512 



UNITED STATES MINERAL RESOURCES 



such as water-transmitting characteristics, solubil- 

 ity, resistance to erosion, and degree of weathering 

 of the material next to the peat. 



2. Within unconsolidated material, peat deposits 

 larger than several acres in areal extent tend to 

 have lower ash content and a higher percentage of 

 fibers longer than 0.15 mm than do similar smaller 

 deposits. 



3. Peat deposits in depressions with high steep 

 walls tend to be thicker than deposits in depressions 

 with low gently sloping walls. Steep walls favor 

 rapid build-up of marsh-type vegetation above the 

 original pond-surface level and at the same time 

 delay development, along the margins of the depres- 

 sion, of soil conditions that initiate transgression of 

 a forest, which slows and eventually stops peat 

 formation. 



4. Peat deposits accumulated in depressions with 

 high steep stable walls are apt to have lower ash 

 content than deposits in depressions with unstable 

 walls. 



5. Peat deposits in depressions having small 

 drainage basins tend to contain less clay, sand, and 

 silt than do deposits in depressions having larger 

 drainage basins. The ratio of effective drainage area 

 to area of peat accumulation in more than 100 de- 

 posits in northeastern Pennsylvania showed that if 

 the sediment-producing area is more than 10 times 

 the size of the area of peat accumulation, the ash 

 content of the peat is apt to be greater than 25 

 percent. 



6. Peat deposits accumulating in a cool, moist 

 climate are thicker and have lower ash content than 

 deposits accumulating in a cool, dry climate. Humid- 

 ity is the controlling factor in growth of peat- 

 producing plants and preservation of plant struc- 

 tures. 



7. Peat deposits protected topographically from 

 stream flooding are apt to have lower ash content 

 than deposits subject to flooding. Two common 

 causes of flooding are increased precipitation and 

 ponding resulting from landslides or beaver activity. 



8. Peat deposits subject to water-table fluctuation 

 caused by (a) artificial drainage, (b) drainage 

 caused by breaching of dams on adjacent streams, 

 or (c) lumbering operations and extensive forest 

 fires, which extinguish springs and seeps, have 

 higher ash content and a lower percentage of fibers 

 longer than 0.15 mm than do deposits not subject 

 to water-table fluctuation. This is because a deposit 

 saturated with ground water is relatively free from 

 aerobic bacterial activity which decays vegetable 

 matter. When the water table falls, permitting oxy- 

 gen to enter the deposit, decay increases ash con- 



tent by destroying plant fibers. 



RESOURCE POTENTIAL AND OUTLOOK 



The latest nationwide study of the occurrence and 

 use of peat was by Soper and Osbon in 1922 ; empha- 

 sis was on potential use as fuel, and deposits were 

 not appraised with the restrictive criteria of present 

 use. Moreover, since 1922, many peat deposits have 

 been destroyed, and many new areas probably con- 

 taining much peat have been made accessible by 

 modern roads. Therefore, the 14 billion tons esti- 

 mated by Soper and Osbon is no longer realistic for 

 peat that meets the ash and fiber-size specifications 

 of modem uses. Measurement of such resources in 

 unexploited deposits is only just beginning. The 

 data on figure 62 and table 103, although based on 

 very scanty quantitative information and little 

 known geologic and physiographic controls, are an 

 attempt to approximate the magnitude of potential 

 resources for each State. 



Table 103. — Approximate magnitude of potential resources ' 

 of peat estimated for each State 



[Distribution shown on fig. 62] 



Short tons of 

 State air-dried peat 



Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, North Dakota, West 



Vir^nia 10 ■* 



Illinois, Iowa, Rhode Island, South Dakota 10° 



Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Louisi- 

 ana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hamp- 

 shire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsyl- 

 vania, Texas, Vermont 10' 



California, Colorado, Georg^ia, Idaho, Maine, 

 Montana, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, 

 South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, 



Wyoming 10'' 



Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin 10° 



Alaska, Minnesota 10'° 



^ Potential resources: Identified mineral deposits not profitably recov- 

 erable with existing technology and economic conditions, and undiscov- 

 ered minei'al deposits whether of recoverable or subeconomic grade. 



Refinements in prospecting for deposits in these 

 States will result from close coordination of physical- 

 property requirements, given in the recent ASTM 

 peat classification, with the geologic and physio- 

 graphic factors that control quality and quantity. 

 Although the present physical-property require- 

 ments are largely for agricultural uses, they are 

 much the same as those for the growing use of 

 peat in environmental control. For example, D'Hen- 

 nezel and Coupal (1972) have shown that moss peat, 

 because of its very high water-holding capacity, can 

 be used on a large scale in combating pollution 

 caused by oil spills from offshore drilling and from 

 freighters and barges. 



Extensive research by the Department of Chemi- 

 cal Engineering of the University of Sherbrooke, 

 Quebec, Canada, has revealed the high efficiency of 



