Prediction of the performance of gas condensate reservoir

© All Rights Reserved

28 views

Prediction of the performance of gas condensate reservoir

© All Rights Reserved

- SPE-89905-PA.pdf---Well Test Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
- Well Performance Manual.pdf
- Ahmed, Tarek - Reservoir Engineering Handbook-789-804
- 2a2
- Crainmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
- Undersaturated Oil-gas Simulation - Impes Type Solution
- Dake 1978 Developments in Petroleum Science
- Introduction to CMGs TUTORIAL_2013_20.pdf
- Well Testing
- Double Porosity
- Proposal Kp Chevron (Reservoir Eng)
- Donde y cuando realizar los tratamientos para el control de agua
- SPE-9839-MS
- Analytical Modeling of Oil Production From a Matrix Block by Free
- Simulation of Formation Damage After Long-Term Water Flooding
- Note09
- SPrS
- 2014dceh4d03
- SPE30714 Fevang Whitson
- 5 Relative Permeability

You are on page 1of 13

Stage:

Page: 177

Total Pages: 13

Performance of Gas-Condensate

Reservoirs

Ali Al-Shawaf, SPE, Saudi Aramco; Mohan Kelkar, SPE, University of Tulsa; and

Mohammad Sharifi, SPE, Amirkabir University of Technology

Summary

Gas-condensate reservoirs differ from dry-gas reservoirs. The

understanding of phase and fluid flow-behavior relationships is

essential if we want to make accurate engineering computations

for gas-condensate systems. Condensate dropout occurs in the reservoir as the pressure falls below the dewpoint, resulting in significant gas-phase production decreases.

The goal of this study is to understand the multiphase-flow

behavior in gas-condensate reservoirs and, in particular, to focus on

estimating gas-condensate-well deliverability. Our new method

analytically generates the inflow-performance-relationship (IPR)

curves of gas-condensate wells by incorporating the effect of condensate banking as the pressure near the wellbore drops below the

dewpoint. The only information needed to generate the IPR is

the rock relative permeability data and a constant-compositionexpansion (CCE) experiment.

We have developed a concept of critical oil saturation near the

wellbore by simulating both lean and rich condensate reservoirs

and have observed that the loss in productivity caused by condensate accumulation can be closely tied to critical saturation. We are

able to reasonably estimate re-evaporation of liquid accumulation

by knowing the CCE data.

We validated our new method by comparing our analytical

results with fine-scale-radial-simulation-model results. We demonstrated that our analytical tool can predict the IPR curve as a

function of reservoir pressure. We also developed a method for

generating an IPR curve with field data and demonstrated its

application with field data. The method is easy to use and can be

implemented quickly. Another advantage of this method is that it

does not require the knowledge of accurate production data

including the varying condensate/gas ratio (CGR).

Introduction

Well productivity is an important issue in the development of most

low- and medium-permeability gas-condensate reservoirs. Liquid

buildup around the well can cause a significant reduction in productivity, even in lean gas-condensate reservoirs in which the maximal

liquid dropout in the CCE experiment is as low as 1% (Afidick

et al. 1994). Subsequently, accurate forecasts of productivity can be

difficult because of the need to understand and account for the complex processes that occur in the near-well region.

The production performance of a gas-condensate well is easy

to predict (similar to a dry-gas well) as long as the wells flowing

bottomhole pressure (FBHP) is above the fluid dewpoint pressure.

After the wells FBHP falls below the dewpoint, the well performance starts to deviate from that of a dry-gas well. Condensate

begins to drop out first near the wellbore. Immobile initially, liquid condensate accumulates until the critical condensate saturation (the minimal mobile condensate saturation) is reached. This

rich liquid zone grows outward deeper into the reservoir as depletion continues (Fevang and Whitson 1996).

C 2014 Society of Petroleum Engineers

Copyright V

This paper (SPE 161933) was accepted for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International

Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, 1114 November 2012, and revised for

publication. Original manuscript received for review 7 January 2013. Revised manuscript

received for review 3 April 2013. Paper peer approved 30 January 2014.

influenced by the value of gas relative permeability (Krg) near the

well compared with the value of Krg in the reservoir farther away.

The loss in productivity is more sensitive to the relative permeability curves than to fluid pressure/volume/temperature (PVT)

properties (Mott 1997).

The most-accurate way to calculate gas-condensate-well productivity is by fine-grid numerical simulation, either in singlewell models with a fine grid near the well or in full-field models

with use of local grid refinement. A large part of the pressure

drawdown occurs within 10 ft of the well, so that radial models

are needed with the inner grid cell having dimensions of approximately 1 ft (Mott 2003; Xiao and Al-Muraikhi 2004; Sharifi and

Ahmadi 2009).

Several investigators have estimated the productivity of gascondensate reservoirs, but not one of these methods is simple to use.

Some methods require the use of the modification of a finite-difference simulation process, whereas other methods use simplified simulation models (Guehria 2000; Xiao and Al-Muraikhi 2004; Ahmadi

et al. 2014). Our objective is to develop a simple, yet accurate, analytical procedure to estimate the productivity of gas-condensate reservoirs without running simulations. The only required data in our

method are the CCE data and the relative permeability curves. As

with other simplified methods, our new technique allows well-performance evaluation quickly without reservoir simulations.

In this study, we propose a new methodology for predicting

gas-condensate-reservoir performance with limited data (relative

permeability and PVT data). We know that the productivity index

(J) for single-phase gas is always higher than the productivity

index (J*) for two-phase flow; therefore, the productivity ratio

(J*/J) is always less than unity. By testing many cases, we found

that productivity ratio (J*/J) is strongly correlated to Krg (S*o) for

each relative permeability curve used. S*o is the oil saturation at

which oil becomes reasonably mobile. We define this critical saturation later. The main advantages of our method are being simple,

direct, and yet reasonably able to capture the behavior of the reservoir for most of the cases. It can predict the behavior that the

reservoir has before and after the average pressure is less than the

dewpoint pressure. The procedure does not need knowledge of the

producing CGR. The application of the proposed method is divided into two cases. In the first case, the average reservoir pressure is above the dewpoint pressure (Pd); in the second case, the

average reservoir pressure is below the Pd. For the first case, in

which initial reservoir pressure is above the dewpoint, we found

that the IPR curve can be explained by two straight linesone in

which bottomhole pressure (BHP) is above and one in which BHP

is below the dewpoint. Above the dewpoint, we can use a singlephase-flow equation; and below the dewpoint, we can modify the

slope with the relative permeability of oil at residual oil saturation

(ROS). We need only one set of observed production data to predict the entire IPR curve.

For the case in which average reservoir pressure (current reservoir pressure away from the wellbore) is below dewpoint, we

have only one curve below the dewpoint. We can predict the IPR

under these conditions if we have one set of production data available or if we have the relative permeability and CCE data available. We provide the details next.

ID: jaganm Time: 16:01 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/140011/APPFile/SA-REE#140011

177

Stage:

1.0

0.6

Rich Fluid

Near Wellbore

Region 1

Condensate

Buildup

Region 2

Single Phase

Gas

Region 3

Total Pages: 13

Lean Fluid

Intermediate Fluid

30%

25%

Two-Phase Gas-Oil

Flow

Liquid Saturation

0.8

Page: 178

0.4

20%

15%

10%

5%

0.2

rw = 0.35 ft

Swi = 0.25

0%

0.0

1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1000

2000

3000

4000

Pressure, psi

5000

6000

7000

Radius, ft

Fig. 1Three regions of flow behavior in gas-condensate well.

flow simulator to validate the results of our analytical approach.

