July 2008 - Geoscience Society of New Zealand

GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND (Inc) 

Newsletter Number 146 July 2008 

Editorial Kerry Stanaway 2 

Presidents Page Nick Mortimer 3 

Feature 

Northland Resolved ? Roger Evans 3 

New Zealand Rocks 

Tephrostratigrapy off Raoul and Macauley Islands Ian Wright & Phil Shane 10 

Deep Drilling on the Alpine Fault Simon Cox….13 

Cast in Karst—Help! Jill Kenny 14 

Members Forum 

Oil and Gas Round-up Don Haw 17 

The Missing Link Chris Uruski 19 

The Creep of Creationism Alison Campbell 23 

Identity Problems for Two Auckland Volcanoes Bruce Hayward & GrahamMurdock 27 

Where Are They Now 

Roger Evans 31 

Roger Brand 32 

Rick Allis 33 

Kate Pound 34 

Reviews 

Geology of the Aoraki Area Qmap15 Bernhard Sporli 38 

Notices 

Society Business 

Potential Amalgamation of GSNZ and NZGS Mortimer Townend et al 45 

Taranaki Geol Soc Annual Report Susan Burgess 48 

GSNZ Newsletter 146 (2008) 1

Stoking Global Cooling 

At the Uranium Conference in Adelaide hosted in June by the Aus IMM, the glee at the ‘most 

likely’ prospect of a uraniferous solution to the global warming conundrum was hard to miss. 

Without uranium-fired nuclear reactors to electrify our breakfast toasters a toasty 

carboniferous planetary future seemed assumed by all pundits and future prognosticators. One 

was left to wonder whether the more stormy future predicted in New Zealands NIWA climate 

change models was factored into the projections for the future wind power contribution. It was 

dismissed, based on German experience as not a “base-load” power source. It seemed too that 

nuclear power might have an as good, or even better future if the climate turned icy should 

decreasing output from the sun continue. After 25 years of gloom in the industry it was all up 

and “lets get and at it” for present and future uranium explorers. Earth’s own engine fuel was 

seen as the coming fuel for humanity. A falling demand was seen for fossil sun-energy stored 

by carbon, and only a modest one for the ongoing output from the sun. Electricity generators 

built to use solar had ten times the lifetime carbon footprint of equivalent nuclear power 

stations and wind power had twice the carbon footprint of nuclear claimed a report “Outlook 

for the uranium industry” by Deloitte Touche Tomatsu. 

The talk was even more heartening for our Australian kin (and by economic proximity 

ourselves). Australia it was proposed could earn carbon credits by exporting uranium for fuel. 

One ton of uranium could remove the need to burn 100,000tonnes of coal for electricity. 

Australia’s Olympic Dam deposit has doubled in size with the drilling since BHP took over 

two years ago and has now reached 7 billion tonnes with no end in sight. With 2.2 million 

tonnes of uranium it now constitutes the world’s largest uranium repository with 25% of all 

known. In addition it is the world’s third largest gold and fourth largest copper resource. 

Current world uranium consumption is 40,000tonnes to produce 16% of world electricity. 

BHP is considering raising annual Olympic Dam production to 19,000tonnes. The world’s 

discovered uranium deposits have just kept getting bigger since the 1950’s. Until the end of 

the last uranium exploration boom they were not only getting bigger, but much higher grade. 

Because of the gold, silver and copper Olympic Dam yields economic return at only 0.04% 

uranium (400ppm) while in-situ leach operations working on roll-front deposits are economic 

at 0.1 to 0.2% uranium, but the unconformity deposits (not discovered until the late 1970s) 

have grades in the plus 15% range. Indeed one of this class of deposit in Gabon, Africa 

accumulated enough of the stuff to go critical naturally in the Precambrian—and still leave 

enough U235 for us today to mine and use, reprocessed as it were--- without melting a hole in 

the planet as Jane Fonda claimed would occur. These kinds of deposits occur in the Northern 

Territory. Exploration there had only begun when it was closed down in the 1980’s. 

At present the world has 439 nuclear electric power plants, with 33 under construction and 94 

on order or planned. Of all these 46 are in China and 129 in the US. If no significant action on 

climate change takes place (or most new electricity demand is met by conservation, solar, 

wind tide etc) the number should reach 519 (at 1MW each) by 2030. This according to the 

International Energy Authority. The DeloitteTT report estimates that to keep atmospheric 

carbon at 550ppm CO2 in 2030 would call for 960 nuclear power plants , while to keep it at 

350ppm would call for 1634 units. 

Finding the uranium is easy, but culling the Jimmy Carters from the Homer Simpsons and 

Heinrich Himmlers calls for eternal vigilance, and ever better science and ethics education. 


PRESIDENT'S PAGE 

I've just completed my President's tour of 

all eight Society branches in New 

Zealand, plus visits to Masterton and 

Nelson. As I mentioned in the talks I gave 

around the country I am keen to ensure 

that, as a society, we are strong and 

function well internally. This means that 

at the national, branch and special interest 

group levels, we are meeting the needs of 

our members. A nationwide tour such as I 

have just done reveals that the level and 

nature of branch activities and 

membership vary considerably from place 

to place. It was clear to me that some 

branches are doing very well, most are 

doing pretty well, and a couple are going 

through a rough patch. Unfortunately, 

given the huge demands on people's time 

these years, there's no easy way to 

increase participation. It seems to help if 

organising duties are shared and 

communication (publicity) is good. 

I also mentioned in the talk that I want to pay attention to our relations with other geoscience 

societies. First and foremost among these is the NZ Geophysical Society. For years there has 

been talk of amalgamating our two societies, but no action. I believe that it is now the time to 

see how close we actually want to get. 

In this newsletter there is a discussion paper authored by John Townend, Laura Wallace, Jan 

Lindsay and myself (the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the two societies). I urge you to 

read it and form your own opinions on amalgamation. Talk among yourselves and with GSNZ 

branch and committee representatives. Email me. Write to the Newsletter. Later this year there 

will be a survey of all members which should give us an idea of whether there is a mandate to 

proceed. Rest assured, nothing is a fait accompli. Maybe by the end of 2009 we will be uniting 

the talent pool of both societies. If we don't try we won't know. 

Nick Mortimer 


Northland Resolved ? 

Roger Evans, Geotechnics, Auckland 

In the course of a lifetime obsession there are those occasional defining moments when 

suddenly the lights go on and all of the pieces of a puzzle seem to drop spontaneously into 

place. Jill Kenny’s article on faulting in Auckland in the March Newsletter, with its emphasis 

on the thrust-related origin of arcuate fault structures, was for me the sequel to one such 

moment, and the adding of another piece to the dusty jigsaw that I had shelved and forgotten. 

Her thesis, that Auckland’s arcuate lineaments reflect southward thrusting propagated ahead of 

the Northland Allochthon, fits the jigsaw. However one prominent arcuate lineament, the 

Papakura-Clevedon fault, was specifically excluded. Controversially, I would like to propose 

that this feature also could be linked to the same tectonic event, defining what may be the 

southern limit of crustal shortening related to the emplacement and deformation of the 

Northland Allochthon. 

Before you peremptorily demur, let me set before you a comparison. A cross section drawn 

through Jill’s Fig. 4 from Howick to Clevedon, would virtually mimic a similar section drawn 

from Pupuke (east of Kaeo) southward to Okaihau, though the Waipapa basement block 

(Figure 1) as I mapped it over 13 years ago. There, the sequence consists of a series of low 

angle thrusts in Northland Allochthon, rising on to an elevated basement block with 

autochthonous north-dipping Te Kuiti Group cover. 

The difference is that at Rangiahua, on the southern side of the block, Te Kuiti Group dips 

steeply southwest, down the face of the arcuate greywacke escarpment. It then decreases in dip 

at the toe of the escarpment to form a monocline, where basal Waitemata Group is also 

preserved beneath the allochthon, before being cut out by the Pirau Fault. Attenuated and 

upturned nappes of the Northland Allochthon, resting against the southern flank of the block, 

occur in the same sequential order as nappes upon the northern flank. 

Misled by preconceptions of normal faulting, I initially mapped steeply dipping Te Kuiti 

Group in the Waihoanga gorge as being faulted against greywacke. Subsequent mapping 

proved me wrong. I now interpret the Waipapa basement block as an arcuate asymmetric 

anticline collectively deforming greywacke basement, autochthonous Te Kuiti and Waitemata 

cover, and the overlying nappes of the Northland Allochthon. 

Once I had identified this feature, others soon fell into place, with folding of the basement and 

its autochthonous and allochthonous cover being recognised from Kaeo southward as far as 

Kawakawa, and plotted on regional maps (self published as a series in 1993). Other arcuate 

features were also discerned, the southern boundary of the Takou block being one of them. 

Field mapping proved that these structures were superimposed on older structures which had 

been active in the Eocene and Oligocene during Te Kuiti deposition. The arcuate faults and 

folds affecting the basement were active during and after emplacement of the Northland 

Allochthon in the earliest Miocene; they are largely truncated by the early Miocene Wairakau 

Volcanics. A synopsis of these observations was published in the New Zealand Journal of 

Geology and Geophysics in 1992. 


Figure 1 (A): 

GSNZ Newsletter 146 (2008) 5 

Principal 

structures and 

inferred lineaments 

affecting or 

defining basement 

outcrop in Northland 

(status and 

interpretation as 

discussed in the 

text). 

Key: 

Wa=Waipapa 

block. 

Pu=Pirau Fault. 

T=Takou block. 

M=Te Mata 

block. 

WBI= Whangarei 

Bay of Islands 

block. 

P=Pukenui block. 

O=Otaika block. 

H=Harbour Fault 

Wu=Waipu Block. 

Po= Piroa Fault

Figure 1(B): Schematic stratigraphy showing basement (shaded), Te Kuiti Group (dashed) 

Waitemata Group (stippled) and Wairakau Volcanics (triangles), relative to Northland 

Allochthon. 

I had also noted that post-emplacement folding of the thrust sheets of the Northland 

Allochthon west of the basement blocks, though it did not seem to involve underlying 

basement, was broadly parallel to the structural trends in the uplifted basement to the east. 

This implied considerable northeast-southwest crustal shortening across the whole of the 

Northland peninsula during and immediately following Allochthon emplacement. At this 

stage, however, a regional causative mechanism escaped me. 

That was as far as I got before I finished the maps and closed the door on my informal career. 

Basement folding throughout Northland? 

The ‘Eureka moment’ came nine years later at the Whangarei GSNZ conference (2002), when 

Bernard Sporli led us to an outcrop at north Ocean Beach. Here, basal Waitematas and 

overlying Northland Allochthon rest unconformably upon greywacke basement at a steeply 

southward dipping contact. Nearby at Parua Bay the same sequence lies flat in the foreshore, 

while in an inland road cutting the basal contact dips sharply to the south. 

This pattern, of autochthonous Tertiary strata dipping steeply down a south facing greywacke 

escarpment to become monoclinal at the toe, reminded me of what I had seen at Rangiahua. 

Then it struck me: could the Whangarei-Bay of Islands block be another of these folded 

basement structures? 

Piercy Island, at the northeast edge of this basement block, consists of Te Kuiti limestone 

resting on greywacke and dipping northeast. Conversely, at most places along the 

southwestern margin of the block, Te Kuiti Group dips moderately off the greywacke to the 

southwest. Does this opposition of dips define a major basement anticline, with its axis 

running northwest to southeast down the summit of the ranges? 

Further pieces of the jigsaw began to fall into place. At Whatuwhiwhi (near Kaitaia), late 

Cretaceous strata dip steeply south off greywacke basement. The southern extent of basement 

outcrop describes a broadly arcuate trend extending westward to Houhora. Could the younger 

strata define the steep southern limb of an asymmetrical anticline? 

What then about basement to the west and south of Whangarei? 

The hills immediately west of Whangarei consist of greywacke blocks with arcuate and steep 

southern flanks, and gently dipping northern slopes mantled by Te Kuiti cover. Do they 

represent arcuate asymmetric anticlines? No strata dipping steeply off the southern 

escarpments have yet been mapped. 

However, White and Perrin, in their 1994 map of Whangarei City, show Te Kuiti Group 

resting against the southern flank of the Pukenui block. Is it faulted against the greywacke, or 


does it dip steeply south off the greywacke in opposition to the gently north-dipping Te Kuiti 

cover at the northern end of the same block? The map also shows strips of Allochthon 

lithologies flanking the southern escarpment of the Otaika block, arranged in the same relative 

order as the nappes that overlie the northern flank of the block. Are they faulted strips, or 

attenuated and upturned nappes folded over and with the block as well as faulted against it? 

These are challenges to be answered in the field. 

South of Whangarei is the prominent and arcuate Piroa Fault. This feature defines the Waipu 

Fault block, flanked by tilted greywacke blocks to the north. On the Waipu block, tens of 

metres of north-dipping Waitemata cover is underlain by Te Kuiti Group, and is capped by 

Northland Allochthon along the northern foothills. On the southern escarpment, Whangarei 

map sheet 2A (1:250,000) shows two small outliers of Te Kuiti Group apparently clinging to 

the greywacke hillside. Do these indicate that the Waipu block is also an arcuate asymmetrical 

anticline with a faulted southern boundary? Here is another challenge for the field-footed and 

the eager. 

These patterns, observed and implied, raise significant regional questions. 

Are the arcuate basement blocks parautochthonous, and in some way part of the low-angle 

Northland Allochthon (as Bruce Hayward first postulated in 1989 in this Newsletter?) 

Although the Piroa Fault has traditionally been mapped as a high angle fault, more recently 

this and other arcuate features around Whangarei have been interpreted as thrusts (see the 

2002 Whangarei Conference Fieldtrip Guides). If the arcuate features are thrusts, then are the 

subsidiary structures north of the Harbour, Piroa and Pirau faults half grabens defined by 

normal faults, or basement blocks tilted to the north along high angle secondary thrusts? 

Establishing the attitude and nature of the major basement faults is crucial to a correct 

interpretation. What is the demonstrable strike and dip of these faults, and how detached are 

these blocks from proven autochthonous basement? Are they overthrust across Northland 

Allochthon? 

The outcrop geometry of the arcuate structures implies that they are high angle rather than low 

angle features. If so, they would have minimal lateral displacement, with the requisite crustal 

shortening being achieved by basement folding rather than by frontal overthrusting. Secondary 

thrusting and stacking of north-tilted blocks behind the arcuate thrust fronts may reflect 

additional shortening. 

The only place in which I have seen basement greywacke thrust across Northland Allochthon 

at a low angle is along the northern flank of the Te Mata block north of Hikurangi. The contact 

(100/30SW), efficiently exposed by Transit in a cutting on SH1, was visible for a few short 

weeks before being just as efficiently reinterred behind a permanent retaining wall. The 

geometry and position of this feature relative to the arcuate structures suggests that it may be a 

back thrust. 

What is needed is some physical proof, and proof begins with intensive basic fieldwork- 

something which unfortunately I am no longer in a position to pursue. 

Northland resolved? To make that claim, I somehow have to fit all of these structures into a 

credible regional tectonic model. There are several facts to consider. First, that their initiation 

accompanied Allochthon emplacement, with oblique truncation of autochthon by Allochthon 

toward the crest of the anticlines. Second, that they seem to be successively younger 

southward (metres of Waitakian Waitematas beneath Allochthon on the blocks north of 

Whangarei, and tens of metres of Waitakian-early Otaian Waitematas beneath Allochthon on 

the Waipu fault block.) Third, that re-folding of the Northland Allochthon nappes is broadly 

parallel to the western flank of the basement structures. Fourth, that the Northland Allochthon 


was remobilised southward in the Otaian, requiring a driving force for that remobilization. 

Fifth, that these basement structures and refolding of the Allochthon largely pre-date the early 

Miocene volcanics of eastern Northland. 

Last of all, the theory fits in with established tectonic models of Allochthon emplacement 

followed by uplift and arc type volcanism, in response to compressive transform tectonics 

and/or southwest to south-directed oblique subduction east of Northland, in the early Miocene 

(see GNS Monograph 8). 

My proposition, therefore, is this: that the eastern basement blocks of Northland represent the 

southward propagation and emergence of deep seated south to southwest directed 

asymmetrically anticlinal arcuate thrust fronts, accompanying and following an episode of 

southwest directed crustal flexure which resulted in the initial southwestward emplacement 

and subsequent southward migration of the Northland Allochthon. 

Southward toward Clevedon? 

In that brief revival of my obsession with Northland geology in 2002, I presumed that the 

southernmost arcuate basement feature was Te Arai headland, south of Mangawhai. However, 

upon reading Jill Kenny’s contribution, my speculative eyes were re-opened. With a little 

imagination one can perceive a possible arcuate southern boundary to the greywacke block at 

Cape Rodney, and with a great stretch of the imagination one could postulate a similar 

southern limit for the Kawau block. 

To be validated, such a claim will require a better definition of basement structure and 

morphology beneath extensive Waitemata cover. It would also need a distinction to be made 

(and proven) between locally basal, highly discordant, coarse grained Waitematas (Kawau 

Subgroup) crowning paleo- islands formed by the emergent and eroding crests of basement 

anticlines (east of Mahurangi Harbour, including the Hauraki Gulf islands); and regionally 

basal, generally finer grained strata of the Subgroup pre-dating Allochthon emplacement and 

basement uplift (west and south of Mahurangi Harbour). 

It is interesting to consider that if the accepted premise that Kawau Subgroup and earliest 

Pakiri Formation represent regionally basal (pre-Allochthon) Waitematas is correct, then 

volcanic-rich Pakiri Formation must underlie the Allochthon west of Mahurangi (e.g. cross 

section A, QMap Auckland). This would require significant volcanicity to pre-date the 

Allochthon. However, the volcanic arcs of Northland postdate the Allochthon, while known 

Waitematas underlying the Allochthon throughout Northland are exclusively volcanic poor 

facies (East Coast Bays Formation and Bream Subgroup). Conversely, if Pakiri Formation 

exclusively overlies the Allochthon, and oversteps eastward at Mahurangi on to eroded 

basement highs capped by locally basal Kawau Subgroup, the problem disappears. 

Does the Allochthon west of Mahurangi overlie volcanic rich or volcanic poor Waitematas? A 

stratigraphic drillhole or drillholes near Mangawhai or Wellsford could produce some 

interesting results. There is a worthwhile project for a lucky FoRST grantee. 

Similar questions could be raised regarding East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) at Auckland. 

The Parnell Grit members of ECBF require a contemporary volcanic source. If they are 

derived from the Northland arcs, they would have to be post Allochthon and therefore higher 

in the sequence. How deep are they found in the mainland Auckland area, and is ECBF 

containing Parnell Grit younger than ECBF without? Is the Parnell Grit close to basement at 

Motuihe Island truly basal, or is it a younger stratum overrunning a submerging basement 

high? Could the Gulf islands also represent eroded blocks of upthrust and folded basement? 

Widespread three-dimensional information is possibly more available in the Auckland area, 

and may facilitate a ready answer. 


Deep-seated basement thrusting as far south as Auckland? The demonstrably arcuate structure 

of the Clevedon-Papakura fault seems convincing, though it is at this stage speculative. The 

person who finds Tertiary strata dipping steeply off the greywacke along the southern 

escarpment will help to strengthen my premise. He or she who proves otherwise will help to 

constrain it. 

The pudding will be in the proof. 


NEW ZEALAND ROCKS 

Toward a Deep-Sea Tephrostratigraphy Record of Raoul 

and Macauley Eruptions 

Ian Wright, NIWA, Wellington i.wright@niwa.co.nz 

Phil Shane, SGGES, University of Auckland pa.shane@auckland.ac.n 

Macauley and Raoul, of the Kermadec island group, are the two larger emergent and 

volcanically active volcanoes of the Kermadec arc. To date the eruptive history of both these 

island volcanoes has been almost exclusively established from onshore eruptive deposits. The 

longer and more complete history of silicic volcanism from both volcanoes is not well 

established. 

For Raoul, the onshore volcanic sequence includes basaltic and basaltic-andesite submarine 

lavas and emergent stratovolcano deposits that extend back to at least ~1 Ma (Lloyd and 

Nathan, 1981). Post 3.7 ka volcanism includes eruption of 16 tephra formations, some of 

dacitic compositions, including the eruption of the Fleetwood Tephra from the Denham 

caldera at ~ 2.2 ka (Worthington et al., 1999). 

For Macauley, the onshore volcanic sequence largely comprises basaltic shield lavas and 

phreatomagmatic deposits, but includes the dacitic Sandy Bay Tephra dated at 6400 14 C years 

(Lloyd et al. 1986) sourced from the now submerged Macauley caldera (Wright et al. 2006). 

The Sandy Bay Tephra is the only silicic eruptive deposits preserved on the island though 

pumiceous xenoliths in the underlying basaltic deposits suggest other silicic eruptives (Smith 

et al., 2003). 

Figure 1. Location of studied deep-sea sediment cores flanking Raoul and Macauleyislands . 


A new research project has acquired a series of deep-sea sediment cores east and west of both 

islands (Figure 1) to establish both a stratigraphy and eruptive volume of the more explosive 

and widely dispersed tephra products from both volcanoes. Tephra sourced from the two 

volcanoes can be generally distinguished on the basis of major element glass chemistry with 

Macauley typically high K2O and Raoul having K2O < 1.5 wt%. A total of 16 cores have been 

acquired at distances of between 15 and 108 km from Raoul, and 24 and 93 km from 

Macauley. Core sites were selected on the basis of multibeam mapping on localised 

bathymetric highs (Figure 1), and hence the recovered sediment cores are interpreted to 

represent fall-out tephra deposited through the water-column rather than submarine ash-laden 

density-flows. Only those cores immediately east of Macauley Island (Cores 12 – 15) were 

probably deposited from such seafloor density-flows. As might be expected, recovered core 

length is greater at increasing distance from the islands, with Cores 1 and 16 being 308 cm and 

240 cm in length, respectively. The representative stratigraphy of Core 1 is shown in Figure 2. 

Figure 2. Stratigraphy of Core 1 showing core photograph, magnetic susceptibility, 

down-core depths of sampled and analysed tephra, and 14 C ages. 


Closer to the islands recovered core length is typically 70 wt % SiO2), we can recognise both high K2O glasses from Macauley and 

lower K2O glasses from Raoul, with multiple eruptions from both volcanoes. For example, 

Core 1 records multiple rhyolite eruptions from both volcanoes (Figure 2), though located 80 

km west of Raoul and 73 km northwest of Macauley. Other glass compositions in Core 1 

include dacite and andesite, though we have yet to unambiguously correlate these tephra to 

either Raoul or Macauley as the source. Nevertheless all cores conclusively demonstrate the 

longevity of silicic eruptions from Raoul and Macauley volcanoes, with low K2O eruptions 

dated to at least 48-50 ka, and high K2O eruptions to at least 50-55 ka. Many tephra have a 

range of glass shard compositions indicating magma-mixing and possibly basaltic intrusion 

triggering. In the immediate future we will finalise the 14 C dating, and both inter-core tephra 

correlations and correlation to the source volcano. In the longer term we hope to establish 

volume estimates of the identified eruptions, and propose to undertake trace-element 

geochemical analysis of the tephra glasses. 

References 

Lloyd, E.F., Nathan, S., 1981. Geology and Tephrochronology of Raoul Island, Kermadec 

Group, New Zealand. New Zealand Geol. Survey Bulletin 95. 105pp. 

Smith, I.E.M., Stewart, R.B., Price, R.C., 2003. The petrology of a large intra-oceanic silicic 

eruption: the Sandy Bay Tephra, Kermadec arc, Southwest Pacific. Journal of 

Volcanology and Geothermal Research 124, 173-194. 

Worthington, T.J., Gregory, M.R., Bondarenko, V., 1999. The Denham caldera on Raoul volcano: 

dacitic volcanism in the Tonga-Kermadec arc. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal 

Research 90, 29-48. 

Wright, I.C., Worthington, T.J., Gamble, J.A., 2006. New multibeam mapping and geochemistry 

of the 30° - 35°S sector, and overview, of southern Kermadec arc volcanism. Journal of 

Volcanology and Geothermal Research 149: 263-296. 


Deep Fault Drilling Project (DFDP) on the Alpine Fault 

Simon Cox, GNS, s.cox@gns.cri.nz 

Over the past two years the concept of drilling the Alpine Fault has been rapidly gathering 

momentum. A preliminary proposal was submitted to the International Continental Scientific 

Drilling Program (ICDP) in January 2007, in which a case was made that the Alpine Fault 

offers a unique opportunity to drill and observe a shallow seismogenic zone, and to integrate 

drilling results with exhumed fault rocks exposed at the surface. Following an encouraging 

response from the ICDP, a two-day meeting and three-day fieldtrip were held from 5-9 

November 2007 funded by the Earthquake Commission, GNS Science, Victoria University of 

Wellington, and the Royal Society of New Zealand. The meeting was attended by 46 local 

scientists and SAFOD (San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth) principal investigators Prof 

Mark Zoback (Stanford University) and Dr William Ellsworth (US Geological Survey). A key 

theme that emerged at the meeting was the possibility of calibrating geological predictions 

based on surface exposures to rocks at >4 km depth. This would yield a wealth of information 

about near-surface fluid alteration and fluid processes; localisation with depth; rheological 

mechanisms; and involvement and deformation of the footwall. 

A second ICDP proposal was submitted in January 2008, requesting support for a five-day 

workshop in early 2009. The plan is to assemble approximately 40 researchers from New 

Zealand and overseas with complementary experience in pertinent fields, and particularly 

structural geology, tectonics, hydrological and thermal modelling, geophysics, earthquake 

physics, and drilling. In addition to a series of purely scientific questions to be resolved 

during the workshop, there are several key logistical issues to be addressed, not the least of 

which is the technical feasibility of conducting a large-scale drilling experiment on the Alpine 

fault hanging wall. Other key topics to be discussed include the advisory structure required 

for a multi-year program of site characterisation, drilling, and science, both on the surface and 

down-hole; the membership of technical focus groups; and the attraction of adequate longterm, 

high-level funding. A principal outcome of the workshop will be a draft science plan for 

the coming years that encompasses further site characterisation, deep drilling, and ongoing 

monitoring. Unofficial notification has just been received from ICDP (May 2008) that the 

meeting will be funded and the proposal has been recommended “with extremely high 

ranking” — a very exciting outcome! 

For the uninitiated, deep fault drilling programs such SAFOD are experiments motivated by 

fundamental scientific imperatives that go well beyond obtaining a single core from one point 

along a fault! They typically involve numerous site characterisation and related studies, 

shallow test drill holes, characterisation of core, down-hole geophysics, and infrastructure for 

ongoing observation and monitoring programs. The current proposal to drill deep into the 

Alpine Fault is no different. It aims to drill, sample, and monitor the Alpine Fault to address 

fault zone evolution via brittle and ductile processes operating in the upper and mid-crust. The 

remarkable along-strike homogeneity of the Alpine Fault’s hanging wall, the rapid rate of slip, 

and the dextral-reverse kinematics that progressively exhume the fault’s own faulting products 

together enable us to examine the progressive evolution of fault zone materials by effectively 

targeting a single rock mass at two points on its exhumation trajectory. The idea is to place a 


orehole at a measurable distance tectonically upstream (i.e. back along the exhumation 

trajectory) from a well-exposed and thoroughly studied surface outcrop of the fully evolved 

suite of fault rocks. By comparing fault rocks exposed at the surface with their correlatives at 

depth along a single exhumation trajectory, we can take advantage of a rare window into the 

physical character of the seismologically expressed brittle–ductile transition zone in a fault 

that is active today and which can be geophysically monitored in the coming decades. In that 

way, the proposed project would constitute a globally unique experiment in fault-rock and 

fault zone evolution. 

The experiment would probably involve a multi-phase drilling program conducted over 

several years and involving a number of boreholes commencing with shallow instrumentation 

holes and 1–2 km-deep exploratory holes, then going progressively deeper. This would enable 

the final and technologically most challenging phases of drilling and monitoring to be directly 

informed by sub-surface measurements in a similar manner to that used in the SAFOD project. 

A key difference of an Alpine Fault project from other such projects overseas is that, first, the 

target is the rheological mid-crust at greater structural depths (i.e. mid-crust, and the middle or 

even lower portions of the seismogenic zone) and, second, the well-studied but incomplete 

exhumed crustal section outcropping at the surface will directly inform interpretation of the 

borehole observations. To date no active fault drilling experiment has targeted the mid-crustal 

roots of a long-lived active fault, or addressed fault zone evolution throughout the seismogenic 

zone and towards the brittle-ductile transition. At the November 2007 workshop, several 

possible locations for an upstream/downstream experiment were discussed, and these will be 

the subject of more focussed discussion in 2009. 

The proposal is currently being spearheaded by John Townend (Victoria University of 

Wellington) and Rupert Sutherland (GNS Science), who are coordinating input from a wide 

range of scientists including: Susan Ellis, Simon Cox (GNS Science); Richard Norris, Rick 

Sibson, Virginia Toy (University of Otago); Tim Stern, Tim Little (Victoria University of 

Wellington); Tim Davies (University of Canterbury); Peter Malin (University of Auckland); 

and many other local and international colleagues. Copies of the two ICDP proposals 

submitted to date can be obtained from John Townend. 

Cast in Karst – help! 

Jill Kenny, Auckland j.kenny@geomarine.org.nz 

The Geologial Reserves Subcommittee of GSNZ has obtained a NZ Lottery Board 

Environment and Heritage Grant to update the karst entries in the NZ Geopreservation 

Inventory – a computerised database maintained by the subcommittee convenor, Bruce 

Hayward. I am hoping readers can assist by sending me karst site suggestions. 

The Inventory lists and describes the scientifically, educationally and aesthetically most 

important examples of the wide diversity of natural physical features and processes that 

together characterise each part of New Zealand. Although there have been a few additions and 


some updates made to the Inventory on an ad hoc basis, it has not been substantially revised 

for 10 years. 

We know the Inventory is not fully comprehensive, and is particularly weak in some 

categories, especially in the coverage of many landform types. One of the most poorly 

represented categories is karst landforms. It is also one of the landform types most under 

threat of being damaged by development, subdivision, harvesting of ornamental boulders, and 

even normal farming activities, such as farm road construction and use of tomos as farm dump 

sites. 

Many larger or more robust important landforms require very little in the way of active or 

passive management, however many of the smaller or more fragile earth science sites, such as 

karst areas, need to be identified and measures taken to ensure their survival in a natural state 

for future generations to enjoy and learn from. The first requirement is to identify, document 

and map the extent of these features and to communicate this information to appropriate land 

management authorities so that the required level of protection or management can be selected 

and put in place. 

Following this rationale, I am currently updating and mapping areas of karst, natural arches 

and pseudo-karst throughout the country that require protection. Karst landscapes within 

National Parks are not being given high priority here because they area already preserved, but 

areas of karst outside National Parks need to be listed and mapped in detail. 

This is where I need help from GSNZ members. With surface karst landforms in mind 

(including natural arches, pseudo-karst in basalt and ignimbrite or other material), if you know of 

new sites, vulnerable sites, or sites that need updating, please email me at 

j.kenny@geomarine.org.nz. The Geopreservation Inventory website 

(http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~bw.hayward/NZGI/ ) can be searched alphabetically, or under 

regional or map sheet categories. Surface karst entries currently in the Inventory are as follows: 

Northland Region – Abbey Caves and karst; Hikurangi Quarry buried karst; Kamo limestone 

pinnacles; Skull Creek-Mangawhati Point, Whangarei Harbour; Waiomio limestone pillars; 

Waipu karst; Wairere boulder valley; Waro Limestone Karst. 

Auckland Region and Kermadec Is – Limestone Point, Motuihe Island; Stony Batter basalt 

boulders, Waiheke. 

Waikato Region – Lake Disappear polje; Mangamutu caves and springs; Mangapohue natural 

bridge; Mangapohue QEII Reserve polygonal karst; Mangawhitikau Gorge; Puketiti Swamp 

karst; Ruakuri natural bridge, Taranaki Point karst, Te Akau pancake limestone bluffs; 

Waikorea-Waimai Road, Te Akau Oligocene limestone; Waipuna karst. 

East Coast and Hawkes Bay Regions – Blowhard Range Karst. 

Nelson and Marlborough Regions – Canaan Downs Polje; Devil's Boots, Aorere Valley; Ellis 

Basin and Horseshoe Basin Karst; Gouland Downs karst; Harwoods Hole/Starlight Cave; 

Lake Killarney sinkhole lake, Takaka; Motupipi limestone hogback; Pearse Resurgence; 

Takaka Hill karst and marble; Tarakohe limestone arch; The Grove karst; Waikoropupu 

Springs. 

Canterbury Region and Chatham Is – Annadale (Mt Cookson) karst; Bland's Bluff paleokarst; 

Castle Hill Basin karst; Pareora Dolines; Trig Z Otetaike paleokarst. 


West Coast – Honeycomb Hill Arch; Moria Gate limestone arch, Oparara; Mount Garibaldi 

karst; Mount Owen karst; Oparara Arch; Punakaiki pancake rocks, Dolomite Point. 

Please note that I am concentrating on surface karst features and that the Geopreservation 

Inventory currently also has 85 caves listed. 

Missing Person 

We forgot to include Dan Hikoura in the Committee Group photo last issue! Sorry Dan! 

The committee from left to right Rochelle Hansen, Kate Wilson, Kari Bassett, Janet Simes, 

Keith Lewis, Jan Lindsay, Nick Mortimer, Scott Nodder, David Skinner, Inset Alan Palmer, 

Kerry Stanaway, Dan Hikoura 


MEMBERS FORUM 

Oil and Gas Round-up to June 2008 

Don Haw, Wellington 

Australian Worldwide Exploration 

This Company (AWE), another recent newcomer to New Zealand, is now well integrated into 

the NZ Exploration scene deriving mainly from its success at Tui. As Operator for Tui (42.5% 

interest) its success has been dramatic, not just because of the enhanced production there, but 

also because this aggressive explorer has acquired several other attractive licence positions in 

NZ. It is the largest equity holder in the western Taranaki basin and the largest permit 

Operator in the region, partially because of the huge extent of permit 38483 some 150 kms 

west of Maui (see map) Here, in the Pukeko -1 well, 30 kms west of Maari, extensive oil 

shows were encountered. 

It seems, in the writer’s opinion, that AWE has recognised the fact that ‘subtle traps’ might be 

more widespread than hitherto recognised. Perhaps for too long explorers have been chasing 

simple closures. The new strategy was no doubt brought into focus by the success at Tui, with 

the immediately adjacent, separate accumulations at Amokura and Pateke. It is particularly 

interesting to note AWE are re–evaluating the area NW of Tane-1, no doubt with this in mind. 

West Cape -1 (P and A) and Amokura -1 (?? P and A) were both drilled late last year, close to 

Tui (see map) but the results are not yet known. 

The Maari Oilfield -- OMV 

The huge ( 10,000 tonne) well head platform arrived on site in April, on the Blue Marlin , the 

worlds largest heavy transport vessel. Following installation eight development wells will be 

drilled. We await these results with great anticipation. 

Maari, was discovered by the Tricentrol well Moki-1 in 1983. This sub commercial Miocene 

sandstone oil discovery has been through many Operators hands since and in the writer’s mind 

most have never recognised its full potential. Hence the way it was ‘offloaded’ for others to 

explore and expend their funds. Shell -Todd farmed in to the Cultus licence (38413) in 1996, 

but they never achieved the impetus to develop it, and backed off after Maari-1 was drilled in 

1998. This in spite of this well finding oil and gas in the Mangahewa Formation. Shell had 

drilled the Maui – 4 well oil discovery on the Manaia structure (10kms SW of Moki) ) as long 

ago as 1970, but it was not considered to contain sufficient added value within the permit. 

Cultus was taken over by OMV in 1999 and following a major re-appraisal and the drilling of 

Maari-2 the fields were rapidly upgraded to development status It has now almost reached 

production stage, based on a reserve of 50mmbls, which may in fact still be underrated. 

Horizon Oil, a minor partner, has optimistic views, which mirror what Todd was thinking in 

1996, in that several, as yet untested reservoir levels, could be hydrocarbon bearing, both with 

the Miocene and deeper in the Eocene Kapuni. OMV are pursuing these and, within the 

development plan, they intend to tie in and develop the Maui-4 closure some 12 kms south of 


Maari and access its potentially undervalued reservoir interval. Total recoverable reserves of 

the greater Maari Field (incl. Maui-4) is now put at 87 mmbbls. 

Canterbury – Origin’s Shelf Edge Permits 38259/38262 

Proven, potential source rocks of the Late Cretaceous post rift coaly sequence have been 

established in this region, as well as within the more restricted mid Cretaceous syn rift system. 

Maturity has however been a problem. Also, the syn rift sequence has never been properly 

mapped prior to the recent Origin appraisal of their new acreage. It is now apparent that this 

older sequence is much more attractive because of the maturity regime and the realisation that 

it could source prospective Late Cretaceous closures recently mapped in those permits -- 

38259 and 38262. These are the Carrack and Caravel structures along the Zapata ridge (a 

significant uplift) which are now beginning to look very attractive. Particularly, in view of the 

known hydrocarbons and good reservoirs established in BP’s Galleon-1 well further updip on 

the shelf. It has a taken a long time to follow up this small discovery and Origins efforts look 

good. They are currently looking for partners, and I would think this would not be too 

difficult. 

It is particularly interesting to see how the UK’s British Gas Group has entered the scene with 

a $13.00 billion bid for Origin which, it is said, is primarily aimed at acquiring Origins 

exploration assetts. BG are much less interested in Contact Energy (Origin owns 51.4% of 

Contact) which must make the New Zealand Company’s shareholders wonder where its 

primary value lies. BG have said they will not attribute any premium to the market price of 


Contacts shares if the deal goes through. BG may in fact have plans to onsell Contact. Watch 

this space. 

Hyundai Hysco 

A major new player has entered the NZ exploration scene with the Korean company Hyundai 

Hysco joining forces with Global Resources in their extensive deepwater Taranaki permit PPL 

38451. This is the first significant move to explore this area with a commitment to shoot some 

3000 kms of new seismic, which hopefully will lead to deepwater drilling. Hyundai have 

committed to earn 30% in the permit, by paying for the seismic, thus carrying Global’s work 

programme commitment. GNS who have strongly promoted this region should be 

congratulated for this achievement. 

Kupe Development 

The Ensco rig has now completed the development wells of the Kupe production project and 

Origin are now preparing to drill their “semi exploration” well Momoho-1, six kms south of 

the platform. This is targeting the Farewell and Puponga Formations and could “seriously” 

upgrade the reserves of the overall field. 

Great South Basin Seismic Surveys 

Extensive seismic surveys covering huge areas of the GSB were completed over the summer 

period for OMV and Esso separate Operators for the large permit areas in the region. OMV 

shot 16,054 kms of 2D seismic in the northern permits, wherehas Esso/Todd shot 960 kms of 

2D and 1340 kms of 3D in the southernmost area. 

Data processing and interpretation will engage the geophysical teams over the next six to nine 

months leading to drilling committments which have to be finalised by late next year. 

Prospectivity in the GSBN has been constrained by supposed limitations on the generative 

potential of source rocks but with basement depths up to 8 kms over certain areas there must 

be renewed optimism on this risk. Also where and what exactly is basement. There must be 

some new ideas on this issue. The GSB hold much promise in the writers view. 

Todd into Landfill Gas 

Amongst their numerous downstream projects in NZ, did you know that Todd Energy are now 

installing a 1.MG gas fired power station at Wellingtons Southern landfill at Happy Valley. 

Todd say that this can provide power for up to 1000 households. Clearly a very 

environmentally friendly way of removing methane (a bad pollutant) from decomposing 

rubbish. Although very small by any industry standards this is definitely a carbon credit 

winner. 


The missing link. 

Chris Uruski, GNS Science 

Here we go again! Winter has arrived accompanied by low levels in South Island lakes, a 

power cut in Parliament, a 90% renewable electricity policy and time to rebid the GNS 

petroleum research programme. But wait, we have some good news. Last month Crown 

Minerals announced that New Zealand is now 70% self-sufficient in oil, largely on the back of 

the Tui cluster of fields in Taranaki. Other projects in Taranaki are going well, Pohokura is 

contributing significantly to gas supply and reportedly adding 10,000 barrels per day of 

condensate to the mix. Kupe is on target to start gas production next year and it too has 

associated condensate, estimated at 15 million barrels. Then there is Maari which should be 

starting production later this year. When Maari adds its expected 35,000 barrels of oil a day, 

New Zealand will become a net oil exporting country. The question then becomes “Does 

OPEC do a monthly membership?” 

Is there an argument for trying to maintain our status as a net oil producer? I’d say yes. Never 

mind the fact that, whether we wish it or not, we are heavily reliant on oil. If we have oil, we 

have wealth at the rate of $US 130/barrel. At present, we are a net importer to the tune of 

$1,332 million dollars. If we are again reduced to importing almost all the oil we use, that bill 

could amount to $6,000 million, or about the same as the value of the entire dairy industry. In 

fact the value of New Zealand’s oil exports exceeded that of sheep last year, too. My 

argument is that if indigenous oil is found and exported, we can even afford renewable energy. 

So how do we set about ensuring that we continue to discover and export this commodity in 

order to keep the home windmills turning? What we have done so far is to try to get the 

international oil companies to do the job for us and, while we have had some success, they’re 

not exactly beating a path to our door. By far the best solution, and the one that New 

Zealander’s are rightly famous for, would be to do it for ourselves and that could mean a 

number of things. The private sector has so far been less than scintillating in its approach to 

oil exploration and for very good reasons. If they gamble and loose, the whole company goes 

down the drain and the directors are put in the stocks, at least metaphorically. In a business 

where the only way to make a profit is to risk tens of millions of dollars in each well, 

companies must be well capitalised. It is notable that the largest companies in the world are 

now not International, but National oil companies. National oil companies have more than the 

profit motive in mind when they operate. Their prime directive is to secure oil supplies for 

their country. Perhaps it’s time to start a sequel to Petrocorp! I don’t hold out much hope for a 

son of Petrocorp, particularly one with sufficient capital to be a serious contender in 

exploration of our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), so it looks like we’ll have to continue 

with plan A, get someone else to do it for us. 

First, though, we need to be sure as we can be that we have the raw ingredients. There would 

be little point in exploring for oil in our vast EEZ if it were underlain by an Archean massif, 

punctuated by Mesozoic and Tertiary volcanism. Luckily, we have been blessed with an EEZ 

that contains perhaps a million or so square kilometres that are underlain be sedimentary 


asins thick enough to be expelling hydrocarbons today. This knowledge gradually 

accumulated over the decades as GNS and its pre-cursor organisations actively explored the 

EEZ using the cheapest geophysical equipment that could be bought, borrowed or assembled 

from bits and bobs found in the bottom drawer of the lab. In the 1970s, oil companies made a 

contribution with then state-of-the-art seismic vessels. Techniques have now moved on and 

imaging techniques have improved enormously resulting in a new, and different, appreciation 

of the geology of the EEZ and New Zealand. In line with this improvement and with the 

rising price of oil, the day rate for seismic acquisition is now around $US 160,000 ($NZ 

200,000). This coincidentally is almost exactly the value of the GNS annual budget for 

seismic acquisition and that single day of ship time is not enough to get a ship far out into our 

EEZ. Neither is it directed towards petroleum exploration but to understanding plate tectonics. 

Although GNS is charged with understanding the geology of the New Zealand EEZ, the nonexistent 

budget for data acquisition has been a bit of an obstacle. We have had to make do 

with data relinquished by the industry and concentrated geographically in shallow water. 

We’ve arrived at the missing link. GNS has never had a budget for seismic acquisition and 

we’ve been told that to ask for one would be “frivolous”. The frustrations of this minimal 

access to the EEZ eventually resulted in the 2001 deepwater Taranaki survey completed by 

TGS-NOPEC in partnership with GNS. This 6,200 km seismic survey was sold on a 

speculative basis to the industry and to the profit of all parties. The best way to attract 

exploration companies to invest in the deep waters around New Zealand is to give them some 

comfort that they might actually find something of value. 

The idea of providing data to industry to attract exploration was taken up by Crown Minerals, 

which has done an excellent job in recent years. New data attracted Pogo, now Plains 

Exploration and Production, into a large East Coast Basin permit. Later, ExxonMobil and 

OMV were attracted to the Great South Basin, again by the judicious application of new 

seismic data. More recently, the Raukumara Sub-basin of the East Coast has regurgitated 

surprises, with up to 13 km of a relatively un-deformed sedimentary succession adjacent to the 

tectonically convoluted East Coast Basin. Crown Minerals has now spent its initial budget and 

can point to the above successes with pride, but their success may mean that now industry will 

be expected to carry the burden. 

So what has GNS achieved on the smell of an oily rag? First of all, we recognised the extent 

and potential of our deepwater frontier basins and secondly, we’ve helped stimulate work in 

the deepwater region. In deepwater Taranaki for example, we found a large Late Cretaceous 

delta, overlying an older rift succession. Conoco’s Waka Nui-1 well in Northland then started 

the idea that New Zealand’s petroleum systems might be older than previously thought, based 

on near-shore and onshore geology. New Zealand Geology has been dominated by the effects 

of the present plate boundary but gradually, it’s beginning to look like the New Zealand EEZ 

is underlain by similar geology to that of eastern Australia and the rest of this segment of the 

Gondwana Margin. In retrospect, this should hardly be a surprise, but this realisation would be 

impossible without seismic reflection data. 

In conclusion, a better understanding of the geology of New Zealand’s marine territories and 

the resources that may be present can be obtained only after surveying those territories with 

modern, high-quality seismic reflection data. Personally, I don’t particularly care how such an 


operation is funded, or which organisation controls the budget. GNS has successfully and 

comfortably worked with Crown Minerals for the last three years in helping to plan surveys, 

interpreting data and using the results to promote the chosen areas to industry and I can see 

benefits in developing this partnership. The level of funding needed to run such a program 

would be around $10 million a year, or less than 10% of the royalties from the Tui project 

alone. Such figures put the cost of petroleum research into perspective, particularly when the 

ultimate value of New Zealand’s petroleum endowment is concerned. My premise is that most 

of our deepwater basins are likely to be more productive than Taranaki as they are much less 

compromised by active tectonics. However, assuming that our known basins will only be as 

productive as Taranaki and no more, we may produce around 17 billion barrels of oil 

equivalent from them in time, which is now worth somewhere in the region of $ NZ 3 trillion. 

I’d say it’s worth finding out, wouldn’t you? 


The Creep of Creationism – is it Relevant to Teaching 

Earth Sciences? 

Alison Campbell Dept. of Bio Sciences, University of Waikato acampbel@waikato.ac.nz 

We tend to think of creationism as being a peculiarly US problem. And certainly the 

creationism vs. evolution conflict is much more apparent there. But recent events, including 

the consultation over New Zealand’s new Science curriculum, have made it clear that 

creationism is alive and well in New Zealand. Why should this concern geo-scientists? 

Because rejection of evolution implies rejection of a substantial body of geological evidence – 

and because promotion of creationism carries with it a lack of understanding of the nature and 

processes of science. 

“Fossils showcase knowledge ... and rebut creationist philosophy” 

“Palaeontologist Hamish Campbell says a new exhibition of the nation's fossils… is 

important as a counter to religious fundamentalists who argue the Earth is only 6000 years 

old” (RSNZ News update, 9 October 2007). 

Creationism, in its many guises, is an issue for geologists as much as it is for biologists: not 

only does it promote misunderstanding of such key material as the age of the Earth and 

radiometric dating, but it also works against understanding of the nature of science. 

As an example, the biblical literalism of Young Earth creationists (YEC) leads not only to 

their denial of evolution but also to rejection of anything in modern geology that relates to the 

age of the Earth and the processes that shaped it. Thus the principal of an Auckland 

independent school could say, in 2005, 

“It’s perfectly possible to say God created the world at a point in time and at 

that point in time [the Earth] was fixed with so many C-14 and so many ordinary 

carbon molecules – why not? God is God.” 

Intelligent Design ‘Theory’ is superficially more scientific in its approach, although many of 

its proponents are somewhat ambivalent about the age of the Earth. Intelligent Design 

creationism is a particular concern for biology educators and should be for earth scientists as 

well – many in the wider community (as well as in the education community) see it as a 

scientific alternative to evolution. Given the lack of scientific rigour in Intelligent Design (ID), 

it is likely that acceptance of ID creationism would be reflected by a reduced understanding of 

how science works, and possibly a less favourable attitude to science (e.g. Williams 2008). 

Nor does the use of ‘the designer did it’ as an explanation for any phenomenon that we don’t 

currently understand do much to encourage intellectual curiosity. 

There is no shortage of resources for schools or individuals wishing to teach creationist 

material. For example: 


“How Old is the Earth”? 

“The modern science of geology is based upon our increasingly improving 

capacity for observation, the application of the scientific method and established 

ideas culled from generations of geological research. Today, satellites are 

capable of detecting the movement of the land even if that movement is measured 

in inches per year. Applying these varied and complicated sciences with careful 

observations and math, scientists who believe the earth is billions of years old 

assert that one can calculate and extrapolate a presumed age of the Earth. The 

consensus is approximately 4.6 billion years. 

“Young earth creationist scientists state the earth is approximately 6,000 years 

old. In addition, young earth creationist scientist [sic] state that there are 

numerous lines of evidence pointing to a young earth and that the old earth 

paradigm is errant and has scores of anomalies (for details please see: Geologic 

system and Young Earth Creationism).” (Conservapedia, 2007) 

But not in New Zealand, of course! 

Really? In the period 1870-1940, creationists had: attempted to have an Otago professor 

sacked for teaching evolution in his classroom (1871); forced the removal of any reference to 

human evolution from the national science syllabus (1928); and in 1947 successfully lobbied 

for the cancellation of a BBC radio series on evolution that was to have played on New 

Zealand’s radio for schools programme (McGeorge, 1992; Numbers & Stenhouse, 2000). 

In 1972 Henry Morris (The Genesis Flood) was invited on a speaking tour of New Zealand, 

followed by other US creationists. While scientists in general rejected their claims, one 

university geologist was apparently so swayed by creationist rhetoric that he included works 

by Morris and fellow creationist Duane Gish in his own courses (Numbers & Stenhouse, 

2000). 

In 1982 the then Auckland Department of Education issued a creationist textbook for use in 

senior biology classes, a book which was widely distributed by the Auckland College of 

Education’s Science Resource Centre. When questioned about the propriety of science 

teachers including creationism in their classes, a spokesman for the New Zealand Education 

Department responded that “he found nothing wrong with science teachers including 

‘scientific creationism’ in their classes, ‘as long as they’re presenting it as one possible 

explanation and not the only explanation’” (Numbers & Stenhouse, 2000). 

The scientific community here felt that science, and evolution, had little to fear from 

creationism; it was viewed as a peculiarly American foible. Yet at the same time, the Creation 

Science Foundation (CSF) in Australia was expanding to become what was, by the 1990s, the 

world’s second-largest creation-science organisation. Its views found fertile ground among 

religious conservatives in New Zealand, and also among our Maori and Pasifika communities 

(e.g. Peddie, 1995), and in 1992 the CSF opened a New Zealand branch, Creation Science 

(NZ) (Numbers & Stenhouse, 2000). 

1993 saw the introduction of a new Science curriculum, and the associated ‘specialist’ science 

curricula, for New Zealand schools (MoE, 1993). Evolution is mentioned explicitly only at 


Level 8 (Living World) of the Science document, which gives as a learning objective 

“students can investigate and describe the diversity of scientific thought on the origins of 

humans” (MoE, ibid.) It goes on to say that students could be learning through “holding a 

debate about evolution and critically evaluating the theories relating to this biological issue” 

(my italics). This suggestion that there is more than one possible theory explaining the origins 

of life’s diversity has left the door open for teachers and institutions who wish to bring 

creationism into the science classroom. Thus, in 1995 Peddie could comment, “… in this 

country some private schools, and some teachers within the state school system and home 

schooling systems, continue to teach creationism and debunk evolution.” 

And more recently, in 2003 the Masters Institute, together with the organisation Focus on the 

Family, offered a workshop on intelligent design for teachers and parents, featuring speakers 

such as the Discovery Institute’s William Dembski. The session was billed as “an excellent 

learning opportunity that offers both a professional development opportunity and a fresh look 

at some knotty problems in science and biology” (Education Gazette, 22 August 2003). 

(Focus on the Family has also distributed CD-ROMs promoting the Intelligent Design 

perspective to every secondary school in the country.) 

Concern from universities and the Royal Society over the increasing prominence of ID was 

met by a response from the Ministry of Education stating that “it is not the intention of the 

science curriculum that the theory of evolution should be taught as the only way of explaining 

the complexity and diversity of life on Earth” (cited by Peter Spratt, pers.comm, 2006) – and 

that schools are free to decide their own approach to theories of the origins of life, within 

existing curriculum guidelines. Showing a distinct lack of knowledge of evolution, the 

Ministry’s representative continued: 

“The science curriculum does not require evolution to be taught as an uncontested 

fact at any level. The theory of evolution cannot be replicated in a laboratory and 

there are some phenomena that aren't well explained by it” (ibid.) 

We now have a new Science curriculum, released in 2007 as part of a national curriculum 

document. This document, as well as emphasising the importance of students developing an 

understanding of the nature of science, recognises evolution as one of the organising themes 

of modern biology (following Dobzhansky, 1973): “Students develop an understanding of 

the diversity of life and life processes. They learn about where and how life has evolved, 

about evolution as the link between life processes and ecology, and about the impact of 

humans on all forms of life” (MoE, 2007). One significant difference from the existing 

curriculum is that the term evolution is introduced in primary school: students in years 1 and 

2 will “recognise that there are lots of different living things in the world and that they can be 

grouped in different ways,” and “explain how we know that some living things from the past 

are now extinct” (MoE, 2007). By year 13 they will be exploring “the evolutionary processes 

that have resulted in the diversity of life on Earth (ibid.). 

Thus evolution has a prominent position in the new Science curriculum, although this was 

not unopposed: 

“CMI does not suggest evolutionists be forced to teach about creation. What we do 

suggest is that freedom be retained for the presenting of both evolution-based and 

Creation-based frameworks of science. We support the teaching of evolution 


provided it is done accurately, ‘warts and all’, i.e. with open discussion of its many 

scientific problems included” (CMI 2006). 

And a submission for a private school stated that “… there is still no evidence to support the 

theory, [and]… to base [curriculum content] on an unproven theory is bizarre” (Curriculum 

Project On-line, 2007). The writers went on to suggest that the curriculum would be better to 

speak of ‘diversity’, which they viewed as a much more suitable term. 

Moreover, the new curriculum is not yet accompanied by any outlines of how it could be 

taught: there are no teacher resources or detailed suggestions on achievement and assessment 

objectives – and is thus open to individual interpretations of what is appropriate content and 

pedagogy. Previous Ministry comments on evolution in the curriculum leave a lot to be 

desired. There is also anecdotal evidence that many teachers are also uncomfortable about the 

new curriculum – either because they are aware of the potential for student, parent, and 

community opposition, or because they themselves have a creationist worldview. At a time 

when biology in its various forms is set to play an important role in New Zealand’s scientific 

and economic development, this is something that should concern us all. 

References: 

Barton, C. (2005) Intelligent design – coming to a school near you. NZ Herald, Saturday 

August 27, 2005 

Conservapedia (2007) How old is the Earth? 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Geology#How_Old_is_the_Earth; access date 20 November 

2007 

Creation Ministries International (2006) General e-mail mailout. 

McGeorge, C. (1992) Evolution in the Primary School Curriculum. History of Education 

21(2) 205-218 

Ministry of Education (1993) Science in the New Zealand Curriculum. Learning Media Ltd. 

Ministry of Education (2007) The New Zealand Curriculum 2007. Learning Media Ltd. 

Numbers, R.L. & J. Stenhouse (2000) Antievolutionism in the Antipodes: from protesting 

evolution to promoting creationism in New Zealand. British Journal for the History of Science 

33: 335-350. 

Peddie, W.S. (1995) Alienated by Evolution: the educational implications of creationist and 

social Darwinist reactions in New Zealand to the Darwinian theory of evolution. Unpublished 

PhD thesis, University of Auckland. 

Williams, J.D. (2008) Creationist teaching in school science: a UK perspective. Evolution 

Education & Outreach 1: 87-95 


IDENTITY PROBLEMS FOR TWO AUCKLAND 

VOLCANOES 

Bruce W. Hayward and Graeme Murdoch, Auckland 

To those from outside Auckland, you might wonder why anyone would care what names are 

used for each of the city’s volcanoes. Each scoria cone and almost every maar crater was 

given a name by pre-European Maori, and a number of these are still used most commonly to 

identify some of the volcanoes (e.g. Orakei, Puketutu, Pukaki). All of the scoria cones and 

many of the maar craters were also given European names in early colonial days – named after 

prominent Europeans of the time (e.g. Mt Victoria, Mt Wellington, Mt Albert), after leading 

early Auckland citizens (e.g. Mt Hobson, Purchas Hill) or after the early European landowners 

(e.g. Elletts Mt, McLaughlins Mt, Browns I.). Several were given European names based 

upon a natural feature present (e.g. One Tree Hill, Crater Hill, Ash Hill, North Head). 

Names of volcanoes on the Auckland Isthmus are well-entrenched having been used by locals 

for more than 150 years and now also adopted as the name of the surrounding suburb (e.g. Mt 

Eden, Mt Roskill, Mangere Mt, Orakei Basin, Panmure Basin). Some of the volcanoes on the 

outskirts of the field have only recently been surrounded by Auckland suburbia and their 

names have not been well known or in common usage. Two of these have recently been 

officially recognised by the local city council by names that have questionable origins. 

The first of these is a maar crater on the North Shore that is signposted by the city council as 

Tuff Crater, but has the Maori name of Te Kopua o Matakamokamo meaning ‘the tidal basin 

of Matakamokamo’ (Cameron et al. 1997, p.138). This rather long name is not widely known 

nor used. It does however have another European name, Tank Farm, that was given to it 

during World War II when bulk fuel storage tanks were camouflaged inside the crater. This 

name was used by Searle (1959) and has become entrenched in the geological community for 

this volcano. It would appear that Tank Farm as a name was in use before Tuff Crater was 

picked up by some locals and is now promulgated through the surrounding community. The 

origin of the name goes back to Hochstetter’s (1864) map of Auckland volcanoes. On that 

map the word “Tuffcrater” is written alongside this feature. It was clearly intended to be a 

descriptive term and not a proper name, as the same term is written in seven other places on 

the map (eg. beside St Heliers crater, Orakei Basin, Pigeon Mt crater, Mangere Lagoon, SE of 

Mangere Mt, Waitomokia, and “The five Tuffcraters of Kohuora”). In Auckland, the name 

Tank Farm has more recently become more familiar to the general population as the name for 

an area by the tidal basin, the site of more recent installations for the storage of bulk fuels. If 

the general public are going to understand the geological community we may be forced to 

drop the name Tank Farm for this North Shore volcano and adopt Hochstetter’s general 

descriptive term or promote the use of the original Maori name. 


Map of the Auckland volcanic field showing location of the volcanoes with identity crises 

(after the late Les Kermode). 


The second volcano with identity problems is a maar crater on the Tamaki Estuary that has 

been in farmland until last year. The crater has been made a park and the crater and a nearby 

road have been assigned the Maori name Pukekiwiriki. This name was first linked to the crater 

by Firth (1930) and has been widely used by geologists since then and more recently adopted 

by the surrounding community. In early 1990s, Les Kermode, Jill Kenny and Bruce Hayward 

consulted Waiohua kaumatau, Te Warena Taua, and were informed that Pukekiwiriki was 

never the name for this crater and that it was solely the name for Red Hill, 10 km to the south 

at Papakura. Following that advice we collectively started using the peninsula name, Waiouru, 

to refer to this volcano. Several months ago, Auckland historian Graeme Murdoch pointed out 

that the correct Maori name for this crater is Pukewairiki, meaning ‘the hill with the associated 

small lagoon’. Graeme recalls that when he visited the volcano in the 1980s with Barney 

Kirkwood and Ngeungeu Zister of Ngai Tai/Te Waihua they referred to the feature as 

‘Pukewairiki’ and we recommend that geologists now adopt this as the most appropriate 

name, and maybe we should approach Manukau City Council to consider correcting the 

mistake now, before it becomes more entrenched. Interestingly Ernie Searle (1964) used the 

name Pukewairiki for this volcano, but it was regarded by later geologists to have been in 

error (Kermode et al., 1992). 

References: 

Cameron, E.K., Hayward, B.W., Murdoch, G., 1997. A field guide to Auckland. Exploring the 

region's natural and historic heritage. Godwit Publishing, 280 p. 

Firth, C.W. 1930. The geology of the north-west portion of Manukau County, Auckland. 

Transactions of the N.Z. Institute 61: 85-137. 

Hochstetter, F.v. 1864. Geologie von Neu-Seeland. Beitrage zur Geologie der Provinzen 

Auckland und Nelson. Novara-Expedition, Geologie Thiel 1 (1), 274 p. 

Kermode, L.O. et al. 1992. Inventory of Quaternary volcanoes and volcanic features of 

Northland, Auckland, South Auckland and Taranaki. Geological Society of NZ 

Misc.Publication 61. 

Searle, E.J. 1959. Pleistocene and Recent studies of the Waitemata Harbour. Part 2: North 

Shore and Shoal Bay. NZ Journal of Geology & Geophysics 2: 95-107. 

Searle, E.J. 1964. City of Volcanoes: a Geology of Auckland. Hamilton, New Zealand, Pauls 

Book Arcade. 


Pukewairiki maar crater in 1990s prior to the industrial subdivision that now surrounds it. 

Te Kopua o Matakamokamo maar crater, known to geologists as Tank Farm and to the local 

community as Tuff Crater. 


WHERE ARE THEY NOW? 

Roger Evans 1959- 

A retort by a Stage 1 lab assistant (“Northland? You don’t want to do your thesis there, it’s 

unmappable”) first lit the fire of a persistent obsession to the contrary. I left Auckland 

University with a M.Sc. in 1982, eager to join the Geological Survey and put the theory of the 

Northland Allochthon to the test; but the Government’s “shrinking lid” policy, and perhaps 

my personality, quashed hopes of a public service career. Thwarted yet undefeated, in 1985 I 

moved north to Kerikeri, determined to do it myself. 

Nine years, several papers and five self published maps later, I realized that obsession and 

enthusiasm alone do not constitute a professional career. Abandoning geology, I built two 

houses and renovated a third, while working as a lab technician for NZ China Clays (now 

Imerys NZ Ltd) at Matauri Bay. I also self published two books: a biography of missionary 

George Clarke, and a synopsis of the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1997 I met and married Leigh: 

we now have two wonderful children, Elliott (4) and Bryn (2). 

