Provenance Variability in Coeval Slope Channel Systems: Hermod S2 Member Sandstone (Eocene), South Viking Graben (North Sea)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Good Afternoon!

Thank you very much for your kind and helpful comments. I discussed all of them extensively with the main co-authors.

We found your comments very helpful and reasonable. All but a select few suggestions were implemented.

Please find a full reply attached!

Kind Regards!

Wiktor Luzinski

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for this opportunity to review the manuscript entitled ‘Provenance Variability in Coeval Slope Channels Systems: Hermod S2 Member Sandstones (Eocene), South Viking Graben’ by Luzinski et al. This is sediment provenance study based on relatively conventional proxies of heavy minerals. After carefully going through the manuscript, I consider the interpretations made by the authors are mostly reasonable. One major problem is that many figures in this study require significant improvement. Many geological/geographic units are hard to follow because they are not shown in any figures. Meanwhile, I wonder if other types of provenance data are available for the studied stratum. Focusing on heavy minerals alone may lead to incomplete or biased provenance interpretations. Specific suggestions are provided below for reference. Overall, I suggest a minor revision.

All the best

Licheng Cao

Please add maps to facilitate readers who (including me) are not familiar with the geology of the study area. Make sure every key element is marked where necessary.

The Introduction is slightly short and can be potentially expanded, especially in the progress and potential issues of previous provenance investigations.

L68

‘Tertiary’: Use the formal unit recognized by the International Commission on Stratigraphy

L126-173

Please focus on the samples and methods in this section. Parts of the rationales can be potentially cut down or moved into preceding sections.

When describing data patterns, please consider adding specific numbers (e.g., relative mineral percentage). Meanwhile, the geographic localities (e.g., Volund, Viper, and Kobra) are hard to follow because they are not marked on any maps.

‘North Sea Palaeogene depositional systems’ and ‘North Sea depositional sandstones’

Please check if these terms are common in the literature.

L296-L299

If a similar pattern also applies to other studied wells? Why not present this background information in the sections of Geological setting and Samples & methods?

L327-329

I am afraid that the stratigraphic changes in heavy mineral proxies are not as obvious as stated by the authors. The average values of individual proxies seem comparable across the boundary shown in Fig. 12. I suggest marking average lines in the figure or providing more quantitative comparisons.

L353

ZTi: Give abbreviations at their first appearances in the text.

L378

Please minimize the use of abbreviations to increase readability.

L390

followed?

L483

6.3

Fig. 2

Is it possible to supplement the lithological information?

Fig. 3

Indicate the location of this map

Fig. 6

If possible, please directly add legend and sampling information in individual panels. This would increase readability compared to figure captions. Similar issues are also found in Figs. 7, 9, and 15.

Fig. 13

This figure is too simple. Please add the legend and/or explanatory texts. By the way, it would be beneficial to mark major features of heavy mineral compositions observed in this study.

Fig. 14

Mark major geological elements and provide relevant descriptions (e.g., lithological distribution and potential source terranes) in the Geological setting.

The Conclusions is a little bit lengthy and please make it more concise.

Author Response

Good Afternoon!

Thank you very much for your kind and helpful comments. I discussed all of them extensively with the main co-authors.

We found your comments very helpful and reasonable. All but a select few suggestions were implemented.

Please find a full reply attached!

Kind Regards!

Wiktor Luzinski

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This research is very interesting, well done, and well presented.

I marked some suggestions for improving the high quality paper on the file attached.

Most of them are related to the figures.

There are some references that are not numbered in the text.

The reference to the figure I don't know if it correct (in other Geosciences papers results Figure 1 and not Fig. 1).

Congratulations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Good Afternoon!

Thank you very much for your kind and helpful comments. I discussed all of them extensively with the main co-authors.

We found your comments very helpful and reasonable. All but a select few suggestions were implemented.

Please find a full reply attached! To simplify, I copied the pdf you sent me and posted replies to your comments within.

Kind Regards!

Wiktor Luzinski

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf