Causes of Variability in Groundwater Salinity of the Lower Jurassic Sediments in the Talinskoye Oilfield of West Siberia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The calculating method is relatively simple. It is suggested to strengthen discussion and analysis.
Please optimize the layout of the tables to make it easy to read.
Please recheck the full text carefully. The grammar or spelling mistakes should be avoided.
Author Response
We would like to express our great appreciation to the reviewer for his valuable comments, which helped us to completely reconsider our approach to writing the article and are extremely useful for our future work.
Point 1: The calculating method is relatively simple. It is suggested to strengthen discussion and analysis.
Response 1: In addition to the calculation of the correlation coefficient between mineralization and geological environment parameters, a comparative analysis of genetic coefficients was added to the calculation methods. Groundwater analyses of the Lower Jurassic hydrogeological complex are conditionally divided into 2 groups with salinity less than 7 g/dm3 and more than 7 g/dm3. Further, a comparison was made of the most significant in oil and gas hydrogeology genetic coefficients of groundwater of the studied formations YU10 and YU11 with the same coefficients calculated for pore water, water of Paleozoic deposits and injected water. This, in our opinion, strengthened the discussion and analysis and came to the conclusion that natural rather than technogenic factors have the main impact on the variability of mineralization.
Point 2: Please optimize the layout of the tables to make it easy to read.
Response 2: We tried to optimize the layout of the tables by reducing unnecessary columns. Each table is located as close as possible to its link in the text.
Point 3: Please recheck the full text carefully. The grammar or spelling mistakes should be avoided.
Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The text was completely double-checked, we tried to avoid mistakes.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have demonstrated cause effect relationships between factors associated with salinity values in sediments of oil fields in western Siberia.
The following corrections are necessary,
1) Abstract: Re-write the abstract to indicate the logical order of introduction/problem, aims/objectives, hypothesis, methods, results and conclusion
2) Introduction: paragraph 2, indicate the country in which the study is conducted
3) Introduction: re-organize this section to bring out the problem. As it is currently presented it does not bring out the problem or gap clearly
4) Salinity index is not being introduced properly or adequately in the introduction
5) Methods: Table 1 should be in results section
Line 137 is misplaced
Line 156 - 175 is confusing whether it is discussion of results or methods
Therefore, methodology section need to be improved substantially
Author Response
We would like to express our great appreciation to the reviewer for his valuable comments, which helped us to completely reconsider our approach to writing the article and are extremely useful for our future work.
Point 1: Abstract: Re-write the abstract to indicate the logical order of introduction/problem, aims/objectives, hypothesis, methods, results and conclusion.
Response 1: The abstract was rewritten, the purpose of the study was indicated, the problem associated with the need to clarify the existence of technogenic reasons for the formation of variability of mineralization of groundwater of the Lower Jurassic complex was described. Also the tasks which have allowed to reach the purpose have been listed. The abstract indicates the methods used: correlation analysis and comparison of genetic coefficients of groundwater studied with the genetic coefficients of pore water, water of Paleozoic deposits and pumped water. It is indicated that the results obtained indicate the predominance of the influence of natural factors on the variability of groundwater salinity of formations YU10 and YU11.
Point 2: Introduction: paragraph 2, indicate the country in which the study is conducted.
Response 2: In the introduction, the country in which the study is done is added.
Point 3: Introduction: re-organize this section to bring out the problem. As it is currently presented it does not bring out the problem or gap clearly.
Response 3: The introduction was reorganized, the problem associated with the need to clarify the influence of man-made factor on the variability of groundwater salinity of the Lower Jurassic complex of the Talisnkoye field was indicated.
Point 4: Salinity index is not being introduced properly or adequately in the introduction
Response 4: In the introduction, the range of groundwater salinity values of the Lower Jurassic complex is indicated.
Point 5: Methods: Table 1 should be in results section.
Response 5: Table 1 has been moved to the new "Materials" section, as it is the source material for the study.
Point 6: Line 137 is misplaced.
Response 6: Line 137 has been deleted.
Point 7: Line 156 - 175 is confusing whether it is discussion of results or methods.
Response 7: Lines 156-175 are moved to the "Theoretical Foundations" section, as they contain data that are the theoretical basis for the conclusion about the nature of the formation of variability of groundwater mineralization of the Lower Jurassic complex.
Reviewer 3 Report
The abstract needs to modify: the abstract should contain Objectives, Methods/Analysis, Findings, and Novelty /Improvement. The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented in the introduction. The section Introduction must be extended. The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives at your debate or argument. A flowchart should be added to the article to show the research methodology. It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before. Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, which are not enough. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.
Moreover, please follow the following structure:
In the last paragraph of your Introduction can you please explicitly state what your 'aim(s)' or 'objective(s)' or 'hypothesis (hypotheses)' is (are)? That is, specifically use one, and only one, of these words. Most authors prefer objectives. Consider using a numbered sentence structure to list these. It is common practice to list the objectives at the very end of the last paragraph of the Introduction section. Note the grammar of such a sentence follows (please pay careful attention to the use of colons and semi-colons, and note after the numbers there are no capital letters as it is all one sentence): (i) objective 1 is interesting; (ii) objective 2 is really interesting; and (iii) objective 3 is very interesting. Implementing this point makes it much easier for scientists from all language backgrounds to easily understand what your objectives are. This dove-tails into the comment directly below.Improved structure: once you've explicitly stated what your objective(s) is (are), then assuming you have three objectives use them to structure your Methods section, Results section, and Discussion sections, as follows.1 Introduction2 Study Site and Materials (have as many sub-headings as needed to introduce all the datasets used, and their pre-processing - or maybe this needs to be 2 main headings, noting you might also need a "2 Theoretical Background" section too, in which case this would heading #3, and all others would increment by 1)3 Methods3.1 A short heading of 4-10 words to summarise objective 13.2 A short heading of 4-10 words to summarise objective 23.3 A short heading of 4-10 words to summarise objective 34 Results4.1 The same words as used for 3.14.2 The same words as used for 3.24.3 The same words as used for 3.35 Discussion5.1 The same words as used for 3.15.2 The same words as used for 3.25.3 The same words as used for 3.36 ConclusionIf you implement the above structural suggestions finish the Introduction section with the following sentence "These objectives provide the structural sub-headings used in the following Methods, Results, and Discussions sections." Using the objectives at end of your Introduction section to structure the rest of the paper makes it easy to read (and review).
Author Response
We would like to express our great appreciation to the reviewer for his valuable comments, which helped us to completely reconsider our approach to writing the article and are extremely useful for our future work.
Point 1: The abstract needs to modify: the abstract should contain Objectives, Methods/Analysis, Findings, and Novelty /Improvement. The necessity and innovation of the article should be presented in the introduction. The section Introduction must be extended. The major defect of this study is the debate or Argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session. Hence, the contribution is weak in this manuscript. I would suggest the author enhance your theoretical discussion and arrives at your debate or argument. A flowchart should be added to the article to show the research methodology. It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before. Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the Results, which are not enough. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, limitations, underscore the scientific value-added of your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.
Response 1: The article has been changed and the new structure contains the purpose of the study, theoretical provisions, materials, research methods, results and their discussion and conclusion.
The need for the performed research is indicated in the introduction and is associated with the need to clarify the existence of man-made reasons for the formation of variability of groundwater salinity of the Lower Jurassic complex of the Talinskoye field. A flowchart was not added to the article due to the fact that the methodology in the new version is reflected in our opinion clearly enough: 1) identification of the similarity of the composition of different genetic types of waters by comparing the genetic coefficients of groundwater studied with the genetic factors of pore water, water of Paleozoic deposits and pumped water; 2) analysis of the relationship between the basic parameters of the geological environment with the values of groundwater mineralization of the studied complex. The results obtained led to the conclusion about the predominance of the influence of natural factors on the variability of groundwater salinity of strata Yu10 and Yu11.
The results obtained are also compared with the results of studies of the stability of the chemical composition of the Apt-Alb-Cenomanian complex of Western Siberia in connection with the injection of produced water, carried out on the basis of analysis of more than 3185 samples of groundwater (Yu. I. Salnikova, 2021).
The final part is written in more detail: due to the structuring of the article and refinement of the research methodology, more explanations of the results have been added.
Point 2: Moreover, please follow the following structure:
In the last paragraph of your Introduction can you please explicitly state what your 'aim(s)' or 'objective(s)' or 'hypothesis (hypotheses)' is (are)? That is, specifically use one, and only one, of these words. Most authors prefer objectives. Consider using a numbered sentence structure to list these. It is common practice to list the objectives at the very end of the last paragraph of the Introduction section. Note the grammar of such a sentence follows (please pay careful attention to the use of colons and semi-colons, and note after the numbers there are no capital letters as it is all one sentence): (i) objective 1 is interesting; (ii) objective 2 is really interesting; and (iii) objective 3 is very interesting. Implementing this point makes it much easier for scientists from all language backgrounds to easily understand what your objectives are. This dove-tails into the comment directly below.
Improved structure: once you've explicitly stated what your objective(s) is (are), then assuming you have three objectives use them to structure your Methods section, Results section, and Discussion sections, as follows.
1 Introduction
2 Study Site and Materials (have as many sub-headings as needed to introduce all the datasets used, and their pre-processing - or maybe this needs to be 2 main headings, noting you might also need a "2 Theoretical Background" section too, in which case this would heading #3, and all others would increment by 1)
3 Methods
3.1 A short heading of 4-10 words to summarise objective 1
3.2 A short heading of 4-10 words to summarise objective 2
3.3 A short heading of 4-10 words to summarise objective 3
4 Results
4.1 The same words as used for 3.1
4.2 The same words as used for 3.2
4.3 The same words as used for 3.3
5 Discussion
5.1 The same words as used for 3.1
5.2 The same words as used for 3.2
5.3 The same words as used for 3.3
6 Conclusion
If you implement the above structural suggestions finish the Introduction section with the following sentence "These objectives provide the structural sub-headings used in the following Methods, Results, and Discussions sections." Using the objectives at end of your Introduction section to structure the rest of the paper makes it easy to read (and review).
Response 2: The introduction specifies the purpose, hypothesis and objectives of the study. The reviewer's suggestions on the structure were implemented: the tasks indicated in the introduction represent the structural subheadings used in the sections "Materials", "Theoretical statements", "Methods", "Results and discussion".
Reviewer 4 Report
Line#13: Change g/dm3 into g/dm3.
Is there any difference between 3.7 and 3,7?? You used sometimes commas instead of a decimal in the manuscript which confused the reader. Please check it carefully and rectify it.
Line #35: The numerical number of references starts from [1, 2,3,. ..], but why do you start from [11, 19, 28, 30, 33, 40]
Line#46: latitude and longitude of Fig.1 plus north position is missing.
What is the difference between Ju10 and Ju11; (Line#75), J10 and J11 (Line #79); and YU10 and YU11 (Fig.2). If there is no difference then should be assigned the same. Please use the standard symbols (Fig.2) which are accepted globally.
Page#90 & 91: R.M. Bembel [6], A.V. Radchenko et al. [37], V.A. Volkov [4], V.A. Kornev [5] and N.P. Zapivalov [46]. Please use the standard format of the journal. Please also correct the name of the authors of [5].
As per References, the authors are [5] Bembel S. R., Bembel R. M., Avershin R. V., V. A. Kornev.
Please use the standard format throughout the manuscript.
Line#112: Other authors, such as A.R. Kurchikov and co-authors?
Line#127: 3. Research methods may replace with Methodology
Line#125: “ in accordance with” may replace with “by”
Page #176 (Fig.3) Please write the parameter with units of Bar scale and Key of Fig.3,5,7, and 8? What are the numbers like 872, 875 .. in the figures 3,5,7 and 8 indicate?.
Line#190: Delete Column 1 of the table2, table 3, and table 4.
Line#192: Please delete this line.
Line#204: Table 4 (5th Row) Equation M2.78P- 60.11 is not matched with the equation computed in Fig.6.
Where do you compute the equations indicated in Column 3 for other parameters?? What is the significance of very low values of R2???,
Line#214: Figure 4. 4.? It should be Figure 4.
Line# 217: Figure 4. Diagram of the relationship between groundwater salinity in the J10 and J11 217 formations and the porosity of these sediments may replace with a Relationship between groundwater salinity and the porosity. Also, change the parameter labeled along the Y-axis as per the title of the table.
Line#220: The close relationship, in our opinion, can be explained by the presence of deep high-temperature low-mineralized fluids during the geological history of the West Siberian may be rewritten as “The close relationship may be the presence of deep high-temperature low-mineralized fluids during the geological history of the West Siberian
Line#229: along may replace with along with
Line#297: “is” may replace with “are”
Line#311: is may replace with are
Line#352: Delete originally
Line#376: “are” may replace with “is”
Line#432: A. R. Kurchikov, B. P. Stavitsky, Geothermy of oil and gas bearing areas of Western Siberia, Nedra, 134p., 1987 . Please use a format/style as per journal requirement.
Author Response
We would like to express our great appreciation to the reviewer for his valuable comments, which helped us to completely reconsider our approach to writing the article and are extremely useful for our future work.
Point 1: Line#13: Change g/dm3 into g/dm3.
Response 1: G/dm3 into g/dm3 has been changed.
Point 2: Is there any difference between 3.7 and 3,7?? You used sometimes commas instead of a decimal in the manuscript which confused the reader. Please check it carefully and rectify it.
Response 2: We apologize for this error. The text has been re-checked.
Point 3: Line #35: The numerical number of references starts from [1, 2,3,. ..], but why do you start from [11, 19, 28, 30, 33, 40]
Response 3: References to literary sources are in alphabetical order (by author's surname) rather than as mentioned in the text.
Point 4: Line#46: latitude and longitude of Fig.1 plus north position is missing.
Response 4: Latitude, longitude, and north direction are added to Figure 1.
Point 5: What is the difference between Ju10 and Ju11; (Line#75), J10 and J11 (Line #79); and YU10 and YU11 (Fig.2). If there is no difference then should be assigned the same. Please use the standard symbols (Fig.2) which are accepted globally.
Response 5: The error was corrected, the characters YU10 and YU11 are used throughout the text and in the picture.
Point 6: Page#90 & 91: R.M. Bembel [6], A.V. Radchenko et al. [37], V.A. Volkov [4], V.A. Kornev [5] and N.P. Zapivalov [46]. Please use the standard format of the journal. Please also correct the name of the authors of [5]. As per References, the authors are [5] Bembel S. R., Bembel R. M., Avershin R. V., V. A. Kornev. Please use the standard format throughout the manuscript.
Response 6: The format of the source citations has been corrected.
Point 7: Line#112: Other authors, such as A.R. Kurchikov and co-authors?
Response 7: The link format has been corrected.
Point 8: Line#127: 3. Research methods may replace with Methodology
Response 8: We believe that if using the title "Research Methods" is acceptable in the reviewer's opinion, we would like to name the section that way.
Point 9: Line#125: “ in accordance with” may replace with “by”
Response 9: «in accordance with» replace «in accord with». We hope this is acceptable.
Point 10: Page #176 (Fig.3) Please write the parameter with units of Bar scale and Key of Fig.3,5,7, and 8? What are the numbers like 872, 875 .. in the figures 3,5,7 and 8 indicate?.
Response 10: Explanation of the Bar scales used is added in the notes under the figures, also in the notes to the figures there is an explanation that the numbers like 872, 875 are the numbers of wells, where the sampling was performed.
Point 11: Line#190: Delete Column 1 of the table2, table 3, and table 4.
Response 11: Columns from the tables have been removed.
Point 12: Table 4 (5th Row) Equation M2.78P- 60.11 is not matched with the equation computed in Fig.6.
Response 12: We double-checked the equation. In the text for clarity y is replaced by M (mineralization), and x is replaced by P (reservoir pressure), so M = 2.78P - 60.11 is the same as y = 2.78x - 60.11.
Point 13: Where do you compute the equations indicated in Column 3 for other parameters?? What is the significance of very low values of R2???,
Response 13: Having reviewed the methodology of research, we decided not to give the equations and graphs for which the correlation coefficient is very low, as these parameters have no effect on the salinity of groundwater.
Point 14: Line#214: Figure 4. 4.? It should be Figure 4.
Response 14: The error has been corrected.
Point 15: Line# 217: Figure 4. Diagram of the relationship between groundwater salinity in the J10 and J11 217 formations and the porosity of these sediments may replace with a Relationship between groundwater salinity and the porosity. Also, change the parameter labeled along the Y-axis as per the title of the table.
Response 15: The name of the graph has been changed.
Point 16: Line#220: The close relationship, in our opinion, can be explained by the presence of deep high-temperature low-mineralized fluids during the geological history of the West Siberian may be rewritten as “The close relationship may be the presence of deep high-temperature low-mineralized fluids during the geological history of the West Siberian.
Response 16: Proposition modified.
Point 17: A. R. Kurchikov, B. P. Stavitsky, Geothermy of oil and gas bearing areas of Western Siberia, Nedra, 134p., 1987 . Please use a format/style as per journal requirement.
Response 17: The format in the reference list has been changed.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made the necessary corrections as suggested in the previous review
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript has been improved in this round of revision. The paper can be accepted and published in this journal.
Reviewer 4 Report
I am satisfied with the changes. Congratulations
