[Opm] PRT Files

[Bob Merrill]

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 <abir at statoil.com> 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