Showing posts with label British Geological Survey. Show all posts
Showing posts with label British Geological Survey. Show all posts

Friday, 2 January 2015

Building a 3D geological model of London and the Thames Valley.


National geological surveys have traditionally produced two dimensional geological maps showing the outcropping of rock formations, combined with data on the dip of the strata (i.e. the angle at which the beds are inclined) and rock faults in the area, which enable trained geologists to build rough develop a rough understanding of any areas of interest prior to commencing fieldwork. Recently such agencies have also begun to develop three dimensional computer models showing the geology beneath the Earth’s surface, providing immediately readable data not just to geologists but to other stakeholders, such as politicians, business leaders, environmentalists and the general public.

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the Geologists’Association in September 2014, Stephen Mathers, Helen Burke, Ricky Terrington, Stephen Thorpe, RachelDearden, Paul Williamson and Jonathan Ford of the British Geological Survey detail the development of a three dimensional geological model of London and the Thames Valley in southeast England.

The area modelled covers an area of 4800 km2, from the inner Thames Estuary in the east to Newbury in the west. It extends to a depth of several hundred meters, though the precise depth varies across the model, being determined by geology. The Cretaceous Chalk Group and Upper Greensand and Gault Formations (the latter two combined as a single unit in the model) are mapped across the whole area, while the underlying Lower Greensand Group, Wealden Group and Jurassic sedimentary rocks are only included in the southern, western and northwestern parts of the area.

The bedrock geology of the London Basin and location of the modelled area. Mathers et al. (2014).

The structure of these deposits is dominated by the London Basin synclinorium; roughly speaking this means the deposits are folded into a ‘v’ shape, raised and exposed to the west and sinking beneath other deposits in the east. This was formed in the Palaeocene-Miocene by regional compression, associated with the Alpine Orogeny (an intense interval of geological compression and folding in central Europe, caused by the impact of the African Plate into the Eurasian Plate from the south and resulting in the formation of the Alps, as well as milder deformation in other parts of Europe). Effectively this means that the Chalk Group is exposed as a ‘v’ shaped rim around the Thames Valley, with older strata exposed to the north, south and west, and younger strata within the valley and to the east.

The Chalk Group form the main aquifer within the Thames Valley, being over 200 m thick across its total extent, and highly permeable to water. Historically it was a source of water for artesian wells across the region. However it is also prone to dissolution (i.e. the soft calcium carbonate that makes it up easily dissolves in water), which can cause it to collapse, causing sinkholes and other instabilities. The Chalk has been subdivided into several units in other studies, but is treated as a single unit in the model.

Above the Chalk the Palaeocene Thanet Sand Formation has a bed of cobble-sized flints at the base, overlain by coarsening-upwardsglauconitic fine-grained sands and silts. This is about 40 m thick in the east of the area, but thins to the west. Overlying this is the Palaeocene to Eocene Lambeth Group across much of western London; this is about 30 m thick at its deepest. Lithologically it is quite variable, comprising sands, silts, clays and gravels.

Above these lies the Eocene Thames Group, with the sands and pebbles of the Harwich Formation forming the base in the east, where it is as much as 12 m thick in places, and the London Clay forming the base in the west and overlying the Harwich Formation in the east. The London Clay is a blue-grey fossiliferousbioturbated clays, with occasional silt, sand or pebble beds, which reaches a maximum thickness of about 150 m. Above this lie the younger Bagshot, Windlesham and Camberley Sand formations (all sandy), with a maximum combined thickness of about 70 m; though these are mainly present only on the caps of high hills in the central London Basin. The thinner St Anne’s Hill and Stanners Hill Pebble Beds, and the Swinley Clay Member are also present in places, as are the Neogene Lenham Beds at a single patch in Kent.

The model also includes a large number of superficial and artificial units of limited extent, including Pliocene-Quaternary river terrace deposits laid down by the Thames and other rivers; the eastern part of the area has been uplifted from the Pliocene onwards by the formation of the North Sea Basin, and the rivers have cut down through the underlying deposits as they have been lifted up.

The British Geological Survey holds records of about 100 000 boreholes made within the study area, but many of these are shallow and made in clusters relating to specific site investigations. Data from a total of 7174 boreholes was used to construct the final model, combined with pre-existing ESRI shapefiles from the BGS DiGMapGB-50 dataset and Ordnance Survey Landform Profile data for the land surface.

The Mesozoic and Palaeogene (Palaeocene plus Eocene) geology was initially modelled in GSI3D, with the surface geology added from the DiGMapGB-50 dataset. This surface geology was then compared to modern 1:10 000 topographic maps to identify recent ground modification such as embankments and cuttings along transport routes, reservoirs, and other evidently man-made features.

Artificially modified ground coverage for the whole model area and below for the small inset area straddling the Thames at Dartford. Mathers et al. (2014).

The model is intended for general geoscience and educational applications. It is based upon 1:50 000 scale maps, but as a computer model with a zoom function is considered to be useable at a scale range of 1:25 000 to 1:100 000. It can be used to generate artificial boreholes, cross sections and depth slices, which can be used as a framework upon which more detailed studies of specific sites and local areas can be based. It can also be used for regional scale assessments for hydrogeology, planning and mineral extraction.

However the model is not considered to be accurate outside the 1:25 000 to 1:100 000 scale range, nor for providing site assessments for specific locations without actual geological fieldwork. Neither is it considered to be suitable for mineral reserve quantification of any kind, or detailed studies of superficial deposits (Pliocene or later), which have been added mostly as 2D surface polygons. The map does not include small scale local geological features such as small scour hollows, relict pingo and allied periglacial structures.

The model of bedrock and superficial deposits to the base of the Cretaceous strata, viewed from the south-southwest. The vertical exaggeration is x 10. Mathers et al. (2014).

While the model cannot be used to provide specific solutions for site or route based projects, nor as an alternative to actual fieldwork, it is intended to provide a good base from which more detailed studies can be developed, and as such has already been used in the development of the new underground Farringdon Station in east London, part of an east-west Crossrail project intended to link Heathrow Airport to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the development of a route map for the HS2 (High Speed Two) rail-link intended to connect Euston Station to Birmingham and the Northwest, and the development of a more detailed model of the Chalk Group deposits beneath central London for the Environment Agency of England and Wales.

The project is very much intended to be the beginning the long term development of a more detailed model, rather than a finished product in itself. Future aims of the project include developing a much better 3D model of the surface geology, including Quaternary deposits and artificially modified ground, developing a more detailed understanding of faulting across the region, subdividing the Jurassic deposits, Chalk Group and Lambeth Group into their component formations, expanding the model into adjacent areas and developing a better understanding of the needs of model users and modifying the model to incorporate these.

Auto generated section and borehole from the BGS Groundhog application. Mathers et al. (2014).

It is possible to download free automatically generated sections from the model as PDF files here. It is also possible to access a wider range of licenced material in a variety of formats, and to access models in a standalone BGS LithoframeViewer here.

See also…

Two teenaged girls were rescues by teams from Kent Fire and Rescue and the Whitstable RNLI after becoming trapped in soft mud at Warden Point on the Isle of Sheppey (off the north coast of Kent in the Thames Estuary) on Saturday 2014. Initial attempts... 


Shale gasses have become an economically important source of hydrocarbons in the early twenty-first century, as other reserves have run low and exploration companies have begun to look for new supplies of energy. In conventional oil and gas reserves the...


The Omomyids were a group of Palaeocene-Oligocene Primates similar, and probably related to, the modern Tarsiers. They had large, forward facing, eyes and grasping hands and feet with nails instead of claws. Their teeth sugest that they had a diet of fruit and insects, and their skeltel morphology that they lived in trees and that most species were nocturnal. They appeared in the...


Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Saturday, 26 May 2012

Geological Society of London to host a public meeting on Shale Gas extraction.

Shale Gas is naturally occurring gas trapped within shale (sine grained sedimentary rocks, typically mostly clay) formations. This is harder, and more expensive, to extract than other forms of Natural Gas, but is becoming increasingly attractive to hydrocarbons companies as other sources of gas start to dwindle. Typically Shale Gas is extracted using a technique called Hydraulic Fracturing, or Fracking, which involves blasting water, sand and chemicals into shale beds at high pressure in order to fracture the rocks and release the Gas.

Diagram of a Hydraulic Fractioning operation. geology.com

Shale Gas extraction has expanded rapidly in the US in recent years, and is expected to produce half of all the Natural Gas extracted in the US by the year 2020. It has, however, proved to be extremely unpopular with environmental groups, both within the US and in other countries, to the extent that some countries have altogether banned the practice.

There are four principle objections to Shale Gas extraction. One of these is that Natural Gas is a hydrocarbon, and potentially contributes to Global Warming; this is no different to the objections to the extraction of Natural Gas from other sources, excepting that extracting the gas from shale significantly increases the available reserves. The remaining objections are with the Fracking process, and are therefore specific to Shale Gas extraction.

Firstly the process causes Earthquakes. This is not in dispute, though the scale of the quakes the process can cause is hotly disputed between environmentalists and the industry. An Earthquake is shaking in the ground, regardless of the source; a large truck driving past your house does not merely feel like its causing an Earthquake, it actually is. Blasting water, sand and chemicals into buried sediments with the intention of fracturing the rock will certainly cause Earthquakes (if it did not it would not work). 

Industry experts do not expect the process to produce quakes larger than a magnitude of 1 on the Richter Scale, but areas where Fracking occurs in the US have seen an unexpected increase in quake activity, with some quakes exceeding magnitude 3. Since the Richter Scale is logarithmic this represents quakes more than a hundred times as large as predicted, leading the industry to claim that any connection is impossible, but not able to provide an alternative explanation (in some cases this is further confused by the employment of lobbyists who do not understand the process and who will offer blanket denials for even the most minor of quakes). In the UK the process has been linked to two small quakes near an experimental Fracking operation at Preese Hall in Lancashire, leading to a halt in operations.

Secondly the process has been linked to the contamination of aquifers; the chemicals used in the process are potentially toxic, and people do not like the idea of these getting into drinking water. Again industry models do not predict that the chemicals could escape the targeted deposits into other strata, but the chemicals have been found in the aquifers. A report into the industry in the US was unable to confidently say that the process had caused the contamination, but only because the chemical containment at the surface was so poor that contamination from ground-level sources could not be ruled out.

Thirdly the process uses large amounts of water, a matter of some concern in more arid parts of the US, where the industry is suspected of the using water that could be used for other purposes, notably agriculture.

In the UK a report commissioned by the Department of Energy and Climate Change was published last month (April 2012), recommending that the process should be allowed in the UK, subject to very tight environmental regulation, bringing the process back into the public eye.

On 18 June 2012 the Geological Society of London is hosting a public meeting to discuss Shale Gas Extraction, at Burlington House in London. The meeting will not seek to address whether the process should be used in the UK, but will seek to explain the geological science behind the process, and whether it can be undertaken safely. The meeting is not aimed at geologists, but rather at elected representatives (politicians), local and central government officials, regulators, NGOs, representatives of other industries likely to be affected (such as water companies) and other interested parties.

The location of Burlington House.

The meeting will be addressed by Mike Stephenson of the British Geological Survey, who will discuss the nature and distribution of shale gas reserves in the UK, Richard Davies, of Durham University, who will discuss the Hydraulic Fractionation process, Peter Styles of Keele University (one of the authors of the Department of Energy and Climate Change report), who will discuss the safety of the process with regard to induced seismicity (i.e. causing Earthquakes). The meeting will also discuss the potential effects on groundwater, and the uses of water in the industry, as well as the regulatory framework for the industry in the UK, though the speakers on these subjects are yet to be confirmed.

The layout of Burlington House.


Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Monday, 9 April 2012

An Earthquake off the coast of Margate, 8 April 2012.

On 8 April 2012, slightly after 2.00 pm GMT (slightly after 3.00 pm British Summertime) the British Geological Survey recorded an Earthquake about 10 km off the coast of Margate, southeast England, at a depth of 5 km. The quake measured 1.9 on the Richter Scale, so it is highly unlikely to have caused any damage or injuries; in fact it is quite likely that nobody felt it at all.

The location of the 8 April Earthquake. British Geological Survey.

The cause of Earthquakes in the UK is always hard to determine, particularly when they are this small (which they usually are). Despite being a long way from any centers of tectonic activity, the country is still subject to several geological forces. Firstly it is being pushed eastwards at 10-20 mm per year by spreading at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. Then it is effected by the movement of Africa into southern Europe. This quite often causes Earthquakes in southern and southeastern Europe, as well as uplift in the Alps, but can cause quakes in northern Europe. Then there is still rebound uplift going on in Britain after the last Ice Age; the country was covered by thick glaciers for a long time, which weighed it down, it is still rebounding, albeit at geological speeds. Finally there is limited geological expansion going on in the North Sea, the Bay of Biscay and the Rhine Valley. None of these spreading centers is ever likely to expand to ocean-size, but they do have localized effects, including small Earthquakes.

The British Geological Survey is interested in hearing from people who felt the Earthquake (or didn't, negative data is still information), and can be contacted here.


Follow Sciency Thoughts on Facebook.

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

Lost fossils of Charles Darwin and Joseph Hooker rediscovered.

The British Geological Survey has a collection of over 3 million fossils, gathered by palaeontologists all over the world in the two centuries since it was founded. With such a large collection, it is not surprising that the odd thing has been mislaid over the years. This means that researchers peering into the back of old draws occasionally make discoveries every bit as important as interesting as those made in the field. Nevertheless it came as a shock to palaeobotanist Howard Falcon-Lang of Royal Holloway, University of London, when he realized that the collection of fossil plants he found in a vault at the Survey's Keyworth facility had in fact been assembled by famous Victorian botanist Joseph Hooker, and included fossils gathered by Charles Darwin on his voyage on the HMS Beagle.

Joseph Hooker c.1851. By portrait artist George Richmond.

Hooker worked for the survey from February 1846 to October 1847, having already made his name as a scientist aboard the circum-Antarctic voyage of the HMS Erebus in 1839-43. During this time he was involved in exploration and mapping in Bristol and Somerset, and in the South Wales coalfields, and worked at the Survey's Museum of Economic Geology in London. His work on fossil plants was published in a three book memoir in 1848, by which time he had left the Survey to join an expedition to the Himalayas.

The material discovered at Keyworth is mostly in the form of thin section slides (geological samples cut thin enough to be mounted on a microscope slide and have a light shone through them) of fossil plants from the Carboniferous Coal Measures. The collection contains material collected by Hooker from the Sub-Antarctic Kerguelan Islands and the Macquarie Plains of Tasmania, as well as fossils from the UK Coal Measures, material collected by Darwin from Chiloe Island, off the coast of Chile, material from naturalist Henry Witham's Durham Collection (which includes material from Scotland, Yorkshire and the East China Sea - collected together in Durham), material collected by Harriet Henslow (Hooker's future wife), and material collected by other naturalists, many of them amateurs, in Antigua, Australia, Egypt, India, Jamaica, the Far East, the Isle of Portland, Wolverhampton and South Wales.

Thin section through a nodule containing club-moss cones of the Genus Strobili. About 310 million years old, from the Coal Measures of Yorkshire or Lancashire. Collector unknown.

Petrified wood collected near Whitby in Yorkshire in 1814, and thin sectioned by William Nicol (the inventor of the method) for Henry Witham for his Durham Collection.
Section through the cone of an Aruacaria (Monkey Puzzle) Tree. Collector unknown, the trees are from South America, though they have since become popular ornamentals in the UK.

The British Geological Survey has created an online museum exhibit, with information about the slides and the collectors, where some of the specimens can be viewed.