International Journal of ISSN: 24755559 IPCSE
Petrochemical Science & Engineering
Review Article
Volume 1 Issue 3  2016
Study of the LowFrequency Dispersion of Permittivity and Resistivity in Tight Rocks
Hong qi Liu^{1,2}*, JieTian^{2}, Deng Youming^{2} and Qiu Chunning^{2}
^{1}State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Geology and Exploitation, China
^{2}School of Geoscience and Technology, SWPU, China
Received: August 08, 2016  Published: November 11, 2016
*Corresponding author:
Hong qi liu, State Key Laboratory of Oil and Gas Geology and Exploitation, China, Email:
Citation:
Liu HQ, Tian J, Youming D, Chunning Q (2016) Study of the LowFrequency Dispersion of Permittivity and Resistivity in Tight Rocks. Int J Petrochem Sci Eng 1(3): 00011. DOI:
10.15406/ipcse.2016.01.00011
Abstract
This study investigated the frequency dispersion of the resistivity and permittivity in tight rocks of the Daanzhai Group, Jurassic formation, Sichuan Basin. Tight limestone cores were used in the experiment, and the frequency varied from 0.1Hz to 1kHzunder laboratory conditions. The permittivity and resistivity decrease as the frequency increases, but the changing rates of these two parameters are different, as the permittivity exhibits a more obvious dispersion than the resistivity at both low and high frequency. Over the whole frequency range, the change rate of the resistivity is very small and can even be neglected. The change rate of the permittivity, however, is very significant, and its difference reached several orders of magnitude. Besides this phenomenon, the frequency dispersion degree increases as the water saturation and concentration increase. Therefore, we establish a group of equations to describe this relationship between the frequency dispersion and water saturation, and water concentration. Unlike Archie’s equation, which need multiple experimental parameters, the new formula can directly calculate the saturation from R_{P} and C_{P} or from D_{R} and D_{C}, only requiring two variables. Furthermore, frequency scanning test still implicates abundant information, which perhaps characterizes the pore structure, porosity, permeability and other properties of rocks or formations.
Keywords: Lithoelectrical experiment; Resistivity; Permittivity; Frequency dispersion degree; Water saturation; Salinity; Tight rock
Introduction
Resistivity and dielectric permittivity are important physical parameters that govern the propagation of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in porous rocks. The resistivity of rocks has been researched for several centuries, and hundreds of thousands of studies have been published on them [1]. First presented his lithoelectric experiment results and provided an equation to relate the resistivity and saturation of rocks. Thereafter, one can not only qualitatively evaluate the fluids in rocks but also quantitatively calculate the amount of water and hydrocarbons. Generally, the resistivity and permittivity of the rock are functions of the chemical composition, density, porosity, water saturation, in homogeneity, polycrystallinity, lithology and component geometries, which in turn are related to the particle size distribution (or rock texture), rock bulk density, and shape of the rock particles [27]. However, it is difficult to confirm the exact contribution of each physical and petro logical parameter to a sample’s measured dielectric constant. Of all of these aspects, the most dominant factor affecting the dielectric permittivity of rock is its water saturation, including both bound and free water.
The frequency dispersion of the complex dielectric constant provides useful information for geophysicists, petro physicists, and any person interested in rocks. Most published studies have focused on the properties of the dielectric constant at high frequency, usually in the range of kHzto MHz, or even GHz [814]. However, the phenomenon of lowfrequency dispersion (LFD), which is widely observed in many materials, was not been properly recognized until its discovery by the Chelsea Dielectrics Group [15] and the investigation of its properties with increasing precision, as described in the book Dielectric Relaxation in Solids (DRS). Earlier studies proved that most rocks and minerals show dielectric dispersion in the lowfrequency region from a few Hz to several MHz [1618]. At low frequencies, the dielectric dispersion of geological materials is believed to be caused by the polarization associated with charge buildup at the grain boundaries or grain imperfections. However, grain sizes and their distribution also control the frequencydependent ε’ values of the geological samples [19,20]. Many studies confirm that sandstones and other geological materials exhibit [22] dielectric dispersion at low frequencies [16,20,212327].
Although the ColeCole model is a relatively universal equation to depict the polarization and relaxation process for most media, there are still many mechanisms that are not fully understood. Summarized three types of polarization in rocks, namely, electronic, orientational and interfacial, and they noted that the predominance of these regimes depends on the frequency of the external electric field. Each type of polarization will vanish past a certain frequency, which is determined by the inertial moment of the particles in question, frictions and electrostatic forces. They expressed that the electronic polarization, corresponding to rock permittivity, occurs at a range of 1Hz to approximately 1×10^{8}Hz; molecular orientation, corresponding to the water molecular permittivity, occurs at range of 1Hz to approximately 1×10^{10}Hz; and interfacial polarization, corresponding to pore geometry and ions, occurs at a range of 1Hz to approximately 1×10^{16}Hz.
Obviously, in the lowfrequency domain, the dielectric permittivity dispersion bears abundant information about the matrix, shale, fluid and pores, and even the geometry of the pores, their distribution, and the connectivity of the pore throat. For the case of tight reservoirs, a low frequency should be more useful to disclose the mysteries hidden in the rocks. This paper presented an experiment on tight limestone from Daanzhai Group, Jurassic formation, Sichuan Basin, and discussed the results in detail. In this paper, we mainly focused on the characteristics of the permittivity dispersion and its relationships with the saturation and concentration. In addition, we established a group of equations to describe the relationships of the frequency dispersion with the resistivity and permittivity. We defined two variables, D_{R} andD_{C}, to depict the decreasing rate of R_{P} and C_{P}. Based on these two variables, we established a formula to calculate the saturation of samples [28].
Experiment Tests
General description of experiment
We selected tight lime stones out of 18 different lithological rocks, as shown in Figure 1. The specifications of it were listed in Table 1. To simulate the environment of the borehole, unlike usual cores, the samples were 15cm height, 10cm in diameter, and with a hole in middle of the cylinder, named the midhole, with a diameter of 1.5cm, through which the electrodes were placed while measuring. Artificial mud was also injected into this hole to assure that the electrical current can penetrate into the core.
No 
Height
/Cm 
Diameter
/Cm 
MidHole Diameter
/Cm 
Dried Weight
/G 
Volume
/Cm^{3} 
Porosity
/% 
Permeability
/×10^{3}μm^{2} 
16 
15.00 
10.47 
1.43 
3048 
1266.71 
5.90 
0.013 
Table 1: Basic parameters of tight rock sample.
Figure 1: Sample No. 16 of tight rocks from 18 different lithological rocks, all cut with dimensions of 15cm in height and 10cm in diameter, with a midhole of 1.5cm in diameter. No. 16 was drilled from Daanzhai Group, Jurassic formation, middle region of Sichuan Basin. Its porosity is 5.90%, and permeability is 0.013×10^{3}μm^{2}.
We used a LCR Analyzer to detect the resistivity and dielectric permittivity, and BHII high pressure vacuum saturation device to saturate samples with different concentrations of NaCl solute.
We selected carbon fiber as electrodes, which show high electrical stability even in highconcentration salt solutions. First, the artificial mud was injected into the midhole, and then the electrodes were placed into the midhole. The mud can conduct the current into the core so that the electromagnetic field would be almost homogeneously distributed around the borehole at a relative shallow distance from the midhole. This configuration is very similar to real borehole environment of well logging operations.
Experiment processing
First, we prepared three different concentrations of NaCl solution (C_{W}): 0.125mol/L, 0.25mol/L, and 0.5mol/L. Secondly, the samples were dried in microwave oven; and then they were put into a container of BHII, and saturated with NaCl solution of different C_{W}. Subsequently, the electrode was placed into the midhole of the cores, and the last step was to switch on LCR Analyzer, the resistivity and permittivity could be shown on the screen together. The LCR can provide these two parameters Rs, C sin serial and R_{P}, C_{P}, in parallel modes, respectively, where the subscript “s” means series mode, and “p” indicates a parallel mode. For actual situation, generally, borehole is divided into flushed zone, transition zone and uncontaminated zone. The current conducts through these three zones in parallel, so during the experiment, we measured R_{P} and C_{P} in different saturation and NaCl concentration, and the frequency ranged from 0.1Hz to 1kHz. Table 2 listed the dry weight, saturation and concentration of NaCl solution.
0.125
mol/L 
Dry weight/g 
3172.0 
3128.0 
3108.0 
3094.0 
3050.0 
Saturation/% 
88.36 
56.49 
42.01 
31.87 
0.00 
0.25
mol/l 
Dry weight/g 
3178.0 
3138.0 
3116.0 
3070.0 
3050.0 
Saturation/% 
92.71 
63.74 
47.80 
14.49 
0.00 
0.5
mol/l 
Dry weight/g 
3182.0 
3148.0 
3116.0 
3084.0 
3050.0 
Saturation/% 
95.60 
70.98 
47.80 
24.62 
0.0 
Table 2: Water content, saturation and dry weight of Sample.
Parameter Measurement And Data Analysis
Measurement of resistivity and permittivity
During this experiment, we tested the sample with five different saturation, three different concentration, and frequency ranged from 0.1Hz to 1 kHz (the increment is on a logarithm scale), so totally 15 group, each 105 data points of resistivity and permittivity were recorded. Part of the data were presented in Table 3, in which R_{P}1,R_{P}2,…,R_{P}5, correspond to resistivity in parallel in five different saturation, and C_{P}1,C_{P}2,…,C_{P}5 correspond permittivity in parallel. Data in concentration of 0.25mol/L and 0.5mol/L were not listed out take account of the length of the paper Table 3.
F/Hz 
R_{P}1 
R_{P}2 
R_{P}3 
R_{P}4 
R_{P}5 
Sw1=88.36% 
S_{W}2=56.49% 
S_{W}3=42.01% 
S_{W}4=31.87% 
S_{W}5=0% 
0.1 
1.18E+03 
1.27E+03 
2.01E+03 
2.62E+03 
8.14E+03 
24 
8.38E+02 
1.04E+03 
1.61E+03 
2.15E+03 
6.88E+03 
35 
8.32E+02 
1.03E+03 
1.60E+03 
2.14E+03 
6.85E+03 
155.6 
8.10E+02 
1.01E+03 
1.57E+03 
2.11E+03 
6.77E+03 
192 
8.07E+02 
1.00E+03 
1.57E+03 
2.11E+03 
6.76E+03 
225.7 
8.05E+02 
1.00E+03 
1.57E+03 
2.10E+03 
6.75E+03 
280 
8.02E+02 
9.99E+02 
1.56E+03 
2.10E+03 
6.73E+03 
628 
7.93E+02 
9.88E+02 
1.55E+03 
2.08E+03 
6.69E+03 
1000 
7.88E+02 
9.82E+02 
1.54E+03 
2.07E+03 
6.66E+03 
F/Hz 
C_{P}1 
C_{P}2 
C_{P}3 
C_{P}4 
C_{P}5 
S_{W}1=88.36% 
S_{W}2=59.49% 
S_{W}3=42.01% 
S_{W}4=31.87% 
S_{W}5=0% 
0.1 
5.10E04 
3.14E04 
2.05E04 
1.26E04 
2.58E05 
24 
3.82E07 
2.46E07 
1.33E07 
8.12E08 
2.13E08 
35 
2.43E07 
1.59E07 
8.50E08 
5.20E08 
1.38E08 
155.6 
4.36E08 
3.02E08 
1.65E08 
1.05E08 
2.83E09 
192 
3.45E08 
2.42E08 
1.31E08 
8.56E09 
2.30E09 
225.7 
2.89E08 
2.05E08 
1.13E08 
7.24E09 
2.02E09 
280 
2.29E08 
1.63E08 
9.06E09 
5.93E09 
1.65E09 
628 
9.68E09 
7.14E09 
4.14E09 
2.79E09 
8.44E10 
1000 
5.97E09 
4.49E09 
2.66E09 
1.84E09 
5.99E10 
Table 3: Part of resistivity data with concentration of 0.125mol/L (Ω•m).
Data analysis
We wanted to resolved four questions based on the above experimental results:
 What are the characteristics of the frequency dispersion of these two variables in the range of 0.1Hz 1 kHz?
 What is the relationship between the frequency dispersions of these two variables at different saturations?
 What is the relationship between the frequency dispersions of these two variables at different concentrations?
 What are the characteristics of the frequency dispersions of these two variables at high and low frequencies?
Characteristics of frequency dispersion: Based on the results of experiment, Figures 24 show the relationships of resistivity and permittivity’s.Frequency. Figure 2 exhibits five curves, and each one corresponded to different saturation that listed in Table 2. All of these 5 curves were with concentration of 0.125mol/L. Figure 3 shows similar curves corresponding concentration of 0.25mol/L, and Figure 4 shows curves with concentration of 0.5mol/L. From these figures, we can summarize the following laws:
a. Frequency dispersion of resistivity b. Frequency dispersion of permittivity
Figure 2: Frequency dispersion of R_{P} and C_{P} with a concentration of 0.125mol/L.
Left plot: Frequency dispersion of resistivity at different saturations. Each curve obeys almost the same law; that is, the resistivity decreases as the frequency increases, but the changes are near zero. Right plot: Frequency dispersion of permittivity at different saturations. There are very significant differences from the corresponding resistivity curves, especially in the lowfrequency domain.
 When completely saturated, the resistivity decreases with the increasing frequency, and shows almost a direct line on a semilogarithm plot. Very little change occurred over the range from 0.1 Hz to 1 kHz. The permittivity also decreases as the frequency increases, but the decreasing line is a semiparabolic or logarithmic type, with a gradient that is obviously larger than that of resistivity.
 The resistivity and permittivity show the same changing trend vs. different saturations; that is, they all decrease with the increase of saturation.
 However, different saturations result in different change rate; the higher the saturation is, the larger the change in these two variables.
 Figure 45 show similar change trend with Figure 3.
a. Frequency dispersion of R_{P} b. Frequency dispersion of C_{P}
Figure 3: Frequency dispersion of R_{P} and C_{P} at a concentration of 0.25mol/L.
Left plot: Frequency dispersion of resistivity at different saturations. Each curve obeys almost the same law; that is, the resistivity decreases as the frequency increases, but the changes are near zero.
Right plot: Frequency dispersion of permittivity at different saturations with very significant changes from the corresponding resistivity curves, especially in the lowfrequency domain. In addition, at the same saturation, the higher the concentration of NaCl solution in the sample is, the larger is the change in the permittivity curves.
a. Frequency dispersion of R_{P} b. frequency dispersion of C_{P}
Figure 4: Frequency dispersion of R_{P} and C_{P} at a concentration of 0.5mol/L.
Left plot: Frequency dispersion of resistivity at different saturations. Each curve obeys almost the same law; that is, the resistivity decreases as the frequency increases, but the changes are near zero. Right plot: Frequency dispersion of permittivity at different saturations, with very significant changes relative to the corresponding resistivity curve, especially in the lowfrequency domain. At the same saturation, the higher the concentration of NaCl solution in the sample is, the larger is the change in the permittivity curves.
Figure 5: Relation between S_{W} and R_{P}. Resistivity decreases as saturation increases, but at the same saturation, the resistivity does not vary significantly with the frequency changes.
Based on these experimental data, we have established a set of new formulas between R_{P} and C_{P} and frequency, as follows.
C_{W}= 0.125mol/L
S_{W}1=88.36%:R_{P}1=958.57×F^{0.035}(R^{2}=0.8823), C_{P}1=2×10^{5}×F^{1.239}(R^{2}=0.9983);
S_{W}2=59.49%:R_{P}2=1134.7×F^{0.025} (R^{2}=0.9335), C_{P}2=1×10^{5}×F^{1.237}(R^{2}=0.9976);
S_{W}3=42.01%:R_{P}3=1758.1×F^{0.024} (R^{2}=0.8875), C_{P}3=8×10^{6}×F^{1.233}(R^{2}=0.9965);
S_{W}4=31.87%:R_{P}4=2319.3×F^{0.020} (R^{2}=0.8758), C_{P}4=5×10^{6}×F^{1.224}(R^{2}=0.9955);
S_{W}5=0%:R_{P}5=7310.2×F^{0.017} (R^{2}=0.8710), C_{P}5=1×10^{6}×F^{1.192}(R^{2}=0.9952);
Formulas for concentrations of 0.25mol/L and 0.5mol/L had similar exponent form, and were omitted for sake of concise paper. To describe the mathematical relation, we defined two variables.
 Frequency dispersion of resistivity, D_{R}: an exponent that depicts the gradient of the resistivity decrement with the increasing frequency. The subscript R means resistivity.
 Frequency dispersion of permittivity,D_{C}: an exponent that depicts the gradient of permittivity decrement with the increasing frequency, denoted by D_{C}. The subscript C means dielectric permittivity.
A general equation for R_{P} and C_{P}, based on the above formulas, can be rewritten as follows:
$\text{Rp}=\text{A}\times {\text{F}}^{{D}_{R}}$
(1)
$\text{Cp}=\text{B}\times {\text{F}}^{{D}_{C}}$
(2)
Where A and B are constant, which can be got through leastsquare method.
It is well known that Debye presented a dielectric model in 1912, namely Debye Model, to clarify the relation of dielectric and frequency, [22] has more extensive adaptability. Comparing to these two classical models, equation (2) is much easier and succinct.
Relationship between saturation and R_{P}, C_{P}: From the above figures and discussion, we can conclude that although the measurement frequency is different, R_{P} and C_{P} illustrate almost the same trend of variation as functions of the saturation and concentration. We therefore established certain equations to directly calculate the saturation using R_{P} or C_{P}, as shown in Figure 5 & 6. Comparing these two figures, we find that at the same saturation, resistivity has nearly the same value at different measurement frequencies; as for C_{P}, however, has different values at different frequencies.
F=24Hzï¼Œ S_{W} = 44257R_{P}0.896 R² = 0.9931ï¼Œ S_{W} = 2E09C_{P}1.2144 R² = 0.9978
F=35Hzï¼Œ S_{W} = 44285R_{P}0.897 R² = 0.9933ï¼Œ S_{W} = 1E09C_{P}1.2108 R² = 0.9974
F=192Hzï¼ŒS_{W} = 44340R_{P}0.904 R² = 0.9937ï¼Œ S_{W} = 2E10C_{P}1.1455 R² = 0.9974
F=280Hzï¼ŒS_{W} = 44303R_{P}0.905 R² = 0.9937ï¼Œ S_{W} = 2E10C_{P}1.1114 R² = 0.9973
Figure 6: Relation between S_{W} and C_{P}. Permittivity increases with the saturation, and at the same saturation, the permittivity decreases as the measurement frequency increases.
In addition to the R_{P} and C_{P}, we should also note that D_{R} and D_{C} are different for different saturations, and the values of these two parameters at different saturations and concentrations are listed in Table 4. The general rule is that the values are proportional to the saturation. The difference between D_{R} and D_{C} is that the latter is much larger than the former at the same saturation by approximately two orders of magnitude.
Para. 
S_{W}1 
S_{W}2 
S_{W}3 
S_{W}4 
S_{W}5 
D_{R} 
0.035 
0.025 
0.024 
0.02 
0.017 
D_{C} 
1.239 
1.237 
1.233 
1.224 
1.192 
Table 4: D_{R} and D_{C} with different saturations at 0.125mol/L.
This means that there is some implicit relationship between D_{R}, D_{C}and the saturation. Figure 7 shows the relationship of S_{W} vs. D_{R}at concentrations of 0.125mol/L, 0.25mol/L, and 0.5mol/L, and Figure 8 shows the relationship of S_{W} vs. D_{C}at concentrations of 0.125mol/L, 0.25mol/L, and 0.5mol/L.
Figure 7: : S_{W} vs. D_{R} at different concentrations.
The general rule of exponent D_{R} is that the higher the concentration is, the higher the value of D_{R} is at the same saturation. Additionally, D_{R} increases with the saturation at the same concentration. The concentration has a much greater effect on the resistivity frequency dispersion exponent than the saturation.
