Pore Structure Characteristics and Permeability Stress Sensitivity of Jurassic Continental Shale of Dongyuemiao Member of Ziliujing Formation, Fuxing Area, Eastern Sichuan Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript reports pore structure characteristics, permeability stress sensitivity and their influencing factors of Ziliujing formation shale in eastern Sichuan basin. The data and analysis on such characteristics of a newly found condensate gas reservoir are of general interest to the readers of the Special Issue of Minerals. However, the scientific innovation of this paper is not adequately demonstrated, and the English writing is poor. Thus this work is not recommended for publication in its current form. Detailed comments are as follows.
1. There are quite a few very obvious writing errors or typos which clearly downgrade the[q1] quality of this paper. For examples, wrong spelling (after “Citation:”) and sequence of the authors’ names on the first page, repeated content in lines 17-20, duplicated words in line 308 (“High pressure mercury intrusion demercuration curve, curve”), misspelled words such as “calystone” and “Caly-rich”, etc.
2. In Introduction, the importance and implication of the pore structure and permeability stress sensitivity should be elaborated. Subsequently, the originality and significance of this research should be highlighted based on analysis of the current body of literature.
3. In 3.2 Analytical methods, the experimental method of rock pyrolysis is missing, and the pressure range (line 150) of low pressure gas adsorption is incorrect.
4. Important data should also be presented in the form of tables, instead of figures only.
5. The units of data must be correctly presented. The vertical axis of Fig. 7b is incomplete and absent of unit. The number and unit on the vertical axis of Fig. 7c appear not to match each other. [q2]
6. In Figs. 9-11, the number of samples is not equivalent. If such inconsistence is due to sample selection, the selection criteria and the associated sample representativeness should be clarified.
7. In Section 5, several formulas lack references. Besides, some parameters are not defined. The authors should explain the origin as well as the applicability of these formulas.
8. The description of lithofacies is not consistent between lines 22-23 and lines 224-226.
9. The reference “Zhang et al. (2015)” in line 559 cannot be found in the list of references. Is the family name of the first author “Zhou” or “Zou” in references 56-58?
10. Is “Fig.3” mentioned in the text?
11. Conclusion should not be just repetition of the results.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Yang et al. provided an interesting study regarding the pore and perm stress sensitivity analysis in shales. The results are meaningful while substantial work has been performed. Minor revision is suggested at this stage; detailed comments are listed below.
1. Kindly enrich the diversity of the literature review in the introduction part. And it is suggested to differentiate permeability in matrix and fracture. The article below suggested to be consulted as a starting point. Permeability measurement of the fracture-matrix system with 3D embedded discrete fracture model Petroleum Science 2022
2. Kindly increase the resolution of figure 4.
3. Kindly increase the resolution of figure 10.
4. Kindly enrich the discussion regarding the biot coefficient.
5. It is suggested to write the conclusion part in a more concise way, using bullets with more straightforward language.
6. Kindly try to be more technical and native in terms of language when resubmitting.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General Comments:
Is the paper new, technically correct, and relevant?
Yes, the paper is new and technically sounds. Results somehow does support the methodology, but needed to be more cleared by the author in case of properties of the data.
Is the paper well organized?
The paper is properly organized, good literature review, suitable motivation and clear explanation on results are positive points to that.
Is the abstract concise?
Yes, but I think it needs to be rephrased after revision to add some comments about any artifacts or negative points in the method, if exist.
Is the introduction motivating?
Yes, Introduction section is motivating.
Are the methodology, results, and conclusions completely developed?
No, they need to be modified and developed according to the technical comments.
Are there language, mathematics, reference, or style errors?
There is no mathematical, reference or style error.
Technical Comments:
Are the codes available for this research? As I found, there is no code available for this study, e. g. in Github. If the authors could make the codes available, the manuscript could be much better evaluated, not only for reviewers, but also for possible readers. When it is not possible to upload the code for public access, such as in Github, could they be provided for reviewer for better assessment of the study?
The study is comprehensive and requires large time to be read carefully and being reviewed. The theoretical background and also the method of the NSST has been well explained in details, and the experiments and related models are presented and the algorithms in pages 4 and 5, Figures 2 and 3, are well presented. However, I think more explanation about the optimization of the parameters, e. g. threshold, are needed. Better explanation could result in a better understanding the whole procedure.
The result comparison parts are well organized and presented. The display way is good. But quantitative evaluation is missed. I think it is needed to add some quantitative evaluations results.
The authors should explain what limitations did they find out about the proposed method.
How did you evaluate the final result? How did you consider to finally selection a methodology for areas with more climatically diversity?
What about when the models are more complex. Are the models homogenous or has anisotropy? Please gives some explanation about the simplification of anisotropy in your analysis, some explanation about the effect of various degree of anisotropy and more importantly the effect of the lateral velocity.
The introduction section is a nice one. It is architected very beautifully, while written fully academic and comprehend. I assume that any change in the introduction section is not necessary, but one of the important tasks after publishing a study is to increase its chance to be seen by the most possible number of researchers, so I would like to give two recommendations. First, to get your published study in the list of searched for papers based on keywords, I propose to increase variety of your keywords. In my viewpoint, they do not cover the whole topic of the study and are not widely searched words. I propose to add at least the keyword “seismic data analysis”. Second, one of the methods in the publisher’s website that brings a publication on to the researchers, is based on the similar publications that they have read before. So, the more you cite similar publication, the more the chance that the search engine in the publisher website propose your paper to the researcher. Besides of that, it will also complete your introduction section. As another advantage, it rises new ideas to the researchers by combining various methods, or resolving drawback of one seen paper by reading the similar one, or extending the methodology to a fully automatic one. So, based on these points, I would like to ask to cite to the following similar publications in the manuscript. The first proposed publication is: Shahbazi, A., et al. (2020). Integration of knowledge-based seismic inversion and sedimentological investigations for heterogeneous reservoir. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 202, 104541. The second publication for citation is: Shahbazi et al., )2020). Presenting an integrated strategy for porosity mapping in a genetic-based seismic inversion framework in a heterogeneous reservoir. Iranian Journal of Geophysics. Vol 14(4), 41-65.
The abstract focusses mainly on the general problem and ignores the other items of the abstract such as the methodology, good introduction, results and conclusion.
Best Regard
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have revised the manuscript extensively. The responses to the reviewer's questions appear to be acceptable.
