3D seismic-derived bathymetry: a quantitative comparison with multibeam data
- 90 Downloads
This study compares bathymetry extracted from 3D seismic data at two Australian study sites of differing morphological complexities to two sources of collocated multibeam data: 50-m and 5-m multibeam digital bathymetric models (DBMs). Seafloor horizons are extracted from the 3D seismic data and converted to depth using sound velocity profiles collected during seismic acquisition. The resulting seismic-derived DBMs are independent of the multibeam DBMs and are shown to be highly comparable. For the morphologically simple site, the seismic-derived DBM was within ± 2% of the multibeam DBMs and, at 2σ, 95% of differences are in the range − 1.22 to 0.10% (− 1.02 to 0.48%) for the 50-m (5-m) multibeam DBM. For the morphologically complex site, > 80% (> 99%) of seismic-derived depths were within ± 2% (± 5%) of multibeam DBMs. At 2σ, 94% of differences are in the range − 3.48 to 1.69% (− 2.73% to 2.44%) for the 50-m (5-m) multibeam DBM. Increasing morphological complexity and slope angle were the most important factors affecting DBM comparisons, with seismic-derived depths typically underestimated in canyon thalwegs. Despite these differences, the higher data density, multichannel stacking and migration of the 3D seismic data resulted in seismic-derived DBMs with high resolution and improved feature relief and clarity when compared to multibeam DBMs for the conditions in this study (depths of 120–1900 m), particularly for morphological features such as individual rills and gullies. This method has the potential to expand the spatial coverage of high-resolution DBMs, for example, in Australia, by over 150,000 km2.
Keywords3D seismic Multibeam Bathymetry Digital bathymetric model Seafloor morphology
The authors thank Scott Nicholl, Kim Picard, and George Bernadel from Geoscience Australia for comments on an earlier version of this work and Robert Parums from Geoscience Australia for providing bathymetry data. The authors thank Kaya Wilson for constructive comments on an early version of the manuscript as well as Robin Beaman and an anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments.
H.E.P. and S.L.C. analysed the data; H.E.P. obtained the 3D seismic data; H.E.P. and S.L.C. wrote the paper.
Funding for this work was provided by a start-up grant to H.E.P. from the University of Newcastle.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 5m CSIRO Multibeam Bathymetry 2015 (2019). Geoscience Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Barnes PM, Lamarche G, Bialas J, Henrys S, Pecher I, Netzeband GL, Greinert J, Mountjoy JJ, Pedley K, Crutchley G (2010) Tectonic and geological framework for gas hydrates and cold seeps on the Hikurangi subduction margin, New Zealand. Mar Geol 272:26–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2009.03.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clarke S, Hubble T, Webster J, Airey D, de Carli E, Ferraz C, Reimer P, Boyd R, Keene J, Shipboard party SS12/2008 (2016) Sedimentology, structure and age estimate of five continental slope submarine landslides, eastern Australia. Aust J Earth Sci 63:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08120099.2016.1225600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Conti A, D’Emidio M, Macelloni L, Lutken C, Asper V, Woolsey M, Jarnagin R, Diercks A, Highsmith RC (2016) Morpho-acoustic characterization of natural seepage features near the Macondo wellhead (ECOGIG site OC26, Gulf of Mexico). Deep Sea Res Part II: Topical Studies Oceanography 129:53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2015.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cross V, Twichell D, Foster D, O'Brien T (2012) Apalachicola Bay interpreted seismic horizons and updated IRIS chirp seismic-reflection data. US Geological Survey,Google Scholar
- Hammerstad E, Pohner F, Parthiot F, Bennett J (1991) Field testing of a new deep water multibeam echo sounder. In: OCEANS'91. Ocean technologies and opportunities in the Pacific for the 90's. Proceedings. IEEE, pp 743–749Google Scholar
- Heggland R (1998) Gas seepage as an indicator of deeper prospective reservoirs. A study based on exploration 3D seismic data. In: Gas seepage as an indicator of deeper prospective reservoirs. A study based on exploration 3D seismic data marine and petroleum geology, vol 15, pp 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8172(97)00060-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hubble T, De Carli E (2015) Mechanisms and processes of the millennium drought river bank failures: lower Murray River, South Australia Goyder Institute for Water Research Technical ReportGoogle Scholar
- L’Heureux J-S, Hansen L, Longva O, Emdal A, Grande L (2010) A multidisciplinary study of submarine landslides at the Nidelva fjord delta, Central Norway–implications for geohazards assessments. Nor J Geol 90:1–20Google Scholar
- Laberg JS, Kawamura K, Amundsen H, Baeten N, Forwick M, Rydningen TA, Vorren TO (2014) A submarine landslide complex affecting the Jan Mayen ridge, Norwegian–Greenland Sea: slide-scar morphology and processes of sediment evacuation. Geo-Mar Lett 34:51–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-013-0345-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lark RM, Marchant BP, Dove D, Green SL, Stewart H, Diesing M (2015) Combining observations with acoustic swath bathymetry and backscatter to map seabed sediment texture classes: the empirical best linear unbiased predictor. Sediment Geol 328:17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2015.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Masson DG, Wynn RB, Talling PJ (2010) Large Landslides on Passive Continental Margins: Processes, Hypotheses and Outstanding Questions. In: Large landslides on passive continental margins: processes, hypotheses and outstanding questions vol 28. Submarine mass movements and their consequences. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3071-9_13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mosher DC, LaPierre AB, Hughes-Clarke JE, Gilbert GR 2002 Theoretical comparison of seafloor surface renders from multibeam sonar and 3D seismic exploration data. In: Offshore Technology Conference, Houstan, Texas, U.S.A., 6–9 May 2002. p OTC 14272Google Scholar
- Parums R, Spinoccia M (2018) 50m multibeam dataset of Australia 2018. Geoscience Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Project D3 (2019) Implementing monitoring of AMPs and the status of marine biodiversity assets on the continental shelf. National Environmental Science Programme. https://www.nespmarine.edu.au/project/project-d3-implementing-monitoring-amps-and-status-marine-biodiversity-assets-continental. Accessed 17-Jul 2019
- Rutledge A, Leonard D (2001) Role of multibeam sonar in oil and gas exploration and development. In: Offshore technology conference. Offshore Technology Conference, HoustonGoogle Scholar
- Wilson O, Buchanan C, Spinoccia M (2012) 50m multibeam dataset of Australia 2012. Geoscience Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- Yerramilli SS, Yerramilli RC, Vedanti N, Sen MK, Srivastava RP (2013) Integrated reservoir characterization of an unconventional reservoir using 3D seismic and well log data: a case study of Balol field, India. 2013/1/1/Google Scholar
- Zakhour N, Shoemaker M, Lee D (2015) Integrated workflow using 3D seismic and Geomechanical properties with microseismic and stimulation data to optimize completion methodologies: Wolfcamp shale-oil play case study in the Midland Basin. 2015/10/13/Google Scholar