WATER RESOURCESRESEARCH, VOL. 30, NO.

2, PAGES 145-150,FEBRUARY 1994

5
4
3

How permeableare claysand shales?

Intro

C. E. Neuzil

Start

U.S. GeologicalSurvey,Reston,Virginia
Search

Abstract. The permeabilityof argillaceousformations,althoughrarely measuredand

poorlyunderstood,
is commonly
a criticalparameter
in analyses
of subsurface
flow.
Datanow available suggesta regularrelation betweenpermeabilityand porosityin

claysandshalesandpermeabilities
that, evenat largescales,are significantly
lower

thanusually
assumed.
Permeabilities
between10-23and10-17m2 havebeenobtained
at porosities
between0.1 and 0.4 in both laboratoryand regionalstudies.Althoughit is
clearthat transmissivefractures or other heterogeneitiescontrol the large-scale

hydraulic
behaviorof certainargillaceous
units,the permeabilityof manyothersis
apparently
scaleindependent.
Theseresultshavesignificant
implications
for
understandingfluid transport rates and abnormal pressure generation in basins, and

couldproveimportantfor waste isolationefforts.

Introduction

Laboratory Permeability Data

Sedimentaryunits dominated by clay are commonly the

leastpermeableparts of groundwaterflow systemsand, as
such, strongly affect fluid fluxes and flow patterns. The

permeability
of argillaceousunitsis thereforea parameterof
considerableimportance for analyzing groundwater flow in
sedimentaryenvironments, with particular importance attachingto the relation between permeability and porosity
because of the sediment compaction that accompanies
burial. Unfortunately, it is usually infeasible to measure
permeabilityor its variation in argillaceousunits and few
reliableguidelinesexist for estimatingit. Specifically, there
arefew indicationsof (1) how permeability relates to porosity in thesemedia and (2) how small the permeability of these
sediments can be at various scales. Researchers have used

Until the 1970s, little was known about clay and shale
hydraulic properties beyond permeability data obtained as a
by-product of consolidationtesting. Although attention has
been focused on the problem since then, the difficulty of
measuring small permeabilities has continued to limit the
acquisitionof data. As a result, extensivepermeabilitydata
for these materials do not exist. In addition, a large fraction
of the laboratory data that are available are not suited for
hydrogeologicapplications.Many studiesusedpurifiedclays
or reconstituted sediments, leaving in question the applicability of the resultsto naturalsystems.Othersfailed to report
porosity(or void ratio) or gaveno indicationof how the data
were obtained. Only a handfullof laboratory determinations
(1) usednatural media in an undisturbedstate, (2) monitored

the reported porosity or equivalent information, and (3)

showed evidence that the measurements were made using

estimatesbased on a few widely cited measurements[e.g.,

Magara, 1978;Neglia, 1979]or anecdotalvalues [e.g., Davis
andDe Wiest, 1966; Lambe and Whitman, 1969; Freeze and

appropriatemethodologyand carefultechnique.Laboratory
data I have found that meet these criteria, including data

obtained in a recent investigationof the Pierre Shale, are

Cherry, 1979] and have im,oked more or less arbitrary

plottedin Figure 1 with backgroundinformationgiven in
relationsbetweenpermeabilityand porosityto accountfor Table 1. With the exceptionof values for the Pierre Shale,
compaction,practices that add considerableuncertainty to which are presentedhere for the first time, these data are
analyses.As a result, clay and shale permeabilities are from published sources.
among
themostsignificant
uncertainties
in manyattemptsto
For completeness,somewidely cited data were included
quantify subsurface flow.
in Figure 1 (dashedlines)eventhoughthe test protocolwas
Datanow availableprovidenew insightinto this problem not reported.Test protocolis a critical consideration
beandsuggestthat it is time/to reevaluatethe treatment of clay

causemeasurementsof small permeabilityare quite suscep-

andshalepermeability
in flow simulations.
The relatively

tible to errors. Minutes leaks in the testing apparatus or

low permeabilities
thesedata imply at typical porosities
indicatethat fluid fluxes in someflow systemscould be
significantly
smallerthan analysesindicate;elucidationof
thesefluxesis crucialfor understanding
phenomena
suchas
abnormal
pressure
generation,
petroleumandore emplace-

around the specimenin the test cell and subtle damageor

deteriorationof the specimenitself are especiallydifficultto
avoid and make measuredpermeabilitiestoo large;skepticismof relativelylargereportedvaluesis prudent.In viewof

this, the significance

of regions11 and 12 is problematical.

ment,and deformation of sediments,and for guidingintelligent exploitationof the subsurfacefor purposessuch as

wasteisolation.This paper synthesizes

thesedata and describes
theirimplications.

