Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The argument addressed in this study is worthy of investigation and within the scopes of this Journal. However, the article has several lacks, which must be solved before considering it for publication. 

Therefore, I opted for major revision. These are my comments.

Revise subscripts along the whole text.

There are too many keywords; some of them are redundant.

The Introduction must be reorganized and, if possible, shortened. While the themes addressed are concrete and suitable for the scope of the article, the exposition of concept is quite far from what should be in a scientific article.

It's very hard to read Figure 1; it must be replaced with a scheme having higher resolution.

All the figures have to be revisedd, since they have a different format from what requested from the Journal.

Chapter 6 is diveded in three sub-sections having the same name: Environmental Implications. Revise this.

The main limits of the research should be mentioned in the discussion and not in the Conclusions. Here the authors should only refer to the future development of their study.

The strategies adopted for CO2 capture and its storage are not adequately discussed in the text. The analysis of risk must be supported by technical details about specific procedures currently applied. Some examples must be described. The main technologies currently adopted and also the emerging possibilities must be mentioned. Related to the first group, the pumping of CO2 in almost exhaust oil reservoirs allows to store CO2 and, at the same time, improve the productivity of a specific well (Geoenergy Science and Engineering, 230 (2023) 212275; Petroleum, 3 (2017) 167-177). About emerging techniques, CO2 is currently used to increase the recovery of methane from natural gas hdyrate reservoirs. That solution allows to improve the energy production and at the same time, store a quantity of CO2 approximately equal to the amount of methane recovered (Sustainability, 13 (2021) 13797). 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Author Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the critical comments to improve the quality of the paper. We have thoroughly edited the manuscript and addressed the reviewers’ comments.

Please see the attached file for the detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached file. Thank you

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no

Author Response

Author Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the critical comments to improve the quality of the paper. We have thoroughly edited the manuscript and addressed the reviewers’ comments.

Please see the attached file for the detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The paper would benefit from validating the identified CCUS supply chain risks through expert opinions or a survey. As noted in the limitations, the risks are currently identified from supply chain literature across sectors which have not been validated as applicable specifically to CCUS. Getting feedback from CCUS experts could confirm relevance.
2. The conceptual framework offers a helpful structure but remains theoretical. The authors could provide examples of how risk management strategies have been successfully implemented to mitigate specific CCUS supply chain risks. Real-world case studies could lend support.
3. Broader implications could be discussed, such as integrating the framework into CCUS policies and regulations to promote standardized risk management protocols across future projects. Understanding political and social barriers to adoption would also be relevant.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Carefully proofread the paper to correct any grammatical errors or typos. Ensure subject-verb agreement, proper punctuation, and clear sentence structure.
2. Define key terminology and acronyms on first usage, even commonly used ones (e.g. CCUS). This assists readers who may be less familiar.
3. Consider having a native English speaker provide editing assistance to polish the language usage, clarity and flow.

Author Response

Author Response: The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the critical comments to improve the quality of the paper. We have thoroughly edited the manuscript and addressed the reviewers’ comments.

Please see the attached file for the detailed response.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision has been carried out correctly; therefore I suggest to accept this article, as it is

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is suitable for publication

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the positive and encouraging comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the positive and encouraging comments.

Figures 4 and 5 are also unclear, please revise. 

Response: Figures 4 and 5 are revised.