Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 4(3): 432-437

Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2013 (ISSN: 2141-7016)

jeteas.scholarlinkresearch.org
Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 4(3):432-437 (ISSN: 2141-7016)

Preliminary Geophysical Evaluation of Orin Bauxite Deposit

Southwestern Nigeria
Abel O. Talabi, Oladimeji L. Ademilua, Olusola Z. Ajayi and Simeon O. Ogunniyi
Department of Geology,
Ekiti State University, Ado-Ekiti.
Corresponding Author: Oladimeji L. Ademilua
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Economic viability of any metallic mineral deposit depends on its areal and depth extent as well as chemical
composition amongst other factors. This study was a preliminary attempt to determine the depth to and the
probable areal extent of the bauxite deposit at Orin-Ekiti. As part of the methodological approach, electrical
resistivity geophysical survey method involving the vertical electrical sounding (VES) technique were carried
out at nine (9) points at the environment of study and seven samples picked randomly were analyzed for Al2O3
chemical content using Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (AAS). Results of these investigations revealed two
main sounding curves; QH (VES 1.1, 2.4 and 4.1) and KH (VES 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 3.1 and 3.4). Four to six
layers subsurface lithological formations of nearly similar degree of saturation were delineated. Layers 3 of the
sounding curves constitute the bauxite deposit with variable thicknesses range of 7.1 14.2m. Preliminary
quality assessment revealed bauxite of 25.10 61.26% Al2O3 (average 42.17% Al2 O3) content. The purpose of
this study therefore is to confirm the possible occurrence of bauxite of sufficient quantity and quality at OrinEkiti as a first indication and invitation for further investigation of a wider scope towards the exploitation for
economic development.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: metallic mineral, bauxite, vertical electrical sounding, sounding curves, formation.
extraction of aluminum from bauxite is very
expensive. However, the best part of bauxite is that it
can be recycled and used all over again. Aluminium
as metal is gaining ground worldwide. More
aluminum is produced today than all other nonferrous metals put together. To put into comparison,
in 1999, 31 million tons of aluminum was
commercially produced globally. That same year
there was 14.1 million tones of cooper, 6.0 million
tons of lead and only 0.2 million tons of tin produced
(history of aluminum.combauxite.php). The demand
for bauxite or aluminium is increasing day-by-day
and since bauxite deposit has been suspected at Orin
in Ekiti state, Nigeria, this study as a preliminary
assessment, aimed at carrying out geophysical
sounding(s) of the deposit and to determine from the
results of the data collected the depth and probably
the extent of the deposit. Quality assessment was
carried out by determining the alumina content of few
samples from the area.

INTRODUCTION
Bauxite refers to any ore or mixture of minerals
consisting of iron and aluminum hydroxides/oxides.
The ore in most instances comprise of minerals such
as gibbsite (Al (OH) 3), diaspore (AlO(OH)), and
boehmite (AlO(OH) (Plunkert, 2000). A bauxite body
which is economically mineable at present or in the
foreseeable future, currently should have chemical
composition of >45% Al2O3, <20% Fe2O3 and
<5%SiO2 (Gow and Lozej, 1993). Bauxite deposits
are found all over the world, from Spain through
southern France, Italy, Australia, Hungary and
Greece. Australia has huge reserves of bauxite, and
produces over 40% of the world's ore. Brazil, Guinea,
and Jamaica are important producers. Africa produces
over sixteen percent of the world's bauxite with
Guinea as the leading African country in the
production of bauxite. Other major African producers
of bauxite are Ghana and Sierra Leone (USGS:
Mineral Commodity Summary, 2011). Nigeria,
though excluded in the list of African bauxite
producers, has potential for its production in view of
numerous crystalline rocks rich in aluminum oxide
covering substantial part of the country. Bauxite is
used in cement, chemicals, soda cans, dishwashers,
and in the formation of other aluminum products.
High-grade bauxite, being highly refractory, is used
as a lining for furnaces. The various applications of
aluminum include aircraft manufacturing, home
appliances, as abrasive, catalyst, and many more. The

LOCATION AND GEOLOGY

Orin is located within the Southwest Nigerian
Basement Complex of Precambrian age. It lies on
latitude 7o4948.00N and longitude 5o1424.00E
with an elevation of 557.05m. Orin is about 38.8km
from Ado-Ekiti but closer to Ifaki with a distance of
about 6.4km (Fig.1). The study area is within the
Crystalline Basement Complex terrain of South
Western Nigeria. The principal rock outcrops are
432

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 4(3):432-437 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
migmatite and charnockite especially the coarse
grained type. Generally, the terrain is rugged with
boulders of charnockite outcropping in few locations

Asokhia, 1994; Mallam and Ajayi, 2000). This depth

was considered adequate for the subsurface formation
information needed in the environment of study. The
electrodes were normally arranged along a straight
line with the potential electrodes placed in between
the current electrodes. Nine (9) points were fully
occupied at the environment of study and the
locations are shown in Fig.3, with the following GPS
coordinate values
VES 1.1:
VES 1.2
VES 1.3
VES 1.4
VES 2.1
VES 3.1
VES 4.1
VES 2.4
VES 3.4

Fig. 1. Location Map of Study area (Modified from

Map data @2013 Google)

(Elevation 628.48m; Lat. N 070 50.9531; Long. E 0050 14.8891)

(Elevation 629.09m; Lat. N 070 50.9751; Long. E 0050 14.9061)
(Elevation624.24m; Lat. N 070 50.9901; Long. E 0050 14.9251)
(Elevation 626.67m; Lat. N 070 51.0001; Long. E 0050 14.9521)
(Elevation 640.00m; Lat. N 070 50.9721; Long. E 0050 14.8481)
(Elevation 623.33m; Lat. N 070 50.9851; Long. E 0050 14.8051)
(Elevation 617.27m; Lat. N 070 51.0211; Long. E 0050 14.7281)
(Elevation 632.42m; Lat. N 070 51.0681; Long. E 0050 14.9501)
(Elevation 631.21m; Lat. N 070 51.1081; Long. E 0050 14.9621)

The vertical electrical sounding (VES) data were

presented as depth sounding curves, which were
obtained by plotting apparent resistivity values
against electrode spacing on a log-log or bi-log graph
paper. The resistivity sounding curves were
interpreted quantitatively using partial curve
matching and iterated computer interpretation
package called WinResist version 1.0 solely used for
VES data. the Partial curve matching method
involved the segment by segment matching of the
sounding curves with theoretical schlumberger
standard curves, starting from smaller to larger
electrode spacings.
DATA
PRESENTATION
AND
INTERPRETATION
The field data collected from the study area was
interpreted quantitatively and qualitatively.

Fig. 2. Geology Map of Study area (Adapted from

Akure sheet 61)
METHODOLOGY
The field study was carried out in February, 2012.
The geophysical investigation was executed using the
vertical electrical sounding (VES) technique of the
electrical resistivity method employing the
Schlumberger electrode array /configuration. This
method resolves without doubt, the apparent
resistivity values, thickness values, degree of
formation saturation, subsurface lithological units and
depth to bedrock or competent material of the area of
study. The equipment used for the study was the
ABEM TERRAMETER SAS 300B complete with
standard cables, electrodes and modern micro
processor. The electrical resistivity survey involves
electrical sounding in which the potential electrodes
remain fixed and the current electrodes are expanded
simultaneously about the center of the spread. When
the distance between the electrodes gets too large, it
then becomes mandatory to increase the distance
between the potential electrodes to have a measurable
potential difference. For this investigation, electrodes
separation varied from 2 to 260 meters thus ensuring
a reasonable depth of probe of over 65 - 85meters
considering the depth of penetration which ranges
between 1/3 and of the total current electrode
separation (David and Ofrey, 1989; Osemeikhian and

Quantitative Interpretation
The quantitative interpretation involves the direct
modeling using the partial curve matching and the
VES interpretation package called WinResist version
1.0. Raw data obtained from the field is presented in
Table 1 while the final model parameters obtained
from the quantitative interpretations of the data
collected is presented in the Table 2. The curve(s) of
the field data collected at the VES location(s) are
shown as sounding curve(s) of apparent resistivity
values (m) against current electrodes separations
(m) in Fig. 4 (graphs of VES 1.1 to VES 4.1).

433

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 4(3):432-437 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
Fig. 3: Schematic diagram of area of investigation
showing the VES points
The depth sounding curves were classified based on
layer resistivity combinations. The curve types
obtained in the study area where nine VES sounding
was carried out were categorized into QH (VES 1.1,
4.1, 2.4 and 3.4), AH (VES 1.2 and VES 3.1) and
KH (VES 1.3, 1.4 and 2.1). The QH- type curves
were predominant in the study area constituting 44%
of the total number of the VES curves. The
quantitative interpretation of the points investigated
showed four to six layers subsurface lithological
formation of similar degree of saturation at the
different locations.
Qualitative Interpretation
The qualitative interpretation is the geological
interpretation of the quantitative data. This qualitative
interpretation is further indicated in the geoelectric
sections. The VES locations exhibit fairly similar
geological layer systems, thus indicating that the

subsurface of environment of study is fairly

homogenous. Details of the layers systems are
presented below
Layer system 1 (VES 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 3.1)
Apparent resistivity values
=
85.3 662.4m
Thickness value
=
0.9 1.0 m
Likely formation
=
Top decayed organic materials/coarse
grained/peblistic materials
Layer system 2 (VES 1.1, 1.3, 2.4, 4.1)
Apparent resistivity values
=
1263.3 7605.7m
Thickness value
=
0.9 2.1m
Likely formation
=
Top dry laterite/hardpan laterite

Table 1: Raw field data obtained from the study area

Current
electrode
distance
(AB/2)m
1.0
1.3
1.8
2.4
3.2
3.2
4.2
5.5
7.5
10.0
13.0
13.0
18.0
24.0
32.0
42.0
55.0
55.0
75.0
100.0
130.0

VES 1.1
(m)

VES
(m)

1.2

2166.480
2684.884
2638.590
2260.686
2039.700
2096.695
1921.290
1534.730
1198.570
1003.040
989.588
1038.016
934.948
755.218
591.219
454.777
435.389
420.660
288.107
402.657

670.24
588.504
675.141
747.792
825.294
864.796
909.672
883.619
753.337
632.926
688.753
702.378
613.245
597.952
635.280
471.36
358.276
417.115
497.799
533.217

VES
(m)

1.3

1106.840
1297.240
1292.064
1267.092
1349.340
1526.452
1513.506
1645.010
1563.088
1281.402
1023.893
965.446
711.264
601.097
639.286
635.858
581.309
479.742
488.988
448.921
576.176

VES 1.4
(m)

VES 2.1
(m)

VES 3.1
(m)

VES 4.1
(m)

VES 2.4
(m)

VES 3.4
(m)

483.800
430.304
561.522
661.242
690.360
651.499
708.394
800.449
756.809
640.701
591.114
536.503
510.200
555.722
538.346
439.571
437.761
447.838
511.015
770.812

694.40
872.812
892.050
1083.606
1201.854
1105.662
1220.738
1383.095
1478.901
1404.255
1348.477
1456.591
1163.657
974.872
622.462
429.895
358.750
284.772
295.815
328.947

96.996
122.429
145.826
170.849
204.283
242.171
286.494
329.461
387.951
471.195
570.002
561.124
733.883
793.824
734.617
632.956
583.681
647.533
455.948
530.079

4479.28
5143.76
3784.17
3205.812
2526.090
2945.530
2117.340
1488.780
1162.986
1085.459
913.059
925.272
562.979
295.606
206.686
174.860
246.047
228.881
170.925
281.50
333.505

7292.400
7372.120
7211.520
6422.010
6128.514
6166.75
4671.218
3891.965
2846.712
1814.801
1812.92
2183.591
1912.621
2259.727
1105.531
1082.340
2370.317
1024.473
1592.515
1591.808

2664.44
2933.48
3211.38
3314.865
3769.980
3975.740
4009.876
3561.125
2655.774
1990.528
1615.006
1650.976
1074.184
720.597
410.168
237.893
260.284
270.593
292.291
326.203

Table 2: Results of Quantitative interpretation

VES NO
VES 1.1
VES 1.2
VES 1.3
VES 1.4
VES 2.1
VES 2.4
VES 3.1
VES 3.4
VES 4.1

Apparent Resistivity Value (m) (1)( 2 )( n)

(2592.8); (1019.0); (718.0); (247.9); (1083.9)
(608.1); (988.7); (539.7); (517.1); (234.0); (821.8)
(1263.3); (1796.9); (439.3); (713.6); (217.9); (1365.4)
(459.1); (873.8); (381.8); (625.5); (245.8); (2209.7)
(662.4); (1754.8); (507.1); (200.2); (1533.6)
(7605.7); (1821.2); (1398.7); (708.5); (4362.6)
(85.3); (1053.9); (273.3); (2147.2)
(2642.4); (4494.7); (668.7); (168.9); (662.4)
(5069.1); (1369.1); (348.5); (99.9); (1857.8)

434

Depth (m); (d1); (d2)(dn-1)

(2.0); (8.1); (8.4); (38.4)
(1.0); (3.3); (9.8); (19.4); (17.7)
(1.4); (4.5); (16.3); (23.1); (37.4)
(0.9); (4.9); (14.2); (14.3); (16.4)
(0.9); (7.7); (12.5); (47.2)
(2.1); (7.3); (8.2); (28.0)
(1.0); (17.5); (40.8)
(0.9); (3.7); (10.5); (30.7)
(1.2); (5.7); (7.0); (34.0)

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 4(3):432-437 (ISSN: 2141-7016)

435

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 4(3):432-437 (ISSN: 2141-7016)
Thickness value
Likely formation
Layer system 5
Apparent resistivity values
Thickness value
Likely formation
Layer system 6
Apparent resistivity values
Thickness value
Likely formation

= 7.0 16.3m
= Probably slightly moistured laterite
= 99.9 708.5 m
= 16.4 47.2
= Highly fractured layer/weathering
from basement
= 662.4 4362.6 m
= Undetermined for the depth of survey
= Probably slightly fractured bedrock

Geoelectric Section
The geoelectric section(s) across the point(s)
investigated to show the subsurface structure of the
environment down to the depth of investigation were
drawn across S1, S2 and S3 (Fig.3) as presented in
Figs. 5-7. Similar to the geological layering of the
subsurface in the study area, geoelectric
configurations exhibit fairly similar trends. In Fig. 5,
the geoelectric section revealed the likely existence of
the bauxitic clay in layer 3 with variable thickness of
7.1 -14.2m. In the other two geoelectric sections,
Figs.6 and 7, the bauxitic clay have varied
thicknesses of 6.4 10.5m and 8.4 13.2m
respectively. These geoelectric sections revealed
sufficient thickness of the bauxitic clay of economic
significance.
Preliminary Quality Evaluation
Few samples (7) were analysed for Al2O3 content and
the result of the analysis is presented in Table 3. The
result indicates that the deposit is of sufficient grade
to warrant further evaluation for economic
development
Table 3: Chemical analysis result
Sample No
A1
A2
A3
B1
C1
C2
C3
Mean

CONCLUSION
Vertical electrical sounding technique of the
electrical resistivity method employed in this study
has proven the subsurface lithology of the study area
to be likely fairly homogenous. In addition the layer
of interest, which is the third layer in almost all the
locations sounded, revealed thickness value of
between 7.0 16.3m. This thickness is sufficient for
the bauxite deposit to be considered for further
economic assessment. Also, preliminary chemical
analysis indicated that the deposit is of high grade to
be considered for further exploration. The chemical
values obtained in some of the locations sampled
compared favourably with the giant Gove deposit
with bauxite grading of 50.5% Al2O3 (Ferenczi,
2001) and that of Kibi deposit in Ghana with an
average Al2O3 content of 46.6%

Fig. 4: VES 1.1 (Traverse 1, Location 1) to VES 4.1

(Traverse 4, Location 1)
Layer system 3
Apparent resistivity values
Thickness value
Likely formation
Layer system 4
Apparent resistivity values

A12O3
29.85
32.30
38.30
25.10
52.34
56.04
61.26
42.17

= 998.7 4494.7 m
= 3.3 17.5m
= Likely the bauxite deposit layer
= 348.5 1398.7 m
436

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 4(3):432-437 (ISSN: 2141-7016)

Fig. 7: Geo-electric section through VES 1.1, 1.2, 1.3

and VES 1.4 stations in the study area
REFERENCES
David, L.M., and Ofrey, O. (1989): An indirect
method of estimating ground water level in basement
complex regolith. Water resources, Vol. 1, No. 2,
pp. 34 -41.

Fig. 5: Geo-electric section through VES 1.4 and

VES 4.1 stations in the study area

Ferenczi, P. A. (2001). Iron ore, manganese and

bauxite deposits of the Northern Territory. Northern
Territory
Geological
Survey,
Report
13.http://www.nt.gov.au/d/MineralsEnergy
Geoscience contents/ File/Pubs/Report/NTGS Rep.13
Gawu, S. K. Y., Amissah, E. E. and Kuma, J. S.
(2012). The proposed Alumina Industry and how to
mitigate against the red mud footprint in Ghana.
Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering,
v.6, n.2, p.48-56
Gow, N. N. and Lozej, G. P. (1993). Bauxite;
Geoscience Canada, Vol20, Number 1, pp 916.
History of aluminum.combauxite.php (1999):
http://www.History of aluminum.com/bauxite.php
Mallam, A. and Ajayi, C. O. (2000); Resistivity
method for groundwater investigation in sedimentary
area. Nig. J. of Physics, 12, 34 38.
Osemeikhian,J. E. A. and Asokhia, M. B. (1994);
Applied Geophysics for engineers and geologists. 1
Ed. Samtos services Ltd., Lagos.
Plunkert, P.A. (2000). Bauxite and alumina: U.S.
Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries
2000, p. 32-33.
Fig. 6: Geo-electric section through VES 1.1 and
VES 3.4 stations in the study area.

USGS: (2011): Mineral Commodity Summary.

.http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2011/mc
s2011
437