Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-03T16:39:39.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

40Ar/39Ar Analyses of Authigenic Muscovite, Timing of Stylolitization, and Implications for Pressure Solution Mechanisms: Jurassic Norphlet Formation, Offshore Alabama

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Andrew R. Thomas ,
William M. Dahl ,
Chris M. Hall  and
Derek York
Andrew R. Thomas
Affiliation:
Texaco EPTD, 3901 Briarpark, Houston, Texas 77042
William M. Dahl
Affiliation:
Texaco USA, 400 Poydras St., New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Chris M. Hall
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A7
Derek York
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three authigenic muscovite morphologies are associated with Norphlet Formation stylolitization observed in the Texaco Mobile Area Block 872 #1 well: l)large crystals of 1M muscovite, which grew in the stylolites with their c-axes parallel to the plane of maximum compressive stress; 2) fine-grained bundles of muscovite that occur as pore-fillings near stylolites; and 3) pods of fine-grained muscovite that exist within stylolite insoluble residue and that were precipitated as pore-filling muscovite before the host sandstone pressolved.

The population of large crystals of 1M muscovite grew at 51 ± 9 Ma, pore-filling muscovites precipitated at 77 ± 22 Ma, and muscovite pods have ages of 86 ± 16 Ma, as indicated by 40Ar/39Ar laser fusion. Apparent ages indicate that stylolitization was coincident with the beginning of organic maturation Zone 5 and could be the product of reservoir fluid pressure fluctuations induced by gas leakage. The lower Smackover Formation source/seal rock, acting as a pressure relief valve, could have been compromised by microfractures occurring during hydrocarbon generation and expulsion. Decreases in reservoir fluid pressure would have acted upon the sandstone framework by increasing the effective overburden pressure, thus making the rock more susceptible to pressure solution.

Stylolite frequency and quartz cement volume increase in the finer grained portion of the conventional core. Quartz cement volume correlates inversely to percent sandstone porosity. Apparent muscovite ages indicate that stylolitization occurred after hydrocarbon migration. Silica mobility was limited because pressure solution mineral products were precipitated from within grain films of irreducible water within the sandstone.

Stylolitization of quartz grains accounts for a minimum of 34% of the quartz cement in the upper cored section of the Norphlet Formation and minimum of 17% of the quartz cement in the lower cored Norphlet Formation. Quartz cement volumes are based on stylolite insoluble residue thickness and weight measurements of pyrobitumen within and nearby the insoluble residue seams. Stylolitization of K-feldspar and precipitation of muscovite can release additional silica which may have precipitated as quartz cement.

