Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Geology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/margo

Methane seeps on the U.S. Atlantic margin: An updated inventory and

interpretative framework
C.D. Ruppel a, *, A.D. Skarke b, N.C. Miller a, M.W. Kidiwela b, c, J. Kluesner d, W. Baldwin a
a
U.S. Geological Survey, Woods Hole, MA, USA
b
Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, MS, USA
c
Now at: School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
d
U.S. Geological Survey, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Michele Rebesco Since the discovery of >570 methane flares on the northern U.S. Atlantic margin between Cape Hatteras and
Georges Bank in the last decade, the acquisition of thousands of kilometers of additional water column imaging
Keywords: data has provided greater coverage at water depths between the outer continental shelf and the lower continental
Cold seep slope. The additional high-resolution data reveal >1400 gas flares, but the removal of probable duplicates from
Northwest Atlantic Ocean
the combined database of new flares and those recognized in 2014 yields ~1139 unique sites. Most of these sites
Gas hydrate
occur in clusters of 5 or more seeps, leaving about 275 unique locations (including 47 clusters) for seepage along
Fluid migration
Methane the margin. As a function of depth, seep distribution is heavily skewed toward the upper continental slope at
water depths shallower than 400 m on the southern New England margin and ~ 550 m in the Mid-Atlantic Bight,
with additional seeps clustered at ~1100 m and just deeper than ~1400 m in both sectors. Despite little ongoing
tectonic deformation or active faulting on this passive margin, a variety of processes driven from below the
seafloor (e.g., migration of fluids along faults or through permeable strata, seepage above diapirs or other pre-
existing structures) and from above (e.g., erosion, sapping, unroofing) contribute to the development of seeps in
different settings along the margin. In addition, the prevalence of seeps on promontories overlooking shelf-
breaking canyons may be directly related to the three-dimensional nature of the hydrate stability zone in
these locations. As a function of depth, the parts of the slope at the contemporary landward limit of gas hydrate
stability are devoid of seeps, and the upper slope zones with the most concentrated seepage were not within the
gas hydrate stability zone even during the Last Glacial Maximum. Thus, if the large number of upper slope seeps
is at least partially sourced in gas hydrate degradation, the gas emitted at these seeps must have migrated there
from greater depths on the continental slope.

1. Introduction
A decade ago, Skarke et al. (2014) published an analysis and asso­
ciated database for >570 newly-discovered water column methane
plumes along a ~ 900 km section of the northern U.S. Atlantic margin
(USAM) between Cape Hatteras and Georges Bank. Prior to that study,
fewer than five cold seeps had been explicitly mapped on the entire
margin, with most of these located above salt diapirs in the South
Atlantic Bight (Van Dover et al., 2003; L. Brothers et al., 2013b). Skarke
et al. (2014) demonstrated that the newly-mapped water column
anomalies could be traced to seafloor gas seeps, explored the reasons
that emissions had to be dominated by methane, described patterns of
seep clustering relative to seafloor features, and explored possible con­
trols on seep location and evolution. In the intervening decade,
numerous studies have built on the USAM seeps discovery to investigate
changing ocean chemistry and possible sea-air methane exchange
(Weinstein et al., 2016; Ruppel and Kessler, 2017; Garcia-Tigreros et al.,
2021; Joung et al., 2022); the fate of emitted methane in the water
column (Fu et al., 2021); the seafloor processes associated with methane
generation, migration, and seepage (Pohlman et al., 2017; Ruppel and
Waite, 2020; Ruppel et al., 2022); the characteristics of seep benthic
communities (Quattrini et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 2016; Bourque et al.,
2017; McVeigh et al., 2018; Portanier et al., 2023; Turner et al., 2020);
and the strength and nature of the water column and seafloor oxidative

* Corresponding author at: U.S. Geological Survey, 384 Woods Hole Rd, Woods Hole, MA 02543, USA.
E-mail address: cruppel@usgs.gov (C.D. Ruppel).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2024.107287
Received 26 November 2023; Received in revised form 1 April 2024; Accepted 8 April 2024
Available online 9 April 2024
0025-3227/Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

sinks (e.g., Prouty et al., 2016, 2020; Leonte et al., 2020).
The USAM seeps were discovered as researchers were beginning to
routinely record water column imaging data acquired during multibeam
echosounder (MBES) bathymetric surveys. As it became possible to re­
cord and store the very large water column data (WCD) digital files,
researchers began conducting more frequent post-cruise analyses to
locate gas bubble plumes in WCD imagery and link the plumes to sea­
floor seeps. The seeps database published with Skarke et al. (2014)
relied exclusively on multibeam WCD acquired by the National Ocean
and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) Office of Ocean Explora­
tion and Research (OER) during surveys with the Okeanos Explorer be­
tween 2011 and 2013. Since that time, many additional research cruises
have been conducted on the USAM. Surveys by NOAA OER, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), and others have acquired thousands of ki­
lometers of data to facilitate robust identification of water column gas
plumes (e.g., Baldwin et al., 2020b; L. Brothers et al., 2013b; Ruppel
et al., 2018). As documented in this paper (Fig. 1) and the associated
seeps database release (Skarke et al., 2024), these surveys have identi­
fied hundreds of new water column plumes (Skarke et al., 2024) that
significantly expand the original database published by Skarke et al.
(2014).
This paper provides an updated analysis and the first in-depth
interpretation of cold seep distribution on the USAM. We explore the
processes contributing to the evolution and persistence of seeps in USAM
settings characterized by different water depths, geologic features, and
sedimentary/erosional regimes. We also explicitly address the role of gas
hydrate dynamics in contributing to seep evolution and continued
emissions, a topic that remains controversial within the seep commu­
nity. Throughout this paper, we remain consistent with the existing
scientific literature and refer to seep locations (Table 1) using the names
documented in Skarke et al. (2014) or assigned by NOAA OER and
related programs during remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) dives.
2. Geologic setting
Seep evolution on the USAM outer shelf and continental slope has
been influenced by older tectonic features overprinted by patterns of
more recent deposition, erosion, and mass wasting, especially since the
end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; ~20 ka). The USAM is a passive
margin formed by the rifting of northwestern Africa from North America
starting in the Late Jurassic (Withjack et al., 2020). Onshore, the rifting
event produced discrete basins that stretch the entire length of the
USAM beneath the contemporary coastal plain. The two primary
offshore basins are the Baltimore Canyon Trough, which lies mostly

Fig. 1. The northern U.S. Atlantic margin with the updated seeps database (duplicates removed; Skarke et al., 2024) shown as red circles. The area surveyed for
Skarke et al. (2014) is shown in gray, and the light blue outline encloses the tracklines for the new surveys used to support this study. The white lines labelled MX
denote seismic data collected on the 2018 MATRIX cruise (Majumdar et al., 2022; Baldwin et al., 2020a). Yellow oval on the New Jersey shelf is Baltimore Canyon
Trough (BCT) salt from McKinney et al. (2005). The nearby yellow cross is the approximate location of a BCT-associated salt diapir identified by Grow (1980).
Bathymetry at depths beyond the shelf-break is from Andrews et al. (2016). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred
to the web version of this article.)

2
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Key Seep Fields on the USAM. Seep Field Location Characteristics Selected
Seep Field Location Characteristics Selected (Common Name) description1 References
(Common Name) description1 References (Parentheses)
(Parentheses) and Selected
and Selected Dives3
Dives3
BODIE ISLAND (35.735, − 74.817), Bubble streams, (Ruppel et al.,
(Paull et al., ~400 mbsl MDAC, 2019)
1996; Van Upper slope on chemosynthetic EX1903L2 Dive
Dover et al., south side of large mussels, bacterial 14
2003; L. slide north of Keller mats, deep-sea
Brothers et al., Canyon corals
Seeps fed by fluids 2013; (Cantwell,
migrating above Hornbach et al., 2019)
(32.4940, salt diapir; gas 2007; Bourque No dives
(35.8160,
− 76.1908), 2160 hydrate, MDAC2, et al., 2017; Bubble stream Imaged on
− 74.6109), ~1342
mbsl chemosynthetic Cordes, 2019; from EX1206 but not
mbsl
Inner Blake Ridge mussels and Portanier et al., hydroacoustics included in
BLAKE RIDGE Isolated deep seep
over the Blake clams; deep-sea 2023) KELLER DEEP recorded on Skarke et al.
in area unaffected
Ridge diapir; coral; filamentous Alvin Dives: SEEP EX1206 (but only (2014)
by slides between
seafloor within mat; drilled as Site 3710, 3711, (Fig. 2c) discovered during Re-imaged with
Bodie and Kitty
GHSZ 996 of the Ocean 3712, 3909, data analysis in WCD on R/V
Hawk seeps
Drilling Program 3910, 3912, 2018 by Skarke Marcus
Seafloor within
Leg 164 (Diapir) 4798, 4799, et al. (2018)) Langseth
GHSZ
4800 MGL1408, Line
Deep Search 38 on October
2019 ROV 7, 2014.
Jason dive (35.932–74.816),
Vestimentiferan (Cordes, 2019)
J2–1136 ~285 mbsl
worms, bubbles, Dives: Deep
(L. Brothers KITTY HAWK Upper slope on
quill worms, Search 2019
et al., 2013; (Fig. 3a) north side of large
bacterial mats, no ROV Jason dive
Bourque et al., slide north of Keller
mussels J2–1134
2017; Cordes, Canyon
2019) (Skarke et al.,
(32.975, − 75.933), Alvin 3911, 2014, 2018,
~2600 mbsl Bubble streams, 3913, 3914, 2019; Bourque
Above nearly MDAC, bacterial 4801 et al., 2017;
CAPE FEAR
breached salt diapir mats, deep sea NOAA EX 1205 (36.869, − 74.483), Dempoulos
Bubble streams,
Seafloor within corals (Diapir) L1: AUV Sentry ~1450–1620 mbsl et al., 2019;
MDAC,
GHSZ Dives 146, 149, Thalweg of Ruppel and
chemosynthetic
151, 152 NORFOLK unnamed canyon, Waite, 2020;
mussels, bacterial
Deep Search (Figs. 3b, 6, & 9) 18 km south of Portanier et al.,
mats, brine flows
2019 ROV Norfolk Canyon 2023)
(?), mud seeps
Jason dive Seafloor within NOAA EX1302
(Faults, erosion)
J2–1137 GHSZ Dive 6,
No dives (too EX1903L2 Dive
shallow for 19
many ROVs). Alvin Dives:
Discovered on 4802, 4803
(35.5474, Seeping mound in
R/V Armstrong West: (37.5197,
− 74.8384), ~65 layered sediments
SVC2 in 2016 − 74.155) 940 mbsl
SUPERSEEP mbsl on continental
Surveyed with East: (37.5423, Hydrate at
Near head of Keller shelf; vigorous
high-resolution − 74.102) 1035 seafloor (east), (Turner et al.,
Canyon seepage imaged
Kongsberg mbsl extensive mussel 2020; Ruppel
SBP29 on R/V CHINCOTEAGUE Near crest of ~15- beds and MDAC, et al., 2022;
Armstrong in RIDGE km-long ridge bacterial mats, Portanier et al.,
2024 (Fig. 3b) striking NE-SW on effusive gas 2023)
No dives (too mid-slope offshore emissions, quill Alvin Dives:
shallow for Virginia barrier worms 4804, 4806
many ROVs). islands (Faulting?)
(35.563, Discovered on Seafloor within
− 74.8234), 65 Seeping mound in R/V Armstrong GHSZ
mbsl layered sediments SVC2 in April (Skarke et al.,
KELLER MOUND
~2 km north of the on continental 2016 Surveyed (37.5678, 2014, 2018;
(Figs. 3a & 7)
superseep, near shelf; vigorous with high- − 74.2821) Meyer et al.,
head of Keller seepage imaged resolution ~425 mbsl Cap carbonate, 2016; Portanier
Canyon Kongsberg PICK UP STICKS (reported as 450 in bubble streams, et al., 2023)
SBP29 on R/V Skarke et al. (2014) quill worms NOAA EX1302,
Armstrong in Upper slope Dive 10
2024 offshore Virginia Alvin Dive:
(35.7069,- (Cordes, 2019) 4805
74.8122), Vestimentiferan Alvin Dive MDAC, bubble (Prouty et al.,
~285–350 mbsl worms, bubbles, 4961 (38.0495, streams, deep sea 2016; Bourque
PEA ISLAND
Upper slope on deep-sea corals, Deep Search BALTIMORE − 73.822), ~400 m corals, mussels, et al., 2017;
(Fig. 3a)
south side of large MDAC, bacterial 2019 ROV CANYON Overlooking bacterial mats Demopoulos
slide north of Keller mats, no mussels Jason dive (Figs. 3b & 10) Baltimore Canyon (Canyon et al., 2019;
Canyon J2–1133 on the south side Promontory; Portanier et al.,
Unroofing) 2023)
(continued on next page)

3
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Table 1 (continued ) beneath the New Jersey shelf and upper continental slope, and the
Seep Field Location Characteristics Selected Carolina Trough, which is near the base of the North and South Carolina
(Common Name) description1 References upper continental slope. Both basins contain over 10 km of sediment and
(Parentheses) are associated with salt diapirs (Carolina Trough; Dillon et al., 1982) or
and Selected diapirs and sheets (Baltimore Canyon Trough; Grow et al., 1988;
Dives3
McKinney et al., 2005; Grow, 1980), as shown in Figs. 2 and 1,
Alvin Dives: respectively. Like the onshore rift basins, the offshore ones have little
4807, 4808
evidence for oil or thermogenic gases (BOEM, 2021). Trace amounts of
Bubble streams (Skarke et al.,
(39.542, − 72.404), (sonar determined 2014, 2018; thermogenic material were detected a few hundreds of meters below
HUDSON mostly 500–570 – no visual Weinstein et al., seafloor on the Blake Ridge during Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg
CANYON mbsl observations) 2016) 164 (Wehner et al., 2000), but nearly all gas emissions at USAM seeps
(Fig. 3c) Thalweg of Hudson (Hydrate Alvin Dives: are interpreted to be primarily methane of shallow (microbial) origin (e.
Canyon dissociating in 3706, 3707,
thalweg?) 3708, 4809
g., Paull et al., 1995; Skarke et al., 2014; Prouty et al., 2016; Pohlman
(Skarke et al., et al., 2017).
2014, 2018; Because this paper focuses primarily on contemporary cold seep
MDAC, bubble
Quattrini et al., features on the USAM outer shelf and upper continental slope north of
(39.8100, 2015; McVeigh
streams, deep sea Cape Hatteras, we highlight the post-rift geologic history related to
− 69.5907), et al., 2018)
1417–1608 mbsl
corals, bacterial
NOAA EX1302 connections among sedimentation, erosion, the most recent glaciation,
VEATCH CANYON mats, and ocean currents. Sediments have been delivered to the western North
Ridge on east side Dive 14, EX
(Figs. 3c & 11) chemosynthetic
of Veatch Canyon
mussels
1304 L1 Dive Atlantic basin by large, long-lived drainages that are ancestors of the
Seafloor within 13 present-day Hudson River and the Chesapeake (Susquehanna and James
(Faulting, Updip
GHSZ Alvin Dives:
gas migration?)
4810, 4813,
Rivers) and Delaware estuaries, along with smaller rivers from southern
4827, 4828, New England to South Carolina (e.g., D. Brothers et al., 2013a). Some
4835 fine sediment that ends up far offshore has been winnowed by the Gulf
(39.8697, Stream and the Deep Western Boundary Current into large contourite
NEW ENGLAND − 69.2862), 1452 (Ruppel and
deposits like the Chesapeake and Hatteras drifts, which share some
SEEPS #1 mbsl Demopoulos,
Drainages and
MDAC,
2013; Skarke characteristics with the Blake Ridge sediment drift (e.g., McCave and
chemosynthetic Tucholke, 1986; Rebesco et al., 2014).
Referred to as ridges on mid-slope et al., 2014,
mussels, bubble
New England between Veatch
streams, bacterial
2018; Quattrini On the continental shelf and uppermost continental slope, sea level
seep #3 by ( and Shallop et al., 2015) changes partially control where sediment has been deposited. During
mats, hydrate
Quattrini et al., Canyons EX1304L1 Dive
the most recent sea level lowstand at the LGM, Pleistocene shelf-edge
2015) Seafloor within 4
GHSZ deltas formed along much of the margin (Poag and Sevon, 1989; Twi­
(Ruppel and chell et al., 2009). These studies differ in the inferred extent of the
Demopoulos, deltaic deposits, and we here use the analysis of Twichell et al. (2009).
(39.9040, 2013; Skarke
Based on that study, shelf-edge deltas currently lie landward of the
− 69.2552), ~1108 MDAC, et al., 2014,
mbsl chemosynthetic 2018; Quattrini contemporary shelf-break along nearly the entire southern New England
Drainages and mussels, bubble et al., 2015; margin, across Hudson Canyon, between Wilmington and Washington
NEW ENGLAND
SEEPS #2
ridges on mid-slope streams, bacterial McVeigh et al., Canyons, and across the head of the Currituck slide (Twichell et al.,
between Veatch mats, hydrate 2018; Fu et al., 2009), as shown in Fig. 3.
(Fig. 3c)
and Shallop (Pre-existing 2021)
The thick sedimentary sequences deposited near the shelf-break
Canyons geologic EX1304L1 Dive
Seafloor within structure?) 3 north of Cape Hatteras have been prone to slumping, mass wasting,
GHSZ Alvin Dives: and submarine slope failure since at least Miocene time (e.g., Schlee
4815, 4833, et al., 1979; Poag, 1985; Chaytor et al., 2007). The Gulf Stream has not
4834.
usually directly affected the continental slope in this area, and most
West:
(39.9968,
upper slope deformation outside large canyons appears driven by pas­
(Skarke et al., sive collapse of sediments. Slides of presumed Pleistocene or Holocene
− 69.1925),
MDAC, 2014; McVeigh
327–390 mbsl
chemosynthetic et al., 2018;
age have occurred along the upper slope of the entire study area (Twi­
East: chell et al., 2009), although there are key differences along strike. For
mussels, bubble Portanier et al.,
SHALLOP (39.9975,
streams, bacterial 2023) example, the southern New England margin has experienced slope
CANYON − 69.1248), ~320
mbsl
mats Alvin Dives: failures or been highly eroded along most of its length, possibly due to its
(Canyon 4811, 4812,
Overlooking proximity to the Laurentide Ice Sheet termination (Knott and Hoskins,
Promontory) 4814, 4829,
Shallop Canyon,
4830, 4832 1968; Uchupi et al., 2001). The upper slope section from Hudson Canyon
southern New
to Block Canyon is relatively intact (e.g., D. Brothers et al., 2013a)
England margin
compared to the sector from Wilmington Canyon to Cape Hatteras,
1
Depths are nominal. Dives at the same location often report different depth which is the USAM segment that hosts the major shelf-break canyons
ranges, especially when seep fields are on the upper slope and may stretch over (Norfolk, Washington, Baltimore, and Wilmington; Figs. 1–3). Between
tens of meters. Baltimore Canyon and Cape Hatteras, much of the upper slope has been
2
MDAC denotes methane-derived authigenic carbonates.
3 heavily influenced by mass transport processes that have unroofed older
Dives with publicly available data or descriptions are listed. Alvin dive in­
sediments near the shelf-break. Taken together, the older tectonic his­
formation and data are available at https://ndsf.whoi.edu/alvin/dive-log/. “EX”
refers to dives on NOAA Ocean Exploration and Research (OER) cruises. The
tory combined with the overprint of younger deposition, erosion, and
cruises are named with the convention of EXYYNNL#, where YY denotes year, sediment transport contribute to the complexity of this passive margin
NN is expedition number in that area in that year, and # is the leg number. OER and its fluid migration processes.
dives were conducted with the ROV Deep Discoverer. Video for EX dives can be
accessed at: https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/data/access/access.html. Deep 3. Data and methods
Search 2019 dive information is available in Cordes (2019).
This paper explores the processes responsible for USAM methane

4
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Fig. 2. Different versions of the USAM seeps database. Green, blue, and purple shading correspond to submarine slide deposits of Pleistocene, older, and unknown
age, respectively, from Twichell et al. (2009). (A) Red circles show the Skarke et al. (2014) seeps database. Yellow crosses are salt diapirs from Dillon et al. (1982).
(B) The total database, including both the Skarke et al. (2014) seeps from (A) plus all new identifications with duplicates removed (Skarke et al., 2024), yields the
seeps shown as red circles. The boxes outline areas corresponding to Fig. 3. Yellow shading on the MAB shelf is salt in the Baltimore Canyon Trough as mapped by
McKinney et al. (2004). (C) Unique seep locations from the total database (Skarke et al., 2024). Red circles denote cluster centers, and yellow circles show other
individual locations. At a larger scale, the unique locations would appear to be evenly spaced within seep fields as an outcome of the clustering algorithm. Named
seeps (Table 1) for Blake Ridge, Cape Fear diapir, and Keller Deep are shown on this map, as is the Currituck slide seep discussed in the text. Updated seeps database
available in Skarke et al. (2024). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

5
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Fig. 3. Close-ups of areas bounded by boxes in Fig. 2b, showing seeps as white circles. The major shelf-breaking canyons are labelled. Pleistocene shelf edge deposits
are taken from Twichell et al. (2009), which is also the source of the slide deposits of Pleistocene (green shading), pre-Pleistocene (blue shading), and undetermined
age (purple shading). Boxes surround named seep fields described in more detail in Table 1. The location of the mega-pockmarks discussed in the text are shown in
(B), although seepage has not been detected here. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

seepage by analyzing water column imaging data that constrain the
locations of seafloor seeps and by integrating several types of seismic
surveys that provide information about geologic structures and fluid
migration beneath the seafloor.
3.1. Water column imaging data
MBES water column imaging data were used to infer new seafloor
seep locations for this study. WCD detect streams of gas bubbles
emanating from seafloor seeps in real-time, making it possible to

