Seismic depth imaging of sequence boundaries beneath the New Jersey shelf

  • M. RiedelEmail author
  • S. Reiche
  • K. Aßhoff
  • S. Buske
Original Research Paper


Numerical modelling of fluid flow and transport processes relies on a well-constrained geological model, which is usually provided by seismic reflection surveys. In the New Jersey shelf area a large number of 2D seismic profiles provide an extensive database for constructing a reliable geological model. However, for the purpose of modelling groundwater flow, the seismic data need to be depth-converted which is usually accomplished using complementary data from borehole logs. Due to the limited availability of such data in the New Jersey shelf, we propose a two-stage processing strategy with particular emphasis on reflection tomography and pre-stack depth imaging. We apply this workflow to a seismic section crossing the entire New Jersey shelf. Due to the tomography-based velocity modelling, the processing flow does not depend on the availability of borehole logging data. Nonetheless, we validate our results by comparing the migrated depths of selected geological horizons to borehole core data from the IODP expedition 313 drill sites, located at three positions along our seismic line. The comparison yields that in the top 450 m of the migrated section, most of the selected reflectors were positioned with an accuracy close to the seismic resolution limit (≈ 4 m) for that data. For deeper layers the accuracy still remains within one seismic wavelength for the majority of the tested horizons. These results demonstrate that the processed seismic data provide a reliable basis for constructing a hydrogeological model. Furthermore, the proposed workflow can be applied to other seismic profiles in the New Jersey shelf, which will lead to an even better constrained model.


Seismic imaging Velocity modelling Reflection tomography Groundwater modelling 



This study has been funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) [BU1364/15-1]. We appreciate the constructive comments by two anonymous reviewers and the editor. We thank the Marine Geoscience Data System for providing the seismic data used in this work. We also gratefully acknowledge the Halliburton Software Grant for the Technical University Bergakademie Freiberg, which enabled data processing with their software package SeisSpace® ProMAX®.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Anderson MP, Woessner WW, Hunt RJ (2015) Applied groundwater modeling: simulation of flow and advective transport. Academic Press, San Diego, p 599Google Scholar
  2. Austin JA Jr, Fulthorpe CS, Mountain GS, Orange DL, Field ME (1996) Continental-margin seismic stratigraphy: assessing the preservation potential of heterogeneous geological processes operating on continental shelves and slopes. Oceanography 9(3):173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biondi BL (2007) Concepts and applications in 3D seismic imaging. Distinguished instructor series 10. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bleistein N, Gray SH (2001) From the Hagedoorn imaging technique to Kirchhoff migration and inversion. Geophys Prospect 49:629–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradford JH, Liberty LM, Lyle MW, Clement WP, Hess S (2006) Imaging complex structure in shallow seismic-reflection data using prestack depth migration. Geophysics 71:B175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Browning JV, Miller KG, Sugarman PJ, Barron J, McCarthy FMG, Kulhanek DK, Katz ME, Feigenson MD (2013) Chronology of Eocene–Miocene sequences on the New Jersey shallow shelf: Implications for regional, interregional, and global correlations. Geosphere 9:1434–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cervený V (2001) Seismic ray theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clauser C (2003) Numerical simulation of reactive flow in hot aquifers: SHEMAT and processing SHEMAT. Springer, Heidelberg-Berlin, p 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen D, Person M, Wang P, Gable CW, Hutchinson D, Marksamer A, Dugan B, Kooi H, Groen K, Lizzaralde D, Evans RL, Day-Lewis FD, Lane JW Jr (2010) Origin and extent of fresh paleowaters on the Atlantic continental shelf, USA. Groundwater 48:143–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Deregowski SM (1986) What is DMO? First Break 4(7):7–24Google Scholar
  11. Ebigbo A, Niederau J, Marquart G, Thorwart M, Rabbel W, Pechnig R, Bertani R, Clauser C (2016) Influence of depth, temperature, and structure of a crustal heat source on the geothermal reservoirs of Tuscany: numerical modelling and sensitivity study. Geotherm Energy. Google Scholar
  12. Fulthorpe CS, Austin JA Jr, Mountain GS (1999) Buried fluvial channels off New Jersey: Did sea-level lowstands expose the entire sheld during the Miocene? Geology 27:203–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones IF (2010) An introduction to: velocity model building. EAGE Publications bv, HoutenGoogle Scholar
  14. Kosloff D, Sherwood J, Koren Z, Machet E, Falkovitz Y (1996) Velocity and interface depth determination by tomography of depth migrated gathers. Geophysics 61(5):1511–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kosloff D, Zackhem UI, Koren Z (1997) Subsurface velocity determination by grid tomography of depth migrated gathers. SEG Annual Meeting, expanded abstracts, vol 16, pp 1815–1818Google Scholar
  16. Liao Q, Cai W, La Cruz M, Benkovics L, Ortigosa F (2009) Seismic modeling for structure interpretation in Venezuela’s Sipororo Field. Lead Edge 28:680–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lofi J, Inwood J, Proust J-N, Monteverde DH, Loggia D, Basile C, Otsuka H, Hayashi T, Stadler S, Mottl MJ, Fehr A, Pezard PA (2013) Fresh-water and salt-water distribution in passive margin sediments: Insights from Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 313 on the New Jersey Margin. Geosphere 9(4):1009–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller KG, Browning JV, Mountain GS, Bassetti MA, Monteverde D, Katz ME, Inwood J, Lofi J, Proust J-N (2013a) Sequence boundaries are impedance contrasts: core-seismic-log integration of Oligocene–Miocene sequences, New Jersey shallow shelf. Geosphere 9:1257–1285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller KG, Mountain GS, Browning JV, Katz ME, Monteverde D, Sugarman PJ, Ando H, Bassetti MA, Bjerrum CJ, Hodgson D, Hesselbo S, Karakaya S, Proust J-N, Rabineau M (2013b) Testing sequence stratigraphic models by drilling Miocene foresets on the New Jersey shallow shelf. Geosphere 9:1236–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller KG, Sugarman PJ, Browning JV, Sheridan RE, Kulhanek DK, Monteverde DH, Wehmiller JF, Lombardi C, Feigenson MD (2013c) Pleistocene sequence stratigraphy of the shallow continental shelf, offshore New Jersey: Constraints of Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Leg 313 core holes. Geosphere 9:74–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monteverde DH, Miller KG, Mountain GS (2000) Correlation of offshore seismic profiles with onshore New Jersey Miocene sediments. Sediment Geol 134:111–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Monteverde DH, Mountain GS, Miller KG (2008) Early Miocene sequence development across the New Jersey margin. Basin Res 20:249–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mountain G, Monteverde D (2012) If you’ve got time, we’ve got depth: the importance of accurate core-seismic correlation. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, abstract PP51B-2111Google Scholar
  24. Mountain GS, Burger RL, Delius H, Fulthorpe CS, Austin JA, Goldberg DS, Steckler MS, McHugh CM, Miller KG, Monteverde DH, Orange DL, Pratson LF (2009) The long-term stratigraphic record on continental margins—the long-term record. In: Nittrouer CA, Austin JA Jr, Field ME, Kravitz JH, Syvitski JPM, Wiberg PL (eds), Continental margin sedimentation: from sediment transport to sequence stratigraphy, vol 37. IAS Special Publication, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, pp 381–458Google Scholar
  25. Mountain G, Proust J-N, McInroy D, Cotterill C, the Expedition 313 Scientists (2010) New Jersey Shallow Shelf. Proceedings of the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, vol 313. Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Management International, Inc., Tokyo.
  26. Post VEA, Groen J, Kooi H, Person M, Ge S, Edmunds WM (2013) Offshore fresh groundwater reserves as a global phenomenon. Geophys Prospect 50:373–382Google Scholar
  27. Ryan WBF, Carbotte SM, Coplan JO, O’Hara S, Melkonian A, Arko R, Weissel RA, Ferrini V, Goodwillie A, Nitsche F, Bonczkowski J, Zemsky R (2009) Global multi-resolution topography synthesis. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 10:Q03014. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schneider WA (1978) Integral formulation for migration in two dimensions and three dimensions. Geophysics 43:49–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Steckler MS, Mountain GS, Miller KG, Christie-Blick N (1999) Reconstruction of tertiary progradation and clinoform development on the New Jersey passive margin by 2-D backstripping. Mar Geol 154:399–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Geldern R, Hayashi T, Böttcher ME, Mottl MJ, Barth JAC, Stadler S (2013) Stable isotope geochemistry of pore waters and marine sediments from the New Jersey shelf: methane formation and fluid origin. Geosphere 9(1):96–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Woodward MJ (1998) Automated 3D tomographic velocity analysis of residual move-out in prestack depth migrated common image point gathers. 68th annual SEG meeting, expanded abstracts:1218–1221Google Scholar
  32. Woodward MJ, Nichols D, Zdraveva O, Whitfield P, Johns T (2008) A decade of tomography. Geophysics 73:VE5–VE11CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geosciences and GeographyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Institute for Applied Geophysics and Geothermal EnergyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Geophysics and GeoinformaticsTechnische Universität Bergakademie FreibergFreibergGermany

Personalised recommendations