Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Grid Independent Specification of Wells Comments #3321

Open
OPMUSER opened this issue Jan 7, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Grid Independent Specification of Wells Comments #3321

OPMUSER opened this issue Jan 7, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@OPMUSER
Copy link
Contributor

OPMUSER commented Jan 7, 2023

@goncalvesmachadoc I have a few comments based on your presentation at the OPM Summit 2022 with regards to the propsed two new OPM Flow keywords:

image

For the WELTRAJ keyword I think we should add a BRANCH parameter so that we can include multi-segment wells at a later date, so something like this:

--
--       WELL TRAJECTORY DATA
--
-- WELL   BRAN  XCORD         YCORD         TVDSS         MD
-- NAME   NO                                DEPTH         DEPTH
-- -----  ----  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
WELTRAJ                                                                 
OP01      1*    2.805445e+06  3.602948e+06  -100.000000   0.0         /
OP01      1*    2.805445e+06  3.602948e+06  877.0000000   977.0       /
OP01      1*    2.805445e+06  3.602948e+06  957.9950240   1058.0      /
OP01      1*    2.805444e+06  3.602946e+06  1051.976081   1152.0      /
…………………...                                                            /                                  
OP02      1*    2.810828e+06  3.604507e+06  9371.792711   11418.0     /
OP02      1*    2.810885e+06  3.604525e+06  9443.657000   11511.0     /
OP02      1*    2.810952e+06  3.604546e+06  9531.966162   11624.0     /
OP02      1*    2.810973e+06  3.604553e+06  9560.411742   11660.0     /
/

Where WELTRAJ(BRAN) is defaulted to one for the main branch, and only the default value is supported.

For the completions, I think we should rename the keyword to COMPTRAJ instead, so it aligns and replaces COMPDAT, and includes the BRANCH parameter again for multi-segment wells (which will again be defaulted to one for the main branch). So something like this:

--
--       WELL TRAJECTORY CONNECTION DATA
--                                                                              
-- WELL   BRAN  -- PERFORATION --  OPEN   SAT   CONN   WELL   KH    SKIN   D    
-- NAME   No     TOP    BOT   REF  SHUT   TAB   FACT   DIA    FACT  FACT   FACT 
COMPTRAJ                                                                         
OP01      1*     8230   8244  MD   SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     8352   8380  MD   SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9070   9100  MD   SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9220   9250  MD   SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9266   9280  MD   SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9693   9703  MD   SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9940   9974  MD   SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /  
OP02      1*     9979   9985  TVD  SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /  
OP02      1*    10173  10183  TVD  SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP02      1*    10190  10204  TVD  SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP02      1*    10327  10333  TVD  SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP02      1*    10339  10345  TVD  SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP02      1*    11528  11538  TVD  SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
/

But that means there is noway for the engineers to lump the connections into completions, so perhaps something like this:

--
--       WELL TRAJECTORY CONNECTION DATA
--                                                                              
-- WELL   BRAN  -- PERFORATION --  COMPL  OPEN   SAT   CONN   WELL   KH    SKIN   D    
-- NAME   NO.    TOP    BOT   REF  NO.    SHUT   TAB   FACT   DIA    FACT  FACT   FACT 
COMPTRAJ                                                                          
OP01      1*     8230   8244  MD    1     SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     8352   8380  MD    1     SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9070   9100  MD    1     SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9220   9250  MD    2     SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9266   9280  MD    2     SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9693   9703  MD    3     SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP01      1*     9940   9974  MD    3     SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /  
OP02      1*     9979   9985  TVD   3     SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /  
OP02      1*    10173  10183  TVD   1*    SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP02      1*    10190  10204  TVD   1*    SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP02      1*    10327  10333  TVD   1*    SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP02      1*    10339  10345  TVD   1*    SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
OP02      1*    11528  11538  TVD   1*    SHUT   1*    1*    0.708   1*    0.0    1*   /
/

I think this will "future proof" the keywords, and give more flexibility. Also the order of the parameters from COMPTRAJ(OPEN) to the end of the keyword should be fixed to match COMPDAT, but the others, apart from the well name, are perhaps more flexible.

Based on your completion keyword (WELCOMPL) then COMPTRAJ (BRAN) will only support the default value of one, COMPTRAJ(REF) will only support the default value of MD, and perhaps COMPTRAJ(COMPL) will only support the default value of one for the time being. Secondly, COMPTRAJ(CONN) and COMPTRAJ(KH) could also be defaulted for the time being with the simulator calculating the values. Finally COMPTRAJ(D) can be ignored as we don't support the gas D-factor for non-Darcy flow (although we should).

What do you think?

@goncalvesmachadoc
Copy link
Contributor

Hi David, thank you very much for your suggestions. Adding some extra columns would be easy and indeed keep the tables flexible for the future. I am discussing the changes with @plgbrts .

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants