Origin of Drusy Dolomite Cement in Permo-Triassic Dolostones, Northern United Arab Emirates
, Shijun Dong 3, Salahadin Shahrokhi 4 and Sadoon Morad 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work submitted by Mansurberg et al. intends to investigate the processes involved in the growth of drusy dolomite cement in Permo-Triassic dolostones (Northern United Arab Emirates) and discuss their role in similar carbonate successions. Besides key petrographic observations, the study provides some isotopic (O, C and Sr) and fluid inclusion microthermometric data. The analytical methods are satisfactorily presented, but many detailed features on data are of difficult assess because it is impossible to verify the obtained results. Therefore, in my opinion, the work could be considered for publication in WATER after major revisions. The recommended revisions must include:
1) Tables summarizing the obtained isotopic and microthermometric data. These should be included in text or provided in supplementary materials; if the latter alternative is followed, the reader should be forwarded to the supplementary materials;
2) Separated subsections to report the isotopic and fluid inclusion data now provided in section 4.3. The number of samples analyzed for Sr-isotopes is rather limited and this should be suitably discussed;
3) A complete restructuring of Discussion. In its present form it basically repeats the data reported in the previous section and this must be avoided.
4) A careful verification of the text font in Figures 6 and 8 captions, and some other formatting issues, according to the rules provided by the “guide to the authors”;
I’m not a native English speaker but, in my opinion, a careful revision of writing should be made. Please find some minor suggestions below; I hope that these suggestions could be useful.
Line 10: suggestion – Petrography observations and isotopic and fluid inclusion microthermometry data suggest…
Lines 25/26: suggestion - .... displaying crystal size growth from pore wall to pore center, is…
Line 49: “which is an important…”
Line 71: “microscope,. by backscattered…”
Line 81: suggestion – The fluid salinity, as wt.% NaCl eq., was inferred from Tmice using…
Line 85: replace “by a GVI IsoPrime” by “with a GVI IsoPrime”
Line 88: “principles of [29]” or “principles reported in [29]”?
Line 97: replace “1mg” by “One mg”
Line 105: “consists of a medium- to…”
Lines 134/135: please rephrase
Line 142: “calcite fracture infillings…”
Line 143: the indication of microthermometry data here is extemporaneous and should be removed.
Line 148: “… below the EDS detection limits”.
Line 199: “… has implications for unraveling the role of diagenetic paleofluids, as well as for improvements in definition of paragenetic sequences in carbonate rocks and related reservoir-quality features”
Line 205: “…is a common…”
Line 219: “… similar Th (148º) and …”
Lines 225/227: please rephrase
Line 233: “…[29]. while the”. Please replace by “… [29]. The …”
Line 240: “… indicate that…”
Line 254: interpretations instead of interpretation
Author Response
Reviewer 1:
Comment; 1) Tables summarizing the obtained isotopic and microthermometric data. These should be included in text or provided in supplementary materials; if the latter alternative is followed, the reader should be forwarded to the supplementary materials.
Resonse: The main focus of this paper is drusy dolomite cement and we don’t find a table is necessary as we don’t have a strong variety of diagenetic phases to report. However, now we have restructured the paper in a way that in the result section we have a separate section called C, O, and Sr Isotopic Composition of Dolomite Cement and another called Fluid-inclusion Microthermometry. All the relevant data is accounted for.
Comment 2) Separated subsections to report the isotopic and fluid inclusion data now provided in section 4.3. The number of samples analyzed for Sr-isotopes is rather limited and this should be suitably discussed.
Resonse: The discussion is now updated according to the suggestion by the reviewer. Please see also comment above. The strontium isotope data are within the ranges reported in earlier researches (cited in the paper) and we believe it’s adequate for this kind of study.
Comment: 3) A complete restructuring of Discussion. In its present form it basically repeats the data reported in the previous section and this must be avoided.
Resonse: The discussion has been revised and expanded as suggested by the reviewer.
Comment: 4) A careful verification of the text font in Figures 6 and 8 captions, and some other formatting issues, according to the rules provided by the “guide to the authors”.
Resonse: The manuscript, has been updated and all the formatting issues have been taken care of to meet the standards of Water.
Comment: I’m not a native English speaker but, in my opinion, a careful revision of writing should be made. Please find some minor suggestions below; I hope that these suggestions could be useful.
Resonse: All the linguistic issues highlighted by the reviewer is now taken care of and our most senior coauthor Dr. Sadoon Morad checked the manuscript and improved the final version.
Line 10: suggestion – Petrography observations and isotopic and fluid inclusion microthermometry data suggest…
Lines 25/26: suggestion - .... displaying crystal size growth from pore wall to pore center, is…
Resonse: Corrected
Line 49: “which is an important…”
Resonse: Corrected
Line 71: “microscope,. by backscattered…”’
Resonse: Corrected
Line 81: suggestion – The fluid salinity, as wt. % NaCl eq., was inferred from Tmice using…
Resonse: Corrected
Line 85: replace “by a GVI IsoPrime” by “with a GVI IsoPrime”
Resonse: Corrected
Line 88: “principles of [29]” or “principles reported in [29]”?
Resonse: Corrected
Line 97: replace “1mg” by “One mg”
Resonse: Corrected
Line 105: “consists of a medium- to…”
Resonse: Corrected
Lines 134/135: please rephrase
Resonse: Corrected
Line 142: “calcite fracture infillings…”
Resonse: Corrected
Line 143: the indication of microthermometry data here is extemporaneous and should be removed.
Resonse: Corrected
Line 148: “… below the EDS detection limits”.
Resonse: Corrected
Line 199: “… has implications for unraveling the role of diagenetic paleofluids, as well as for improvements in definition of paragenetic sequences in carbonate rocks and related reservoir-quality features”
Resonse: Corrected
Line 205: “…is a common…”
Resonse: Corrected
Line 219: “… similar Th (148º) and …”
Resonse: Corrected
Lines 225/227: please rephrase
Resonse: Corrected
Line 233: “…[29]. while the”. Please replace by “… [29]. The …”
Resonse: Corrected
Line 240: “… indicate that…”
Resonse: Corrected
Line 254: interpretations instead of interpretation
Resonse: Corrected
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this m/s authors have studied the presence of dolomitic cement as initially precipitated or dolomitized calcite. Based on the results and overall quality of the work presented, this m/s can get published after major revisions when authors addressed the following comments:
1- In the abstract, the motivation for this study and general background and relevant statements are missing. This should be added to the current abstract which only captures the results.
2- The introduction part does not have adequate information about this phenomenon and lacks a good review of previous studies with relation to the area of study.
3- the conclusion is very short and should include more results from the study.
5- Authors have claimed they have done EDS and collected that data but is not shown in the paper. This is a very important supporting evidence and should be included in the paper.
6- Authors have written, "Fe and Mn contents below detection limit of the EDS" on line 148. This is not correct and if so how would you support your results?
Author Response
Reviewer 2:
Comment: 1- In the abstract, the motivation for this study and general background and relevant statements are missing. This should be added to the current abstract which only captures the results.
Response: the abstract is now updated and modified according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
Comment: 2- The introduction part does not have adequate information about this phenomenon and lacks a good review of previous studies with relation to the area of study.
Response: the introduction is now updated and expanded adding review of previous studies with relation to the area of study according to the reviewer’s suggestion.
Comment: 3- the conclusion is very short and should include more results from the study.
Response: The conclusion is expanded new important points have been added.
Comment: 5- Authors have claimed they have done EDS and collected that data but is not shown in the paper. This is a very important supporting evidence and should be included in the paper.
Response: The drusy mosaic dolomite has Fe and Mn contents below the EDS detection limits. Anyways, EDS provide semi-quantitative analyses and thus analyses at ppm levels are highly uncertain.
Comment: 6- Authors have written, "Fe and Mn contents below detection limit of the EDS" on line 148. This is not correct and if so how would you support your results?
Response: We have both in the results and discussions tackled this issue raised by the reviewer and cited relevant references.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors address satisfactorily all my comments and suggestions. I have not further comments, with the exception of a minor typo error in the inserted text of cross-plot in Figure 7 (it is "Permian" and not "Permain") that should be corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have responded to the comments and improved the m/s accordingly based on the comments that was provided to them.
