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

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

In our paper we identify a key reflection that we term CF …