Literature Review

Fevang and Whitson (1996) proposed a method for modeling the

deliverability of gas-condensate wells. Well deliverability is calculated with a modified Evinger-Muskat pseudopressure approach

(Evinger and Muskat 1942). The gas/oil ratio (GOR) needs to be

known accurately to use the pseudopressure integral method for

each reservoir pressure. Fevang and Whitson (1996) have developed a method to calculate the pseudopressure integral in the

pseudosteady-state gas-rate equation:

!

Pr

Krg

Kro

Rs

dp: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

qg C

Bg lg

Pwf Bo lo

To apply their method, we need to break the pseudopressure integral into three parts, corresponding to the three flow regions as

discussed next:

Region 1: An inner near-wellbore region as shown in Fig. 1 in

which both condensate and gas are mobile. It is the most important

region for calculating gas-condensate-well productivity because

most of the pressure drop occurs in Region 1. The flowing composition (GOR) within Region 1 is constant throughout, and a semisteady-state regime exists. This means that the single-phase gas

entering Region 1 has the same composition as the produced wellstream mixture. The dewpoint of the producing wellstream mixture

equals the reservoir pressure at the outer edge of Region 1.

Region 2: This is the region in which the condensate saturation is building up. The condensate is immobile, and only gas is

flowing. Condensate saturations in Region 2 are approximated by

the liquid-dropout curve from a constant-volume-depletion (CVD)

experiment, corrected for water saturation.

Region 3: This is the region in which no condensate phase

exists (above the dewpoint). Region 3 exists only in a gas-condensate reservoir that is currently in a single phase. It contains a single-phase (original) reservoir gas.

One of the major findings in Fevang and Whitson (1996) is that

the primary cause of reduced well deliverability within Region 1 is

Krg as a function of the relative permeability ratio (Krg/Kro) Fevang

and Whitsons approach is applicable for running coarse simulation

studies, in which the producing GOR is available from the prior

timestep.

In addition to the existence of multiphase flow, high-velocity

phenomena that include capillary number effect and non-Darcy

flow also can affect the well performance. Usually, at high velocity, non-Darcy flow has a negative effect, and the capillary number has a positive effect on well productivity (Blom and Hagoort

1998; Mott et al. 2000).

Guehria (2000) presented an approach to generate IPR curves for

depleting gas-condensate reservoirs without resorting to the use of

simulation. The producing GOR (Rp) is calculated with an expres178

Region 1. But his approach requires an iterative scheme by assuming that Rp at a given reservoir pressure generates IPR curves for

rich gas-condensate. Whereas, for lean gas-condensates, GOR values from the reservoir material-balance (MB) model are adequate to

achieve good results.

Later, Mott (2003) presented a technique that can be implemented in an Excel spreadsheet model for forecasting the performance of gas-condensate wells. The calculation uses an MB

model for reservoir depletion and a two-phase pseudopressure integral for well inflow performance. Motts method generates a

wells production GOR by modeling the growth of condensate

banking without a reservoir simulator.

All these methods do not provide a simple way of generating

IPR curves for condensate wells. The IPR curve as a function of

reservoir pressure is needed to accurately predict and optimize the

performance of the well.

Behavior of the Productivity Index in

Gas-Condensate Reservoirs

The pseudosteady-state rate equation for a gas well is given by

Fevang and Whitson (1996) and Kelkar (2008):

2p a Tsc khmPr mPwf

; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

re

0:75 S

TPsc ln

rw

where a1 for the SI units, a1=2p 142 for field units,

qsc gas flow, K permeability, h thickness, m (p) pseudopressure, T reservoir temperature, re drainage radius, and rw

wellbore radius. We can use this equation to estimate the gas-production rate when the BHP is above the dewpoint of reservoir fluids. This means that this equation is applicable only for singlephase gas flow. As soon as the BHP drops below the dewpoint

pressure of reservoir fluid, condensate begins to drop out, first

near the wellbore, and the well performance starts to deviate from

that of a dry-gas well. Liquid condensate accumulates until the

critical condensate saturation (the minimal mobile-condensate saturation) is reached. This liquid-rich bank/zone grows outward

deeper into the reservoir as depletion continues.

Liquid accumulation, or condensate banking, causes a reduction in the gas relative permeability, and acts as a partial blockage

to gas production, which leads to a potentially significant reduction in well productivity. To quantify the impact of gas-condensation phenomena, we have developed a method to generate the IPR

of gas-condensate reservoirs with analytical procedures. The main

idea of our research is to combine fluid properties (CCE or CVD

data) with rock properties (relative permeability curves) to arrive

at an analytical solution that is accurate enough to estimate the

IPR curves of gas-condensate reservoirs.

qsc

gas-condensate compositions were used to generate the rich, intermediate, and lean fluids represented in Fig. 2. The rich fluid is

May 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Stage:

Page: 179

Total Pages: 13

Distance X, ft

Rich

Gas

Intermediate

Gas

Lean

Gas

Dewpoint pressure (psia)

Reservoir temperature ( F)

Maximal liquid dropout (%)

7,000

5,400

200

26

5,500

3,250

260

20

5,000

2,715

340

8.5

3000

2000

Distance Y, ft

Parameters

1000

0

1000

2000

3000

1.55%, and decane (C10) 9.45%. The composition of lean and intermediate is the same, and we just use a 260 F temperature for

intermediate fluid and a 320 F for lean gas. The four components

are methane (C1) 60.5%, ethane (C2) 20%, propane (C3) 10%, and

decane (C10) 9.5%. The characteristics of the condensate mixtures

are outlined in Table 1. The Peng-Robinson three-parameter

equation of state (EOS) (PR3) was used to simulate phase behavior and laboratory experiments, such as CCE and CVD.

Reservoir Description. The Eclipse 300 compositional simulator was used for the simulation. A 1D radial compositional model

with a single vertical layer and 36 grid cells in the radial direction

is used as a test case, as shown in Fig. 3. Homogeneous properties

are used in the fine-scale model, as described in Table 2.

A single producer well exists at the center of the reservoir. The

model has been refined near the wellbore to accurately observe

the condensate-dropout effect on the production. For that purpose,

the size of the radial cells has been logarithmically distributed

with the innermost grid size at 0.25 ft, according to the following

equation:

1=N

ri1

re

; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ri

rw

where N is the number of radial cells in the model. Besides, with

very small gridblocks around the well, the timesteps have been

refined at initial times, which led to a very smooth saturation profile around the well. The fully implicit method was chosen for all

the runs.

Relative Permeability Curves. It already has been discussed

in the literature that relative permeability curves affect the gas

flow significantly in a gas-condensate reservoir after the pressure

falls below the dewpoint pressure. Accurate knowledge about relative permeability curves in a gas-condensate reservoir is essential. Unfortunately, the relative permeability curves are rarely

known accurately. It would be worthwhile if we could investigate

the effect of different relative permeability curves and study the

uncertainty they bring to the saturation buildup in gas-condensate

reservoirs.

Different sets of relative permeability curves were used in the

study. For two-phase relative permeability (oil and gas), these

curves were generated on the basis of Corey equations, as illustrated here:

OilSat

0.00000

0.11686

0.23372

0.35057

0.46743

where n is the gas relative permeability exponent, m is the oil relative permeability exponent, Sor is the ROS, a is endpoint gas relative permeability, and b is endpoint oil relative permeability.

Fractures (X-Curves) and intermediate and tight relative permeability curves were generated by changing n and m exponents

from 1 through 5 and changing Sor from 0 to 0.60. Fig. 4 shows

three sets of relative permeability curves. Corey-1 (X-curve) is

generated on the basis of n 1, m 1, and Sor 0. Corey-14 is

generated on the basis of n 3, m 4, and Sor 0.20. The third

curve, Corey-24 is generated on the basis of n 5, m 4, and

Sor 0.60.

Sensitivity Study. In this research, we have examined a large

number (more than 20) of relative permeability curves. The sensitivity study also examined the effects of fluid richness on gas productivity with two fluid compositions (lean and rich fluids).

The results of the sensitivity study were checked with simulation results. The simulation runs were performed under a constant-rate mode of production with the fine compositional radial

model. After testing this wide range of relative permeability

curves, we found that a very strong correlation exists between the

wells productivity-index (PI) ratio and Krg (S*o). Figs. 5 and 6

show that for all 24 different cases of relative permeability and for

both rich and lean fluids, respectively, the relationship between

the PI ratio and Krg (S*o) is linear with a strong correlation coefficient. The value of S*o is defined in a later section. The well PI ratio

is defined as

PI ratio

minimum well PI

: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

maximum well PI

time for a producing well. For this case, we used a single-well

Krg aSng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1 Sg Sor m

; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Kro b

1 Sor

Krg(Corey-1)

Kro(Corey-1)

Krg(Corey-14)

Kro(Corey-14)

Krg(Corey-24)

Kro(Corey-24)

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

Kr

RADIAL MODEL

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

Porosity (%)

Absolute permeability (md)

Reservoir height (ft)

Irreducible water saturation (%)

Rock compressibility (psi1)

20

10

100

0

4.0 106

0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Sg

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

ID: jaganm Time: 16:01 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/140011/APPFile/SA-REE#140011

179

Stage:

Page: 180

Rich-Krg(So*) vs PI Ratio

Total Pages: 13

lean-Krg(So*) vs PI Ratio

1.00

1.00

y = 1.1827x + 0.0337

0.80

0.80

y = 1.4857x + 0.0153

R2 = 0.9445

0.60

Krg(So*)

Krg(So*)

0.60

R2 = 0.9222

0.40

0.40

0.20

0.20

0.00

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

PI Ratio

0.80

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.40

0.60

PI Ratio

0.80

1.00

600

Radial Cell-1

Radial Cell-5

Radial Cell-10

Radial Cell-20

Radial Cell-30

Radial Cell-36

0.45

500

Min Well PI

PI Ratio =

Max Well PI

400

0.4

0.35

0.3

300

0.25

So

0.20

200

0.2

0.15

100

0.1

0

10

15

Time, Years

20

25

7,000 psi, and the well was producing with a constant-rate constraint of 20 MMscf/D. In this example, initial reservoir pressure

was above the dewpoint. We found that the PI ratio value is very

close to that obtained from the corresponding relative permeability curve Krg (S*o). This shows that, by using relative permeability

data, we are able to capture the behavior of the PI of a reservoir

without performing any simulation. The abrupt fall of PI happens

shortly after the FBHP falls below the Pd. After analyzing several

cases, we found that the PI ratio is very close to Krg (S*o).

Rich Fluid

Lean Fluid

500

450

Well PI, Mscfd/psi

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Time, Years

Fig. 9Well PI vs. time for the rich and lean fluids (same relative permeability curves).

180

0.05

0

10

15

Time, Years

20

25

time.

increases slightly before stabilizing. The slight increase in PI is a

result of the revaporization of oil and changing composition

(leaner fluid). This type of PI behavior is observed in the field

data in which, after the BHP drops below the dewpoint pressure,

PI decreases suddenly before stabilizing. Similar behavior also

was observed by Kamath (2007).

As we can see from Fig. 8, after oil saturation reaches a maximal value, So drops gradually after a period of production, which

will enhance the gas relative permeability and, therefore, the gas

productivity. Figs. 5 and 6 show clearly that for both rich and lean

fluids, respectively, the relationship between the PI ratio and krg

(S*o) is linear with a strong correlation coefficient.

Another important outcome of this sensitivity analysis is that

the loss in productivity is more sensitive to the relative permeability curves than to fluid PVT properties. Fig. 9 shows the well PI

vs. time for the rich and lean fluids with the same relative permeability set. Fig. 9 demonstrates that the loss in productivity is

much more dependent on relative permeability curves than on the

fluid composition.

Fig. 10 summarizes the results of the sensitivity study performed on the rich and lean fluids with the wide range of relative

permeability curves. It appears that the loss is similar for both

rich and lean gases when the same relative permeability curves

are used. The slope is very close to a value of unity.

Generation of IPR Curves. IPR curves are very important to

predict the performance of gas or oil wells; however, generating

IPR curves with a simulator is not straightforward because the

May 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Stage:

Page: 181

1.00

1.E+09

Pr (5400 psi)

Pr (5000 psi)

Pr (4000 psi)

Pr (3000 psi)

Pr (2000 psi)

Pr (1000 psi)

1.E+09

R2 = 0.9621

0.60

m(P), psi2/cp

Rich PI Ratio

0.80

Total Pages: 13

0.40

8.E+08

6.E+08

4.E+08

0.20

2.E+08

0.00

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Lean PI Ratio

0.80

0.E+00

1.00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

qg, MMscfd

given reservoir pressure for a given BHP. This cannot be generated in a single run, because if we change the BHP in a simulation

run, depending on how much oil or gas is produced, the average

pressure will change.

To generate IPR curves, we used a composite method. For different initial reservoir pressures, we ran a simulator at a fixed

BHP. We varied the BHP from high to low values. After we had

the results for different BHPs, we combined the rates for different

BHPs for a fixed average pressure and constructed an IPR curve.

We repeated this procedure for different average pressures so that

we can construct the IPRs for different average pressures.

Important Observations From the Simulation Study. We

wanted to develop simple relationships for generating the IPR

curves under the field conditions. We used some important observations from our simulation study to develop our procedure:

As previously discussed, we observed that the relative permeability curves have a bigger impact on the loss of productivity

than the type of fluid that is produced.

The loss of productivity is significant and almost instantaneous after the pressure drops below the dewpoint. After that point,

the PI recovers because of the revaporization of the liquid and the

changing composition (with leaner fluid).

The oil-saturation profile near the wellbore is a strong function of the average reservoir pressure (Dyung et al. 1987). Consequently, for a given reservoir pressure, the oil-saturation profile

does not change significantly for different BHPs, which is shown

in the next section.

Pr (5400 psi)

Pr (5000 psi)

Pr (4000 psi)

Pr (3000 psi)

Pr (2000 psi)

Pr (1000 psi)

dewpoint depends only on relative permeability, but, overall, well

performance depends on other reservoir properties (i.e., permeability). This is incorporated in PI calculations automatically

(Eqs. 2 and 16).

Development of New Approach

New Analytical Approach for Estimating Gas-CondensateWell Productivity. When we plotted IPR curves (i.e., for intermediate fluid with Pd 3,250 psi), as a function of both pressure

and pseudopressure, we noticed that plotting the pseudopressure

vs. the gas rate resulted in two clear straight lines for every reservoir pressure (Fig. 11). This is consistent with our observation

that below the dewpoint, the oil saturation does not change significantly for a given reservoir pressure. Fig. 12 represents the normal depiction of IPR curves. Notice a peculiar behavior of IPR

curves when plotted as a function of pseudopressure. The lines

are parallel above the dewpoint as expected because the productivity does not change. Below the dewpoint, for different reservoir

pressures, the lines are parallel for a certain pressure range; however, as the reservoir pressure depletes, the slope becomes gentler.

This is an indication of improved productivity. This is a result of

the re-evaporation of the liquid phase and changing composition

(with leaner fluid) as the pressure declines. This type of trend is

difficult to capture with the pressure data.

As soon as reservoir pressure drops below the dewpoint (Pd),

which is 3,250 psi in this example, there will be a productivity loss

that is characterized by the straight line below Pd in the pseudopressure plot, shown in Fig. 11. To illustrate our method, we will take

Pr 5,400 psi as an example for illustration (Fig. 13).

6000

1.2E+09

5000

1.0E+09

Slope = (1/j)

m(P), psi2/cp

BHP, psi

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

8.0E+08

6.0E+08

Pd = 3250 psi

4.0E+08

Slope = (1/j*)

2.0E+08

20

40

60

qg, MMscfd

80

0.0E+08

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

qg, MMscfd

ID: jaganm Time: 16:01 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/140011/APPFile/SA-REE#140011

181

two distinct PIs. The first PI (J) is constant for a single-phase gas

flow (in which FBHP is above Pd), and the second PI (J*) is for a

two-phase flow (in which FBHP is below Pd). Referring to the

preceding pseudosteady-state gas-rate equation (Eq. 2), one can

see that

qsc

:

re

TPsc ln

0:75 S

rw

J

qsc

: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

m Pr mPwf

slope of the line above Pd being 1=J . . . . . . . . . . 8

and

slope of the line below Pd being 1=J : . . . . . . . . . .9

After analyzing several cases, we found that the PI ratio can be

determined by dividing the slope above Pd by the slope below Pd as

1

slope of the line above Pd

J

J

PI ratio:

1

slope of the line below Pd

J

J

10

Because the PI (J) for a single-phase gas is always higher than the

PI (J*) for a two-phase flow, the PI ratio (J*/J) is always less than

unity. By conducting many numerical experiments, we found that

the PI ratio (J*/J) is strongly correlated to Krg (S*o) for each relative permeability curve used (i.e., Figs. 5 and 6). The application

of the proposed method is divided into two cases. The first case is

when the average reservoir pressure is above the Pd, and the second case is when the average reservoir pressure is below the Pd.

General ProcedureAverage Reservoir Pressure Is Above

the Pd. In this case in which the average reservoir pressure is

above the Pd, the pseudosteady-state gas-rate equation (Eq. 2) is

used to estimate the gas rate when the BHP > Pd. When the BHP

drops below the Pd, we need to estimate (J*) first to be able to calculate the gas rate analytically. Because, in this case, initial reservoir pressure is above the Pd, we can estimate the PI (J), which will

be constant for all BHPs above the Pd. The procedure is as follows:

1. Estimate the PI above dewpoint with Eq. 7.

2. Calculate J* with our knowledge of Krg (S*o) and J from the

previous section as

J

PI ratio Krg So : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

J

3. Generate the IPR curve below Pd and calculate the flow rate.

After estimating J*, which has a constant but higher slope than

J, as shown before on the pseudopressure plot, we can use J* to

estimate the gas rate for all BHPs below the Pd. With the following equation, we assume

y mx b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

and

1

mPwf q b: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

J

We can use our knowledge of the rate and FBHP at the Pd

with the pseudosteady-state gas-rate equation (Eq. 2) above dewpoint. Then, the intercept b can be calculated as

182

Stage:

b mPd

Page: 182

Total Pages: 13

qd

; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

J

Now, our straight-line pseudopressure equation is complete to

estimate the gas rate for any FBHP less than the Pd as

q b mPwf J ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

where q is in (Mscf/D), b and mPwf are in (psi2/cp), and J* is in

[(Mscf/D)/psia2/cp].

General ProcedureAverage Reservoir Pressure Is Less

Than the Pd. In this case, the pseudopressure vs. rate plot, IPR,

will have only one straight line. Fig. 11 shows three examples of

IPR lines in which initial reservoir pressure is below the Pd. To be

able to generate the IPR curves for cases in which initial reservoir

pressure is below the Pd, the following procedure should be

followed:

1. Estimate the PI (J).

If an IPR curve for the case in which reservoir pressure is

above the Pd is available, the PI (J) of this case could be used to

estimate J* as a function of pressure with CCE data, as will be

explained in the next step. For cases in which IPR curves above

the Pd are not available, the PI (J) could be estimated with a pseudosteady-state gas-rate equation,

J

qsc

mPr mPwf

2p aT Kh

sc

:

re

TPsc In

0:75 S

rw

16

As we stated earlier, the PI ratio (J*/J) is correlated to krg (S*o),

but in these cases in which initial reservoir pressure is below Pd,

liquid revaporization plays a very important role in determining

the productivity of gas-condensate reservoirs. By examining the

CCE data, as shown in Fig. 2, we can see that, as soon as the pressure drops below the Pd, liquid saturation reaches a maximal

value (Max_SoCCE) around the Pd quickly. Although the rate of

accumulating condensate bank to its maximal saturation could be

affected by many variables (e.g., rate, pressure drop, and fluid

composition), in general, the pressure drop near the wellbore is

large, and the volume near the wellbore is small. The combination

of a higher pressure gradient and a smaller volume results in a

rapid accumulation of condensate as soon as the pressure drops

below the dewpoint. As the pressure declines further, the liquid

saturation gradually declines. Our idea of using CCE data in generating the IPR curves is really to account for this phenomenon of

liquid vaporization and changing composition (with leaner fluid)

as pressure drops below the Pd (Dyung et al.1987). We found that

the use of a fixed value of Krg (S*o) or Krg (Max_SoCCE) will underestimate the gas productivity for cases in which initial reservoir

pressure is below the Pd.

Therefore, for any reservoir pressure below Pd, the Krg needs

to be estimated at the corresponding pressure and oil saturation

from the CCE data according to the following equation:

J

Pr PI ratio Krg SoCCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

J

3. Estimate the gas rate.

Finally, the gas rate can be estimated directly from the following equation:

q mPr mPwf J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The preceding outlined procedure for generating IPR curves

assumes that Sor Max_SoCCE, but this is not always the case in

real field applications. Because Sor is a rock property whereas

Max_SoCCE is a fluid property, we expect them to be different in

most of the cases in field applications.

May 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Stage:

Page: 183

Total Pages: 13

Krg(Corey-14)

PI RATIO

Kro(Corey-14)

1

0.9

Cases in

Which Pr Below Pd

0.8

Case

Cases in

Which Pr Above Pd

Sor Max_SoCCE

Sor < Max_SoCCE

Sor > Max_SoCCE

J*/J Krg (Max_SoCCE)

J*/J Krg (Sor)

J

Pr Krg SoCCE

J

0.6

Kr

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

could be equal to, less than, or greater than Max_SoCCE. On the basis of our evaluation, we believe that the maximum of the two values should be used to correctly capture the fluid behavior around

the wellbore and thereby accurately estimate the gas productivity.

The procedure to estimate PI (J*) here is exactly the same as

the preceding procedure outlined for the case in which Sor

Max_SoCCE, but with some modifications, as given by Table 3.

This procedure is used for flowing pressure less than the dewpoint. In effect, what we are saying in this table is that, if we have

reservoir pressure above the dewpoint, then to calculate the IPR

curve for the BHP below the dewpoint, we can use a constant

slope (J*) on the basis of the Krg estimate, as stated in Table 3.

Subsequently, after the reservoir pressure drops below dewpoint,

we will need to use Krg as a function of average reservoir pressure.

Importance of Threshold Oil Saturation (S*o). We found that an

accurate estimation of gas productivity depends not only on Sor but

also on the threshold oil saturation (S*o) for reservoirs with tight oil

relative-permeability curves. Fig. 14 shows an oil relative-permeability curve that was generated on the basis of Sor 0.20 and a

high value of oil exponent (m 4). This higher value of the oil relative permeability exponent makes the oil relative permeability very

low and eventually makes oil practically immobile until its saturation exceeds the threshold value (S*o), which is, in this case, 0.48, as

shown in Fig. 14. After testing several tight relative permeability

curves, we found that, for practical applications, we can determine

that the threshold (S*o) corresponds to Kro 1% of the maximal

value of oil relative permeability.

Therefore, in generating IPR curves, it is more important to

know S*o than Sor. We define S*o as a minimal saturation needed to

make oil mobile (i.e., Kro is at least 1% of the endpoint value). It

is a strong function of the curvature of the relative permeability

curve. Therefore, all we need to do is use Table 3 as it is, but

replace Sor with S*o, as shown in Table 4.

Cases in Which So* > Max_SoCCE. This is probably the most

common case in the field. Even for rich condensates, it is not unusual to find that the minimal mobile oil saturation is greater than

maximal oil saturation in the CCE experiment. The rich condensate fluid with maximal liquid dropout (26%) is being used for

this case in which it is less than S*o 0.48, as shown previously in

Fig. 14. Referring to Table 4, we can see that in this case the PI

ratio is determined by Krg (S*o).

Initial Reservoir Pressure Is Above the Pd. Fig. 15 shows

the So distribution around the wellbore as a function of the BHP.

We would like to examine this figure carefully. As soon as the

0.1

0

So* = 0.48

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Sor = 0.20

0.7

0.8

0.9

Sg

BHP drops below Pd, which is 5,400 psi for this fluid, liquid starts

dropping out close to the wellbore first. The radius of oil banking

expands inside the reservoir, and oil saturation away from the

wellbore increases as BHP decreases. We can see that, at a BHP

of 3,000 psi, So reaches a maximal value of approximately 0.62,

and this value almost stays constant even though the BHP drops

to 1,000 psi and then to atmospheric conditions.

What we want to highlight here is that when reservoir pressure

is above the Pd, the oil saturation near the wellbore remains reasonably constant, irrespective of the BHP. Because, in this case,

the threshold (S*o) is higher than Max_SoCCE, the value of S*o

should be used to obtain the corresponding krg and therefore estimate the well productivity for the cases in which reservoir pressure is above Pd. By following the general procedure outlined

previously for the case in which the initial reservoir pressure is

above the Pd, we can generate the IPR curve, as shown in Figs.

16 and 17. It can be seen that, as long as the BHP is above the

dewpoint (Pd 5,400 psi) that corresponds to a gas rate below 40

MMscf/D, our method can exactly predict the behavior of the simulation model. Below the dewpoint pressure, although there is a

small difference, our method can reproduce the simulation behavior with reasonable accuracy. Just keep in mind that the only

change you would make for this case in which the threshold

(S*o) > Max_SoCCE is to use the larger value of the two, which, in

this case, is the S*o,

J

PI ratio Krg So : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

J

BHP(5000 psi)

BHP(3000 psi)

BHP(1000 psi)

BHP(15 psi)

0.7

0.6

0.5

So

0.4

0.3

RATIO FOR TIGHT ROCKS

0.2

0.1

Case

Cases in

Which Pr Above Pd

Cases in

Which Pr Below Pd

S*o Max_SoCCE

S*o < Max_SoCCE

S*o > Max_SoCCE

J*/J Krg (Max_SoCCE)

J*/J Krg (S*o)

J

Pr Krg SoCCE

J

0

0.1

10

Radius, ft

100

1000

Pr 5 6,900 psi.

ID: jaganm Time: 16:02 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/140011/APPFile/SA-REE#140011

183

Stage:

Page: 184

Total Pages: 13

Analytical Solution

Analytical Solution

1.6E+09

8000

1.4E+09

m(P), (psia2/cp)

7000

BHP, psi

6000

5000

4000

1.2E+09

1.0E+09

8.0E+08

6.0E+08

4.0E+08

3000

2.0E+08

2000

0.0E+00

0.0

1000

0

10

20

30

40

qg, MMscfd

50

60

70

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

qg, MMscfd

50.0

60.0

70.0

BHP(1,000 psi)

BHP(15 psi)

0.6

0.5

BHP(3,000 psi)

BHP(1,000 psi)

BHP(15 psi)

0.7

0.4

0.6

So 0.3

0.5

0.2

So

0.4

0.1

0.3

0.2

0

0.1

0.1

0

0.1

10

Radius, ft

100

1,000

10

Radius, ft

100

1,000

Pr 5 3,000 psi.

Pr 5 5,000 psi.

illustrate an example for the case in which initial reservoir pressure is below Pd. To correctly generate the slope of the IPR curve

on the pseudopressure plot, we need to account for revaporization.

Again, we need to use the fine grid model to capture the condensate behavior near the wellbore.

By examining three figures, Figs. 18 through 20, that show

the So distribution for saturated reservoirs, one will notice that So

decreases gradually as a function of reservoir pressure from

BHP(15 psi)

0.35

0.3

0.25

So

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

0.1

10

Radius, ft

100

1,000

Pr 5 1,000 psi.

184

when Pr 1,000 psi (Fig. 20). Looking at Fig. 20, we can see

that, for low pressure (BHP 1,000 psi), condensate saturation

around wellbore is negligible and is smaller compared with the

saturation far away from the wellbore. We conclude from these

figures that oil revaporization and changing fluid composition

close to the wellbore are strong functions of decreasing reservoir

pressure that results in lower saturation.

For each saturated reservoir pressure, we can see that So builds

up to a uniform value close to the wellbore. This uniform So

remains almost constant as BHP decreases when reservoir pressure remains constant. Therefore, a valid assumption for the application of our method is to assume a uniform So for every saturated

(average) pressure under consideration. Fig. 20 shows an example

of an extreme case in which all the oil evaporates at a very low

flowing pressure.

After we have understood gas-condensate behavior around the

wellbore, we can see that we really need to use a method that can

mimic condensate revaporization as reservoir pressure depletes.

The best tool to use is the CCE or CVD data for each condensate

fluid being used (Dyung et al. 1987). The CCE data of the rich

fluid are shown previously in Fig. 2. Following Fevang and Whitson (1996), we will assume that CCE provides the best description

of fluid near the wellbore (i.e., we can use CCE data to predict the

revaporization of oil). The reason we choose CCE is because the

accumulation near the wellbore is minimal, which means that

near the wellbore region, whatever flows from the reservoir will

flow into the wellbore without any change in the composition.

Because in this case the threshold (S*o) is greater than Max_

SoCCE, our approach is to develop a linear relationship between

the S*o and the CCE data, as shown in Fig. 21. In other words, we

assume that relative gas permeability should be evaluated at a

May 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Stage:

Page: 185

Rich Fluid

Total Pages: 13

100%

4,500

90%

4,000

80%

3,500

60%

Krg

So 50%

40%

BHP, psi

70%

So* = 0.48

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

CCE

500

30%

0

20%

10

qg, MMscfd

10%

0%

Analytical Solution

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

P, psi

5,000

S*o

6,000

value between S*o and Max_SoCCE. So, for any pressure, we can go

to the figure and choose corresponding saturation and relative permeability. A careful examination of Fig. 15 and Figs. 18 through

20 tells us that an actual liquid dropout around the wellbore is

much greater than Max_SoCCE and is closer to the threshold S*o.

We have seen after testing several cases under this category that

the use of Krg (Max_SoCCE) will overestimate the gas rate because

it will not account for the relative permeability of the oil phase;

however, we use CCE data to account for changes in oil saturation

as the reservoir pressure declines.

It is very clear that condensate banking (accumulation) is tied

up with two factors. The first factor is fluid properties (maximal So

from CCE), and the second factor is rock properties (immobile So).

Accordingly, we have asked ourselves this question: Although

we know that the actual liquid dropout around the wellbore is

much greater than Max_SoCCE, how can we still use the CCE

data along with relative permeability curves to arrive at a robust analytical procedure that is accurate enough to estimate the well

productivity?

Other researchers have shown that relative permeability has a

first-order effect on condensate banking rather than the PVT properties (Mott 1997). As we have concluded from the results of the

sensitivity study, different fluids will have a similar productivity

loss for the same relative permeability curve used, confirming to

us that it is the relative permeability that is the most important in

determining the productivity loss.

