[Opm] Problem with injecting field voidage replacement
Bao Kai
paeanball at gmail.com
Fri Mar 15 21:57:50 UTC 2019
Hi, Karl,
It looks like there is a possible bug in the OPM implementation which
requires some WCONINJE keyword for a injector to make the injector
work, even if you have group control upon it. (something we need to
investigate it)
Anyway, I could not see big problem with your output data. When INJ
is working under group control, it looks like FVIR == FGPR, which
means the group control is honored in a good way.
But INJ also has its own injection rate limit 11000 (provided with
WCONINJE) and it works under this limit at the beginning then switch
to work under VREP group control later.
When you set B_w == 1.0 in PVTW, due to the existence of
compressibility, the final B_w will be slightly different from 1.0
depending the pressure you use.
The FPR is decreasing in the beginning is because the voidage rate you
are injecting is smaller than the voidage rate you are producing,
(FVIR < FVPR due to existence of the WCONINJE injection rate limit.)
One solution is just increase the rate limit in WCONINJE so that that
limit is so high and it will not limit much. The INJ will always work
under group VREP control.
I changed the schedule as follows,
```
-- Production control
-- Well Status Control Oil Wat Gas Liq Resv BHP
-- name mode rate rate rate rate rate limit
-- ---- ------ ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
WCONPROD
PROD OPEN LRAT 3* 10000 1* 2000 /
/
-- Injection control
-- Well Fluid Status Control Surf Resv BHP
-- NAME TYPE mode rate rate limit
-- ---- ----- ------ ------- ---- ---- -----
WCONINJE
INJ WATER OPEN RATE 110000 1* 6000 /
/
-- GRO Fluid Control Surf Resv ReInj Voidage GRUP
-- NAME TYPE mode rate rate frac Frac CNTL
-- ---- ----- ------ ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
GCONINJE
-- FIELD WATER VREP 3* 1.0 NO /
G1 WATER VREP 3* 1.0 /
/
-- Number and size (days) of timesteps
TSTEP
10*200 /
```
Then the result is
summary.x TUT1G1_SPE9. FPR FVIR FVPR
-- Days dd/mm/yyyy FPR FVIR FVPR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.00 02/01/2020 4498.11 11499.4 11499.4
4.00 05/01/2020 4496.79 11499.3 11499.3
13.00 14/01/2020 4495.43 11499.4 11499.4
40.00 10/02/2020 4491.98 11499.5 11499.5
121.00 01/05/2020 4485.95 11497.8 11497.8
200.00 19/07/2020 4481.67 11491.7 11491.7
400.00 04/02/2021 4475.47 11424.2 11424.2
600.00 23/08/2021 4472.37 11292.4 11292.4
800.00 11/03/2022 4471.52 11110 11110
1000.00 27/09/2022 4472.95 10920.1 10920.1
1200.00 15/04/2023 4473.7 10764.3 10764.3
1400.00 01/11/2023 4474.59 10637.2 10637.2
1600.00 19/05/2024 4475.52 10539.8 10539.8
1800.00 05/12/2024 4476.48 10457.3 10457.3
2000.00 23/06/2025 4477.32 10386.9 10386.9
Please let me know if it is something you are looking for.
Best,
Kai Bao
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 6:36 PM Stephen, Karl D <K.D.Stephen at hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Kai,
> For completeness, I removed the final WCONINJE keyword and the reference to FIELD in the GCONINJE keyword to be more consistent with the SPE9 case. Bw=1 again.
>
> -- Days dd/mm/yyyy FPR FVIR FVPR
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 0.00 01/01/2020 4500 0 -0
> 1.00 02/01/2020 4495.02 11000 11499.4
> 4.00 05/01/2020 4483.38 11000 11499.3
> 13.00 14/01/2020 4450.86 11000 11499.4
> 40.00 10/02/2020 4353.57 11000 11499.6
> 97.50 07/04/2020 4149.48 11000.1 11499.5
> 148.75 28/05/2020 3965.53 11000.2 11498.8
> 200.00 19/07/2020 3781.38 11000.2 11497
> 298.64 25/10/2020 3432.1 11000.4 11487
> 400.00 04/02/2021 3086.74 11000.5 11468.6
> 500.00 15/05/2021 2766.78 11000.6 11440.7
> 600.00 23/08/2021 2505.6 11000.7 11358.2
> 700.00 01/12/2021 2504.02 10997.4 10997.4
> 800.00 11/03/2022 2518.26 10945.8 10945.8
> 1000.00 27/09/2022 2557.13 10960.5 10960.4
> 1200.00 15/04/2023 2573.25 10810.6 10810.6
> 1400.00 01/11/2023 2574.08 10699.4 10699.4
> 1600.00 19/05/2024 2559.59 10575.9 10576
> 1800.00 05/12/2024 2562.13 10470.6 10470.6
> 2000.00 23/06/2025 2564.31 10385.1 10385.1
> 2200.00 09/01/2026 2566.22 10317.3 10317.3
>
> The result is initially identical with FPR etc. but once water breaks through, there are differences.
>
> If anyone has another case that successfully tests field voidage replacement that would be great.
>
> Karl
> ________________________________
>
> Heriot-Watt University is The Times & The Sunday Times International University of the Year 2018
>
> Founded in 1821, Heriot-Watt is a leader in ideas and solutions. With campuses and students across the entire globe we span the world, delivering innovation and educational excellence in business, engineering, design and the physical, social and life sciences. This email is generated from the Heriot-Watt University Group, which includes:
>
> 1. Heriot-Watt University, a Scottish charity registered under number SC000278
> 2. Edinburgh Business School a Charity Registered in Scotland, SC026900. Edinburgh Business School is a company limited by guarantee, registered in Scotland with registered number SC173556 and registered office at Heriot-Watt University Finance Office, Riccarton, Currie, Midlothian, EH14 4AS
> 3. Heriot- Watt Services Limited (Oriam), Scotland's national performance centre for sport. Heriot-Watt Services Limited is a private limited company registered is Scotland with registered number SC271030 and registered office at Research & Enterprise Services Heriot-Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh, EH14 4AS.
>
> The contents (including any attachments) are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and then delete it (including any attachments) from your system.
> _______________________________________________
> Opm mailing list
> Opm at opm-project.org
> https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm
More information about the Opm
mailing list