A geologic study of the Central Georgia Kaolin District : part III

r .

,I
! I

I; ,

I I

I
i ~

A GEOLOGIC STUDY OF THE

!I .

!l :
CENTRAL GEORGIA KAOLIN DISTRICT
;I ,
Ii

I I i

l I

I

PART Ill

:I ;
;L I

JOHN B. HETRICK

I

and

Il

MICHAEL S. FRIDDELL
1 ... :
l i

l :
i
I
i..

~. I

I .

OPEN-FILE REPORT 88-1

!

!

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

i_

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY

ATLANTA 1983

[ 1

A GIDLCGIC Sl'UDY OF THE CENTRAL GEDRGiA KAOLIN DISTRICT--PARI' III
By
John H. Hetrick and Michael S. Friddell

:. 1I

OPEN-FILE REPORT 83-1

I I

I
i

: I
;--)

DEPARIMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Joe D. Tanner, Commissioner
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECI'ION DIVISION
J. Leonard Ledbetter, Director
GEORGIA GEDLCGIC SURVEY
William H. McLemore, State Geologist
A'l'I.ANTA
1983

_j
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
Iffl100Dt.JCII'IOO 1 IAOORA'IORY P~~S 4 ~UlJTS ~ DISCUSSIOO . . 6 ~CE!S CI'I'ED 17 .APPmDICE!S . 18
I
I I
i-[

I I

-.i.-

I

~ j
I I
' I

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE

PAGE

IOCATIOO r.1AP OF OORES . 2

2

STRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATION CHART 3

3A DISTRIBUTION OF ILLITE AND SMECTITE IN GGS OORE 3511 10

3B DISTRIBUTION OF CHLORITE AND KAOLINITE IN GCiS OORE 3511 11

4A DISTRIBUTION OF ILLITE AND SMECTITE IN LAURENS COtJN'.l'Y CORE 12

4B DISTRIBUTION OF KAOLINITE IN LAURENS COUNTY Q)RE. 13
-I
I I

~ I
' I
I

I

l_

-ii-

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

PAGE

MINERAL03Y OF ClAY-SIZE FRACTION OF SAMPLES FRCM c;c;.s CORE 3511 7

2

MINERAL03Y OF ClAY-SIZE FRACTION OF SAMPLES FROM

I.J\lJRa.IS COUN'IY CORE 9

-iii-
I I
I

I I
I I

! I

; I I

! I APPENDICES
l j

APPENDIX A LITHOIDGIC IDG FOR G3S CORE 3511

::l

APPENDIX B LITHOIDGIC IOO FUR IAURENS <X>UNTY <X>RE

. I

I I

I
;-[
. I
. I
l I
I
, I
J

1_1

I !

-iv-

INTRODUCIION

This report, Part Three of a three part investigation of the Cen-

tral Georgia Kaolin District, is a study of the clay mineralogy of sUb-

surface deposits that are stratigraphically equivalent to the kaoli-

nitic beds that crop out in the area ma:wed for the previous Parts I

and II of the study area. Part I consists of geologic maps differen-

tiating post-middle Eocene strata; and Part II contains mineralogical

analyses of kaolinitic beds and a map differentiating pre-upper Eocene

strata. The samples used in this report are core sanples oollected
jointly by the u.s. Geological Survey and the Georgia Geologic Survey

as part of a ground-water investigation of the Tertiary aquifers of

central Georgia. FOr the purpose of this report only clayey intervals

were sampled. Locations of these oore-holes and the location of the

: I

area mapped for Parts I and II can be seen in figure 1; lithologic logs

of the cores (Appendices A and B) were provided by Paul Huddlestun.

The purpose of Part III is the investigation of patterns of strat-

igraphic variation in clay mineral deposition which might: (1) aid in

the development of a model of the formation of the commercial kaolins,

(2) provide better resolution of the age for the Cretaceous kaolins,

and (3) assist in stratigraphic oorrelations. Since the primary oon-

cerns of Part III are the relationships between the clay mineralogy of

the cores and the kaolinitic strata cropping out in the oornnercial

kaolin mine area, only pre-upper Eocene strata were sampled.

The rrost recent stratigraphic correlations of the kaolin-bearing

strata and their marine equivalents in the Central-Georgia Coastal

Plain (Huddlestun, 1981) are shCMn in figure 2. Cores examined for the
, I

I

current study are located between the marine facies (11down-dip11 column

J

jI_

-1-

j
' I

";'~OUfl'

' I

~ I
-i
!

Fall Line



Laurens County core

latitude 3230'28''

0

lI 20 40 miles

I

longitude 83 002' 43 ''

*

GGS 3511 latitude 3223'22"

I

longitude 8329' 13 ''

Figure 1. Location map of cores used in this study and study areas for parts I and II.

-2-
; I
I I
- ~ J

~1

I PERIOD

STAGE

DOWN DIP TRANSITION ZONEI KAOLIN MINE

I UNITS

UNITS

AREA UNITS

Claibornian

Lisbon

I ;,....h __

-

a>:-

Formation

Huber

I I Huber

<(
r-

Sabinian

Gardi

Formation

a.. I Formation

aw :

::J
.0.._

I
w
I

~

Midwayan

CJ

(f)
:J

! Navarro an

0 w

I Louvale

Louvale

7101 Cretaceous

0
<(
r-

I I Tayloran

Group

I Grouo 7

I IUndifferentiated

aw :
0

I Austinian

Figure 2. Stratigraphic correlation chart of pre-upper Eocene sediments.

of figure 2) and their nonmarine equivalents (column labeled "kaolin mine area" of figure 2). The oores therefore provide mineralogical information about the transition zone in which the facies range frorn brackish to very nearshore marine.

LABORA'IDRY PROCEDURES

Each core sarrple was lightly crushed to a powder, and sonicated

in a beaker of deionized water ill1til dispersed. The size fraction less

than one-micron was then ootained 1:: centrifugation. 'Ihe clay from the

resultant clay-water suspension was deposited on a rnillipore filter 1::

vacuum. The filter was then lowered, clay side down, onto a wet glass

slide and gently dried on a hot plate until the surface of the filter

was barely dry. This timing is irrportant, with the oorrect dryness

being the point at which a drop of water will cause a faint darkening

of the filter. At that time the filter was swabbed with a wet towel

-- j

and peeled off, leaving an oriented clay film on the slide (the above

method of clay-mineral slide preparation is a modification of Drever's

, I

( 1973) method.

Each oriented clay slide was saturated with ethylene glycol vapor

and then examined cy X-ray diffraction. The 001 diffraction peak areas

of smectite*, illite, kaolinite, and chlorite were measured using a

planimeter and the presence of other minerals noted. In patterns where

there is an overlapping of the smectite (002) and illite (001) peaks,

the peak areas were visually partitioned. To oorrect for the instrins-

ically low diffraction intensities of illite, kaolinite, and chlorite,

the1r peak areas were nultiplied by the constants 9. 4, 7. 1 , and 1. 1 ,

respectively.

* Smectite is the name of the group of expandable clay minerals

which includes montmorillonite.

' I

I i I

-4-

The aoove constants (9.4, 7.1, and 1.1) were experimentally de-

i
! !

rived by Heath and Pisias ( 1979), to convert their diffraction peak

areas to quantitative values. In this report the 001 peak area of

chlorite was utilized instead of the 002, as used ~ Heath and Pisias,

due to the absence of basal reflections required ~ their technique.

The absence of these basal reflections is due to the very small amounts

of chlorite present in the samples. Since the chlorite is present only

in trace amounts the use of the 001 chlorite peak area should not

significantly affect the measured composition of the samples. Because

crystallinity, particle size, and , chemical composition affect the

accuracy of such analyses, truly quantitative values for the current

study, would have required that new constants be established specifi-

cally for the sediments examined in this study. Even if such con-

I

stants had been developed, it is possible the parameters that affect

1.

the constants (crystallinity, particle size, and chemical composition)

--I

would vary enough with respect to depth (time) to invalidate quantita-

. I

tive measurements of clay mineralogy. Since the establishment of these

constants was not feasible, the percentage mineral composition of the

clay fractions is semi-quantitative.

The corrected peak areas were used to calculate percentage clay-

mineral composition according to the equation:

where A, B, C, and D represent the clay minerals present; and Pa is the corrected peak area of mineral A, Pb is the corrected peak area of mineral B, Pc is the corrected peak area of mineral C, and Pd is the corrected peak area of mineral D. 'lhe precision of this method

-5-

!

i I

(one standard deviation) is .,:t 3.9%, + 2.9% and + 3.9% for smectite,

illite and kaolinite respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Clay-mineral contents of the less than one-micron size fraction

are given in tables 1 and 2. Also given in tables 1 and 2 are the oc-

currences of the non-clay minerals found in the less than ooe-micron

size fraction. Clay-mineral percentages versus depths are shown in

figures 3a, 3b, 4a, and 4b. Lithologic logs of the cores examined can

be found in appendices A and B.

The most obvious pattern of clay-mineral distribution is the cor-

relation between the amount of smectite and the amount of illite

(figures 3a and 4a) in roth cores. Apparently roth of these minerals

either are from the same source or were preferentially separated from

the water suspension by the same mechanism. Trace amounts of chlorite

found in GGS core 3511 (figure 4b) are associated with high percentages

of kaolinite. This association of chlorite with kaolinite presents the

possibility that the kaolinite and chlorite are from the same source.

Most recent interpretations of the causes of variation in clay

ll

mineral corrposition for a shallow, nearshore environment are based on

(1) differential settling rates for clay minerals (Gibbs, 1977) or, (2)

differences in sources for the clays. Although models could be pro-

duced to explain the clay-mineral distributions from the standpoint of

differences in particle sizes and flocculation tendencies, regional

studies of recent sediments demonstrate that provenance of the clay is

the controlling factor. For example, Neiheisel and weaver (1967) in a

I
- J
-6-

TABLE 1. MINERA.LOOY OF CLAY-SIZE FRACTION OF SAMPLES FROM GGS CX>RE 3511

% OF CLAY-MINERAL FRACTION

PRESENT IN

DEPTH

CLAY-SIZE

(FT)

SMECTITE

CHWRITE

ILLITE

KAOLINITE FRA_G_TIOO

190.0

71.5

0.0

25.8

2.8

194.0

61.0

0.0

197.0 241.0

100.0
o. 1

0.0
o.o

25.5
o.o o.o

13.5 0.0 99.9

247.0

o. 1

0.0

0.0

99.9

255.0

4.5

0.0

2.4

93.1

390.0

46.0

0.0

9.2

44.7

l

395.0

32.4

o.o

397.5 420.0

29.6
o.o

0.0 0.0

0.0

67.6

c

o.o

70.4

c

0.0

100.0

I

441.0

21.4

0.0

487.0

0.0

0.0

490.0

1.4

0.0

14.5

64.1

o.o

100.0

1. 2

97.4

511.0

o.o

0.0

0.0

100.0

538.5 560.0

0.0
o.o

0.2 0.4

583.0

o.o

0.4

3.8

96.1

G

0.0

99.6

6.2

93.4

667.5

4.3

0. 1

16.6

79.0

690.0

8.6

o.o

6.6

84.8

G

723.0

75.8

0.0

20.4

779.5

100.0

0.0

0.0

3.8

z

o.o

786.0

97.5 -

0.0

2.5

0.0

z

823.0

0. 1

0.0

2.1

97.7

869.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

905.0

0.0

0.4

915.5

0.0 '

o.o

0.0

99.6

0.0

100.0

G

980.0

0.9

0.0

2.6

96.6

1011.0

0.2

0.0

5.8

94.0

. I
I
J

1031.0

0.0

0.0

1046.0

0.0

0.0

6.8

93.2

5.6

94.4

1071.0

0. 1

0.0

4.6

95.3

, II

1074.0

0.4

0.0

1101.0

0.0

0.0

1111.0

0.0

1134.0

0.0

0.0
o.o

5.0

94.6

5. 1

94.9

6.5

93.5

0.0

100.0

1197.0

0.7

0.0

4.2

95.1

I

1201.0

o.o

0.0

1239.0

o.o

o.o

2.4

97.6

7.9

92.1

1241.0

o.o

0.0

4.9

95.1

1279.0

0. 1

0.0

0.8

99.1

1281.0

0.0

1293.0

o.o

0.0
o.o

0.0

100.0

0.0

100.0

G

1301.0

0.0

0.0

1308.0

o.o

0.0

0.4

99.6

4.4

95.6

G

. II

1321.0

0.9

0.0

3.5

95.5

C Cnstoballte

G Goeth1te

z zeollte

--

-7-

, I

TABLE 1 MINERALCX;Y OF CLAY-SIZE FRACTIOO OF SAMPLES FROM GGS CORE 3511 (Continued)
i

I

%OF CLAY-MINERAL FRACTIOO

DEP'm

PRESENI' IN CLAY-SIZE

JFT) SMECTITE

1328.0

12.5

CHWRITE
o.o

ILLITE 6.4

KAOLINITE FRACTION
Bl.l

1

1336.0

13.3

o.o

1. 5

85.3

1341.0

20.4

0.0

1351.0

27.2

1356.0

23.3

o.o o.o

1363.0

38.6

1373.0

26.6

o.o o.o

5.0

74.6

G

6.1

66.8

5.3

71.4

3.8

57.6

1.8

71.7

I

1383.0

4.7

0.0

1391.0

13.8

0.0

11.4

83.9

4. 1

82.1

1401.0

8.4

0.0

9.3

82.3

1410.0

15.1

0.0

13.8

71.1

I

1419.0

27.8

0.0

1440.0

28.5

0.0

5. 1

67.1

6.7

64.8

1450.0

18.3

0.0

5.1

76.6

1461.0

5.6

o.o

4.7

89.7

1470.0

0.0

o.o

0.0

100.0

1480.0

0.0

o.o

0.0

100.0

1482.0

o.o

o.o

1. 4

98.6

.i

1490.0

o.o

1502.0

3.8

0.0
o.o

0.0

100.0

4.6

91.6

1511.0 1514.0

1.2 1. 0 .

- . 0o..o0

o.o

98.8

0.0

99.0

1527.0

3.4

0.0

1. 9

94.7

G = Goethite

-8-

I i TABLE 2. MINERAI..CX;Y OF ClAY-SIZE FRACTICN OF SAMPLES FRa-t lAURENS COUN'lY CORE.

% OF ClAY-MINERAL FRACTION.

DEPTH (FT)

SMEcriTE

ILLITE

KAOLINITE

PRESENT IN CLAY-SIZE FRACTION

252.5

52.8

47.2

265.0

49.6

50.4

0.0

z c

o.o

z c

280.0

50.4

49.6

0.0

z c

300.0

56.6

22.7

20.6

z c

307.5

80.8

16.7

2.5

z

320.0

38.7

0.0

61.3

365.0

85.9

9.7

4.4

379.5

56.9

1. 5

41.6

425.0

0.0

o.o

100.0

440.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

450.0

0.0

o.o

100.0

460.0

0.0

o.o

100.0

c

475.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

500.0

0.6

5.6

93.8

551170..o0

44.6 36.8

48.9 42.5

6.6 20.6

I

555.0

10. 1

53.8

36.1

563.0

35.6

30.7

33.7

-I

570.0

0.0

3.5

96.5

585.0

~ 0.0

3.6

96.4

610.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

646.0

0.0

0.0

100.0

661.5

0.0

6.2

93.8

-I

690.0

0.0

4.8

95.2

760.0

6.5

3.5

90.1

~ J

Z zeolite C cristobalite

~ )

