The Damage Caused by Particle Migration to Low-Permeability Reservoirs and Its Effect on the Seepage Capacity after CO₂ Flooding

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Check the reference data more carefully.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I've edited the English in more detail.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the review of the manuscript The Damage of particle migration to Low-Permeability Reservoir and its effect on seepage capacity after CO2 flooding. The authors have provided a good description and the methodology is also fine. I would like to see this article publish but after some questions as follow;

1. What factors have contributed to the increasing prominence of the unblocking contradiction in the context of water influx and formation pressure?
2. What were the specific experiments conducted to address the issues related to blockage in the reservoir?
3. How did CO2-alternating-water flooding affect the law of blockage due to particle migration?
4. What were the findings regarding rock dissolution by CO2-aqueous solution?
5. What were the changes observed in core permeability after CO2 flooding and subsequent cleaning with toluene and absolute alcohol?
6. How did CO2-aqueous solution interact with chlorite, and what were the resulting ion concentrations?
7. What impact did the reactions produce (MgCO3, Fe2O3, etc.) have on the pore throat of the rock?
8. How did CO2's dissolution effect on CaCO3 compare to other reactions observed?
9. In what ways did the study suggest that the seepage capacity of the fluid was improved?
10. What implications does this study have for the theoretical understanding and practical application of deblocking and injection increase in water injection wells?

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. 

The attachment below is my answer to your question.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The problem is important and interesting. There were several papers regarding this issue.

But:

1.Obtained results depend on many details both rock structure and mineralogical compositions of investigated rocks.

2.The set of necessary test is already known and does not required  additional experiments

So:

 The problem is: how particular rock formations react. This requires research

on statistically reliable number of samples.

I

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed.

I have made a corresponding increase in the number of experimental samples to prove my conclusion.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper presents some interesting experimental work on the effects of CO2 flooding on particle migration and plugging in low permeability reservoirs. However, there are several issues that need to be addressed:

Major issues:

- The introduction needs more detail and background information. The authors should provide more context on CO2 flooding and explain why it can cause issues like particle migration and plugging in these types of reservoirs. 

- The methodology needs more detail. For example, what were the exact experimental conditions and procedures? How were parameters like permeability and porosity measured?

- The results and discussion section is unclear in parts. For example, in section 2.1.1, it is not fully explained how the pressure data indicates that CO2 flooding reduces injection pressure. The authors need to explain the results more clearly.

- The conclusions do not provide a good summary of the main findings. The conclusions should directly state the key results and their significance.

Minor issues:

- The English needs to be improved throughout for clarity and grammar. I would recommend getting the paper professionally edited.

- The figures are low quality and hard to read. Higher resolution versions should be included. 

- The reference format is inconsistent. Follow one standard format.

- Abbreviations should be defined the first time they are used.

To summarize, this paper provides some useful experimental data but needs significant revisions to improve the clarity, explanation of the methodology/results, and overall readability. I would recommend major edits to the introduction, methods, results/discussion, and conclusions sections as well as careful editing of the language. Addressing these issues will greatly improve the quality of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English needs to be improved throughout for clarity and grammar. I would recommend getting the paper professionally edited.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. I have edited the article professionally according to your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the ideas described are very interesting to the EOR community, the manuscript is completely unreadable. Please ask for  help from a native English speaking person and resubmit.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the ideas described are very interesting to the EOR community, the manuscript is completely unreadable. Please ask for  help from a native English speaking person and resubmit.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.I have edited the article professionally according to your suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nothing has changed substantively.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed.

I have made a corresponding increase in the number of experimental samples to prove my conclusion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the revised manuscript and the authors' reply, I find this paper suitable for publication in its current form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my major comment. I now recommend the manuscript to be accepted for publication in Processes. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No more comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.