Differences of Pore Features in Marine Shales between Lower Cambrian and Lower Silurian Formations of Upper Yangtze Area, South China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study, porosity differences in marine shales between Lower Cambrian shale and Lower Silurian shale were investigated by using organic geochemistry, XRD, scanning electron microscopy and gas adsorption. The authors did not use the format of "Energies" journal. The research content of this article does not conform to the "Energies" journal. 

Author Response

I don't know how to make the format of "Energies" journal, but I find that Editor has made it. Sorry about it. on the other hand, MS has been revised.

Reviewer 2 Report

The organization of the MS and applied methods are suitable for the aim of the study; however, several data is missing in the section 3, and the authors should make discussion using their data in sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 instead of literature review. The literature review could be useful for discussion, but without comparison with the porosity data of studied samples could reduce the soundness of the MS. In addition, I could not find how many samples were analyzed from both Cambrian and Silurian shale samples, and furthermore, what kind of sampling method were applied? Secondly, the authors report graptolite in the figure 2, but in the section 3, the authors only mentioned %Ro calculation about solid bitumen. Since the Silurian samples contain graptolite remains, its correlation with %Ro of solid bitumen in the Silurian samples might be useful data for maturity assessment of Silurian samples. Finally, the authors applied CO2 measurements and total porosity, but there are not any data about them in the section 3. I added several notes and corrections in attached copy of the revised MS. Overall, I suggest a major revision for the MS.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. We appreciate your constructive suggestions. Your proposed suggestions are of important significance to us, we have modified the manuscript one by one according to your proposals. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

In my opinion you have any interesting paper. However in may opinion you should improve it. So, see my below comments:

• abstract: clarify the purpose of the paper;
• introduction: clarify the research problem, the purpose of the study  and present in the last paragraph of this section the structure of the paper;
• literature review, results and conclusion sections:  present the source of figures and tables;
• conclusion: please relate this section with the purpose of the study and literature review. You should add here some interesting references. Also add here the implications of the study for theory and practice, as well the limitations of the study and paths for future research.

Good WORK.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. We appreciate your constructive suggestions. Your proposed suggestions are of important significance to us, we have modified the manuscript one by one according to your proposals.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This article does not seem to fit the research field of Energies.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did most of suggested corrections. Still one point is not clearly express about %Ro of the Silurian shales. Since the authors reported %Ro values in these samples in the Table 1, it is not clearly that whether these values are from solid bitumen or graptolite. If the results are from both DOM, it should be reported separately. Furthermore, the authors should avoid to use the term of organic geochemistry, since the EOM, S1, S2, and Tmax values and biomarker composition are absent. Finally, I added several typo and writing style corrections in the revised MS. Please, check them carefully. Overall, I could suggest a minor revision for the MS.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for your comments. We appreciate your constructive suggestions. Your proposed suggestions are of important significance to us. We accepted all the comments and revised our manuscript accordingly. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made great improvements. It can be accepted.