I

-j

~ J

-9-

~-)

i 1

ILLITE CCNTNT <n>

5HCTITE CONTENT <I>

1

J

Figure 3A. Distribution of illite and smectite in GGS core 3511.

-10-

I I I

: l
i I I I

: ]

2~~

-----

LISBOI-!

: )

~

j

'i~ii!

~an:o:

HUBER ; j

6~~

I

1"-'
~ B~D
oJ
:X:
I~
f!;
Q

b.QUVHLE_ OCONEE

-I

111!~3

)

12BB
I

I

I

. .:r

.lD

. )

151

IQ

l5il

CHLCRilE CONlENl <~J

kAOLINITE <CNlEN1 (~)

I

~------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 3B. Distribution of chlorite and kaolinite in GGS

)

core 3511.

-11-

j

I 1

j I

, I

2[3~

. I

. I

~ I

I I

.... liBB tw...._i..

I I
I

.::.:.z.:

P.J

.:a

~--1

EiBB
I I

I
~ I
; I
~ J

LISBON
HUBER
LOUVALE:

ILLITE' CONTENT C~J

SHECTITE' CONTENT <~J

I

J

Figure 4A. Distribution of illite and smectite in Laurens County core.

I I
,'
-12-

' I
I
I I

; I
I

2~~
I
I

-I

. I
l
,... Li~3
w
.w...._...,

:X:

, I

1-
f!J

Q

-I
I em a

: I

, I
. 1

; I

LISBON
HUBER LOUVALE:

KAOLINITE CONTENT<~)
_I
Figure 4B. Distribution of kaolinite in Laurens County core.
_I
-13-

I I

review of the literature of clay-mineral studies of South America,

I I

found that:

the highest concentration of kaolinite occurs at

I I

the mouth of the small rivers which drain in the coastal

I

areas where lateritic weathering is well developed. There is relatively less kaolinite in the clays at the mouth of large

rivers, such as the Amazon. In these rivers, the drainage

basin extends up into the Andes where weathering is less

"tropical", and the resulting suspended clay suite delivere9

to the ocean is a mixture of the lowland kaolinite rich suite

and upland suite in which illite, rront:rrorillonite, and

chlorite are relatively abundant.

A sorrewhat similar clay-mineral distribution of recent sediments

in the Gulf of Mexico was reported Oj Pinsak and Murray (1960), and Oj

Griffin (1962). In both of these studies, smectite was found to be the

most abundant clay mineral. The clay-mineral distributions indicated

, I

that the smectite was supplied mainly Oj the Mississippi Riveq where-

I

as, kaolinite is present in lesser arrounts and concentrated in the

northeastern portion of the Gulf where the sediments are influenced ~

the streams which drain the Piedmont. Neiheisel and Weaver (1967), in

their analysis of clays deposited in stream channels and estuaries,

confirmed that streams draining from the Piedmont supply mainly kao-

linite (in the clay mineral fraction), to the marine waters.

Griffin (1962) summarized the most feasible causes of recent clay

mineral distributions as follows:

Minor alterations in the clay-mineral suite occur as
the river clays enter saline waters, but these changes are of too small a magnitude to alter the regional distribution patterns.
Once the clays have been delivered to the Gulf of Mexico, distribution of the residual-suspended sediment is governed first by wind-driven, shallow-water currents and
later by semi-permanent ocean currents. The eventual distribution of clay minerals follows a gradational pattern in which the sources of supply, their magnitudes and the
distributional directions are evident.

To examine how clay-mineral distribution patterns vary with res-

pect to time, Griffin and Parrott (1964) examined recent sediments

-14-

1 i

collected offshore of the Mississippi Delta. They concluded that

changes in clay-mineral distributions, with respect to time, were due

to changes in the source, with shifts occurring between a clay~ineral

suite provided by the Mississippi River and a clay~ineral suite

brought in from distant sources by longshore currents.

We believe that the observed patterns of clay mineral distri-

butions of this study can best be explained by the hypothesis that

there were two different sediment sources for clays: (1) the continen-

tal interior which was the major sediment source for the large streams

and, (2) the Piedrront which was the sediment source for small local

streams.

We further hypothesize that the interior basins supplying the

sediment for the large streams were characterized by lO'V.' relief and

generally poor drainage as opposed to the Piedmont region which prob-

ably was characterized by moderate relief and well developed drainage.

-1

An interior source area would be a possible source of smectite as

I

it would have a basin type similar to the type discussed by Borchardt

(1977) who noted that "leaching is at a minimum in poorly drained

basins rrost typical of smectite occurrences." Considering the large

arrount of Cretaceous age kaolin in Georgia (Tschudy and Patterson,

1975) it is very probable that small streams draining the Piedlront

carried kaolinite as their major clay.

We conclude that the zones of high smectite and illite found in

the cores and shown in figure 3a and 4a, represent periods of time when

the source area of the clay was the interior portions of the mainland.

The smectite and illite from the interior source areas were brought to

_I

the site by longshore currents; the kaolinite and chlorite were de-

posited when local streams draining the Piedrront supplied most of the

-15-

I I
clastic sediments. Presumably the kaolinite was eroded from a residual

I I

saprolite formed on the Piednont, and the chlorite was derived from

erosion of fresh metamorphic rock exposed in the stream valleys of the

Piedrront.

Hetrick (1982), from his observations of clay-mineral distri-
I I butions in cores from the Central-Georgia Coastal Plain, concluded that

the clay-mineral distribution in the cores possibly could be useful in

stratigraphic correlations. However, from the present study it was

concluded that within the current study area, the use of clay-mineral

distributions as the basis of stratigraphic correlation over long dis-

tances is not practicable.

I
' .J
-16-
1 ' '

REFERENCES CITED
Borchardt, G.A., 1977, in Minerals in soil environments, Dixon, J.B., and Weed, S.B., eds., Soil Society of Amedca, Madison, Wisconsin, p. 293-330.
Drever, J.I., 1973, The preparation of oriented clay mineral specimens for x-ray diffraction analysis ~ a filter-membrane peel technique, Amer. Min., v. 58, p. 553-554.
Gibbs, R.J., 1977, Clay mineral segregation in the marine environment: Jour. of Sed. Pet., v. 47, no. 1, p. 237-243.
Griffin, G.M., 1962, Regional clay-mineral facies- Products of weathering intensity and current distribution in the oortheastern Gulf of Mexico: Geol. Soc. America. Bull., v. 73, p. 737-768.
Griffin, G.M., and Parrott, B.S., 1964, Develof111ent of clay mineral zones during deltaic migration: A.A.P.G., Bull., v. 48, no. 1, p. 57-69.
Heath, G.R., and Pisias, N.G., 1979, A method for the quantitative estimation of clay minerals- in North Pacific deep-sea sediments: Clays and Clay Min., v. 27, no. 3, p. 175-184.
Hetrick, J.H., 1982, Clay mineral distributions in the Central Georgia Kaolin District: Georgia Geol. Survey, Open-File Report 82-4, 57 p.
Hetrick, J.H., and Friddell, M.S., (in press), A geologic study of the Central Georgia Kaolin District-Part I: Georgia Geol. Survey, Open-Fi+e Report 83-1, 14 p.
Hetrick, J.H., and Friddell, M.s., (in preparation), A geologic study of the Central Georgia Kaolin District-Part II: Georgia Geol. Survey.
Huddlestun, P.F., 1981, Correlation chart Georgia Coastal Plain: Georgia Geol. Survey, Open-File Re!_X)rt 82-1.
Neiheisel, J., and Weaver, C.E., 1967, Transport and deposition of clay minerals southeastern United States: Jour. of Sed. Pet., v. 37, no. 4, p. 1084-1116.
Pinsak, A.P., and Murray, H.H., 1960, Regional clay mineral patterns in the Gulf of Mexico: Proceedings of the Seventh National Conf. on Clays and Clay Minerals, Pergamon Press, London, p. 162-177.
Tschudy, R.H., and Patterson, S.H., 1975, Palynological evidences for Late Cretaceous, Paleocene, and Early and Middle Eocene ages for strata in the kaolin belt, central Georgia: Jour. Research u.s. Geol. Survey, v. 3, July-August, p. 437-445.
-17-
J

I I

I

, II

APPENDIX A

I

LITHOr.miC u:x; OF OOS CORE 3511

, I

I
I

I I

EXPLANATION

[2j] SAND

, I
: I

~\}:~~t~);f@ BEDDED SAND

i
1 :"~:~o"=.;~I1 GRAVEL

CARBONATE

I

IMPURE CARBONATE

I
CLAY

c l

, II

LIMEY CLAY

CLAY INCLUSIONS
; I

I I

MICA

, I
' I

~ MANGANESE OXIDE

I

~ CHERT OR CHERT LENSES

~ GLAUCONITE

I" I LIGNITE II II II II

--

U II II

PHOSPHATES

I~ '%. ~~ SHELLY FOSSILS

GGS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY CORE

I

I
I I

OTC OUTCROP

NR NO RECOVERY

..-....-- UNCONFORMITY

*

INTERVAL SAMPLED

(1) FOR STRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATION SEE HUDDLESTUN 1981
I

, I
A-1

: I

1
I I
', J

--0-y--- (Feet) 0 -~~.~~........~

G.G.S. CORE 3511
180 ""'J!J!=I=~

- ~o.-..":1'7::,o;=

10 - :_z..;..,-::..'-:'

190

--...E.-:~.:i0-~;.

20 - 00 0 :~ 0 o:'"':

200

-

TOBACCO ROAD

30-
- NR
40-
-

FORMATION (1)

210
220
NR

50-

230

....

- oo"':oo..l..: 0

70

-

00 0 -: :.

- ..:-::.~~~ - -.J...-
80 - j='o::.!'7

0~0=-...

r.:;:...;:--~0
_ ____ 90 -?:.:.....~ ......

DRY BRANCH FORMATION (1)

260

270

HUBER

FORMATION

280

290



0

0 0

....

300

130

310

140

320

150

330

~ J

- 160 - ~~~i::.:l -

CLINCHFIELD

340

170- NR

FORMATION (1)

350

-- j 360 ......0 ..0..
----

; I

A-2

i.J

,-1
:. I

G.G.S. CORE 3511 (cont.)

3 6 0 -,::..u..:.:..=-...~~ ...

54 0 _..,..-,_,...,..

370

HUBER

550

FORMATION
560

390

570

400

580

410

590

; I
I I

600

430

610

440

620

450
HUBER

LOUVALE

630

GROUP

460

FORMATION

640

470

650

480

660

490

670

680

510

690

. I

520

LOUVALE GROUP

700

: I

530

710

: I

. I

A-3

, II

. I

G.G.S. CORE 3511 (cont.)

720

900

I I

730

910

. I

740

920

: I

750

930

LOUVALE

760

GROUP

NR
940

: I

770

950

I r

780

960

! I

. I

790

970

, I

I

800

980

--

OCONEE

GROUP

I

810

I

,_,
. I

820

990 1000

830

1010

ll

840

OCONEE

1020

GROUP
: j

850

1030

: I

860

1040

I
I

870

1050

, I

880

. I

890

1060 1070

900

1080

I

A-4

I
j

i i

G.G.S. CORE 3511 (cont.)

II '
I

1080

1260

, I

1090

1270

I
I

1100

1110 I
1120
, I
1130
; I
1140

1280

*

1290

1300

1310

1320

: I

1150

1330

I I
', I

1160

OCONEE GROUP

1340

OCONEE GROUP'

: I

1170

1350

~~-I

1180

1360

1190
: I

1200
~ I 1210

~ I

1220

1370

1380 1390 1400

.....
:-:.-e:..-.:.:o--,.::.~_.. .-==-=--.
:~~?~

1230

1410

~ I

1240

1420

1250
_I

; I

1260

1430 1440



:

0

.........

I

A-5
, I
' j

I I

l

1450

1460

I

1470

OCONEE

GROUP

1480

I I

I

1490

; I

I
: I

.... 1500
1510 .:..-....:.:.......:.:.

I I

1520 :.-:._..: .~.......

I

.::..:.~ :.

TO 152r*
I
I

-1
I

I I
I . I
i I
: I
A-6 ; iI

: I
I

I

APPENDIX B

I

LITHOIOOIC IOO OF I.AURENS COUN'l.Y OORE

I I

I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I

EXPLANATION
,. II

i I

I' '

)

GRAVEL

I

~ CARBONATE

~ IMPURE CARBONATE

D CLAY

' i
1 I

~~~~~~~ LIMEY CLAY

i I

CLAY INCLUSIONS

, I

I

MICA

~ MANGANESE OXIDE

~ CHERT OR CHERT LENSES

I
I
I

~ GLAUCONITE

1

LIGNITE 1.. " " I II 11111111

PHOSPHATES

~ I

I~ l ~l SHELLY FOSSILS

-I

I

GGS

GEORGIA GEOLOGIC SURVEY CORE

OTC OUTCROP

NR NO RECOVERY

~
*

UNCONFORMITY INTERVAL SAMPLED

, I

(1) FOR STRATIGRAPHIC CORRELATION SEE HUDDLE STUN 198 1

i

B-1

I I

LAURENS COUNTY CORE

.. 0 (Feet)

... ..:.. ~

180

.I II

'. '.

10

190

20

200

DRY BRANCH

ALTAMAHA

FORMATION

30

FORMATION (1)

210

40

220

50

230

II .

. I
I I,

60

OLIGOCENE RESIDUUM C1J

240

CLINCHFIELD FORMATION

70

250

I I

I

80

OCMULGEE

260

FORMATION C1J

90

270

'--I
I

100

I

LISBON

280

FORMATION

I

110

290

; I

i '

120

I I

!

300

; i

130

DRY BRANCH

310

FORMATION (1)

140

320 . .. ..: ...

150

I!,

160

330

CLAIBORNE

GROUP
340

; I



I

I

170

350

180

360

B-2

. I
, I

LAURENS COUNTY CORE (cont.)

I

360

640 .........

. I

I I

370

650

.. ' '....



HUBER FORMATION

0

i

sao

660

, I

, I

390

570

CLAIBORNE

.-.co

GROUP

580

I.

I

410

690

420

i

I . i

430

. I

I

440

I

450

600
610
..
'620
630

.460
-I
470

640 650 ....

LOUVALE
GROUP

I

480

860

', I

HUBER

490

FORMATION

. 670

..

I
I

500

680

510

890

I I

520

530

I 1

54-0

. .

100 710
.....
720

B-3

; j

LAURENS COUNTY CORE (cont.)

720 ~..~. ~

... "'-.

i \

t .-.: ..T"

I

740

750
..

' !
I
I

760
..

LOlNALE GROUP

170

780

1680
TO 1880
, I

I
~r
I
. I
I
' !
I I

I
I I
B-4