Research and Application of New Technology of Bionic Enhanced Wellbore and Strong Lubrication Water-Based Drilling Fluid
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In the paper, the authors investigated the improvement of the wellbore rock cohesion. The stability of the wellbore and, implicitly, the reduction of the damages produced during the drilling, represent the biggest problem of the engineers. The authors analyzed a microbial bionet, which, by solidifying on the walls of the wellbore, can improve the adhesion and cohesion of the rock wall.
The following remarks need to be addressed to the authors:
Line 140: the EDS spectrum analysis has a date, at the top, from 2014, is it correct?
Line 167, 174 ... a brief description of each mechanical test performed would help (especially for someone reading the article chemically).
Line 189/238/317: update the number of those figures.
Line 248: there is no reference to figure 10.
Line 409: the company name should be removed.
Line 428> update the Table number.
General observation:
- it would be good to find some information about the drying and adhesion time on the wellbore wall and the cost of the bionics, this information would help oil and gase companies.
Author Response
(1)Line 140: the EDS spectrum analysis has a date, at the top, from 2014, is it correct?
Reply: This suggestion is very nice and reasonable. We have removed the date 2014 in the EDS spectrum analysis.
(2)Line 167, 174 ... a brief description of each mechanical test performed would help (especially for someone reading the article chemically).
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. According to your nice suggestion, we have added a brief description about the point load test and core uniaxial stress experiment.
Point load test Point load test is a method to test the compressive strength of rock under point load. During the test, the specimen is clamped between two spherical loading cones, and the load is applied until the fracture sample is fractured. According to the maximum load at failure and the distance between the ends of two cone heads, the tensile strength of the specimen can be calculated, and the compressive strength of the specimen can be calculated.
The uniaxial compressive strength of rock is called uniaxial compressive strength when the rock sample is subjected to compression failure under the action of longitudinal pressure under the condition of unconfined pressure.
(3)Line 189/238/317: update the number of those figures.
Reply: It is really a giant mistake to the whole quality of our article. We feel sorry for our pool writings. We have revised the number of those figures.
(4) Line 248: there is no reference to figure 10.
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We have revised the reference to figure 10.
(5)Line 409: the company name should be removed.
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We have removed the company name.
(6)Line 428: update the Table number.
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We have updated the Table number.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- Abstract: The text is not easy to read. Some sentences do not have a full stop at the end.
- Technical terms are not used correctly. For example in Line 27: "drilling technology" instead of "drilling fluid technology".
- Inaccurate data are given in several places in the text.
- All figures should have the same font of letters on the abscissa and ordinate.
- Subheading 2.1. does not correspond to the content describing the wellbore instability, not the model as suggested.
- Line 110: Specify the procedure and conditions for mudstone core preparation.
- Line 121: Explain the meaning of the abbreviation EDS when it is first mentioned in the text by the subtitle.
- Lines 132-134: The sentence is too long.
- Line 136: …. prevent the ingress of water molecules from into the mudstone,… The word is missing (from ?).
- Figure 3 was made more than 6 years ago (27-Feb-2014). When was the experiment shown in Figure 2 performed?
- Lines 150-151: The term „bentonite core“ is used, and in the rest of the text „mudstone core“. It is necessary to use the same term consistently.
- Line 150: Specify the pressure and temperature conditions at which the experiment was performed.
- Line 158: Explain the meaning of the abbreviations GBFS-1 and DMDAAC. Add a full stop at the end of the first sentence.
- Figure 6: The text on the ordinate should be rotated. The force (N) is shown on the ordinate, and in the text before Figure 6 (in line 170) the term compressive strength is used („The compressive strength was improved to 0.2N“) which is not the same. Unit for strength is Pa or MPa!
- Line 176: Fracture strength or breaking strength (in Table 2) or compressive strength?
- Lines 184-185: linear expansion of bentonite or mudstone core (artificial core in line 369)?
- Line 187: 2.4.2.2. Rolling recycling experiment; recycling or recovery?
- Line 188: Specify the time of hot rolling test (16 hours?).
- Line 189: Fig. 7 instead of Fig. 6.
- Line 190: ...Up 92.9 %... Check because the scale on the ordinate is from 0% to 90%.
- 198: Mud shale improves strength and inhibits the hydration expansion of clay minerals. The sentence is not clear. Which means „mud shale“?
- Figure 8. The text on the ordinate should be rotated; „wave number“ instead „wavenumber“.
- Line 237: The two strengthen the strength....
- Line 272: Explain what base slurry (blank base slurry in line 276, blank group in line 299, blank experimental group in line 320!) is. 1% different lubricants instead of 4% different lubricants.
- Line 276: 83.3% instead 85.2% (see Table 3).
- Line 302: Figure 13 instead Figure 12.
- Lines 311 and 317: Figure 14 instead Figure 13.
- Line 314: ..friction coefficient reaching about 0.08. Check because the scale on the ordinate is from 0.0 to 0.6.
- Figure 14: The text on the ordinate should be rotated.
- Table 7. "Note" should be deleted because it is unnecessary.
- Line 344: Explain what soil slurry is. Bentonite suspension? What is „heavy Spar“. Heavyweight additive (barite)?
- Line 348: ultrafine calcium or ultrafine calcium carbonate?
- Figure 15. The text „Expansion ...“ on the ordinate should be rotated.
- Line 398: „good rheology and loss of wall formation,..“
- Line 400: ....and other unconventional, Drilling.....
- Field application effect - The text provides a lot of data that is impossible to verify. The data source must be specified.
- 5. Summary and suggestions - The text is too general. It should contain conclusions based on the tests performed.
- Reference - Check and write according to the instructions - there are a lot of mistakes.
Author Response
(1)Abstract: The text is not easy to read. Some sentences do not have a full stop at the end.
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We have revised the sentences of abstract.
(2)Technical terms are not used correctly. For example in Line 27: "drilling technology" instead of "drilling fluid technology".
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We have revised it.
(3)Inaccurate data are given in several places in the text.
Reply: It is really a giant mistake to the whole quality of our article. We feel sorry for our pool writings. We have revised the number of those figures.
(4)All figures should have the same font of letters on the abscissa and ordinate.
Reply: It is really a giant mistake to the whole quality of our article. We have revised it.
(5)Subheading 2.1. does not correspond to the content describing the wellbore instability, not the model as suggested.
Reply: We have rewrite the ‘Using marine mussel secretion as a model to develop bionic wall-fixing agent’ to ‘Developing of bionic wall-fixing agent’.
(6)Line 110: Specify the procedure and conditions for mudstone core preparation.
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. According to your nice suggestion, we have added a brief description about specify the procedure and conditions for mudstone core preparation stress experiment.
The bentonite was dried at 105 oC for 4 hours, cooled to room temperature, and placed in a dryer for standby. 5-10g sample is weighed with a balance and loaded into the die. The die is patted by hand to make the end face of the sample flat, and a piece of filter paper is placed on the surface. Put the pressure bar in the mold, place the combined sample on the hydraulic press platform, pressurize for 4MPa, and release the pressure after 5 minutes to obtain the man-made mudstone core.
(5)Line 121: Explain the meaning of the abbreviation EDS when it is first mentioned in the text by the subtitle.
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We added the meaning of the abbreviation EDS.
(6)Lines 132-134: The sentence is too long.
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We have revised it.
(7)Line 136: …. prevent the ingress of water molecules from into the mudstone,… The word is missing (from ?).
Reply: We revised it ‘prevent water molecules from intruding into the mudstone’.
(8)Figure 3 was made more than 6 years ago (27-Feb-2014). When was the experiment shown in Figure 2 performed?
Reply: This suggestion is very nice and reasonable. We have removed the date 2014 in the EDS spectrum analysis.
(9)Lines 150-151: The term „bentonite core“ is used, and in the rest of the text „mudstone core“. It is necessary to use the same term consistently.
Reply: We revised it.
(10)Line 150: Specify the pressure and temperature conditions at which the experiment was performed.
Reply: We revised it that ‘at room temperature and atmospheric pressure’
(11)Line 158: Explain the meaning of the abbreviations GBFS-1 and DMDAAC. Add a full stop at the end of the first sentence.
Reply: We revised it that ‘Variation of mudstone core shape with time in distilled water (R1), 2% polyalcohol (R2), 2% polyetheramine (R3) and 2% bionic wall-fixing agent (GBFS-1) solution (L1), 2% poly diallyl dimethyl ammonium chloride (DMDAAC) (L2) solution’
(12)Figure 6: The text on the ordinate should be rotated. The force (N) is shown on the ordinate, and in the text before Figure 6 (in line 170) the term compressive strength is used („The compressive strength was improved to 0.2N“) which is not the same. Unit for strength is Pa or MPa!
Reply: We revised it that ‘According to the data shown in Figure 6, the force of the core after immersion in clear water deteriorated significantly was up to as low as 0.08N, indicating a severe hydration of the core. The force was improved to 0.2N, with the effect being clearly better than that of the other three treatment agents after soaking’
(12)Line 176: Fracture strength or breaking strength (in Table 2) or compressive strength?
Reply: We revised it that breaking strength
(13)Lines 184-185: linear expansion of bentonite or mudstone core (artificial core in line 369)?
Reply: We revised it that mudstone core.
(14)Line 187: 2.4.2.2. Rolling recycling experiment; recycling or recovery?
Reply: Rolling recycling experiment is that dry core or cuttings are taken and crushed into 6-10 mesh particles (which can be screened by 6-10 mesh double-layer screen). Weigh 50g of the above particles, add them into the aging tank containing 350ml of the liquid to be evaluated, and roll for 16h under the simulated downhole temperature; after cooling the aging tank, recover the particles in the drilling fluid with a 30 mesh sieve, dry them at 105 oC for 4h, and then weigh them to calculate the rolling recovery rate of drilling cuttings in the drilling fluid.
(15)Line 188: Specify the time of hot rolling test (16 hours?).
Reply: According to standard API RP 13B1-2014, the time of hot rolling test is16 hours.
(16)Line 189: Fig. 7 instead of Fig. 6.
Reply: We revised it that mudstone core.
(17)Line 190: ...Up 92.9 %... Check because the scale on the ordinate is from 0% to 90%.
198: Mud shale improves strength and inhibits the hydration expansion of clay minerals. The sentence is not clear. Which means „mud shale“?
Reply: 92.9% was relative improvement rate. We removed that up 92.9% relative to 43.05% in the distilled aqueous solution. The sentence ‘Mud shale improves strength and inhibits the hydration expansion of clay minerals’ was rewrite that ‘It improves the cementation strength of shale and inhibits the hydration expansion of clay minerals’.
(18)Figure 8. The text on the ordinate should be rotated; „wave number“ instead „wavenumber“.
Reply: We revised it.
(19)Line 237: The two strengthen the strength....
Reply: We revised it ‘Improving the strength of the lubricant adsorption film through chelation’
(20)Line 272: Explain what base slurry (blank base slurry in line 276, blank group in line 299, blank experimental group in line 320!) is. 1% different lubricants instead of 4% different lubricants.
Reply: We revised it that 4% bentonite and 0.2% sodium carbonate were added into deionized water and stirred at 1200rpm for 24h to obtain the base slurry. We revised it that 1% different lubricants.
(21)Line 276: 83.3% instead 85.2% (see Table 3).
Reply: We revised it.
(22)Line 302: Figure 13 instead Figure 12.
Reply: We revised it.
(23)Lines 311 and 317: Figure 14 instead Figure 13.
Reply: We revised it.
(24)Line 314: ..friction coefficient reaching about 0.08. Check because the scale on the ordinate is from 0.0 to 0.6.
Reply: We revised it. The friction coefficient reaching about 0.08 is correct, because the smaller the friction coefficient, the better the lubrication performance
(25)Figure 14: The text on the ordinate should be rotated.
Reply: We revised it.
(26)Table 7. "Note" should be deleted because it is unnecessary.
Reply: We revised it.
(27)Line 344: Explain what soil slurry is. Bentonite suspension? What is „heavy Spar“. Heavyweight additive (barite)?
Reply: We revised it that base slurry. Yes, the heavy Spar is barite, we revised it.
(28)Line 348: ultrafine calcium or ultrafine calcium carbonate?
Reply: We revised it that fine calcium carbonate.
(29)Figure 15. The text „Expansion ...“ on the ordinate should be rotated.
Reply: We revised it
(30)Line 398: „good rheology and loss of wall formation,..“
Reply: We revised it rheology and filtration.
(31)Line 400: ....and other unconventional, Drilling.....
Reply: We revised it.
(32)Field application effect - The text provides a lot of data that is impossible to verify. The data source must be specified.
Reply: We revised it. We added related references.
(33)5. Summary and suggestions - The text is too general. It should contain conclusions based on the tests performed.
Reply: We revised it.
(34)Reference - Check and write according to the instructions - there are a lot of mistakes.
Reply: We revised it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The current manuscript examines the behavior of bionics on wellbore stability and lubricity. This is a very good idea. The paper covers the relevant literature review sufficiently and it has a very comprehensive experimental section with very well-presented results. The manuscript deserves publication in the journal with the following minor revisions:
- The abstract should be prepared more carefully. For instance, the lines 11-14 must be rephrased. In the whole abstract, there are serious punctuation problems (e.g. many full stops are missing).
- A punctuation check must be done in the whole manuscript. There are serious problems (e.g. line: 81, 158, etc.).
- The authors ought to mention whether bionics could be applicable in oil-based muds.
- There is a perceptible absence of the scientific instrumentation and of the methods used in the apparatuses for implementing the experimental measurements. It is necessary, the authors to mention their equipment and its customization (e.g. for EDS, FTIR, point load test, stress test, resistance tests, etc.).
- In Fig. 4: Map a,b,c,d with time in the label of the figure for better understanding. The characters indicating the hours are not so clear in the figure.
Author Response
(1)The abstract should be prepared more carefully. For instance, the lines 11-14 must be rephrased. In the whole abstract, there are serious punctuation problems (e.g. many full stops are missing).
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We revised it.
(1)A punctuation check must be done in the whole manuscript. There are serious problems (e.g. line: 81, 158, etc.).
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We revised it.
(2)The authors ought to mention whether bionics could be applicable in oil-based muds.
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. Bionics could be applicable in oil-based muds, we prepared bionics oil-based plugging agent, bionics oil-based viscosity reducer, etc.
(3)There is a perceptible absence of the scientific instrumentation and of the methods used in the apparatuses for implementing the experimental measurements. It is necessary, the authors to mention their equipment and its customization (e.g. for EDS, FTIR, point load test, stress test, resistance tests, etc.).
Reply: We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. We revised it.
(4)In Fig. 4: Map a,b,c,d with time in the label of the figure for better understanding. The characters indicating the hours are not so clear in the figure.
Reply: The characters indicating the hours was used to illustrate Change of sample morphology with time.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Remarks and suggestions were generally accepted, but some new mistakes were made.
Line 365: „barite“ instead of „Bareit“
Line 402: „lower“ instead of „low“
Line 404: The value of the mud density is very high - 2.41 g/cm3. Explain why or correct!
„Summary and suggestions“ were only renamed to „Conclusions“, but the text remained unchanged. The text is too general. It should contain conclusions based on the tests performed.
Author Response
(1)Line 365: „barite“ instead of „Bareit“
Reply:It is really a giant mistake to the whole quality of our article. We feel sorry for our pool writings. We have revised it..
(2)Line 402: „lower“ instead of „low“
Reply:We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our paper. I revised it.
Line 404: The value of the mud density is very high - 2.41 g/cm3. Explain why or correct!
Reply:The mud density is 2.41 g/cm3. because the high formation pressure coefficient of application wells, in addition, the performance of bionic drilling fluid system under high density is better than that of oil-based drilling fluid at the same density, which indicates that bionic wall fixing agent and bionic lubricant play a good role.
(4)Summary and suggestions“ were only renamed to „Conclusions“, but the text remained unchanged. The text is too general. It should contain conclusions based on the tests performed.
Reply: Thanks for your professional review work. I added some conclusions based on the tests performed.
