364 S. G. KoMAROV and Z. I. Keivsar 



As can be seen from Table 2, the use of the curves suggested by Sultanov 

 and DoBRYNiN Q ^/(Kp^^^^) does not lead to a noticeable reduction in the 

 errors; therefore, these curves have no advantages over the Dolina and 

 MoROZOV curves. 



The justice of this conclusion will be apparent if we study carefully the 

 curves, which were suggested by Sultanov and Dobrynin, and which express 

 the relationship between the coefficient of increase in resistance and the per- 

 meabihty and porosity. As can readily be seen, this relationship can be 

 approximately represented by the formula 



The possibility of the connection of such an artificial character is doubtful. 

 Tiks'e,* Wyllie and Rose (^^^ i^), starting from theoretical considerations, 

 give the following expression for the interstitial water saturation K^.^ : 



TTl 



Kr.w. =^ C .-— , (13) 



where K. is the permeability in millidarcies : 

 m is the porosity in relative units; 

 C is a constant usually taken as ten. 

 It is shown that in the general case, C is the following function of the 

 porosity: 



w? 

 (072)' 



C-^^-rn^,- (14) 



Assuming that Q = K^^ , we obtain 



C = #^. (15) 



This dependence for C == 10 and m = 0.2 is shown by the curve 3 on 

 Fig. 2. The formula was not checked. However, starting from the fact that 

 the corresponding curve has the same character as the other curve (Dolina, 

 Dakhnov, Morozov, Sultan ov-Dobrynin), it can be considered that 

 the use of the formula of Wyllie and Rose will not lead to an improvement 

 in the results for determining permeabihty from the specific resistance. 



FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF ERRORS IN THE DETERMINATION 

 OF PERMEABILITY FROM THE SPECIFIC RESISTANCE 



The large error in the determination of permeability by the specific 

 resistance can be connected with a systematic error due to the fact that the 



* Possibly a transliteration of a French name. 



