Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

Journal of the Geological Society

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Wall, M.L.T. Articles by Davies, R.J. GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Reply to discussion on ‘An Eocene age for the proposed Silverpit Impact Crater' Journal, Vol. 165, 781–794

¹ 3DLab, School of Earth, Ocean and Planetary Sciences, Cardiff University, Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3YE, UK
² Present address: StatoilHydro ASA, NO-0246, Oslo, Norway
³ CeREES (Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems), Department of Earth Sciences, University of Durham, Science Labs, Durham DH1 3LE, UK

*Corresponding author (e-mail: mostynwall@hotmail.com)

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

We welcome the opportunity to further clarify aspects of our paper and challenge key elements of Owen's discussion and the inferences he makes regarding the rigour our interpretations and those of previous workers on the origin of the Silverpit structure. We deal with each of his comments in the order that he raises them.

Owen refers to the interpretation of the Silverpit structure as an impact crater as a ‘speculative hypothesis'. This is consistent with an earlier statement he has made: ‘This feature, termed the Silverpit Crater, has earlier been interpreted as a meteor impact structure (Stewart & Allen 2002), without a shred of scientific justification' (Thomson et al. 2005). The inference that the hypothesis lacks any observational basis disregards a wealth of 3D seismic analysis by Stewart & Allen (2002, 2005). The statement is at best disingenuous, as Owen chooses to ignore the thorough work of earlier workers. Although all the observations for and against a impact origin are based upon 3D seismic data and there are as yet no other independent supportive lines of evidence we would highlight the vast body of work on impact cratering and the numerous impact craters on planetary bodies that have been identified purely from their surface morphology (Melosh 1989); in other words, the absence of shocked quartz and other impact criteria does not invalidate the impact crater interpretation. We have been very careful to term the Silverpit structure a ‘probable impact crater' and will continue to do so until such unequivocal evidence is discovered.

In our paper we identify a key reflection that . . . [Full Text of this Article]