We welcome N. C. Steenland’s (1977) discussion of our paper. His objections center mainly on the discrepancy of depth estimates to “basement” inferred from earlier refraction and magnetic studies and our work. We think that our study points up the soundness of the data in the earlier work, and a difference in the interpretation that can be made from it using additional reflection data.
Steenland’s comments concern the estimation of depth to basement as inferred from three different geophysical techniques: seismic refraction, seismic reflection, and magnetics. Whereas the early refraction data detected high-velocity refractors at depths of 5 to 5½...
You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
