Experimental Characteristics of Hydrocarbon Generation from Scandinavian Alum Shale Carbonate Nodules: Implications for Hydrocarbon Generation from Majiagou Formation Marine Carbonates in China’s Ordos Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
RE: Experimental characteristics of hydrocarbon generation from Lower Paleozoic marine carbonates and implications for hydrocarbon generation from carbonates of the Majiagou Formation in the Ordos Basin
This manuscript is well prepared and of high quality. I consider this manuscript with minor revising suitable for acceptance and publication in the journal. Minor revisions include the following: 1- There are no numbers in some columns in the data tables. It should be determined whether they are not measured or there is another reason. 3- References should be set according to the format of the journal. 4- The quality of some forms is low. Please check all the forms and enter them in the manuscript with high resolution.
RE: Experimental characteristics of hydrocarbon generation from Lower Paleozoic marine carbonates and implications for hydrocarbon generation from carbonates of the Majiagou Formation in the Ordos Basin
This manuscript is well prepared and of high quality. I consider this manuscript with minor revising suitable for acceptance and publication in the journal. Minor revisions include the following: 1- There are no numbers in some columns in the data tables. It should be determined whether they are not measured or there is another reason. 3- References should be set according to the format of the journal. 4- The quality of some forms is low. Please check all the forms and enter them in the manuscript with high resolution.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, your submitted manuscript is interesting, but it requires a robust improvement in organization, description, using more figures, describing geochemical parameters, and reviewing/rewriting part of the manuscript where it appears confusing and repetitive.
Finally, I encourage you to rewrite it considering the following comments.
Comments
The title is referring to “….Majiagou Formation in the Ordos Basin” but in the manuscript you stated that you did not use it. This is not clear, what did you mean to write?
Describe the geochemical difference between Majiagou Formation and Alum Shale. Why did you use this source rock? what do they have in common? Are you sure they are similar? Compare geological and geochemical parameters.
Add a geological map of the studied area;
Add a Stratigraphic column, with the location of the source rocks.
Add the location of the samples,
Describe from a geological point of view the source rocks involved of the study.
Delete information related to outside basins analyzed or clarify why it is important to highlight them.
Review the column of table 1, is confusing.
where is the Nordic carbonate located? In the top Alum shale? In the bottom? Provide a stratigraphic column.
Review the 3. Thermal simulation experiment results because it is at times confusing.
Check the table 2.
Review the 4.1.2. Pyrolysis nonhydrocarbon gas characteristics because it is at times confusing.
Review the 4.2. Liquid product evolutionary characteristics because it is at times confusing.
Why is the Majiagou Formation not cited in the conclusion?
The English is fine, and I suggest a minor editing review.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have some major concerns about this study, specifically related to the overall study design and methods, as well as a severe lack of appropriate supporting references. The authors should fully address my attached comments, suggestions, and concerns in their revised manuscript. Overall, this manuscript is going to need major revisions before I will be able to review it again. At this point, I have refrained from commenting on the reported results and conclusions, as I will wait until the authors sufficiently address my concerns regarding the overall study design and methods.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
There are many grammar and syntax errors throughout the paper, and the manuscript should be subjected to thorough English-language correction and editing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article (Experimental characteristics of hydrocarbon generation from Lower Paleozoic marine carbonates and implications for hydrocarbon generation from carbonates of the Majiagou Formation in the Ordos Basin) has potential after some modification.
the manuscript lacks geological setting of the studied area
what is the scale in figure 1; add arrows and describe the image components?
The manuscript structure should be (introduction-geological setting-materials and methods-results-discussions)
section 3. Thermal simulation experiment results, should be 3. results and then 3.1 Thermal simulation experiment results etc.
the introduction (The carbonate sequence has a pivotal position in the global oil and gas exploration field, with rich hydrocarbon resources and great exploration potential (Liu et al., 2018). you need to add global references related to carbonate hydrocarbon resources ex. Radwan et al. (2022). Diagenetic overprint on porosity and permeability of a combined conventional-unconventional reservoir: Insights from the Eocene pelagic limestones, Gulf of Suez, Egypt. Marine and Petroleum Geology, 146, 105967.
revise
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is ready to publish.
thank you
The English is fine, and I suggest a minor editing review.
Author Response
Thank you for your time and effort in processing and reviewing our manuscript, and for your constructive comments, which have helped us greatly to enhance our manuscript and are much appreciated.
Thanks again!
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the authors for having done a decent job addressing my previous comments. However, the manuscript still needs some work before it will be ready for publication. Please see and address my attached detailed comments and suggestions.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Mostly fine, though the paper certainly would benefit from a thorough grammatical review and corrections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
you have to add a new section namely 2. Geological setting, you can add the basin history, lithology, petroleum system, reservoir characterization etc. in this section, this section is not related to samples. please move all information related to the geology of the area to the geological setting section. it is not acceptable to integrate with samples.
2. Samples and experimental method should be 3. Samples and experimental method
add new section the implication of this work to hydrocarbon exploration and development, since this one of the research targets.
minor
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
Thank you very much for your valuable comments. We have made the adjustments and revisions you requested by adding a “2. Geological setting” section to the manuscript and moving all content related to the geological environment of the study area to this section. It has been shown in red.
Thanks again!
