This presentation has a message as a seismic interpreter from my own experience on the use of potential methods for those who explore oil and gas, following the idea that there is a wider range of geophysical techniques that include magnetic, gravity, and seismic, among others. It is factual that 3D seismic remains critical, indeed indispensable, but a full geophysicist interpreter should have good knowledge, under favorable conditions also applied, that the combination of magnetic and gravity with seismic, can be used to reduce risk at key stages of the E&P process. However, inherent interpretationś ambiguity is the main argument against it. Contrary to this widespread notion, although, magnetic and gravity methods are equally effective for reducing risk at the more local scale typified by the prospect itself, even more in the Neuquén basin after three continuous decades of 3D seismic recording: not only in frontier areas but also in mature areas. Before that, I show that predictions in seismic interpretation may also have uncertainty: to identify ambiguous amplitude anomalies, or to imaging the structure and stratigraphic features, for example. The methodology will briefly review the conventional application of magnetic and gravity involved in comparing: the magnetics’ basement conversion to depth with respect to seismic image, attributes such as curvature to compare at regional scale with faults patterns, estimation of density distribution from modeling, and inversion. The examples used to illustrate my views have been taken from case studies that have 3D seismic, both in areas of Development, Exploration blocks, or New Frontier. The lesson learned suggests that oil companies should eventually have specialists who possess knowledge in potential and seismic methods to support interpretation, and who disseminate and advise innovative and robust solutions in the search for new resources