Quick
Search: 		  
advanced search
 GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help 
The Leading Edge Don't get GSW? Talk to your librarian.
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Leading Edge; November 2000; v. 19; no. 11; p. 1187; DOI: 10.1190/1.1438502
© 2000 Society of Exploration Geophysicists
This Article
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 Castagna, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content

An introduction to this special section

AVO: The Next Step

John Castagna

University of Oklahoma

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

It should not be possible to use amplitude variation with offset to detect hydrocarbons. Any physicist can tell you that the mathematical inversion of even the most perfect AVO data is nonunique. I often take pride in my ability to beautifully model prestack gathers for giant gas fields without requiring VP/VS ratios of the kind expected for gas-bearing rocks. In fact, any AVO anomaly can be explained with an appropriate combination of nonreservoir rocks.

So AVO doesn't work. Right? Wrong. There are places in the world . . . [Full Text of this Article]






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