Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

3D seismic-derived bathymetry: a quantitative comparison with multibeam data

  • Original
  • Published:
Geo-Marine Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 5m CSIRO Multibeam Bathymetry 2015 (2019). Geoscience Australia, Canberra

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd R, Ruming K, Roberts JJ (2004) Geomorphology and surficial sediments on the southeast Australian continental margin. Aust J Earth Sci 51:743–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown CJ, Smith SJ, Lawton P, Anderson JT (2011) Benthic habitat mapping: a review of progress towards improved understanding of the spatial ecology of the seafloor using acoustic techniques. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 92:502–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulat J (2005) Some considerations on the interpretation of seabed images based on commercial 3D seismic in the Faroe-Shetland Channel. Basin Ress 17:21–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2117.2005.00253.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulat J, Long D (2001) Images of the seabed in the Faroe-Shetland Channel from commercial 3D seismic data. Mar Geophys Res 22:345–367. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016343431386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chand S, Rise L, Ottesen D, Dolan MFJ, Bellec V, Bøe R (2009) Pockmark-like depressions near the Goliat hydrocarbon field, Barents Sea: morphology and genesis. Mar Petrol Geol 26:1035–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2008.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chand S et al (2012) Multiple episodes of fluid flow in the SW Barents Sea (Loppa high) evidenced by gas flares, pockmarks and gas hydrate accumulation. Earth Planet Sci Lett 331:305–314

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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,

  • Fatti J, Smith G, Vail P, Strauss P, Levitt P (1994) Detection of gas in sandstone reservoirs using AVO analysis: a 3-D seismic case history using the Geostack technique. GEOPHYSICS 59:1362–1376. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1443695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujiwara T, Kodaira S, No T, Kaiho Y, Takahashi N, Kaneda Y (2011) The 2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake: displacement reaching the trench Axis. Science 334:1240–1240. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1211554

    Article  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 743–749

  • Heggland R (1997) Detection of gas migration from a deep source by the use of exploration 3D seismic data. Marine Geology 137:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(96)00077-1

    Article  Google 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

    Chapter  Google 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 Report

  • Jakobsson M, Macnab R, Mayer L, Anderson R, Edwards M, Hatzky J, Schenke HW, Johnson P (2008) An improved bathymetric portrayal of the Arctic Ocean: implications for ocean modeling and geological, geophysical and oceanographic analyses. Geophys Res Lett 35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jibrin BW, Reston TJ, Westbrook GK (2013) Seismic-derived seabed topography: insights from the outer fold and thrust belt in the deep-water Niger Delta. Lead Edge 32:420–423

    Article  Google 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 90:1–20

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Chapter  Google 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 14272

  • Mosher D, Bigg S, LaPierre A (2006) 3D seismic versus multibeam sonar seafloor surface renderings for geohazard assessment: case examples from the central Scotian slope. Lead Edge 25:1484–1494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parums R, Spinoccia M (2018) 50m multibeam dataset of Australia 2018. Geoscience Australia, Canberra

  • 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, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroot BM, Schüttenhelm RTE (2003) Shallow gas and gas seepage: expressions on seismic and otheracoustic data from the Netherlands North Sea. J Geochem Explor 78:305–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6742(03)00112-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen A, Ondréas H, Gaillot A, Marcon Y, Augustin J-M, Olu K (2016) The use of multibeam backscatter and bathymetry as a means of identifying faunal assemblages in a deep-sea cold seep. Deep Sea Res Part I: Oceanogr Res Pap 110:33–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2016.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talling PJ, Paull CK, Piper DJ (2013) How are subaqueous sediment density flows triggered, what is their internal structure and how does it evolve? Direct observations from monitoring of active flows. Earth-Sci Rev 125:244–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walbridge S, Slocum N, Pobuda M, Wright DJ (2018) Unified geomorphological analysis workflows with benthic terrain modeler. Geosciences 8:94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessel P, Sandwell DT, Kim S-S (2010) The global seamount census. Oceanography 23:24–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson O, Buchanan C, Spinoccia M (2012) 50m multibeam dataset of Australia 2012. Geoscience Australia, Canberra

  • 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/

  • 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/

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Funding

Funding for this work was provided by a start-up grant to H.E.P. from the University of Newcastle.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia

    H. E. Power

  2. School of Geoscience, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia

    S. L. Clarke

Authors
  1. H. E. Power
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. L. Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

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.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. E. Power.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Power, H.E., Clarke, S.L. 3D seismic-derived bathymetry: a quantitative comparison with multibeam data. Geo-Mar Lett 39, 447–467 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-019-00596-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00367-019-00596-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation