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