We used engineering approximation to model the behavior

below the dewpoint pressure. As we have stated before, we are

going to assume that the area around the wellbore behaves similarly to the CCE data for every designated saturated pressure. Following the general procedure outlined previously for the case in

which (the Initial Reservoir Pressure Is Below the Pd subsection),

we are going to explain our approach at Pr 4,000 psi. After estimating the PI (J), as shown in Step 1 of the procedure, we can

estimate PI (J*) as the following:

J

Pr Krg SoCCE : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

J

At Pr 4,000 psi, we should estimate So from the linear relation between the S*o and CCE data, as shown in Fig. 21. The next

step is to go back to relative permeability curves to estimate Krg

at the corresponding So from this linear relation. After that, J* can

be calculated directly from Eq. 20. The last step before generating

the IPR curve is to estimate the gas rate directly from Eq. 18. Just

keep in mind that in this case the pseudopressure vs. rate plot will

have only one straight line because this is what we expect to see

in saturated reservoirs. The IPR curve is shown in Fig. 22 along

with the pseudopressure plot in Fig. 23. The complete IPR curves

of this case are shown in Fig. 24.

Fig. 25 shows the well PI producing at a constant-rate control.

We used rich fluid, and relative permeability parameters are

n 3, m 4, Sor 0.2, a 0.9, and oil endpoint relative

permeability 0.58.

We found that the PI ratio from flow-simulation data is

minimum well PI

0:09: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

maximum well PI

On the basis of the relative permeability data, we have

Krg(S*o) 0.08. As was expected, by use of our new method, we

are able to capture the change in PI below the dewpoint.

On the basis of the PI ratio, we can define the productivity loss

as

productivity loss 1

minimum well PI

: . . . . . . . . . 22

maximum well PI

means that this well will experience a 91% productivity loss as

soon as BHP reaches the Pd. Looking at Fig. 25, we can see that

the well restores some of its productivity after approximately 5

years of production. Fig. 26 shows the saturation profiles as a

function of time, which shows the re-evaporation process.

Fine Radial Model

Analytical Solution

8,000

Analytical Solution

9.0E+08

8.0E+08

7.0E+08

6.0E+08

5.0E+08

4.0E+08

3.0E+08

2.0E+08

1.0E+08

0.0E+00

7,000

6,000

BHP, psi

m(P), (psia2/cp)

20

7,000

15

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

10

qg, MMscfd

15

20

10

20

30

40

qg, MMscfd

50

60

70

ID: jaganm Time: 16:02 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/140011/APPFile/SA-REE#140011

185

Stage:

500

450

Total Pages: 13

Radial Cell 1

Radial Cell 5

Radial Cell 10

Radial Cell 20

Radial Cell 30

Radial Cell 35

0.7

350

0.6

300

250

0.5

200

0.4

So

PI, Mscfd/psi

400

Page: 186

150

0.3

100

0.2

50

0

10

20

30

Time, Years

40

0.1

50

10

20

30

Time, Years

Liquid Dropout Curve (CCE)

40

50

time.

4%

3%

3%

Dewpoint pressure (psia)

Reservoir temperature ( F)

Maximal liquid dropout (%)

2%

2%

9,000

8,424

305

3

1%

1%

0%

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

Pressure, psi

permeability and CCE data, one can predict the change in performance of the reservoir above and below the dewpoint without

conducting any flow simulation. We should explain that we have

not included non-Darcy and capillary effects in our analysis. On

the basis of a very limited number of runs (which are not included

here), we believe that our method should reasonably work when

both the effects are present.

Validation by Field Applications

In this section, we will show the application of our method for a

field case. Both compositional-model data and relative permeability curves were provided for a field case. A nine-component compositional model is used with the PR3 to simulate phase behavior

and laboratory experiments (CCE tests), as shown in Fig. 27.

Tables 5 and 6 show fluid properties and composition for the field

case, respectively.

common in field applications, what matters here is the threshold

S*o. Although Sor 0.20, the threshold S*o 0.32, which corresponds approximately to Kro 1% as a practical value. As we

have stated before, an accurate estimation of gas productivity in

this case depends on the value of Krg estimated at the threshold

S*o, which equals 0.32 in this case.

In this section, we illustrate the application of our method

from the production-operations view in the field. We are going to

show that our method can be used to generate IPR curves on the

basis of production-test data in the same way as the Vogel, Fetkovich, and other IPR correlations.

Assume that we are working in a production environment in a

field in which we have no knowledge about relative permeability

curves. The only thing that we have is some production data.

Because initial reservoir pressure is above the Pd, we know that the

pseudopressure vs. gas-rate plot will have two straight lines, as

explained earlier. Therefore, to generate the IPR curve for a given

Krg-Field Case

Kro-Field Case

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

Component

Composition (Fraction)

Kr

0.5

0.4

H2S

CO2

N2

C1

C2C3

C4C6

C7C9

C10C19

C20

186

0

0.0279

0.0345

0.7798

0.1172

0.0215

0.0132

0.00445

0.00145

Krg(So*) = 0.31

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Sg

May 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Stage:

2.38E+09

9,000

2.36E+09

8,000

2.34E+09

m(P), (psia2/cp)

10,000

7,000

BHP, psi

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

Total Pages: 13

2.32E+09

2.30E+09

2.28E+09

2.26E+09

2.24E+09

2,000

2.22E+09

1,000

0

Page: 187

2.20E+09

0

10

20

30

40

qg, MMscfd

50

60

70

8

10

qg, MMscfd

12

14

16

18

reservoir pressure, all we need is two test points. One point should

be above the Pd, and the other point should be below the Pd.

Fig. 29 shows an example of data from two production tests. To

explain how our method will work, we have chosen one of the test

data to be at the Pd. Otherwise, any available test data above the Pd

will suffice. We will illustrate our method by the following procedure.

Summary of New PI-Generation Procedure. Estimate the PI

(J) by using Pr and the test data at the Pd with the previously cited

Eq. 7:

qsc

:

J

mPr mPwf

Or another way to estimate J is to plot the test points above the

Pd on the pseudopressure plot, as shown in Fig. 30, and then J can

be calculated from the previously cited Eq. 8:

1

slope :

J

2. Using J, you should be able to generate the first portion of

the IPR curve with Eq. 7.

3. In the same way as conducted previously, we need to plot

the test points below the Pd on the pseudopressure plot, as shown

in Fig. 31. Then, J* can be calculated from the slope as in the previously cited Eq. 9:

slope

1

:

J

with the previously cited Eq. 14:

qd

b mPd :

J

5. Finally, we can estimate the gas rate for any BHP less than

the Pd with the previously cited Eq. 15:

q b mPwf J :

Results. The generated IPR curve and the pseudopressure plot

are shown in Figs. 32 and 33, respectively. We have shown that

one can use our method to generate the IPR curves on the basis of

available test data without any basic knowledge about the relative

permeability curves. Before we proceed to an example in which

initial reservoir pressure is below the Pd, we would like to highlight one important observation. We found that the PI ratio equals

0.30 with the preceding Eq. 10 as noted in Eq. 23:

1

slope of the line above Pd

J

J

1

slope of the line below Pd

J

J

productivity ratio 0:30: 23

We would have expected this value to be equal to Krg (S*o).

From Fig. 28, we can see that S*o 0.32 and Krg (S*o) 0.31. We

can easily quantify the productivity loss after we have an idea

about the PI ratio or Krg (S*o) with Eq. 22 as the following:

productivity loss 1 productivity ratio:

Therefore, in this, after the FBHP drops below the Pd, the well

will lose 70% of its productivity. We would like to highlight two

major points here:

Having two tests of production data clearly helped us to

characterize one value of relative permeability, which is Krg at

(S*o). By knowing Krg (S*o), one can easily use relative permeability

Fine Radical Model

Analytical Solution

10,000

3.E+09

9,000

8,000

7,000

2.E+09

BHP, psi

m(P), (psia2/cp)

2.E+09

1.E+09

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

5.E+08

1,000

0.E+00

10

20

30

40

qg, MMscfd

50

60

70

10

20

30

40

50

60

qg, MMscfd

70

80

90

100

ID: jaganm Time: 16:02 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/140011/APPFile/SA-REE#140011

187

Stage:

Analytical Solution

Page: 188

Total Pages: 13

Analytical Solution

2.50E+09

10,000

9,000

m(P), (psia2/cp)

2.00E+09

8,000

1.50E+09

7,000

BHP, psi

1.00E+09

5.00E+08

0.00E+00

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

20

40

60

qg, MMscfd

80

100

2,000

1,000

around the well.

Although this field case has very lean gas with a maximal

liquid dropout of only 3%, as shown in Fig. 27, the loss in productivity is significant (70%). This clearly tells us that the most-important parameter in determining the productivity loss is the gas/

oil relative permeability curves, expressed in terms of Krg estimated at residual (or threshold) oil saturation.

We can easily generate the IPR curves for reservoir pressure

above the dewpoint pressure. The slope of IPR curves above and

below the dewpoint will remain the same, except that the curve

will shift downward as the reservoir pressure declines. If the reservoir pressure is below the dewpoint, to generate the entire IPR

curve, we will need just one observation.

The PI (J*) can be calculated directly on the basis of the test

data and reservoir pressure with the previously cited Eq. 16:

J

qsc

:

mpr mpwf

After that, the gas rate can be directly estimated from the previously cited Eq. 18:

q mPr mPwf J :

If we want to predict the future IPR on the basis of the current

IPR curve, we will need to have information about relative permeability and CCE data. The complete IPR curves of this case are

shown in Fig. 34 in which the generated IPR curves are validated

with the results of the fine-radial-compositional model.

With our methodology, we examined 10 years of the production history of a gas-condensate well with known CCE and rela-

Analytical Solution

10,000

9,000

8,000

Field Observed Data

BHP, psi

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

20

40

60

qg, MMscfd

80

100

188

20

40

60

qg, MMscfd

80

100

calculated the future IPR curves with our methodology. We show

the future IPR curves in Fig. 35. Superimposed on those curves,

we also show the actual production data as a function of time as

the reservoir pressure has declined. The match between predicted

rates and observed rates is good, validating our procedure.

Conclusions

In this paper, a new analytical procedure is proposed to estimate the

well deliverability of gas-condensate reservoirs. Our new method

generates IPR curves of gas-condensate wells by incorporating the

effect of condensate banking as the pressure near the wellbore drops

below the dewpoint. Other than basic reservoir properties, the only

information needed to generate the IPR is the rock relative permeability data and the CCE-experiment data. In addition to predicting

the IPR curve under current conditions, our method also can predict

future IPR curves if the CCE data are available.

We found that the most important parameter in determining

productivity loss is the gas relative permeability at immobile oil

saturation. We observed that at low reservoir pressures, some of

the accumulated liquid near the wellbore revaporizes. This revaporization can be captured with CCE data. In our method, we propose two ways of predicting the IPR curves:

Forward approach: With the basic reservoir properties, relative

permeability data, and CCE information, we can predict the

IPR curves for the entire pressure range. A comparison with

simulation results validates our approach.

Backward approach: With field data to predict the IPR curves

for the entire pressure range, this method does not require reservoir data; instead, similar to the Vogel method, it uses point information from the IPR curve and predicts the IPR curve for the

entire BHP range. Both synthetic and field data are used to validate our second approach.

Nomenclature

h formation thickness, ft

J PI, [(Mscf/D)/psia2/cp]

K absolute rock permeability, md

Krg gas relative permeability

Kro oil relative permeability

m ( p) pseudopressure function, (psi2/cp)

Pd dewpoint pressure, psia

Pr average reservoir pressure, psia

Psc pressure at standard condition, psia

Pwf flowing BHP, psia

qsc gas-flow rate at standard conditions, Mscf/D

re external reservoir radius, ft

Rp producing GOR, scf/STB

rw wellbore radius, ft

May 2014 SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering

Sg

So

S*o

Sor

Swi

T

Tsc

oil saturation, fraction

threshold oil saturation, fraction

ROS, fraction

connate water saturation

reservoir temperature, R

temperature at standard condition, R

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to acknowledge the support from the

Reservoir Description and Simulation Department at Saudi Aramco. All the authors thank the University of Tulsa for computational and other administrative support.

Stage:

Page: 189

Total Pages: 13

Xiao, J.J. and Al-Muraikhi, A. 2004. A New Method for the Determination

of Gas Condensate Well Production Performance. Paper SPE 90290 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 2629 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/90290-MS.

ft 3.048*

E01 m

ft3 2.831685

E02 m3

bbl 1.589 873

E01 m3

psi 6.894757

E00 kPa

ft3/D 2.831685

E02 m3/d

*

cp 1.0

E03 Pa S

R

( R460)

C

*Conversion factor is exact.

References

Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J., and Bette, S. 1994. Production Performance of a Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of the Arun Field.

Paper SPE 28749 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 710 November. http://dx.doi.org/

10.2118/28749-MS.

Ahmadi, M., Hashemi. A., and Sharifi. M. 2014. Comparison of Simulation

Methods in Gas Condensate Reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Science

and Technology 4 (1): 761771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10916466.

2011.604063.

Blom, S.M.P. and Hagoort, J. 1998. The Combined Effect of Near-Critical

Relative Permeability and Non-Darcy Flow on Well Impairment by

Condensate Drop Out. Res Eval & Eng 1 (5): 421429. http://

dx.doi.org/10.2118/51367-PA.

Dyung, T., Vo, J.J., and Raghavan, R. 1987. Performance Prediction for

Gas Condensate Reservoir. Paper SPE 16984 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 2730 September. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/16984-MS.

Evinger, H.H. and Muskat, M. 1942. Calculation of Theoretical Productivity Factor. Trans, AIME 146: 126139.

Fevang, O. and Whitson, C.H. 1996. Modeling Gas Condensate Well

Deliverability. Res Eval & Eng 11 (4): 221230. http://dx.doi.org/

10.2118/30714-PA.

Guehria, F.M. 2000. Inflow Performance Relationships for Gas Condensates. Paper SPE 63158 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 14 October. http://dx.doi.org/

10.2118/63158-MS.

Kamath, J. 2007. Deliverability of Gas-condensate Reservoirs- Field

Experiences and Prediction Techniques. J. Pet Tech 59 (4): 9499.

http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/103433-PA.

Kelkar, M. 2008. Natural Gas Production Engineering. PennWell

Corporation.

Mott, R. 1997. Calculating Well Deliverability in Gas Condensate Reservoirs. Paper-104 presented at the IBC Technical Services Conference on

Optimization of Gas Condensate Fields, Aberdeen, UK, 2627 June.

Mott, R. 2003. Engineering Calculations of Gas-condensate Well Productivity. SPE Res Eval & Eng 6 (5): 298306. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/

86298-PA.

Mott, R.E., Cable, A.S., and Spearing, M.C. 2000. Measurements of Relative

Permeabilities for Calculating Gas-condensate Well Deliverability. SPE

Res Eval & Eng 3 (6): 473479. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/68050-PA.

Sharifi, M. and Ahmadi, M. 2009. Two-phase Flow in Volatile Oil Reservoir Using Two-Phase Pseudo-pressure Well Test Method. J. Cdn.

