Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 3;125(11):e2019JE006290. doi: 10.1029/2019JE006290

Table 3.

Rock Strength and CheMin Abundances of the Bulk Sample for Successful Drill Targets

Drill target Rock strength (MPa) Plagioclase (wt.%) Pyroxene (wt.%) Hematite (wt.%) Ca‐sulfate (wt.%) Phyllosilicate (wt.%) Amorphous (wt.%)
Oudam a , b 12–18 27.8 (0.5) 5.3 (0.9) 13.9 (0.4) 6.4 (0.3) 3 (1) 43 (20)
Marimba a , b >18 14.7 (0.9) 0.7 (0.6) 6.7 (0.4) 7.4 (0.6) 28 (5) 40 (20)
Quela a , b 8.5–12 13.9 (0.7) 2.8 (0.7) 7.3 (0.4) 5.6 (0.4) 16 (3) 52 (25)
Sebina a , b >18 10.7 (0.4) 2.8 (0.4) 6.9 (0.6) 7.4 (0.6) 19 (4) 51 (25)
Duluth c 27.1 (0.6) 4.5 (1.1) 6.1 (1.0) 5.3 (0.5) 15 (4) 37
Stoer c 23.2 (1.0) 3.3 (0.9) 14.7 (0.8) 6.0 (0.9) 10 (3) 38
Highfield c 19.9 (0.9) 4.2 (1.5) 8.5 (0.5) 6.8 (0.8) 5 (1) 49
Rock Hall c 20.2 (2.2) 9.1 (1.0) 2.9 (0.2) 11.2 (1.4) 13 (3) 34 (8)

Note. Numbers in parentheses are associated errors. Quantitative rock strengths for Duluth and the VRR drill targets have not yet been calculated. Amorphous abundances reported for Duluth, Stoer, and Highfield represent the minimum based on mass balance calculations and, therefore, do not have errors associated with them. See Rampe et al. (2020) for more details.

a

Peters et al. (2018).

b

Bristow et al. (2018).

c

Rampe et al. (2020).