Keywords

40Ar/39Ar datingMuscoviteNorphlet FormationPressure solutionQuartz cementSandstoneStylolites
Type
Research Article
Information
Clays and Clay Minerals , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , June 1993 , pp. 269 - 279
Copyright
Copyright © 1993, The Clay Minerals Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bray, C. J., Spooner, E T C Hall, C. M., York, D., Bills, T. M. and Krueger, H. W., 1987 Laser probe 40Ar/39Ar and conventional K/Ar dating of illites associated with the McClean unconformity-related uranium deposits, north Saskatchewan, Canada Can. Jour. Earth Sci. 24 10 – 23 10.1139/e87-002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brindley, G. W., and Brown, G., (1980) Crystal Structures of Clay Minerals and Their X-Ray Identification: Mineralogical Society Monograph 5, 495 pp.Google Scholar
Claypool, G. E. and Mancini, E. A., 1989 Geochemical relationships of petroleum in Mesozoic reservoirs to carbonate source rocks of Jurassic Smackover Formation, Southwest Alabama AAPG Bull. 73 904 – 924.Google Scholar
Dewars, T. and Ortoleva, P., 1990 A coupled reaction/transport/mechanical model for intergranular pressure solution, stylolites, and differential compaction and cementation in clean sandstones Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 54 1609 – 1625 10.1016/0016-7037(90)90395-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, S. A., Summers, D. M. and Surdam, R. C., 1989 Diagenesis and preservation of porosity in Norphlet Formation (Upper Jurassic), Southern Alabama AAPC Bull. 73 707 – 728.Google Scholar
Folk, R. L., 1974 Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks .Google Scholar
Heald, M. T., 1955 Stylolites in sandstones Journ. Geol. 63 101 – 114 10.1086/626237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heydari, E. and Moore, C. H., 1988 Burial diagenesis and thermochemical sulfate reduction, Smackover Formation, southeastern Mississippi Salt Basin Geology 17 1080 – 1084 10.1130/0091-7613(1989)017<1080:BDATSR>2.3.CO;2.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honda, H. and McBride, E. F., 1981 Diagenesis and pore types of the Norphlet Sandstone (Upper Jurassic), Hatters Pond Area, Mobile County, Alabama GCAGS Trans 31 315 – 322.Google Scholar
Houseknecht, D. W., 1988 Intergranular pressure solution in four quartzose sandstones Jour. Sed. Pet. 58 228 – 246.Google Scholar
Houseknecht, D. W., 1984 Influence of grain size and temperature on intergranular pressure solution, quartz cementation, and porosity in a quartzose sandstone Jour. Sed. Petr. 54 348 – 361.Google Scholar
Kugler, R. L. and McHugh, A., 1990 Regional diagenetic variation in Norphlet Sandstone: Implications for reservoir quality and the origin of porosity GCAGS Trans. 40 411 – 423.Google Scholar
Marzano, M. S., Pense, G. M. and Andronaco, P., 1988 A comparison of the Jurassic Norphlet Formation in Mary Ann Field, Mobile Bay, Alabama to onshore regional Norphlet Trends GCAGS Trans. 38 85 – 100.Google Scholar
McBride, E. F., Land, L. S. and Mack, L. E., 1987 Diagenesis of eolian and fluvial feldspathic sandstones, Norphlet Formation (Upper Jurassic), Rankin County, Mississippi, and Mobile County, Alabama AAPG Bull. 71 1019 – 1034.Google Scholar
Merino, E., Ortoleva, P. and Strickholm, P., 1983 Generation of evenly spaced pressure solution seams during (late) diagenesis: A kinetic theory Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 82 360 – 370 10.1007/BF00399713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C. H., Ventress, W. P., Bebout, D. B., Perkins, B. F. and Moore, C. H., 1984 The Upper Smackover of the gulf rim: Depositional systems, diagenesis, porosity evolution, and hydrocarbon production Jurassic of the Gulf Rim, Proc. of the 3rd Annual Research Conf. 283 – 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehler, J. H., 1984 Carbonate source rocks in the Jurassic Smackover Trend of Mississippi, Alabama and Florida Petroleum Geochemistry and Source Rock Potential of Carbonate Rocks 18 63 – 69.Google Scholar
Palciauskas, V. V. and Merrill, R. K., 1991 Primary migration of petroleum Source and Migration Processes and Evaluation Techniques: AAPG Treatise of Petroleum Geology 13 – 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saigal, G. C., Bjorlykke, K. and Larter, S., 1992 The effects of oil emplacement on diagenetic processes—Examples from the Fulmar Reservoir sandstones, Central North Sea AAPG Bull. 76 1024 – 1033.Google Scholar
Sassen, R., Moore, C. H. and Meendsen, F. C., 1987 Distribution of hydrocarbon source potential in the Jurassic Smackover Formation Org. Geochem. 11 379 – 383 10.1016/0146-6380(87)90070-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwander, H. W. Burgin, A. and Stern, W. B., 1981 Some geochemical data on stylolites and their host rocks Eclog. geol. Helv. 74 217 – 224.Google Scholar
Sloss, L. L. and Feray, D. E., 1948 Microstylolites in sandstone Jour. Sed. Pet. 18 3 – 13.Google Scholar
Tew, B. H., Mink, R. M., Mann, S. D., Bearden, B. L. and Mancini, E. A., 1991 Geologic framework of Norphlet and pre-Norphlet strata of the onshore and offshore eastern Gulf of Mexico area GCAGS Trans. 41 590 – 600.Google Scholar
Trurnit, P., 1968 Pressure solution phenomena in detrital rocks Sed. Geol. 2 89 – 114 10.1016/0037-0738(68)90030-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, G., Cadogan, P. H. and Gose, W. A., 1974 Possible effects of 39Ar recoil in 40Ar/39Ar age dating Proc. in the 5th Lunar Science Conf. 1601 – 1615.Google Scholar
Wade, W. J., Hanor, J. S. and Sassen, R., 1989 Controls on H2S concentration and hydrocarbon destruction in the eastern Smackover Trend GCAGS Trans. 39 309 – 320.Google Scholar
Wade, W. J., Sassen, R. and Chinn, E. W., 1987 Stratigraphy and source potential of the Smackover Formation in the northern Manila Embayment, southwest Alabama GCAGS Trans. 37 277 – 286.Google Scholar
Walderhaug, O., 1990 A fluid inclusion study of quartz-cemented sandstones from Offshore Mid-Norway—Possible evidence for continued quartz cementation during oil emplacement Jour. Sed. Petr. 60 203 – 210.Google Scholar
Wijbrans, J. R., Schliestedt, M. and York, D., 1990 Single grain argon laser probe dating of phengites from the blueschist to greenschist transition on Sifhos (Cyclades, Greece) Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 104 582 – 593 10.1007/BF00306666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar