The Deep Structure of the Kimberlite Pipe Volchya in the Arkhangelsk Diamond Province and Controlling Faults Based on Passive Seismic and Radiological Methods (Northwest Russia)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe aim of this study is to evaluate a series of passive seismic and radiometric techniques applied to the case study of the deep structure of the Volchya kimberlite pipe of the Arkhangelsk diamond province in Russia.
The manuscript is interesting and fits well with the aim of the journal, but in the opinion of the reviewer it can be published with the following revisions.
(1) The abstract should state the main points of the paper. Authors are encouraged to revise it to focus on the novelty of the paper.
(2) Lines 38-41 are difficult to understand. The authors should clarify them.
(3) In the Introduction Section, the Authors should give more information about the objectives of the present work and how it is carried out.
(4) Figure 3a is incorrectly positioned in relation to its caption (typographical defect).
(5) In the Conclusion Section, the Authors should indicate how the arguments presented in this paper can improve the scientific literature.
Based on the above, the reviewer is of the opinion that the manuscript can be accepted for publication after the described revisions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is very interesting. It is well written and presents very interesting results. It is clear to read, the methodology is correct and well explained. My only comments concern the discussion.
Figures 5b and c have no description in the text. The question arises whether the velocity scale in table 1 is directly related to figures 5b and 5c? From the results shown, it seems that table 1 refers only to figure 5c. Is this correct?
Line 334-338. The redaction is confusing. Evidently there is a linear relationship between points 1-2, 2-9 and 7-14. But the phrasing is not clear. The paragraph mentioned seems more like a paragraph for conclusions than for discussion.
The manuscript should be accepted with only minor changes. Once the authors respond to the above comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting paper in which the objective of this study is to evaluate a series of passive seismic and radiometric techniques for the purpose of elucidating the depth structure of the pipes and the underlying controlling structures. The research was conducted on the Volchya kimberlite pipe as a case study. (a)it has been shown 402 that the proposed set of methods can be successfully applied in the search and study ofkimberlite pipes in the Chernoozerskaya area of the ADP. (c) The obtained results showed that the tested set of methods can increase the efficiency of verification drilling planning. This paper will benefit to some mineral explorers working in this fields.
Line348: “A fault close in location in space described as the ore-cintaining for the Volchya 348 pipe in the work” may be changed into”A fault close in location in space described as the ore-containing for the Volchya pipe in the work. (b) The Volchya pipe is identified as a two low-velocity cone-shaped bodies with an 405 anomaly in the RFD. Highest level of RFD coused by intersection of fault and pipe.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors declare the aim of the presented research as to assess various passive and active methods to improve understanding of the depth structure of the pipes and the underlying controlling formations. Modern methodologies including a multiparametric approach were used to locate and assess a new diamond deposit in the selected area. The article is written well in terms of both form and content, including a description of methodologies with potential for use in practical applications.
I have several comments on the formal side of the article:
I recommend that Appendix A be moved to the results section of the article.
Repetition of sentences - e.g. lines 220 and 233
Incorrect grammatical forms, e.g. seven(th) in line 227
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper have so many structural problems. it needs to be restructured and written properly. Even author did not find any point to show in abstract from this study and proposed another study. There is no discussion chapter in real.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer! Please see the attachment!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsi appreciate the good revision by the author. but still many things needed to be fixed. check pdf file. previously i didnt like the paper. but after this revision i am hopeful that it can be fixed now. see my comments in pdf
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
