The Board has reviewed your paper, and I regret to inform you that it is not acceptable in present form. This decision indicates that although the paper contains material that would be of interest to the 期刊 readers, it is not currently in a form that is acceptable to the 期刊. We encourage you to rewrite the paper along the guidelines suggested by the reviewers and resubmit it to the 期刊. The rewritten paper will be subject to a full review.

期刊 Editor, has the following comments and instructions:
1、The writing quality presented an effective evaluation of the manuscript’s technical content.  The topic is of interest to the Bulletin’s readership.  We recommend that it be rewritten and carefully proofread by a naïve English speaker prior to submission.
2、Labeling of the figures also needs to be improved to avoid confusion.

The reviewers have made constructive comments about your paper, and if you decide to rewrite and resubmit, please endeavor to incorporate them during your revision. List the revisions you make to the manuscript and correlate your comments to the instructions given in this letter.

审稿人意见：
Reviewer 1:
This paper introduces new techniques regarding the interpretation of pressure data and reservoir compartmentalization. However, the writing style is not good enough for me to evaluate the science in the paper. I just couldn't understand the sentences. I strongly commend the authors for submitting this new and original work, and suggest that they obtain assistance in technical editing. But at present, try as I might, I could not understand the content of the paper well enough to evaluate its merit. Another venue for this paper would be the SPE (SPEREE).


Reviewer 2:
1. Author should use on the pressure plots either English system (psi for pressure and ft for depth) or Metric ( Kpa for pressure and m for depth). However, since all the figures were finalized using meter for vertical axis and psi for horizontal axis, it is acceptable to be published as is.

2. I have added some corrections on the text copy (attached). Author should review them to make sure that these corrections did not change the subject meaning.

3. Author should keep references in the text and references cited consistent.

4. The concept, interpretations and conclusion is a great endeavor to assess the potential development of a hydrocarbon field in normally pressured subsurface stratigraphic system.

Reviewer Recommendation for Manuscript
Although the topic is very interesting, the language of the paper draft does not permit an effective technical review. I therefore recommend ‘reject in the present form’ and hope that a rewritten manuscript will be resubmitted. 返回小木虫查看更多