In 2006 we decided to move to Auckland. Consequently I have returned to geology, at a 

professional level but in a different sphere, as a field technician for Geotechnics (Tonkin and 

Taylor Ltd.) in Newmarket. Life is a routine of drilling, Scalas and hand augers; yet each 

assignment is an adventure in geological discovery. Most memorable job? Scala penetrometers 

from a punt in two Waikato oxidation ponds. 

The old dreams have died, though the innate interest remains. Geology is now a profession not 

an obsession; a means to an end rather than an end to my means. 

My future plans? To raise two wonderful children to love God and to confidently follow their 

own dreams. 

Roger is the author of the article ‘Northland Resolved’ in this issue 


Roger Brand 

Geological consultant for oil exploration in 

the SW Pacific. region 

Born in Cambridge, England 1952. 

Educated at St Edmund Hall, Oxford 

First real employment BP North Sea 1975. 

Emigrated to New Zealand 1982. 

Established on a smallholding with family 

and goats in Waimamaku, Hokianga since 1987. 

In our peak-oil world the petroleum geologist is seen 

standing next to the lumberjack, looking back on our 

once abundant carbon based resource(s). Maybe its 

time to write memoirs recounting the drilling and 

discovery of those giant and super-giant fields; how it 

was done in the name of progress and wealth and how 

it gave us what we have or don’t have today. 

I have been a geologist for as long as I can remember, being raised within a stones throw of a 

chalk (Late Cretaceous) pit that provided all the necessary outlets for messing about with 

rocks, fossils, meteorites and machines. My first crush was a giant ammonite called 

Austiniceras (no doubt from Texas) but I recovered and soon went chasing other cephalopods 

within the Jurassic down some dark boreal shaly ally. 

The link with oil came later when I realised that the ammonitiferous Kimmeridgian, Oxfordian 

and Liassic shales were also prime source rocks. Unfortunately the drillers didn’t have the 

same empathy with ammonites as I did and the chances of getting one up the barrel were slim, 

and besides they were only interested in the distillate. For some reason, all that distillation 

went to my head and only added to my enthusiasm for exploration. 

Now here in New Zealand the lure of our great podocarp forests has become paramount: such 

a wealth of biomass, even at high (paleo)latitudes, provides a vast input, the smallest fraction 

of which becomes accessible as solid, liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons. What I do is to 

investigate the pathways that the lithosphere and its fluids have undergone during the past 

100MA or so. It is a multidisciplinary task costing zillions of dollars, none of which prepares 

me for the nine failures out of ten attempts. 

During those low points I often reminisce that we’re just too late since most of the oil and gas 

escaped to surface during the orogenic Plio-Pleistocene when global warming wasn’t an issue. 

Returning to the present, we geoscientists find ourselves in the political centre stage with 

exceptionally high commodity prices driving exploration of our undiscovered endowment, as 

well as a larger public awareness of the environmental price to pay for continued reliance on 

carbon based energy resources. In this the International Year of Planet Earth it is apposite (and 

sobering) that one of the themes is ‘Earth Resources – threat or treat?’ 

Obviously the answer lies in the soil; and to that end I continue to enjoy fieldwork which 

simplistically may be considered trophy hunting and/or the only true validation of what goes 

on in the myriads of models that are contrived during office-bound days. 

The accompanying photo shows me with the result of a little backyard fossicking, part of a 

coral which lived and travelled on the Northland Allochthon during the early Miocene. 


Reflections from Utah 

Rick Allis, Salt Lake City Utah USA, rickallis@utah.gov 

My career seems to have been a tour of the geologic time scale. After spending my doctorate 

studying the thermal regime of the Archean in Canada, I returned to Wairakei in 1977 to work 

with DSIR Geophysics Division at the top of the time scale. It’s been a slide down the scale 

since then. On checking in at Kelburn, Trevor Hatherton and Ian Reilly simply said “we’ve 

been having some problems with migrating thermal ground around Taupo, apparently as a 

result of geothermal development at Wairakei – try to figure out what is going on.” They were 

the days when research priorities were set at a low level based on the perceived needs at that 

time. We were lucky if we saw Trevor or Ian more than once a year. Looking back, the early 

1980s at the Wairakei Research Centre were an incredibly stimulating time, working with 

geochemists, engineers, and the occasional applied mathematician on a diversity of research 

issues related to a resurgence in interest in geothermal development. 

By the late 1980s, the reorganisation of DSIR had begun, with a progression of directives 

ranging from outside revenue generation, increased accountability, and to prioritizing research 

directions. I had a brief stint at Kelburn as a business manager, and then spent several years 

with DSIR Geology and Geophysics as a scientist and Group Manager. That’s where I got 

involved with the thermal evolution and oil generation in most of N.Z.’s Tertiary basins. By 

1997 and in my upper 40s, I decided it was now or never for a major career change. After 


three years on soft funding at University of Utah, I was appointed as director of the Utah 

Geological Survey, and have been there ever since. It’s a great job, being in a state with rich 

geologic resources, rapid urban growth along a geologically hazardous corridor, and stunning 

scenery in the classic Mesozoic and upper Paleozoic landscapes. Our funding model is closer 

to the old DSIR days with about 20% external contract work, but the rest is mostly driven by 

our own priorities. Our budget has doubled and staffing has increased by a third since I 

joined, largely due to royalty funding tied to oil and gas production on Utah federal lands. 

This is a great time to be a geologist – during my career there has never been a greater 

relevance, perceived need, and quest for applied geologic information from politicians through 

to the general public. 

My wife and I have a “retreat” in the Uinta Mountains an hour’s drive from Salt Lake City. I 

can see myself in retirement doing frequent hikes, or simply admiring from our deck the 

skyline of upthrust lower Paleozoic – Precambrian rocks. The tour of the time scale will be 

complete! 

Kate Pound 

Have you ever been asked to write a short article that reflects on your post-PhD career? 

Relatively recently I was asked if I would do just that for the NZGS Newsletter. Now that I 

have almost completed the ‘assignment’, I would recommend it. Theoretically I just needed to 

string the facts together into a story (and that is what we all do for our profession, isn’t it?), 

but it involved much more introspection than I was comfortable with. It felt like a cross 

between a psychological analysis and the ‘Departmental Evaluation and Learning Assessment’ 


process that we have to complete on an annual basis in the Earth and Atmospheric Sciences 

Department at St. Cloud State University (Minnesota, USA) where I am tenured faculty. Two 

observations stand out to me: (1) the large number of changes in direction that my career has 

taken, and where those changes have taken me, and (2) the high quality of the broad-based lab 

and field training I received at Otago. At Otago I was mentored in a professional and cohesive 

collegial academic community and I had the freedom to select and design my own research – 

these are luxuries that students now rarely have. I see this chronicle of my ex-pat geological 

career and the changes in direction that it has taken as I maintained my professional, family, 

and everyday life – and an income – as food for thought for aspiring geologists. 

I physically left Otago in 1990 prior to submitting my dissertation. I used the Sedimentology 

Lab as a nursery for my 2-week old son (it was January) as I packed up my research-related 

rocks and paperwork. He was 4 weeks old when we finally left for the University of 

Washington in Seattle where my husband-at-the-time had a Postdoc. I had of course 

anticipated completing my dissertation prior to my son’s birth; I was now faced with trying to 

complete my dissertation while caring for my son. The physical isolation from geologists and 

the lack of any extended time to focus on writing led me to take a position as a lab assistant in 

an unfamiliar field in the Mass Spectrometry Lab at the University of Washington – so that I 

could pay for childcare, so I would have time (?) to work on writing my dissertation. 

As the two-year Postdoc drew to a close, it looked almost certain that I would be able to get a 

Postdoc at Monash University in Australia, so my husband found a Postdoc position at 

Monash. We upped and moved to Melbourne, at which point I was 5 months pregnant with 

my second son, and my dissertation was still not quite completed. I was graciously provided a 

desk and space in the Earth Sciences Department. After my son’s birth, with the blessings of 

my office mates I installed a porta-crib next to the desk – luckily he was a very quiet baby – a 

far cry from the teenager of today. He attended the Geological Society Conference with me in 

Christchurch in 1992 when he was 6 months old; I presented two talks while he was held by 

someone (who were you? I forget). In 1993 my dissertation was finally submitted and passed. 

I then translated my research interest in provenance of Paleozoic sediments from the ophiolitederived 

Cambro-Ordovician sequence into an examination of the provenance of sediments 

within the quartzo-feldspathic Bendigo-Ballarat portion of the Lachlan Fold belt as a parttime 

Postdoc at Monash. I remember well the three weeks I spent teaching at the third-year 

Monash field geology school in western New South Wales; I took my then three-year-old son 

with me, and carried him everywhere on my shoulders in the field. I did not think anything of 

it, but I have since heard from several students about the impression this made on them. In 

1995 I moved on to a different Postdoc at Monash, this time working with the Australian 

Crustal Research Center & the minerals industry, with field work in the Mt. Isa Inlier in NW 

Queesnland. Once again, this was in a geologic field I was not familiar with. While I was 

captivated by the research questions and the geology (and, somewhat to my surprise, by the 

outback), and it was a valuable and broadening work experience, I learned that it is very 

difficult to make major shifts in research topic and focus. Despite this realization, in February 

1996 when my husband obtained a Postdoc at the University of Minnesota, we once again 

uprooted, leaving an Australian summer for a Minnesota winter. 

At this point in my career I was very frustrated. I had aspired to holding a teaching position 

where I would be able to continue my research interests in the provenance, regional geology 

and tectonics of Cambro-Ordovician sequences. I wanted to build on my knowledge, not have 

to learn a whole new regional geology. I had not published in peer-reviewed journals, and 

teaching positions were hard to come by, particularly if I was restricted to the Minneapolis-St. 


Paul suburban area. Whilst having a breadth of experience, I was not connected to the US ‘job 

network’. I think back now to the years 1996-1998 as ‘the dark years’. I worked for 6 

months at the Limnological Research Center as a Lab assistant, got divorced, worked as a 

teacher’s assistant in the public elementary schools, worked as the ‘geologist in residence’ at 

the Children’s Museum, taught introductory geology at an inner-city tribal community college, 

and continued to apply for University teaching positions, to no avail. Finally, I secured a 

position as Editor at the Minnesota Geological Survey in January 1998. While not the position 

I had aspired to, it suited my family situation, and has since proved to be an invaluable 

experience. While I enjoyed using the editorial work to learn about Minnesota regional 

geology, and found satisfaction in completing other people’s publications, I remained 

unpublished in peer-reviewed journals, and became frustrated at not being able to use my 

wide-ranging geologic expertise. In June 2000 I resigned from the MGS, with the intention of 

setting up my own Geoscience Writing Consultancy (Earthfolio Consulting). 

During the summer of 2000 I discovered that I am not a business person, I was far too 

interested in the geology to treat the job as a for-profit business. In September 2000 I accepted 

an adjunct teaching position at the nearby University of St. Thomas, teaching Introductory 

Labs. I also worked as a receptionist at a Law firm, where I learned to never, ever divulge that 

an attorney had stepped out to get a cup of coffee. In the meantime I applied for teaching 

positions as they came up. One of the difficulties I faced was that I no longer had an active 

research program, and I was not connected to a research project in the US; the geologic benefit 

of being a ‘jack of all trades and master of none’ was not helpful in a field that was demanding 

specialist expertise. In the summer of 2001 I was, unbeknownst to me, handed the key to my 

academic future. Through connections at the Minnesota Geological Survey I was asked to lead 

a two week summer field course for teachers in the Twin Cities area. I jumped at the 

opportunity, and it is this connection with teachers and geoscience education that has framed 

my subsequent career. 

In September 2002 I started my tenure-track position at St. Cloud State University. The 

position is unique in that it is a ‘split’ position; 50% of my time is spent in Science Education 

(teaching future teachers of Earth Science), and 50% is spent teaching introductory and upperlevel 

geology courses. St. Cloud is an undergraduate teaching institution, and it is located 75 

miles northwest of Minneapolis/St. Paul (picture a university in Gore). This means that I am 

spending money and time commuting and polluting – something I don’t believe in, and never 

ever thought I would do. But I NEVER thought I would live in the Midwest; I had always 

assumed I would live near mountains or ocean or both. Teaching in an Earth and Atmospheric 

Sciences Department where our offerings include a BSc in geology and a BSc in Earth and 

Space Science teaching with a geology faculty of 1.5 people is a challenge in a myriad of 

ways. We each teach the equivalent of four courses plus labs per semester, and most of our 

students are working between 20 and 40 hours a week to pay for their college tuition (and, of 

course for their various social habits). This is where I continue to be immensely grateful for 

the broad-based training and experience I received at Otago. I have (and I continue to) teach a 

wide variety of upper-level and introductory geology courses, as well as the field geology 

course. My work with and connections to the Minnesota Geological Survey has more than 

earned its keep as I teach and supervise student research. I have continued to teach the field 

course for teachers (TIMES – Teaching Inquiry-based Minnesota Earth Science) during the 

summer, and I am able to bring colleagues from the Minnesota Geological Survey in for 

single days as ‘local experts’ for TIMES. I have also been able to avail myself of incredible 


learning opportunities. Funding and small grants are available from the University. I have 

traveled to Iceland on a geologic field trip and participated in geoscience education meritreview 

panels at the National Science Foundation. I have also worked with colleagues on 

Minnesota on Teacher Workshops at Local and National Conferences (which I always hope 

will be near an ocean or mountains). I have still to establish a solid research program –I am 

trying to work on provenance of Minnesota’s Quaternary glacio-fluvial sediments, and stream 

terraces/post-glacial uplift. I also have those unpublished publications hanging over me, but 

my work in geoscience education helped me achieve tenure in 2007. 

As a graduate student working in Paleozoic rocks in Northwest Nelson I had of course always 

wanted to work on the lateral co-relative rocks in Northern Victoria Land in Antarctica, but 

the opportunity never arose. In January 2006 I was helping one of my students prepare 

samples for XRF and microprobe work at Macalester College, and I attended the weekly 

seminar; it was a summary of recent and upcoming work in Antarctica by David Harwood, 

from ANDRILL. I decided to apply to the Education and Outreach program, and was 

accepted. So, in October-December 2007 I spent just over 2 months ‘on-ice’. Much of the 

material in the sediment cores was derived from lithologies I had read extensively on for my 

PhD. On my return to Minnesota I jumped into an outreach project with middle and high 

schools with the Limnological Research Center (remember - I worked there as a lab assistant 

during my ‘dark days’). We cored through lake ice to obtain lake sediment cores, a perfect and 

relevant analog for the ANDRILL coring process. 

As I finish writing this, I am still recovering from the tribulations getting year-end grades 

submitted. I am increasingly concerned about the time and intellectual commitment that 

university students are not able or willing to make to their education. At the same time I see an 

incredibly dedicated group of teachers, working to prepare their students as best they can. 

Even though I still hanker after time to complete my own research publications, it is a 

rewarding time to in geoscience education. I have been able to make significant contributions 

to students’ lives and their broader appreciation of earth science. Most of these opportunities 

arose because I took jobs (and chances) outside my field of expertise. Taking this time to 

reflect on how I got to where I am has been illuminating – It has afforded me the opportunity 

to think about what I want to do with the rest of my career. 


REVIEWS 

QMAP Geology of the Aoraki Area 

Bernhard Spörli, Geology, SGGES University of Auckland 

With 1: 250 000 Geological Map 15, compiled by S.C. Cox and D.J. A. Barrel, we now have a 

modern update of the pulsating geological heart of New Zealand. I have spent happy hours 

poring over the map and the accompanying text and will no doubt continue this activity 

sometime into the future. My review addresses only the printed part of this work and does not 

cover the underlying electronic ARC INFO/ GIS information. 

This map represents much of the area covered by the Mount Cook, Hokitika, Hurunui and 

Christchurch sheets of the old “four mile to the inch” series. In contrast with the latter, which 

were “solid geology’ maps, this sheet is a true “exposure” map, where the obscuring, mostly 

Quaternary, cover has been diligently outlined. This minimizes interpretative extrapolations 

and also gives a much more naturalistic expression of the landscape development. There are 

no topographic contours, but at the scale of this map and its dense fabric of patterns, this is not 

a serious omission. ‘Aoraki’ covers a large chunk of Torlesse rocks, a piece of the Alpine 

Fault, and on its other side, part of the western province of New Zealand (showing only few 

exposures), as well as the Canterbury Plains along the east coast. The Torlesse terrane rocks 

are coloured according to their ages, but have two kinds of patterns superposed: 1) white form 

lines in the lower grade rocks, 2) other patterns showing the higher textural grades. All these 

features, as well as the metamorphic zoning, are individually isolated in smaller summary 

maps in the text volume. They neatly demonstrate the value of GIS-based multi-layer 

mapping. Some of them are even small works of art. When I saw the summary map of form 

lines, I was immediately tempted to enlarge it and start analysing its structural patterns. It sits 

above an intriguing contoured map of bedding dips which shows how much of these 

greywackes are indeed steeply dipping and how the areas of shallow dip, like that of the 

Lord Range, are restricted to narrow belts. The most striking unit on the map, although of 

small areal extent, are the Geraldine basalts, lying out in the Canterbury Plains like a drop of 

blood. In contrast, the many active faults in the region get a bit overwhelmed by the other map 

patterns, but again, they can be studied on their own in a separate summary diagram in the 

text. The cross sections look much more realistic than in the previous maps, because the 

collisional wedge model for the Southern Alps based on the recent intensive geophysical work 

has been considered in their construction. 

The accompanying text volume, as is to be expected in an area with so many key earth 

science features, contains a number of spectacular geological illustrations. They include the 

front cover, showing the steeply west- dipping metamorphic foliation on Mount Burns with 

Mount Cook/Aoraki in the background, although the photo is slightly out of focus. Other 

treasures to be discovered are the hoodoos in the Kowai Formation of Harper Valley on the 

back cover, the Lake Pukaki moraines, the Castle Hill Basin with the Torlesse Range (the type 

locality of the super-terrane!) in the background, total exposure of Torlesse sandstone and 

black mudstone units in the Malte Brun and Gammack Ranges, columnar-jointed rhyolite in 

the Mt Somers Volcanics, the Late Quaternary extent of glaciers, the beautifully shadowed 


aerial photo of the active Ostler Fault, the creeping landslide (Sackung) on the back side of the 

Sealy Range and the shocking changes between 1948 and 1998 in the Waiho River fan at 

Franz Josef. Some other pictures, such as that of the Waiho loop moraine, of the Alpine Fault 

at Gaunt Creek and the space view of the map area would have qualified for inclusion in this 

list but, at least in my copy, are too dark. As in many other GNS publications, Lloyd Homer 

has contributed a number of superb photos. 

The volume covers everything from plate tectonics to hazards. Also presented is the Maori 

view, and their subtle perception of topographic patterns, including their tilted-canoe image 

also known from elsewhere in New Zealand, such as the Whakarara Range of the North 

Island. It is interesting to see that the Basin and Range concept has now crept north to 

Canterbury from Otago, where it was first grafted onto New Zealand by our Californian 

connections. For me, the treatment of the Neogene is a major contribution because it links 

scattered impressions of erosional remnants I have into a unified scheme supported by a fence 

diagram. At last I know where the Glentanner Beds (now named Kowai Formation) of my 

young days fit in! All this is even more valuable as it is synthesised with current offshore 

information. Two of the many other interesting summary maps show the configuration of the 

Late Cretaceous (and younger?) Waipounamu erosion surface and the sediments deposited 

directly on it. 

A number of sections can serve as textbook examples for students, such as the photo gallery of 

mesoscopic textures from t.z. IIA to t.z. IV, immediately opposite the maps of metamorphic 

and textural zoning, and the various bits of information in the pink text boxes. Among the 

latter I especially like the one on the Maud Glacier lake tsunamis. Such intracontinental 

tsunamis are becoming increasingly important in the history of lakes in mountainous terrains, 

as recent studies in the European Alps and in California have shown. After reading through 

the volume I went back to the ‘Abstract’ and found it a bit terse, in view of all the marvellous 

features and processes presented in the main text and on the map. It would have been nice to 

use the blank space remaining on that page for presentation of some further high points. 

The compilers and their co-workers are to be congratulated for assembling an inspiring 

publication worthy of one of the top geological regions on Earth. It makes me want to go and 

use my Swiss hammer on these mountains some more! 

Bibliographic Reference: 

Cox S.C.; Barrell, D. J A. (compilers) 2007: Geology of the Aoraki area. Institute of 

Geological & Nuclear Sciences 1:250 000 geological map 15. 1 sheet + 71p. Lower Hutt, 

New Zealand GNS Science. 


NOTICES 

This international conference will showcase advances in understanding the causes 

and consequences of extreme climatic and catastrophic biotic events in the 

greenhouse world of the early Cenozoic: from the K/T boundary mass extinction to 

the Pal-Eocene thermal maximum t & Eoc-Oligocene greenhouse-icehouse transition. 

A fitting culmination to the 2008 International Year of Planet Earth, this conference 

will draw together participants from all branches of earth sciences and from all 

corners of the globe for the common purpose of utilising the geological record of past 

global change as a predictor of future change in a warming world. 

Participants are invited from all sectors of Paleogene or climate change research: 

macro & micropaleontogy, palynology, paleobotany, stratigraphy, sedimentology, 

geo-chemistry, paleoceanography, biogeochemical modelling, climate modelling. 

A highlight of the conference will be the 1-day Greenhouse Earth Symposium, 

aimed at a general audience to include eminent invited speakers who will critically 

examine the Paleogene record of greenhouse climate states and explore the 

relationships between atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, global temperatures and 

biological and physical systems. A public lecture will conclude the symposium. 

Venue Te Papa Tongarewa, Museum of New Zealand, Wellington 

Schedule Conference, 12-15 January, 2009 

Pre-conference excursion (northern South Island), 6-11 January 

Post-conference excursion 1 (southern North Island), 16-17 Jan 

Post-conference excursion 2 (southern South Island), 17-21 Jan 

Post-conference excursion 3 (Chatham Islands), 19-23 January 

Convenors Chris Hollis and Liz Kennedy, GNS Science, New Zealand 

Early registration closes 29 th August 2008 

Abstract submission closes 26 th September 2008 

Enquiries cbep@gns.cri.nz 


http://www.gns.cri.nz/cbep2009 

" # 

Carribean, Cuba, New Technologies in Exploration and Mining, Sustainable use of the 

Earth, Geology, Geophysics,Mining, Petroleum,IGCP546, Nickel laterites, Seismology 

and Hazards,Women in Geoscience, IT 

$ # 

geosciences@ceinpet.cupet.cu 

Cost 300CUC companion 80CUC 

Accomodation cubacienciasdelatierra.com 

% # # 

By January 01, 2009 to kenya@igp.gms.minbas.cu 

% & ' ( %" ) 

& " 

$ #*# $ # # $ # # 

+ , - . / 

0 1 # 2 $ & . (. 3 # ) 

" # 

Neotectonics,Tsunami and high enery events,Minerals and Aggregates, Living 

Resoutrces, Carbon cycle and climate change, Paleoantropology and paleoenvironment 

$ # 

Cost USD$250, companion $100 Accomodation $70 - $150/day 

% # # 

By 1 July 2008 

# 

Prof H Vital helenice@geologica.ufrn.br 

Prof M M de Mahiques mahiques@usp.br 

4 # 

GSNZ Newsletter 146 (2008) 41 

!

0 5 # # 

6 4 

CSIRO Publishing 

208 pages hard bound 

ISBN: 9780643094345 

AUD $49.95 

Email publishing.sales@csiro.au 

Web www.publish.csiro.au 

Mettle & Mines: the Life and Times of a Colonial Geologist 

Edward Heydelbach Davis 

by Mike Johnston 

Edward Davis was the third geologist to be appointed to the NZ Geological 

Survey, the other two being James Hector and F.W. Hutton. This thoroughly 

researched and well illustrated book of 288 pages is, however, more that just a 

biography of one of New Zealand’s early, but until now largely overlooked, 

geologists. Mettle & Mines delves into the commercial and political reasons as to 

why Davis undertook geological surveys of Coromandel, Dun Mountain, the 

Nelson goldfields and the Grey Coalfield. The book also chronicles his childhood 

in Cumbria, and sojourns in Portugal and Colombia. Davis died tragically while 

still a young man on the West Coast. 

In recognition of a contribution made by the Geological Society towards the 

printing of this book, which was published in December 2007, Nikau Press is 

offering it to Society members at $35.00 (incl GST), a discount of 12.5%, and with 

no charge for postage/courier. 

Nikau Press PO Box 602 Nelson 

SGA 

GSNZ Newsletter 146 (2008) 

SOCIETY OF GEOLOGY APPLIED TO MINERAL DEPOSITS 42 

2009 

Townsville, Australia 18 – 20 July, 2009

Geology and Genes IV 

Call for expressions of interest 

A further one-day conference in this popular series is planned for February 2009, in 

Christchurch. The meetings are sponsored jointly by the Geological Society of New Zealand 

and the Systematics Association of New Zealand (SYSTANZ). The purpose of the meetings is 

to bring geologists and biologists together to discuss the inter-relationships of geology and 

biology in the origin and evolution of the New Zealand biota. Geological data that help 

constrain the answers to critical biological questions and biological insights into interactions 

between the biota and the changing environment are areas of primary interest. The conference 

aims to improve communication between the two groups of specialists by providing a venue 

for discussion and outlining the large body of information now available. The abstracts 

volume is published as part of the Geological Society of New Zealand Miscellaneous Series. 

