Dear Alf: I made a mistake in my previous note - the calculated water volume (53K) is correct - but the combined volume (Bo x Oil+Bw * Water ~ 267k RB) is still much larger than the reported pore volume (42475 RB).
Note, that the FIPNUM for region 1 (the only region) is correct, for both pressure and fluids in place. Just the FIELD numbers look odd. Regards, Bob Merrill On Fri, December 16, 2016 9:06 pm, bobmerr...@mersep.com wrote: > Dear Alf: > > > Thank you for your quick response. I am using the 2016.10 release > (November). I would need to relearn many skills to compile, link and load > a project of this size from source. > > I enclose the two DATA files which produced the anomalous PAV. I have > sent partial PRT files (I didn't want to send a zip - two many viruses). > > In addition to the misleading PAV, I also believe that the reported PORV > is wrong. The value reported as PORV doesn't agree with my hand > calculation for the case BUCKLEY_LEVERETT.DATA. The Oil In Place number > is similar to my hand calculation (the difference may be due to > interpolation of oil formation volume factor). However, the water volume > reported is completely wrong (it agrees with neither my hand > calculations nor the reported PORV). The GOR appears to be correct. > > I believe that this may be a reporting issue. A comparison of Eclipse > and Flow results for simplified Buckley Leverett (1D) flow are very > similar, and the map saturations are also similar (+/- 1.5pu; see enclosed > comparison in the PNG). There does seem to be an issue with Flow's > initial timestep (the rate is too big), but that is easily fixed by > choosing a small first dt (0.01 days, in this case). > > Let me know if I can provide any assistence with your efforts on Flow. > > > Are you in Stavanger? I worked with Kurt Meisingset at Statoil (probably > long retired) on a joint industry PVT project almost 20 years ago. > > Best regards, > > > Bob Merrill > India > > > (please note: I can only receive/send files < 1.5MB on this account) > > > > On Fri, December 16, 2016 3:02 am, Alf Birger Rustad wrote: > >> Hi Bob, >> >> >> >> Your understanding is correct. We did debug the PAV calculations right >> before the release, so there might still be some rough edges. Can you >> please share what version of flow you are using, is it the 2016.10 >> release or fresh from git? Can you also share what SPE1 deck you are >> using. Is it from opm-data, and if so, is it case 1 or 2. >> >> Thanks for testing and reporting! >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> Alf >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> From: Opm [opm-boun...@opm-project.org] on behalf of >> bobmerr...@mersep.com [bobmerr...@mersep.com] >> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:59 AM >> To: opm@opm-project.org >> Subject: [Opm] PRT Files >> >> >> >> Dear OPM List: >> >> >> >> I am a new user to Flow; I am just beginning to experiment with the >> keywords to see which work and which don't. >> >> I am not a skilled programmer (no C; some (old) Fortran; reasonable >> Perl >> and VBA). >> >> I am a fairly experienced reservoir engineer. And I'm confused about >> the output in the PRT files. A report is printed which is called "Field >> Totals". It lists a quantity called "PAV" which I assume to be the >> average HCPV weighted pressure. But is lists a value around 334 (in >> both SPE1 and in a case I built from scratch). I'm pretty sure that the >> reservoir pressure is NOT 334; I have BHP constrants of 4800 >> (producer) and >> 5100 (injector). >> >> >> >> So what is it? If it's not what it says, are the volumes in place >> correct? >> >> Many thanks. >> >> >> >> Bob Merrill >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Opm mailing list >> Opm@opm-project.org >> http://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is >> intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of >> the information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are >> not the addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail >> and delete this message. Thank you >> >> > _______________________________________________ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org http://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm