the Barbados hemipelagics. When six of the data points, which were obtained from

Taylor and Leonard (1990), were removed from the regression, the R2 value of the

remaining 19 samples increased from 0.20 to 0.50, predicting a permeability-porosity

relationship of log (k)=-24.24 + 11.3 In. Although statistically this makes the six data

points outliers, a closer look at the lithological descriptions, grain size data and CaCO3

percentages suggest that the hemipelagics samples used by Taylor and Leonard (1990)

are likely to be different from the rest of the hemipelagics sediments representative of

Barbados because samples used by Taylor and Leonard (1990) represented calcareous

muds whereas other samples represented claystones.

 Even though many of the samples from Barbados, Nankai, and Costa Rica fall in

the depositional classification of"hemipelagics", they are not well represented by the

same permeability-porosity relationship (log (k) = -19.91+4.9n, R2 = 0.5). The Barbados

permeability-porosity relationship predicts similar values of permeability to Nankai and

Costa Rica relationships at porosities between 0.55-0.70 (Table 2-1). However, at lower

porosities the Barbados permeability relationship predicts lower values than those of

Costa Rica and Nankai. Because Barbados permeabilities are constrained by a small

range of porosities, one should be cautious outside the porosity range of the laboratory

results. The log-linear relationships for Nankai and Costa Rica plot roughly parallel to

each other with slightly lower permeabilities at Costa Rica for a given porosity than at

Nankai (Figure 2-6). The R2 value obtained for Nankai was 0.79 while for Costa Rica it

was 0.70 suggesting reasonable correlation between permeability and porosity at these

two locations. The R2 value obtained for the log linear relationships for the calcareous

oozes were less than 0.5 while for the siliceous oozes it is greater than 0.5 (Figure 2-6).