From markus at dr-blatt.de  Thu Sep  1 13:01:46 2016
From: markus at dr-blatt.de (Markus Blatt)
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:01:46 +0200
Subject: [Opm] ERT repo layout changed
In-Reply-To: <AM4PR06MB1748D6CB7583527E2E795B23AEE80@AM4PR06MB1748.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM4PR06MB1748D6CB7583527E2E795B23AEE80@AM4PR06MB1748.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20160901130146.GA10851@boromir.dr-blatt.de>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:01:29AM +0000, Joakim Hove wrote:
> after request the layout of the ert repository has changed to become more standard compliant, and in particular agree with the opm modules. After you have updated you must:

Great! Thanks a lot.

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 Sep  8 08:08:31 2016
From: markus at dr-blatt.de (Markus Blatt)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 10:08:31 +0200
Subject: [Opm] Open well with zero perforations valid?
Message-ID: <20160908080831.GB2302@boromir.dr-blatt.de>

Hi,

as I only have a slight idea about the eclipse file format I need to
ask this.

Is it valid to describe a well with status not equal to shut that has no
perforations defined in the eclipse file?

I know that in the OPM code is invalid to an open well with all
perforations shut. But that might be  a different scenarios.

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: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160908/b70c4e67/attachment.sig>

From joakim.hove at gmail.com  Thu Sep  8 10:14:09 2016
From: joakim.hove at gmail.com (Joakim Hove)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 12:14:09 +0200
Subject: [Opm] Open well with zero perforations valid?
In-Reply-To: <20160908080831.GB2302@boromir.dr-blatt.de>
References: <20160908080831.GB2302@boromir.dr-blatt.de>
Message-ID: <CALKD1M89w365ehA-RiC0XK1tF2Yjt26+UZv+okUyd_WBLWGOUw@mail.gmail.com>

Well - from a physical perspective it certainly does not make sense.

But that was maybe not the question?

J
8. sep. 2016 10:08 skrev "Markus Blatt" <markus at dr-blatt.de> følgende:

> Hi,
>
> as I only have a slight idea about the eclipse file format I need to
> ask this.
>
> Is it valid to describe a well with status not equal to shut that has no
> perforations defined in the eclipse file?
>
> I know that in the OPM code is invalid to an open well with all
> perforations shut. But that might be  a different scenarios.
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opm mailing list
> Opm at opm-project.org
> http://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160908/eae09238/attachment.html>

From roland.kaufmann at uni.no  Thu Sep  8 11:37:18 2016
From: roland.kaufmann at uni.no (Roland Kaufmann)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 13:37:18 +0200
Subject: [Opm] Open well with zero perforations valid?
In-Reply-To: <20160908080831.GB2302@boromir.dr-blatt.de>
References: <20160908080831.GB2302@boromir.dr-blatt.de>
Message-ID: <42d9bebe-8a96-3a7d-1b63-ff5aebe254e7@uni.no>

On 8. Sep. 2016 at 10:08, Markus Blatt wrote:
> Is it valid to describe a well with status not equal to shut
> that has no perforations defined in the eclipse file?

Yes, at least in Eclipse 300 (but I guess it applies to Eclipse 
100 as well).

However, it is a philosophical question: A well with no 
perforations is the same as a well with all perforations shut, 
which is the same as a shut well.

If you mention a well in WELSPECS but without any corresponding 
perforations in COMPDAT, Eclipse writes the message "Well XXX has 
no open connections. Well will be shut."

-- 
	Roland.


From timuranastasia at gmail.com  Sat Sep 10 11:15:21 2016
From: timuranastasia at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?0KLQuNC80YPRgCDQmtC40YDQtdC10LI=?=)
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 16:15:21 +0500
Subject: [Opm] Flow-polymer and Eclipse result mismatch
Message-ID: <CAP3kd1PN88Kxmhz2=8noAME7=a06+7HF6-=h4Wghhtn7ZwdRrw@mail.gmail.com>

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160910/8014874b/attachment.html>

From paeanball at gmail.com  Sat Sep 10 11:43:08 2016
From: paeanball at gmail.com (Bao Kai)
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 13:43:08 +0200
Subject: [Opm] Flow-polymer and Eclipse result mismatch
In-Reply-To: <CAP3kd1PN88Kxmhz2=8noAME7=a06+7HF6-=h4Wghhtn7ZwdRrw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP3kd1PN88Kxmhz2=8noAME7=a06+7HF6-=h4Wghhtn7ZwdRrw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAGCCrwGKJCo39STWKZhpF+5_Ao9s++B+QCAsWw8t7OUAj+kgDw@mail.gmail.com>

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 <timuranastasia at gmail.com>
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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160910/30dd0232/attachment.html>

From joakim.hove at gmail.com  Wed Sep 14 17:06:42 2016
From: joakim.hove at gmail.com (Joakim Hove)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:06:42 +0200
Subject: [Opm] Calculating ROIP and RGIP
Message-ID: <CALKD1M9iUkaKiNK9JUsBb4b2ubsfZHxpZjamZO4kO6DwUFP-pg@mail.gmail.com>

[ OK - this is slightly emberrassing; but I have reached the limit of my
understanding of the black-oil model. ]


When calculating the summary quantities ROIP (Region oil in place) and RGIP
(Region gas in place) we should sum up over the correct phase, and the
amount of oil/gas in the "other phase":

I.e. RGIP  ~ sum( SGAS + RS(?)) and ROIP = sum( (1 - sgas + swat) + RV)

But RS and RV are not in the "saturation space". So what gives?

Jaoakim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160914/025df377/attachment.html>

From and at poware.org  Wed Sep 14 22:24:15 2016
From: and at poware.org (Andreas Lauser)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 00:24:15 +0200
Subject: [Opm] Calculating ROIP and RGIP
In-Reply-To: <CALKD1M9iUkaKiNK9JUsBb4b2ubsfZHxpZjamZO4kO6DwUFP-pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALKD1M9iUkaKiNK9JUsBb4b2ubsfZHxpZjamZO4kO6DwUFP-pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <32045083.UjmzBkjBhd@singularius>

Hi,

On Mittwoch, 14. September 2016 19:06:42 CEST Joakim Hove wrote:
> [ OK - this is slightly emberrassing; but I have reached the limit of my
> understanding of the black-oil model. ]
> 
> 
> When calculating the summary quantities ROIP (Region oil in place) and RGIP
> (Region gas in place) we should sum up over the correct phase, and the
> amount of oil/gas in the "other phase":
> 
> I.e. RGIP  ~ sum( SGAS + RS(?)) and ROIP = sum( (1 - sgas + swat) + RV)
> 
> But RS and RV are not in the "saturation space". So what gives?

I think these quantities are only meaning- and useful in terms of component 
mass. (alternatively, you can say "surface volume of pure phases" if you 
prefer.) So my guess for ROIP is that you need the following sum over all 
cells i in region R:

ROIP = \sum_{i \in R} PV_i * (B_o,i / rho_o,ref * S_o,i + B_g,i*R_v,i *S_g,i) 

(with PV being the pore volume of the cell, B_alpha the formation volume 
factor of phase alpha, S_alpha its saturation and rho_o,ref as the density of 
oil at surface conditions.) 

cheers
  Andreas

-- 
Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft
building progress by weight.
	-- Bill Gates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160915/b3993afe/attachment.sig>

From JOKVA at statoil.com  Mon Sep 26 12:10:47 2016
From: JOKVA at statoil.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Kvalsvik?=)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:10:47 +0000
Subject: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and
 WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates
Message-ID: <DB6PR0601MB2246C2C3B39FFF383BFACE2EB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Hi,


What's the difference between these two vectors? Is perfRates just the sum of the pair/triples in perfPhaseRates?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160926/f603ad9f/attachment.html>

From Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no  Mon Sep 26 12:19:39 2016
From: Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no (Atgeirr Rasmussen)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:19:39 +0000
Subject: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and
 WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR0601MB2246C2C3B39FFF383BFACE2EB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DB6PR0601MB2246C2C3B39FFF383BFACE2EB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <BA37BE8F-3C28-40F9-A363-8806DD400065@sintef.no>

The perfRates() vector contains *reservoir volume* total rates at the perforations, while the perfPhaseRates() vector contain
*surface volume* rates per phase. So it is not a direct sum.

Atgeirr


26. sep. 2016 kl. 14.10 skrev Jørgen Kvalsvik <JOKVA at statoil.com<mailto:JOKVA at statoil.com>>:

Hi,

What's the difference between these two vectors? Is perfRates just the sum of the pair/triples in perfPhaseRates?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 at opm-project.org<mailto:Opm at opm-project.org>
http://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160926/1adccde9/attachment.html>

From JOKVA at statoil.com  Mon Sep 26 12:35:09 2016
From: JOKVA at statoil.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Kvalsvik?=)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:35:09 +0000
Subject: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and
 WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates
In-Reply-To: <BA37BE8F-3C28-40F9-A363-8806DD400065@sintef.no>
References: <DB6PR0601MB2246C2C3B39FFF383BFACE2EB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>,
 <BA37BE8F-3C28-40F9-A363-8806DD400065@sintef.no>
Message-ID: <DB6PR0601MB2246EFA0EDADD09580BED11BB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Quick tip on how to convert from surface rate to reservoir rate?

________________________________
From: Opm <opm-bounces at opm-project.org> on behalf of Atgeirr Rasmussen <Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 2:19:39 PM
To: OPM Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates

The perfRates() vector contains *reservoir volume* total rates at the perforations, while the perfPhaseRates() vector contain
*surface volume* rates per phase. So it is not a direct sum.

Atgeirr


26. sep. 2016 kl. 14.10 skrev Jørgen Kvalsvik <JOKVA at statoil.com<mailto:JOKVA at statoil.com>>:

Hi,

What's the difference between these two vectors? Is perfRates just the sum of the pair/triples in perfPhaseRates?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
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 at opm-project.org<mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160926/dfea4db6/attachment.html>

From and at poware.org  Mon Sep 26 15:11:44 2016
From: and at poware.org (Andreas Lauser)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:11:44 +0200
Subject: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and
	WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates
In-Reply-To: <DB6PR0601MB2246EFA0EDADD09580BED11BB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <DB6PR0601MB2246C2C3B39FFF383BFACE2EB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <BA37BE8F-3C28-40F9-A363-8806DD400065@sintef.no>
 <DB6PR0601MB2246EFA0EDADD09580BED11BB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <3060300.H9GjmxQcPs@heuristix>

On Monday, September 26, 2016 12:35:09 PM Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
> Quick tip on how to convert from surface rate to reservoir rate?

simple answer: forget about it ;)

complicated answer for the reservoir-to-surface rate of the oil component:

\sum i in well
r_i,o * B_o,i / rho_o,ref + r_i,g*B_g,i*R_v,i

where "r" is the reservoir rate, "B" the formation volume factor, R_v the oil 
vaporization factor and rho_o,ref the oil surface density. (note that you need 
the reservoir rates of the individual cells that penetrate the well, i.e., the 
sum of the well does not do the trick. also be aware that in the case of cross 
flow the sign of the reservoir rates for individual cells can be the opposite 
of sign of the summed up rate.)

cheers
  Andreas

> ________________________________
> From: Opm <opm-bounces at opm-project.org> on behalf of Atgeirr Rasmussen
> <Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 2:19:39 PM
> To: OPM Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and
> WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates
> 
> The perfRates() vector contains *reservoir volume* total rates at the
> perforations, while the perfPhaseRates() vector contain *surface volume*
> rates per phase. So it is not a direct sum.
> 
> Atgeirr
> 
> 
> 26. sep. 2016 kl. 14.10 skrev Jørgen Kvalsvik
> <JOKVA at statoil.com<mailto:JOKVA at statoil.com>>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> What's the difference between these two vectors? Is perfRates just the sum
> of the pair/triples in perfPhaseRates?
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 at opm-project.org<mailto: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

-- 
Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft
building progress by weight.
        -- Bill Gates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160926/1b69afe9/attachment.sig>

From JOKVA at statoil.com  Tue Sep 27 09:46:19 2016
From: JOKVA at statoil.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F8rgen_Kvalsvik?=)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 09:46:19 +0000
Subject: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and
 WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates
In-Reply-To: <3060300.H9GjmxQcPs@heuristix>
References: <DB6PR0601MB2246C2C3B39FFF383BFACE2EB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <BA37BE8F-3C28-40F9-A363-8806DD400065@sintef.no>
 <DB6PR0601MB2246EFA0EDADD09580BED11BB4CD0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>,
 <3060300.H9GjmxQcPs@heuristix>
Message-ID: <DB6PR0601MB2246FEACB37C4F91DBB9DF5AB4CC0@DB6PR0601MB2246.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Thank you, Andreas.


I abandoned that (even though the function, as you point out, exists) in favour of just recording the double from WellState.

________________________________
From: Andreas Lauser <and at poware.org>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 5:11:44 PM
To: opm at opm-project.org
Cc: Jørgen Kvalsvik; Atgeirr Rasmussen
Subject: Re: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates

On Monday, September 26, 2016 12:35:09 PM Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
> Quick tip on how to convert from surface rate to reservoir rate?

simple answer: forget about it ;)

complicated answer for the reservoir-to-surface rate of the oil component:

\sum i in well
r_i,o * B_o,i / rho_o,ref + r_i,g*B_g,i*R_v,i

where "r" is the reservoir rate, "B" the formation volume factor, R_v the oil
vaporization factor and rho_o,ref the oil surface density. (note that you need
the reservoir rates of the individual cells that penetrate the well, i.e., the
sum of the well does not do the trick. also be aware that in the case of cross
flow the sign of the reservoir rates for individual cells can be the opposite
of sign of the summed up rate.)

cheers
  Andreas

> ________________________________
> From: Opm <opm-bounces at opm-project.org> on behalf of Atgeirr Rasmussen
> <Atgeirr.Rasmussen at sintef.no> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 2:19:39 PM
> To: OPM Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Opm] Difference between WellState::perfRates and
> WellStateFullyImplicitBlackoil::perfPhaseRates
>
> The perfRates() vector contains *reservoir volume* total rates at the
> perforations, while the perfPhaseRates() vector contain *surface volume*
> rates per phase. So it is not a direct sum.
>
> Atgeirr
>
>
> 26. sep. 2016 kl. 14.10 skrev Jørgen Kvalsvik
> <JOKVA at statoil.com<mailto:JOKVA at statoil.com>>:
>
> Hi,
>
> What's the difference between these two vectors? Is perfRates just the sum
> of the pair/triples in perfPhaseRates?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 at opm-project.org<mailto: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

--
Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft
building progress by weight.
        -- Bill Gates


-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <//opm-project.org/pipermail/opm/attachments/20160927/54fc8987/attachment.html>