6
C.D. Ruppel et al.
provisionally identify seeps within minutes while the ship is underway.
The physical principle underpinning the detections is the dramatically
lower compressional wavespeed for gas relative to seawater. Acoustic
signals within an appropriate frequency range (usually 10–80 kHz at
continental slope depths) travel through the water column and
encounter the impedance contrast across the interface between ocean
water and the interior of a gas bubble, creating a strong reflection that
reveals water column bubble streams, but not individual bubbles. These
flares are then traced downward and ascribed to emissions at discrete
seafloor seeps.
MBES data image the water column and seafloor by transmitting a
pulse that ensonifies a fan-shaped volume below the vessel. For the
MBES systems used here, the fan is wide (up to 140◦ ) in the athwartships
direction and narrow (few degrees) along-track. The reflected energy is
recorded by narrow (0.5◦ - 4◦ ) beams, resolving seafloor features with
high accuracy (10–40 m; Kongsberg Maritime, 2012). The waveform
data recorded from each beam can be used to identify water column
flares.
This study relies mostly on 30 kHz EM302 MBES data collected by
the Okeanos Explorer from 2013 to 2014 (NOAA Office of Ocean
Exploration and Research, 2013a, b, 2014a, b, c, d), supplemented by
12 kHz EM122 data acquired on the R/V Atlantis in 2015 and 2016 and
EM302 data from the R/V Sikuliaq in 2014. The USGS identified addi­
tional flares using WCD data from the EM122 and EM710 (70 kHz)
MBES aboard the R/V Armstrong in 2016 and a portable 44 kHz Reson
7160 MBES pole-mounted aboard the R/V Hugh Sharp during two cruises
in 2017 (Baldwin et al., 2020b). Data from the R/V Sikuliaq, R/V Atlantis,
and R/V Armstrong are available from the R2R repository.1 Other USAM
surveys also collected WCD data with MBES systems, particularly
several Okeanos Explorer cruises after 2014. However, the geographic
footprints of these later cruises do not substantially expand coverage.
Thus, this study relies on surveys that enhanced coverage compared to
the original study (Skarke et al., 2014) or that provide more detail in
specific locations (Fig. 1). The combined surveys used for this study
cover an estimated ~77% of the area between the 100 m and 2000 m
isobaths from Cape Hatteras to the New England seamounts. Of the
unsurveyed area at those depth ranges, more than half is on the outer
Hudson and New England shelves between 100 m below sea level (mbsl)
and the shelf-break.
3.2. Seismic data
The seismic imagery used here includes legacy airgun data released
by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management through the National
Archive of Marine Seismic Surveys (NAMSS) portal (Triezenberg et al.,
2016), data from an intermediate-energy (420 in3) airgun survey con­
ducted by the USGS in 2018 (MATRIX; Baldwin et al., 2020a; Majumdar
et al., 2022), and data acquired by the USGS using a 2.4 kJ sparker
source in 2015 (Ruppel et al., 2015; Ruppel et al., 2024) and 2016
(Baldwin and Miller, 2023). These datasets were respectively acquired
with 4 ms, 1 ms, and 0.5 ms sampling intervals. The legacy airgun data
provide penetration sufficient to image pre-rift basement, while the
sparker data yield outstanding resolution to several hundred meters
below seafloor. The full processing sequence for the BOEM data is un­
known, but the data were downloaded from the NAMSS portal in
migrated form. MATRIX data processing included normal moveout
correction, stacking, and poststack phase-shift time migration, as well as
removal of reverberation for shallow-water lines (Baldwin et al., 2020a).
The sparker data were bandpass filtered, normal moveout corrected,
stacked, migrated, and muted above the seafloor reflection (Baldwin and
Miller, 2023; Ruppel et al., 2024).
1
https://www.rvdata.us
7
Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287
3.3. Methods
The procedure for identifying seeps in MBES data was described for
the original database by Skarke et al. (2014). For this study, most plumes
were identified by Mississippi State University researchers using EM302
and EM122 data analyzed in QPS FMMidwater software. The USGS
identified flares from R/V Armstrong and R/V Sharp cruises using Caris
and QPS FMMidwater software on Reson 7160, EM122, or EM710 data.
In all cases, individual plumes were identified, traced to their seafloor
location, and assigned geographic coordinates (Skarke et al., 2024).
Plume identifications were assigned a subjective quality factor
ranging from 1 (best) to 5. Plume images rated with the highest quality
factor are connected to the seafloor, continue with a plausible
morphology (e.g., as a vertical flare unless deflected by the current) into
the water column, and became weaker with height above the seafloor.
Some low quality plumes, which include features with low acoustic
reflection intensity, lack of connectivity to the seafloor, or returns that
are stronger in the water column than close to the seafloor, could be
schools of fish or other biological phenomena. An additional annotation
was added when seeps appeared to be diffuse. Diffuse plumes often have
low quality factors, and the imagery typically shows short plumes being
emitted along several tens of meters of continuous seafloor.
4. Results
Skarke et al. (2014) underscore that, for a small subset of the bubble
plumes investigated by a remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) for the initial
USAM seeps database, each bubble stream could be traced to a seafloor
seep. In recent years, more ROV and submersible dives at sites identified
by Skarke et al. (2014) have visually confirmed bubble streams emitted
from the seafloor at additional sites (e.g., Table 1), and gas recovered
from sediments near some seeps has been inferred to be microbial
methane (e.g., Pohlman et al., 2017). Exploration of the seafloor at the
base of water column bubble plumes sometimes fails to discover an
active seafloor seep. This can be attributed to ephemerality of emissions,
uncertainty in the seep’s location, or difficulty in finding a discrete hole.
Nonetheless, throughout this paper, we assume that identified water
column plumes are indicative of seafloor seepage of methane during the
discrete time interval that the ship acquired the imagery data.
Fig. 2b and c compare the Skarke et al. (2014) seep map (Fig. 2a) to
updated maps that include those seeps plus post-2014 identifications
from the MBES datasets. The original (Skarke et al., 2014) database
documented 577 identifications of possible seeps. The new database lists
nearly 1475 additional MBES identifications. However, it is important to
understand what these seep locations represent.
1. Some identifications are wholly new locations in areas not surveyed
for the Skarke et al. (2014) study. When we use “new seeps” to refer
to those identified since Skarke et al. (2014), the terminology does
not imply that the seeps have only recently started emitting gas or
that they have formed in the intervening years.
2. Some identifications are probably the same seeps as reported in the
original database or the same locations reported multiple times from
different cruises in the new database. We explore this quantitatively
below as we cull duplicates from the database.
3. Some identifications add new sites to existing seep fields where the
previous database had already identified multiple seeps. Seep clus­
ters are also analyzed further below.
To determine if some plume identifications reported in the combined
MBES database (Skarke et al., 2024) could be the same physical seeps,
we ran the QGIS (QGIS.org, 2023) density-based spatial clustering with
noise algorithm on the combined database projected as Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) and sought clusters with a minimum of two
identifications within 40 m of each other. The 40 m criterion represents
a reasonable degree of uncertainty in the locations of bubble plumes
C.D. Ruppel et al.
identified in different surveys (e.g., different MBES, different ships, and/
or different times). In the field, ROV dives often observe individual
seafloor gas emission points separated by far <40 m, but there is no
agreement about whether each hole should be labelled a seep or whether
the seep should constitute all emission loci in a small area. Furthermore,
bubble plumes from individual emission points coalesce in the water
column and would be imaged as a single plume at the resolution of WCD.
With these caveats, we found 356 locations in which at least two iden­
tifications were within 40 m of each other for the combined 2014 and
new MBES database (Skarke et al., 2024). These identifications were
considered duplicates, and only one identification was retained at each
site. Because several duplicates consisted of more than two identifica­
tions, the total of 2052 identifications from the combined 2014 and new
database was reduced to 1139 unique sites. Note that, when plotted,
these unique sites can appear to be spaced on a grid within some seep
fields owing to the adoption of the 40 m criterion for identifying du­
plicates. For shipboard programs relying on locating seeps, the full (raw)
database may therefore be more useful.
The next step in analyzing the combined MBES dataset was identi­
fying seep clusters, defined as groups of seeps that are close enough
together to meet certain quantitative criteria. We applied the QGIS
spatial density clustering algorithm to the 1139 non-duplicate locations
to identify clusters of seeps within 400 m of each other. This produced
47 seep clusters containing at least 5 and as many as 138 individual
identifications, plus 227 identifications that were not part of clusters.
The 400 m criterion was chosen to ensure that all identifications within
one areally-extensive seep field (e.g., Norfolk Seep field, described
below) were identified as the same cluster. With the addition of two
identifications that were within 400 m of each other but that did not
meet the criteria for a cluster, the database is reduced to 275 unique
locations, of which 47 are considered seep fields (clusters). The largest
cluster is Hudson Canyon, containing 138 (non-duplicative) identifica­
tions. The mean number of non-duplicative identifications in clusters is
19, and the median is 10. Cluster results are shown in Fig. 2c and re­
ported in Skarke et al. (2024).
The analysis of duplicates and clusters could be done using different
approaches, criteria, or algorithms, which would lead to different ab­
solute numbers of non-duplicate seeps and of clusters plus remaining
unclustered seeps. The absolute numbers in each category are not a key
focus of this paper, and the spatial and temporal variability in seep
processes makes it impossible to count the specific number of seeps in
any case.
Because flare identifications represent emissions at discrete times
corresponding to surveys during different cruises over a period of ~7
years, this analysis only captures the time-transitive spatial component
of seepage. In other words, the analysis cannot account for temporal
variations, including seeps turning off or on at timescales ranging from
seconds to days to years. While we recognize >1000 emission points
with our criteria, whether they are all active at the same time, whether
seepage is shifting periodically among several emission points in the
same cluster, and whether a single bubble plume represents multiple
emission loci remain impossible to constrain with our data.
With the refined database, we can examine the overall pattern of
seepage as a function of depth, location, and proximity to certain sea­
floor and subseafloor features. The next section first describes the dis­
tribution of seeps as a function of depth on the margin and then
progresses south to north along the USAM to highlight how the new
database changes our understanding of the large-scale distribution of
seeps. We then focus on new identifications in a few significant seep
fields and describe several unique locations, using the names commonly
used by the scientific community. The names, locations, and charac­
teristics of key seep fields are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in
Fig. 3.
8
Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287
4.1. Seep depth distribution
In Skarke et al. (2014), the analysis of seep depth distributions relied
on all locations (including those we now label as duplicates) that had
been identified within three depth ranges: Shallower than 180 mbsl,
180–600 mbsl, and >600 mbsl. The bins were respectively designed to
correspond to the continental shelf and very uppermost continental
slope (up to 180 mbsl); from this depth to approximately the shallowest
limit of gas hydrate stability based on known bottom water temperature
conditions (550–575 mbsl; e.g., Brothers et al., 2014); and deeper than
the minimum depth for hydrate stability. Revising this analysis with the
same depth ranges and new ways of categorizing the gas flare identifi­
cations yields the results shown in Table 2.
When duplicates are removed from the new total MBES database
(Skarke et al., 2024) and each remaining identification considered a
unique seep (Fig. 1b), the upper slope depth range from 180 to 600 mbsl
still dominates, but less than in Skarke et al. (2014). Many more iden­
tifications have been made in deepwater (> 600 mbsl) in the intervening
years, while the percentage on the outer shelf and uppermost slope (<
180 mbsl) has remained nearly constant. When identifications close to
one another (400 m distance) are collapsed into clusters (Fig. 1c), a
larger percentage of the seeps is at outer shelf and uppermost slope (<
180 mbsl) water depths. As shown in Fig. 1, most of the USAM conti­
nental shelf has not been surveyed for seeps, and the percentages re­
ported in Table 1 would be significantly different if more data were
available, especially for shelf depths <180 mbsl.
Figure 4 shows a histogram of the depth distribution of seep locations
for the entire USAM database with clusters and the remaining isolated
identifications. When interpreted in this way, most isolated seeps or seep
fields lie at water depths shallower than 350 mbsl. The upper slope in­
terval with the fewest seeps is between the contemporary landward limit
of gas hydrate stability (LLGHS at ~550 mbsl; Brothers et al., 2014;
Ruppel and Waite, 2020) and 1000 mbsl. Most seep clusters are between
250 and 450 mbsl, although some clusters also occur deeper than 1000
mbsl.
The distribution of seeps as a function of depth is dominated by the
~724 unique seep loci within the Mid-Atlantic Bight (MAB; Fig. 1),
which we define as the USAM segment between Hudson Canyon and
Cape Hatteras. Of the three main sectors of the USAM (South Atlantic
Bight or SAB, MAB, and southern New England) examined here, the
MAB outer shelf and upper continental slope have the greatest spatial
coverage for surveys (Fig. 1) and the most repeated surveys. Survey
spatial coverage on the southern New England margin is nearly com­
plete at upper continental slope depths (Fig. 1). Thus, key observations
about seep distribution north of Cape Hatteras should be considered
robust beyond the shelf-break.
As shown in Figs. 2c and 5a, the MAB sector not only hosts the most
seeps so far discovered, as well as the seeps that are most evenly
distributed both along the margin and as a function of water depths.
Fig. 5b shows the depths of all known MAB and southern New England
margin seeps plotted on composite (averaged) bathymetric profiles. At
continental shelf depths, an arbitrary slope up to 50 mbsl was used over
5 km distance to mimic the bathymetric profile, and the southern New
England margin bathymetric profile is shifted landward to avoid overlap
with the MAB data. The MAB composite diagram illustrates the
Table 2
Seep Statistics.
Original (Skarke Total database Total database
et al., 2014) without duplicates with clustering
<180 mbsl 15.8% 13.5% 30.7%
Between 180 76.2% 63.9% 55.4%
and 600 mbsl
>600 mbsl 8.0% 22.6% 13.9%
number 577 1139 274
C.D. Ruppel et al.
Fig. 4. Histogram showing distribution of unique seep locations as a function of depth for the entire USAM, including the South Atlantic Bight. Blue bars are in­
dividual seeps, and brown bars denote the depths of the centers of seep clusters. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article.)
concentration of seeps at water depths shallower than ~550 mbsl, the
nominal LLGHS. On the southern New England margin, seepage is also
primarily an upper slope phenomenon, although the cutoff is shallower
at ~400 mbsl. For the MAB and the southern New England margin, most
seeps that lie deeper than the upper slope exist in one of two clusters at
seep locations at ~1000–1100 mbsl (includes Chincoteague and New
England seeps #2, respectively) and at ~1400–1600 mbsl (includes
Norfolk Seeps and Veatch and New England seeps #1, respectively).
The MAB and southern New England margin correspond to Groups 4
and 1, respectively, of the designations used by D. Brothers et al. (2013a)
in describing the geomorphic controls on the USAM continental slope.
Fig. 5c shows the relationship of the seep distributions in these two areas
superposed on an interpretation of the gross-scale subsurface structure
in each sector. On the New England margin, the seep cluster just deeper
than 1000 mbsl roughly lines up with the presence of a buried reef
structure, which leads to sedimentation truncation or bypass. The
deeper seeps (> 1400 mbsl) are within the upper wedge of the onlapped
sediment, where gas migrating updip might accumulate against the
buried reef structure. In the MAB, the reef structure occurs much farther
offshore, and the upper slope is instead dominated by the relic Miocene
sedimentary wedge beneath the zone of most active seepage.
9
Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287
4.2. Regional distribution
The new database (Skarke et al., 2024) significantly expands the
number of seeps recognized on the continental shelf and uppermost
continental slope immediately north of Cape Hatteras. This area was
poorly represented in Skarke et al. (2014) because the EM302 MBES on
the Okeanos Explorer is primarily operated in deeper waters. Some seeps
mapped near Cape Hatteras since 2014 are at locations and at water
depths landward of the shelf break (nominally 125 m), with some of the
densest clusters and most spectacular seeps at water depths of 60–75 m.
Based on physical considerations, a fraction of the methane emitted
from seeps shallower than ~100 mbsl is likely to reach the sea-air
interface if not consumed aerobically in the water column (Ruppel
and Kessler, 2017). Thus, continental shelf seeps probably have outsized
significance for seep methane emissions that reach the atmosphere.
Skarke et al. (2014) noted parts of the MAB where seeps were notably
lacking and explored possible explanations for this observation. For
example, over 270 of the ~577 identifications in that study lay on the
upper continental slope between Norfolk and Wilmington Canyons, but
the stretch of slope between Wilmington and Hudson Canyons and from
Hudson to Veatch Canyons appeared devoid of seeps. The new database
(Skarke et al., 2024) covers this area in greater detail and now reveals a
sparse seep distribution (fewer than 10) along the ~155 km segment
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Fig. 5. (A) Cumulative number of individual seep locations from deepwater to the shelf as a function of distance from the approximate 50 m isobath for seeps on the
Mid-Atlantic Bight (green) and Southern New England (orange). (B) Depth distribution of seeps in this sector accumulated along a composite bathymetric profile. (C)
Seeps from (B) distributed on scaled schematic diagrams of Brothers et al. (2013a) for the New England and Mid-Atlantic margins. (For interpretation of the ref­
erences to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

between Wilmington and Hudson Canyons (Fig. 1c). Most of these seeps
lie near the heads of small canyons and drainages, but two seeps in the
30-km-long section immediately south of Hudson Canyon are in an area
where the upper slope is less disturbed (Fig. 2c), within the prograding
section of the Hudson apron described by D. Brothers et al. (2013a).
Seeps have now also been found in a relatively uneroded section of the
outer shelf and upper continental slope between ~90 and 360 mbsl west
of Block Canyon, the first seeps discovered between Hudson and Veatch
Canyons.
Since Skarke et al. (2014), numerous surveys have expanded the
dataset for the southern New England margin, with the area between
Veatch and Hydrographer Canyons (e.g., McVeigh et al., 2018; Baldwin
and Miller, 2023) being especially targeted. Most newly-identified seeps
are on the walls of smaller drainages on the continental slope, not within
the drainages for large canyons. Some of the newly-identified upper
continental slope seeps in this sector also lie at or near the crests of
ridges that divide drainages, similar to the setting for the Veatch Canyon
seeps.
4.3. New emission sites within previously identified seep fields
With the availability of new WCD data, many more emission sites
have been identified near previously discovered seeps or within already-
known seep fields. For example, on the outermost shelf and uppermost
slope, the new database identifies many new seeps within previously-
mapped dense clusters between Washington and Baltimore Canyons
(Figs. 2c and 3b). In the thalweg of Hudson Canyon, where Skarke et al.
(2014) describe several dozen seeps at ~525 mbsl, the total database
now contains 138 distinct locations, which form clusters near the LLGHS
and another grouping at even shallower (~265 mbsl) depth (Fig. 2c).
The 2014 database also listed only a single seep within the 0.6 km2 area
that makes up what is now referred to as the Bodie Island seep field
(Fig. 3a), where three dozen distinct emission loci have now been
mapped.
The addition of new data has also altered perspectives on some of the
rarer deepwater (>1000 m) seep fields along the Mid-Atlantic part of the
margin. For example, Skarke et al. (2014) discuss the Norfolk Seep Field,
which is located in an unnamed canyon ~18 km south of the thalweg of
Norfolk Canyon. Back then, the existing data indicated that ~18 active
seeps were arrayed in two lines intersecting at ~120◦ . The Okeanos

10
C.D. Ruppel et al.
Explorer MBES data analyzed for the new database document >80 seeps
within an area of ~1.3 km2 (Figs. 3b and 6). Seafloor explorations by the
NOAA ROV Deep Discoverer had found carbonate outcrops and large
chemosynthetic communities prior to Skarke et al. (2014). A 2019 D2
dive in a newly discovered part of the seep field discovered similar
features, as well as a suspected seafloor hydrate mound, small holes
where fluidized mud was being emitted from the seafloor, and apparent
brine flows (Skarke et al., 2019; Ruppel and Waite, 2020). This seep field
has also been the target of additional studies focused on macrofauna,
chemosynthetic communities, biochemical and molecular analyses, and
authigenic carbonates (Quattrini et al., 2015; Bourque et al., 2017;
Coykendall et al., 2019; Prouty et al., 2020).
Similarly, a small ridge at ~1100 mbsl offshore Chincoteague Island
had only a few seeps documented in Skarke et al. (2014). With new data
from several USGS cruises and other surveys (e.g., Baldwin et al., 2020b;
Turner et al., 2020), seeps have now been mapped at several places near
the spine of the ~15-km-long ridge (Fig. 3b), including within a spec­
tacular seep field on the southeast side (Ruppel et al., 2015; Ruppel
et al., 2022).
4.4. Special locations
Within the cluster of seeps on the shelf offshore Cape Hatteras near
the head of Keller Canyon (Fig. 3a) are two anomalous features first
discovered in 2016. These seeps are associated with mounds that lie at
~65–70 mbsl at locations ~2 km apart (Figs. 3a and 7a). The first
seeping mound is perched at the edge of a steep slope falling away into
Fig. 6. Norfolk Seeps. (A) Mapped seeps (white circles) draped on shaded seafloor relief showing the arrangement of the seeps down the erosional face and into the
thalweg of the canyon. The seeps are roughly arrayed along the seismic lines depicted on the fig. (B) Three-dimensional composite of MBES WCD data revealing
active seepage at the Norfolk Seeps field in July 2019, as described by Skarke et al. (2019) and imaged by R/V Okeanos Explorer on EX1903L2.
11
Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287
Keller Canyon and has informally been called the “superseep.” This
feature is ~7 m high, 280 m in the across-shelf direction, and 300 m
along the strike of the shelf-break, for a total area of ~48,200 m2. In
profile, the superseep looks like two distinct mini-volcanoes, with a flare
emitted from one peak. The second feature has been referred to as the
Keller Mound and is also ~7 m high. The mound has a lumpy surface and
is ~390 m long subparallel to the head of Keller Canyon and has a cross-
shelf width of ~310 m for a surface area of ~79,200 m2. The top of the
mound has multiple vents, and several more exist adjacent to the
mound. Despite the many cruises that have surveyed comparable loca­
tions close to the shelf-break along the USAM, no other similar mounds
have yet been discovered at these shallow water depths. There have also
been no dives on these two features, but their morphology had previ­
ously led us to hypothesize that they might be composed of authigenic
carbonate. High-resolution imaging obtained by the USGS in 2017 had
revealed gas and gas chimneys underneath the entire area, but new data
have recently shown that the superseep and Keller Mound consist of
layered sediments (Fig. 7b).
The previous section noted additional seeps discovered within
Hudson Canyon. Of particular significance is the subset of thalweg seeps
at water depths of ~400–600 mbsl, which bracket the LLGHS (Skarke
et al., 2014; Weinstein et al., 2016). The updated database now contains
at least 80 distinct seeps at this critical depth range. Most of the major
shelf-breaking canyons within the MAB host seeps arrayed around
canyon heads or on promontories overlooking the thalweg (see below)
at the same range of water depths as this subset of Hudson Canyon seeps.
Hudson Canyon differs starkly from these other locations in having such
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Fig. 7. Superseep and Keller mound features on the continental shelf overlooking Keller Canyon (see Fig. 3a). (A) Large map shows high resolution bathymetry and
locations of non-duplicate seeps (red circles). The green circles mark the central vents for these two mounds. Left inset shows shaded relief map with same green
circles and a yellow trackline corresponding to the location of the profile in (B). Right inset shows a close-up of the bathymetry at Keller mound with the seep
locations plotted from the duplicates removed database, leading to the appearance of equally spaced seeps. (B) Subbottom image between the superseep and Keller
Mound from Kongsberg SBP29 operating on an EM124 multibeam footprint on the R/V Armstrong. Although flares are usually not visible in the water column on such
imagery, the flares are vigorous enough to be detected in this case. The inset shows the 38 kHz EK80 image along the same transect. (For interpretation of the
references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

a high concentration of seeps directly within the thalweg. Seep emis­
sions there also vary with time, with a USGS survey in late summer 2015
(Ruppel et al., 2015) failing to find active gas flaring from this seep field,
which was active both before that survey (2014 surveys on the R/V
Endeavor and R/V Sikuliaq) and during a 2016 R/V Atlantis survey.
The outermost shelf south of Norfolk Canyon hosts depressions
elongated parallel to the shelf break and has long been an area of special
interest to geoscientists. These depressions were originally described as
en echelon normal faults by Driscoll et al. (2000), but subsequent sur­
veys revealed no evidence for normal faulting. Instead, the depressions
were re-interpreted as mega-pockmarks (Fig. 3b) linked to gas escape
(Hill et al., 2004). Newman et al. (2008) detected elevated water column
methane near the features, and Garcia-Tigreros et al. (2021) measured
methane concentrations of 25.7 nmol close to the seafloor at 144 mbsl,
just deeper than the depressions. USGS-led surveys in 2016 and 2017
sought evidence for active seepage (e.g., Baldwin et al., 2020b) from
these depressions. Those surveys identified no bubble flares, meaning
that the depressions are not likely to be loci for contemporary ebullitive
gas expulsion. The lack of detected flares does not preclude diffuse
methane emission or expulsion of dissolved methane from the seafloor.
An isolated deepwater seep identified by Skarke et al. (2014) within
the upper part of the Currituck slide (36.3919◦ N, 74.6854◦ W; 1101
mbsl; Fig. 2c) is one of the few so far discovered on this margin within a
known large-scale slide deposit (Twichell et al., 2009; Chaytor et al.,
2007). This seep was assigned quality factor 3 when first identified in
2012 MBES data from Okeanos Explorer, and re-examination of the
original data has verified that a plume was present at this site. In 2017,
the USGS did several passes over the site and failed to detect a water
column plume (e.g., Baldwin et al., 2020b). Review of legacy seismic
data (Triezenberg et al., 2016) passing close to the site reveals a seafloor
feature with signs of fluid or gas migration below. The seep is likely
ephemeral, and its position within Currituck slide deposits may point to
a different origin than deepwater seeps associated with faulting, erosion,
or diapirism on other parts of the margin.
5. Discussion
5.1. Seep evolution
The USAM differs in several ways from the Cascadia and northern
Gulf of Mexico margins, where hundreds to thousands of seeps have also
been mapped (e.g., Brooks et al., 1984; Merle et al., 2021; Johnson et al.,
2015, 2019; Kennicutt, 2017; Riedel et al., 2018; Sassen et al., 2001). As
a conventional passive margin, the USAM is tectonically less complex

12
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

than the U.S. Cascadia margin (Rudebusch et al., 2023) and geologically
less complex than the salt tectonic province of the northern Gulf of
Mexico (e.g., Roberts and Carney, 1997; Ventress et al., 1989). However,
the USAM seeps still occur in a diverse range of morphologic settings and
are likely connected to various geologic and sedimentary/erosional
processes, as summarized in Fig. 8.
Skarke et al. (2014) briefly reviewed geologic explanations for USAM
seeps, including the roles of salt diapirs, canyon formation, and disso­
ciation at the LLGHS. Here we provide detail on a wide range of pro­
cesses and provide examples of bottom-up (from features beneath the
seafloor) and top-down (from processes associated with sedimentation,
erosion, or changes in currents) seep initiation.
5.1.1. Salt tectonics
Salt diapirs and sheets are a common feature of continental passive
margins (e.g., Pichel et al., 2022; Rowan, 2014), including those ringing
the Atlantic Ocean. Vigorous debate (e.g., Brun and Fort, 2011; Rowan
et al., 2012) continues about the timing of diapirism, the contributing
physical processes, and potential differences between provinces with
discrete salt diapirs and those underlain by salt sheets (e.g., northern
Gulf of Mexico). Salt emplacement can lead to faulting that provides
migration pathways for seep fluids, and the high thermal conductivity of
salt warms overlying sediments (which may contain gas hydrates), in­
creases local heat flow, and likely enhances advection of fluids (e.g.,
Hornbach et al., 2005; Wilson and Ruppel, 2007). Active salt dissolution
produces brines that further inhibit gas hydrate stability (Ruppel et al.,
2005).
Diapiric structures on the USAM were recognized in the South
Atlantic Bight along a line adjacent to the buried Carolina Trough in the
1970s and 1980s (e.g., Dillon et al., 1982; Fig. 2b), and ODP Leg 164
confirmed the salt composition of these features (e.g., Egeberg, 2000).
As noted by Skarke et al. (2014), the Blake Ridge and Cape Fear seeps are
the only ones on the USAM known to have developed over salt diapirs (L.
Brothers et al., 2013b; Hornbach et al., 2007; Van Dover et al., 2003).
These seeps are the deepest presently known on the margin and have
long been linked to dissociation of gas hydrate in the sediments above
the rising diapirs.
During this study, we reviewed additional water column imaging
data collected over the other Carolina Trough salt diapirs mapped by
Dillon et al. (1982) and archived in the R2R repository (rvdata.us). We
also reviewed legacy seismic data through these diapirs (archived in
NAMSS; Triezenberg et al. (2016)), but less thoroughly than Postaagasi
(2018) did. Where tracklines crossed close to the Carolina Trough di­
apirs, the additional WCD data either revealed no unmapped seeps or
were not collected appropriately for bubble plumes to be found. Based
on the seismic data, four nearly-breached diapirs between 33.5◦ N and
33.83◦ N (all at 3000 mbsl or more) could be good candidates for seafloor
seep exploration.
Currently, there is no evidence for salt underlying seeps north of
Cape Hatteras on the USAM. An isolated salt diapir and a possible salt
sheet (Fig. 1) have been recognized in association with the Baltimore
Canyon Trough (Grow et al., 1988; Grow, 1980; McKinney et al., 2005),
as shown in Figs. 1 and 2b. The possible salt sheet discussed by
McKinney et al. (2005) is thin (< 40 m), deep (estimated over 2.5 km

Fig. 8. Schematics of geologic and fluid processes responsible for the evolution of seeps on the USAM. Pink features in the sediments in each panel are vapor phase
(free gas) methane. Green circles denote seeps. (A) Salt tectonics could include salt diapirs in the South Atlantic Bight or salt sheets or diapirs in the Mid-Atlantic
Bight. At present, seeps have been found associated with salt diapirs only on the southern part of the margin (Blake Ridge and Cape Fear seeps). (B) Faults or other
pre-existing structures (such as the relic reef in Fig. 5c) may act as migration pathways or channel fluids through overlying sediments, respectively. (C) Updip fluid
migration, particularly related to dissociation of gas hydrates, could occur at the base of the GHSZ, here shown as the red dashed line cutting across stratigraphic
layering. In some locations on the margin, gas appears to be continuous across the updip limit of hydrate stability (Fig. 13d). (D) Unroofing of gas-laden sediments
through the evolution of slumps, slides, or other mass transport deposits can expose gas-charged layers. (E) Erosion, downcutting, and sapping can excavate gas-
charged layers and may be an important process at upper slope canyon heads just beneath the shelf-break. (F) While upper slope benches are not a geologic pro­
cess, they are an important setting for northern USAM seeps. In these settings, relatively intact sediments from the former upper slope host seeps that may be tapping
into older gas, some of which may have accumulated in shelf-edge deltas. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)

13
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

below the seafloor), and so far not associated with seafloor seepage on
the shelf. The isolated diapir near Wilmington Canyon is also beneath
the shelf (Grow, 1980), and no seepage has yet been recognized there.
Mosher and Yanez-Carrizo (2021) misidentified as a diapir a feature on a
seismic line collected by the USGS in 2014 near the deepwater part of
Hudson Canyon. Because this feature has been re-interpreted as a
seamount (Gibson, 2022), it is not considered further in the context of
seepage.
5.1.2. Seeps associated with faults
Fluid flow along faults feeds some seeps on the USAM. As shown in
Fig. 9, which superposes seep locations on crossing seismic data of
different resolutions, the Norfolk Seeps tap fluids being transported
through faults that disrupt the uppermost hundreds of meters of sedi­
ment. The sediments sit above a mostly continuous stratum that forms
the base of slide deposits on the slope. Beneath this layer, sediments are
cut by seaward-dipping, en echelon normal faults spaced at 500–750 m.
Some of the fluid-related features seen in the seismic data continue from
below these deeper faults into the shallow faulted section. The linear
orientation of two arms of the Norfolk Seeps field down the eroded slope
(erosion also contributes to seepage here; see below) and into the can­
yon’s floor may also reflect migration of fluids through shallow faults
with near-linear seafloor traces. Both the deepwater Veatch seep field on
the southern New England margin and the Chincoteague Ridge field on
the Virginia margin also have seeps arrayed in sublinear configurations
(Fig. 2).
For most USAM seeps, subseafloor imagery is lacking. Determining
the relative importance of faulting or other fluid migration processes in
driving seep formation and seafloor gas emission is therefore not
possible. In some cases, seafloor imaging reveals gas-related seismic
wipeouts below seeps, but no obvious geologic structures that could
promote fluid migration nor a source for the gas. In other cases, the
water column imaging is consistent with seepage, but strata beneath the
seep lack fluid flow features or even gas charging. In these cases, it is
possible that gas is supplied through a discrete conduit at resolution
below the capabilities of the seismic imaging to capture.
5.1.3. Seep evolution and erosional processes
5.1.3.1. Upper slope unroofing and erosion. Erosional processes that cut
into, disturb, or unroof (through sliding or slumping) methane-charged
sediments contribute to the development of seeps within drainages and
intervening ridges along the entire northern USAM and at all water
depths. Unroofing is especially prevalent on the uppermost slope, where
the removal of overlying strata by slides, slumps, or mass transport can
expose underlying gas-charged sediments.

Fig. 9. Seismic lines through the Norfolk Seeps field (see Fig. 6), with green circles showing locations of seeps. Locations of lines shown on a seafloor relief image as
the inset. (A) Sparker high-resolution seismic line crossing nearly perpendicular to the erosional face. (B) Airgun data collected during the MATRIX cruise reveals
fine-scale normal faulting upslope and gas chimneys likely occupying faults beneath and downslope from the seep field. (For interpretation of the references to colour
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

14
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Figure 10 shows data from three seismic lines (Ruppel et al., 2024)
acquired downdip in the MAB in locations where unroofing of upper
slope sediments by slope failure processes may be associated with the
evolution of seeps. These high-resolution seismic lines, which were
collected between Baltimore Canyon and just south of Washington
Canyon, reveal a similar distribution of seeps relative to the underlying
geology. In each case, the seeps emerge from gas-charged seafloor updip
from finely laminated sediments and mass transport deposits. Strata
visible just below the seafloor on the shallowest parts of Lines 6 (Balti­
more Canyon) and 24 are erosionally truncated at the seafloor. Line 21
(Washington Canyon) reveals more complex structure, and some seeps
emerge from disrupted material deposited during a slide event.
Like wholesale unroofing, more subtle erosional processes also me­
chanically remove near-seafloor layers or cut into gas-charged sedi­
ments. In some cases, layers removed by erosion may have been gas-
charged prior to the erosional event, making them more susceptible to
erosion. In others, erosion may have stripped off less permeable sedi­
ments, allowing gas to escape from the newly-exposed sediments, which
may in turn contain fractures associated with gas invasion processes
(Daigle and Dugan, 2010).
Among the examples of seep fields for which erosion is likely critical
for its evolution is the Norfolk Seeps field. Previously we discussed the
role of fluids migrating along underlying faults, but the seafloor
morphology implies that erosion and slumping have probably unroofed
gas-charged sediments to provoke seepage as well. Many Norfolk Seeps
lie within a heavily eroded sediment face on the north side of the canyon
(Fig. 6). Erosion cools sediments and results in deepening of the base of
the gas hydrate stability zone (GHSZ), but this process is not instanta­
neous, especially where free gas is already within the hydrate stability
zone and close to the seafloor (Ruppel and Waite, 2020). Erosion at the
Norfolk Seeps site may have been exacerbated by the flow of gas and
fluids in the sediments or by the accumulation of pore pressure in sed­
iments, as well as by the development of lithified authigenic carbonates
(mechanically strong) juxtaposed against weaker sediments in the slope.
The Bodie seep field (~315–460 mbsl; Fig. 3a) and others on the
margin occupy minor erosional drainages and the sides and tops of
adjacent ridges. The Bodie seep field was likely unroofed during a
Pleistocene upper continental slope slide event (Twichell et al., 2009).

