitting culmination to the <strong>2008</strong> International Year <strong>of</strong> Planet Earth, this conference<br />
will draw together participants from all branches <strong>of</strong> earth sciences and from all<br />
corners <strong>of</strong> the globe for the common purpose <strong>of</strong> utilising the geological record <strong>of</strong> past<br />
global change as a predictor <strong>of</strong> future change in a warming world.<br />
Participants are invited from all sectors <strong>of</strong> Paleogene or climate change research:<br />
macro & micropaleontogy, palynology, paleobotany, stratigraphy, sedimentology,<br />
geo-chemistry, paleoceanography, biogeochemical modelling, climate modelling.<br />
A highlight <strong>of</strong> the conference will be the 1-day Greenhouse Earth Symposium,<br />
aimed at a general audience to include eminent invited speakers who will critically<br />
examine the Paleogene record <strong>of</strong> greenhouse climate states and explore the<br />
relationships between atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, global temperatures and<br />
biological and physical systems. A public lecture will conclude the symposium.<br />
Venue Te Papa Tongarewa, Museum <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>, Wellington<br />
Schedule Conference, 12-15 January, 2009<br />
Pre-conference excursion (northern South Island), 6-11 January<br />
Post-conference excursion 1 (southern North Island), 16-17 Jan<br />
Post-conference excursion 2 (southern South Island), 17-21 Jan<br />
Post-conference excursion 3 (Chatham Islands), 19-23 January<br />
Convenors Chris Hollis and Liz Kennedy, GNS Science, <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong><br />
Early registration closes 29 th August <strong>2008</strong><br />
Abstract submission closes 26 th September <strong>2008</strong><br />
Enquiries cbep@gns.cri.nz<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 40
http://www.gns.cri.nz/cbep2009<br />
" #<br />
Carribean, Cuba, <strong>New</strong> Technologies in Exploration and Mining, Sustainable use <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Earth, Geology, Geophysics,Mining, Petroleum,IGCP546, Nickel laterites, Seismology<br />
and Hazards,Women in <strong>Geoscience</strong>, IT<br />
$ #<br />
geosciences@ceinpet.cupet.cu<br />
Cost 300CUC companion 80CUC<br />
Accomodation cubacienciasdelatierra.com<br />
% # #<br />
By January 01, 2009 to kenya@igp.gms.minbas.cu<br />
% & ' ( %" )<br />
& "<br />
$ #*# $ # # $ # #<br />
+ , - . /<br />
0 1 # 2 $ & . (. 3 # )<br />
" #<br />
Neotectonics,Tsunami and high enery events,Minerals and Aggregates, Living<br />
Resoutrces, Carbon cycle and climate change, Paleoantropology and paleoenvironment<br />
$ #<br />
Cost USD$250, companion $100 Accomodation $70 - $150/day<br />
% # #<br />
By 1 <strong>July</strong> <strong>2008</strong><br />
#<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong> H Vital helenice@geologica.ufrn.br<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong> M M de Mahiques mahiques@usp.br<br />
4 #<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 41<br />
!
0 5 # #<br />
6 4<br />
CSIRO Publishing<br />
208 pages hard bound<br />
ISBN: 9780643094345<br />
AUD $49.95<br />
Email publishing.sales@csiro.au<br />
Web www.publish.csiro.au<br />
Mettle & Mines: the Life and Times <strong>of</strong> a Colonial Geologist<br />
Edward Heydelbach Davis<br />
by Mike Johnston<br />
Edward Davis was the third geologist to be appointed to the NZ Geological<br />
Survey, the other two being James Hector and F.W. Hutton. This thoroughly<br />
researched and well illustrated book <strong>of</strong> 288 pages is, however, more that just a<br />
biography <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong>’s early, but until now largely overlooked,<br />
geologists. Mettle & Mines delves into the commercial and political reasons as to<br />
why Davis undertook geological surveys <strong>of</strong> Coromandel, Dun Mountain, the<br />
Nelson goldfields and the Grey Coalfield. The book also chronicles his childhood<br />
in Cumbria, and sojourns in Portugal and Colombia. Davis died tragically while<br />
still a young man on the West Coast.<br />
In recognition <strong>of</strong> a contribution made by the Geological <strong>Society</strong> towards the<br />
printing <strong>of</strong> this book, which was published in December 2007, Nikau Press is<br />
<strong>of</strong>fering it to <strong>Society</strong> members at $35.00 (incl GST), a discount <strong>of</strong> 12.5%, and with<br />
no charge for postage/courier.<br />
Nikau Press PO Box 602 Nelson<br />
SGA<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>)<br />
SOCIETY OF GEOLOGY APPLIED TO MINERAL DEPOSITS 42<br />
2009<br />
Townsville, Australia 18 – 20 <strong>July</strong>, 2009
Geology and Genes IV<br />
Call for expressions <strong>of</strong> interest<br />
A further one-day conference in this popular series is planned for February 2009, in<br />
Christchurch. The meetings are sponsored jointly by the Geological <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong><br />
and the Systematics Association <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> (SYSTANZ). The purpose <strong>of</strong> the meetings is<br />
to bring geologists and biologists together to discuss the inter-relationships <strong>of</strong> geology and<br />
biology in the origin and evolution <strong>of</strong> the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> biota. Geological data that help<br />
constrain the answers to critical biological questions and biological insights into interactions<br />
between the biota and the changing environment are areas <strong>of</strong> primary interest. The conference<br />
aims to improve communication between the two groups <strong>of</strong> specialists by providing a venue<br />
for discussion and outlining the large body <strong>of</strong> information now available. The abstracts<br />
volume is published as part <strong>of</strong> the Geological <strong>Society</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Miscellaneous Series.<br />
The planned conference will be the fourth in the series. Meetings are held at intervals <strong>of</strong> 2 to 3<br />
years, the last being in Wellington in 2006. Approximate cost will be $60 per head, which<br />
covers venue hire, lunch, morning and afternoon teas, and the volume <strong>of</strong> abstracts. It will be<br />
held in the Hurst Seagar Room at the Arts Centre in Christchurch on –<br />
Monday 16 February, 2009<br />
Final details and registration forms will be sent to those indicating interest. Please indicate<br />
your interest by email before 30 August <strong>2008</strong>, to:<br />
Dr Norton Hiller, Canterbury Museum, Christchurch - nhiller@canterburymuseum.com<br />
or<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>. David Penny, Alan Wilson Research Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North -<br />
D.Penny@massey.ac.nz<br />
Norton Hiller<br />
David Penny<br />
Roger Cooper<br />
Organisers<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 43
SOCIETY BUSINESS<br />
POTENTIAL AMALGAMATION OF THE<br />
GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SOCIETIES<br />
Discussion document written by Nick Mortimer, John Townend, Laura<br />
Wallace and Jan Lindsay, June <strong>2008</strong><br />
Depending on perspective, others might refer to “amalgamation” as “reunification”, “union”,<br />
“reunion”, “merger” or “swallowing up”. “Amalgamation” is used here.<br />
The societies compared<br />
Geological <strong>Society</strong> (GSNZ) Geophysical <strong>Society</strong><br />
(GSNZ)<br />
Approx membership * 750 183<br />
Early member/student fees $70 / $30 per year $20 / $5 per year**<br />
<strong>New</strong>sletters 64 pages, 3 per year 40 pages, 3 per year<br />
Committee 11 + a paid administrator 10<br />
Approx annual income $40K $5K<br />
Approx assets *** $553K $80K<br />
Awards MH,HL,KA,WRA,WP,MF,HP,<br />
PVP<br />
GP, JA, SAGE<br />
* 54 people are members <strong>of</strong> both societies.<br />
** Free student registration in the first year<br />
*** Includes GSNZ Awards Trust and NZGS Prize Funds<br />
Reasons for an amalgamation<br />
• the historical reasons for the dissatisfaction <strong>of</strong> geophysicists and their split from the<br />
Geological <strong>Society</strong> in 1980 no longer exist<br />
• geology is “the science that deals with the earth's physical structure and substance,<br />
its history, and the processes that act on it”. The Geological <strong>Society</strong> has long since<br />
shed its paleontology-stratigraphy dominated image, and is highly multidisciplinary.<br />
Members are geophysicists, geochemists, petrologists, tectonicists, paleontologists,<br />
sedimentologists etc. Special Interest Groups cater for those who want more focus<br />
within the <strong>Society</strong><br />
• the 54 people who are currently members <strong>of</strong> both societies would save membership<br />
fees on amalgamation<br />
• both societies are currently strong so it’s a good situation in which to amalgamate<br />
• larger, single, more authoritative voice for <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Earth Science community<br />
(e.g. to RSNZ, MoRST, overseas societies)<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 44
• more unified, positive, cross-disciplinary feel to <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Earth Science<br />
community<br />
• increased eligibility for prizes, awards and other benefits available to members <strong>of</strong> an<br />
amalgamated <strong>Society</strong><br />
• remove duplication in operating costs and scientists’ voluntary time (e.g.<br />
council/committee meetings, travel, newsletters, website fees and maintenance,<br />
annual auditing <strong>of</strong> accounts)<br />
• simpler reporting requirements for, and organisation <strong>of</strong>, Annual Conference<br />
• such a move has been strongly advocated in the past (e.g. Mark Stirling in 2005,<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 137: 4). Now it’s time to act.<br />
• an amalgamated society might attract more members who do not currently belong to<br />
either society, including people in industry<br />
Reasons against an amalgamation<br />
• probable subs increase for people who currently only belong to the Geophysical<br />
<strong>Society</strong><br />
• too much trouble to decide on new name and logo for an amalgamated society<br />
• two voices for the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Earth Science community are actually better than<br />
one (e.g. to RSNZ, MoRST, overseas societies)<br />
• significant effort involved in winding up/changing rules <strong>of</strong> existing societies<br />
• loss <strong>of</strong> identity/dilution <strong>of</strong> well-focussed group <strong>of</strong> geophysicists<br />
• both societies are currently strong – if it ain’t broke don’t fix it<br />
• most Geological and Geophysical <strong>Society</strong> members will see little practical change.<br />
Everyone will still get a newsletter, have a website and get discounted registration at<br />
an annual conference<br />
• some Geological <strong>Society</strong> members might object to a name or logo change<br />
• some Geophysical <strong>Society</strong> members might object to a name or logo change, or a<br />
perceived loss <strong>of</strong> identity<br />
• potential resignations if amalgamation occurs<br />
• where do you stop? The Soil, Geotechnical, Marine, Geochemical and Mineralogical<br />
<strong>Society</strong> and AUSIMM are all viable standalone groups satisfying their<br />
constituencies.<br />
Alternative ways <strong>of</strong> amalgamating<br />
(1) The Geophysical <strong>Society</strong> winds up. There is no immediate change to the Geological<br />
<strong>Society</strong> name or logo but there are minor rule changes e.g. formalisation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Geophysical <strong>Society</strong> Prizes.<br />
(2) The Geophysical <strong>Society</strong> winds up. The Geological <strong>Society</strong> name, logo and rules are<br />
changed, eg to <strong>Geoscience</strong> <strong>Society</strong>, to reflect the new geophysical membership.<br />
(3) The Geophysical <strong>Society</strong> and the Geological <strong>Society</strong> both wind up. A new society is<br />
formed with an entirely fresh set <strong>of</strong> rules.<br />
Nick’s personal opinion (not <strong>of</strong>ficial GSNZ position)<br />
Yes, let’s give amalgamation a go now. The main reasons that persuade me are: (a) savings in<br />
operating costs and committee time in running one, rather than two, societies that have a<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 45
largely common purpose and >50 joint members; (b) one strong multidisciplinary voice to<br />
take <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Earth Science community issues to RSNZ, MoRST, Rest <strong>of</strong> World etc.<br />
Alternative ways 1 or 2 (above) would be the simplest and quickest. If increased membership<br />
fees for geophysicists were a major issue, 1-2 years discount membership could be <strong>of</strong>fered to<br />
people who were formerly not members <strong>of</strong> the Geological <strong>Society</strong>. The entire society rules<br />
could be reviewed, say two years, after amalgamation. Given the substantially larger size <strong>of</strong><br />
the Geological <strong>Society</strong>, I do not see alternative way 3 (above) as being reasonable.<br />
Jan’s personal opinion (not <strong>of</strong>ficial GSNZ position)<br />
I agree that we should look to amalgamate; it seems a logical step given our existing joint<br />
conferences and also significant number <strong>of</strong> members who belong to both societies. We<br />
obviously fit well together. I would like to add that the GSNZ are currently investigating a<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional overhaul/revamp <strong>of</strong> our website and promotional material, which would be well<br />
timed if we do have a GSNZ/NZGS amalgamation in the near future as we could then also<br />
incorporate any logo/name/branding changes into our new ‘public face’.<br />
John’s personal opinion (not <strong>of</strong>ficial NZGS position)<br />
With the move towards annual joint conferences, the time does seem right to discuss even<br />
closer ties.<br />
Both societies are in good heart, and the joint conferences are clearly a highlight <strong>of</strong> the<br />
geoscience calendar. Many practicing geophysicists, including myself, have been trained in<br />
both geology and geophysics, and the distinction between the two disciplines in universities<br />
and employment situations is less marked than it was when geophysicists were trained solely<br />
in physics or mathematics departments. Research projects in academia and industry<br />
increasingly involve scientists with a range <strong>of</strong> backgrounds and expertise, and the boundaries<br />
between geophysics and geology are correspondingly blurred.<br />
On the other hand, because the Geophysical <strong>Society</strong> in particular does seem to be in such good<br />
heart at the moment, I’d be disappointed to see the geophysical community it represents<br />
entirely disappear.<br />
Of the three alternatives listed above, Option 1 is the least appealing from my perspective.<br />
The geophysical community’s vigour belies its smaller size, and I think this energy would be<br />
dissipated if it were to be represented by a Special Interest Group within a largely unchanged<br />
Geological <strong>Society</strong>. Option 2 would enable both societies to amalgamate while recognising<br />
the Geological <strong>Society</strong>’s larger size. If the two societies do decide to merge, any change<br />
should be one <strong>of</strong> amalgamation rather than subsumption. I agree that winding up both societies<br />
before launching a new geosciences society, Option 3, would be unnecessarily complicated.<br />
Laura’s personal opinion (not <strong>of</strong>ficial NZGS position)<br />
I have been in favour <strong>of</strong> an amalgamation <strong>of</strong> the two societies for quite some time. I believe<br />
that the <strong>New</strong> <strong>Zealand</strong> Earth science community is too small for superficial divisions to exist<br />
within the community (e.g., geology vs. geophysics). Moreover, the future <strong>of</strong> strong<br />
geoscience research lies in interdisciplinary studies that draw on geological and geophysical<br />
techniques. A merged society would help to facilitate this, and increase interaction and<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 46
communication between geologists and geophysicists. I also agree with the other arguments<br />
in favour <strong>of</strong> amalgamating the two societies listed earlier in this document.<br />
In terms <strong>of</strong> the way forward, I agree that Option 2 seems the best approach. Option 1<br />
minimizes the influence <strong>of</strong> the strong geophysical community here, and Option 3 would<br />
probably be unnecessarily difficult. I think it would also be a good idea to have a geophysical<br />
branch <strong>of</strong> the new “<strong>Geoscience</strong>s” society (Wellington-based?) similar to the local branches<br />
that the GSNZ already has, in order to continue having a geophysics-oriented lecture series,<br />
and to have some platform for more geophysically-oriented events, discussions, etc.<br />
How to proceed?<br />
Rule-changing is an AGM or SGM business, and so are matters that lead up to rule changes<br />
(Geophysical <strong>Society</strong> AGM is in mid year, Geological <strong>Society</strong> end November). The whole<br />
process needs to be done pr<strong>of</strong>essionally with a realisation that amalgamation might or might<br />
not happen. The process should be led by the Presidents and Vice-Presidents, with the backing<br />
<strong>of</strong> their national committees. Membership will be kept informed through each society’s usual<br />
communication channels – and opinion will be actively sought through a questionnaire in the<br />
2 nd half <strong>of</strong> <strong>2008</strong>. If there appears to be a mandate to proceed then a definitively worded<br />
proposal could be put to decisive votes at AGMs or SGMs in 2009 or 2010.<br />
Taranaki Geological <strong>Society</strong>, branch <strong>of</strong> GSNZ<br />
President’s report for 2007/8<br />
Susan Burgess<br />
Office Holders<br />
President: Susan Burgess<br />
Secretary: Susan Burgess; Pam Murdoch from Jan <strong>2008</strong><br />
Treasurer: Colin Payne<br />
Vice President: Ron Harris<br />
Committee: Mark Robbins, Joseph McKee, Diane Toole to Nov 2007, Donna<br />
Ainsworth from Jan <strong>2008</strong><br />
Librarian: Caroline Blume<br />
Thank you to members <strong>of</strong> the committee for their contribution to the society over the past<br />
year, particularly during my two months overseas when they organised a festivity to farewell<br />
founder member, Diane Toole, and committed the society to participation in the Fossils: Dead<br />
Precious exhibition which began its national tour at Puke Ariki. Lectures at the museum in<br />
association with the exhibition considerably eased the work load <strong>of</strong> a president/secretary, and<br />
the hugely popular “Rockhound Roadshows” gave us welcome exposure in the community.<br />
Thank you to Donald McFarlan, Feike de Bock, Donna Ainsworth, Ina McLellan, Ann de<br />
Bode and the committee for their expertise, and support <strong>of</strong> these days.<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 47
I am delighted to announce that two members volunteered to join the committee: Pam as<br />
secretary, after a stint as minutes volunteer, and Donna who has, since joining, ensured the<br />
smooth working <strong>of</strong> the computer and projector.<br />
Subscriptions for the year numbered 29, including family subs. In addition there are several<br />
GSNZ members whom we never see, but they are nevertheless members <strong>of</strong> the Taranaki<br />
branch. The total membership <strong>of</strong> 39 is lower than last year, but there are as many again on the<br />
email contact list some <strong>of</strong> whom may join in the future.<br />
<strong>2008</strong>/9 is the 30th anniversary <strong>of</strong> the founding <strong>of</strong> the Taranaki Geological <strong>Society</strong>.<br />
Programme (at NPGHS unless otherwise stated)<br />
April 2 nd Keith Lewis President’s tour “How science discoveries get made”<br />
May 7 th Liz Kennedy “Plants as Climate Records”<br />
June 4 th AGM and Roger Hanson “Geology - The Engine <strong>of</strong> Biology”<br />
13 th Paula Marshall “Experiences <strong>of</strong> living and working in Antarctica”<br />
At Puke-Ariki<br />
16 th Boar’s Head Mine field trip<br />
<strong>July</strong> 7 th Vince Neall “The volcanic islands <strong>of</strong> the Galapagos”<br />
August 6 th Rod Austen “What is a planet?”<br />
Sept 3 rd Hochstetter lecture Paul Williams “Environmental Change: A View<br />
from Downunder”<br />
8 th Field trip led by Joseph McKee "Pukearuhe & Wai Iti Beach: Late<br />
Miocene Mt. Messenger & Urenui Formations"<br />
October 15 th Quiz night honouring founder member Diane Toole and 21 years as a<br />
branch <strong>of</strong> GSNZ<br />
25 th Opening <strong>of</strong> “Fossils: Dead Precious” at Pukeariki attended on your behalf<br />
by the president and vice president. The invited guests also included Joe<br />
McKee, Don McFarlan, and John Buchanan-Brown.<br />
31 st Hamish Campbell “The role <strong>of</strong> fossils in our understanding <strong>of</strong><br />
the geological history <strong>of</strong> NZ; fossils linking us to<br />
Gondwanaland, <strong>Zealand</strong>ia, and the rise <strong>of</strong> NZ” at Puke Ariki<br />
Nov 10 th Rockhound Roadshow at Puke Ariki<br />
28 th James Crampton “How fossils teach us about extinction, evolution and<br />
environmental change; and the joys and trials <strong>of</strong> working as a<br />
palaeontologist” at Puke Ariki<br />
Dec 5 th Joseph McKee “Hunting Dinosaurs and Cretaceous Monsters in<br />
Hawkes Bay” at Pukeariki<br />
January 19 th Rockhound Roadshow at Puke Ariki<br />
Feb 2 nd Field trip to beach section at Bell Block<br />
March 3 rd -6 th Seaweek DOC lectures at NP Yacht Club/Hawera Library<br />
Jacqueline Geurts “The feeding, breeding and ecology <strong>of</strong> the little<br />
blue penguin “<br />
Helen Kettles “Life forms discovered during a one month survey <strong>of</strong> the<br />
sea floor 1000km west <strong>of</strong> West Cape.<br />
Callum Lilley “Marine protected areas in Taranaki and the treasures that<br />
lie, swim and hide in them”.<br />
16 th Hector Day picnic at Everett Park<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 48
31 st Nick Mortimer President’s tour "A Bluffer's Guide to Cenozoic<br />
SW Pacific Volcanic Arcs and Basins".<br />
GSNZ <strong>New</strong>sletter 146 (<strong>2008</strong>) 49