Formation and Evolution of Multi-Genetic Overpressure and Its Effect on Hydrocarbon Accumulation in the Dabei Area, Kuqa Depression, Tarim Basin, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors 

Thank for this interesting paper, I have minor comments included in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hi, Dear Editor and Authors:

  This paper mainly investigated and evaluated the overpressure distribution via field measured data. The discussion was presented clearly and the results were reasonable. The main results may attract the potential readers serving as engineers. The detailed comments are shown as below:

1. The title was too long and recommended to be simplified.

2. Section 3.2: Well Logging and Compaction Curve: It’s totally agreed that the accuracy of logging data was important for pressure analysis. The corrected well logging curves were used in this research. It’s highly suggested to explain how to correct the well logging data. How to detect the abnormal data?

3. Section 3.4: It was confusing about the tectonic compression stress of 100 MP and additional 70 MPa. How to obtain these values?

4. Section 3.4: The numerical simulation in this paper didn’t cover enough information. It was recommended to show the detailed steps of numerical simulation to support the further analysis.

5. Figure 3: The values of y-axis (depth) was confusing. Please check it.

6. Figure 5: The figures cannot show the detailed information. It was suggested to re-draw the high-resolution figures.

7. Figure 6: Both the y-axis for Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 6(b) were same. It was suggested to use same term as “Sonic Velocity”.

8. Table 1: How to determine the relative error in this case?

9. Table 1: It was confusing to see the pressure values and percentage in the same column. It was suggested to separate them into two columns.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Hi, Dear Editor and Authors:

  It was suggested to check and improve the quality of English through the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Following is the main comment on this paper:

·         The abstract is a bit long, if you could shorten parts of it that would be more appropriate.

·         Could a workflow chart be created to clearly illustrate the data used and the methods followed, making it easier for the reader to understand?

·         Can you add a base map showing the locations of all the wells used in this study?

·         Figures 4 and 5 should be enlarged for better clarity.

·         Please review Figure 6b as there are some incomplete words (top right).

·         Please review figure No. 7 and make sure that all data is written completely and correctly.

·         In Figure 7, please replace the color used to write the names of the wells with another color.

·         Please improve the quality of figure 7.

·         Make sure that the conclusion is not repeated in the past and its point is in the form of bullets.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Hi, Dear Editor and Authors:

  The revised manuscript has addressed all the concerns from the previous review. It's ready to go after improving the quality of figures.

  Best wishes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Hi, Dear Editor and Authors:

  The language quality of the revised manuscript is fine. 

Author Response

The revised manuscript has addressed all the concerns from the previous review. It's ready to go after improving the quality of figures.

The quality of the pictures in this article has been improved