Exploration of Kastification and Characterization Based on Borehole Image
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Addressing the complexity of the karst pore system remains an academic and industry challenge. I commend the authors for their attempt to tackle this long-standing problem. Essentially, this paper is a methodology on a new approach at detecting and quantifying macro-scale karst pores using optical borehole images. While I thank the authors for their novel workflow from addressing borehole eccentricity to preprocessing the image to pore identification, the paper is difficult to read and requires significant improvement before I could recommend publication. Below are some key points I hope the authors consider to strengthen the paper:
· Consider having the paper proofread for English language and style. There are numerous grammatical errors, run-on sentences, incomplete sentences, confusing sentence structure, etc…
· Avoid using confusing, unnecessary words, e.g., in Line 56 what is meant by “actual engineering?”
· Avoid embedding equations into a paragraph, e.g., Lines 181-184
· Consider restructuring the paper to have a Methods, Results, and Discussion sections
The technical quality of the paper is sound; however, as written, the paper fails to show case the authors’ work.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript. We have revised the paper according to the reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Respected,
The paper is interesting and certainly deserves to be published as a scientific paper. The problem of defining porosity in karst terrains has always been an enigma and an unknown, so any research effort that helps to solve this problem is welcome.
But, the paper should undergo medium to major changes consisting of the following:
1. Suggestion for the title of the work itself. Instead of the term Karst Pore Identification, the term Kastification is better to be used.
2. References in the paper are not made following the rule. There are also incorrect references in the text regarding references list. For example, line 74 is Niu Tao et al but in the List of references is Liu Tao. Please check all references.
3. In the list of references, all authors should be listed, not just the first two authors and after that et al.
4. The paragraph (lines 229 – 235), i.e. the text before picture 4 should be clarified. Very unclear text.
5. On Figure 4, it would be good to apply the depths so that the reader can follow the text which is in correlation with some individual sections.
6. Figure 8, the caption of the picture says Distribution map ..., but the figure refers the diagrams (not maps).
7. The paper presents the results of only one interval 5.0-5.5. If the borehole is 15 m deep, why there are no comments about the other parts. If the other parts do not have karstification, then it is necessary to mention it and give a comment for that purpose. Porosity is also expressed mainly in %, so perhaps it would be good to give porosity according to the intervals of whole borehole or intervals which are analyzed.
8. The work after the changes should have an English proof reading
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments on our manuscript. We have revised the paper according to the reviewers’ comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors,
Few minor tweaks to consider:
Line 88: borehole hole wall should just be "borehole wall"
Line 97: Not sure what is meant by "hole wall drop?"
Figure 1: I really like the image. Is it possible to replace with a higher resolution? As shown, the image is rather blury.
Lines 124 - 130: I think I understand what you are saying but as written, the paragraph is confusing. I think you are saying that in addition to geologic variations along a borehole wall, other factors, such as coring can affect the integrity of the borehole wall. And that having both optical image and core allow one to reconcile between what is geologic and what is operational. Is this correct? Regardless, I would consider rewording to be clear about what you are trying to say.
Author Response
We have revised the paper according to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for making the effort to accept the suggestions that have been made.
You need to make one more technical correction in your Manuscript. On Figures 8 and 9, the text with the x and y axis remains in the national language, as well as legend in Fig. 9. Please translate it into English.
Author Response
We have revised the paper according to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
