From markus at dr-blatt.de Thu Dec 1 11:41:10 2016 From: markus at dr-blatt.de (Markus Blatt) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:41:10 +0100 Subject: [Opm] Runtime improvements benchmark Flow MPI Extra Message-ID: <20161201114110.GA7765@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Hi, I just noticed that there was a quite big runtime improvement for Model 2 somewhen between Nov 16 and Nov 28. See http://linuxbenchmarking.com/?open-porous-media-git Flow MPI Extra. For Norne things stayed the same, though. Does anybody have some insight what actually might have caused this? Markus -- Dr. Markus Blatt - HPC-Simulation-Software & Services http://www.dr-blatt.de Hans-Bunte-Str. 8-10, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany, USt-Id: DE279960836 Tel.: +49 (0) 160 97590858 From Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no Thu Dec 1 12:31:30 2016 From: Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no (Atgeirr Rasmussen) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:31:30 +0000 Subject: [Opm] Module reorganization Message-ID: <6D46128E-93EF-4B23-A5F6-BAB9A047A5AC@sintef.no> Dear OPM community, We have recently made changes to the module structure that affects those who use the latest sources from github. 1. opm-grid and opm-core We have moved the remaining grid-related parts out of opm-core and into opm-grid. So far, all headers still have the same directory names as before (i.e. opm/core/grid/GridManager.hpp) but that will probably change (we intend to collect all grid-related things under opm/core/). In the process, opm-grid has also become independent of opm-core, however since there are still many parts of opm-core that depend on the grid parts, opm-core now depends on opm-grid. This is a reversal of the previous situation (opm-grid used to depend on opm-core), and the recommended build order has therefore changed. 2. opm-simulators and ewoms. The opm-simulators module now depends on ewoms (this is related to the merging of flow_ebos recently). This also causes a change to the recommended build order. We strongly recommend deleting the build-directories of these modules and rebuilding to ensure that they are built correctly. None of these changes affect the last release version (2016.10), but they will affect the next. Updated information can be found on the web site: http://opm-project.org/?page_id=231 (building from source, build order) http://opm-project.org/?page_id=274 (module organization) Good luck, and feel free to ask for help if you have any trouble! Atgeirr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From markus at dr-blatt.de Thu Dec 1 13:47:29 2016 From: markus at dr-blatt.de (Markus Blatt) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:47:29 +0100 Subject: [Opm] Change in solver time Model2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20161201134729.GB5256@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Hi, On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:57:59AM +0000, Tor Harald Sandve wrote: > I think this is due to #916 > > linear_solver_maxiter was changed from 75 to 150 > which removes many of the linear solver convergence issues. > That is weired. I checked the runs of flow_legacy last Friday and it still used 75 steps, see https://github.com/OPM/opm-simulators/issues/955 Maybe I did something wrong. I will recheck. Markus -- Dr. Markus Blatt - HPC-Simulation-Software & Services http://www.dr-blatt.de Hans-Bunte-Str. 8-10, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany, USt-Id: DE279960836 Tel.: +49 (0) 160 97590858 From markus at dr-blatt.de Fri Dec 9 11:37:38 2016 From: markus at dr-blatt.de (Markus Blatt) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 12:37:38 +0100 Subject: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17? Message-ID: <20161209113738.GE26311@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Hi, the poster deadline for the SIAM CSE conference (Atlanta, Februrary) has been extended until monday. As I intend to got there anyway, I want to also present a poster about OPM. I would volunteer to be the presenter and do most of the work (but would appreciate input by others). Maybe we can host the poster creation process in an open repository and use an open licence such that others can profit from it. Maybe we can use the same author list as for the release paper (atgeirr would you send it to me, please)? The same poster could be presented at SIAM Geosciences in Erlangen in September. Any objections/suggestions? Markus -- Dr. Markus Blatt - HPC-Simulation-Software & Services http://www.dr-blatt.de Hans-Bunte-Str. 8-10, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany, USt-Id: DE279960836 Tel.: +49 (0) 160 97590858 From markus at dr-blatt.de Mon Dec 12 21:26:43 2016 From: markus at dr-blatt.de (Markus Blatt) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 22:26:43 +0100 Subject: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17? In-Reply-To: <20161209113738.GE26311@boromir.dr-blatt.de> References: <20161209113738.GE26311@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Message-ID: <20161212212643.GA25397@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Hi, I have set up a repository for this effort: https://github.com/blattms/opm-poster. If you are interested and want to contribute, please add your information to abstracts.org and post a merge request. People whose sole contribution is adding the name to list might be kicked out on January 30. The way I read the website http://meetings.siam.org/start.cfm?CONFCODE=POCS one can modify the submission until 23:59 EST tonight and between January 4-30. (Not sure whether the later changes will be in the printed program, but they will be online). I will try to check for PRs shortly before the deadline tonight. Cheers, Markus -- Dr. Markus Blatt - HPC-Simulation-Software & Services http://www.dr-blatt.de Hans-Bunte-Str. 8-10, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany, USt-Id: DE279960836 Tel.: +49 (0) 160 97590858 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no Mon Dec 12 22:06:10 2016 From: Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no (Atgeirr Rasmussen) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 22:06:10 +0000 Subject: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17? In-Reply-To: <20161212212643.GA25397@boromir.dr-blatt.de> References: <20161209113738.GE26311@boromir.dr-blatt.de> <20161212212643.GA25397@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Message-ID: <228CD5C2-B28B-42C3-A0C8-CE522A4B46F9@sintef.no> Markus, Thank you for taking the initiative on this, and my apologies for not replying sooner! I think the abstract is good, and I'll of course contribute to the content of the poster. Best, Atgeirr From Kai.Bao at sintef.no Thu Dec 15 13:01:21 2016 From: Kai.Bao at sintef.no (Kai Bao) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 13:01:21 +0000 Subject: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17? In-Reply-To: <20161212212643.GA25397@boromir.dr-blatt.de> References: <20161209113738.GE26311@boromir.dr-blatt.de>, <20161212212643.GA25397@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Message-ID: Hi, Sorry for not paying attention to the deadline. I would like to help the preparation of the poster. I can contribute to a few different aspects, while especially, I would like to design an example for polymer flooding. Best, Kai ________________________________________ From: Opm [opm-bounces at opm-project.org] on behalf of Markus Blatt [markus at dr-blatt.de] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:26 PM To: opm at opm-project.org Subject: Re: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17? Hi, I have set up a repository for this effort: https://github.com/blattms/opm-poster. If you are interested and want to contribute, please add your information to abstracts.org and post a merge request. People whose sole contribution is adding the name to list might be kicked out on January 30. The way I read the website http://meetings.siam.org/start.cfm?CONFCODE=POCS one can modify the submission until 23:59 EST tonight and between January 4-30. (Not sure whether the later changes will be in the printed program, but they will be online). I will try to check for PRs shortly before the deadline tonight. Cheers, Markus -- Dr. Markus Blatt - HPC-Simulation-Software & Services http://www.dr-blatt.de Hans-Bunte-Str. 8-10, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany, USt-Id: DE279960836 Tel.: +49 (0) 160 97590858 From markus at dr-blatt.de Thu Dec 15 13:09:05 2016 From: markus at dr-blatt.de (Markus Blatt) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 14:09:05 +0100 Subject: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17? In-Reply-To: References: <20161209113738.GE26311@boromir.dr-blatt.de> <20161212212643.GA25397@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Message-ID: <20161215130905.GB9034@boromir.dr-blatt.de> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:01:21PM +0000, Kai Bao wrote: > I would like to help the preparation of the poster. I can contribute to a few different aspects, while especially, I would like to design an example for polymer flooding. > Great! According to the schedule, they will us whether the poster is accepted by January 4. Let us start when we are accepted. A natural deadline for a first prototype version is January 30 as that is the deadline for editing the abstract/authors in the online program. Looking forward to it. Markus -- Dr. Markus Blatt - HPC-Simulation-Software & Services http://www.dr-blatt.de Hans-Bunte-Str. 8-10, 69123 Heidelberg, Germany, USt-Id: DE279960836 Tel.: +49 (0) 160 97590858 From bobmerrill at mersep.com Fri Dec 16 01:59:34 2016 From: bobmerrill at mersep.com (bobmerrill at mersep.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 20:59:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Opm] PRT Files Message-ID: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> 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 From abir at statoil.com Fri Dec 16 08:02:48 2016 From: abir at statoil.com (Alf Birger Rustad) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 08:02:48 +0000 Subject: [Opm] PRT Files In-Reply-To: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> References: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> Message-ID: <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC292C7E8@WS319.statoil.net> 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-bounces at opm-project.org] on behalf of bobmerrill at mersep.com [bobmerrill at mersep.com] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:59 AM To: opm at 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 at 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 From and at poware.org Fri Dec 16 10:00:33 2016 From: and at poware.org (Andreas Lauser) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 11:00:33 +0100 Subject: [Opm] PRT Files In-Reply-To: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> References: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> Message-ID: <2036089.HEhWllmHno@singularius> Hi Bob, welcome to OPM! On Donnerstag, 15. Dezember 2016 20:59:34 CET bobmerrill at mersep.com wrote: > 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? possibly, it's the pressure in bar instead of PSI: 4800 PSI are roughly 330 bars... cheers Andreas -- In a sense, programming is all about what your program should do in the first place. The “how” question is just the “what”, moved down the chain of abstractions until it ends up where a computer can understand it, and at that point, the three words “multichannel audio support” have become those 9,000 lines that describe in perfect detail what's going on. -- Steinar H. Gunderson -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no Fri Dec 16 10:07:57 2016 From: Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no (Atgeirr Rasmussen) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:07:57 +0000 Subject: [Opm] PRT Files In-Reply-To: <2036089.HEhWllmHno@singularius> References: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> <2036089.HEhWllmHno@singularius> Message-ID: <18643B0E-4CC7-481B-9759-7C54A6029FBE@sintef.no> Hi Bob, I can reproduce your error (with SPE1CASE2.DATA). Interestingly the region-based report looks correct: Field: =================================================== : Field Totals : : PAV = 334.936 PSIA : : PORV = 84950540 RB : Region 1: =================================================== : FIPNUM report region 1 : : PAV = 4857.84 PSIA : : PORV = 534322820 RB : For this case, I think region 1 is the only region, and should be identical to the field. We will look at this and try to fix it. Until then, you could consider the region report instead. Atgeirr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no Fri Dec 16 13:20:12 2016 From: Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no (Atgeirr Rasmussen) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:20:12 +0000 Subject: [Opm] PRT Files In-Reply-To: <18643B0E-4CC7-481B-9759-7C54A6029FBE@sintef.no> References: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> <2036089.HEhWllmHno@singularius> <18643B0E-4CC7-481B-9759-7C54A6029FBE@sintef.no> Message-ID: <474D81C1-65D5-4FC1-82BE-5D9F45E66D31@sintef.no> Hi again, The problem has been identified, and fixed in opm-simulators#987: https://github.com/OPM/opm-simulators/pull/987 If you are building from source, it should be sufficient to pull/update from github and recompile. Thanks to André for fixing! Atgeirr From bobmerrill at mersep.com Sat Dec 17 19:34:44 2016 From: bobmerrill at mersep.com (bobmerrill at mersep.com) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 14:34:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Opm] CORRECTION: PRT Files In-Reply-To: <11781.122.162.180.13.1481940365.squirrel@www.mersep.com> References: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC292C7E8@WS319.statoil.net> <11781.122.162.180.13.1481940365.squirrel@www.mersep.com> Message-ID: <18823.122.162.180.13.1482003284.squirrel@www.mersep.com> 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, bobmerrill at 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-bounces at opm-project.org] on behalf of >> bobmerrill at mersep.com [bobmerrill at mersep.com] >> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:59 AM >> To: opm at 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 at 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 >> >> > From abir at statoil.com Mon Dec 19 09:13:09 2016 From: abir at statoil.com (Alf Birger Rustad) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 09:13:09 +0000 Subject: [Opm] PRT Files In-Reply-To: <11781.122.162.180.13.1481940364.squirrel@www.mersep.com> References: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC292C7E8@WS319.statoil.net>, <11781.122.162.180.13.1481940364.squirrel@www.mersep.com> Message-ID: <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC293B4E5@WS319.statoil.net> 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: bobmerrill at mersep.com [bobmerrill at mersep.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 3:06 AM To: Alf Birger Rustad Cc: bobmerrill at mersep.com; opm at opm-project.org 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 [opm-bounces at opm-project.org] on behalf of bobmerrill at mersep.com > [bobmerrill at mersep.com] > Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:59 AM > To: opm at 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 at 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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 From Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no Mon Dec 19 11:31:11 2016 From: Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no (Atgeirr Rasmussen) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:31:11 +0000 Subject: [Opm] New tutorial: running the Norne case with Flow Message-ID: <81046F91-36FB-40C2-94B5-1BFEA24E9496@sintef.no> Dear OPM community, A new tutorial has been made available, explaining how to run the Norne benchmark case with Flow: http://opm-project.org/?page_id=780 If you have feedback on the tutorial, in particular if there are errors or unclear parts, please tell us! Atgeirr Flø Rasmussen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bobmerrill at mersep.com Mon Dec 19 12:27:15 2016 From: bobmerrill at mersep.com (Bob Merrill) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:57:15 +0530 Subject: [Opm] PRT Files In-Reply-To: <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC293B4E5@WS319.statoil.net> References: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC292C7E8@WS319.statoil.net> <11781.122.162.180.13.1481940364.squirrel@www.mersep.com> <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC293B4E5@WS319.statoil.net> Message-ID: <5148D905-A811-43D5-939A-8C6947FC8B3D@mersep.com> 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 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 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: bobmerrill at mersep.com [bobmerrill at mersep.