Numerical Simulation of Hot Dry Rock Fracture Monitoring by Time-Lapse Magnetotelluric Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the time-lapse magnetotelluric method is used to simulate the hydraulic fracturing of anisotropic formation. The research shows that the residual phase is sensitive to the fracture distribution and direction produced in the process of hydraulic injection, and can monitor the spatial and temporal distribution of fluid well. It is innovative and has certain guiding significance for the application of hydraulic fracturing engineering.
This paper has the following suggestions for modification:
1、In Fig. 3-fig. 12, frequency [F] should be modify to frequency [HZ], and the coordinate axis number should be consistent, or in the form of 0.01 decimal or 10 ^ - 2.
2、Fig. 3-fig. 5, the apparent resistivity and phase coordinate axes are generally in positive sequence, and it is suggested to modify.
3、Please carefully check the citation format of the references in the text, such as lines 49-52 in the text. The author of the citation, peacock J R, is consistent with the modification of reference [14]. In addition, the references in the text are confusing. Some use name (year) and some use [number]
4、Has this been used in the experiment? It is suggested to test it in the experiment. Whether the depth of 5km can be obtained in the real situation needs to be discussed.
5、On page 2 line 54, the manuscript refers to two-dimensional test, but the manuscript is three-dimensional model. Please check.
6、The test environment in this manuscript is difficult to see in the real geological environment. It is suggested that build a model based on the real geological environment and test whether this method is still work.
Author Response
请参阅附件。
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Generally this is a useful research fit for publishing after correcting the following minor changes:
The method section needs to capture more of the modeling details such as the discretization of the finite difference modeling, the range of the frequencies model, bounding definition, etc.
In terms of axis notations, there is a mixture of a variety of notations. Author needs to be consistent in the use of x,y,z vs 1, 2, 3 vs x1, x2, x3, across the text and the figures.
Author should discuss the impact of the 2D modeling assumption they made on the paper. The discussion can be in the "Discussion" section of the paper
Author should pay attention to the use of abbreviation not defined - see line 100 (TE and TM)
What is the sensitivity of using methods to describe stimulated fracture direction with varying depth. Will the typical MT response decay with depth limit the ability to resolve deep fracture orientation vs the deep ones?
Reformat the references - a lot of the references have inconsistent capitalization, eg lines 367, 379-380, 394, 396, 404, 410-411
Correct the following minor edits:
line 18: ... structure changes from the water injection ...
line 163: ..., the elliptical shape shows ...
line 286: .... These conclusions ...
line 312: .... In Fig 16, when ...
line 414 ... exceeding 900 in ....
Thanks.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have answered all my comments. This manuscript can be accepted by this journal.
