Gray Relational Analysis Optimization for Coalbed Methane Blocks in Complex Conditions Based on a Best Worst and Entropy Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper discusses the development potentials of the coalbed methane (CBM) blocks in China, in complex geological conditions. For this purpose, a multi-index grey relational analysis optimization model was used. For the selected five blocks, which are the CBM reservoirs, the eight resources and reservoir evaluation indices were proposed. The issues presented in this manuscript are very important in the context of providing an effective energy security for the country.
In my opinion the paper is interesting. The work has a numerical nature. Test procedure is logical. However, the quality of the manuscript suffers from its not very accurate presentation (general and specific comments). In addition, the paper is written not very good English. For this reason, the manuscript requires major modifications before it can be accepted for publication.
GENERAL COMMENTS (that require additional description in the manuscript):
The format and writing of most References and also all the text should be revised. “The calculation process follows the steps of BWM in reference [56].” - The lack of the brief calculation procedure description. Reference to the publication [56] is not sufficient. Please complete this. In many places, there are not a distance between the numeric value and the unit (for example: 0.94m, 861.65x108m3, 280MPa). A similar remark as in point 4. The lack of the distances in formulas, among others before and after the equal sign "=". Inconsistent text formatting: once with distance, once not (for example: 2#, 8 # , 9 #, 9#). At the end of the sentences which refer to the equations should be followed by colon ":" and not by dot "." For example: “The contribution of the i block under the j index follows (2):” (page 7).
SPECIFIC COMMENTS:
Page 2:
“AHP; BWM” - All symbols used for the first time in the text should be preceded by the full name. Page 6, Figure 2:
* The poorly visible inscriptions on the drawing - please increase the font size.
* The vertical axis: “Average value” of what? It is suggested to write e.g. “Average value
of the selected parameter”. Page 7, paragraph 3.1:
Instead of “(…) comparison vector method. (Table 2 and 3).“ you should write
“(…) comparison vector method (Tables 2 and 3).“. Page 7, Equation (1):
The lack of the equation components description. Page 7, paragraph 3.1:
Instead of “(…) determined by the BWM were “ you should write “(…) determined by the BWM were: “. Page 7, Tables 2 and 3:
Instead of “ Table 2: (…)“ and “ Table 3: (…)“ you should write “Table 2. (…)“ and “Table 3. (…)”. Page 7, paragraph 3.1; Page 8, paragraph 3.2:
It is suggested to insert the weight values Waj and Wbj to the Table 2 or Table 3 if it is possible. Page 12, Figure 3:
The poorly visible inscriptions on the vertical axes - please increase the font size and make a distance between the inscription and the unit. Pages 9 and 10:
Lack of the matrices (G and E) numbering (just like the equations). Pages 10, Table 4:
Lack of the table title above the Table.
GOOD LUCK!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors evaluated the productivty of coalbed methane reservoirs by using Grey relational analysis optimization. Methods and results are well presented. The only comment is that the autors should more clearly state the appropriateness (validity) of their approach and mention the limitations
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I thank the Authors for take account of all my comments and suggestions. Now the manuscript has been significantly improved. However I have still a little remark. You should completing the matrices numbers in the general text (paragraph 4.1; look at the example below). After this the manuscript may be published in Applied Sciences.
Example:
“According to the interval evaluation parameters of CBM blocks in Table 1, the upper bound matrix G (7) and lower bound matrix G (8) of the 8 evaluation indices are established. The upper bound matrix (7) is composed of the maximum of each index interval, and the lower bound matrix (8) is composed of the minimum of each index interval.”
(and similarly in the rest of the text)
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