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 3:06 AM > To: Alf Birger Rustad > Cc: bobmerrill at mersep.com; opm at opm-project.org > 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 [opm-bounces at opm-project.org] on behalf of bobmerrill at mersep.com >> [bobmerrill at mersep.com] >> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:59 AM >> To: opm at 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 at 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 From Kai.Bao at sintef.no Mon Dec 19 12:31:14 2016 From: Kai.Bao at sintef.no (Kai Bao) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:31:14 +0000 Subject: [Opm] Flow-polymer and Eclipse result mismatch In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi, We have done some more investigation in this specific issue and made a few bug fixing and improvements on the flow_polymer through PR https://github.com/OPM/opm-simulators/pull/972 . The results with benchmark testing cases show perfect matching even when PLMIXPAR != 1.0. Please rerun your test and let us know how flow_polymer is working with your examples now. Thanks. Best, Kai Bao ________________________________________ From: Opm [opm-bounces at opm-project.org] on behalf of Bao Kai [paeanball at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 1:43 PM To: Тимур Киреев Cc: opm at opm-project.org Subject: Re: [Opm] Flow-polymer and Eclipse result mismatch Hi, Welcome to the OPM community first. It is a known problem and we have not solved it. We did some tests and investigation, while it looks like it is not that trivial and requires some detailed analysis. We have not found available time to investigate it further, and contributions will be very welcome. Best, Kai Bao On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Тимур Киреев > wrote: Dear all, I have found that changing PLMIXPAR from 1.0 to 0.0 in dataset 'opm-data/polymer_test_suite/simple2D' leads to result mismatch between flow_polymer and Eclipse. When PLMIXPAR = 1.0 there is a perfect match. It seems like flow_polymer handles mix parameter improperly. Has anyone tried to vary this parameter and compare the results with Eclipse? Thank you. _______________________________________________ Opm mailing list Opm at opm-project.org http://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm From abir at statoil.com Mon Dec 19 12:38:37 2016 From: abir at statoil.com (Alf Birger Rustad) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:38:37 +0000 Subject: [Opm] PRT Files In-Reply-To: <5148D905-A811-43D5-939A-8C6947FC8B3D@mersep.com> References: <4574.122.162.180.13.1481853574.squirrel@www.mersep.com> <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC292C7E8@WS319.statoil.net> <11781.122.162.180.13.1481940364.squirrel@www.mersep.com> <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC293B4E5@WS319.statoil.net> <5148D905-A811-43D5-939A-8C6947FC8B3D@mersep.com> Message-ID: <3FF3DEAF482AE047BE357963DF9C4F8AC293BE99@WS319.statoil.net> Indeed, things have moved. It is all C++ these days, a recipe found here: http://opm-project.org/?page_id=231 Please note the prequesites that you need installed before starting to compile. If you are confined to windows, with no access to a linux machine, there is still hope. We do support setting up a virtual machine with everything installed. You will find directions on that here: http://opm-project.org/?page_id=294 Good luck! Alf -----Original Message----- From: Bob Merrill [mailto:bobmerrill at mersep.com] Sent: 19. desember 2016 13:27 To: Alf Birger Rustad Cc: opm at opm-project.org Subject: Re: [Opm] PRT Files 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 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 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: bobmerrill at mersep.com [bobmerrill at mersep.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2016 3:06 AM > To: Alf Birger Rustad > Cc: bobmerrill at mersep.com; opm at opm-project.org > 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 [opm-bounces at opm-project.org] on behalf of >> bobmerrill at mersep.com [bobmerrill at mersep.com] >> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 2:59 AM >> To: opm at 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 at 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 From markus at dr-blatt.de Thu Dec 22 21:39:44 2016 From: markus at dr-blatt.de (Markus Blatt) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 22:39:44 +0100 Subject: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17? In-Reply-To: <20161215130905.GB9034@boromir.dr-blatt.de> References: <20161209113738.GE26311@boromir.dr-blatt.de> <20161212212643.GA25397@boromir.dr-blatt.de> <20161215130905.GB9034@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Message-ID: <20161222213944.GA9850@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Hi, and here comes the first Christmas present: The poster has already been accepted. Cheers, Markus From Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no Fri Dec 23 17:46:58 2016 From: Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no (Atgeirr Rasmussen) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 17:46:58 +0000 Subject: [Opm] Posters at SIAM CSE17 and GS17? In-Reply-To: <20161222213944.GA9850@boromir.dr-blatt.de> References: <20161209113738.GE26311@boromir.dr-blatt.de> <20161212212643.GA25397@boromir.dr-blatt.de> <20161215130905.GB9034@boromir.dr-blatt.de> <20161222213944.GA9850@boromir.dr-blatt.de> Message-ID: <93AA537E-BE8E-4A83-AC45-46E05786C388@sintef.no> > 22. des. 2016 kl. 22.39 skrev Markus Blatt : > > Hi, > > and here comes the first Christmas present: > > The poster has already been accepted. Great! A merry Christmas to you all! Atgeirr