Reply by the authors to N. C. Steenland

Abstract

The comments made by N. C. Steenland address issues of the aeromagnetic interpretation and gravity data inconsistencies. These comments will be addressed individually. The authors are very familiar with the method of aeromagnetic exploration having used it in various countries, geologic environments and applications. The technique is extremely powerful when used appropriately, and magnetics were not discounted summarily. In any paper on exploration we believe it is important that all results be discussed, and a worse disservice to the industry would have been to ignore aeromagnetics. Indeed, we would have expected criticism had we not reported on our findings about the applicability of magnetics on the Columbia River Basalts (CRB). It is our experience that working with other basalts of different ages and sources, such as the Snake River Basalt example discussed by the reviewer, may not be a guarantee of obtaining appropriate interpretations elsewhere.