Using Numerical Reservoir Simulation to Assess CO₂ Capture and Underground Storage, Case Study on a Romanian Power Plant and Its Surrounding Hydrocarbon Reservoirs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper attempts to assess CO2 capture and storage potential using numerical reservoir simulation around Romanian power plant and nearby hydrocarbon reservoirs.  The ideas of the paper are of certain significance to the development of CCS in Romanian. The discussions related to CCS in this paper, however, are common and general and with a lot of limitation of theory and innovation. Some comments are as follows:

1.      Introduction is too long, so it is suggested to simplify and focus on the background and significance of this paper;

2.      It is suggested to add the more detail description of the geological characteristics of the gas field and evaluate the potential of CO2 sequestration.

3.      It is suggested to increase the discussion of simulation results and the storage potential of various storage mechanisms.

4.      The paper also has some spelling problems, such as upper and lower scripts, please check.

5.      Fig.1 and Fig.2 are not clear, need to be further modification.

6.      The description of the simulation scheme is not clear. Which type of injection Wells will be used, how many Wells will be injected, or will all of them be injected?

7.      In Fig.5，Wells are not clear,

8.      Fig.6-8 are all not clear,

9.      It is suggested to add a discussion section to further analyze the simulation results and CCS potential or prospect

Author Response

Dear Sir, Madam, 

Thank you for reviewing our paper and offering your feedback.

Please find attached our replies in an Word document.

Regards,

Silvian Suditu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. It is not clear why the paper used the ECLIPSE GASWAT? What is GASWAT, and what does it do scientifically? More scientific details about the SOLID option are needed.
2. The physical/hydrodynamic/geochemical problems are more complex than a simple synthetic model in this paper. It appears that the paper oversimplified the study.
3. It is not convincing that the paper used a homogenous model. Geological models are always heterogeneous, with geological uncertainties. Study/discussions about this important issue is missing. Some references for geological uncertainty may help the authors to address this part:

• Jayne et al, 2019, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583618303529
• Yin et al 2020 https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/13/651/2020/
• Chen et al, 2020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583619304062

4. The innovative contributions are not clear. Please elaborate more specifically.
5. Figures are of low quality. For example, Figure 5 cannot see the wells’ names. What does the top bar mean? Figure 6/7/8 annotations are too small.
6. References are not in the right format.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir, Madam, 

Thank you for reviewing our paper and offering your feedback.

Please find attached our replies in an Word document.

Regards,

Silvian Suditu

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Some comments are as follows:

1. Fig.2 is unuseful. It is suggested that Figure 2 be replaced with the tectonic geological map of the basin, and the position of Figure 3 should be marked in Fig.2

2. The paper also has some spelling problems, such as upper and lower scripts in line 206, 547, please check.

3. Line 338 is unuseful, suggest to delete.

4. Suggest to rewrite the abstract and keyword according whole content of the paper.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Again, the authors still uses a simple and unrealistic homogeneous model. I don't think innovative contribution is significant and convincing to publish in the journal.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf