[Opm] Problem with injecting field voidage replacement
Stephen, Karl D
K.D.Stephen at hw.ac.uk
Fri Mar 15 16:57:30 UTC 2019
Dear Kai,
Thanks for your e-mail and the SPE9 example.
I did wonder if there was something I was missing. I had a look at the SPE9 case and tried to mimic it. I can see that the SPE9 case seems to keep the FPR fairly stable. However, the overall flow rate is quite small so perhaps the errors (if this is what I'm seeing) are not manifesting themselves. Field voidage replacement seems to be working in SPE9.
However, I don't get a good result at all when I use the same settings with my model. I previously got the right behaviour with Bw=1.0 but now that isn't the case either. FVIR and FVPR are no longer the same.
Karl
-----Original Message-----
From: Opm <opm-bounces at opm-project.org> On Behalf Of Bao Kai
Sent: 15 March 2019 13:05
To: opm at opm-project.org
Subject: Re: [Opm] Problem with injecting field voidage replacement
Hi again, Karl,
Basically, my previous message is about the following group control will not work with the current OPM implementation in my understanding.
```
GCONINJE
FIELD WATER VREP 15000 2* 1.0 NO /
G2 WATER VREP 15000 2* 1.0 YES / --
THIS IS EXTRA!!!!!!!!
/
```
I do not know what kind of group structure OPM will get if we do not use `GRUPTREE` to build one explicitly. Eclipse might have some default behavoir while OPM might not support it well (default behavoirs are pretty difficult to support in a complete manner in my
opinion.)
I will suggest you to follow the example https://github.com/OPM/opm-tests/tree/master/spe9group also use `GRUPTREE` to build the group structure in an explicit manner.
I do not have a good idea about the issue related to FVIR and FVPR .
I am not sure whether it is a simulation problem or a output problem, or both.
Best Regards,
Kai Bao
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:21 PM Bao Kai <paeanball at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I forgot to reply the message to the OPM mailing lists. Just forward
> the reply here.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Bao Kai <paeanball at gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opm] Problem with injecting field voidage replacement
> To: Stephen, Karl D <K.D.Stephen at hw.ac.uk>
>
>
> Hi, Stephen,
>
> Thanks for the message and all the efforts to create this case and
> provide the DATA file.
>
> I have not been able to run the deck, while this is some inputs from my side.
>
> Group control is very general and flexible, we currently only support
> very limited subset of the features related to group control based on
> our project requirements. We will have continuous efforts to complete
> and improve the group control functionality when we can allocate
> resources.
>
> As for your deck, we do not support one group to obtain voidage rate
> based on the production rate from another group, and also, we
> understand it is not very trivial to fix based on the current
> implementation.
>
> We have an example in opm-tests to demonstrate what features related
> to group control we are supporting,
> https://github.com/OPM/opm-tests/tree/master/spe9group .
>
> Please take a look at this example to see whether you can change your
> group structure a little bit (similar to the example spe9group) and
> also fulfill your purpose. Please let me know if you need any help
> for it.
>
> Hope it is helpful to you.
>
> Best Regards,
> Kai Bao
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 2:05 AM Stephen, Karl D <K.D.Stephen at hw.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I have a problem with a simple quarter 5 spot waterflood model where I would like to inject water with field voidage replacement. There are two wells: injector, INJ, and producer, PROD. I would hope that the field voidage replacement takes the production rate in reservoir volumes and uses that to inject water at the same reservoir volumetric rate. If the injection and production volumes are the same the field average pressure, FPR, should be relatively constant.
> >
> > The problem I have is that while the reported FVIR and FVPR are the same and the FWIR seems to be right as is the sum of FOPR and FWPR, the FPR (average pressure) does not remain relatively constant. Instead there is a drift as if the actual volumes injected and produced are different.
> >
> > The problem seems to be to do with the definition of the formation volume factor for water, Bw, that is defined in the PVTW keyword. Bw is defined at a reference pressure which is the same as the initial average pressure. If it is 1.0 exactly then the hoped for result is obtained. If I use a more realistic value of 1.02, the volumes are incorrect and FPR eventually rises when water breaks through. Similarly if Bw is set to 0.99, the pressure goes down. I have deliberately set the compressibility of water to be very small and in PVDO, the Bo (formation volume factor for oil) is almost independent of pressure (when I started, Bo and Bw were dependent on pressure).
> >
> > Perhaps I am doing something wrong with the keywords, there is a setting I need to implement or is there a a bug in the code?
> >
> > Can anyone help?
> >
> > I attach my code for analysis.
> >
> > Using Eclipse I can get a good result. I set up the well controls with:
> >
> > - GRP Fluid Control Surf Resv ReInj Voidage GRUP
> > -- NAME TYPE mode rate rate frac Frac CNTL
> > -- ---- ----- ------ ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
> > GCONINJE
> > FIELD WATER VREP 15000 2* 1.0 NO /
> > /
> > -- Injection control
> > -- Well Fluid Status Control Surf Resv BHP
> > -- NAME TYPE mode rate rate limit
> > -- ---- ----- ------ ------- ---- ---- -----
> > WCONINJE
> > INJ WATER OPEN GRUP 15000 1* 8000 /
> > /
> >
> >
> > This doesn't work in OPM where I have to add the group control for my injector, INJ.
> >
> > - GRP Fluid Control Surf Resv ReInj Voidage GRUP
> > -- NAME TYPE mode rate rate frac Frac CNTL
> > -- ---- ----- ------ ------- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
> > GCONINJE
> > FIELD WATER VREP 15000 2* 1.0 NO /
> > G2 WATER VREP 15000 2* 1.0 YES / -- THIS IS EXTRA!!!!!!!!
> > /
> > -- Injection control
> > -- Well Fluid Status Control Surf Resv BHP
> > -- NAME TYPE mode rate rate limit
> > -- ---- ----- ------ ------- ---- ---- -----
> > WCONINJE
> > INJ WATER OPEN GRUP 15000 1* 8000 /
> > /
> >
> >
> > Karl Stephen
> > ________________________________
> >
> > 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
_______________________________________________
Opm mailing list
Opm at opm-project.org
https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm
More information about the Opm
mailing list