Research and Practice of Risk Early Warning Technology for Lost Circulation with Drilling under the Conditions of Geological Engineering Information Fusion: The Example of the Yuanba Area
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper introduces a risk early warning method of lost circulation while drilling under the condition of geological engineering information fusion. A geomechanical model of Yuanba area is established using 19 well data and validated using two other well data. Then lost circulation risk warning is conducted using the modified geomechanical model. The key characteristic parameters are calculated and used to determine the potential risk of lost circulation and different artificial intelligence methods are used to identify, quantify and evaluate the risk.
This paper is more like a report rather than a research paper. There is little novelty in this paper. Its aim and potential contribution to this research area are not described. The figures are of low quality. It needs a major revision before being considered for acceptance.
In addition, there are several questions and suggestions.
â‘ Is the method firstly proposed by the authors? From the introduction, it seems that this method is proposed by Yang Chuanshu of Sinopec Engineering Institute.
â‘¡ The authors introduce a flowchart of this method, which is far from a scientific paper. What is the key issue of this study? What is the highlight of this study? What is the contribution of this study?
â‘¢ The are several grammar errors. Please pay attention to the punctuation of a sentence and the capitalization of letters.
â‘£ On page 3, line 96, the word “logging” appears twice
⑤ Page 4, lines 102-112. The sentence is too long to understand.
â‘¥ Figure 3 is vague. The location of the study area and the structural belt of Badong is suggested to be presented in Fig. 3
⑦ The font size in Fig. 5 is too small. It is difficult to recognize the character
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is written well.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors used Yuandba area as the research objective. Based on the data of 12 drilling, logging and well logging in the work area, a three-dimensional geomechanical model is established through multi-source information fusion to identify the main geological risk factors of lost circulation in the study area. A loss of circulation risk early warning model and evaluation method based on geological engineering data fusion are established.
(1) The section "Introduction" is too brief. It is necessary to provide a sufficient background and literature review regarding what they will study. The objectives of the manuscript need to be stated in a clear way..
(2) In Table 1 & 2, what do you mean "accord with"? Units need to be typed in an appropriate way.
(3) The manuscript seems to be a case study. New scientific contribution is limited. The authors may need to further address this point. Also, what is the limitation of the proposed model.
(4) Format of references need to be consistent.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made several revisions based on the comments. However, it is still more like a report to introduce a flowchart of this method, rather than a scientific paper.
The following information needs to be provided in the manuscript: (1) the scientific problem of the study that aims to solve; (2) the strengths and weaknesses of this method; (3) suggestions and precautions in using this method.
In addition, it is a little difficult to follow the authors’ ideas due to vague descriptions, long sentences, and incorrect using punctuation. Many sentences seem to be translated directly from Chinese via software.
For example,
â‘ in the abstract, it is not suggested to use imperative sentences (e.g., the last sentence) as they cannot express the authors' idea clearly. Is the sentence to describe the aim of this study? Or the contribution of this paper?
â‘¡ page 2 lines 57-61, “Effective management and application of a large amount of data and information generated in the process of drilling design and construction operations are carried out, from which practical experience and lessons of drilling are summarized, providing technical guidance for decision-making and optimization of subsequent drilling schemes”.
This sentence is too long and has limited useful information.
â‘¢ Page 2 lines 79-82: “Use Open Inventor to develop a 3D visualization tool for geomechanical model, and modify the geomechanical model established before drilling in real-time according to logging while drilling, measurement while drilling, comprehensive logging and other information during drilling”
What does “measurement while drilling” refer to? the accurate parameters need to be clarified.
What does “comprehensive logging and other information ” refer to?
â‘£ Page 3 line 102：logging appears twice in this sentence “using logging, seismic (VSP), regional geology, logging, and drilling information before drilling”
⑤ Line 129-133: “When the key wells are comparable with the prediction wells, and the geological structure and stratigraphic sequence are clear, and the prediction wells are close to the key wells, Method 1 is used to directly take the key wells as the prediction reference results, adjust only in-depth, and consider the trend of parameters changing with compaction to achieve the prediction of key risk parameters such as pressure profile, lithology profile”
This sentence is too long to understand. For the sentence “adjust only in-depth”, what is the subject?
“consider the trend of parameters changing with compaction to achieve the prediction of key risk parameters such as pressure profile, and lithology profile”, what is the subject?
In line 235, the authors say that the severity of lost circulation is Level 5. How does the author determine the 5 level? Is there any reference?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my comments from last review. I recommend it now.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
