Study on the Propagation Process Characteristics of Anisotropic Acoustic Waves in Shale Gas Well with the Reflection Rule of Lateral Fractures
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present an interesting paper, however there are some flaws that need to be corrected before publication of the manuscript. The most significant revisions found are listed below:
The abstract exceeds the maximum length indicated in the template. The number of words should be considerably reduced. Similarly, the number of keywords is excessive, reduce.
Line 34 ".... than 2%", space
The introduction is very poor, short and irrelevant. The authors cite seven or nine pieces of research, e.g. [7-16]..., but do not go into them in any depth. It is not a matter of citing a minimum of references, the background should provide a firm idea of what has been done and serve as a starting point, please correct this section.
Line 57, correct [18-19].
The mathematical development included in section 2 is well known and can be found in any general physics textbook. The authors should make the equations more specific to the case study and relate them to their work.
Use the same number of significant figures in the tables.
Do not use the symbol * for multiplication in equations.
Line 213 and others, be careful with indexes and superscripts (kg/m3), use the International System.
At no time is the equipment used shown, nor is an image of the experiment carried out.
Most of the figures are of very poor quality and difficult to interpret. Indicate the units in brackets.
Use the format of the Templeate of the journal to include all the sections eliminated.
Author Response
Dear editor: Thank the reviewers for their time and input to improve our manuscript. We have read the reviewers’ comments and carefully addressed them below.
The authors present an interesting paper, however there are some flaws that need to be corrected before publication of the manuscript. The most significant revisions found are listed below:
The abstract exceeds the maximum length indicated in the template. The number of words should be considerably reduced. Similarly, the number of keywords is excessive, reduce.
The abstract has rewritten. The number of words has reduced. Keywords has refined.
Line 34 ".... than 2%", space ; Line 57, correct [18-19]. Use the same number of significant figures in the tables.Do not use the symbol * for multiplication in equations.Line 213 and others, be careful with indexes and superscripts (kg/m3), use the International System. Use the format of the Templeate of the journal to include all the sections eliminated
The format and errors in the manuscript have been modified.
The introduction is very poor, short and irrelevant. The authors cite seven or nine pieces of research, e.g. [7-16]..., but do not go into them in any depth. It is not a matter of citing a minimum of references, the background should provide a firm idea of what has been done and serve as a starting point, please correct this section.
The introduction has been rewritten and analyzed in depth.
The mathematical development included in section 2 is well known and can be found in any general physics textbook. The authors should make the equations more specific to the case study and relate them to their work.
The later example part uses the theory part of section 2. The parameters in the table can reflect the relationship between theory and example
At no time is the equipment used shown, nor is an image of the experiment carried out.
This paper is mainly about method research, so there is no experimental picture. In the future, we will design some experiments to verify the method.
Most of the figures are of very poor quality and difficult to interpret. Indicate the units in brackets..
All unclear figures have been redrawn.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript is good in contents, and the science and method behind this research have no perceptible flaws.
The English language and presentation style needs to be improved, e.g., improper formatting, incorrect determiner use (a, an, the, this, etc.), and typos. There are also misuse of the commas within clauses and wrong noun number everywhere.
On the first page of the author list, the senior author "Zhaozhifeng" is probably "Zhao Zhifeng."
Author Response
Thank the reviewers for their time and input to improve our manuscript.
We Have improved the English language and presentation style. See the revised manuscript for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study focuses on the acoustic wave finite element method and the shale reservoir acoustic wave propagation (SRAWP) characteristics. The authors have compared the impact of isotropy and anisotropy of SRAWP to perfect the correlation theory of reflective sonic logging. Reflected waves are applied to analyze the receiving time. The results are applied to realize the fracture properties in the reservoirs. Some points can be addressed in the next stage.
Abstract:
L.10-11: Revise it, as its syntax encloses incorrect style.
Keywords are not appropriate. Replace them with concise and accurate ones.
The introduction section is too short. The authors should further explain sonic logging and unconventional resources and highlight the current study's importance.
Putting the related units for equations 1, 2, 3, and so on is recommended.
L.101: Check the syntax. "The boundary of a acoustic field is a rigid boundary with zero pressure ....".
L. 257-261: General statement without references. Remove these lines content or put your own results instead "The velocity of acoustic wave propagation is affected by many factors, such as porosity, saturation and fluid characteristics, etc. Generally, the elastic modulus of shale formation is not less than 18GPA. In order to facilitate the discussion of the results, this paper mainly analyzes the variation of acoustic wave propagation velocity in shale strata when the elastic modulus changes at 4GPa intervals."
"the stimulation load described above is applied": use the exact rate of simulation instead of the simulation load described above.
L.294: the equation is suspended. It should be stated within the text or numbered.
L. 454: Replace "well" with "the wellbore".
L.458: "The waveform wave after superimposing the signal wave data..." It seems the statement presents an ambiguous meaning by repeating the word "wave".
Author Response
L.10-11: Revise it, as its syntax encloses incorrect style.
We have modified.
Keywords are not appropriate. Replace them with concise and accurate ones.
Keywords has refined. AWFE; acoustic logging; acoustic wave propagation; shale reservoir; fracture reflection rule.
The introduction section is too short. The authors should further explain sonic logging and unconventional resources and highlight the current study's importance.
The introduction has been rewritten and analyzed in depth.
Putting the related units for equations 1, 2, 3, and so on is recommended.
Equations are in SI units.
L.101: Check the syntax. "The boundary of a acoustic field is a rigid boundary with zero pressure ....".
The boundary of acoustic field is rigid boundary with zero pressure, free boundary with zero velocity.
- 257-261: General statement without references. Remove these lines content or put your own results instead "The velocity of acoustic wave propagation is affected by many factors, such as porosity, saturation and fluid characteristics, etc. Generally, the elastic modulus of shale formation is not less than 18GPA. In order to facilitate the discussion of the results, this paper mainly analyzes the variation of acoustic wave propagation velocity in shale strata when the elastic modulus changes at 4GPa intervals."
We have removed the lines.
"the stimulation load described above is applied": use the exact rate of simulation instead of the simulation load described above.
We have modified.
L.294: the equation is suspended. It should be stated within the text or numbered.
We have modified.
- 454: Replace "well" with "the wellbore".
We have modified.
L.458: "The waveform wave after superimposing the signal wave data..." It seems the statement presents an ambiguous meaning by repeating the word "wave".
We have removed “wave”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
