Thermochemical Upgrading of Heavy Crude Oil in Reservoir Conditions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In the introduction part, the discussion of previous research results is not sufficient and systematic, which needs to be summarized systematically. And the introduction only gives a simple description of this paper, which is not in-depth enough. What problems should be further clarified in this work? What is the engineering significance?

2. the composite oxidation catalyst and non-ionic surfactant synthesis process need to be added.

3. the (the ASTM D5134-98 (2008) standard) cited in the text needs to be listed in the References section section, except that the technical standard is not an internationally accepted standard and the authors are advised to list the core details of the technical standard in the text.

4. Insert a discussion section comparing your results to previous results obtained in similar work or attempts to solve similar problems.

Author Response

 

Сomments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1. In the introduction part, the discussion of previous research results is not sufficient and systematic, which needs to be summarized systematically. And the introduction only gives a simple description of this paper, which is not in-depth enough. What problems should be further clarified in this work? What is the engineering significance?

 

Thank you for the feedback. We appreciate the reviewer's comments. In response to the concern about the insufficiency of the discussion of previous research results in the introduction, we have addressed several key issues in lines 100-110 of the introduction.

One significant differentiation of our work from the previously mentioned studies is the application of surfactants without the involvement of a catalyst and their effective influence on the structure of asphaltenes. This aspect is thoroughly described in the conclusions section, specifically in lines 310-319.

Thank you again for your valuable feedback, which will greatly contribute to improving the overall quality and clarity of our paper.

 

 

2. the composite oxidation catalyst and non-ionic surfactant synthesis process need to be added.

 

Thank you for your comment. We apologize for any confusion. The synthesis process of the composite oxidation catalyst and non-ionic surfactant is not within the scope of our study. It seems that in the literature review section, you may have come across studies involving the co-injection of surfactants and catalysts, which are also related to the aquathermolysis process. However, in our study, we specifically focus on the actions of the surfactants in the absence of a catalyst during steam co-injection.

We appreciate your feedback and will make sure to clarify this point in the revised manuscript. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

 

3. the (the ASTM D5134-98 (2008) standard) cited in the text needs to be listed in the References section section, except that the technical standard is not an internationally accepted standard and the authors are advised to list the core details of the technical standard in the text.

Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and added the appropriate reference.

 

4. Insert a discussion section comparing your results to previous results obtained in similar work or attempts to solve similar problems.

 

Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your input. We have made the necessary revisions and included in lines 309-313 of the manuscript in the discussion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article seems to be an interesting study. However, there are several critical issues should be addressed.

1. The state-of-art for thermochemical upgrading of heavy crude oil should be summarized. And, please point out what are the most significances for this study to investigate the thermochemical upgrading using various experiments?

2. There is no caption for Figure 2? And, in Figures 2 and 5, did the results observed by continuous signals? If not, I suppose, besides the cures, the points of experimental data should be plotted also?

3. The experimental methods should be summarized in more details to make others could test the results.

4. I feel confused that why the experiments should be fixed to 250°C. Please explain more about this issue?

5. Another important issue is that, this study has not compared with the results with those of the previous similar studies. Please add these contents. Otherwise, it cannot illustrate the main contributions of this study.

6. The authors should add a section to discuss the experimental results.

The english shoud be polished.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article seems to be an interesting study. However, there are several critical issues should be addressed.

1. The state-of-art for thermochemical upgrading of heavy crude oil should be summarized. And, please point out what are the most significances for this study to investigate the thermochemical upgrading using various experiments?

 

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your comment and the opportunity to address the critical issues raised. In response to your concern The utilization of steam co-injection with chemical additives, particularly surfactants, has emerged as a highly promising approach for the extraction of heavy crude oil and residual oil recovery. The use of surfactants offers several advantages, including improved disruption of asphaltene aggregates, especially the resilient patch-like structures found in reservoirs. This enables better access to the easily breakable carbon-heteroatom bonds within the asphaltene composition. Moreover, surfactants not only aid in displacement processes but also enhance asphaltene peptization, leading to increased oil mobility in dense carbonate reservoirs.

 

2. There is no caption for Figure 2? And, in Figures 2 and 5, did the results observed by continuous signals? If not, I suppose, besides the cures, the points of experimental data should be plotted also?

Thank you for your response. Points added in figure 5..

We appreciate your clarification regarding Figure 2. If the TGA analysis in Figure 2 already shows the desired temperatures without the need for additional data points, it is understandable that unnecessary elements were removed to ensure visual clarity. We will make sure to mention this in the revised manuscript. Thank you for providing the explanation.

.

 

3. The experimental methods should be summarized in more details to make others could test the results

We have added reference to literature sources (ASTM D5134-98 (2008) standard).

 

4. I feel confused that why the experiments should be fixed to 250°C. Please explain more about this issue?

 

In the TGA results and discussion, we have provided an explanation for the selection of the experimental temperature.

Previous experiments were conducted at various temperatures, considering both the heat resistance of the surfactant and its stability as significant factors. Based on these considerations, we made a decision regarding the specific temperature for our experiments. For further insights on the use of different surfactants at different temperatures, we invite you to refer to our other works:

 

Kholmurodov, T.; Aliev, F.; Mirzaev, O.; Dengaev, A.; Tajik, A.; Vakhin, A. Hydrothermal In-Reservoir Upgrading of Heavy Oil in the Presence of Non-Ionic Surfactants. Processes 2022, 10, 2176.

  

Kholmurodov, T.; Vakhin, A.; Aliev, F.; Galyametdinov, Y.; Mirzayev, O.; Tajik, A.; Gafurov, M. Influence of Anionic and Amphoteric Surfactants on Heavy Oil Upgrading Performance with Nickel Tallate under Steam Injection Processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 2023.

 

5. Another important issue is that, this study has not compared with the results with those of the previous similar studies. Please add these contents. Otherwise, it cannot illustrate the main contributions of this study.
   Thank you for your comment. We appreciate your input. We have made the necessary revisions and included in lines 309-313 of the manuscript in the discussion section.

  

6/ The authors should add a section to discuss the experimental results.

       Thank you for your comment. We apologize for any confusion. We understand that you are requesting an additional section to discuss the experimental results. We appreciate your suggestion, and upon review, we agree that a separate section dedicated to discussing the experimental results would enhance the clarity and organization of the paper. The results of the discussion are presented starting on line 254. The discussion of the data obtained is correctly stated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

Paper: "Thermochemical upgrading of heavy crude oil in reservoir conditions" is an extension of the author's past works in this field. The authors presented the advantages of R-PEG surfactants based on laboratory measurements. The experimental analysis is well designed and obtained data support the results. However, authors should:

-        Delete lines 57 – 62 in the introduction section. It is almost an exact repetition of lines 42-46.

-        In the FT-IR analysis, there should be an explanation of the bands 3000-2750 cm^-1.

-        In the FT-IR figure, I would recommend inputting peak band values. This will improve data visibility.

 

In future works, I would recommend adding the pour point, cloud point, and ignition temperature analysis of the final product.

 

Yours sincerely

Reviewer

Author Response

Paper: "Thermochemical upgrading of heavy crude oil in reservoir conditions" is an extension of the author's past works in this field. The authors presented the advantages of R-PEG surfactants based on laboratory measurements. The experimental analysis is well designed and obtained data support the results. However, authors should:

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your specific and focused question regarding the data. It is gratifying to know that you are the only reviewer who noticed that this work is a continuation of my previous research. Your observation is duly acknowledged and appreciated.    

-        Delete lines 57 – 62 in the introduction section. It is almost an exact repetition of lines 42-46.

Thanks, we deleted it.

-        In the FT-IR analysis, there should be an explanation of the bands 3000-2750 cm^-1.

We have added. 

-        In the FT-IR figure, I would recommend inputting peak band values. This will improve data visibility.

 

In future works, I would recommend adding the pour point, cloud point, and ignition temperature analysis of the final product.

Thank you for acknowledging the suggestion. You are correct, and we will certainly include the work that has already been done with other surfactants in our study.

 Kholmurodov, T.; Vakhin, A.; Aliev, F.; Galyametdinov, Y.; Mirzayev, O.; Tajik, A.; Gafurov, M. Influence of Anionic and Amphoteric Surfactants on Heavy Oil Upgrading Performance with Nickel Tallate under Steam Injection Processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 2023.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Suggest again: the composite oxidation catalyst and non-ionic surfactant synthesis process need to be added！

Reviewer 2 Report

The english should be polished.

The english should be polished.