A Novel Method for Conducting a Geoenvironmental Assessment of Undiscovered ISR-Amenable Uranium Resources: Proof-of-Concept in the Texas Coastal Plain
, Johanna Blake 4, Andrew Teeple 2, Delbert Humberson 2,‡, Steven Cahan 1, Douglas B. Yager 5 and Kent D. Becher 2,§Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
All of my concerns have been addressed.
I recommend accepting the manuscript in its present form.
Author Response
Thank you. No response necessary.
Reviewer 2 Report
Your manuscript is still very local (adding some sentences doesn’t make it internationally relevant), SI units used incorrectly and inconsistent (in one case m in another case meters, units explained in brackets – the SI and the relating US documents clearly say that units *must not be explained*), formatting of tables not scientifically correct.
From US Geol Surv papers I would expect top of the edge research, methods, writing and results. This is not the case. Good for US Geol Surv periodicals or Spec Issues, but not for the international audience in an international journal.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors (Reviewer 2)
Reviewer 2 comment: Your manuscript is still very local (adding some sentences doesn’t make it internationally relevant),
Author response: We applied this assessment to a localized area in the Texas Coastal Plain for the purposes of demonstration. However, as we alluded to in the manuscript, the methods and data types invoked are the major purpose of this manuscript. We have added another sentence to emphasize this point: “ Although this geoenvironmental assessment is localized in the one assessment unit in the Texas Coastal Plain for the purposes of demonstration, the methods and data types can be developed to any location in the world.”
Reviewer 2 comment: SI units used incorrectly and inconsistent (in one case m in another case meters, units explained in brackets – the SI and the relating US documents clearly say that units *must not be explained*), formatting of tables not scientifically correct. From US Geol Surv papers I would expect top of the edge research, methods, writing and results. This is not the case. Good for US Geol Surv periodicals or Spec Issues, but not for the international audience in an international journal.
Author response: We have removed the word “meter” when used with a number. We retained “meter” and “kilometer” when used in a sentence. We also used ‘t’ without explanation throughout. Although the unit ‘t’ is a non-SI unit, it is accepted for use with the SI.
Submission Date: 25 March 2022
Date of this review : 28 Mar 2022 07:00:22
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract summarize the work. The purpose of the study is clearly outlined and the findings of prior work are well discussed. There are no errors in logic . The authors accurately explain how the data were collected. All topics are well presented and discussed. The summary and conclusions are sound and justified. All presented figures are good quality and they prove their point. The paper is written in good English. The manuscript is easily readable concerning language, style and presentation. However, please standardize the list of references because a mess has crept in, e.g. no bolds according to the indications included in the list for authors in the journal.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors (Reviewer 3)
Reviewer 3 comment: The abstract summarize the work. The purpose of the study is clearly outlined and the findings of prior work are well discussed. There are no errors in logic . The authors accurately explain how the data were collected. All topics are well presented and discussed. The summary and conclusions are sound and justified. All presented figures are good quality and they prove their point. The paper is written in good English. The manuscript is easily readable concerning language, style and presentation.
Author response: Thank you. No response necessary.
Reviewer 3 comment: However, please standardize the list of references because a mess has crept in, e.g. no bolds according to the indications included in the list for authors in the journal.
Author response: We have checked references and edited one of the references which was misaligned.
Submission Date: 25 March 2022
Date of this review: 30 Mar 2022 13:04:29
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
As you write in section 3:
“This work is intended to be a regional geoenvironmental assessment to match the scale of an undiscovered uranium resource assessment, therefore is not amenable to the scale of a mine location. This demonstration is a proof-of-concept of how this method can be applied to compare geoenvironmental aspects between the Rio Grande Embayment and the Houston Embayment within a select permissive tract defined in the geoenvironmental assessment is applied to a previous undiscovered uranium resource assessment of the Texas Coastal Plain (Figure 1).)”
I do not see that this paper is of international relevance. Though, it’s a good paper for one of the USGS publications.
Still incorrect scientific notation of numbers (1.E+08 instead of 1 × 108 or 1 · 108)
incorrect dashes (65-670 instead of 65–670)
inconsistent corrections of corrections that I made in one place at other places in the manuscript (pH≥6.5 instead of pH ≥ 6.5)
still not SI units and units explained, e.g. 850 mbar (millibars) instead of 850 hPa
though the year is not an SI unit, it’s abbreviation used is a and not y
units must never be explained!
language editing needed; e.g.: matrials → materials (line 708)
incorrect referencing; e.g. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040411. must either be doi:10.3390/min12040411 or https://doi.org/10.3390/min12040411. but not both (l 750)
or here:
doi:doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.11.070. (line 836)
the words Found online at in line 740 are redundant
and so on
It is just not the *high quality* of a publication I would expect from the authors of a USGS paper.
Author Response
We have addressed all the Reviewer comments in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
