Skip to Main Content

Abstract

The foregoing text and illustrations have attempted to point out the possibilities and limitations of gravity and magnetic methods in petroleum expioration. Some readers may be more impressed by the limitations, particularly the ambiguity and lack of precise results in terms of form, depth, and geological definition which result from applications of these methods. On the other hand it is hoped that the possibilities of the methods may be better appreciated and that a greater participation of “the other five percent” in the overall petroleum exploration picture may be encouraged.

Since petroleum exploration is now very much dominated by the reflection seismic method it may be well to point out more specifically than is generally appreciated the relations between the potential and the seismic methods and their complementary contributions to overall understanding of the subsurface geology.

The ideal order of application of the three geophysical methods would be first, reconnaissance with airborne magnetics, followed by gravity surveys in a degree of detail depending on the geological objectives and the facility of getting over the surface, and finally by reconnaissance and detailed reflection-seismograph surveys with the detailing being directed to those areas where gravity or magnetics or both point to a feature of particular interest. This idealized overall exploration approach is rarely used, partly because of land or concession or competitive considerations, and partly because of a lack of appreciation of the complementary nature of the different geophysical methods. In many instances the argument is used that an area probably will be covered eventually by the reflection seismograph method and that having

You do not currently have access to this chapter.

Figures & Tables

Contents

GeoRef

References

Related

Citing Books via

Close Modal
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal