Status and Prospect of Improved Oil Recovery Technology of High Water Cut Reservoirs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is a great review article on the IOR techniques for high water cut reservoirs development. It has reviewed over 110 reference papers. This work provides a thorough review on the status of high water cut reservoirs recovery methods, especially the secondary oil recovery waterflooding technology and tertiary oil recovery technology, such as layer system subdivision, well pattern infilling, strengthening of water injection and liquid extraction, closure of high water cut wells, cyclic waterflooding technology, water injection profile control, chemical flooding and gas flooding.
The paper has a good topic selection, strong practicability and sufficient literature research. It covers representative papers in related fields, comprehensively reflects the global research results related to IOR, especially the latest results and development trends in recent years, are analyzed and evaluated. This paper summarizes the research results and development trend of enhanced oil recovery. It is a paper with high information content and full summary of results, and lays the foundation for the development of related technologies.
However, some of the technologies in the paper are not clearly stated. The paper also needs some English and sentence structure improvements to make it more readable. Therefore, the author needs to make further improvements to the paper and proofread for errors in English writing.
1. The paper needs some English and sentence structure improvements to make it easier to read, such as using singular or plural nouns and using inappropriate nouns.
2. As one of the most widely used chemical flooding technologies, the mechanism and effect of polymer flooding are not introduced much in this paper. It is suggested that the application of polymer flooding and the effect of enhanced oil recovery should be described in detail.
3. The authors mentioned that EOR and IOR technologies are used to improve oil recovery, and I suggest further explanation.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions. According to your comments of reviewers and editor, we have carefully and meticulously revised the manuscript, and responded, point by point to the comments mentioned the page, and line numbers.
Reviewer:
The paper is a great review article on the IOR techniques for high water cut reservoirs development. It has reviewed over 110 reference papers. This work provides a thorough review on the status of high water cut reservoirs recovery methods, especially the secondary oil recovery waterflooding technology and tertiary oil recovery technology, such as layer system subdivision, well pattern infilling, strengthening of water injection and liquid extraction, closure of high water cut wells, cyclic waterflooding technology, water injection profile control, chemical flooding and gas flooding.
The paper has a good topic selection, strong practicability and sufficient literature research. It covers representative papers in related fields, comprehensively reflects the global research results related to IOR, especially the latest results and development trends in recent years, are analyzed and evaluated. This paper summarizes the research results and development trend of enhanced oil recovery. It is a paper with high information content and full summary of results, and lays the foundation for the development of related technologies.
However, some of the technologies in the paper are not clearly stated. The paper also needs some English and sentence structure improvements to make it more readable. Therefore, the author needs to make further improvements to the paper and proofread for errors in English writing.
[Comment 1]: The paper needs some English and sentence structure improvements to make it easier to read, such as using singular or plural nouns and using inappropriate nouns.
[Reply 1]: Thanks for your comments. We have repeatedly modified this manuscript to reduce the grammar mistakes with the help of he LetPub editing company.
[Comment 2]: As one of the most widely used chemical flooding technologies, the mechanism and effect of polymer flooding are not introduced much in this paper. It is suggested that the application of polymer flooding and the effect of enhanced oil recovery should be described in detail.
[Reply 2]: Thanks for your comments. Follow your advice, we added the content of chemical flooding mechanism and effect in the manuscript, which enriched the content of chemical flooding in the paper. Please see Line 8 on Page 10 to Line 9 on Page 11 in the "Revision manuscript"。
[Comment 3]: The authors mentioned that EOR and IOR technologies are used to improve oil recovery, and I suggest further explanation.
[Reply 3]: Thanks for your comments. Follow your advice, we added the content of further explanation of EOR and IOR in the manuscript. Please see Line 26 on Page 2 to Line 42 on Page 2 in the "Revision manuscript".
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I do not believe this article is suitable for publication in water.
While the topic of improving oil recovery in high water cut reservoirs is an important one, I found several issues with the manuscript that prevent me from recommending it for publication. Firstly, the structure of the article is somewhat disorganized, making it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of the argument. In addition, the language used in the article is often unclear and difficult to understand, which could make it challenging for readers from diverse backgrounds to comprehend the content.
Furthermore, I found that the article lacks sufficient originality and contribution to the field. Many of the ideas and techniques discussed have been previously described in the literature, and the article does not provide any new insights or perspectives on these topics. Additionally, the discussion of the key directions and development prospects for improving oil recovery in high water cut reservoirs is somewhat cursory and does not offer any concrete recommendations or suggestions for future research.
Given these issues, I believe that the manuscript would require significant revisions in order to meet the standards for publication in water, Therefore, I must recommend rejection of this article.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions. According to your comments of reviewers and editor, we have carefully and meticulously revised the manuscript, and responded, point by point to the comments mentioned the page, and line numbers.
Reviewer:
After careful consideration, I regret to inform you that I do not believe this article is suitable for publication in water.
While the topic of improving oil recovery in high water cut reservoirs is an important one, I found several issues with the manuscript that prevent me from recommending it for publication. Firstly, the structure of the article is somewhat disorganized, making it difficult for the reader to follow the flow of the argument. In addition, the language used in the article is often unclear and difficult to understand, which could make it challenging for readers from diverse backgrounds to comprehend the content.
Furthermore, I found that the article lacks sufficient originality and contribution to the field. Many of the ideas and techniques discussed have been previously described in the literature, and the article does not provide any new insights or perspectives on these topics. Additionally, the discussion of the key directions and development prospects for improving oil recovery in high water cut reservoirs is somewhat cursory and does not offer any concrete recommendations or suggestions for future research.
Given these issues, I believe that the manuscript would require significant revisions in order to meet the standards for publication in water, Therefore, I must recommend rejection of this article.
[Reply]: Thanks for your comments. Please allow me to explain to you the overall idea of our manuscript. This paper is a review paper. More than 200 literatures have been reviewed, 115 literatures have been cited, and relevant literatures have been analyzed in depth and detail. Firstly, the manuscript describes the characteristics and development status of high water cut reservoirs in the world, including the distribution of high water cut reservoirs, reservoir physical properties, waterflooding development characteristics and status. Secondly, the manuscript analyzes the methods used to enhance oil recovery in high water cut reservoirs, which mainly include reservoir fine description, secondary oil recovery technology and tertiary oil recovery technology. It also introduces the specific methods adopted by the three technologies and briefly introduces the results or effects of some technologies. Finally, the problems facing the high water cut reservoir and suggestions for further research are pointed out. In addition, we have repeatedly modified this manuscript to reduce the grammar mistakes with the help of he LetPub editing company.
According to your review comments, I have made further modifications to the manuscript. The details are as follows:
- Added the proportion of tertiary oil recovery technologies applied in the world. Please see Line 43on Page 7to Line 2 on Page 8 in the "Revision manuscript"
- Added a description of polymer flooding effects in a Canadian block. Please see Line 30on Page 10to Line 3 on Page 11 in the "Revision manuscript"
- Added the introduction of the development history of CO2flooding in the United States. Please see Line 8on Page 12 to Line 15 on Page 12 in the "Revision manuscript"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors present a detailed state-of-the-art review of oil recovery techniques in high water cut oil fields. They also proposed new research directions.
Some work on critically identifying the limitations of existing technologies as applied to existing oil fields with high water cut, is required. This will the provide a basis for future research and technology development recommendations and hence, the relevance of this review manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Editors and Reviewers,
Thank you very much for your helpful comments and suggestions. According to your comments of reviewers and editor, we have carefully and meticulously revised the manuscript, and responded, point by point to the comments mentioned the page, and line numbers.
Reviewer:
The authors present a detailed state-of-the-art review of oil recovery techniques in high water cut oil fields. They also proposed new research directions.
Some work on critically identifying the limitations of existing technologies as applied to existing oil fields with high water cut, is required. This will the provide a basis for future research and technology development recommendations and hence the relevance of this review manuscript.
[Reply]:Thanks for your comments. Follow your advice, we added the content of the limitations of existing technologies in the manuscript. Please see Line 32 on Page 11 to Line 25 on Page 12 in the "Revision manuscript"
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