Pet. Tech. 48 (9): 611. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/09-09-06-PA.

gas fields in Saudi Aramcos Reservoir Description and Simulation Department. He started his career as a production field

engineer with Saudi Aramco; then, he joined the Reservoir

Simulation Division, in which he conducted several full-field

simulation models in onshore and offshore development and

increment fields. In May 2012, Al-Shawaf completed his masters thesis program at the University of Tulsa through which he

developed a new method to predict the performance of gascondensate wells. He has authored or coauthored several technical papers and has participated in several technical conferences and symposiums regionally and internationally. Al-Shawaf

is an active member of the SPE, in which he serves on several

committees for SPE technical conferences and workshops. He

earned a BS degree from King Fahad University of Petroleum &

Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, and an MS degree from the

University of Tulsa, both in petroleum engineering.

Mohan Kelkar is the director of the Tulsa University Center for

Reservoir Studies. He is currently working with several mediumand small-sized oil and gas companies in relation to reservoir

characterization and optimization of tight gas reservoirs. Kelkar has published more than 50 refereed publications and has

made more than 100 technical presentations. He is a coauthor of the book Applied Geostatistics for Reservoir Characterization, published by the SPE in 2002, and the book Gas

Production Engineering, published in 2008 by PennWell Books.

Kelkar earned a BS degree in chemical engineering from the

University of Bombay. He earned MS and PhD degrees in petroleum engineering and chemical engineering, respectively,

from the University of Pittsburgh, USA.

Mohammad Sharifi is assistant professor of the Petroleum Engineering Department at the Amirkabir University of Technology.

He has authored/coauthored several technical papers that

have been presented at international conferences or published in journals. Sharifis main research is in the area of bridging static to dynamic models through efficient upgridding and

upscaling techniques and the simulation of gas-condensate

and naturally fractured reservoirs. He is currently working on

developing a fast dynamic method for ranking multiple reservoir realization models. Sharifi earned BS, MEng, and MS

degrees from the Petroleum University of Technology (PUT),

the University of Calgary, and PUT, respectively, all in reservoir

engineering. He earned his PhD degree in petroleum engineering from the University of Tulsa (2012).

ID: jaganm Time: 16:02 I Path: S:/3B2/REE#/Vol00000/140011/APPFile/SA-REE#140011

189

- SPE-89905-PA.pdf---Well Test Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Gas-Condensate ReservoirsUploaded byswaala4real
- Well Performance Manual.pdfUploaded byFranz Sansuste
- Ahmed, Tarek - Reservoir Engineering Handbook-789-804Uploaded byLauraIsabelVargas
- 2a2Uploaded byEhsan Hasani
- CrainmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmUploaded byvivi_geoamethyst
- Undersaturated Oil-gas Simulation - Impes Type SolutionUploaded bysoheilvb6
- Dake 1978 Developments in Petroleum ScienceUploaded byRafatn01
- Introduction to CMGs TUTORIAL_2013_20.pdfUploaded bynajmudeen
- Well TestingUploaded byJustinM91
- Double PorosityUploaded byRafiZafi
- Proposal Kp Chevron (Reservoir Eng)Uploaded byAsta Kinan Prayoga
- Donde y cuando realizar los tratamientos para el control de aguaUploaded byWilly Sandoval
- SPE-9839-MSUploaded bytomk2220
- Analytical Modeling of Oil Production From a Matrix Block by FreeUploaded byHamidreza Anjidani
- Simulation of Formation Damage After Long-Term Water FloodingUploaded byAsma Sed
- Note09Uploaded bynaefmubarak
- SPrSUploaded bylulalala8888
- 2014dceh4d03Uploaded byMarcelo Ayllón Ribera
- SPE30714 Fevang WhitsonUploaded byMohamed El Kiki
- 5 Relative PermeabilityUploaded byikhwanu huda
- SPE-143304-PAUploaded byMuhammed Al-Bajri
- SPE-113132-PA.pdfUploaded byFalokid Rabo
- SPE-9723-PAUploaded byCarlos Carrillo Villavicencio
- Paper Decline Curve Analysis 1 (Najib)Uploaded byIchsan Al Sabah Lukman
- SPE-144317-MSUploaded byIbrahim Elsawy
- Cuestionario petroquímicaUploaded byBeto Vielma
- Forecasting Future Performance of Unsaturated ReservoirsUploaded bysreejithpk
- Engineering Aspects of unconventional oil & gas resrevoirs.pdfUploaded byGilles Gitta
- the first paper.pdfUploaded byIbrahim Salahudin
- Transient flow model of multifractured horizontal wellUploaded bysmithyry2014

- SPE-37053-MSUploaded byswaala4real
- PPDM_TrainingProgramGuide_2016_10.pdfUploaded byswaala4real
- Test Bank of Tymoczko's Biochemistry a Short Course 3Rd EDITION (Six Month Access) John L. TymocUploaded bysanamcandy
- VisionsUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-178197-MSUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-19545-MS Predicting Wellbore TrajectoryUploaded byswaala4real
- sensors-11-10859Uploaded byswaala4real
- Brainy.pptxUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE 0608 0079 JPT Ct ApplicationsUploaded byswaala4real
- Bash Guide for BeginnersUploaded byDr-SabryAbdelmonem
- Production Enhancement EngineerUploaded byswaala4real
- How the STEP Scholarship Will Impact My EducationUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE 21942critical Buckling Inclined MSUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE 27491torque Ndrag PAUploaded byswaala4real
- Linkedin SummaryUploaded byswaala4real
- why give me the jobUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-36349-MSUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-77261-PAUploaded byswaala4real
- mylistUploaded byswaala4real
- CementingUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-29363-MSUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-136689-PAUploaded byswaala4real
- Deviation ControlUploaded byswaala4real
- Geo MechanicsUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-20150 Hor Well Plan-MSUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-173661-MSUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-37062-MSUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-87242-MSUploaded byswaala4real
- SPE-58972-MSUploaded byswaala4real

- ROADMArchWithSmallerOXC Simmons Saleh PTL Oct2015 wUploaded byAnonymous bpf0OZSd9
- Exams ManualUploaded byPaulo M Espinosa
- PL - Performance of Bored Piles Constructed Using Polymer Fluids - Lessons from European Experience (Lam & Jefferis, J. Perform. Constr. Facil, 2015).pdfUploaded bysandycastle
- ESP Eng Final AdvUploaded bySelva Raj
- North Sydney Boys 2012 3U Prelim YearlyUploaded bygeeeeloo
- Mathematics 3 MAy 2013Uploaded byDax Shukla
- Lab Report 5Uploaded byNashrul Haq
- MINE292 Lecture10 Gravity Separation 2014Uploaded byarul
- Group Challenge dUploaded byMiggie Nurwibowo
- Progressive CollapseUploaded byUsman Ilyas
- Voss CatalogUploaded byadelinciprian
- 52 Week Photography Challenge for 2017 _ Dogwood PhotographyUploaded byRoberto Ramirez Galindo
- Geothermal Production Engineering SkillUploaded bya
- BFP ARC valve functionUploaded byVenkat Shan
- Neodymium MagnetUploaded bypraveen
- Basic Concepts in CT and DT SystemsUploaded byGanesh Radharam
- Boundary LayerUploaded bymano_prakash
- Applications of Clifford Algebras in PhysicsUploaded byAnnabeleShitara
- GPstuffDoc31Uploaded byCarlos Jiménez
- RoboticsUploaded byAtul Pandey
- 0160. Fire Fighting - BasicUploaded byCostis
- Chapter 3 Inclusion Formation in steelsUploaded byYair Salinas Escutia
- MarblesUploaded byLeandro Leandro
- Callister Ch07Uploaded byNemish Kanwar
- RenoldUploaded byrichy234
- Flexej Elaflex Erv g 1116Uploaded byvictorvikram
- 188133625-ASTM-D-5333-03-libreUploaded byIng-Jhonny Perez
- natrium diklofenakUploaded byDestiKarmilasari
- Lab Manual-Manomety Lab Experiment.pdfUploaded bycheeball
- Standard Test Method for Short Rod Fracture Toughness of Cemented CarbidesUploaded byJohan Gómez

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.