In contrast, various considerationsindicate that the data

shownwith solidlinesin Figure ! are reliable. Regions1, 3,

5, and8 wereeachdefinedby morethanonetestingtechnique

(see Table 1). Other data were obtainedusingrobustand
well-established mechanical transient (consolidation) tech-

Thispaper
isnotsubject
to U.S. copyright.
Published
in 1994bythe niques(region6) or with particularcaredevotedto the test
American
Geophysical
Union.
equipment
andprocedures
(regions2, 4, 7, 9, and 10).
Papernumber93WR02930.
Figure 1 suggeststhat a log-linearrelation betweenper145

146

NEUZIL'

HOW PERMEABLE ARE CLAYS AND SHALES?

permeabilitiessmallerthan shownin Figure 1, and thereis

reason to believe that the minimum measured valuesare

Loghydraulic
conductivity,
m.s'l
-16

-14

-12

................

-10
I

-8
I

5
4
3

indeedclose to the minimum values which can be expected

0o8-

in thesemedia.Grim [1968,p. 464]tabulatedvaluesof clay

specificsurfacearea.It is reasonable
to associate
thelargest,
a theoretical maximum for montmorillonite, with the lowest
6

Intro
Start

claypermeabilities.Using this value in the Kozeny-Carman

relationyieldsvalueswithinan orderof magnitude

of the

Search

minimum values in Figure 1. This argues that the data

delineateminimumclay and shalepermeabilities

reasonably
well.
0.2

0.0

I
I,

r'
I
-20

.11
,
I

Effect of Scale
I

-18

....I

,,

-16

Many workers expect an increase in permeability with

scalein low-permeabilitymedia [Bethke, 1989],leadingthem
Figure 1. Plot of laboratory-derived permeability versus to discount laboratory-derived permeabilities as beingtoo
porosity for a variety of natural argillaceousmedia. Perme- low. The scaledependency,usuallyattributedto fracturesor
ability is shown alongthe lower horizontalscale:the corre- comminglingof nonclaysediments,can be difficultto detect
sponding hydraulic conductivity to water at room tempera- directlybut is clearly presentin someargillaceousunits.The
ture is shown alongthe upper horizontalscale.The numbers PierreShale,forexample,
whichhasa 10-20m2 permeabil.
are keyed to Table 1 which providesthe sourceof the data ity at laboratoryscale(region8 in Figure 1), has a regional
Logpermeability,
m2

and background information.

permeability
of 10-16 m2 [Bredehoeft
et al., 1983].Scale
dependencealso has been detectedin lacustrineclay [Rudolpheta!., 1991]and clay till [Keller et al., 1988]andis
impliedin numerousinstanceswhen in situ permeability

meability and porosity exists over an exceptionallywide

range of consolidationstates; materialsrangingfrom re- measurementsin shalesyield relatively large values [Davis,
cently depositedmarine clays to mildly metamorphosed 1988].
Other evidence, however, shows that permeabilityscale
argillite are represented.Excludingregions11 and 12, the
datafall in a bandapproximatelythreeordersof magnitude dependenceis not ubiquitousin argillaceousmediaand,
wide that spansporositiesexceeding0.8 to lessthan 0.1. whenpresent,may affectflow only at the largestregional
Permeabilitydecreasesby approximatelyan orderof mag- scales, and not at intermediate scales. I found several
nitude with each 0.13 decrease in porosity and rangesover instanceswhereclay and shalepermeabilitiesat subregional
eightordersof magnitude.
Regions11and 12departfromthe to regionalscales(kilometersto hundredsof kilometers)are
trend, suggesting
labo'ratory-scale
permeabilities
exceeding consistentwith the trend shown in Figure 1. These largescalepermeabilities
are plottedin Figure2 to permitcom10-7 m2 at porosities
aslow as0.2.
the
The log-linearrelationexhibitedby the datain Figure1 is parisonwith the laboratorydata; Table 2 provides

not unexpected
for clay-richmedia.Severaltheoreticalbackgroundinformation.
The datain Figure2 wereobtainedfrom inverseanalyses
expressions
relatepermeability
to porosityand poresize;
of
a varietyof flow systems.
Inverseanalysisyieldsestione derived by Kozeny [1927] and modifiedby Carman
properties,
generally,
by numerically
simu[1937],whichusesspecific
surfaceareaasa measure
ofpore matesof system
size,appearsto provideusefulinsightin thepresentcontext.
Althoughthe Kozeny-Carman
equationis basedon rather
restrictiveassumptions
[Scheidegger,
1974],it predictspermeabilityof kaoliniteclay cakeswith reasonableaccuracy
[Olsen,1962].The predictedrelationis nearlylog linear,
with a slopesimilarto that suggested
by Figure1.
The broadrangein permeabilityat a givenporosityin
Figure1 (evenif regions11 and 12 are discounted)
could
havemultiplecauses.First, very smallpermeabilities
are
measuredat or near the limits of instrumentalresolution,
which can introduce error. Second, effects of anisotropy

maybe presentin someof the data,with differentpermeabilitiesalongandacross

depositional
planes.However,the
bulk of the variation is attributable to differencesin clay

latingflowandadjusting
thevalueof uncertainparameters
to

obtaincomputed
hydraulic
conditions
thatbestmatchthose
observed.inverse methodswork reliably for well-posed

problems
andgenerally
aretheonlywayto evaluate
small
permeabilitiesat large scales.

Certaininverseanalysesyieldedonly maximumvalues;

theseareindicated
by arrowsin Figure2. In thecase
of
regions
6 and7, thisisduesimply
to ambiguity
inherent
in
the analyses;
a rangeof permeabilities
lowerthanthose
indicated
giveequally
goodmatches
to observed
conditions.
Theuncertainty
in region5 existsbecause
inverse
analyses
sometimes
incorporate
significant
changes
in permeability
overgeologic
time.Region5 is derivedfrom an inverse
analysis
ofgeopressures
insediments
oftheU.S. GulfCoast

byBethke
[1986a].
These
sediments
mayhaveexpelled
excess
fluid
through
natural
hydrofractures
during
parts
of
clustering
of clay particles.Experiments
with claycakes
their
history
[Engelder,
1993,
p.
41;
Capuano,
1993].
If
[Mitchellet al., 1965]shownearlythreeordersofmagnitude
microstructure,
whichOlsen[1962]considered
to arisefrom

indeed
varied
intimewiththepresence
and
variationin permeability
because
of microstructural
differ- permeability
a
ences.Comparable
variationisexpectable
in naturebecause absenceof transmissivefractures,region 5 represents
average
of thetwoconditions.
Onlythe
of thephysically
andchemically
diverse
environments
in time-integrated
whichargillaceous
sediments
aredeposited.
No data are known to me that indicate clay or shale

unfractured
permeability,
which
must
besmaller,
isdirectly
comparable
withthelaboratory
measurements
inFigure
1.

NEUZIL: HOW PERMEABLEARE CLAYSAND SHALES?

147

Table1. Background
Information
forLaboratory
Permeability
DataPlotted
in Figure1
Region

Orienta-

in
Figure1
1

Formation
(Location)
bottomdeposit
(North Pacific)

Lithology
(Mineralogy)

Typeof Test*
(Permeant)

bottommud(illite, mechanical
smectite)

Intro

Number or Effective

tionto
Measure- Stress,
Bedding ments
MPa
normal(?) 48

0.04--0.4

transient,

Source
Silva et al.

[1981]

steady flow,
and quasisteady flow
(seawater)

bottom deposit
(North Pacific)
bottomdeposit
(North Pacific)

Gulf of Mexico

unconsolidated

sediment;
varying
proportions of
clay, silt, and
sand

bottom mud (illite, steadyflow

normal
19
smectite)
(seawater)
bottommud(illite, mechanical
normal(9.) 26
chlorite)
transient,and

bottom deposit
bottom mud (illite,
(North Pacific)
chlorite)
Pleistoceneto
marine and
Recent (Quebec, lacustrineclay
Mississippi
Delta, Sweden)

Sutherland Group
(Saskatchewan)

glacial till
(montmofillonite,
illite, kaolinite)

quasi-steady
flow (seawater)
steadyflow
normal
22
(seawater)
steadyflow and normal (9.) approxiquasi-steady
mately
600
flow (natural
pore water and
distilled water)
mechanical
various
approxitransient
mately

Morin

and Silva

[1984]
Silva

et al.

[19811

Morin

and Silva

[1984]
0.04-0.3

Tavenas

et aI.

[1983]

Bryant et al.
[1975]

250

(seawater)

mechanical
transient

normal

27

0.06-2.0

and

Keller

et al.

[1989]

quasi-steady
flow (natural

pore water and

distilled water)

Pierre Shale
(central South
Dakota)

claystone (mixed
layer,
montmorillonite,
illite)

mechanical

transient,
hydraulic
transient,
steady flow
(pore water

normal

85

0.1-50

C. E. Neuzit

(unpublished
data, 1987)

and
parallel

duplicate and
distilled water)
9t

10

1!

12

steady flow (3.5 normal

Lower Cretaceous clayey siltstone,
and 5.8%
and
(Western
clayey sandstone
sodium
parallel
Canada)
chloride)
hydraulic
various
Eleana Formation argillite (quartz,
transient
(Nevada)
illite, chlorite,
kaolinite)
? (8 to 32 x 103 9.
(Japan and
mudstone, sandy
mg/L sodium
Alberta, Canada) mudstone,
chloride)
silstone, shale
?
?
Upper Triassic,
clay, shale
Mid-Miocene,

5
4
3

25

0-40

Young et al.
[1964]

23

1.1-24.1 Lin [1978]

33

Magara[1978]

Neglia [1979]

Lower Pliocene

(Italy)

*Mechanicaltransienttestsincludestandardconsolidationtestsand similarproceduresinvolvingtransientdeformation

under
mechanical
loads.Hydraulictransient
tests,whichincludepulseandinjection
tests,involvevaryingthehydraulic
boundary
conditions
ofthesample
andanalyzing
thetransient
pressure
response.
Quasi-steady
flowtestsarealsoknownas
falling
headtests.Steadyflowtestsare"standard"
permeability
tests.Forfurtherdiscussion
of low-permeability
testing
methodologies,
seeNeuzil[1986].
t?orosity
estimated
fromdescription
of samples.

Start
Search

148

NEUZIL: HOWPERMEABLEARECLAYSAND SHALES?

Loghydraulic
conductivity,
m.s4
i

-14
I

-2
'

'

-10
1 .......... !

1980;Davis, 1988]whichimpliedthat the permeabilityscale

-8
i

effect in argillaceous rocks could be small.

0.8

.....
iii;;

0.6

0.4

5
4
3

Onlytwo formationsare representedin both Figures! and

Intro
2: the SutherlandTill and the Pierre Shale. Keller et al.
[1989]found that laboratorytests and inverse estimates
Start
yielded comparablevalues of permeability for the Suther.
landTill (compareregion7 in Figure1andregion2 in Figure
2). However, the inverseestimatesapplyto relativelysmall Search
volumeshavingmaximumdimensionsof tens of meters.In
the case of the Pierre Shale, as already noted, basinwide

analysis[Bredehoeft
et al., 1983]yieldeda relativelylarge

0.2

permeability
of 10-16m2 (!0-9 ms-l);thisresultapplies
to
an area with dimensions of hundreds of kilometers. A more
0

-18

-16

recent
study
ofafewkm2portion
ofthebasin[NeuziI,
1993]

-14

Logpermeability,
m2

shows,however,that a muchsmallervalue(region3, Figure

2) appliesthere. Permeability scale dependenceexists,but

Figure 2. Plot of large-scalepermeabilityversusporosity apparentlyonly at greaterthan kilometer scale.This points
for a variety of argillaceousunits derived from inverse to the presenceof transmissivefracturesthat are separated
analysesof flow systems.Permeabilityand hydrauliccon- by distancesof kilometersor more. Note also that manyof
ductivity scalesare as in Figure 1. Dotted lines show data the laboratory values for the Pierre Shale are higher thanthe
from Figure 1 to facilitate comparison.Arrows indicate inverseestimate(compareregion 8, Figure 1 and region3,
results which are upper limits for the permeability.The Figure 2), probably because of deterioration of the core
numbers are keyed to Table 2.
samplesbefore laboratory testing [Neuzil, !993].

The agreement between laboratory and inverse values in

Figures I and 2 is strikingand providesexplicitevidencefor
scale independence of permeability in argillaceousmedia.
Significant fracture permeability apparently is absent in
these materials,which includea highlylithified, low porosity
unit that one would expect to be prone to fracturing(region
7 in Figure 2). This result extends earlier evidence [Brace,

Table 2.
Region
in
Figure 2

1
2

Implications
The increasing speed of digital computers has stimulated
efforts to analyze subsurface fluid flow using numerical
simulation. For example, significant effort has been devoted
to analyzing paleoflow in sedimentary basins becauseof its
relevance to economic minerals and waste disposal.Re.
cently, we have seen studies that have simulated paleof10w

Background Information for Inverse Permeability Estimates Plotted in Figure 2

Formation
(Location)

Lithology
(Mineralogy)

Type of
Analysis

(Barbados
clay, calcareous
transient flow
Accretionary
mudstone
Ridge complex)
Sutherland Group glacial till
transient flow
(Saskatchewan)
(montmorillonite,

Orientation
to Bedding
various

Vertical and
Horizontal
Dimensions

1 and 15 km

Source
Screaton et al.
[ 1990]

normal and <50 and ---10 m

parallel

Keller et aI.
[ 1989]

kaolinite)

Pierre Shale
(Central South
Dakota)

4*

Colorado Group
and Upper
Manville

claystone (mixed

transientflow

normal

0.3 and > 1 km

Neuzil [1993]

layer,
montmorillonite,
illite)
claystone, shale

transient flow

normal

0.5 and > 100 km

Corbet

and

Bethke [1992]

Shales

(Alberta)
5

Gulf of Mexico

6*

Pierre, Cafiile,

clay, shale
transient flow
normal
claystone and shale steady state flow normal

!0 and >300 km
3 and 800 km

Belitz and

Bredehoeft
[1988]

Graneros

Shales (Denver
Basin)
(Siberia)

Bethke [1986a]

"argillaceous

transient flow

normal (?)

rock"

Nesterov and
Ushatinskii as

reportedby
Brace [1980]

*Porosity
range
estimated
fromdepth
andthickness
ofsediments
(T.F.Corbet,
Jr.,Sandia
National
Laboratory,
personal
communication, 1993, and K. Belitz, Dartmouth College, personalcommunication, 1993).

NEUZIL: HOW PERMEABLE ARE CLAYS AND SHALES'?

149

regimes
drivenby compaction
[Bethke,1985;Harrisonand Figures 1 and 2, with the latter based on flow at moderate to

5
4
3

Summa,1991],tectonicdeformation[Deming et al., 1990: low gradients,arguesagainstthe existenceof any significant

Ge and Garven, 1992], topographicrelief [Garven, 1985, non-Darcianeffectsin the media represented.
1989;Bethke, 1986b,Senger and Fogg, 1987],and erosion

Intro

[Senger
etal., 1987].Suchanalyses
areinherently
uncertain

Start

because
the systemhydraulicpropertiesin the geologicpast Conclusions
mustbe estimated.Permeabilitiesor rangesof permeability
Much remainsto be learned about the hydraulic properties
assumed
for argillaceousunits, as in the studiescited above, of clays and shales.For example, we are unable to predict
arecommonly
between10-9 to 10-16m2 (hydraulic
con- how and where heterogeneity(due to depositionalarchitecductivity
of 10-12to 10-9 ms-1) forporosities
lessthan0.4. ture or fracturing)will affectlarge-scalepermeabilityin these
Figures1 and2 suggest
that argillaceous
formations
canbe media. For the present,when explicit data are not available,
much
lesspermeable,
withvaluesin therangeof 10-23to flow analysesmust considera range of permeabilityvalues

10-17m2(10-16to 10-10ms-1) forthesameporosity

range. for argillaceousunits. Unless there is evidence to the conOf course, argillaceous units mapped at large scales fre-

trary, permeability values as low as those indicated in

quently
incorporate
relativelypermeable
subunits
andtheir Figures 1 and 2 should be considered possible even at
permeability
canbe correspondingly
high.Nevertheless,
as regional scales. Values lower than shown, however, probaFigure2 shows,they apparentlycanbe dominated
by their bly need not be considered.Becauselaboratorypermeabilcanvary by a factorof 103,
low-permeability
components.
This probablyis mostoften itiesat similarporosities
true for flow normal to stratification, which is controlled by

stratification in argillaceous sediments may create perme-

theleastpermeablehorizons.
Adoptionof the relatively low permeabilitiesindicatedby
Figures1 and2 wouldresultin reinterpretation
of someflow

ability anisotropyof a similarmagnitude.These conclusions

probably apply to a wide variety of clayey deposits,inasmuch as clayey siltstone and even clayey sandstone are
regimes.
In a topographically
drivenflow systemmediated represented in the data.

byleakagethrougha shale,simulationsusingloweredshale
permeabilities
at basinscale(hundreds
of kilometers)would
indicate reduced rates of fluid transport throughout the

system.Phenomenaassociatedwith advectivefluid transport,suchas petroleumaccumulation

and eraplacement
of
ores,wouldrequiremore time or differentmechanismsthan
originallyindicated.
In geologicallyactive areas, such as the foreland basin
undergoing
tectoniccompressionanalyzedby Ge and Garven[1992],the permeabilityof argillaceoussedimentscan
determinethe degree to which flow is affected by the
geologicactivity. Rock deformation caused by tectonic
compression,
for example,tendsto perturbfluidpressures;a
smallpermeabilitycausesthe perturbationsto persistand
accumulateto significantlevels. A variety of geological
processes
can similarlyaffect fluid pressure[Neuzil, 1986].
Becausethe data presented here suggestpermeabilities
lowerthanusuallyassumed,they also imply that abnormal
pressurescaused by such geologicforcing may occur more

Acknowledgments.
I wishto thankGrantGarven,Ward Sanford,
Dave Rudolph,Craig Bethke, and two anonymousreviewersfor
their helpful commentson this paper.

References

Belitz, K., and J. D. Bredehoeft,Hydrodynamicsof Denver Basin:

Explanationof subnormal
fluidpressure,Am. Assoc.Peri. Geol.
Bull., 72(11), 1334-1359, 1988.

Bethke, C. M., A numericalmodel of compaction-drivengroundwater flow and heat transfer and its application to the paleohydrologyof intracratonicsedimentarybasins,J. Geophys.Res.,
90(B8), 6817-6828, 1985.

Bethke, C. M., Inversehydrologicanalysisof the distributionand

originof Gulf Coast-typegeopressured
zones,J. Geophys.Res.,
9I(B6), 6535-6545, 1986a.

Bethke,C. M., Hydrologicconstraints

on the genesisof the Upper
MississippiValley Mineral Districtfrom Illinois Basinbrines,
Econ. Geol., 81(2), 233-249, 1986b.

Bethke, C. M., Modelingsubsurface

flow in sedimentarybasins,
Geol. Rundsch., 78(1), 129-154, 1989.

readilythanpresentlysupposed.
Thisis consistent
with the Brace,W. F., Permeabilityof crystallineandargillaceous
rocks,Int.
J. Rock Mech. Mitt. Sci., 17(5), 241-245, 1980.
widespread
occurrenceof features suchas thrust faulting
andmultiplegenerationfracturing,which are thoughtto Bredehoeft,J. D., C. E. Neuzil, andP. C. D. Milly, Regionalflow
in the Dakota Aquifer: A studyof the role of confininglayers,
requirehighfluid pressures[Engelder, 1990].
U.S. Geol. Surv. Water SupplyPap., 2237, 45 pp., 1983.
The permeabilitydata presentedhere also have implica- Bryant,W. R., W. Hottman,and P. Trabant,Permeability
of
tionsfor subsurfacewaste isolation, In a broad sense, the

datacan aid characterization of fluid fluxes, which is neces-

unconsolidatedand consolidatedmarine sediments,Gulf of Mexico, Mar. Geotechnolo.,1(1), I-I4, 1975.

R. M., Evidence
offluidflowin microfractures
ingeopressaryfor assessing
the risk of advectingtoxic wastefrom a Capuano,
suredshales,Am. Asso.Petl. Geol.Bull., 77(8),1303-1304,1993.
repository
to the biosphere.Figures1and2, however,have Carman,P. C., Fluidflowthroughgranularbeds,Trans.Inst. Chem.

a directimplicationfor repositorysiting.The absenceof

secondary
permeabilityin someargillaceous
formationsmay
makethemviablerepositoryvenues.
I haveskirtedquestions
aboutthe applicability
of Darcy's
lawin argillaceous
media. Uncertaintyattachesto flow at
moderate
to low hydraulicgradientsin clayeymaterials'in
particular,variousinvestigatorshave describedso-called
threshold
gradientsbelow which clay behavesas if it is
impermeable
[Neuzil,1986].Laboratorytestsusehydraulic
gradients
that are too largeto allowdefinitivetestsof such
non-Darcian
flow models.However, the agreementbetween

Eng., 15, 150-I66, 1937.

Corbet,T. F., andC. M. Bethke,Disequilibrium

fluidpressures
and

groundwater
flowin the westernCanadasedimentary
basin,J.
Geophys.Res., 97(B5),7203-7217,1992.

Davis, S. N., Sandstones

and shales,in The Geologyof North
America, vol. 0-2, ttydrogeology,edited by W. Back, J. S.
Rosenshein,
andP. R. Seabet,pp. 323-332,GeologicalSocietyof
America, Boulder, Colo., 1988.

Davis,S. N., andR. J. M. De Weist,Hydrogeology,

463pp., John
Wiley, New York, 1966.

Deming,D., J. A. Nunn,andD. G. Evans,Thermaleffectsof

compaction-driven
groundwater
flow from overthrust
belts,J.
Geophys.Res., 95(B5),6669-6683,1990.

T., Smoluchowski's
dilemma
revisited:
A noteon the
laboratory
andinversepermeability
estimates
evidentin Engelder,

Search

5
4
3
Intro
!50

NEUZIL:

HOW PERMEABLE

ARE CLAYS AND SHALES?

fluidpressure
history
of thecentral
Appalachian
fold-thrust
belt, temperature
on somephysical
properties
of oceansediments,
j.
Geophys.Res., 89(B1), 511-526, 1984.
in TheRoleof Fluidsin CrustalProcesses,
editedby J. D.
Bredehoeft
andD. L. Norton,pp. 140-147,
National
AcademyNeglia,S., Migrationof fluidsin sedimentary
basins,Am.Assoc.
Press,Washington,D.C., 1990.

Start
Search

Pet. Geol. Bull., 63(4), 573-597, 1979.

Engelder,
T., Stress
Regimes
intheLithosphere,
457pp.,PrincetonNeuzil,C. E.,Groundwater
flowinlow-permeability
environments,
UniversityPress,Princeton,N.J., 1993.

Water Resour. Res., 22(8), 1163-1195, 1986.

Freeze,R. A., andJ. A. Cherry,Groundwater,

604pp.,Prentice-Neuzil, C. E., Low fluid pressurewithin the Pierre Shale:2[
Hall, EnglewoodCliffs, N.J., 1979.

transientresponseto erosion,Water Resour.Res., 29(7),2007-

Garven,G., Theroleofregional
fluidflowin thegenesis
ofthePine 2020, 1993.
Pointdeposit,WesternCanadasedimentary
basin,Econ.Geol., Olsen,
H. W., Hydraulic
flowthrough
saturated
clays,Clays
Clay
80(2), 307-324, 1985.

Miner., 9, 131-161, 1962.

Garven,
G., A hydrogeologic
model
fortheformation
ofthegiantoil Rudolph,D. L., J. A. Cherry,andR. N. Farvolden,Groundwater
sandsdeposits
of the WesternCanadasedimentary
basin,Am. J.
Sci., 289, 105-166, 1989.

flowandsolutetransportin fracturedlacustrineclaynearMexico
City, Water Resour. Res., 27(9), 2187-2201, 1991.

A. E., ThePhysics
of Flow Through
PorousMedia,
Ge, S., andG. Garven,Hydromechanical
modeling
of tectonicallyScheidegger,
3rd ed., 353pp., Universityof TorontoPress,Toronto,Ont.,
drivengroundwater
flowwithapplication
to theArkomaForeland
Basin,J. Geophys.Res., 97(B6),9119-9144,1992.

1974.

1968.

fluidpressures,
andflow ratesin the Barbadosridgecomplex,
J.

E. J., D. R. Wuthrich,andS. J. Dreiss,Permeabilities,

Grim,R. E., ClayMineralogy,596pp., McGraw-Hill,New York, Screaton,
Harrison,W. j., andL. L. Summa,Paleohydrology
of the Gulfof

Geophys. Res., 95(B6), 8997-9007, 1990.

Senger,
R. K., andG. E. Fogg,Regional
underpressuring
in deep
brine
aquifers,
Palo
Duro
Basin,
Texas,
!,
Effects
of
hydrostratig.
Keller,C. K., G. vanderKamp,andJ. A. Cherry,Hydrogeology
of
raphy and topography,Water Resour.Res., 23(8), 1481-1493,
Mexico Basin,Am. Jr. Sci., 291, 109-176, 1991.

two Saskatchewan
tills, I, Fractures,bulk permeability,and
spatialvariabilityof downwardflow,J. Hydrot.,101(1-4),97-121,
1988.

Keller, C. K., G. van der Kamp, and J. A. Cherry,A multiscale

study of the permeabilityof a thick clayey till, Water Resour.
Res., 25(11), 2299-2317, 1989.

Kozeny, J., Uber kapillare Leitung des Wassersim Boden, Sit-

1987.

Senger,R. K., C. W. Kreitler,andG. E. Fogg,Regionalunderpres.

suringin deep brine aquifers, Palo Duro Basin, Texas, 2, The

effectof Cenozoicbasindevelopment,
WaterResour.Res.,25(8),
1494-1504, 1987.

Silva, A. J., J. R. Hetherman, and D. I. Calnan, Low-gradient

permeability testing of fine-grained marine sediments, ASTbf

Special TechnicalPublication 746, edited by T. F. Zimmieand
C. O. Riggs, pp. 12t-136, American Society for Testingand
Lambe, T. W., andR. V. Whitman,Soil Mechanics,553pp., John
Materials, Philadelphia, Penn., 1981.
Wiley, New York, 1969.
Tavenas,F., P. Jean, P. Leblond, and S. Leroueil, The permeability
Lin, W., Measuringthe permeabilityof EleanaArgillitefrom area
of natural soft clays, II, Permeability characteristics, Can. Geo.
17, Nevada Test Site, usingthe transientmethod,Rep. UCRLtech. J., 20(4), 645--660, 1983.
52604, 11 pp., Lawrence Livermore Lab., Livermore, Calif., Young, A., P. F. Low, and A. S. McLatchie, Permeability studies
0f
1978.
argillaceousrocks, J. Geophys. Res., 69(20), 4237--4245,1964.
Magara, K., Compactionand Fluid Migration, 319 pp., Elsevier,
New York, 1978.
C. E. Neuzil, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, 431 National Center,MS
Mitchell, J. K., D. R. Hooper, and R. G. Campanella,Permeability 431, Reston, VA 22092.
of compactedclay, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,
91(SM4), 41-65, 1965.
(Received April 30, 1993; revised October 2, 1993;
Morin, R., and A. J. Silva, The effects of high pressureand high accepted October 19, 1993.)
zungsber. Oesterr. Akad. Wiss. Math. Naturwiss Kl. Abt. 2a,
136(5&6), 27!-307, 1927.