Originally Posted by
vinomarky
I'd say that Petrel is the defacto standard in static modeling right now, as Eclipse is the defacto standard for dynamic simulation. The RE functionality of Petrel is (IMHO) of some use as an adjunct to the reservoir simulation workflow, but poorly suited to being the center of the reservoir simulation workflow. I've been using Petrel RE for 7+ years now, and seen it come along in strides, but the more I use it (and the more complete it gets) strangely the less inclined I am to want to use it.
For creating your initial grids, creating custom FIPNUM etc arrays, generating complex well trajectory WELSPECS and COMPADAT's, adhoc simulation faults etc it works well and I find it useful. I generally though grab the data I need, and then work in textpad and third party post processor with Eclipse. Maybe I'm just showing my age, but at least I've been using Petrel RE for quite a few years so have some perspective on this. Most people who try to convince me I'm wrong have not tried for any significant period of time (ie 5 years +) to work without Petrel RE so really don't have the perspective to compare properly.
Anyway, not interested in getting into a heated debate on this - just wanted to express an opinion.
As to the topic at hand. Temr, are you talking about creating a G&G package, or a Reservoir Engineering package? The title says the former and the text says the latter..... could you provide some ideas of what you had in mind (sample workflows).
Like Bond, I understand you point on Petrel being useful for RE's, but while a good engineer certainly has to understand the geology and assumptions in the static model, they should not be expected to create the static model (any more than I'd trust a simulation model created by a geologist)
As someone who has had some exposure to software development - things always end up being far far more complex than you thought they were to begin with!
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks