Seismic Response Models and the AVO Simulation of Coal-Bearing Reservoirs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for such very good qualified piece of research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper addresses the problem of coal affecting seismic reflection responses in reservoirs (false bright spots and complex composite reflections). The authors first establish seismic responses of coal-bearing reservoir models. They generate synthetic seismic data from the models and establish seismic response models. They also apply this to real well-log data and examine the AVO signatures for various fluid scenarios.
The article is well written, and the premises and conclusions are well stated and illustrated. The authors have successfully demonstrated the effect of coal seams both varying vertically and laterally.
An additional paragraph in the discussion, proposing a typical workflow (possibly discussing inversion and not just the forward modeling) to remove the effect of coal for real seismic data, will improve the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors state that they are concerned with a systematic analysis of the seismic reflections of coal-bearing reservoirs. We do not fully agree with this statement.
Indeed, they consider a large variety of lithological combinations. Actually, the manuscript contains 19 figures, each with a few panels, but unfortunately very few details about the numerical aspects of the calculation of the reflectivity of the seismic wave.
To be useful, we believe that the manuscript should contain far fewer examples but be analyzed in detail. In the figures presented, it is simply not (clear) known what is given and what is required. Moreover, it is not clear at all how these outcomes are computed.
In addition, we do not understand the role of the synthetic examples when the authors have some real data examples?
The manuscript must be rewritten (reformulated), "washed" of redundant information and made intelligible. In fact, the authors throw some figures and then comment on them very superficially. We do not believe that such a manuscript can be published.
We think that such a large manuscript should contain a small section of abbreviations. Otherwise the ideas, if they exist, are hard to follow.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have considerably improved the content of the manuscript, the way it is presented and the quality of the English edition. We believe that in this form it can be accepted.