The planned conference will be the fourth in the series. Meetings are held at intervals of 2 to 3 

years, the last being in Wellington in 2006. Approximate cost will be $60 per head, which 

covers venue hire, lunch, morning and afternoon teas, and the volume of abstracts. It will be 

held in the Hurst Seagar Room at the Arts Centre in Christchurch on – 

Monday 16 February, 2009 

Final details and registration forms will be sent to those indicating interest. Please indicate 

your interest by email before 30 August 2008, to: 

Dr Norton Hiller, Canterbury Museum, Christchurch - nhiller@canterburymuseum.com 

or 

Prof. David Penny, Alan Wilson Research Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North - 

D.Penny@massey.ac.nz 

Norton Hiller 

David Penny 

Roger Cooper 

Organisers 


SOCIETY BUSINESS 

POTENTIAL AMALGAMATION OF THE 

GEOPHYSICAL AND GEOLOGICAL SOCIETIES 

Discussion document written by Nick Mortimer, John Townend, Laura 

Wallace and Jan Lindsay, June 2008 

Depending on perspective, others might refer to “amalgamation” as “reunification”, “union”, 

“reunion”, “merger” or “swallowing up”. “Amalgamation” is used here. 

The societies compared 

Geological Society (GSNZ) Geophysical Society 

(GSNZ) 

Approx membership * 750 183 

Early member/student fees $70 / $30 per year $20 / $5 per year** 

Newsletters 64 pages, 3 per year 40 pages, 3 per year 

Committee 11 + a paid administrator 10 

Approx annual income $40K $5K 

Approx assets *** $553K $80K 

Awards MH,HL,KA,WRA,WP,MF,HP, 

PVP 

GP, JA, SAGE 

* 54 people are members of both societies. 

** Free student registration in the first year 

*** Includes GSNZ Awards Trust and NZGS Prize Funds 

Reasons for an amalgamation 

• the historical reasons for the dissatisfaction of geophysicists and their split from the 

Geological Society in 1980 no longer exist 

• geology is “the science that deals with the earth's physical structure and substance, 

its history, and the processes that act on it”. The Geological Society has long since 

shed its paleontology-stratigraphy dominated image, and is highly multidisciplinary. 

Members are geophysicists, geochemists, petrologists, tectonicists, paleontologists, 

sedimentologists etc. Special Interest Groups cater for those who want more focus 

within the Society 

• the 54 people who are currently members of both societies would save membership 

fees on amalgamation 

• both societies are currently strong so it’s a good situation in which to amalgamate 

• larger, single, more authoritative voice for New Zealand Earth Science community 

(e.g. to RSNZ, MoRST, overseas societies) 


• more unified, positive, cross-disciplinary feel to New Zealand Earth Science 

community 

• increased eligibility for prizes, awards and other benefits available to members of an 

amalgamated Society 

• remove duplication in operating costs and scientists’ voluntary time (e.g. 

council/committee meetings, travel, newsletters, website fees and maintenance, 

annual auditing of accounts) 

• simpler reporting requirements for, and organisation of, Annual Conference 

• such a move has been strongly advocated in the past (e.g. Mark Stirling in 2005, 

GSNZ Newsletter 137: 4). Now it’s time to act. 

• an amalgamated society might attract more members who do not currently belong to 

either society, including people in industry 

Reasons against an amalgamation 

• probable subs increase for people who currently only belong to the Geophysical 

Society 

• too much trouble to decide on new name and logo for an amalgamated society 

• two voices for the New Zealand Earth Science community are actually better than 

one (e.g. to RSNZ, MoRST, overseas societies) 

• significant effort involved in winding up/changing rules of existing societies 

• loss of identity/dilution of well-focussed group of geophysicists 

• both societies are currently strong – if it ain’t broke don’t fix it 

• most Geological and Geophysical Society members will see little practical change. 

Everyone will still get a newsletter, have a website and get discounted registration at 

an annual conference 

• some Geological Society members might object to a name or logo change 

• some Geophysical Society members might object to a name or logo change, or a 

perceived loss of identity 

• potential resignations if amalgamation occurs 

• where do you stop? The Soil, Geotechnical, Marine, Geochemical and Mineralogical 

Society and AUSIMM are all viable standalone groups satisfying their 

constituencies. 

Alternative ways of amalgamating 

(1) The Geophysical Society winds up. There is no immediate change to the Geological 

Society name or logo but there are minor rule changes e.g. formalisation of the 

Geophysical Society Prizes. 

(2) The Geophysical Society winds up. The Geological Society name, logo and rules are 

changed, eg to Geoscience Society, to reflect the new geophysical membership. 

(3) The Geophysical Society and the Geological Society both wind up. A new society is 

formed with an entirely fresh set of rules. 

Nick’s personal opinion (not official GSNZ position) 

Yes, let’s give amalgamation a go now. The main reasons that persuade me are: (a) savings in 

operating costs and committee time in running one, rather than two, societies that have a 


largely common purpose and >50 joint members; (b) one strong multidisciplinary voice to 

take New Zealand Earth Science community issues to RSNZ, MoRST, Rest of World etc. 

Alternative ways 1 or 2 (above) would be the simplest and quickest. If increased membership 

fees for geophysicists were a major issue, 1-2 years discount membership could be offered to 

people who were formerly not members of the Geological Society. The entire society rules 

could be reviewed, say two years, after amalgamation. Given the substantially larger size of 

the Geological Society, I do not see alternative way 3 (above) as being reasonable. 

Jan’s personal opinion (not official GSNZ position) 

I agree that we should look to amalgamate; it seems a logical step given our existing joint 

conferences and also significant number of members who belong to both societies. We 

obviously fit well together. I would like to add that the GSNZ are currently investigating a 

professional overhaul/revamp of our website and promotional material, which would be well 

timed if we do have a GSNZ/NZGS amalgamation in the near future as we could then also 

incorporate any logo/name/branding changes into our new ‘public face’. 

John’s personal opinion (not official NZGS position) 

With the move towards annual joint conferences, the time does seem right to discuss even 

closer ties. 

Both societies are in good heart, and the joint conferences are clearly a highlight of the 

geoscience calendar. Many practicing geophysicists, including myself, have been trained in 

both geology and geophysics, and the distinction between the two disciplines in universities 

and employment situations is less marked than it was when geophysicists were trained solely 

in physics or mathematics departments. Research projects in academia and industry 

increasingly involve scientists with a range of backgrounds and expertise, and the boundaries 

between geophysics and geology are correspondingly blurred. 

On the other hand, because the Geophysical Society in particular does seem to be in such good 

heart at the moment, I’d be disappointed to see the geophysical community it represents 

entirely disappear. 

Of the three alternatives listed above, Option 1 is the least appealing from my perspective. 

The geophysical community’s vigour belies its smaller size, and I think this energy would be 

dissipated if it were to be represented by a Special Interest Group within a largely unchanged 

Geological Society. Option 2 would enable both societies to amalgamate while recognising 

the Geological Society’s larger size. If the two societies do decide to merge, any change 

should be one of amalgamation rather than subsumption. I agree that winding up both societies 

before launching a new geosciences society, Option 3, would be unnecessarily complicated. 

Laura’s personal opinion (not official NZGS position) 

I have been in favour of an amalgamation of the two societies for quite some time. I believe 

that the New Zealand Earth science community is too small for superficial divisions to exist 

within the community (e.g., geology vs. geophysics). Moreover, the future of strong 

geoscience research lies in interdisciplinary studies that draw on geological and geophysical 

techniques. A merged society would help to facilitate this, and increase interaction and 


communication between geologists and geophysicists. I also agree with the other arguments 

in favour of amalgamating the two societies listed earlier in this document. 

In terms of the way forward, I agree that Option 2 seems the best approach. Option 1 

minimizes the influence of the strong geophysical community here, and Option 3 would 

probably be unnecessarily difficult. I think it would also be a good idea to have a geophysical 

branch of the new “Geosciences” society (Wellington-based?) similar to the local branches 

that the GSNZ already has, in order to continue having a geophysics-oriented lecture series, 

and to have some platform for more geophysically-oriented events, discussions, etc. 

How to proceed? 

Rule-changing is an AGM or SGM business, and so are matters that lead up to rule changes 

(Geophysical Society AGM is in mid year, Geological Society end November). The whole 

process needs to be done professionally with a realisation that amalgamation might or might 

not happen. The process should be led by the Presidents and Vice-Presidents, with the backing 

of their national committees. Membership will be kept informed through each society’s usual 

communication channels – and opinion will be actively sought through a questionnaire in the 

2 nd half of 2008. If there appears to be a mandate to proceed then a definitively worded 

proposal could be put to decisive votes at AGMs or SGMs in 2009 or 2010. 

Taranaki Geological Society, branch of GSNZ 

President’s report for 2007/8 

Susan Burgess 

Office Holders 

President: Susan Burgess 

Secretary: Susan Burgess; Pam Murdoch from Jan 2008 

Treasurer: Colin Payne 

Vice President: Ron Harris 

Committee: Mark Robbins, Joseph McKee, Diane Toole to Nov 2007, Donna 

Ainsworth from Jan 2008 

Librarian: Caroline Blume 

Thank you to members of the committee for their contribution to the society over the past 

year, particularly during my two months overseas when they organised a festivity to farewell 

founder member, Diane Toole, and committed the society to participation in the Fossils: Dead 

Precious exhibition which began its national tour at Puke Ariki. Lectures at the museum in 

association with the exhibition considerably eased the work load of a president/secretary, and 

the hugely popular “Rockhound Roadshows” gave us welcome exposure in the community. 

Thank you to Donald McFarlan, Feike de Bock, Donna Ainsworth, Ina McLellan, Ann de 

Bode and the committee for their expertise, and support of these days. 


I am delighted to announce that two members volunteered to join the committee: Pam as 

secretary, after a stint as minutes volunteer, and Donna who has, since joining, ensured the 

smooth working of the computer and projector. 

Subscriptions for the year numbered 29, including family subs. In addition there are several 

GSNZ members whom we never see, but they are nevertheless members of the Taranaki 

branch. The total membership of 39 is lower than last year, but there are as many again on the 

email contact list some of whom may join in the future. 

2008/9 is the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Taranaki Geological Society. 

Programme (at NPGHS unless otherwise stated) 

April 2 nd Keith Lewis President’s tour “How science discoveries get made” 

May 7 th Liz Kennedy “Plants as Climate Records” 

June 4 th AGM and Roger Hanson “Geology - The Engine of Biology” 

13 th Paula Marshall “Experiences of living and working in Antarctica” 

At Puke-Ariki 

16 th Boar’s Head Mine field trip 

July 7 th Vince Neall “The volcanic islands of the Galapagos” 

August 6 th Rod Austen “What is a planet?” 

Sept 3 rd Hochstetter lecture Paul Williams “Environmental Change: A View 

from Downunder” 

8 th Field trip led by Joseph McKee "Pukearuhe & Wai Iti Beach: Late 

Miocene Mt. Messenger & Urenui Formations" 

October 15 th Quiz night honouring founder member Diane Toole and 21 years as a 

branch of GSNZ 

25 th Opening of “Fossils: Dead Precious” at Pukeariki attended on your behalf 

by the president and vice president. The invited guests also included Joe 

McKee, Don McFarlan, and John Buchanan-Brown. 

31 st Hamish Campbell “The role of fossils in our understanding of 

the geological history of NZ; fossils linking us to 

Gondwanaland, Zealandia, and the rise of NZ” at Puke Ariki 

Nov 10 th Rockhound Roadshow at Puke Ariki 

28 th James Crampton “How fossils teach us about extinction, evolution and 

environmental change; and the joys and trials of working as a 

palaeontologist” at Puke Ariki 

Dec 5 th Joseph McKee “Hunting Dinosaurs and Cretaceous Monsters in 

Hawkes Bay” at Pukeariki 

January 19 th Rockhound Roadshow at Puke Ariki 

Feb 2 nd Field trip to beach section at Bell Block 

March 3 rd -6 th Seaweek DOC lectures at NP Yacht Club/Hawera Library 

Jacqueline Geurts “The feeding, breeding and ecology of the little 

blue penguin “ 

Helen Kettles “Life forms discovered during a one month survey of the 

sea floor 1000km west of West Cape. 

Callum Lilley “Marine protected areas in Taranaki and the treasures that 

lie, swim and hide in them”. 

16 th Hector Day picnic at Everett Park 


31 st Nick Mortimer President’s tour "A Bluffer's Guide to Cenozoic 

SW Pacific Volcanic Arcs and Basins".

July 2008 - Geoscience Society of New Zealand

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?