Development of Large-Scale Tight Gas Sandstone Reservoirs and Recommendations for Stable Production—The Example of the Sulige Gas Field in the Ordos Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
(1) In Abastract and Conclusion, it is necessary to add some key quantitative results appropriately to enhance persuasiveness and credibility. Therefore, the author needs to refine the abstract and conclusion to some extent.
(2) The reviewer suggests adding a a map/figure introducing the study area in the second part. In this way, the structure and readability of the manuscript will be greatly improved.
(3) Is there a problem with the title of the horizontal axis in Figure 1? Please check and correct.
(4) The data in Figure 5 is too messy, and it is recommended to draw the data in Figure 5 as a curve instead of a scatter plot. Also, please clarify what is the role and purpose of Figure 5 and Figure 6?
(5) In the introduction, it is suggested to add a paragraph introducing the tense energy situation in China and the urgent need to develop unconventional oil and gas resources (tight gas, shale gas, natural gas hydrate, etc.). Therefore, the development of tight gas is extremely important and the necessity of research is highlighted. The following references should be refered to and cited. ① https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11053-023-10202-7; ② https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236121013107; ③ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40948-022-00396-0.
(6) We can see that in Section 5 of the manuscript, the author only provided some qualitative suggestions. Can the authors provide some quantitative suggestions based on the statements in Section 1 to 4.
There are some long sentences that are difficult to understand. Please review and correct by the authors. And please change some active voices to passive voices. For example, The sentence in Line 55-57, can be writeen as "Therefore, the geological and engineering characteristics in the Sulige gas feld during tight gas sandstone development was systematically summarized. Besides, the challenges for continuous and stable production was also analyzed.”
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript “Development of Large-Scale Tight Gas Sandstone Reservoirs and Recommendations for Stable Production—Taking the Sulige Gas Field in the Ordos Basin as An Example” summarizes the geological characteristics of the tight gas sandstone reservoirs in the Sulige gas field.
The analysis shows that the tight gas sandstone reservoirs in the Sulige gas field have strong heterogeneity in many aspects. The authors concluded that to enhance the gas production, a refined reservoir description technology is required.
After a careful consideration, from my point of view the manuscript fails to address how the new findings relate to previous research in this area. One recommendation to the authors is to rewrite the Introduction and Results Discussion sections to reference the related literature.
While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. As a reader, it seems to me that this vague language makes the impression that the study does not appear to be sound. The authors should rewrite the Material and Methods sections to provide more technical details about the analysis. Technical details should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
At this point, my opinion is that the manuscript requires a major revision as it lacks some important explanations in the Introduction, Materials and Method, and Discussion sections. My recommendation is to reconsider the manuscript after major revision.
Some recommendations are listed below:
1. I think that in the abstract is missing a couple of things: 1) clear specific objectives and 2) some statistics providing support to the sentences.
2. Line 22: Please check the sentence starting on line 22 and ends on line 25. I think there is something missing.
3. Line 25: Could you please provide some range of variability?: “The gas recovery rate is greatly affected by the 25 quality of the reservoir and the well pattern”
4. Line 26: Could you please provide some range of variability?: “The high-quality reservoirs have a high reserve utilization 26 degree”
5. I think that the introduction needs to be extended. The authors should clarify the Introduction section to avoid confusion. While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow. This section would be a great place to explain in more detail some of the technical details advocating for the specific objectives on this work.
6. Please delete the paragraph below (line 70 to 76):
The Materials and Methods should be described with sufficient details to allow others to replicate and build on the published results. Please note that the publication of your manuscript implicates that you must make all materials, data, computer code, and protocols associated with the publication available to readers. Please disclose at the submission stage any restrictions on the availability of materials or information. New methods and protocols should be described in detail while well-established methods can be briefly described and appropriately cited.
7. Please review the section 2.1. The technical details about the tectonic characteristics should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied. The content of this sections do not fully correspond to the section title.
8. Please clarify the original reference for the data shown in Table 1 (line 91). Is this Table part of the original results, or it was obtained in previous works?
9. The authors should clarify the content in section 2.3 to avoid confusion. While the study appears to be sound, the language is unclear, making it difficult to follow.
10. Line 101: could you please explain the procedure followed to reconciliate field outcrop observations and measurements with fine geological dissection?
11. Line 108: Could you please explain how the drainage area was estimated in Figure 1?
12. Line 108: I think that the technical details concerning Figure 1 should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
13. Line 110: I think that the technical details concerning Figure 2 should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
14. Line 111: The authors should clarify the following sections to avoid confusion. Which type of Gas-Water relationship have been the subject of analysis?
15. I don’t fully understand the role of the “hydrocarbon generation intensity”. Could you please expand the meaning of these terms? I think that the authors should include more information that clarifies and justifies this sort of analysis.
16. Line 129: I think that the technical details concerning Figure 3 should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
17. Line 139: I think that the technical details concerning Figure 4 should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
18. The authors should clarify the section 3.1 to avoid confusion. Please expand the explanation of the figures. Which type of procedures the authors followed to obtain these results? What are the working assumptions?
19. Line 148: I think that the technical details concerning Figure 5 should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
20. Line 156: I think that the technical details concerning Figure 6 should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
21. Line 170: I think that the technical details concerning Figure 8 should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
22. Line 183: I think that the technical details concerning Figure 9 should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
23. Line 205: I think that the technical details concerning Figure 10 should be expanded and clarified to ensure that readers understand exactly what the researchers studied.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting paper. I recommand minor revision:
Write few lines on Gas Sandstone Reservoirs.
What is Sulige Gas Field?
What is Ordos Basin?
Where are the values of Table 1. (Reservoir petrophysical properties in different regions of the Sulige gas field) were taken? Can you verify these results ?
Needs explanation on Figure3.
Improve introduction and cite these studies.
Impact of viscoelastic ooze slime on complex wavy gliders near a solid boundary https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjph.2022.10.013
Controlling kinetics of self-propelled rod-like swimmers near multi sinusoidal substrate
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.106250
Improve the quality.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made detailed and careful revisions based on my comments. At present, the quality of the manuscript can meet the standards for receiving and publishing. Of course, the premise is that the author needs to carefully review the grammar throughout the manuscript.
The authors have made detailed and careful revisions based on my comments. At present, the quality of the manuscript can meet the standards for receiving and publishing. Of course, the premise is that the author needs to carefully review the grammar throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Hello, our article has been grammatically revised and polished by Dr. Wang Chenhui, who holds a master's and doctoral degree at the University of Aberdeen in the UK. Please refer to the revised manuscript for details. Thank you!
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed my comments done in the previous revision round. I think that the revised manuscript has significantly improved the readability of the text.
One minor comment, please check the spelling of the word "Western" in Line 55.
Other than that, at this time I do not have any more comments to propose.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback. We have corrected the word issue in line 55 according to your meaning. Thank you!
