Page 141 - Origin and Prediction of Abnormal Formation Pressures
P. 141

]  ] 8   L.A. BURYAKOVSKY, R.D. DJEVANSHIR, G.V. CHILINGAR, H.H. RIEKE III AND J.O. ROBERTSON, JR.


                                                   7
                                     (a)                                (b)
              ~,  0.3                              ~0.3
              0
              C                                    8
                                                   ~ 0.2
                o.2
                                                   Um
             u_
                                                   (b
                                                   .-->
                 0.1                                  O.l   -
                                                   0
              0                                    i
             i                                     (I)
                                                   rv
             rv   o                                    0
                     1.8  2.5  3.1  3.6  4.0  4.4  4.8     1.8  2.5  3.1  3.6  4,0  4,4  4.8
                       Particle  Size (d),  l~m             Particle Size (d),  ~m
                                                  Z
              $,  o.3                ('             ,,  0.3
              8                      (c)                                (d)
                O.2                                ~"  0.2
             e
             i..i..                               u_
                                                          I
                O.1                               ~   0.1       -

                 0  l- -tl r--i [--~  F l         ""   o            [-I-I  F-~l F--l ~
                     1.3  1.9  2.3   3.0   3.7  5.1        1.3  1.9  2.3  2.7  3.0  3.8
                       Particle  Size (d),  ~m               Particle  Size (d),  ~m

             Fig.  4-11.  Histograms  of  the  distribution  of  particle  sizes  for  primary  (a,  c)  and  secondary  (b,  d)
             montmorillonite (Bulla-mor6 field; depth interval of 5128  to 5132  m).  [(a,  b)  x  1000],  [(c, d)  x  3000]  is the
            relative frequency.  (Modified after Buryakovsky et al.,  1995,  fig.  10, p.  215.)


               The postsedimentary (diagenetic and catagenetic) transformation of Middle Pliocene
            shales  of  the  South  Caspian  Basin  is  characterized  by  retardation  of  the  process  of
            transformation  of  montmorillonite into  hydromica  or  chlorite  at  great  depths,  and  the
            replacement of this process by the process of transformation of hydromica into swelling
            minerals  of  the  montmorillonite  group.  These  processes  are  closely  related  to  the
            lower geothermal gradient and increasing pressure at depth. The inverted hydrochemical
            profile  of  these  deposits  is  possibly  a  consequence  of  the  relationship  between  the
            transformation  of clay  minerals  and thermobaric  conditions  at depth,  as  pore  solutions
            could  distil  in  the  process  of  clay  sediment  compaction.  On  the  basis  of  compaction
            experiments,  Rieke  and  Chilingarian  (1974)  suggested  that  compaction  fluids  become
            saltier as they move upwards through clays.
               An  important  question  is:  what  is  the  depth  limit  for  the  preservation  of montmo-
            rillonite under  given thermobaric  conditions? Khitarov  and Pugin  (1966)  estimated the
            depth  of occurrence  for montmorillonite under  various  conditions.  For  example,  when
            the geothermal gradient changes from 40 to  10~   the limiting depth  of occurrence
   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146