Experimental Study on the Distribution and Height of Spontaneous Imbibition Water of Chang 7 Continental Shale Oil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript was well presented but attention should be addressed to the following:
1. The reviewed manuscript has been uploaded, kindly download it to correct the comments on it, especially the Introduction has some grammatical errors.
2. The figures' labeling is not clear to the readers, kindly increase the fonts on the vertical and horizontal axes.
3. The Conclusion should also include what further study can be done from your work.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The reviewed manuscript indicating phrases that need to be improved has been uploaded, kindly follow the comments to upgrade your manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
The manuscript was well presented but attention should be addressed to the following:
Point 1. The reviewed manuscript has been uploaded, kindly download it to correct the comments on it, especially the Introduction has some grammatical errors.
Response 1:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have revised these errors very carefully. If there are any more mistakes, please point them out, we will be very grateful to you.
Point 2. The figures' labeling is not clear to the readers, kindly increase the fonts on the vertical and horizontal axes.
Response 2:
Yes, we have increased the fonts on the vertical and horizontal axes. If the figures' labeling is still not clear to read, please let us know in time and we will handle in the first time.
Point 3. The Conclusion should also include what further study can be done from your work.
Response 3:
Thank you very much for your suggestion. For the further study, we believe that the pressure and temperature will have a significant impact on the distribution and height of the imbibition water content. Then we have revised the conclusion number 5 in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
(1) What do the green and red bars in Figure 1 represent? This needs to be explained! Because of this, readers can better understand the meaning represented by each part in Figure 1. Besides, every figure and table needs to be illustrated in the manuscript. Most of the figures and tables are only listed in the main text without detailed explanation.
(2) What is the significance and purpose of this study? In other words, what is the significance of this study for oil and gas production and extraction?
(3) As can be seen in Figure 8, what is the reason for the difference in the evolution characteristics of imbibition water saturation corresponding to the four rock cores? Why choose these four types of cores?
(4) Figure 11 presents distribution of IWS relative and actual height for oil-saturated shale core. However, which is the relative height, and which subgraph is the actual height? It is confusing. It should be noted that this is not limited to Figure 8.
(5) The Abstract and Conclusions need to be rewritten, as these two parts of the manuscript require more quantitative data. In this way, the manuscript will be more convincing.
(6) Line 112-116: The shortcomings of previous research have been described in detail. However, some references needs to be cited to support it.
The grammar of some sentences in the manuscript needs to be polished, and it is best to be polished by a professional native speaker or a professional organization.
Author Response
Please download it in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have carried out an experimental study of the spontaneous imbibition water height and pore size distribution using mercury injection, nuclear magnetic resonance, and fractal computing techniques. Although the topic is interesting and reading it is fun, the manuscript needs to be improved by addressing the following issues:
What is the scientific contribution of the manuscript?
The conclusions do not say anything specific, they are only generic conclusions. Authors should give details of the claims described. For example in conclusion number 1. How is the prediction of the smallest radius related to the displacement pressure of the samples? Why the three-peak of NMR T2 spectrum with distilled water-saturated reflected the strong heterogeneity ?
The same occurs with the four remaining conclusions.
For what reason d_E=1 in Eq. 12?
Author Response
Please download it in the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
After the authors' revisions, the quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved. At present, the manuscript can be considered for acceptance and publication. Just, Minor editing of English language required by authors.
Minor editing of English language required
Reviewer 3 Report
The REVISED manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in "Fractal Fract", i.e., a satisfactory revision has been done in the light of report. Therefore, I would like to suggest its publication.
The following related two papers can be added to the references of the manuscript to rich the tortuous flow topic (seminal work is in Ref. 60):
1. Cai, J.C.; Yu, B. A Discussion of the effect of tortuosity on the capillary imbibition in porous media. Transp. Porous Media 2011, 89, 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11242-011-9767-0.
Which chaged the perspectiva of Lucas-Washburn equation, such that is now well-known Lucas-Washburn-Cai Equation
2. Samayoa, D.; Pineda León, E.; Damián Adame, L.; Reyes de Luna, E.; Kryvko, A. The Hausdorff Dimension and Capillary Imbibition. Fractal Fract. 2022, 6, 332. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract6060332.
Here is suggested that tortuosity can be written as a fractal dimension function (as Ref. 60) instead of tortuosity dimension, based on the concept of geodesic metric
