Sedimentary Microfacies and Sand Body Characteristics at Segment 2 of the Sangonghe Formation in Oilfield A on the South Slope District of the Mahu Depression

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article under review is a product of good scientific quality. It is concise, clear and with a fully justifiable number of figures. It shows that the authors master the subject, have a clear notion of organization of scientific work, without significant conceptual distortions. The plagiarism index is low (less than 5%). Suggestions in the manuscript in red color. Congratulations to the authors and good luck!!!!

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript addresses an area of considerable interest to me, there is a good idea and I appreciate it. Thus, I would like to see it published. In this manuscript, the sedimentary microfacies characteristics of Segment 2 of the Sangonghe Formation are mainly analyzed, so the author needs to describe the results of geological analysis. However, the more I read the paper, the more I feel that the expected research results have not been achieved, which undermines the novelty of the manuscript. Meanwhile, the following issues still need attention:

(1) The introduction needs further improvement by the author, a detailed literature review related to your topic should be presented.

(2) In this manuscript, the title of the figures needs to be standardized.

(3) The English of this paper is grammatically correct, but still, some expressions are in a quite Chinglish way. I hope the authors could future refine their language.

(4) In “3.1 Lithologic indicator”, the authors mention that “with a mean porosity of 20.1 % and a permeability of 24.43 mD”. I am very confused about how these two data were obtained, please explain this problem?

(5) This manuscript has carried out a lot of geological analysis, but the author’s purpose of writing this manuscript is unclear, and it is suggested that the author should make some improvements in the manuscript.

Author Response

See attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author responded to my comments and basically resolved my comments, but the manuscript needs to be carefully examined before publication.