There Is More To Gravity Interpretations Than The “Complete” Bouguer

There is more to gravity interpretations than the “complete” Bouguer. Moreover, this is a perfect example of gridding algorithms are critical. Next how many of these data have the primary data, such as Latitude, Longitude, Elevation, observed gravity (something in the range of 980,000 mGal), vs. lat, lon, Gcba?

Here is the free-air gravity grid using the calculated free-air gravity using the primary data of the PACES gravity data. The orange outline is a 50 km buffer around the EIA Permain Basin boundary.

Here is an image of my free-air gravity grid using the calculated free-air gravity using the primary data of the PACES gravity data. The orange outline is a 50 km buffer around the EIA Permain Basin boundary.

Ultimately, if you want to use gravity data to de-risk your Permian basin exploration, or any exploration project using gravity, you need to hire Foundation Gravity to integrate modern GNSS located gravity data, if you have it, along with the regional public domain data. Then invert one or more comprehensive 3D geology models incorporating your known (including the seismic surfaces and petrophysical data) and expected geology into the regional 3D geology to remove the far-field gravity effects.

If you want to significantly reduce the ambiguity of the recovered density distribution add in one or more properly designed borehole gravity surveys at the prospect area, and the icing on the cake would be to add airborne gravity gradiometry. All integrated into a geologically consistent and statistically constrained inversion.

Here is the start of a 3D geology interpretation of the Regional Permian basin.

Topo

National elevation dataset.

Basement

The igneous basement integrated using basement interpretations from the, USGS, BRGM, and BEG.

MOHO

The MOHO derived from edited EARs receiver function interpretation.

If anyone wants it, I have a shapefile of a version of the North American NRCAN and PACES land data from not too long ago.