Fig. 10. High-resolution sparker imagery from the upper slope of the MAB, with seep positions superposed in green. The inset map shows an upper continental slope
relief map with positions of the seismic lines. From top to bottom, the seismic lines are located south of Baltimore Canyon (Line 6), in an unnamed canyon near
Washington Canyon (Line 24), and south of Washington Canyon (Line 21). All seismic lines are plotted at the same scale, and the sections are aligned so that the 0.5 s
crossing of the seafloor is at the same lateral position to demonstrate the pervasiveness of seepage at the same depth range on this section of the margin. The nominal
updip limit of gas hydrate stability is indicated by the red line on the right. Note that sediments deeper than the seep fields on the slope are well-stratified, while a
combination of gas-charging and erosional or unroofing processes affects the areas close to the seep fields. Note that the downslope Washington Canyon seeps exist
within perturbed seafloor sediments that were likely affected by mass transport processes. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

15
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Seepage originating in the drainages probably results from continued
erosion and downcutting into underlying gas-charged strata, while
emissions from near the crests of ridges reflects buoyancy driven
migration of gas beneath local bathymetric highs.
On the southern New England margin, the New England seep fields
#1 and #2 and the Veatch Canyon field (Figs. 3c and 11) have settings
like that of the Bodie Island seeps but lie ~1000 m deeper. These
southern New England margin seeps notably occur adjacent to, but not
within, parts of the upper slope where slide scarps and major slides have
been mapped (Chaytor et al., 2007; Twichell et al., 2009; Fig. 3c) and lie
well within the GHSZ. These seep fields are therefore degassing hydrate-
bearing sediments that are eroded, but not necessarily mechanically
unroofed by larger scale mass wasting events.
Arguably, nearly the entire upper slope within the northern USAM is
heavily deformed by drainages, so the spatial association of upper slope
seeps with erosional features and intervening bathymetric highs may not
seem remarkable. However, the segment of the northern USAM with the
fewest seep fields—from just south of Hudson Canyon to Alvin Canyon,
around the orographic bend transitioning from the Mid-Atlantic Bight to
southern New England (Fig. 3c) —coincides with the fewest shelf-break
canyons and the most intact upper slope sediments (includes the Hudson
apron section discussed by D. Brothers et al., 2013a). This observation
suggests a strong association among seep evolution, unroofing, and
erosion in drainages.
5.1.3.2. Canyon erosion and sapping. Skarke et al. (2014) describe seeps
occurring within bowl-shaped canyon heads on the upper continental
slope. In these canyons, erosional processes may be downcutting into
underlying gas-charged strata as the fresh erosional face migrates
landward. Such erosion can excavate methane rich sediments or at least
remove overburden above migrating methane. A process like ground­
water sapping may accompany such erosion. As more methane is
emitted at seafloor seeps in these places, the sediments can become
winnowed and less cohesive, in turn enhancing erosion and fluid flow
unless authigenic carbonate formation effectively creates a physical
barrier.
In Skarke et al. (2014), an unnamed canyon just north of Washington
Canyon was used to illustrate the seep distribution phenomenon.
Fig. 12a shows a strike line revealing gas chimneys feeding some of the
seeps within the scoop-shaped canyon head. We also recognize Keller
Canyon, just north of Cape Hatteras, as a location that hosts seeps ar­
ranged around its head (Fig. 7a). Keller Canyon breaks the shelf edge by
only a few kilometers, contrasting with the 10 km or more for the large
shelf-breaking canyons of the MAB (Norfolk, Washington, Baltimore,
and Wilmington), and may still be cutting into the shelf edge now.
Shallow subseafloor near the head of Keller Canyon is gas-charged and
strata are hard to discern.
5.1.3.3. Benches between and overlooking canyons in the MAB. Some
MAB seep clusters occur on bathymetric benches that slope gently
seaward and that lie just deeper than the shelf-break between canyon
heads or adjacent canyons (Fig. 11, inset). These bench-like features are
concentrated where Twichell et al. (2009) do not detect downslope slide
deposits, meaning that the benches are likely intact remnants of the
former shelf edge. Seep clusters just south of Keller Canyon (100–125
mbsl), north of Washington Canyon at 190 to 340 mbsl (Fig. 12a), just
south of Accomac Canyon at 275 to 350 mbsl (Fig. 12b), and on either
side of Currituck Slide upper headwall (100–130 mbsl) are a few

Fig. 11. Sparker high-resolution seismic line down the southern New England continental slope through the Veatch Canyon seeps, with green circles showing seeps.
The inset map shows a seafloor relief map with the whole seismic line in yellow and the highlighted portion for the main panel in red. The overview seismic line inset
at the left shows the full slope section, with the box corresponding to the main panel. Seeps are arrayed on either side of a ridge on the mid-continental slope, and a
chimney tapping into underlying gas is imaged beneath some of the seeps. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the web version of this article.)

16
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Fig. 12. Seismic lines acquired along the strike of the margin on the upper continental slope between Baltimore and Washington Canyons, with seep locations
superposed as green circles. Inset shows the locations of the seismic lines on a seafloor relief map. (A) Sparker high-resolution seismic line showing seeps are arrayed
around the seaward-dipping bowl-shaded canyon head. This section is entirely shallower than the gas hydrate stability zone. Gas chimneys feed some seeps, but some
gas chimneys are not associated with seepage. (B) Airgun seismic line acquired during the 2018 MATRIX cruise. This strike line images below one of the bench
features in the Mid-Atlantic Bight, showing flat lying, but internally disrupted, sediments overlying older hummocky sediments that appear to be the remnants of a
previous shelf edge. Several generations of erosional faces are also visible. Seeps are not underlain by chimneys or other clear signs of gas migration. Gas hydrate is
not stable if the seafloor is shallower than ~0.73 s. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)

examples (Fig. 2c).
Seismic data acquired through some bench-like upper slope features
show that they generally lie within uniform, gently-dipping sediments
(Fig. 12b), often with no clear gas chimney structures beneath seeps. The
near-seafloor sediments blanket hummocky sediments that appear to be
the remnants of uppermost slope drainages intersected at high angles by
the strike line. The relatively featureless benches may represent pro­
graded sediment deposited at the shelf edge during a sea level lowstand.
Older, eroded, organic-rich sediments in shelf-edge drainages buried
beneath the blanketing sediments may have accumulated microbial
methane that is only now being released and migrating toward the
surface.
Bench-like upper slope morphologic features also occur north of
Wilmington Canyon through the Hudson Canyon segment, on the
southern New England margin (e.g., Shallop Canyon seeps), and south of
Cape Hatteras. However, seeps are not as prevalent in these locations.
5.1.3.4. Pleistocene shelf features and seepage. River deltas on conti­
nental shelves are loci of prodigious contemporary methane generation
and seepage (Canning et al., 2021; He et al., 2023; Lu et al., 2018). On
the northern USAM, Twichell et al. (2009), Poag and Sevon (1989), and
Hill et al. (2004) describe the development of Pleistocene shelf-edge
deltas near the outfall of major ancestral rivers in the MAB and south­
ern New England. Like modern deltas, the USAM shelf-edge deltas are
expected to contain ample organic matter whose breakdown leads to
microbial production of methane. Thus, a higher concentration of seeps
might be expected in and near mapped USAM Pleistocene shelf-edge
deltas.
Figure 3 shows the locations of some of the Pleistocene shelf-edge
deposits relative to the distribution of USAM seeps. The 125 mbsl iso­
bath corresponds to the nominal coastline during the sea level lowstand
at the LGM. In the new database, ~20% of the unique locations for
mapped seeps occur shallower than 125 mbsl, and Table 2 shows ~30%
are shallower than ~180 mbsl. While acknowledging that the outer shelf
has not been completely surveyed for seeps (especially offshore southern
New England), the area seaward of the shelf-edge delta deposits across
Hudson Canyon, along the southern New England margin, and south of
Norfolk Canyon have some of the lowest concentrations of uppermost

17
C.D. Ruppel et al.
slope seeps on the northern USAM. Conversely, the seeps along the
upper slope between Baltimore and Accomac Canyons traverse from an
area where shelf-edge deltas have been mapped to one lacking in such
deposits. The locations of shallower water seep clusters therefore do not
seem to correlate with shelf-edge delta deposits.
Pockmarks are widespread Pleistocene features on the USAM
(Brothers et al., 2014). Pockmarks are sometimes interpreted as the
consequence of sudden outgassing (Cathles et al., 2010; Hovland et al.,
2002). In contrast, many contemporary upper slope USAM seep fields
appear to be emitting methane continuously, as documented during
repeated surveys over several years. Skarke et al. (2014) analyzed the
joint distribution of seeps and pockmarks on the northern USAM and
found no spatial association. In this study, many of the newly identified
seeps are at water depths >600 mbsl, which is deeper than the Pleis­
tocene USAM pockmarks.
5.2. Role of gas hydrates
When the USAM seeps were first described, it was postulated that
some seeps could be related to leakage of methane near the LLGHS
(Skarke et al., 2014). This landward edge of stability nominally occurs at
~550 to 575 mbsl on the northern USAM (Brothers et al., 2014).
5.2.1. Landward limit of gas hydrate stability (LLGHS)
As a first step in assessing the connection among USAM seep distri­
butions and the dynamics of the GHSZ, we used ocean temperature
profiles from the World Ocean Database (WOD; Boyer et al., 2018) to
more accurately determine the LLGHS along the margin. Conductivity-
temperature-depth (CTD) and expendable bathythermograph (XBT)
data were filtered to include only temperature profiles that continued
deeper than 350 mbsl in the water column and that were acquired after
1970. The 350 mbsl cutoff is justified based on gas hydrate stability
calculations. For gas hydrate of pure methane to be stable at 350 mbsl
and 35‰ salinity, the expression that Ruppel and Waite (2020) provide
based on fitting the Sloan and Koh (2007) equation of state yields a
temperature of 1.83 ◦ C, which is unrealistically low for water column
temperatures at temperate latitudes. Thus, gas hydrate could not be
stable in sediments at water depths shallower than 350 mbsl.
At depths greater than a few hundred meters in the USAM water
column, ocean temperatures usually decline with increasing water
depth. If the deepest temperature measurement recorded in a WOD re­
cord was less than the calculated gas hydrate stability temperature at
that depth or the stability temperature at the seafloor depth extracted for
the location from the Andrews et al. (2016) bathymetric map, then
seafloor at the location is within the GHSZ. When the deepest recorded
temperature in the water column is too warm for seafloor at that same
temperature to be within the GHSZ, there is more ambiguity: The sea­
floor at such locations could be within the gas hydrate stability field if
temperatures continue to decrease with depth, but we lack appropriate
data. The resulting map (Fig. 13) distinguishes between these ambig­
uous locations and locations where gas hydrate is definitely stable at the
seafloor. Lacking other information, the divide can be loosely inter­
preted as the empirically-determined LLGHS.
Even with the relatively sparse distribution of WOD CTD and XBT
records at the critical water depths, the most landward locations where
gas hydrate is stable at the seafloor lie almost exclusively near the 550
mbsl isobath from Cape Hatteras to Hydrographer Canyon. From Hud­
son Canyon northward, a few locations in the shallowest part of canyon
thalwegs have gas hydrate stable at the seafloor as shallow as ~521
mbsl, but 550 mbsl appears to be a reliable regional value even on the
southern New England margin. South of Cape Hatteras, there are few
ocean water temperature profiles on the upper slope. The landward limit
of stability is likely deeper on this part of the USAM owing to the
impingement of warm Gulf Stream waters.
18
Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287
5.2.2. Special role of shelf-break canyons
The analysis of water column temperature records underscores that
gas hydrate is stable within the thalwegs of canyons, even within canyon
heads penetrating far into the continental shelf, where gas hydrate is not
stable. Davies et al. (2012, 2021) have explored gas hydrate dynamics
associated with canyons offshore Mauritania. In USAM shelf-break set­
tings, the three-dimensionality of the hydrate system probably explains
the prevalence of seeps on the promontories of shelf-breaking canyons
from at least Keller Canyon to Shallop Canyon. As shown schematically
in Fig. 13c, gas hydrate likely exists over free-gas within the canyon’s
thalweg, and Davies et al. (2012) argue that substantial accumulations
of hydrate and local deepening of the base of the GHSZ occur in these
thalwegs. Beneath adjacent parts of the continental shelf, gas hydrate is
not stable. On a cross-section, there is a feather edge of stability (not a
landward edge) on either side of the canyon where it disrupts the con­
tinental shelf, and gas can accumulate below the hydrate-bearing layers
in the thalweg and sides of the canyon and probably also be driven by
buoyancy to seep points on the adjacent promontories. Gas charging of
sediments that make up the promontories may in turn promote
unroofing discussed earlier for some seep fields in these geographic
positions. The gas-charged strata in the canyon walls would be more
prone to slumping, and the deposition of this canyon wall material in the
thalweg leads to shoaling of the base of hydrate stability (e.g., Ruppel,
2003; Ruppel and Waite, 2020) and more hydrate dissociation deep in
the GHSZ. Conversely, downcutting and erosion in the thalweg produces
thickening of the GHSZ and may promote more hydrate formation.
These concepts require further analysis with support from seismic data,
but the schematic model provides a reasonable explanation for the
preferential distribution of seeps next to shelf-break canyons along the
margin’s strike.
5.2.3. Seepage and the landward hydrate stability limit
As described in detail in Ruppel and Kessler (2017) and Ruppel and
Waite (2020), the GHSZ (GHSZ) nominally thins to zero at the landward
edge of stability. However, gas hydrate is likely to be rare there. Not only
are methane and hydrate all but excluded within the zone of anaerobic
oxidation of methane (AOM) that occupies meters to tens of meters near
the seafloor away from gas seeps, but any methane hydrate that forms
near the landward edge of stability is likely to experience pressure-
temperature conditions that oscillate back and forth across the stabil­
ity boundary, keeping hydrate saturations low and hydrate poised close
to dissociation. As gas hydrates dissolve or dissociate in the sediments,
the liberated methane gas may remain as bubbles (vapor phase) in the
sediments or dissolve in pore waters (aqueous phase), depending on
local solubility conditions (Ruppel and Waite, 2020). In most cases,
these processes are not expected to provoke seafloor seepage unless gas
finds migration pathways or opens fractures in the sediments (Daigle
and Dugan, 2010). In that case, gas can effectively evade the strong AOM
sink (Stranne et al., 2022). Although gas hydrate is almost assuredly
breaking down near the edge of stability on upper continental slopes
during the contemporary era of warming intermediate waters (e.g.,
Ruppel, 2011; Ruppel and Kessler, 2017), this degradation does not
necessarily imply that there will be in situ leakage of methane from the
seafloor.
Skarke et al. (2014) also briefly considered whether some gas
liberated by hydrate degradation processes at or deeper than the land­
ward limit of the GHSZ migrates upslope through permeable strata and
is emitted at shallower water depths. Offshore Mauritania, Davies et al.
(2024) recently identified a location where gas liberated during hydrate
dissociation may be migrating updip to be vented at pockmarks lying
hundreds of meters shallower than the LLGHS. Imagery acquired by the
USGS across the deepwater Veatch Canyon seeps (Fig. 11; Baldwin and
Miller, 2023), which are wholly within the GHSZ, hints at potential
updip migration of gas toward the seep sites. On the MAB upper slope,
the seismic data for sparker Line 24 (Fig. 10; Ruppel et al., 2024) indi­
cate continuous gas beneath the slope from the depth corresponding to
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

(caption on next page)

19
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

Fig. 13. Hydrate dynamics and USAM gas seepage. (A) Map showing the results of analyzing WOD CTD and XBT data (Boyer et al., 2018) to determine where
temperatures are cold enough for gas hydrate to be stable at the seafloor in the MAB. Seeps are shown as white circles. Red circles denote locations where hydrate is
stable at the seafloor, and blue circles indicate seafloor too warm for gas hydrate stability. The white isobath is 550 mbsl, which closely brackets the landward limit of
the red circles. (B) Seep distribution in the MAB (from Fig. 5b) plotted on nominal ocean thermal structure (black) and shown with hydrate stability zone (pink
shading) for 3.5 wt% NaCl and pure CH4 hydrate. (C) Schematic of hydrate, gas, and seeps on a vertically-exaggerated cross-section through a shelf-break canyon.
The promontories on the left and right are at shelf depth and too shallow for hydrate to be stable in the sediments. The canyon cuts deep enough that the canyon floor
and the deeper parts of the canyon’s sides are within the hydrate stability zone, the base of which is shown by the red dashed line. Slumping into the canyon causes
the shoaling of the BSR, while erosion deepens the BSR. Buoyancy driven gas flows can feed seeps on canyon promontories. (D) On MATRIX line MX09, the seafloor is
shown as blue, and the top of gas chosen with 95% certainty by the machine learning analysis of Majumdar et al. (2022) is shown as red. The red curve continues
across the landward limit of gas hydrate stability (yellow line), consistent with possible updip gas migration. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

the LLGHS to upper slope seep sites. For other places within the MAB,
modern high-resolution MCS imagery acquired during the MATRIX
cruise were analyzed for seismic indicators of gas identified through
supervised machine learning (Majumdar et al., 2022). Those seismic
indicators show different characteristics beneath the upper slope in
different settings. Fig. 13d shows an example for which these indicators
are continuous across the nominal LLGHS offshore Virginia at the
location of MATRIX line MX09 (Fig. 1), consistent with updip migration
of gas toward the upper slope seeps. In contrast, at the Baltimore Canyon
seeps, the seismic indicators for top of gas do not continue across the
landward hydrate stability limit (Majumdar et al., 2022). This obser­
vation may confirm that seeps present on the promontory overlooking
that major shelf-break canyon may be related more to canyon-based
hydrate dynamics (see above) than to updip migration of fluids
beneath the continental slope.
One challenge for testing whether gas emissions on the northern
USAM upper continental slope are connected to dissociating gas hydrate
is the composition of gases. On the Svalbard margin, seep gas was finally
attributed to degrading gas hydrates due to the detection of higher order
thermogenic gases in both the hydrates and seep gas (Berndt et al.,
2014). On the USAM, no hydrate samples have been recovered except at
ODP Leg 164 sites (Paull et al., 1996). These samples all contained
99.924 to 9.993% microbially-derived methane and only trace amounts
of higher order hydrocarbons (Matsumoto et al., 2000). Ethane (C2) is
the most abundant of the non-methane gases in the hydrate samples and
never exceeds 0.02%. With the nearly pure methane composition of
gases so far analyzed near the USAM seeps (e.g., Pohlman et al., 2017)
and in recovered gas hydrates, the lack of a thermogenic gas tracer to
link emitted gases to dissociating gas hydrates, and few advances on
using fingerprints such as noble gases to trace seep gases to hydrates
(Hunt et al., 2013), linking seeps to dissociating gas hydrates may
continue to prove challenging on this margin.
5.2.4. Late Pleistocene to contemporary climate change and gas hydrate
degradation
It is important to consider whether some seepage on the USAM up­
permost slope could be related to degradation of gas hydrates that were
present during the last glaciation, when sea level was ~120 m lower
(corresponding to pressure reduction of ~1.2 MPa compared to
contemporary conditions) and when temperatures in the overlying wa­
ters were likely cooler. For pure methane in the presence of seawater,
the minimum pressure for gas hydrate to be stable corresponds to 301 m
water depth for 0 ◦ C and 364 m for 2 ◦ C using equations in Ruppel and
Waite (2020). At present, the summertime temperature at these water
depths is ~10 ◦ C offshore Virginia (e.g., Garcia-Tigreros et al., 2020).
There is little robust information about bottom water temperatures on
the USAM at LGM. If gas hydrate were stable at 400 mbsl at the LGM sea
level lowstand, that location would currently be at ~520 mbsl, which is
shallower than the contemporary LLGHS (550–575 mbsl). Thus, any
hydrate between 520 mbsl and the current landward limit should have
broken down over the past ~15 kyr. As noted by Prouty et al. (2016),
any seeps currently at water depths of 450 mbsl or shallower were un­
likely to have been within the GHSZ at LGM. Thus, seeps at these depths
are almost certainly not emitting vertically-migrating gas generated in
situ by degradation of Pleistocene gas hydrates.
Even in the absence of large scale hydrate degradation, Late Pleis­
tocene to contemporary climate change has altered conditions in ways
that would have led to increased degassing from methane-charged
sediments on the USAM. Slope failures have been common since the
end of the LGM (Twichell et al., 2009), and the role of these processes in
unroofing deeper methane-charged sediments was discussed above.
Warming of bottom waters since the end of the LGM has changed the
thermal boundary condition at the seafloor and led to re-equilibration of
the conductive geotherm in the sediments. At water depths shallower
than the LLGHS, this re-equilibration to higher temperatures would
decrease methane solubility in pore waters, in turn producing more gas
(Ruppel and Waite, 2020). Gas buildup can increase pore pressure and
cause fracturing (Daigle and Dugan, 2010), even in soft sediments. These
processes in turn enhance migration of gas, which could accumulate
beneath local bathymetric highs, geologic structures, or less permeable
strata before eventually forming seeps. The seismic data shown in
Figs. 8, 9, and 11 show locations where gas chimneys imaged in the
sediments have not produced a detected seafloor seep, implying that a
variety of factors, including the lithology of near seafloor sediments and
the time since the migration and accumulation of the gas, may govern
where and when seeps form. Some gas may already be leaking diffu­
sively from locations with underlying gas build-up, and ebullition may
eventually develop at some of these sites.
At water depths greater than the landward gas hydrate stability limit,
post-LGM warming would have shoaled the base of the GHSZ. As
described in Ruppel and Waite (2020), methane released from dissoci­
ating hydrate might remain in place if overlying sediments were rela­
tively impermeable or clogged with gas hydrate; could migrate into the
GHSZ and combine with free water to form more hydrate; or could
migrate completely through the stability zone and be emitted at the
seafloor if water were limited or throughgoing fractures were present, as
is likely occurring now at the Norfolk, Chincoteague, and Veatch Canyon
seeps.
6. Conclusions
Over the past few years, the acquisition of large amounts of multi­
beam water column imaging data has made it possible to extend and
develop an interpretative framework for the methane seeps discoveries
first described by Skarke et al. (2014). Methane is being emitted as
bubbles at >1000 distinct locations along the margin between Cape
Hatteras and Georges Bank, but many of the seeps occur in clusters.
Furthermore, there is no agreement on whether two holes a meter apart
constitute a single seep or two seeps. Not every part of the margin has
been completely surveyed, and seeps are only detected if they are active
when a ship is passing above with sensors running. Only a small fraction
of the margin’s seeps has been visited by systems capable of photo­
graphing, sampling, or surveying near seafloor seeps. Thus, the distri­
bution of seep-associated features, such as methane-derived authigenic
carbonates, hydrate mounds, seafloor chemosynthetic communities, and
seep-dependent water column fauna, remains poorly constrained.
Most northern USAM seeps lie on the uppermost continental slope at
depths shallower than a few hundred meters, which is also shallower

20
C.D. Ruppel et al.
than the contemporary LLGHS. Several processes, including unroofing,
erosion, and sapping, probably contribute to seep evolution there.
Methane that supplies these seeps may be sourced in situ with accu­
mulations in shelf-edge deltas or other strata or possibly produced by
contemporary methanogenesis. In some places, methane sustaining
upper slope seeps may be sourced in updip migration of gas released by
dissociation of methane hydrates farther down the slope. The seeps that
develop on promontories overlooking shelf-break canyons probably
trace at least part of their genesis to the complex configuration of hy­
drate and gas across the thalwegs of the shelf-breaking canyons and the
adjacent continental shelf areas. For seeps at depths of 1000 mbsl or
greater, fluid migration through underlying faults or the existence of
buried geologic structures (e.g., the relic reef on the southern New En­
gland margin from Fig. 5c; salt diapirs in the South Atlantic Bight)
probably plays the most important role in seep evolution, although top-
down processes like erosion enhance methane emissions in some
locations.
Funding
The USGS component of this research was supported by interagency
agreements with the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-FE0026195, DE-
FE0023495, 89243320SFE000013) between 2015 and present, with the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (M17PG00041) for the 2018
MATRIX cruise and NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration and Research
(16–01118) for a 2017 cruise. Data analysis at MSU was in part sup­
ported by funding from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine (2000007272).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
C.D. Ruppel: Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Funding
acquisition, Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing -
original draft, Writing - review & editing, Project Administration. A.D.
Skarke: Visualization, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition,
Formal analysis, Conceptualization, Data curation, Project Administra­
tion. N.C. Miller: Visualization, Investigation, Formal analysis,
Conceptualization, Data curation. M.W. Kidiwela: Investigation,
Formal analysis. J. Kluesner: Visualization, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Data curation. W. Baldwin: Visualization, Investigation,
Formal analysis, Data curation.
Declaration of competing interest
Carolyn Ruppel reports financial support was provided by Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management for scientific activities conducted by herself,
Nathan Miller, and Wayne Baldwin. Carolyn Ruppel reports financial
support was provided by US Department of Energy for scientific activ­
ities conducted by herself, Nathan Miller, Jared Kluesner, and Wayne
Baldwin. Carolyn Ruppel reports financial support was provided by
NOAA Ocean Exploration and Research. Adam Skarke reports financial
support was provided by National Academies of Sciences Engineering
and Medicine for scientific activities conducted by himself and Maleen
Kidiwela.
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in online re­
positories. Skarke et al. (2024), which is released through the National
Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), includes the seeps
database (raw), the seeps database with duplicates removed, and the
seeps database with clusters and unique sites. The US Rolling Deck to
Repository Data or the NCEI archives data for native shipboard systems
for non-NOAA and NOAA cruises, respectively. Ruppel et al. (2024)
provides processed sparker data on the upper continental slope in the U.
S. Mid-Atlantic Bight, and Baldwin and Miller (2023) have sparker data
21
Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287
for the southern New England margin. Two additional USGS data re­
leases include the MATRIX seismic data and other geophysical data for
the Mid-Atlantic Bight (Baldwin et al., 2020a, 2020b).
Acknowledgments
Open access water column data collected by NOAA’s Office of Ocean
Exploration and Research (OER) underpin this study. We particularly
appreciate efforts by K. Cantwell, E. Lobecker, S. Hoy, and D. Sowers
(NOAA). We are grateful to the crews and technical staff for the Okeanos
Explorer and the research vessels Atlantis, Armstrong, Endeavor, Sikuliaq,
and Sharp for many years of work to acquire high-quality water column
imaging data and/or seismic imagery that supported this research. USGS
technical staff based in Woods Hole and Santa Cruz ran seismic data
operations on the R/V Endeavor and R/V Sharp in 2015 and 2018,
respectively. We especially thank W. Danforth, E. Moore, C. Worley, E.
Bergeron, T. O’Brien, and A. Nichols (USGS) and acknowledge helpful
discussions with D. Hutchinson, J. Chaytor, and A. Demopoulos (USGS).
P. Hart, W. Danforth, T. Himmler, and C. Berndt provided reviews.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution gave C.R. and N.C.M. access to
the R/V Armstrong during shakedown cruises in 2016, the first of which
was conducted in conjunction with R. Corbett and in collaboration with
D. Lizarralde. J.H. Edwards assisted with initial processing of the USGS
sparker data in 2015, and Quality Positioning Services provided access
to software used in data interpretation at Mississippi State University
(MSU). C.R. thanks D. Orange for inviting USGS personnel aboard the R/
V Armstrong in 2024 to work with the SBP29 and acquire the data shown
in Fig. 7(B). Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive
purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
References
Andrews, B.D., Chaytor, J.D., Ten Brink, U.S., Brothers, D.S., Gardner, J.V., Lobecker, E.
A., Calder, B.R., 2016. Bathymetric terrain model of the Atlantic margin for marine
geological investigations. In: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2012–1266.
https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20121266. Originally posted December 3, 2013;
Version 2.0: May 25, 2016.
Baldwin, W.E., Miller, N.C., 2023. High-resolution Multichannel Seismic Reflection Data
Collected Along the New England Outer Continental Shelf, Slope, and Rise South of
Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, Massachusetts, U.S. Geological Survey Field
Activity 2016–018-FA. U.S. Geological Survey Data Release. sciencebase.gov. htt
ps://doi.org/10.5066/P9R3VW5H.
Baldwin, W.E., Foster, D.S., Bergeron, E.M., Dal Ferro, P., Mckee, J.A., Moore, E.M.,
Nichols, A.R., O’brien, T.F., Powers, D., Miller, N.C., Ruppel, C.D., 2020a.
Multichannel Seismic-Reflection and Navigation Data Collected Using Sercel GI Guns
and Geometrics GeoEel Digital Streamers during the Mid-Atlantic Resource Imaging
Experiment (MATRIX), USGS Field Activity 2018–002-FA. U.S. Geological Survey
Data Release. sciencebase.gov. https://doi.org/10.5066/P91WP1RZ.
Baldwin, W.E., Moore, E.M., Worley, C.R., Nichols, A.R., Ruppel, C.D., 2020b. Marine
Geophysical Data Collected to Support Methane Seep Research along the U.S.
Atlantic Continental Shelf Break and Upper Continental Slope Between the Baltimore
and Keller Canyons. U.S. Geological Survey Data Release. sciencebase.gov. https://do
i.org/10.5066/P9Y1MSTN.
Berndt, C., Feseker, T., Treude, T., Krastel, S., Liebetrau, V., Niemann, H., Bertics, V.J.,
Dumke, I., Dünnbier, K., Ferré, B., Graves, C., Gross, F., Hissmann, K.,
Hühnerbach, V., Krause, S., Lieser, K., Schauer, J., Steinle, L., 2014. Temporal
constraints on hydrate-controlled methane seepage off Svalbard. Science 343,
284–287. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246298.
Bourque, J.R., Robertson, C.M., Brooke, S., Demopoulos, A.W.J., 2017. Macrofaunal
communities associated with chemosynthetic habitats from the U.S. Atlantic margin:
a comparison among depth and habitat types. Deep-Sea Res. II Top. Stud. Oceanogr.
137, 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2016.04.012.
Boyer, T.P., Baranova, O.K., Coleman, C., Garcia, H.E., Grodsky, A., Locarnini, R.A.,
Mishonov, A.V., Paver, C.R., Reagan, J.R., Seidov, D., Smolyar, I.V., Weathers, K.,
Zweng, M.M., 2018. World Ocean Database 2018. NOAA Atlas NESDIS 87.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/wod_intro_0.pdf.
Brooks, J.M., Kennicutt, M.C., Fay, R.R., Mcdonald, T.J., Sassen, R., 1984. Thermogenic
Gas Hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico. Science 225, 409–411. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.225.4660.409.
Brothers, D.S., Ten Brink, U.S., Andrews, B.D., Chaytor, J.D., 2013a. Geomorphic
characterization of the U.S. Atlantic continental margin. Mar. Geol. 338, 46–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2012.12.008.
Brothers, D.S., Ruppel, C., Kluesner, J.W., Ten Brink, U.S., Chaytor, J.D., Hill, J.C.,
Andrews, B.D., Flores, C., 2014. Seabed fluid expulsion along the upper slope and
outer shelf of the U.S. Atlantic continental margin. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2013gl058048.
C.D. Ruppel et al.
Brothers, L.L., Van Dover, C.L., German, C.R., Kaiser, C.L., Yoerger, D.R., Ruppel, C.D.,
Lobecker, E., Skarke, A.D., Wagner, J.K.S., 2013b. Evidence for extensive methane
venting on the southeastern U.S. Atlantic margin. Geology G34217 (1). https://doi.
org/10.1130/g34217.1.
Brun, J.-P., Fort, X., 2011. Salt tectonics at passive margins: Geology versus models. Mar.
Pet. Geol. 28, 1123–1145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2011.03.004.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), 2021. 2021 Assessment of Technically
and Economically Recoverable Oil and Natural Gas Resources of the U.S. Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf, OCS Report BOEM 2021–085, p. 83. Available at: https
://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/documents/regions/atlantic-ocs-region/
2021%20Atlantic%20Assessment%20Final_508_0.pdf.
Canning, A., Wehrli, B., Körtzinger, A., 2021. Methane in the Danube Delta: the
importance of spatial patterns and diel cycles for atmospheric emission estimates.
Biogeosciences 18, 3961–3979. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3961-2021.
Cantwell, K., 2019. Final Project Instructions. EX-19-03 Leg 2: Mid and Southeast (ROV
& Mapping), June 20 - July 12, 2019. https://doi.org/10.25923/ywdg-9g76.
Cathles, L.M., Su, Z., Chen, D., 2010. The physics of gas chimney and pockmark
formation, with implications for assessment of seafloor hazards and gas
sequestration. Mar. Pet. Geol. 27, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpetgeo.2009.09.010.
Chaytor, J.D., Twichell, D.C., Brink, U.S.T., Buczkowski, B.J., Andrews, B.D., 2007.
Revisiting submarine mass movements along the U.S. Atlantic Continental margin:
Implications for Tsunami Hazards. In: Lykousis, V., Sakellariou, D., Locat, J. (Eds.),
Submarine Mass Movements and their Consequences: 3 International Symposium.
Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6512-5_41.
Cordes, E., 2019. Cruise Report: OER DeepSEARCH 4th Cruise, Deepwater Atlantic
Habitats II: Continued Atlantic Research and Exploration in Deepwater Ecosystems
with Focus on Coral, Canyon and Seep Communities 2019, p. 127. Available at: htt
ps://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/27790.
Coykendall, D.K., Cornman, R.S., Prouty, N.G., Brooke, S., Demopoulos, A.W.J.,
Morrison, C.L., 2019. Molecular characterization of Bathymodiolus mussels and gill
symbionts associated with chemosynthetic habitats from the U.S. Atlantic margin.
PLoS One 14, e0211616. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211616.
Daigle, H., Dugan, B., 2010. Origin and evolution of fracture-hosted methane hydrate
deposits. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 115. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JB007492.
Davies, R., Yang, J., Ireland, M., Berndt, C., Huuse, M., Morales-Maqueda, M., 2024.
Long-distance migration and venting of methane after marine hydrate dissociation.
Nat. Geosci. 17, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01333-w.
Davies, R.J., Thatcher, K.E., Mathias, S.A., Yang, J., 2012. Deepwater canyons: an escape
route for methane sealed by methane hydrate. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 323-324,
72–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2011.11.007.
Davies, R.J., Maqueda, M.Á.M., Li, A., Ireland, M., 2021. Climatically driven instability
of marine methane hydrate along a canyon-incised continental margin. Geology 49,
973–977. https://doi.org/10.1130/G48638.1.
Demopoulos, A.W.J., Mcclain-Counts, J., Bourque, J., Prouty, N.G., Smith, B., Brooke, S.,
Ross, S.W., Ruppel, C., 2019. Examination of Bathymodiolus childressi nutritional
sources, isotopic niches, and food-web linkages at two seeps in the US Atlantic
margin using stable isotope analysis and mixing models. Deep Sea Res. Part I 148,
53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2019.04.002.
Dillon, W.P., Popenoe, P., Grow, J.A., Klitgord, K.D., Swift, B.A., Paull, C.K., Cashman, K.
V., 1982. Growth faulting and salt diapirism: Their relationship and control on the
Carolina Trough, eastern North America. In: Watkins, J.S., Drake, C.L. (Eds.), Studies
of Continental Margin Geology, vol. 34, pp. 21–46.
Driscoll, N.W., Weissel, J.K., Goff, J.A., 2000. Potential for large-scale submarine slope
failure and tsunami generation along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast. Geology 28,
407–410. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28<407:PFLSSF>2.0.CO;2.
Egeberg, P.K., 2000. Hydrates associated with fluid flow above salt diapirs (Site 996). In:
Paull, C.K., Matsumoto, R., Wallace, P.J., Dillon, W.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results. Ocean Drilling Program. https://doi.org/
10.2973/odp.proc.sr.164.218.2000.
Fu, X., Waite, W.F., Ruppel, C.D., 2021. Hydrate formation on marine seep bubbles and
the implications for water column methane dissolution. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 126,
e2021JC017363. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JC017363.
Garcia-Tigreros, F., Leonte, M., Joung, D., Kessler, J.D., Ruppel, C., 2020. Water
temperature, salinity, oxygen, dissolved inorganic carbon, pH, and others collected
by CTD and Niskin bottles from research vessel Hugh R. In: Sharp in Mid-Atlantic
Bight from 2017-08-25 to 2017-09-03 (NCEI Accession 0209187). NOAA National
Center for Environmental Information. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/archiv
e/accession/0209187.
Garcia-Tigreros, F., Leonte, M., Ruppel, C.D., Ruiz-Angulo, A., Joung, D.J., Young, B.,
Kessler, J.D., 2021. Estimating the Impact of Seep methane Oxidation on Ocean pH
and Dissolved Inorganic Radiocarbon along the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Bight. J. Geophys.
Res. Biogeosci. 126, e2019JG005621 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JG005621.
Gibson, J.C., 2022. Controls on Surface and Sedimentary Processes on Continental
Margins from Geophysical Data: New Insights at Cascadia, Galicia, and the Eastern
North American Margin. Ph.D.. Columbia University, p. 202. https://doi.org/
10.7916/9jd8-m806.
Grow, J.A., 1980. Deep structure and evolution of the Baltimore Canyon trough in the
vicinity of the COST no. B-3 well. In: Scholle, P.A. (Ed.), Geological Studies of the
COST No. B-3 Well, United States Mid-Atlantic Continental Slope Area, 833. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular, pp. 117–124. https://doi.org/10.3133/cir833.
Grow, J.A., Klitgord, K.D., Schlee, J.S., 1988. Structure and evolution of Baltimore
Canyon Trough. In: Sheridan, R.E., Grow, J.A. (Eds.), The Atlantic Continental
Margin. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 269–290. https://doi.
org/10.1130/DNAG-GNA-I2.269.
22
Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287
He, S., Maiti, K., Ghaisas, N., Upreti, K., Rivera-Monroy, V.H., 2023. Potential methane
production in oligohaline wetlands undergoing erosion and accretion in the
Mississippi River Delta Plain, Louisiana, USA. Sci. Total Environ. 875, 162685
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162685.
Hill, J.C., Driscoll, N.W., Weissel, J.K., Goff, J.A., 2004. Large-scale elongated gas
blowouts along the U.S. Atlantic margin. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 109. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2004JB002969.
Hornbach, M.J., Ruppel, C., Saffer, D.M., Van Dover, C.L., Holbrook, W.S., 2005. Coupled
geophysical constraints on heat flow and fluid flux at a salt diapir. Geophys. Res.
Lett. 32, L24617 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024862.
Hornbach, M.J., Ruppel, C., Van Dover, C.L., 2007. Three-dimensional structure of fluid
conduits sustaining an active deep marine cold seep. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34 https://
doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028859.
Hovland, M., Gardner, J.V., Judd, A.G., 2002. The significance of pockmarks to
understanding fluid flow processes and geohazards. Geofluids 2, 127–136. https://
doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-8123.2002.00028.x.
Hunt, A.G., Stern, L., Pohlman, J.W., Ruppel, C., Moscati, R.J., Landis, G.P., 2013. Mass
fractionation of noble gases in synthetic methane hydrate: Implications for naturally
occurring gas hydrate dissociation. Chem. Geol. 339, 242–250. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chemgeo.2012.09.033.
Johnson, H.P., Miller, U.K., Salmi, M.S., Solomon, E.A., 2015. Analysis of bubble plume
distributions to evaluate methane hydrate decomposition on the continental slope.
Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 16, 3825–3839. https://doi.org/10.1002/
2015GC005955.
Johnson, H.P., Merle, S., Salmi, M., Embley, R., Sampaga, E., Lee, M., 2019. Anomalous
concentration of methane emissions at the continental shelf edge of the Northern
Cascadia margin. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 124, 2829–2843. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2018JB016453.
Joung, D.J., Ruppel, C.D., Southon, J., Weber, T.S., Kessler, J., 2022. Negligible
atmospheric release of methane from decomposing hydrates in mid-latitude oceans.
Nat. Geosci. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-01044-8.
Kennicutt, M.C., 2017. Oil and Gas Seeps in the Gulf of Mexico. In: Ward, C.H. (Ed.),
Habitats and Biota of the Gulf of Mexico: Before the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill:
Volume 1: Water Quality, Sediments, Sediment Contaminants, Oil and Gas Seeps,
Coastal Habitats, Offshore Plankton and Benthos, and Shellfish. New York, NY,
Springer New York, pp. 275–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3447-8_5.
Knott, S.T., Hoskins, H., 1968. Evidence of Pleistocene events in the structure of the
continental shelf off the northeastern United States. Mar. Geol. 6, 5–43. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0025-3227(68)90007-8.
Leonte, M., Ruppel, C.D., Ruiz-Angulo, A., Kessler, J.D., 2020. Surface methane
concentrations along the Mid-Atlantic Bight driven by aerobic subsurface production
rather than seafloor gas seeps. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 125. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2019JC015989 e2019JC015989.
Lu, X., Zhou, Y., Zhuang, Q., Prigent, C., Liu, Y., Teuling, A., 2018. Increasing methane
emissions from natural land ecosystems due to sea-level rise. J. Geophys. Res.
Biogeosci. 123, 1756–1768. https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JG004273.
Majumdar, U., Miller, N.C., Ruppel, C.D., 2022. Neural net detection of seismic features
related to gas hydrates and free gas accumulations on the northern U.S. Atlantic
margin. Interpretation 10, T785–T806. https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2021-0248.1.
Maritime, Kongsberg, 2012. Kongsberg EM302 Multibeam Echo Sounder: Product
Description. Available at: https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/maritime/km-
products/product-documents/306106_em_302_product_specification.pdf.
Matsumoto, R., Uchida, T., Waseda, A., Uchida, T., Takeya, S., Hirano, T., Yamada, K.,
Maeda, Y., Okui, T., 2000. Occurrence, structure, and composition of natural gas
hydrate recovered from the Blake Ridge, Northwest Atlantic. In: Paull, C.K.,
Matsumoto, R., Wallace, P.J., Dillon, W.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling
Program, Scientific Results, vol. 164. Ocean Drilling Program, College Station, TX,
pp. 13–28. https://doi.org/10.2973/odp.proc.sr.164.247.2000.
McCave, I.N., Tucholke, B.E., 1986. Deep current-controlled sedimentation in the
western North Atlantic. In: Vogt, P.R., Tucholke, B.E. (Eds.), The Western North
Atlantic Region. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 451–468.
https://doi.org/10.1130/DNAG-GNA-M.451.
McKinney, B.A., Lee, M.W., Agena, W.F., Poag, C.W., 2005. Early to middle jurassic salt
in baltimore canyon trough. In: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report,
2004–1435. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20041435.
McVeigh, D., Skarke, A., Dekas, A.E., Borrelli, C., Hong, W.L., Marlow, J.J., Pasulka, A.,
Jungbluth, S.P., Barco, R.A., Djurhuus, A., 2018. Characterization of benthic
biogeochemistry and ecology at three methane seep sites on the Northern U.S.
Atlantic margin. Deep-Sea Res. II Top. Stud. Oceanogr. 150, 41–56. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.dsr2.2018.03.001.
Merle, S.G., Embley, R.W., Johnson, H.P., Lau, T.-K., Phrampus, B.J., Raineault, N.A.,
Gee, L.J., 2021. Distribution of methane Plumes on Cascadia margin and
Implications for the LLGHS. Front. Earth Sci. 9 https://doi.org/10.3389/
feart.2021.531714.
Meyer, K.S., Wagner, J.K.S., Ball, B., Turner, P.J., Young, C.M., Van Dover, C.L., 2016.
Hyalinoecia artifex: Field notes on a charismatic and abundant epifaunal polychaete
on the US Atlantic continental margin. Invertebr. Biol. 135, 211–224. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ivb.12132.
Mosher, D.C., Yanez-Carrizo, G., 2021. The elusive continental rise: Insights from
residual bathymetry analysis of the Northwest Atlantic margin. Earth Sci. Rev. 217,
103608 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2021.103608.
Newman, K.R., Cormier, M.-H., Weissel, J.K., Driscoll, N.W., Kastner, M., Solomon, E.A.,
Robertson, G., Hill, J.C., Singh, H., Camilli, R., Eustice, R., 2008. Active methane
venting observed at giant pockmarks along the U.S. mid-Atlantic shelf break. Earth
Planet. Sci. Lett. 267, 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2007.11.053.
C.D. Ruppel et al.
NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2013a. Water Column Sonar Data
Collection (EX1304L1, EM302). NOAA. National Centers for Environmental
Information. https://doi.org/10.7289/V51N7Z23.
NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2013b. Water Column Sonar Data
Collection (EX1304L2, EM302). NOAA. National Centers for Environmental
Information. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5WW7FKS.
NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2014a. Water Column Sonar Data
Collection (EX1403, EM302). NOAA. https://doi.org/10.7289/V53F4MH6.
NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2014b. Water Column Sonar Data
Collection (EX1402L1, EM302). NOAA. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5NC5Z42.
NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2014c. Water Column Sonar Data
Collection (EX1404L1, EM302). NOAA. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5PC30BQ.
NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, 2014d. Water Column Sonar Data
Collection (EX1404L2, EM302). NOAA. https://doi.org/10.7289/V5DZ0690.
Paull, C.K., Spiess, F.N., Ussler III, W., Borowski, W.S., 1995. Methane-rich plumes on the
Carolina continental rise: associations with gas hydrates. Geology 23, 89–92.
https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1995)023<0089:MRPOTC>2.3.CO;2.
Paull, C.K., Matsumoto, R., Wallace, P.J., et al., 1996. Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling
Program, Initial Reports. Ocean Drilling Program, College Station, TX.
Pichel, L.M., Huismans, R.S., Gawthorpe, R., Faleide, J.I., Theunissen, T., 2022. Late-syn-
to post-rift salt tectonics on wide rifted margins—insights from geodynamic
modeling. Tectonics 41, e2021TC007158. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021TC007158.
Poag, C.W., 1985. Geologic Evolution of the United States Atlantic Margin. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, N.Y, p. 384.
Poag, C.W., Sevon, W.D., 1989. A record of Appalachian denudation in postrift Mesozoic
and Cenozoic sedimentary deposits of the U.S. Middle Atlantic continental margin.
Geomorphology 2, 119–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-555X(89)90009-3.
Pohlman, J., Ruppel, C.D., Wang, D.T., Ono, S., Kluesner, J., Xu, X., Sylva, S., Casso, M.,
2017. Natural gas sources from methane seeps on the Northern U.S. Atlantic margin.
In: EOS Transactions American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting, OS11B-1133.
Portanier, E., Nicolle, A., Rath, W., Monnet, L., Le Goff, G., Le Port, A.-S., Daguin-
Thiébaut, C., Morrison, C.L., Cunha, M.R., Betters, M., Young, C.M., Van Dover, C.L.,
Biastoch, A., Thiébaut, E., Jollivet, D., 2023. Coupling large-spatial scale larval
dispersal modelling with barcoding to refine the amphi-Atlantic connectivity
hypothesis in deep-sea seep mussels. Front. Mar. Sci. 10 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fmars.2023.1122124.
Postaagasi, C., 2018. Salt Tectonism in the Carolina Trough. M.S.. University of South
Carolina, p. 53 https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4685/.
Prouty, N.G., Sahy, D., Ruppel, C.D., Roark, E.B., Condon, D., Brooke, S., Ross, S.W.,
Demopoulos, A.W.J., 2016. Insights into methane dynamics from analysis of
authigenic carbonates and chemosynthetic mussels at newly-discovered Atlantic
margin seeps. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 449, 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
epsl.2016.05.023.
Prouty, N.G., Campbell, P.L., Close, H., Biddle, J.F., Beckmann, S., 2020. Molecular
indicators of methane metabolisms at cold seeps along the United States Atlantic
margin. Chem. Geol., 119603 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2020.119603.
QGIS.org, 2023. QGIS Geographic Information System.
Quattrini, A.M., Nizinski, M.S., Chaytor, J.D., Demopoulos, A.W.J., Roark, E.B.,
France, S.C., Moore, J.A., Heyl, T., Auster, P.J., Kinlan, B., Ruppel, C., Elliott, K.P.,
Kennedy, B.R.C., Lobecker, E., Skarke, A., Shank, T.M., 2015. Exploration of the
canyon-incised continental margin of the Northeastern United States reveals
dynamic habitats and diverse communities. PLoS One 10, e0139904. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139904.
Rebesco, M., Hernández-Molina, F.J., Van Rooij, D., Wåhlin, A., 2014. Contourites and
associated sediments controlled by deep-water circulation processes: State-of-the-art
and future considerations. Mar. Geol. 352, 111–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
margeo.2014.03.011.
Riedel, M., Scherwath, M., Römer, M., Veloso, M., Heesemann, M. & Spence, G. D. 2018.
Distributed natural gas venting offshore along the Cascadia margin. Nat. Commun.,
9, 3264. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05736-x.
Roberts, H.H., Carney, R.S., 1997. Evidence of episodic fluid, gas, and sediment venting
on the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope. Econ. Geol. 92, 863–879. https://
doi.org/10.2113/gsecongeo.92.7-8.863.
Rowan, M.G., 2014. Passive-margin salt basins: hyperextension, evaporite deposition,
and salt tectonics. Basin Res. 26, 154–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/bre.12043.
Rowan, M.G., Peel, F.J., Vendeville, B.C., Gaullier, V., 2012. Salt tectonics at passive
margins: Geology versus models – Discussion. Mar. Pet. Geol. 37, 184–194. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2012.04.007.
Rudebusch, J.A., Prouty, N.G., Conrad, J.E., Watt, J.T., Kluesner, J.W., Miller, N.C.,
Watson, S.J., Hillman, J.I.T., 2023. Diving deeper into seep distribution along the
cascadia convergent margin, USA. Front. Mar. Sci. 11, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/
feart.2023.1205211.
Ruppel, C., 2003. Thermal State of the Gas Hydrate Reservoir. In: Max, M.D. (Ed.),
Natural Gas Hydrate: in Oceanic and Permafrost Environments. Springer
Netherlands, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4387-5_4.
Ruppel, C., 2011. Methane hydrates and contemporary climate change. Nat. Educ.
Knowl. 3. Available: http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/metha
ne-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790.
Ruppel, C., Demopoulos, A., 2013. Chemosynthetic Communities and Gas Hydrates at
Cold Seeps South of Nantucket [Online] Available: https://oceanexplorer.noaa.
gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1304/logs/july12/july12.html [Accessed 6/29/23].
Ruppel, C., Kessler, J.D., 2017. The interaction of climate change and methane hydrates.
Rev. Geophys. 55 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000534.
Ruppel, C., Dickens, G.R., Castellini, D.G., Gilhooly, W., Lizarralde, D., 2005. Heat and
salt inhibition of gas hydrate formation in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 32 https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021909.
23
Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287
Ruppel, C., Kluesner, J., Pohlman, J., Brothers, D., Colwell, F., Krause, S., Treude, T.,
2015. Methane hydrate dynamics on the Northern US Atlantic margin. DOE Fire Ice
Newslett., 10-13. [Online] Available: https://netl.doe.
gov/sites/default/files/publication/MHNews_2015_December.pdf#page=10.
Ruppel, C., Demopoulos, A., Prouty, N., 2018. Exploring US Mid-Atlantic margin
methane Seeps: IMMeRSS, May 2017. Suppl. Oceanogr. 31 (1) [Online] Available:
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/31-1_supplement.pdf.
Ruppel, C., Kluesner, J.D., Edwards, J.H., Danforth, B., Miller, N.C., Worley, C.,
Bergeron, E., O’Brien, T., Nichols, A., 2024. Processed multi-channel seismic
reflection data from the U.S. Mid-Atlantic margin (EN555, 2015). Marine Geophys.
Data Syst. https://doi.org/10.60521/331588.
Ruppel, C.D., Waite, W.F., 2020. Timescales and processes of methane hydrate formation
and breakdown, with application to geologic systems. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth
125, e2018JB016459. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB016459.
Ruppel, C.D., Shedd, W., Miller, N.C., Kluesner, J., Frye, M., Hutchinson, D., 2022. US
Atlantic margin Gas Hydrates. In: Mienert, J., Berndt, C., Trehu, A.M.,
Camerlenghi, A., Liu, C.-S. (Eds.), World Atlas of Submarine Gas Hydrates in
Continental Margins. Springer Cham, Switzerland, pp. 287–302. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-81186-0_24.
Sassen, R., Sweet, S.T., Milkov, A.V., Defreitas, D.A., Kennicutt, M.C. Ii, 2001.
Thermogenic vent gas and gas hydrate in the Gulf of Mexico slope: is gas hydrate
decomposition significant? Geology 29, 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-
7613(2001)029<0107:TVGAGH>2.0.CO;2.
Schlee, J.S., Dillon, W.P., Grow, J.A., 1979. Structure of the Continental Slope off the
Eastern United States. In: Doyle, L.J., Pilkey, O.H. (Eds.), Geology of Continental
Slopes, vol. 27. SEPM Society for Sedimentary Geology Special Publication,
pp. 95–117. https://doi.org/10.2110/pec.79.27.0095.
Skarke, A., Ruppel, C., Kodis, M., Brothers, D., Lobecker, E., 2014. Widespread methane
leakage from the sea floor on the northern US Atlantic margin. Nat. Geosci. 7,
657–661. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2232.
Skarke, A., Ruppel, C., Hoy, S., 2019. The 100th NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer Mission
Visits New Methane Plumes Where the U.S. Atlantic Seeps Story Began [Online].
Available: https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/explorations/ex1903/logs/jul
y12/july12.html [Accessed August 8 2020].
Skarke, A., Ruppel, C.D., Kidiwela, M., Kodis, M., Danforth, W., Baldwin, W., 2024. U.S.
Atlantic Margin Cold Seeps Database from Multibeam Water Column Imagery,
2011–2016: South Atlantic Bight to Georges Bank. National Center for
Environmental Information. https://doi.org/10.25921/xm5q-p940.
Skarke, A.D., Ruppel, C.D., Kidiwela, M.W., Baldwin, W.E., Danforth, W.W., 2018.
Expanded U.S. Atlantic Margin Seep Inventory Yields Insight into Methane
Dynamics. EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C..
OS33C-1913.
Sloan, E.D., Koh, C.A., 2007. Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases, Third edition. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, p. 752.
Stranne, C., O’Regan, M., Hong, W.-L., Brüchert, V., Ketzer, M., Thornton, B.F.,
Jakobsson, M., 2022. Anaerobic oxidation has a minor effect on mitigating seafloor
methane emissions from gas hydrate dissociation. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 163.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00490-x.
Triezenberg, P.J., Hart, P.E., Childs, J.R., 2016. National Archive of Marine Seismic
Surveys (NAMSS): A USGS Data Website of Marine Seismic Reflection Data within
the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). U.S. Geological Survey Data Release.
https://doi.org/10.5066/F7930R7P.
Turner, P.J., Ball, B., Diana, Z., Fariñas-Bermejo, A., Grace, I., Mcveigh, D., Powers, M.
M., Van Audenhaege, L., Maslakova, S., Young, C.M., Van Dover, C.L., 2020.
Methane seeps on the US Atlantic margin and their potential importance to
populations of the commercially valuable deep-sea red crab, Chaceon quinquedens.
Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 75. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00075.
Twichell, D.C., Chaytor, J.D., Brink, U.S., Buczkowski, B.J., 2009. Morphology of late
Quaternary submarine landslides along the U.S. Atlantic continental margin. Mar.
Geol. 264, 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2009.01.009.
Uchupi, E., Driscoll, N., Ballard, R.D., Bolmer, S.T., 2001. Drainage of late Wisconsin
glacial lakes and the morphology and late quaternary stratigraphy of the New
Jersey–southern New England continental shelf and slope. Mar. Geol. 172, 117–145.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-3227(00)00106-7.
Van Dover, C.L., Aharon, P., Bernhard, J.M., Caylor, E., Doerries, M., Flickinger, W.,
Gilhooly, W., Goffredi, S.K., Knick, K.E., Macko, S.A., Rapoport, S., Raulfs, E.C.,
Ruppel, C., Salerno, J.L., Seitz, R.D., Sen Gupta, B.K., Shank, T., Turnipseed, M.,
Vrijenhoek, R., 2003. Blake Ridge methane seeps: characterization of a soft-
sediment, chemosynthetically based ecosystem. Deep-Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap.
50, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-0637(02)00162-0.
Ventress, W.P.S., Bebout, D.G., Perkins, B.F., Moore, C.H. (Eds.), 1989. Gulf of Mexico
Salt Tectonics, Associated Processes and Exploration Potential, 10. SEPM Society for
Sedimentary Geology, p. 165. https://doi.org/10.5724/gcs.89.10.
Wehner, H., Faber, E., Hufnagel, H., 2000. Characterization of low and high molecular-
weight hydrocarbons in sediments from the Blake Ridge, sites 994, 995, and 997. In:
Paull, C.K., Matsumoto, R., Wallace, P.J., Dillon, W.P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Ocean Drilling Program, Scientific Results, 164, vol. 164. Ocean Drilling Program,
College Station, TX, pp. 47–58. https://doi.org/10.2973/odp.proc.sr.164.225.2000.
Weinstein, A., Navarrete, L., Ruppel, C., Weber, T.C., Leonte, M., Kellermann, M.Y.,
Arrington, E.C., Valentine, D.L., Scranton, M.I., Kessler, J.D., 2016. Determining the
C.D. Ruppel et al. Marine Geology 471 (2024) 107287

flux of methane into Hudson Canyon at the edge of methane clathrate hydrate
stability. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 17 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GC006421.
Wilson, A., Ruppel, C., 2007. Salt tectonics and shallow subseafloor fluid convection:
models of coupled fluid-heat-salt transport. Geofluids 7, 377–386. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-8123.2007.00191.x.
Withjack, M., Malinconico, M., Durcanin, M., 2020. The “Passive” margin of Eastern
North America: rifting and the influence of prerift orogenic activity on postrift
development. Lithosphere 2020, 8876280. https://doi.org/10.2113/2020/8876280.

24