Drilling Fluid and Cement Slurry Design for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper “Drilling Fluid and Cement Slurry Design for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs” investigated drilling and cementing through fractured zones and present a preventive and corrective methods. The manuscript is well organized; however, to improve the quality, the following recommendations can be incorporated.
1.The authors should review the other more new investigation on their study way in the introduction part and finally note the novelty of the article. The introduction part needs to develop.
2.Authors can cite the following work in the introduction which is closely related to their work and recently reported:
-"Application of Nano-Particles of Clay to Improve Drilling Fluid." International Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 13, no. 2 (2017): 177-186. / "Application of TiO 2 and fumed silica nanoparticles and improve the performance of drilling fluids." In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1590, no. 1, pp. 266-270. American Institute of Physics, 2014. / "Effect of a novel clay/silica nanocomposite on water-based drilling fluids: Improvements in rheological and filtration properties." Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 555 (2018): 339-350.
3- Table 6 should be extended and add a row of additives volume.
4- the quality of Figure 3 is poor.
5-You need to include a section on limitations of the study and ideas for future research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We have taken into account all your comments and below are listed all changes which we have made to the document. All changes in our manuscript are marked with yellow colour so you can easily follow the changes.
REVIEWER COMMENTS AND ANSWERS
The paper “Drilling Fluid and Cement Slurry Design for Naturally Fractured Reservoirs” investigated drilling and cementing through fractured zones and present preventive and corrective methods. The manuscript is well organized; however, to improve the quality, the following recommendations can be incorporated.
- The authors should review the other more new investigation on their study way in the introduction part and finally note the novelty of the article. The introduction part needs to develop.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. We improved the introduction section according to your comment. We cite all recommended papers as well as include a few sentences where we put emphasize on the novelty of our article.
- Authors can cite the following work in the introduction which is closely related to their work and recently reported:
-"Application of Nano-Particles of Clay to Improve Drilling Fluid." International Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 13, no. 2 (2017): 177-186. / "Application of TiO 2 and fumed silica nanoparticles and improve the performance of drilling fluids." In AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1590, no. 1, pp. 266-270. American Institute of Physics, 2014. / "Effect of a novel clay/silica nanocomposite on water-based drilling fluids: Improvements in rheological and filtration properties." Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 555 (2018): 339-350.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your recommendation. We cite all recommended papers in the introduction section.
- Table 6 should be extended and add a row of additives volume.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. In table 6 our idea was to present usually used cement slurry additives (extenders and lost circulation control agent). In table 7 we mention common concentration for most of them listed in table 6.
- the quality of Figure 3 is poor.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. We agree that figure quality is poor so we replaced it.
- You need to include a section on the limitations of the study and ideas for future research.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. We improved the introduction section according to your comment. We cite all recommended papers as well as include few sentences where we put emphasize on the novelty of our article. Also, according to your comment, we included limitations of the study and ideas for future research in the discussion section.
On behalf of all authors,
Borivoje Pašić
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper authors reviewed preventive and corrective methods that can be applied while drilling in fractured zones to avoid lost circulation issues.
Though this is a very important and relevant topic, there are many English usage errors throughout - please review with a technical writer.
Figure quality needs to be improved.
Organization needs to be revised. Figure 1, should be presented before section 4.1, as it shows preventive and corrective approaches, but not in section 4.1.
Authors presented many previous studies, but failed to provide their own analysis based from these studies.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We have taken into account all your comments and below are listed all changes which we have made to the document. All changes in our manuscript are marked with yellow colour so you can easily follow the changes.
REVIEWER COMMENTS AND ANSWERS
In this paper authors reviewed preventive and corrective methods that can be applied while drilling in fractured zones to avoid lost circulation issues.
Though this is a very important and relevant topic, there are many English usage errors throughout - please review with a technical writer.
Figure quality needs to be improved.
Organization needs to be revised. Figure 1, should be presented before section 4.1, as it shows preventive and corrective approaches, but not in section 4.1.
Authors presented many previous studies, but failed to provide their own analysis based from these studies.
- Though this is a very important and relevant topic, there are many English usage errors throughout - please review with a technical writer.
ANSWER: Thank you for your comment and recommendation. If our manuscript has been accepted, we will use MDPI English editing service.
- Figure quality needs to be improved.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. We agree that figure quality is poor so we replaced it.
- Organization needs to be revised. Figure 1, should be presented before section 4.1, as it shows preventive and corrective approaches, but not in section 4.1.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comment. We present Figure 1 before section 4.1. We marked it with yellow colour so you can easily follow the changes.
- Authors presented many previous studies, but failed to provide their own analysis based from these studies.
ANSWER: Thank you very much for this comment. We agree with you, so we improved our manuscript by addition of a new chapter: Discussion, where we consolidate previous knowledge and make recommendations for the future.
On behalf of all authors,
Borivoje Pašić
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript quality has been improved. The article can be accepted for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors has addressed the reviewers comments and quality of manuscript has been improved. The article can be accepted for publication and before publication please make sure to be reviewed by MDPI English editing service.
