You are on page 1of 17

SPE 71588

Evaluation of a Horizontal Gas-Condensate Well Using Numerical Pressure Transient
R.A. Harisch, SPE, Schlumberger, R.C. Bachman, SPE, Taurus Reservoir Solutions, P.J. Puchyr, SPE, SpaceTime
Simulation Corp., G.W. Strashok, SPE
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September–3 October 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

This paper will describe the evaluation of a horizontal gascondensate well using numerical pressure transient analysis
techniques. The reservoir contains near critical fluid which
exhibits significant liquid dropout when subjected to
depletion. The paper will describe the experimental work
performed, its mathematical characterization and the matching
of both a well test and long-term production data with an
extended black-oil reservoir simulation model. The focus of
the work was to determine how the multiphase flow effects
impact test interpretation and how liquid dropout would affect
the long-term production performance of the well.
One of the important practical aspects was resolving
production data at different separator conditions. The
difficulties in characterizing near critical fluids and their
impact on the test interpretation will also be reviewed.
Gas-condensate systems are becoming increasingly important
as higher pressure and temperature reservoirs are exploited. In
many instances, the economic value of the condensate
production far outweighs that of the gas. As a result, it is vital
to accurately characterize the reservoir and reservoir fluids in
order to maximize fluid recoveries and to accurately project
future cash flows.
This paper examines techniques to analyze gas-condensate
systems using the extended black-oil model suggested by
Coats1. To this end, a discussion of methods to convert
laboratory PVT data (constant volume depletion and constant

composition expansion experiments) to an extended black-oil
PVT model is provided.
As the pressure in the reservoir declines in a typical gascondensate system, condensate drops out of solution,
impeding the flow of gas due to relative permeability effects.
At lower pressures, however, it is possible for some of the
condensate to re-vaporize into the gas phase. This complex
PVT behaviour requires the use of numerical rather than
conventional analytical solutions to analyze well test
behaviour and to predict future production performance.
An extended production test on a horizontal well located in
a gas-condensate system was used as a case study. Initially, a
single-point well test was conducted with an extended shut-in
period exceeding one month. Subsequently, the well was
placed on production. Since permanent downhole gauges were
installed in the well upon initial completion, it was possible to
analyze the long-term production as part of the well test. Prior
to the well test, a series of fluid samples were collected and
constant volume depletion (CVD) and constant composition
expansion (CCE) tests were conducted on the fluid samples.
The laboratory experiments allowed derivation of extended
black-oil PVT properties for use in the numerical modelling of
the well test and long-term production history of the well.
In general, well tests with their limited production times
and, correspondingly, limited investigation depths into the
reservoir often yield non-unique solutions. It was anticipated
that the long-term production and pressure data available for
the well would allow for a more unique reservoir
The intent of the case study was to characterize the
reservoir and reservoir fluid properties, initial fluid
distributions, assess the impact of multiphase flow on the well
test and to predict future production performance for the well.
Of particular importance was the estimation of a long-term
deliverability profile for purposes of nominating gas plant
capacity and for project economic purposes.
A conventional black oil model is represented by two
hydrocarbon pseudo-components, oil and gas. The oil
component can exist only in the oil phase, while gas can exist
in both the gas and oil phases. Additionally, all PVT

Linear Flow – Linear flow is characterized by a half-slope on both the log-log pressure and log-log pressure derivative SPE 71588 plots. all reported fluid volumes were converted to standard conditions using the PVT characterization for the reservoir fluid. in general. This flow regime continues until the upper and lower reservoir boundaries are detected. This case study consisted of an extended production test for a horizontal well in a gascondensate reservoir. however the basic idea is to set the solution oil gas ratio (rs) to the measured values from the CVD experiment accounting for separator conditions. The stabilization in the pressure derivative is dictated by the far field kh. In this flow regime. The reservoir fluid streamlines become horizontal and are directed to the wellbore. numerical well test analysis was required to allow the complex gascondensate PVT characterization developed for this well to be directly incorporated into well test analysis. Further. The relationship between compositional and black-oil properties is detailed in the Appendix. Then a material balance on each step of the CVD experiment is performed. 1. a maximum of 140m of the well length was in the higher quality dolomitic reservoir. The Appendix provides a series of compressiblity equations for the extended black-oil treatment. the oil formation volume factor (Bo). In an extended black oil model there are still two components. An explanation of the flow regimes indicated in the figure follow2: Wellbore Storage – Wellbore storage is characterized by a unit slope on the log-log pressure derivative plot in earlytime. Since the case study involved a horizontal well test. a horizontal well behaves essentially as a vertical well in a narrow channel. R. This solubility is called the condensate-gas ratio (or rs). was believed to have low permeability. The case study well was located within a carbonate reef. supported by offset well drilling results.2 R. it may mask the vertical radial flow regime. However. This flow regime is similar to radial flow in a vertical well. One unique problem associated with this test was the production data was reported at separator conditions. A drawdown period of 109 hours in duration was followed by a shut-in period of about 850 hours.A HARISCH. PUCHYR. it was possible to analyze the subsequent long-term production period in conjunction with the well test using a single numerical reservoir model. Reservoir parameters that influence the duration of this flow regime include kh and horizontal well length. Due to the presence of permanent downhole pressure gauges. Horizontal Radial Flow – Horizontal radial flow is characterized by a zero slope on the log-log pressure derivative plot in late time. Coats has shown that this two-component PVT model yields results similar to more rigorous multi-component compositional models when only pressure depletion cases are considered. indicated the best portions of the reservoir had a significant quantity of dolomite. and the solution gas-oil ratio (Rs). The remainder of the well was located in the poor quality limestone. A series of . it is identical to wellbore storage for conventional vertical wells though. along with a discussion of black-oil property constraints required to achieve physically meaningful results. the value is typically larger than for vertical wells as a consequence of the larger wellbore volume.Introduction A field case study was analyzed using the techniques for conversion of the laboratory PVT experiments to extended black-oil PVT parameters. The well test itself was a single-point test. Case Study . An additional matching parameter is to ensure the calculated gas density matches measured values. however.J. occurring just after wellbore storage. This allows direct calculation of the reciprocal gas formation volume factor (Eg). the multiphase flow characteristics of the system were considered an important modelling characteristic. This regime continues until the drainage area becomes much larger than the length of the horizontal well. Vertical Radial Flow – Vertical radial flow is characterized by a zero slope on the log-log pressure derivative plot in early time. the oil component can now have solubility in the gas phase (in addition to gas solubility in the oil phase). the reservoir fluid streamlines become parallel to the upper and lower reservoir boundaries. The calculation is complicated. Coats also provided a technique for calculating the extended black oil PVT properties of the fluid to honor both the constant volume depletion data and the multi-stage flash experimental results. Due to the complexities of the fluid system. Conceptually. The surrounding limestone. During linear flow. BACHMAN. honoring the liquid dropout volumes and oil density. Due to the large wellbore storage effect found in horizontal wells. and again is a function of pressure alone. Reservoir parameters that influence the duration of vertical radial flow include kv to kh ratio and formation thickness. a review of horizontal well flow regimes is instructive. Although the horizontal well was nearly 800m in length.C. An idealized horizontal well test exhibits the log-log pressure derivative response illustrated in Fig. due to liquid dropout. rather than at standard conditions required for use in the numerical modelling. The only issue with this approach is that dew point values for oil properties (Bo and Rs) are not well defined as no liquid is present. As a result. PVT Characterization Separator fluid samples from the horizontal well were retrieved and recombined to separator conditions. occurring after the linear flow period. Standard extrapolation of sub-dew point properties to the dew point can lead to situations where the oil has a nonphysical negative compressibility. P. G. Geological analysis. STRASHOK parameters including gas solubility in the oil (called the solution gas-oil ratio or Rs) can be expressed as functions of pressure alone. In this flow regime fully developed radial flow between the wellbore and the upper and lower boundaries of the reservoir occurs.

special core analysis was not available for this well. The flow rates. 6. Basic Data The goal of the history matching effort was to achieve an acceptable history match for both the well test and the extended production history using a single. Recent studies4. The actual field separator configuration is schematically illustrated in Fig. A relatively small change in pressure (4. 3). Gas and oil (condensate) production data for the well was reported at a variety of conditions throughout the productive life of the well. The first stage’s liquid is assumed to go to a second stage separator at standard conditions (Fig. a standard phase envelope versus gas mole fraction was constructed. relative permeability characteristics were estimated using typical values for a gas-condensate system.717 kPa was obtained. as illustrated in Fig.SPE 71588 EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA experiments were performed to characterize the gascondensate fluid. which account for approximately 20 percent of the gas volume. As can be seen from the phase envelope the fluid system is within a few mole percent of being classified as a volatile oil. 2 plots the liquid dropout versus declining pressure occurring throughout the experiment. also referred to as the critical condensate saturation. wellbore storage coefficient and skin factor. This last step must be accomplished using either a mathematically characterized EOS package or the extended black oil properties previously described. In a conventional gas-oil-water system. have suggested that low critical condensate saturations. Daily oil and gas rates for the long-term production period were recorded at conditions that did not represent standard conditions of either the gas or oil.7 oC • a constant volume experiment at reservoir temperature • a two stage flash separator experiment with the dew point fluid • measurement of the gas viscosity above the dew point pressure Following the experimental work. The gas volumes reported were metered values from the first stage separator. are shown in Table 4. often in the range of 25 to 50 percent. corrected to surface conditions using standard orifice correction factors. For our purposes.137 kPa) from the initial dew point pressure of 31. Oil viscosities were not directly measured but were calculated using the ChristensenFredenslund technique3. Unfortunately. The low residual oil saturation is further supported by the history match. The model was run with specified gas production rates (historical field gas production rates corrected to standard conditions) and reservoir. H2S and N2.717 kPa resulted in significant amounts of liquid drop out in the reservoir (in excess of 32 percent). The oil and gas rates at first stage separator pressure and temperature were then known. 5. and its proper effect on reservoir performance must be accounted for. effective horizontal well length. Since the PVT representation consisted of a two pseudo-component system. while Table 2 shows the fluid properties from the constant volume depletion experiment. reported production data assumes the well undergoes a two stage separation process. ranging from 7 to 15 percent. the numerical model required volumes input at standard conditions. the residual oil saturation is typically much higher. Liquid rates from the first stage separator were metered and reported without regard to further flashing of this liquid to surface conditions. The composition of the recombined reservoir fluid is presented in Table 1. it was necessary to convert the reported volumes to standard conditions using the PVT characterization. are reasonable in gas-condensate systems.717 kPa. This was accomplished by inverting the pressure and temperature corrections of the standard orifice calculation. a solution gas-oil ratio (GOR) of 653. At separator conditions. The single-point well test was analyzed first to determine general model characteristics such as reservoir permeability.500 kPa and 35 oC. The total reported gas production includes non-hydrocarbon gases such as CO2. The laboratory CVD experiments were used to derive extended black oil PVT properties as detailed in the Background section of this paper. Separator conditions during the well test were 3. These experiments consisted of: • • a compositional analysis of the fluid a constant composition experiment at the reservoir temperature of 103. The first stage gas stream is assumed to contain no more liquid and its volume is simply corrected for pressure and temperature effects to get volumes at standard conditions. Fig.0 m3/m3 and a condensate-gas ratio (CGR) of 1. . During the long term production history of the well liquid drop-out will be significant. The dew and bubble point lines converge at the critical point. As a result. A value of 10 percent was initially chosen for the residual oil saturation. Therefore. 4. These calculations resulted in the PVT properties shown in Table 3 and illustrated in Fig. incorporating an extended black-oil reservoir simulation model that explicitly modelled the complex PVT behaviour of 3 the fluid system. The general model developed from the well test analysis was then incorporated into an extended black-oil simulator to history match the historical long-term production data.1101 m3/m3 at the dew point pressure of 31. gas volumes were first re-converted to volumes at first stage separator pressure and temperature. well and fluid parameters were adjusted until the produced oil rate and bottomhole pressure matched observed field values. Unfortunately. corrected to standard conditions as previously outlined. Of note was the low residual oil saturation in the presence of gas (Sorg). To compute actual surface volumes of gas and oil. This in turn led to various different liquid-gas ratios reported for the well over time. This mixture was flashed using the known PVT properties of the fluid to give oil and gas rates at standard conditions. the fluid was mathematically characterized using the Peng-Robinson equation of state with 16 components. The initial composition of the fluid is the dew point entry at the 31. was used to analyze the well test. Numerical well test analysis software. cohesive numerical model.

rather than an acid fracture treatment. As a result. Geological analysis indicated the effective horizontal well length (that which is within dolomite rather than limestone) was between approximately 70 and 140m. STRASHOK Other parameters input into the numerical well test model included: Porosity: 7 percent Initial water saturation. PUCHYR. 1. Therefore. Other model parameters. One possible remedy would be to incorporate additional negative skin. Pi: 33.800 kPa Well skin factor.75 md Formation thickness. Despite the intermittent pressure data. It was discovered it was possible to achieve an acceptable match between the pressure data and the model-generated pressure response for the dry gas model. the gas-condensate PVT properties.717 kPa Single-point Well Test Analysis The build-up pressure derivative response (Fig. given that the well was only subject to a foamed acid wash. After a series of model runs. resulting in a poor pressure match. Additional case studies with more severe and extended drawdowns are required to verify this postulation. A schedule of volumes used in the model is presented in Table 4.J. kv: 0. Most of the pressure points represent flowing BHP. rather than multiphase flow effects.4 R. although in some cases limited shut-in periods preceded the pressure measurement. reservoir thickness. h: 25m Initial reservoir pressure. Although permanent downhole gauges were installed in the well. The pressure history is presented on the history match plots (Figs. as illustrated conceptually in Fig. kh: 0. One-month average daily production rates were input into the model. It is noted the BHP dropped below the dew point pressure of the fluid system for only a portion of the drawdown period of the single-point well test. In addition to the published literature supporting this conclusion. however. extending out for a distance of only 3 meters. for this study. formation thickness and skin require further explanation. Tres: 104 oC Dew point pressure. the history match of the extended . a kv:kh ratio of 1:1). a reasonable compromise was struck between effective horizontal well length and the skin factor. It was possible to moderate the reduction in formation thickness with a corresponding increase in vertical SPE 71588 permeability. the negative skin required to achieve a match with a shorter well was unrealistically large.C. except that the case study well does not appear to enter horizontal radial flow in late-time. 11 and 12). in order to match the time at which the vertical radial flow regime ended.25 Effective well length. Thereafter. it was assumed that the vertical permeability would be no larger than the horizontal permeability (that is. however. 8 and 9 illustrate the cartesian pressure and log-log pressure derivative matches. the effective horizontal well length determined from the modelling is consistent with the geological interpretation. Swi: 25 percent Reservoir Temperature. If the horizontal well length was reduced further in the model. 7) for the case study horizontal well is consistent with the idealized derivative response presented previously in Fig. the formation thickness was reduced. As a result. The geological interpretation indicated a formation thickness of between 50 and 75m compared to the 25m formation thickness determined from the well test. BACHMAN. R. Of the results presented above. cw: 1. Pdew: 31. 10. Increasing the formation thickness in the model resulted in a significantly delayed transition from the vertical radial flow to the linear flow regime. depending on the porosity cutoff value chosen.75 md Vertical permeability. The following summarizes the findings of the well test analysis: Horizontal permeability. Extended Production Period Analysis Following the test. all volumes input into the model were converted from separator conditions to standard conditions using the PVT characterization developed for the well. S: -3. As noted previously. The PVT properties for the dry gas model were chosen to mimic. respectively. the well was tied-in to a gas gathering system for continuous production. the effective horizontal well length. governed by reservoir permeabilities and geometry. then the pressure drawdown for a given gas production rate increased. P. The formation thickness required to achieve a history match was considerably lower than originally suggested by geological analysis. the well flowed at gas rates between approximately 40 and 60 103m3/d with corresponding condensate production rates of 40 m3/d. Sorg.8 x 10-4 m3/kPa Distance to boundaries: No boundaries Figs. It is possible that multiphase flow effects may become more dominant in the pressure response of the system if the BHP were at a pressure much less than the dew point pressure for an extended period of time. pressure data was recorded from these gauges sporadically. A much lower value of residual oil saturation.A HARISCH. was used in this model than typically used in a conventional oilgas-water system. as closely as possible within the limits of a single-phase PVT characterization. As a result. A review of the saturation profile for the gas-condensate model indicated a condensate saturation of 10 to 15 percent. G. a good match between the observed and the model-generated pressures and oil production rates was obtained. on average. In order to assess the impact of multiphase effects on the well test pressure response. dominated the pressure response of the system during the well test. such as horizontal well length. a dry gas numerical model was constructed for comparative purposes. This suggested the horizontal well flow regimes. Lw: 125m Wellbore storage coefficient. a relatively small amount of condensate dropped out of solution in the reservoir. a reasonably clear indication of the pressure trend was evident from the data. The character of the pressure derivative response for the dry gas case was very similar to that of the gas-condensate case. permeabilities and the wellbore storage coefficient were identical to those of the gas-condensate numerical model.

beginning at approximately 33. Production plots for the predictive cases are contained in Figs. A properly conducted CVD experiment can be used to develop an extended black-oil PVT characterization suitable for numerical modelling. Further history matching efforts using these two general models yielded successful matches between observed and model calculated bottom-hole pressure.5 ha) with a far-field permeability of 0.75 md near the wellbore (extending out over an area of 35. significant recharge of the higher permeability rock in the vicinity of the wellbore is expected to occur. Like the limited reservoir model. outer region slowly recharged the partially depleted inner region. the model calculated BHP did not match observed values from the downhole gauges as the pressure in the infinite-acting reservoir model did not show any significant decline. Case 2 represented the recharge model in which the region surrounding the wellbore contained rock of much higher permeability than the outer region.8 MPa and declining to near 15 MPa by January 1998. 6. Due to the complex PVT behaviour of a gas-condensate system. The most significant observation was that the well detected some form of reservoir boundary or permeability reduction away from the wellbore during the course of the extended production history. As observed from Table 5. 2. this may not be the most realistic of the predictive cases. A summary of results for the predictive cases are presented in Table 5. For this well test. depending on which model is applied. the inner region depleted relatively quickly and gas from the tight.001md. both the recharge case and the limited reservoir case yielded similar pressure responses over the limited time period considered during the history match. It was discovered that higher residual oil saturations resulted in low condensate recovery. numerical rather than analytical techniques were required to more accurately model the reservoir. The current geological description has regions of moderate permeability and porosity (dolomitic reservoir) encased by poor quality (low permeability and porosity) limestone. The long-term data indicated that either a limited reservoir or a low far-field permeabilty reservoir was present. Using the numerical models described previously. the decline was far less severe than in the limited reservoir model. much of the condensate that dropped out of the gas was trapped in the reservoir as a residual saturation and. Case 2: As in Case 1. the geological description is more consistent with the recharge case of a low outer region permeability. A low residual oil saturation (Sorg) was required to match the field observed data. whichever occurred first. Instead. While it is possible that the reservoir is of limited dimensions. appeared dominant. the quantity of fluid influxed into the inner region was small relative to the total volume originally in-place. It was vital to convert the reported volumes from separator conditions to standard conditions for modelling purposes. in the long-term. 3. as a result. This is consistent with other published data. however. 2018 or when the production volumes became uneconomic. the gas and condensate production rates dropped very quickly and the ultimate recovery was limited compared to Case 2 (approximately half that of the Case 2).5 m3/d (3 BCPD) of condensate were applied as economic limits. Long-term production and pressure data improved the quality of the model description. . At high Sorg. 13 and 14. As the well was produced. the long-term deliverability of the well will be substantially different. with a limited drawdown period below the fluid dew point. Case 1 represented the limited reservoir predictive case. Thus. This led to the conclusion that the pressure decline was caused by either a limited reservoir or a composite reservoir in which the permeability away from the wellbore was very low (hereinafter referred to as the recharge case). 5 All prediction forecasts were run until January 1.5 ha for the limited reservoir case and a composite permeability of 0. A review of the historical downhole gauge data suggests that the pressure declined significantly over the extended production period. 4. the model-generated condensate production at the well dropped dramatically. relative to observed field data. Production rates of approximately 2. However. 5. compared to the actual observed field production. a series of performance predictions were created as follows: Case 1: The well was forecast to produce against a bottom hole pressure (BHP) of 5500 kPa (equivalent to a tubing head pressure of 1500 kPa). horizontal well fluid flow regimes. however. multiphase effects appeared to have minimal impact on the pressure response of the system. This required the use of the PVT characterization developed from the CVD experiments. Conclusions 1. As expected with such a limited drainage area. It was discovered that the best history matches were obtained using a drainage area of 35. but replaced a reasonable portion of the total produced gas and condensate. Based on the geological interpretation and analysis of well test data from an offset well. driven by reservoir permeability and geometry.8 103m3/d (100 Mcfd) of gas and 0. Since the rate of recharge from the tight rock in the recharge case was very low.SPE 71588 EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA production period confirmed the requirement for a low Sorg. the numerical model was constructed to provide the capability for predicting future deliverability for purposes of plant and gathering system nominations and project economics. except that the recharge reservoir model was used. Predictions In addition to providing a means to characterize the reservoir and fluid properties. the recharge model predicted gas and condensate production to decline sharply. The basic numerical model developed during the well test analysis portion of this study was used without modification for the initial history match of the extended production period. The limited drainage area reservoir model was used. When the model was run with an infinite-acting reservoir.

Vol. This appendix describes the derivation of useful physical quantities in terms of the above four black oil   to ………………………………(A-1) References 2. Feb 1982. it will be shown that the critical pressure is determined entirely by the ratio parameters.J. ( . Denote the mass of component “c” in phase “p” as m cp . kPa-1 cw= wellbore storage coefficient. 157. A. ( ) ζ = ρ gSTC ρ oSTC . This is especially true if the simulation involves pressures near the critical pressure. dimensionless Swi= initial water saturation. which is not only physically unrealistic but also numerically troublesome.(A-3) The solution gas-oil ratio is defined as the stock tank volume of gas which dissolves in a given stock tank volume of oil for varying pressure. Journal of Petroleum Technology. Peden.D. in order to ensure the total compressibility remain finite as the critical point is approached. as defined by these tables. SPE Reservoir Engineering.M. kPa Rs= solution gas-oil ratio. But first define the ratio of the stock tank density of gas to the stock tank density of oil as 1. are consistent and do not lead to non-physical results.. . Most notably.P. 35. Henderson. and so on. m Pdew= dew point pressure. A dry gas model cannot account for condensate production. m3/m3 rw= wellbore radius. and does not depend at all on the volume factors. P.. the black oil properties are usually specified in the form of a table.e. It is not uncommon to define properties which lead to negative compressibility. BACHMAN. res volume/stock tank volume. Coats. 4. ……………………... Nomenclature Bg= gas formation volume factor. md Lw= effective horizontal well length. res m3/st m3 Bo= oil formation volume factor. “Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering”. G. Dake. J. A multiphase model was required for developing accurate performance predictions. percent Tres= reservoir temperature. SPE 10512. Chemical Engineering Science. res volume/stock tank volume.C. res m3/st m3 c= compressibility. L. ) Basic Notation The starting point for deriving expressions relating the black oil to compositional properties is to partition the total hydrocarbon mass into four parts. st m3/res m3 h= formation thickness. In addition. oC Subscripts h= horizontal v= vertical T= total o= oil g= gas SPE 71588 parameters. 5.H.V. Great care must be taken that the properties. G.(A-2) Conversely.6 R. and discusses the features that these parameters must have in order to ensure physical meaningfulness. Elsevier Science Publishers B. m k= permeability.. kPa Pi= initial reservoir pressure. Appendix – Compositional Properties in the Black Oil Formulation In the reservoir simulation. R. m3/kPa Eg= gas expansion factor. the total mass of each phase is mTg = m gg + m og mTo = m go + m oo . This is because the total compressibility is Sg  rs′ Bo − B g R s  S o  R s′ B g − Bo rs cT = −  B g′ − −  Bo′ − 1 − rs R s 1 − rs R s B g   B o  where the prime denotes the derivative with respect pressure. August 1991..: “Simulation of Gas Condensate Performance”. G. K. 1978.. February 1994.. “Experimental Investigation of Critical Condensate Saturation and Its Dependence on Interstitial Water Saturation in Water-Wet Rocks”. 294. 871. STRASHOK 7. 1980.. Danesh. i. “Data Acquisition and Interpretation of Horizontal Well Pressure Transient Tests”. i. PUCHYR. m go Rs = ρ gSTC m oo ρ oSTC = 1 m go . Lichtenberger. …………………….e. m3/m3 rs= solution oil-gas ratio. Then the total mass of gas component and the total mass of oil component in the system are m gT = m gg + m go m oT = m og + m oo 3. it is necessary for the quantities Bo − B g R s and B g − Bo rs to go to zero faster than 1 − rs Rs . 336. ζ m oo …………………….A HARISCH. m S= skin factor. SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation.. so that mog is the mass of the oil component in the gas phase.. the condensate-gas ratio is the stock tank volume of oil component dissolved (vaporized) in a specific stock tank volume of gas component.(A-4) Similarly. Christensen and Fredenslund. which is of significant economic value.

Critical Point It is a well-known property that at the critical point. m gg m gg yg = ……………………. The oil formation volume factor Bo is. and that the density. …………………(A-9) ζˆ + rs The K values can now be expressed explicitly as functions of pressure. Mole Fractions Letting the molecular weight of the gas and oil components be M g and M o . From equations (A-10). a phase property. includes that change in composition.. Furthermore. it follows that it is positive for all pressures below the critical.e. The critical pressure is the solution to equation (A-11). consider a given volume of the oil phase at reservoir conditions. y o rs ζˆR s + 1 ζˆ (1 − rs R s ) = = 1− Ko = xo ζˆ + rs ζˆ + rs Kg = yg = ( ( ) ) ( ) . 1 − rs R s ζˆR s + 1 = 1+ ˆ xg R s ζˆ + rs R s ζ + rs . the gas formation volume factor is the volume at reservoir conditions of a given amount of gas component (and associated oil component) relative to the volume at stock tank conditions of the same amount of gas component. the vapor mole fractions are Rs = rs R s = 1 1− Ko ζˆ K g − 1 Ko Kg . …………. . after some re-arrangement B gc Boc = ζ + rsc 1 + ζR sc = 1 R sc = rsc . and using equations (A-6) and (A-7) gives. it is clear that the K values become 1 when ……………………. i. So the oil formation volume factor is mTo ρ oSTC + R s ρ gSTC ρo ρ Bo = = oSTC (1 + ζR s ) = .. the ratios must equal the reciprocals of each other.(A-8) where ζˆ = ζ M o M g and the equations have been written out in agonizing detail to show how the unknown masses cancel.(A-11) 1 − rs R s = 0 so this provides a means of determining the critical pressure. and the latter relations follow from equation (A11). the K values must be 1. by definition..(A-10) We note in passing that the inversion of equations (A-10) gives Similarly. In exactly analogous fashion.(A-7)  1 + s  = Bg = = ρ g m gg ρg  ζ  ρg xg = mˆ gg 7 ….. ρ gSTC  m Tg ρ gSTC r  ρ gSTC + rs ρ oSTC . the above volume at reservoir conditions divided by the volume at stock tank conditions. When that volume to taken to stock tank conditions. but we re-derived here to show that the approach leads to expected results. and that at the critical pressure. It is a physical and computational requirement that at the critical point.. Equating the phase densities.(A-12) where the superscript c has been added to denote being at the critical point. m oo ρo ρO ρ oSTC (A-6) These latter expressions are the standard found in all references. Equations (A-11) and (A-12) place very strong restrictions on the black oil curves as they approach the critical point. namely. the densities of the gas and oil phases must be equal. then the liquid mole fractions are defined mˆ go mˆ go + mˆ oo = ζˆR s m oo ζˆR s m oo + m oo = ζˆR s ζˆR + 1 s mˆ oo m oo 1 xo = = = mˆ go + mˆ oo ζˆR s m oo + m oo ζˆR s + 1 mˆ Tg mˆ og mˆ Tg ζˆ = = ζˆ + rs rs . since 1 − rs R s is zero only at the critical point and is positive at stock tank conditions. The thing to keep in mind here is that the composition has changed. and using a caret to denote mass in moles. the volume generally will have shrunk due to the evolution of gas.(A-5) yo = ρ gSTC For the oil formation volume factor.SPE 71588 EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA m og rs = m og ρ oSTC =ζ .. Note that it depends only on the ratio’s and not on the formation volume factors. leaving only functions of pressure.

.A HARISCH. With these identities..(A-14) This expression completely determines the phase behavior as a function of pressure.. it is assumed that the pressure is not at the critical point. The general flash equation is ∑ c z c (1 − K c ) =0. the total mole fractions are fixed. This will be done starting from the phase density. m oo = m oT − m og rs m gg ζ r − s m gT − m go ζ rs m gT − ζR s m oo − ζ = m oT − …….8 R. ρ oSTC 1 − rs R s . R.. PUCHYR. Conversely. the phase volumes can now be expressed in terms of the pressure functions. In this section. Defining the stock tank volume ratio as ξ= V gSTC VoSTC = ζξ m oT ……………………………. BACHMAN.(A-16) gives a convenient single parameter for the total composition of the hydrocarbon system in the volume representation. m oT = ρ oSTC VoSTC .e.J..     dew-point curve. then it is possible to determine the amount of material in each phase by doing a flash calculation. and that obtained for f L equal to 1 is the bubble point curve. 1 + ζˆξ ………. and using the following definitions and identities.. STRASHOK Flash Calculation If the K values are known for a given total composition.C. and they define the two-phase envelope for the fluid. Phase Volumes The above flash calculation determines the mass in the liquid phase in terms of the total composition. 1 − rs R s ……………………(A-21) Of course in equations (A-20) and (A-21). K c + (1 − K c ) f L …………………(A-13) where the summation is over all the components. The amount of hydrocarbon in the system is specified by the volumes at stock tank conditions. For constant composition expansion... . the volume of each phase will be determined in a manner totally independent of the flash. f L can be fixed. by starting simply with the phase density definition.. Vg = = mTg ρg = (m gg + rs m gg ζ )B g ρ gSTC + rs ρ oSTC m gg B g ρ gSTC = V gSTC . G. ……………………(A-15) With this definition. On a plot of z g versus pressure.(A-19) ) ) Re-arranging and dividing through by the total mass of oil component gives m oo 1 − rs ξ = . and equation (A-14) used to determine the mole fraction in the gas phase as a function of pressure. 5. m oT 1 − rs R s ……………………(A-20) and similarly m gg m gT = 1 − Rs ξ .(A-23) . Using this and equation (A-1) gives The analogous steps for the oil phase give Vo = m oo Bo 1 − rs ξ = VoSTC Bo . P. and f L = mˆ To mˆ TT is the liquid fraction.. it is implicitly assumed that the solution gas-oil ratio and the condensate-gas ratio are zero at stock tank conditions..(A-17) and zg = mˆ gT = mˆ gT + mˆ oT ζˆξ . and z c = mˆ cT mˆ TT is the total mole fraction of component c. the curve obtained when f L is zero is the m gT = ρ gSTC V gSTC m gT SPE 71588 ( = m oT ( = m oT ………. Substituting the above expressions for the K values and re-arranging gives  1− r R s s 1 −  zg =  ˆ ζ + rs   1 + ζˆR s ζˆ    fL  . An example of this is seen in Fig. and equation (A-14) shows how the liquid fraction changes with pressure.(A-18) Now an interesting identity expressing the amount of the oil component in the oil phase can be derived as follows.(A-22) 1 − Rs ξ Bg 1 − rs R s ……………………………. These two curves intersect at the pressure determined by equation (A-11). i.

that is not a good idea because the saturations are functions of pressure. This section derives an expression for the total compressibility in terms of the above quantities. ξ= S g Bo + S o B g R s S o B g + S g Bo rs .. .SPE 71588 EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA The total hydrocarbon volume is.(A-31) where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to pressure... S g = 1 − S o . S o B g + S g Bo rs S g Bo + S o B g R s ………………………………………………. V ∂P cT = − . in which case equation (A-31) becomes cT = − and ……………………………. Using the above equations gives So = (1 − rs ξ )Bo (ξ − R s )B g + (1 − rs ξ )Bo . Saturation The amount of each component in the system is arbitrary. The oil saturation by definition is S o = Vo VT . note in passing that ξ − Rs = S g Bo (1 − rs R s ) ………. with the result ………. the total hydrocarbon volume is Bo B g Bo B g VT = VoSTC = V gSTC . ………. should both be non-zero at reservoir conditions. 9 Sg So B o′ − B g R s′ − B ′g . of course. and shows that the resulting expression reduces to the expected relation for the strictly black-oil ( rs = 0 ). To be sure. and equation (A-31) becomes cT = − Sg So B o′ − B g′ − Bo rs′ . as seen in Dake [ref..(A-28) With these relations. and it would preferable to express the equations in terms of saturations rather than the initial stock tank volumes. to express the stock tank volume ratio in terms of the saturation at any pressure.(A-30) Although it is tempting to use equation (A-29) to compute the total compressibility. the oil saturation. The saturation can be related to the initial composition as follows. as Coates did in reference 1. It contains constants which reflect the composition of the system.(A-25) This can be inverted. .(A-24) This expression is entirely general. then R s and it’s derivative are both zero. This is the primary result. Compressibility is defined in general as c=− 1 ∂V . the saturation representation will be used. but only after doing the differentiation by substituting equation (A-24) in equation (A30). and gas condensate.. just the sum of these two.. When gas does not dissolve in the oil. the gas condensate case. it would be prudent to ensure that it reduces to known results for the cases of strict black-oil. In reservoir engineering terms. Special Cases Since the above result is new. In strict black-oil. ……………………(A-26) an expression with marvelous symmetry. Bo Bb ( ) again the expected result for gas condensates. 5].(A-27) S o B g + S g Bo rs These equations can be used to solve for the volumes and saturation in a constant composition expansion. VT = V oSTC (ξ − R s )B g + (1 − rs ξ )Bo 1 − rs R s . 1]. Total Compressibility It is a physical and computational requirement that the total hydrocarbon compressibility be positive for the full range of pressures and saturations encountered in the simulation.. and Coats [ref. and explicitly known functions of pressure. Because of the frequency with which certain combinations occur. ( 1 − rs ξ = S o B g (1 − rs R s ) S o B g + S g Bo rs . Bo Bg ( ) which is the conventional black-oil result. the oil component does not vaporize at all. Doing the derivative and then replacing ξ by the saturation is tedious but straightforward. after some re-arrangement. so rs = 0 and so is the derivative. which gives.(A-29) ) ( ) Sg  rs′ Bo − B g R s  S o  R s′ B g − Bo rs   B ′g − −  Bo′ −  B g  1 − rs R s 1 − rs R s  B o   ………………………………………………. and is defined by VoSTC and V gSTC . and for the gas condensate ( R s = 0) cases. S o ... The amounts are arbitrary except that there should be enough of each component that both phases exist at reservoir conditions.. and the gas saturation. It does so in a general two component formuation.

150 100. STRASHOK Discussion Based on the familiar saturation weighted average concept.850 3.705 1.595 5. the requirement of equal density as the critical point makes the numerator of the term also zero.113 0.475 2. G.644 0.160 78.J. P.375 9.449 0.(A-32) One of the ultimate objectives was to ensure that the total compressibility was positive for all pressures and saturations expected in any simulation.151 86. PUCHYR.151 72.971 11.190 92.200 98.10 R.406 7.903 23.925 1. However. However.043 30.296 0.124 72.535 3.986 1.070 44.420 0.228 0.836 3. Equation (A-31) makes it possible to compute the total compressibility in terms of the known functions of pressure. the individual phase compressibilities can clearly be identified in equation (A-31) as Bo − B g R s    B g′ − rs′  1 − rs R s   B g − B o rs  1  co = −  Bo′ − R s′  Bo  1 − rs R s  cg = − 1 Bg ………. SPE 71588 Table 1 – Composition of Recombined Reservoir Fluid Mo1ecular Weight % Mole % Component Weight CO2 H2S N2 C1 C2 C3 i-C4 n-C4 i-C5 n-C5 C6 mcyc-C5 BENZENE cycl-C6 C7 mcycl-C6 TOLUENE C8+ 44. then the total compressibility must also be positive. BACHMAN.965 34. Care must be taken in specifying the PVT properties to ensure that the entire term remains finite at the critical pressure.964 1.. and thereby validate the PVT properties.C.015 55.110 82.124 58.160 0.969 1. it is possible for one of the phase compressibilities to go negative while the total compressibility remains positive.916 0.A HARISCH.454 2.097 58.080 28.159 0.365 1.540 3. Notice that if the compressibility of each phase is always positive. R. this can be overly restrictive.301 0.745 2.010 34.458 0.078 4. Notice also that as the pressure approaches critical pressure.949 .140 3.022 4.252 1.200 84.013 16.976 0. the denominator of the transfer term in equations (A31) and (A-32) goes to zero.

852 0.585 77.926 59.700 17.000 11 Displaced Vapor Density (g/cm3) (psia) 4600 (kPaa) 31717 4000 27580 48.761 89.958 102.64 0.478 0.694 0.22 0.32 0.78 0.0324 Calculated Produced Gas Properties Pressure Vapor Produced Per Step 4000 (kPaa) 27580 (gmol) (1) 0.26 0.436 34.8250 36.42 0.75 0.79 0.8542 27.5774 78.868 0.346 0.8252 37.8286 32.5868 2000 13790 0.9581 25.673 73.3296 44.SPE 71588 EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA Pressure Table 2 – Constant Volume Depletion Data (@103.5565 18961 0.1883 2000 13790 68.891 9.478 18.0724 9.0757 10.1384 18.2108 28.20 0.391 22.26 0.6655 562 3875 0.226 127.2403 2750 18961 53.1275 1500 10343 69.370 24.386 5.0548 7.6184 1000 6895 0.7 oC) Raw Experimental Data Vapor Volume Equilibrium Equilibrium Total Volume Displaced Liquid Volume Vapor Volume (cm3) 3 3 (cm3) (cm ) (cm ) 68.694 0.826 21.42 (gmol) (1) 0.0548 3250 22409 2750 Cumulative Vapor Produced (%) (1) Res Relative % Liquid (2) (Vol%) Liquid Density (3) (g/cm3) 7.0870 11.000 68.707 77.3291 3250 22409 52.955 10.5016 67.94 0.887 0.829 0.713 24.6948 (psia) (%) (1) Vapor Z Factor .97 0.0600 562 3875 110.065 20.0935 1000 6895 83.076 0.184 25.55 0.413 90.8421 36.81 0.09 0.0837 11.5096 0.1188 16.90 0.804 22.33 0.

30000 2.6300 269.000 45.43 0.530 62.300 40.32 0.000 16 720.083 11 720.060 0.100 0.29 0.06694 1.6587 0.60 33000 638.39 35000 697.048 0.028 0.659 0.01510 665.4370 232.8865 0.21739 1.7832 0.881 0.859 52.00 6895 51.779 55.01432 1.06191 563.2276 0.500 0.196 0.8489 164.000 35. Solution OGR.800 1.05159 Oil Formation Volume Factor. P.0000 0.40 60.05670 523.01670 636.00207 1. G.304 0.58 1. Bo (res m3/st m3) 1.03990 509.20000 2.100 0.000 44.822 12 744.07003 598.6491 0.40 93.34 0.A HARISCH.56306 2.776 127.0000 0.04 0.2984 0.68 0.892 Gas Viscosity (mPa-s) 0.50 18961 159.2399 60.08808 Oil Formation Volume Factor.000 5 863.2173 0.496 0.750 0.63 0.000 4 65.02820 556.02820 556.13 0.20 Stage 1 Press 3500 kPa Stage 2 Press 101 kPa Gas Density at standard conditions (kg/m3) 0.9782 Stage 1 Temp 35 oC Stage 2 Temp 15. PUCHYR.50 10343 103.6314 0.70 491.250 57.33 0.3767 225.12 487.03990 509.2075 0.000 6 468.10 31717 600.6000 250.34247 1.000 51.000 0.00 1.253 42.54 1.01880 618.2368 0.1943 Gas expansion factor.86 Table 4 – Flow Period Details (All flow rates converted to standard conditions) Gas Rate Cond Rate Wtr Rate Flow Duration Gas Rate Cond Rate (103m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d) Period (hours) (103m3/d) (m3/d) 117.3769 90.527 112. Solution OGR.62305 2.61 0.40 127.02712 2.4415 92.892 Gas Viscosity (mPa-s) 0.19 523.917 Wtr Rate (m3/d) 0.481 0.177 0.50 10343 145.20000 2.80 188.60 329.028 0.6826 0.50 240.50 13790 195.30 22409 331.000 53.94 0.000 41.000 0.01670 636.50 13790 151.000 9 528.500 100.6 oC Pressure (kPa) 3875 Solution GOR.30000 2. Eg (st m3/res m3) 31.3738 0.237 93.196 0. Eg (st m3/res m3) 30.000 15 744.J.000 34. BACHMAN.30 27580 477.620 0.50 240.05670 543.53 Long-term Production Separator Conditions Oil Stock Tank Density (kg/m3) 775.923 59.425 0.929 45.4926 121.0158 199.6200 255.000 0.80 Gas density (kg/m3) 32. R.060 0.09 0.8210 Oil viscosity (mPa-s) 0.06215 1.01510 665.524 10 744.02350 586.04385 1.000 8 192.000 42.491 13 744.000 2 17.000 .60 329.08754 1.1447 Gas expansion factor. STRASHOK SPE 71588 Table 3 – Black-oil PVT Properties Well test Separator Conditions Oil Stock Tank Density (kg/m3) 775.620 0.000 42.150 0.84 535.30 22409 354.30 27580 445.000 50.000 113.07003 554.6200 257.9753 193. Bo (res m3/st m3) 1.10 31717 653.12 R.40 60.523 77.C.6000 250.749 35.217 0.000 0.000 17 744.12 1.6 oC Pressure (kPa) 3875 Solution GOR.9782 Stage 1 Temp 38 oC Stage 2 Temp 15. rs Rs (m3/103 m3) (m3/m3) 20.682 0.5868 188.3001 61.84 459.03 1.3865 0.01400 Oil density (kg/m3) 694.475 0.02350 586.02838 1.34 1.425 0.80 188.417 0.9610 Oil viscosity (mPa-s) 0.77 35000 817.7686 0.810 40.85 0.2237 0.5635 124.20 Stage 1 Press 9000 kPa Stage 2 Press 101 kPa Gas Density at standard conditions (kg/m3) 0.150 0.6300 263.930 0.000 0.000 80. rs Rs (m3/m3) (m3/103 m3) 55.000 3 26.2627 0.01880 618.50 18961 316.05 0.522 0.565 40.000 0.29351 2.000 14 720.000 7 744.80 Gas density (kg/m3) 32.000 18 552.89 443.40 127.40 93.06191 534.102 0.67 33000 717.530 33.048 0.304 0.00 6895 92.598 Flow Period 1 Duration (hours) 0.01400 Oil density (kg/m3) 694.11001 2.426 58.000 50.

.9 6. 2 – Liquid dropout curve derived from the laboratory CCE experiment. 3 – Idealized separator configuration used in laboratory experiments and for conversion of measured field production volumes to standard conditons.2 n/a 07/01/04 Fig.0 42.3 32.5 55.5 104. 16.SPE 71588 Parameter Ultimate gas recovery Ultimate C5+ recovery Gas recovery factor C5+ recovery factor Gas influx into inner region at 01/01/2018 Well shut-in date EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA Table 5 – Prediction Case Summary Case 1 Case 2 (Limited reservoir) (Recharge case) 57.3 12.9 78. Fig. 1 – Typical horizontal well flow regimes and their associated log-log pressure and log-log pressure derivative responses.2 01/01/13 106m3 103m3 percent percent 13 Units 106m3 Fig.

C. Fig. 4 – Fluid PVT properties developed from CVD laboratory experiment. R. 6 – Actual field separator configuration. Tsep = 35 oC. .A HARISCH. G. Fig. 5 – Phase envelope for separator conditions of Psep = 3500 kPa. P.14 R. PUCHYR. BACHMAN. STRASHOK SPE 71588 Fig. Measurement of fluids occur at separator conditions. rather than standard conditions.J.

Fig.SPE 71588 EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA Fig. Model generated pressure response is indicated by solid line while field observed pressure response is denoted by symbols. 9 – Model generated pressure match (log-log pressure and pressure derivative) for the build-up portion of the well test. 10 – Effect of increasing formation thickness on the log-log pressure derivative. 7 – Observed pressure response (log-log pressure and pressure derivative plot) from the build-up portion of the singlepoint test. . Fig. 8 – Model generated pressure match. Increasing thickness results in delaying the onset of the linear flow period (indicated on the log-log derivative plot as a half-slope line). 15 Fig. Solid lines represent model generated parameters while symbols represent field observed pressures.

G. R. Fig. 11 . STRASHOK SPE 71588 Fig. Model generated results are presented as solid lines while observed data is presented as symbols.A HARISCH. Model generated results are presented as solid lines while observed data is presented as symbols.J.Long-term production history match for the limited reservoir case.16 R. 12 – Long-term production history match for the recharge case. BACHMAN. P. PUCHYR.C. .

Fig. 13 – Production performance prediction for the limited reservoir case.SPE 71588 EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA Fig. 17 . 14 – Production performance prediction for the recharge case.