Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your construction comments. We have attached our responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented a meaningful study on petrophysical and petrographic evaluation of the Northeastern Bredasdorp Basin in South Africa. They used conventional core data to identify flow zones and estimate their flow and storage capacities. In addition, the authors used x-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy to study the impact of minerals on reservoir flow zones. The authors have previously published similar papers focusing on other parts of the Bredasdorp basin. The novelty of present manuscript is that it covers a new part of the basin. 

The manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner. The methodology section provides enough details. The figures and tables are clear and easy to understand. The conclusions are consistent with the results presented. I recommend the publication of this manuscript after addressing some minor comments below: 

1) Line 127: Did you mean "cumulative flow capacity" against "cumulative storage capacity"? You repeated "cumulative flow capacity" twice. 

2) Figure 3: "PTR1" in the legend should be corrected to the "PRT1".

3) Line 187: I recommend to avoid the abbreviations in the section titles. 

4) Figure 4b: HFU1 (in red) in the legend should be corrected to HFU4. 

5) Figure 5: The y-axis title is missing.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your construction comments. We have attached our responses. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The ms is well revised and can be accepted now.