Alf: Thank you. Is there a good website / book which tells me how to compile code from GitHub? I imagine things have moved on from:
f77 somefile.for link somefile.obj somefile <in >out 🙂 Bob Merrill Excuse typos, I'm on my phone and my fingers are fat. Sent from my iPhone > On 19-Dec-2016, at 2:43 PM, Alf Birger Rustad <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > Thanks for the test data! Please note that CASE1 is not supported in OPM yet, > due to lack of support for the DRSDT keyword. However, CASE2 should be well > supported. PORV should still be correct of course, we will need to > investigate what is going on there. Oil and gas saturation on the other hand > cannot be trusted due to DRSDT. The PAV you observed was indeed a bug, it is > now fixed, but you will need to compile the latest code from git to get it. > > I am at the research center in Trondheim. Knut Kristian is definitely still > around, and he is still our PVT expert. I will make sure to greet him from > you next time we meet :-) > > Best, > Alf > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 3:06 AM > To: Alf Birger Rustad > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Opm] PRT Files > > 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 [[email protected]] on behalf of [email protected] >> [[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:59 AM >> To: [email protected] >> 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 >> [email protected] >> 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 [email protected] http://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm
