Abstract

Two gross misconceptions in the paper by Jacobsen are pointed out, one a matter of policy, the other a mechanical error, and then the paper and the accompanying discussions by Paterson and by Zietz are examined. h is shown that there is a poor correlation (50%) in local structure and excellent correlation in general structure between a poor aeromagnetic survey costing less than one cent/acre and seismic subsurface results costing from 100-1000 times as much. The foremost consideration, that of costs, was omitted in Jacobsen's comparison. The unmistakable point of the paper should be the complete adoption of the aeromagnetic method in the initial exploration of any area.

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview
You do not currently have access to this article.