This digital data release includes inorganic whole-rock geochemistry results of samples from selected Alberta geological units. Samples were collected from drillcore at the Core Research Centre in Calgary, the Mineral Core Research Centre in Edmonton, or from outcrop. Geochemistry results consist of whole-rock multi-element analyses suitable for reservoir rock analysis, mineral exploration, and lithogeochemistry.
The strata evaluated included the following geological units in the province: Banff Formation, Barons Sand, Beaverhill Lake Group, Belle Fourche Formation, Belloy Formation, Big Valley Formation, Blackstone Formation, Bluesky Formation, Cardium Formation, Colorado Group, Contact Rapids Formation, Cooking Lake Formation, Doig Formation, Dunvegan Formation, Duvernay Formation, Ellerslie Member, Exshaw Formation, Fernie Formation, First White Specks Member, Fish Scales Formation, Fort Simpson Formation, Gething Formation, Gilwood Member, Glauconitic Sandstone, Granite Wash, Halfway Formation, Ireton Formation, Joli Fou Formation, Kaskapau Formation, Lea Park Formation, Leduc Formation, Loon River Formation, Majeau Lake Formation, Mannville Group, Medicine Hat Member, Milk River Formation, Montney Formation, Muskiki Formation, Muskwa Formation, Ostracod Beds, Pekisko Formation, Precambrian basement, Red River Formation, Rierdon Formation, Rock Creek Member, Sawtooth Formation, Second White Specks Formation, Shaftesbury Formation, Slave Point Formation, Spirit River Formation, Sunburst Sandstone Member, Swan Hills Formation, Swift Formation, Turner Valley Formation, Viking Formation, Wabamun Group, Waterways Formation, Westgate Formation, and Winnipegosis Formation.
This work was completed under the Mineral Grant provided by the Government of Alberta June 22, 2021.
Lithologies are generalized and based on a visual description.
Allocation of stratigraphic unit names was done based on available stratigraphic information on AGS geological maps at the time of sampling. In some cases, stratigraphic unit allocation may be incorrect.
Data was compiled into a single dataset, with each row representing a unique record. The Sample_ID column is the primary and unique key field.
A site may have multiple samples.
Alberta Geological Survey standards are included in the dataset.
The laboratory performed general validation checks on all samples using lab standards and duplicates that are not included in this dataset.
Samples that return values that are less than the lower detection limit (DL) are indicated by "<" symbol followed by the numerical value of the lower detection limit. Samples that return values that are more than the upper detection limit (UDL) are indicated by ">" symbol followed by the numerical value of the lower detection limit. For more complete laboratory methodology including detection limits please read included "DIG_2023_0016_Inorganic_Whole-Rock_Geochemistry_Detection_Limits.txt" file.
N.R. indicates that the analyte was not reported by the lab. Where this is recorded for all analytes the sample matrix/sample reactivity rendered the samples unsuitable for analysis. Where this is recorded for a single analyte there was analytical interference with other analytes. This value is retained for file completeness only.
I.S. indicates that insufficient sample was received by the lab. This value is retained for file completeness only.
The dataset includes all analyses performed by the laboratory except laboratory quality control data.
The number of significant digits of the sample results is as provided by the laboratory. Non-analysis fields with the value -9999 are null.
Outcrop locations were determined using the Global Positioning System. The maximum and average errors in horizontal position associated with these locations are +/- 20 m and +/-7 m, respectively.
Core locations are based on the unique well identifier. This dataset uses surface-hole latitude and longitude coordinates provided by the Alberta Energy Regulator.
Outcrop samples were collected from outcrop sites during fieldwork between 2007 and 2011.
Drillcore samples were collected at the Alberta Energy Regulator’s Core Research Centre (CRC) in Calgary from 2007 to 2021, and at the Alberta Energy Regulator's Mineral Core Research Facility (MCRF) in Edmonton from 2001 to 2003.
Geologists recorded the sample and site information, such as location or well name, depth, formation, and a brief lithological description at the time of collection. Representative splits of the samples were made and sent to the laboratory for inorganic geochemical analysis.
All samples were analyzed by the laboratory in 2022.
Lab methods:
All analyses were performed by SGS Canada Inc. (Burnaby, British Columbia). The following analytical methods were used by the laboratory to analyze samples.
- GE_ICM91A50: Sodium peroxide fusion digested in dilute HNO3 followed by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) multi-element analysis.
- GO_XRF72: Borate fusion followed by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) whole rock analysis.
- G_PHY01V: Gravimetric determination of loss on ignition at 1000 degrees Celsius.
- GE_ICM40Q12: Four-acid (HF-HNO3-HCl04-HCl) digestion followed by ICP-OES/ICP-MS multi-element analysis.
The results of geochemical analysis for every sample include all analytical methods used. To distinguish the same analytes assayed by different methods, the digestion methodology is incorporated in the analyte name along with the unit of measure. For example, the analyte definition for analyte Cu_FUS_ppm is copper in parts per million using the sodium peroxide fusion method of analysis. The laboratory method code was omitted in the name of the field in order to keep the field name under 10 characters for GIS use. Additional information regarding laboratory geochemical methods can be found in "DIG_2023_0016_Inorganic_Whole-Rock_Geochemistry_Detection_Limits.txt" included in this publication.
The Alberta Energy Regulator / Alberta Geological Survey (AER/AGS) is not responsible for the correctness, accuracy, or reliability of the analytical determinations and the methodologies utilized by the laboratory.
Lab Sample Crushing:
Each rock sample was weighed, dried at 105 degrees Celsius, crushed with 75% passing 2 mm, manual riffle split, and a 250 g portion was pulverized with a Cr-steel mill with 85% passing 75 microns. The mill was cleaned with compressed air and a small amount of non-silica sand between samples to minimize cross-contamination. The laboratory performed analyses of preparation blanks to monitor contamination during sample preparation and analysis.
Quality Control:
The laboratory included a number of QA/QC measures during the analysis of samples. Quality control materials were inserted at a frequency of 12% or greater. Quality control materials included preparation blanks, preparation duplicates, pulp replicates, method blanks, and certified reference materials. The Laboratory Information Management System (SLIM) flags QC materials for review based on predefined criteria.
The accuracy and 95.5% confidence-level precision of the whole-rock geochemical data were estimated in terms of the average percentage recovery (APR) and relative standard deviation (2RSD) values, respectively. However, the 2RSD values include propagated errors of the expected concentrations in the reference materials. Therefore, the 2RSD values also represent uncertainties in the accuracy estimates. The APR is defined as APR = 100 x CM / CA, where CM is the average measured concentration in standard material based on our results, and CA is the expected concentration in the standards based on USGS certificate of analysis. The 2RSP is defined as 2RSD = SD / CM x 200, where SD is the standard deviation in the standards based on USGS certificate of analysis and CM is the average measured concentration in standard material based on our results.
Where elements are reported from the laboratory, but certified values are not reported for the certified reference material (CRM), both APR and 2RSD are listed as -9999.
The standard used was USGS Green River Shale (SGR-1).