Analysis of Dynamical Heat Conductivity of the Reservoir and Fluid Evacuation Zone on the Gas Condensate Well Flow Rate
, Al-Sultan Mohammed Bassam 2, Mohammed Khaleel Abbood 2, Haval Mohammed Abdullatif 2 and Yevhen Alexender Shapchenko 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This article aims to present a mathematical model that describes the non-isothermal flow of a fluid (gas) produced from a reservoir formation into a well assuming a radial flow and subsequently brought to the surface assuming a vertical flow through the borehole. The effects on the temperature profile and on the flow rate induced by the dependence of the thermal conductivity of the rocks and of the Joule-Thompson coefficient with respect to the variables Pressure and Temperature are presented and discussed.
The paper in the current form is difficult to read both as it is written (there are too long sentences not suitable for a scientific article, for example from line 38 to line 43!) and for how the physical model is presented (there are more than 30 formulas, I think not all necessary). I suggest to report only those used in the calculations. In the text the nomenclature of the symbols in the formulas is referred to in Table 2 whose reference is missing in the text. Moreover, this stylistic choice is very inconvenient for the reader. Furthermore, in Table 2 I do not understand the order in which the symbols were reported. I recommend following the alphabetical order or the order in which they appear in the text for a faster consultation and retrieval. I tried to reproduce the results presented graphically but I found difficulties not yet solved in applying the method, whose presentation remains confused. In the figures the legend cannot largely cover the curves shown in the graph!
The topic is very specific with a direct application in the O&G industry. Apart from that, for a better understanding the paper must be structured in a more streamlined and clearer form. The current work cannot be published in an international journal.
Author Response
Dear Sir ,
Thank You for your comments and suggestions.Some changes have been made in the previous paper.
Point one: The paper in the current form is difficult to read both as it is written (there are too long sentences not suitable for a scientific article, for example from line 38 to line 43!) and for how the physical model is presented (there are more than 30 formulas, I think not all necessary). I suggest to report only those used in the calculations.
Response: Corrections have been made on the sentences to make understandable, and the formulas involved in the physical model were kept.
Point two: In the text the nomenclature of the symbols in the formulas is referred to in Table 2 whose reference is missing in the text. Moreover, this stylistic choice is very inconvenient for the reader. Furthermore, in Table 2 I do not understand the order in which the symbols were reported.
Response: Table 2 is a built in table that we create and the order for each of each symbols has been arranged in the alphabetic order. Table 2 is now table 1 in the new version.
Point three: I tried to reproduce the results presented graphically but I found difficulties not yet solved in applying the method, whose presentation remains confused. In the figures the legend cannot largely cover the curves shown in the graph!
Response: The method used in this paper has been verified many times and works perfectly.
Thank You for your great contributions!
Reviewer 2 Report
The present manuscript shows an improvement on a numerical integral solution based on considering the variant temperature effect inside a well. This work seems original and addresses a practical engineering problem. However, the authors do not use the correct technical terms for heat transfer and thermodynamics, which will mislead the readers. The following items need to be discussed:
The parameter 'Kt' with the unit of W/m2/K should be the HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT other than the CONDUCTIVITY. Conductivity should have the unit of W/m/K. Equation (18) also requires that Kt should be the effective heat transfer coefficient, which should be a composition of fluid conventional heat transfer coefficient and solid thermal conductivity. In addition, the fluid conventional heat transfer coefficient should be a function of Reynolds number and fluid properties. The authors should improve the understanding of the heat transfer coefficient and have major revisions on the manuscript. The title is also recommended to be corrected as Analysis of Dynamical Effective Heat Transfer Coefficient of The Reservoir and Fluid Evacuation Zone on The Gas Condensate Well Flow Rate. There are many inappropriate technical terms such as 'thermobaric condition' and 'annihilation coefficient', which seem to be generated from stiff translation. The current results are not validated. The authors should compare the current results to those from other papers or experimental data.Author Response
Dear Sir ,
Thank You for your comments and suggestions.Some changes have been made in the previous paper.
Point one: The parameter 'Kt' with the unit of W/m2/K should be the HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT other than the CONDUCTIVITY. Conductivity should have the unit of W/m/K. Equation (18) also requires that Kt should be the effective heat transfer coefficient, which should be a composition of fluid conventional heat transfer coefficient and solid thermal conductivity.
Response: Correction has made on the parameter Kt . In fact it is the heat transfer coefficient.
Point two: The authors should improve the understanding of the heat transfer coefficient and have major revisions on the manuscript.
Response: Revisions, based on your comments, have been done. The heat transfer coefficient is more explicit
Point three: The title is also recommended to be corrected as Analysis of Dynamical Effective Heat Transfer Coefficient of The Reservoir and Fluid Evacuation Zone on The Gas Condensate Well Flow Rate. There are many inappropriate technical terms such as 'thermobaric condition' and 'annihilation coefficient'.
Response: We really appreciate your effort, but the title of the paper still remains the same. And appropriate words have been added up. Those technical words have now, in the new version, are more explicit.
Thank You for your great contributions!
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
you improved the original version of the manuscript. This work, in the present form, can be published in the journal.
Author Response
We changed a some words, phrases. Added a few sentences. This, in the opinion of the authors and colleagues in linguistic specialties, have corrected in essence and fully the comment point of the reviewer, improved the perception of the essence of the article by the reader. In the attached file, the added one is highlighted in yellow, and the deleted one is indicated by crossed line.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
(1) The authors have corrected some of the terms related to the heat transfer coefficient. However, they still keep a lot of 'conductivity' in the manuscript which is physically not conductivity. This will mislead the readers. Please make sure that all the 'conductivities' only refer to the heat transfer inside solids, while 'heat transfer coefficients' include the heat transfer due to fluid flow. In this work, I cannot find any term related to conductivity (W/m/K).
(2) English still needs to be improved. The term 'thermobaric' is even not a term for heat transfer or thermodynamics.
(3) Figures 2, 4 and 5 are not clear.
Author Response
Authors changed a some words, phrases. Added a some sentences, words. This, in the opinion of the authors and their colleagues (linguistic specialties), have corrected in essence and fully the comment point of the reviewer, improved the perception of the essence of the article by the reader. In the attached file, the added one is highlighted in yellow, and the deleted one is shown with a crossed out line.
The term thermobaric parameters was deleted and replaced (flow mode), as it was not found in a significant (sufficiently large) amount of quality scientific work. Such a term was used only by Russian scientists, which is not enough to recognize it as scientific and justified for widespread scientific use. We scientists of Ukraine and Africa cannot trust such a term in the future ((perhaps this is the right decision). Thanks for the tip to the reviewer.
The added text and sentences clarified the meaning of the drawings and improved the perception of the important conclusions of a scientific article.
Please pay particular attention to the additional sentence in lines 125-127, which triumphantly improved the transparency of the presented scientific result.
Also, in our opinion, the introduced additional proposals with lines 198-199 and 247-251. 296-298 had a very positive effect on the presentability of the latest edition.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I think this article can be published with a minor revision on making sure that all the figures have high enough resolutions.