Figure 8: S_{W} vs. D_{C} at different concentrations. The general rule of exponent D_{C} is that the higher the concentration is, the higher the value of D_{C} is at the same saturation. Additionally, D_{C} is nearly unchanged as the saturation increases at the same concentration. Obviously, the concentration has a much greater effect on the resistivity frequency dispersion exponent than the saturation. Note: A constant of 0.1 was added to the data of D_{R} at a concentration of 0.25mol/L and 0.2 was added at 0.5mol/L to more easily distinguish the curves in the figure. The data of D_{C} were treated in same manner, with 1 added to the concentration of 0.25mol/L and 2 added to 0.5mol/L.
Based on these two figures, we can see that the saturation can be calculated from D_{R}and D_{C}, in accordance with the below equations. The mechanism of this phenomenon will be discussed in another paper.
C_{W}=0.125mol/L: S_{W}=4589.0DR67.308, R^{2}=0.9343, S_{W}=1485.4DC1775.8, R^{2}=0.7828;
C_{W}=0.250mol/L: S_{W}=2652.2DR321.20, R^{2}=0.9540, S_{W}=1444.0DC3233.9, R^{2}=0.9123;
C_{W}=0.500mol/L: S_{W}=2255.9DR512.11, R^{2}=0.9871, S_{W}=1460.5DC4744.0, R^{2}=0.7826.
These equations proofed that frequency dispersion can be used to calculate saturation.
Conclusion
Through the measurement of R_{P} and C_{P} of tight rock sample under different saturation and concentration in the frequency range from 0.1Hz to 1kHz, the properties of R_{P} and C_{P} were investigated in detail. From the results of this experiment, we have discovered some characteristics of the frequency dispersion of resistivity and permittivity. Furthermore, a set of equations and variables to depict the dispersion laws have been constructed in this paper.
We summarize the findings as follows:
 Under the same conditions, the frequency dispersion degree of resistivity is much less than that of permittivity in the whole frequency range;
 The frequency dispersion exponents of resistivity, D_{R}, and permittivity, D_{C}, increase with the saturation;
 The change rates of R_{P} and C_{P} increase with the concentration
 Based on D_{R} and D_{C}, a set of novel equations have been established to calculate water saturation.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful for the financial support from the Basic Science Program of Advanced Well Logging Technology of CNPC (2014A2319) and the Project of Science and Technology Program (G123) of the State Key Lab of Oil and Gas Reservoir Geology and Exploitation of S_{W}PU. We also thank the graduate students Zhou Guangzhao, Xiang Tai, and Feng Hui for their cooperation in this research; they plotted many of the figures and helped edit this paper. The authors are extremely grateful to Professor Zhao Liangxiao, Southwest Oil and Gas Company, for his constructive advice.
Nomenclature
F : Frequency, Hz.
C_{W}: Concentration of NaCl solution, mol/L;
C_{P}: Permittivity, F/m;
R_{P}: Resistivity, Ω·m;
K: Electrode coefficient, cm;
S_{W}: Saturation of water;
D_{R}: Dispersion exponent of resistivity, dimensionless;
D_{C}: Dispersion exponent of permittivity, dimensionless;
A: Coefficient of resistivity, Ω·m;
B: Coefficient of permittivity, F/m;
References
 Archie GE (1942) The electrical resistivity log as an aid in determining some reservoir characteristics. Transactions of the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers 146(1): 5461.
 Alex ZC, Behari J (1996) Complex dielectric permittivity of soils as function of frequency, moisture and texture. Indian J Pure and Applied Physics 34: 319323.
 Alex ZC, Behari J (1998) Laboratory evaluation of permittivity of soils. Int J Remote Sensing 19(7): 13351340.
 Wang JR, O Neill PE, Jackson TJ, Engman ET (1983) Multifrequency measurements of the effects on soil moisture soil texture and surface roughness. IEEE Trans. Geo Sci Remote Sensing Ge21(1): 4450.
 Pelton WH, Smith BD, Sill WR (1984) Interpretation of complex resistivity and dielectric data. J part II: Geophysics Trans 29(4): 1145.
 David PL, Kevin MF (2001) Influence of pore fluid chemistry on the complex conductivity and induced polarization response of Berea sandstones. J Geophysics Research 106(B3): 40794090.
 Seleznev N (2004) Dielectric mixing laws for fully and partially saturated carbonates rocks. SPWLA 45th Annual logging symposium, Netherlands.
 Clark B, Martin GL, Jacques J, Mike Ross, David Best (1988) A dual depth resistivity measurement for FEWD. Trans. 28th SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, USA.
 Clark B, David F Allen, David L, Stephen DB, Jacques J, et al. (1990) Electromagnetic propagation logging while drilling: Theory and Experiment, SPE Formation Evaluation 5(3): 263271.
 Bonner S, JR Tabanou, JP Seydoux, A Moriarty, BK Seal, et al. (1995) New 2MHz multiarray borehole compensated resistivity tool developed for MWD in slim holes. SPE Annual technical conference and exhibition, USA.
 Seleznev N, Boyd A, Habashy T, Luthi SM (2004) Dielectric mixing laws for fully and partially saturated carbonate rocks. SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Netherlands.
 Seleznev N, Tarek M, Austin JB (2006) Formation properties derived from a multifrequency dielectric measurement. SPWLA 45th Annual logging symposium, Mexico.
 Anderson B, BarberT, Lüling M (2006) Observations of large dielectric effects on induction logs, or can source rocks be detected with induction measurements. SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Mexico.
 Anderson B, Barber T, Lüling M, Sen P, Taherian R, et al. (2008) Identifying potential gasproducing shales from large dielectric permittivities measured by induction quadrature signals. SPWLA Annual Logging Symposium, Scotland.
 AK Jonscher (1983) Dielectric Relaxation in Solids. Chelsea Dielectrics Press, London, Uk.
 Saint Amant, MDW Strangway (1970) Dielectric properties of dry geologic materials. Geophysics 35(4): 624645.
 Knight RJ, A Nur (1987) The dielectric constant of sandstones 60 KHz to 4 MHz. Geophysics 52(2): 644654.
 Peter T Wu, John RL, Brain Clark, Stephen DB, Jacques RT (1999) Dielectricindependent 2MHz propagation resistivities, SPE 74th Annual technical conference and exhibition, USA.
 Feng S, PN Sen (1985) Geometrical model of conductive and dielectric properties of partially saturated rocks: Journal of Applied Physics 58: 32363243.
 Lesmes DP, FD Morgan (2001) Dielectric spectroscopy of sedimentary rocks. Journal of Geophysical Research 106(B7): 1332913346.
 Lesmes DP, KF Frye (2001) The influence of pore fluid chemistry on the complex conductivity and induced polarization response of Berea sandstone. Journal of Geophysical Research 106(B7): 40794090.
 Cole KS, RH Cole (1941) Dispersion and absorption in dielectrics. I. Alternating current characteristics. Journal of Chemical Physics 9: 341351.
 Taherian MR, WE Kenyon, KA Safinya (1990) Measurement of dielectric response of watersaturated rocks. Geophysics 55(12): 15301541.
 Dias CA (2000) Developments in a model to describe lowfrequency electric polarization of rocks. Geophysics 65(2): 437451.
 Sengwa RJ, A Soni, B Ram (2004) Dielectric behavior of shales and calcareous sandstone of Jodhpur region. Indian Journal of Radio and Space Physics 33(5): 329335.
 RJ Sengwa, A Soni (2006) Lowfrequency dielectric dispersion and microwave dielectric properties of dry and watersaturated limestones of the Jodhpur region. Geophysics 71(5): 269277.
 Emmanuel Toumelin, Carlos torresverdín (2009) Porescale simulation of kHz GHz electromagnetic dispersion of rocks: effects of rock morphology, pore connectivity, and electrical double layers. SPWLA 50th annual logging symposium, USA.
 Debye PW (1929) Polar Molecules, Chemical Catalog Co, USA.

