Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
The Leading Edge Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Leading Edge; May 2005; v. 24; no. 5; p. 477-480; DOI: 10.1190/1.1926799
© 2005 Society of Exploration Geophysicists
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hill, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

INTERPRETER'S CORNER

Inversion-based thickness determination

Stephen J. Hill

Golden, Colorado, USA

Corresponding author: stevejhill{at}earthlink.net

Abstract

We are familiar with the claim that seismic inversion improves resolution—something I routinely dismissed as advertising until an article on Alpine Field by Gingrich et al. (TLE, 2001) awakened my curiosity. That article described how impedance data were used to determine thickness and, in order to understand the reasons for the success of their impedance-based method for thickness determination, I created simple seismic models. Much to my surprise, these models substantiate the claim that impedance data allow us to directly measure thicknesses even below the "tuning thickness" that limits a similar approach with the original amplitude data.






JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Society of Exploration Geophysicists