Spatiotemporal Analysis of Produced Water Demand for Fit-For-Purpose Reuse—A Permian Basin, New Mexico Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work is average but may be improved by the inclusion of the following suggestions. It is a case study type of report. This work may be important for some researchers. However, it may be considered for publication by considering the following points.
-Consider the important and related citations (Current Science 75, 1011-1014 (1998); Int. J. Biol. Macromol 132, 244-253 (2019); Chemistry Select 4, 12708-12718 (2019).
-Improving English
-Providing quantitative information.
- Providing concise abstract.
- Providing concise conclusion.
- Providing high quality of Figures.
- Providing error bars in Figures.
- Providing longitude and latitude in Figure 2.
Author Response
R1: The work is average but may be improved by the inclusion of the following suggestions. It is a case study type of report. This work may be important for some researchers. However, it may be considered for publication by considering the following points.
Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for reviewing and providing feedback to improve our manuscript. Below are detailed responses to each of the suggestions.
R1: Consider the important and related citations (Current Science 75, 1011-1014 (1998); Int. J. Biol. Macromol 132, 244-253 (2019); Chemistry Select 4, 12708-12718 (2019).
Response: We appreciate citation suggestions. We read through the three articles: 1) “Groundwater contamination and health hazards by some of the most commonly used pesticides”, 2)” Preparation of a carboxymethylcellulose-iron composite for uptake of atorvastatin in water”, and 3) “Removal of Copper(II) and Zinc(II) Ions in Water on a Newly Synthesized Polyhydroquinone/Graphene Nanocomposite Material: Kinetics, Thermodynamics and Mechanism.” After reading through, we realize that including a little more information on the specifics of produced water quality and treatment improves the discussion to the issues of produced water management. While we see how the three articles could be related to produced water issues of groundwater contamination and the removal of the multitude of contaminants in water, we chose to cite literature more specific to produced water in the Permian Basin. Furthermore, our focus is on creating a framework to assess the spatiotemporal distribution of the supply and demand of produced water for better management decisions; thus we feel going into a detailed discussion on treatment, for which there is a large body of literature specific to produced water, is a digression from the main point of our manuscript.
R1: Improving English
Response: The authors revised several sections to improve the structure of the manuscript. Specifically, we focused on paragraph structure within the methods sections and moved contextual information into the results and discussion section. We also carefully checked English grammar and spelling throughout the entire manuscript.
R1: Providing quantitative information.
Response: The quantitative data we provide is mainly volumes of produced water supply and demand, which are described in the text and on the maps.
R1: Providing concise abstract.
Response: We made modifications to the abstract to make the abstract more concise.
R1: Providing concise conclusion.
Response: We agree the conclusion was too long and contained information that was not useful for the manuscript. We moved some of the material to the results and discussion section and removed unnecessary text to make the conclusion more concise.
R1: Providing high quality of Figures.
Response: We improved the study area map with the inclusion of latitude and longitude. High quality figures were submitted to the journal as 400 dpi TIFF files.
R1: Providing error bars in Figures.
Response: The figures illustrate the geospatial and temporal distributions of water quality and demand. No error bars are related to the figures.
R1: Providing longitude and latitude in Figure 2.
Response: We addressed this comment by adding latitude and longitude on the map.
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Analysis of Produced Water Demand for Fit-For-Purpose Reuse – Permian Basin New Mexico Case Study” submitted by Robert Sabie, Lana Pillsbury and Pei Xu, can be considered for publication in Water Journal, after a major revision.
Here is a list of my specific comments:
- Page 3, 2. Materials and Methods: This section should be systematized. In each subsection, pay attention on technical details to provide a clear description of the experimental methodology used in this study. Delete general observations/comments (or move them into next section), because are irrelevant here.
- Page 10, line 426: “There is an interesting and indescribable…”. This observation should be detailed.
- Page 13, 3.3 Produced water supply: The results included in this section should be clearly presented and detailed discussed, in accordance with the main objectives of this study.
- Page 17, 3.5 Dust suppression: The same observations as above.
- Page 19, 3.7 Pecos River augmentation: The same observations.
- Page 21, 4. Conclusions: This section is too long and should be shortened. Include in this section only the most important results and findings to highlight the importance of this study.
Author Response
R2: Manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Analysis of Produced Water Demand for Fit-For-Purpose Reuse – Permian Basin New Mexico Case Study” submitted by Robert Sabie, Lana Pillsbury and Pei Xu, can be considered for publication in Water Journal, after a major revision.
Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for reviewing and providing feedback to improve our manuscript. Below are detailed responses to each of the suggestions.
R2: Here is a list of my specific comments:
R2: Page 3, 2. Materials and Methods: This section should be systematized. In each subsection, pay attention on technical details to provide a clear description of the experimental methodology used in this study. Delete general observations/comments (or move them into next section), because are irrelevant here.
Response: We agree that this section contained unnecessary contextual/observation information. We moved some of this information to the results and discussion section. Some of the wording was deleted altogether since it did not add to supporting the main purpose of the manuscript.
R2: Page 10, line 426: “There is an interesting and indescribable…”. This observation should be detailed.
Response: We quantified the decline and added some potential causes for the decline in mining water use during this period.
R2: Page 13, 3.3 Produced water supply: The results included in this section should be clearly presented and detailed discussed, in accordance with the main objectives of this study.
Response: We have revised the section on produced water supply with a clear discussion on the spatial distribution analysis of produced water supply.
R2: Page 17, 3.5 Dust suppression: The same observations as above.
Response: We have revised the section on the water demand for dust suppression with a clear discussion on the spatial distribution analysis.
R2: Page 19, 3.7 Pecos River augmentation: The same observations.
Response: We have collected new information and revised the section on the Pecos River augmentation with a clear discussion on the impact of treated PW reuse on enhancing surface water supply.
R2: Page 21, 4. Conclusions: This section is too long and should be shortened. Include in this section only the most important results and findings to highlight the importance of this study.
Response: We agree the conclusion was too long and contained information that was not useful for the manuscript. We moved some of the material to the results and discussion section and removed unnecessary text to make the conclusion more concise.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The suggested citations are not considered.
Current Science 75, 1011-1014 (1998); Int. J. Biol. Macromol 132, 244-253 (2019); Chemistry Select 4, 12708-12718 (2019).
Reviewer 2 Report
All my previous remarks and comments have been considered into new version of the manuscript. It means that revised manuscript meets the criteria, and in my opinion can be published as original paper in Water Journal.
