2D and 3D Seismic Survey for Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposit and Its Prediction Patterns, Erlian Basin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is significantly improved. 

The authors responded adequately to my comments.

I recommend the manuscript for publication.

I found some minor typos in the text, or I suggest a few minor adjustments:

Table 2 – The name of the seismometer is Sercel  

Line 231-232 (b) synthetic model calculated by the product of the reflection coefficient and the wavelet;  Use “convolution” instead of “product”?

Fig 5  the blue rectangle mark for 3D seismic survey area used in (b) does not agree with the mark used in Legend – In Legend the color looks like black?

Line 249 “…the lines of the 3D seismic survey…” It should be 2D.

Line 457 P-wave impedance

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an excelent paper.  Maily geophysical.  Will be interesting later to see the details of the geochemistry. Best wishes Igor Ashchepkov

Author Response

This paper does not pay special attention to geochemistry.

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors have addressed all of my concerns with the original manuscript. The revised manuscript is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for the reviewer's comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript, “2D and 3D Seismic Survey for Sandstone-Type Uranium De-2 posit and Its Predicting Pattern, Erlian Basin, China” presents an  approach to predict the patterns for surveying SUDs mineralization environment from high-resolution seismic exploring. This manuscript fits within the aims and scope of the journal “minerals”. Long sentences were used in some parts of this manuscript, which should be shortened.

This manuscript investigates the ore-controlling factors that could be identified basically by 2D or 3D seismic prospecting. Three deposits of uranium were investigated using this technique. The authors explain the geology of each deposit, and then they identified and analyzed the mineralization. This type of research has attracted a lot of attention due to the economic importance. The originality and novelty of this research includes the use of 2D and 3D Seismic Survey to study the uranium deposits. Findings and conclusions of this manuscript are consistent with the evidence, and are supported by the data. I therefore recommend acceptance of this manuscript after minor revision.

 

1. Lines 16-19, 21-29, 57-80

• Use short and clear sentences

2. Line 67: “… will received …”

• Grammar

3. Line 286: “4.2.2.2.”

• 2.2

4. Line 327: “4.3.2.3.”

• 3.2

5. Line 476

• Delete the citation and focus on your own findings

Reviewer 2 Report

In the case of continuation of these tests it would be desirable to link the effects of sessmic tests with the amount of mineralization content and the thickness of ore body.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review on the article

2D and 3D Seismic Survey for Sandstone-Type Uranium Deposit and Its Predicting Pattern, Erlian Basin, China

Qu-Bo Wu, Yan-Chun Wang , Zi-Ying Li, Bao-Ping Qiao, Xiang Yu, Wei-Chuan Huang , Cheng-Yin Cao , Zi-Wei Li and Zi-Qiang Pan

 

The materials which are presented in the paper include the huge amount of data concerning the geological structure of the stratiform U deposit located in the sandstones which contain rather reduced material including organics sulfides and  U -carbonates.  They are located in the K- rift structure.

 

The structures of the deposits were studied in detail by drilling and complex of geophysical data including seismic and gravic investigation.  Deciphering and modeling of these data with the construction of 3D and 2D profiles which were also based on the results of drilling /  The seismic mehods were mainly used for the detection of the structure,  faults etc.  But the combination with the gravic data allows predicting the U layers.

 

Paper is an example o the excellent detailed investigation by a large group of industrial geologists and scientists. Unfortunately the information about mineralogy is rather scarce and such paper better to publish in Applied Sciences  For the publication in Minerals better to add more information about the minerals from deposit.

So paper may be published after  minor revision

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Paper entitled “2D and 3D seismic survey for sandstone-type uranium deposit 2 and its predicting pattern, Erlian basin, China” meets the necessary standards for publication in this journal.

I recommend: 

Attention how writing the references and text. They are not unitary.

Please check the entire manuscript carefully for eventual typographical errors.
Final Conclusion: The paper meets the necessary standards for publication.

Reviewer 5 Report

The article „2D and 3D seismic survey for sandstone-type uranium deposit and its predicting pattern, Erlian basin, China” deals with sandstone-type uranium deposits in Erlian basin, China.

I accepted the manuscript for review based on its title and abstract, from which it seemed that the main topic is seismic exploration applied to the special issue of uranium deposits. So, my assessment is mainly about reflection seismics and geophysics. I cannot assess the issue of uranium deposits and their genesis.

The submitted manuscript gives the impression of revision, because the Processing flow for seismic data originally captured in Table 3 is now documented in Fig 2. This is reflected in the renumbering of figures and tables in the following text. Text changes are also captured in several other cases.  The reason why the manuscript is presented with documentation of the changes made is not known to me. I did not receive information that it would be a revision of a previously corrected manuscript.  For example, both the new Fig 2 and the removed Table 3 contain an error: Tomography static correction should be correct Topographic static correction. It is not clear why the order of some steps in Processing flow has changed.

Even I am not English native speaker, I think the weakest point of the manuscript is the level of the English language. It is generally weak, the text in many places is not understandable. Professional terminology regarding seismics and geophysics is sometimes erroneous. I recommend especially shortening sentences and trying to make a clear and concise wording. For example, the use of a sentence in the length of 20 lines of text (see lines 60 – 80) is completely unacceptable. In its current form, I consider it unnecessary to try to show specific places of correction of the text, because I assume that the text will have to be fundamentally improved.  In its current form, the text cannot be beneficial to the readers, because it is not clear what the authors actually wanted to convey.

As I have already mentioned, according to the title and abstract, it should be an article describing many years of experience in using seismic exploration to solve the very difficult task of exploration of sedimentary uranium deposits.  The article deals with the possibility of reflection seismics to provide information on stratigraphy, faults and sandstone layers (some of them with uranium).  Significant results were achieved in the use of seismic reflection method to determine the geological structural elements observed in sedimentary formations.  Achieving such results is not easy, as the reflecting interfaces are in a relatively shallow depths and often very steeply inclined.  These are certainly remarkable results and show the progress made in the study of SUDs. The text mentions the possibilities of using seismic methods to determine petrophysical properties of rocks. This is undoubtedly a very difficult and at the same time significant step that could greatly help in searching for SUDs.

In the text, however, the authors do not deal with the petrophysical properties derived from seismics, and also when describing the reflection seismic measurement and seismic data processing, they provide only general information. The description of data processing given in the manuscript would be suitable for any reflection seismic measurement and is therefore not beneficial for the issue of SUDs.  It would be appropriate to explain what special modifications to the seismic measurement and seismic data processing process are required by the SUDs issue and why.

Specific questions:

Why were low frequency  vibrators and low frequency  geophones used for 3D measurements? Is this in view of the lower attenuation? The disadvantage of low frequencies is a significant reduction in resolution – for example, the thickness of the thinnest layer, which can be independently detectable, increases.  In this case, however, it seems that the individual layers are relatively thin.  The use of low frequency seems not to be useful. That would be worth explaining.

Section 3.3 Interpretation and inversion is too brief and general, so it does not provide any information that would contribute to the knowledge of the use of seismic research in solving the problem of SUDs. Figure 3 should be a synthetic model derived from two wells, but no details are given at all that would allow to estimate what was the input of the model calculation, how the model was obtained and what is its benefit. For Fig 3, it is not clear what the TVDss axis with  negative values in meters indicates, nor is it indicated how the indicated seismic impedances were obtained. What do purple lines represent in model seismograms? Seismic attributes are mentioned in the paragraph, but nowhere is it mentioned in the text what attributes were used and how specifically these attributes contributed to finding the favorable U-containing sand bodies?

In section 4.3.2. 3D seismic exploration results and their relationship with mineralization Fig 10 shows cross well inverted maps.  Part (c) in Fig 10 also shows the resistivity section (Ohm m).  It is not clear whether this is the result of electrical resistivity measurements between wells? Or is it just an attempt to convert the model from seismics to some equivalent in electrical resistivities?  Even for the other parts of Fig 10, it is not clear whether this is some result of the processing of 2D seismic data, or is it the result of some measurement between wells?

Fig 11 is an interesting attempt to illustrate the results of 3D reflection seismic data processing. In my opinion, the picture is so confusing that it is meaningless. Red, yellow and blue  circles cannot be distinguished in the picture  – all the circles seem to be always together, in one place.

In Section 4.4.2. Effective seismic exploration process for SUDs seismic attribute analysis is mentioned, but there is no explanation – so the previous comment in section 3.3 is here repeated.

What does heading 4.4. “Landscape” mean? The chapter mentions the dependence of elastic properties on the uranium content (again very briefly, without interpretation of observations).

Some specific short comments:

conductive – permeable?? (line 345)

Seismic responding characteristics – seismic response characteristics (line 38 - keywords and further in the text)

In the following day – in the future (line 104)

Table 1 : isn't it better to indicate in the last column of the table the P-wave velocity in m/s instead of transit time?

3. Seismic methodology - better 3. Seismic reflection (line 154)

seismic projections – seismic projects (line 168 and further occurrences)

waterproof mudstone – impermeable ?? (line 227 and further)

factures – fractures (line 245)

Line 292 mentions post stack migration. This is an older measurement and it is therefore justified to use post-stack migration. But it doesn't correspond to the general processing flow in Fig 2. It should therefore be stated that the process flow in Fig 2 corresponds to the advanced procedure in 3D reflection seismics.

Conclusions – (4) Pyrite mineralization: there was no mention of pyrite mineralization throughout the text. The hypothesis of the possibility of using pyrite mineralization cannot be put into Conclusions. It would be suitable for the Discussion chapter  (but it is not yet in the text).

Conclusions - (5) This point is not sufficiently supported by text.  Petrophysical properties are documented on rock samples (Section 4.4.3.  Lanscape).  However, it is not stated whether it is possible to estimate the petrophysical properties of thin sandstone layers from seismic measurements with  sufficient accuracy.

 

Overall: The text in its current form is not suitable for publication for linguistic reasons. In fact, the level of English does not even allow to make a real assessment of the manuscript. But the topic is definitely interesting and worth publishing. If the authors do not add more details about the reflection seismic survey, they should not emphasize too much in the title and in the text the connection with reflection seismics, seismic attributes and petrophysical parameters. The text could focus only on interpretations of the formation of uranium deposits, and reflection seismics would remain only in the role of a means of determining geological structural elements.