Discussion

 The hemipelagic samples used in this study were well confined within the limits of

Neuzil's (1994) plot of argillaceous sediments. Although hemipelagic samples plotted in

the same region, the predicted permeability-porosity relationships varied with location.

In the case of Barbados, the permeability-porosity relationship showed scatter even

within an individual location due to variations found in the hemipelagic sediments.

These varying relationships suggest that samples categorized as "hemipelagics" could

have different permeability-porosity relationships at different locations. Thus, combined

classification of both depositional environment and location may provide better

correlation between permeability and porosity.

 In general the observed differences in the log permeability-porosity relationship

appears correlated to the amount of clay and silt size particles present in the sample.

Except for Group 1, our predicted permeability-porosity relationships based on grain size

distribution are in good agreement with the relationships of Bryant (2002). Groups 2 and

3 exhibited similar trends as those predicted by Bryant's (2002). This similarity suggests

that even though samples were taken from different subduction zones, samples classified

based on their grain size distribution exhibit similar trends between permeability and

porosity compared to those samples that were taken from a single location (e.g., Bryant's

(2002) samples from Gulf of Mexico). Thus, it could be concluded that the permeability-

porosity relationships obtained based on grain size distribution are generally applicable to

samples from marine settings. However, additional data, particularly in Group 1, would

further test this conclusion.

 At high porosities, the relationship predicted for the siliceous oozes suggests

similar permeabilities to those predicted for hemipelagic sediments. However, there were