the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reflection seismic imaging of the manganese mineralisation in the Griqualand West Basin, South Africa
Abstract. The Kalahari Manganese Field (KMF) in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa hosts some of the world’s richest manganese deposits, largely concealed beneath thick Cretaceous to Cenozoic Kalahari Group sediments. To improve imaging of the concealed Transvaal Supergroup strata, a high-resolution 2D reflection seismic survey was conducted in November 2023 across the Severn farm area. The survey comprised five profiles totalling 18.9 km, acquired using 5 Hz 1C geophones connected to wireless nodes, enabling effective burial beneath loose aeolian sand for improved coupling. A compact 500 kg drop hammer, mounted on a Bobcat, served as the seismic source, offering excellent manoeuvrability across challenging sandy terrain. Shot spacing was 10 m, with four vertical stacks per shot to enhance signal-to-noise ratio, yielding nearly five million seismic traces. Refraction tomography using first-break travel times provided near-surface P-wave velocity models, revealing variable Kalahari sediment thicknesses ranging from 20 to 70 m and bedrock velocities of ~5500 m/s associated with Karoo Supergroup strata. Despite the challenges posed by the thick sand cover, lithified calcrete horizons within the Kalahari sediments significantly aided seismic energy propagation. Post-stack Kirchhoff time migration imaging revealed nine laterally continuous high-amplitude reflectors between 0.05 and 3.42 km depth, corresponding to major stratigraphic boundaries from the Kalahari Group down to the Ghaap Group. Of particular interest is the moderate-amplitude reflection pair at 1.05–1.35 km depth, interpreted as the Hotazel Formation, the primary manganese host. This study demonstrates that, when appropriately designed, reflection seismic imaging can be a powerful tool for delineating deep mineralized strata beneath thick sedimentary cover in arid environments.
- Preprint
(2613 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3117', Anonymous Referee #1, 29 Jul 2025
In this manuscript, authors presented that five 2D reflection seismic profiles deployed in the Kalahari Manganese Field to improve imaging of the concealed Transvaal Supergroup strata. Nine reflectors and refraction tomography velocity models are revealed through this study.
General comments
Despite actuality and significant work done by the authors, I think that the manuscript should be required major revisions in its current shape for two reasons as follows.
- Main geological interpretation results (Nine reflectors) were presented in the paper titled “Reflection seismic imaging of the manganese mineralisation in the Griqualand West Basin, South Africa” by Joggee et al.(2025), the first and the second authors are also co-authors of the published paper. The difference of the manuscript andtheirprior paper and new findings must be presented in the manuscript.
- Authors stated a lot about data acquisition method to obtain high-quality and -resolution seismic data, not reflection seismic imaging in the conclusion section. They do not correspond to the title of the manuscript. Authors should focus on what you want to present in the manuscript.
Special comments
- Line 65, Figure 1a is not clear. It is important to give regional and local geological maps to help readers understand geological background. A typical lithostratigraphic section is preferable. And the location and layout of seismic survey lines do not need to be shown in Figure 1b, there are displayed in Figure 2.
- Line 181, the recording time of raw shot gather in Figure 5c is 1000 ms,not same with other shot gathers. Is it right? Reflections should be marked in Figure 5c-5e.
- Line 186, main data processing methods and key parameters should be given in a table and examples of raw shot gathers dominated by reflection waves or with clear reflections waves should be shown after data processing in the processing section.
- Line 188, pre-stack migration was applied in this study, but I cannot see any pre-stack migration results in the manuscript. The Kirchhoff post-stack time-migrated seismic sections is stated in the caption of Figure 7. What kind of migration methods did you use?
- Line 199, You may consider to focus on near-surface structure with refraction tomography results.
- Line3 251-270, nine reflectors were interpreted through reflection seismic profiles. However, reflectors numbered 1 and 2 do not agree with the results of your prior results (Joggee et al., 2025). I am wondering if there are your new results .
- Line 274, “stud”should be “study” ?
- Line 292, I don’t understand why you didn’t provide profile 3 result.
- Line 320, profile 3 was also missed in Figure 8.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3117-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3117', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Aug 2025
Overall, the manuscript is clearly written and mostly well structured (see comments in the pdf). However, its novelty appears rather limited compared to Jogee et al. (2025). Most of the processing and interpretation steps are essentially identical to the earlier publication. The only substantial addition seems to be the tomographic component, while even the perspective 3D view and horizon picking were already shown previously—yet these are not included here. To strengthen the contribution, I recommend a more explicit comparison with the earlier work and a clearer demonstration of what is new in this study.
Remarks
Section 3.1:
- Please add a table summarizing the acquisition parameters.
- Please include examples of the seismic data both before and after processing. This would allow readers to better evaluate the impact of your workflow (see also the comments in the pdf).
- Provide a more detailed explanation of how guided waves were handled during processing.
- Currently you are showing less information compared to Jogee et al. (2025)
Section 3.3:
- When describing sediment thicknesses across the profiles, consider including a map of thickness distribution. This would help clarify where the sedimentary cover (low-velocity zone) is thickest and how it may impact image quality.
Figures 7 and 8:
- Profile 3 appears to be missing.
- Ensure that the profiles are displayed with the correct aspect ratio (Profiles 1 and 2 are twice as long as Profile 5).
- Clarify whether different CDP bin sizes were used across the profiles.
Section 4:
- You provide a detailed overview of the expected boundaries. Have you computed a synthetic seismogram from the series of reflection coefficients? This would allow for a direct comparison with the seismic images and could significantly strengthen the interpretation.
- Why is no 3D interpretation or perspective view included here, given that one was already presented in Jogee et al. (2025)?
- Please add interpretation figures for each profile (highlighting the main geological units, etc.), similar to Profile 1 in Figure 12 of Jogee et al. (2025).
-
EC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3117', Christopher Juhlin, 23 Aug 2025
Dear Authors,
Two reviewers have carefully read the manuscript and consider that required revision is necessary before publication. Please fprovide point by point responses to the comments by the reviewers. It is particularly important to emphasize what is new in the paper compared to previous work.
Best Regards,
Chris Juhlin (Guest editor)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3117-EC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
453 | 30 | 13 | 496 | 37 | 51 |
- HTML: 453
- PDF: 30
- XML: 13
- Total: 496
- BibTeX: 37
- EndNote: 51
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1