Neale, The email with the results has been automatically held until the list moderator can review it for approval. So I have just sent the text instead in this email.
OPM User opmus...@gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Neale, I had a quick look at this and I'm a bit confused on what you are trying to do, for example, why is there no water in the model? Now I understand that you probably making changes just to get the model working, as per the commented out keywords, so I need to get a better understanding of what you want the final model to look like. Note that OPM Flow does not have the same level of error checking as the commercial simulator, but this is improving with each release, so one needs to be more careful in checking the decks. Note that: 1. There was a few errors on the TABDIMS keyword but that does not effect OPM Flow as it automatically dimensions the tables as it reads the keywords. 2. RVCONST keyword is not needed for runs containing dry gas. 3. On the RPTSCHED keyword BASIC is not a valid sub keyword. 4. OPM Flow correctly reports that BASIC is not supported on the RPTRST keyword, that means the simulator is going to write a restart record every report time step. I don't think you want this. I ran you model as is using 2019-10 release and it runs, it is slow with lots of oscillating behavior messages, but it does run. The obvious candidates for poor numerical performance are the relative permeability curves and the PVT data. Your relative permeability curves are nice and smooth so I don't think they are the problem. It looks as though the PVT data set has been modified to account for high pressures, is that correct? If so that could be part of the problem. Some times this can result in consistencies between the oil and gas formation volume factors and compressibilities. The commercial simulator normally gives the dreaded "Negative Compressibility Found" warning message; however, OPM Flow (as far as I'm aware) does not check for this. So I have another look at the PVT. For a quick fix you good just set a lower reservoir pressure so that you stay below the extrapolated PVT data. Note also that these type of models with high contract permeabilities are always challenging models to run. I have attached results from running your case, except for the 2GB restart files. You can load the summary data into OPM ResInsight to review the results. Let me know how you get on. OPM User opmus...@gmail.com On 21-Mar-20 20:00, opm-requ...@opm-project.org wrote: > Send Opm mailing list submissions to > opm@opm-project.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > opm-requ...@opm-project.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > opm-ow...@opm-project.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Opm digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Convergence Problems - New Shale Well Model (Neale ROBERTS) > > > _______________________________________________ > Opm mailing list > Opm@opm-project.org > https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Opm mailing list Opm@opm-project.org https://opm-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opm