Next Article in Journal
Dating Amber: Review and Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Cross-Hole and Vadose-Zone Infiltration Tracer Test Analyses to Determine Aquifer Reactive Transport Parameters at a Former Uranium Mill Site (Grand Junction, Colorado)
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Characteristics and Evolution of Tectonic Fractures in the Jurassic Lianggaoshan Formation Shale in the Northeast Sichuan Basin

Minerals 2023, 13(7), 946; https://doi.org/10.3390/min13070946
by Xuefeng Bai 1,2, Xiandong Wang 2,*, Zhiguo Wang 2, Hucheng Deng 3,*, Yong Li 3, An Li 3, Hongxiu Cao 3, Li Wang 3, Yanping Zhu 2, Shuangfang Lu 1, Feng Cao 3 and Jianhua He 3
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 5: Anonymous
Reviewer 6:
Reviewer 7: Anonymous
Minerals 2023, 13(7), 946; https://doi.org/10.3390/min13070946
Submission received: 17 May 2023 / Revised: 12 July 2023 / Accepted: 13 July 2023 / Published: 15 July 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Through studying outcrop samples, authors investigated the Lianggaoshan formation fractures including its distribution, characteristics, controlling factors and evolutions. The results and conclusions are sounding. Presentation is appropriate. There are some minor grammars need to be checked and corrected. 

1. Line 138, the tectonic fractures in the study area

2. Line 145, "not far" needs to be reworded and replaced by other appropriate words. Or use exact numbers, such as, is less than a couple of meters, 5 meters, or 6 meters, or 50 cm?!

3. Line 210-212, sentence is too long. Needs to be split into two separate sentences.

4. Line 230, 231, "so" "so" is used too frequently. "proper shale formation of thickness", proper should be replaced with other more appropriate words, such as, "optimum" "optimal"?!. Formation of thickness should be "formation thickness"?

5. Line 335, "we can calculate" should be "we calculated".

There should be a "methodology" section discussing field outcrop logging, sampling, laboratory sample test, the equipment used, the place where the test was conducted.

 

Language is fine but grammar check is still needed.

Author Response

Comment #1: Line 138, the tectonic fractures in the study area

Response: Thanks for the Reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected this error and checked the revised manuscript again.

Changes: Please see Lines #186-188.

 

Comment #2: Line 145, "not far" needs to be reworded and replaced by other appropriate words. Or use exact numbers, such as, is less than a couple of meters, 5 meters, or 6 meters, or 50 cm?!

Response: Thanks for the Reviewer’s suggestion. We rewrite this part of the description and use restrictive numbers to ensure that the description is specific.

Changes: Please see Lines #194-195.

 

Comment #3: Line 210-212, sentence is too long. Needs to be split into two separate sentences. 210-

Response: Thanks for the Reviewer’s suggestion. We rewrite Line 210-212 and split it into two separate sentences.

Changes: Please see Lines #394-395.

 

Comment #4: Line 230, 231, "so" "so" is used too frequently. "proper shale formation of thickness", proper should be replaced with other more appropriate words, such as, "optimum" "optimal"?!. Formation of thickness should be "formation thickness"?

Response: Thanks for the Reviewer’s suggestion. We rewrite this part to make the sentence more logical, and we also replace the inappropriate words.

Changes: Please see Lines #412-415.

 

Comment #5: Line 335, "we can calculate" should be "we calculated". There should be a "methodology" section discussing field outcrop logging, sampling, laboratory sample test, the equipment used, the place where the test was conducted

Response: Thanks for the Reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected this error in the revised manuscript. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added a section on sample sources and experiments to the revised manuscript, field outcrop, logging, sampling, laboratory sample testing, equipment used, and testing locations are described in detail in this section.

Changes: Please see Lines # 133-180 and 133-180.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discussed characterization and evolution of natural fractures in Jurassic Lianggaoshan Formation, which provides a very good description of fracturs in this specific formation. But following points should be addressed to improve paper quality such as in Introduction and Results parts.

 

It is suggested to discuss more about the findings of this study in the abstract, such as how fractures affect hydrocarbon accumulation or production, if possible.

 

It is recommended that to review some latest papers about fracture characterization methods in introduction to enhance novelty of this work, such as Wu et al., 2023. Characterization methods for natural fractures distribution in shale and tight reservoirs. International journal of Coal geology.

 

Authors discussed the quartz contents affecting fractures distribution. Some papers needed to be discussed to enhance this topic. Yang et al., 2018, Mechanical Properties and Natural Fractures of a Horn River Shale Core from Well Logs and Hardness Measurement. SPE 174287-PA. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. Dong, et al., 2017. The impact of rock composition on geomechanical properties of a shale formation: Middle and Upper Devonian Horn River Group shale, Northeast British Columbia, Canada. AAPG Bulletin

 

What are the advantages and disadvantages of this study? I recommend the authors to

highlight this topic.

 

What are the limitations of this study? I recommend the authors to highlight this topic.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate Reviewer’s time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable for revising and improving our work. We’ve carefully studied all comments and made corrections accordingly, with the revision marked in red in the revised manuscript. The point-to-point response to each comment is also provided below in blue. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This work focuses on studying the characteristics and evolution of structural fractures of the Jurassic Lianggaoshan Formation in Northeast Sichuan basin. The topic is interesting. I will suggest a minor reversion decision. Some comments are attached:

1. The literature review in the introduction section should be strengthened.

2. Section 2 needs to be reorganized, and the research methods mentioned in the article should be detailed and elaborated upon.

4. The quality of the figures in the article needs to be improved.

5. The main conclusions should be presented item by item for clarity and organization.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate Reviewer’s time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable for revising and improving our work. We’ve carefully studied all comments and made corrections accordingly, with the revision marked in red in the revised manuscript. The point-to-point response to each comment is also provided below in blue

 

Comment #1: The literature review in the introduction section should be strengthened.

Response: According to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added the citation of nine new references in the Introduction section of the revised manuscript

Changes: Please see Lines # 63, 71-73 and 85-90.

 

Comment #2: Section 2 needs to be reorganized, and the research methods mentioned in the article should be detailed and elaborated upon. Section

Response: Thanks for the Reviewer’s suggestion. We have added a section on sample sources and experiments to the revised manuscript, field outcrop, logging, sampling, laboratory sample testing, equipment used, and testing locations are described in detail in this section.

Changes: Please see Lines # 146-194.

 

Comment #3: The quality of the figures in the article needs to be improved.

Response: Thanks for your valuable and thoughtful suggestion. We carefully checked and replaced the figures with a resolution of less than 600 dpi in the manuscript. At the same time, we also modified the figures to improve the academic and normative nature

Changes: Please see Lines # 136, 219, 289,350.

 

Comment #4: The main conclusions should be presented item by item for clarity and organization.

Response: Thanks for the Reviewer’s suggestion. We rearrange the logic between the conclusions according to the suggestions and state them item by item to ensure clarity and order.

Changes: Please see Lines # 536-561.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript "Characteristics and evolution of tectonic fractures in the shale of Jurassic Lianggaoshan Formation in Northeast Sichuan Basin"  is well-structured work on shale fracture evolution research. 

The results are logically presented and the conclusions are well-defined based on the findings. 

If we follow the rule that Figure and Table captions should be understandable without reference to the text some figure captions could be written more explanatory style. Like in Figures 14 and 15 you have the categories (14/I, II, II and 15/I,II,II,IV) in the figure that could be explained in the text.

Another weakness is in the reference list. The writing is not following the same style. That has to be corrected. Also more references from other shale formations around the world could be added too.

 

Best Regards

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate Reviewer’s time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable for revising and improving our work. We’ve carefully studied all comments and made corrections accordingly, with the revision marked in red in the revised manuscript. The point-to-point response to each comment is also provided below in blue. Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

minerals-2430216

 

The article studies the characteristics of fractured geological formation especially focusing on field study. I appreciate the authors' effort spent on it. There are many typos/formatting issues; it is not rigorous. In addition, I have few comments as follows.

------------------- Major concerns -----------------

1.        The article's structure logic/layout is unclear as the reviewer can not recognize the concern of the presented research that the authors wish to stress. The current manuscript seems like a mixed-cake that contains variant fruits and sweetmeats, but I do not know what is the most desirable thing.

2.        Another major concern from my perspective: the statements are mixed with observation, experiment, and statistical analyses. Please separate the sections of methodology, results and discussion, to make the overall structure is condensed and logical.

 

------------------- Others -----------------

There are many typos and grammar mistakes, just a few examples:

1.        Please carefully check formatting of Reference, like [13].

2.        The capitalization or not of author's family name should be unified.

3.        Line 74, format of [11]. Line 61, the same issue.

4.        Abstract should be substantially improved, to make it more condensed and concise.

N/A

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate Reviewer’s time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable for revising and improving our work. We’ve carefully studied all comments and made corrections accordingly, with the revision marked in red in the revised manuscript. The point-to-point response to each comment is also provided below in blue. Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 6 Report

The paper is of good scientific level and practical interest. The structure of the article is well organized, the text is clear, the drawings are made with high quality, experimental studies are used correctly.

There are a small remarks:

It is necessary to include an overview geological drawing and show the position of Fig.1 on it. The figure should show the main tectonic zones that led to the formation of three stages of fractures in the Lianggaoshan Formation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate Reviewer’s time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable for revising and improving our work. We’ve carefully studied all comments and made corrections accordingly, with the revision marked in red in the revised manuscript. 

Comment #1: It is necessary to include an overview geological drawing and show the position of Fig.1 on it. The figure should show the main tectonic zones that led to the formation of three stages of fractures in the Lianggaoshan Formation.

Response: Thanks for your valuable and thoughtful suggestion. We replaced Figure 1a, and the new Figure 1a supplements the main tectonic zones that led to the formation of three stages of fractures in the Lianggaoshan Formation.

Changes: Please see Lines #136.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 7 Report

Please see the attached doc. file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Language looks like direct translation from Chinese to English, many technical terms need to be fixed and replaced by widely used/accepted terms in peer-reviewed journals. The paper is very hard to read and awkward as is. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We appreciate Reviewer’s time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Those comments are all valuable for revising and improving our work. We’ve carefully studied all comments and made corrections accordingly, with the revision marked in red in the revised manuscript. The point-to-point response to each comment is also provided below in blue.  Please see the attached doc. file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

I appreciate the authors' effort spent on revising the manuscript.

This manuscript partially addressed the comments proposed in the last-round review. However, there are still some issues should be addressed.

 

Minor comments:

1. I kindly suggest that abstract should be substantially improved, to make it more condensed and concise. The current version is too long.

2. The geological fractures were studied by statistical analysis and experimental test, especially including the geometrical distributions and micrographs of fluid inclusions. The question is: how can we adopt the fractures in the real-field into computational modeling. Is it feasible in the presented study?

3. Introduction section can be further improved. Numerical simulation plays an important role in fracture analysis. Hence, more update-to date (recent 5 years) references should be cited. Since the authors studied fractures and its characteristic (distributions and geometrical features), here, some useful papers are provided in DOI form: 10.1007/s10064-019-01536-9 for simulating geological fracture, 10.1016/j.advwatres.2022.104186 for seepage in geomaterials, 10.3390/app12063027 hydraulic-mechanical coupling in fractures, and 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2022.108427 for simulating fracture propagation.

N/A

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 7 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved. Although some figure and table captions could include more information to help reader with better understanding the figures and tables better. The authors need to work through this systematically however, one example could be figure 14, the caption should say what the inset figure in part (a) means and how to read the axis etc. Another example would be table 1, there's a range of value above each line, and one value below each line, the caption should say what these mean. Figure 11, what does the vertical axis mean - number of samples or number of inclusions show the corresponding temperature? Figure 8, what does the Roman numbers mean?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

We thank the reviewer's further comments on the revised manuscript. These comments help us to further improve the manuscript. We made corrections accordingly, with the revision marked in red in the revised manuscript. 

We have perfected the figure and table information to ensure that the reader can fully understand the content presented by them.

Back to TopTop