SPE 81011
Condensate Performance Trends in Trinidad Gas Reservoirs
Susan Jemmott, SPE, Richard Hallam, SPE, and Shivanand Maharaj, SPE, BP Trinidad and Tobago
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference held in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad, West Indies, 27–30 April 2003.
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.
Abstract
The Cassia, Flamboyant, Immortelle, Mahogany, and
Amherstia fields currently produce over 1.4 bcf/d for the
Trinidad domestic gas market and Atlantic LNG Projects
(Trains I and II). By early 2004 the gas rate should increase to
about 2 bcf/d when two new projects start-up. These fields,
plus the older Teak field are located in the Columbus Basin off
the southeast coast of Trinidad.
The six fields have produced gas from 35 reservoirs, which are
at depths from 5084 ft tvdss to 13,000 ft tvdss, and with initial
pressures from 2305 psi to 7420 psi. The fluid samples and
production data show that the gases are condensates. The gas
is a mixture of biogenic and thermogenic gas, and the initial
condensate yields vary from 1 b/MMscf up to 50 b/MMscf.
For most fields, it was found that the condensate yield
increased with depth or reservoir pressure.
The reservoirs exhibit a number of production mechanisms,
including volumetric, volumetric with compartmentalization,
and water-drive (weak to strong aquifers) (with or without
compartmentalization). The paper reviews the condensate
recovery factors, and produced yield trends for the different
reservoirs and the different production mechanisms. It was
also observed that for many of the waterdrive reservoirs that
the condensate yield increased in late-life when water
breakthrough occurred.
An analytical approach was used to predict whether near
wellbore condensate banking would occur in the Trinidad
reservoirs. The model and field data both showed that near
wellbore condensate banking was not a major issue in these
reservoirs because of the high permeabilities and low
drawdowns. However, banking could occur in some low
permeability reservoirs or if a well was produced with a large
drawdown.
Introduction
The Teak, Cassia, Flamboyant, Immortelle, Mahogany, and
Amherstia gas fields are operated by bp Trinidad and Tobago
(bpTT) and they are located between 20 and 40 miles off the
southeast coast of Trinidad (see Figure 1). The initial gas
reserves from these fields were close to 10 Tcf of gas.
Teak
Mahogany
Flamboyant
Immortelle
Amherstia
Cassia
Figure 1: Location of the bptt Gas Fields
The Cassia, Immortelle, Flamboyant, Mahogany and
Amherstia fields currently supply about 1.4 bcf/d of gas to the
domestic market and to the Atlantic LNG Trains I and II. The
production will increase to about 2 bcf/d by early 2004, after
two new projects come on stream: the Atlantic LNG Train III
Project and the Atlas Methanol plant. The Kapok field will
start production in 2003 in order to meet the additional gas
sales requirements. [1]
The supply contracts for each market have a Maximum Daily
Quantity (MDQ) that averages about 9% above the Daily
Contract Quantity (DCQ). As such, there are about 120
MMScf/d of gas contractually shut-in when the sales volume
is 1.4 bcf/d.
In the past the typical well rate was about 75 MMscf/d. Now
well rates above 100 MMscf/d are common, and the maximum
rate has reached 225 MMScf/d [2, 3] so in order to ensure
security of supply bpTT has chosen to maintain a further
cushion of 200 MMscf/d. This cushion protects against well
failures, allows for routine maintanence, and collection of
surveillance data on all the wells. Thus, on a daily basis over
300 MMscf/d of gas are shut-in. As a result of this, it is
necessary to have an operating philosophy that determines
which wells are produced. The current strategy is to maximize
2 SPE 81011

condensate production by shutting in the lower yielding gas. 3). The MP50 and G60 are the main reservoirs and to date
However, depending on reservoir drive mechanism, certain they have produced 0.4 tcf of gas. The remaining gas reserves
reservoirs are selectively produced to avoid loss in reserves. are about 0.3 tcf. The MP50 is volumetric and the G60 is
waterdrive (compartmentalized) with a strong aquifer. The
The reservoirs exhibit a number of production mechanisms, properties for the Flamboyant reservoirs are also reported in
including volumetric, volumetric with compartmentalization, Table 1. The Cashima discovery lies to the east of
and water-drive (weak to strong aquifers). The production data Flamboyant.
show that the different production mechanisms cause different
condensate yield production trends. The paper reviews:
• The condensate yield versus pressure or depth trend
Flamboyant Platform Cashima Well
• Fluid type
• Production trends for different drive mechanisms
• Condensate recovery factors and average yields by
reservoir and drive mechanism
• Condensate banking tendencies.

Geology and Field Descriptions

The Teak, Cassia, Flamboyant, Immortelle, Mahogany, and
Amherstia gas fields are located in the Columbus Basin, which
is a sediment rich depositional center, off the southeast coast
of Trinidad. The sediments were deposited from the Orinoco G60
river system in the Upper Tertiary and Quaternary periods.
The basin contains over 20,000 feet of sand, silt and shale MP50
sediments. The gas is trapped against northwest-southeast
trending faults where they are intersected by NE-SW trending
anticlinal ridges.

The Cassia field was discovered in 1973 and initial production
started ten years later. The field contains four reservoirs (22,
23, 25 and 30 sands) that are trapped up against the E fault
(see Figure 2). The 22 Sand is a water-drive reservoir, the 25
Sand is volumetric and the 23 and 30 Sands are volumetric
reservoirs that are compartmentalized. These sands have
produced over 1.4 tcf and have remaining reserves of about
0.4 tcf. The properties for these reservoirs are reported in
Table 1.
Figure 3: Cross Section of Flamboyant Field and Cashima
The Immortelle field was discovered in 1968 and production
started in 1994. This field contains at least 15 hydrocarbon-
bearing horizons (13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,
25N, 30, 32) that are trapped up against the A4 fault (see
Figure 2). Four of these horizons contain a thin oil leg [14, 16,
21 & 22 sands]. The Immortelle field shares some of the
reservoirs (22, 23, 24 sands) with the Amherstia field. The
deep reservoirs in Immortelle (25N and 30) are volumetric,
while the shallower reservoirs (23 and shallower) appear to be
waterdrive. The Immortelle reservoir had initial gas reserves
of 1.6 tcf. The properties for Immortelle and Amherstia are
reported in Table 1.

W 6 fault A4 fault E
Re
ne 3
ga 4 Amherstia
d e 2 5

5,200 ft

22
1

22
22 9,000 ft
22 22

Figure 2: Cross Section of Cassia to Immortelle/Amherstia Fault Fault

Block Gas bearing sand
Aquifer sand
Shale

The Flamboyant field was discovered in 1986 and put on

production in 1993. The field contains 6 sands, in 5 fault Figure 4 Trapping mechanisms in the Amherstia Area
blocks and there are at least 12 separate reservoirs (see Figure
SPE 81011 3

The Amherstia field started production in 2000. The field The produced gas from all the fields is processed offshore on
currently produces from 6 reservoirs (13, 22, 23L, 23U, 24M, the platforms, and the separators on these platforms operate at
24U Sand) (see Figure 4). The 22 Sand contains a thin oil leg. about 90 oF with an operating pressure of about 1000 psi +/-
4
The Amherstia field had initial gas reserves of 2.2 tcf. 100 psi.

The Mahogany field was discovered in 1968, but was not Initial Condensate Yield Trends
produced until 1998 when it started supplying gas to first the Geochemical analyses have shown that the gas is a mixture of
Atlantic LNG project (Train I). The field contains seven fault biogenic gas and thermogenic gas. These two different sources
blocks, and 10 gas-bearing sands (15, 17, 18, 18a, 19, 20, 23, then migrated to the reservoirs, forming different mixtures in
24, 24a and 25), (see Figure 5). The field also contains two each reservoir. The reservoirs, therefore, show vertical and
gas reservoirs with a thin oil column and they are the 21 Sand areal variations in condensate yield.
Fault Block V and the 21 Sand Fault Block IV. The field
contained initial gas reserves of 2.3 tcf. The properties for Figure 7 shows the initial condensate yield for 28 Trinidad
these reservoirs are also reported in Table 1. reservoirs plotted versus the reservoir depth. The data indicate
that there is a general increase in the yield with depth, and that
MAHOGANY FIELD REGIONAL DIP CROSS-SECTION the yields vary from 1 b/MMScf to 50 b/MMScf.
B A

60
50

Yield (b/MMscf)
I
II 40
III
IV
V
15 Sand
30
15 Sand 15 Sand
15 Sand

17 Sand
VI
17 Sand
20
17 Sand
132
18/18A Sands 17 Sand

19 Sand 19 Sand
MA-3
MA-7 MA-7X MB-3
MA-5 MB-8
MB-7
18 Sand
18A Sand 10
19 Sand
21 Sand 125
19 Sand

23 Sand
MB-9X
(SUSPENDED)

23 Sand
MB-4ST2 MB-6 MA-6 MA-15 MA-10 MB-5 MA-9 MB-10 MA-14 MA-13 MA-12 MA-11
MB-2 MA-4st1

EM-5
20 Sand
0
24 Sands

24A Sand

24A Sand
23 Sand
110
115 21 Sand
4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
MA-8 24 Sands 100
25 Sand MB-9

25 Sand MB-1 MB-1ST MA-1

23 Sand
Reservoir Depth (TVDSS ft)
24A Sand
MA-2

VII 95
EM-2
24 Sands

65 90 EM-5Xst2
25 Sand
EM-3
24A Sand Cassia Immortelle Flamboyant Mahogany Teak
EM-4
80

25 Sand

Figure 7 Initial Condensate Yield versus Reservoir Depth

BRUCEEGGERTSON NOV. 2000

Figure 5 Cross Section of the Mahogany Field

The condensate yield data for each field shows an improved
correlation when plotted against the reservoir pressure (see
The Teak field contains both oil and gas reservoirs. The gas
Figure 8). In some cases this was because the reservoirs have
reservoirs are in some of the 2, 4, 6, 7 and 7al sands. The
pressure reversals and the deeper lower pressured reservoir
geological setting is shown in Figure 6. Gas production
had a lower yield than the overlying reservoir (see Mahogany
started in 1974. The original gas reserves were about 1 tcf.
24 sand FB VI and 25a FBVI in Table 1).
The properties for these reservoirs are also reported in Table
1.
60

50
Yield (B/MMscf)

40

30

20

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Pressure (psi)

Cassia Immortelle Flamboyant Mahogany Teak

Figure 8 Initial Condensate Yield versus Reservoir Pressure

Figure 6 Cross Section of the Teak Field
4 SPE 81011

The general relationships versus pressure are shown for the Three measured CVD examples from Amherstia and three
fields in Figure 9, and they show different but similar rates of predicted examples from Mahogany are shown in Figure 10.
increase with pressure. As expected, some of the reservoirs do These data indicate that the gas is a retrograde condensate.
not follow the trends due to different sources [biogenic or
thermogenic] and migration paths. Some reservoirs that are Reservoir performance data from some of the reservoirs is
anomalous are: the Teak 7al sand and Cassia 23 sand which shown in Figure 11. These data show that the yield drops as
are much richer than the general trend; plus the Cassia 25 and soon as the reservoir pressure drops, i.e. the reservoirs are at
the Mahogany Fault Block II reservoirs which are leaner. It or very close to dew point. Further condensate yield trend
should also be remembered that there are at least 6 gas examples are reported by Jemmott. (5)
reservoirs with thin oil columns (Immortelle 14, 16 and 21
sands, Immortelle / Amherstia 22 sand, Mahogany 21 sand FB
50
V and FB VI) that are interspersed within the gas reservoirs.

Condensate Yield (b/MMScf)

60 40

Teak 7AL off the trend

50 30

40
Yield (b/MMscf)

20
Cassia 23 off the trend Teak

30
Mahogany
10

20
Flamboyant
0
Immortelle 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
10 Cassia 25 off the trend
Reservoir Pressure (psi)
Mahogany FBII
Cassia 30 Mah 20 FBIV Mah 18a FB III
0 Mah 18 FBII Mah 18a FBII
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Initial Reservoir Pressure (psi)
Figure 11: Condensate Yield versus Reservoir Pressure – Field
Cassia Immortelle Flamboyant Mahogany Teak Data

Figure 9 Initial Condensate Yield versus Initial Reservoir Pressure Two fluids that showed atypical behavior were from the Teak
7al reservoir and the Cassia 23 reservoir. Both of these gases
Fluid Type had abnormally high initial yields, and both showed a rapid
Fluid samples (separator gas and liquid) were collected for drop-off in yield once the pressure dropped (see Figure 12).
many of the reservoirs shortly after production started. On a
few samples a Constant Volume Depletion (CVD) test and a 60
Constant Composition Expansion (CCE) was run to determine
the fluid properties. Many samples, however, only underwent Teal 7aL
50
a CCE and for these samples the CVD was predicted using an
equation of state (EoS).
40
Yield (B/MMscf)

Mahogany Amherstia 30 Cassia 23

16 16

14 14
20
12 12
Yield (b/MMscf)
Yield (b/MMscf)

10 10
10
8 8

6 6
0
4 4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
2 2
Reservoir Pressure (psi)
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Reservoir pressure (psi) Reservoir Pressure (psi) Figure 12: Condensate Yield versus Reservoir Pressure – Field
Data – Teak 7al and Cassia 23
18a yield 20 sand 19 sand FBII 23L 22 24

Figure 10 Condensate Yield versus Reservoir Pressure – lab data

SPE 81011 5

Condensate Yield Trends Versus Production These two reservoirs were also the reservoirs that had yields
Plots were generated for all the wells and reservoirs and three much higher than the general relationship with depth or
distinct trends emerged: pressure [Figures 7-9]. Initial gas samples, however, weren’t
• Trend A: Curved or near-linear trend of yield with available for these reservoirs so it was not possible to
cumulative produced gas volume – volumetric and determine what compositional differences caused the high
water-drive initial yields and the rapid drop-off in yield once production
• Trend B: Early-time rapid drop-off in yield. started.
• Trend C: Late-life increase in yield for water-drive
reservoirs. Trend C: It was recently observed that the condensate yield
increased during late-life in two Mahogany reservoirs [25 sand
Trend A: Most the reservoirs, whether volumetric or water- FBVI and 19 sand FBII]. A review of all the waterdrive
drive, have a curved or near linear trend of yield versus reservoirs showed that many of the older waterdrive reservoirs
cumulative produced gas volume. Figure 13 shows three also had this phenomenon. In fact, eleven waterdrive
examples of these trends. [For the reservoirs shown in Figure reservoirs and sixteen wells had exhibited a trend in which
13 the fluctuations in yield was due to the accuracy of the there was a late-life increase in the yield. Figures 15-17 show
measurements when taken over many years in a test separator. examples of the yield increase for a Mahogany reservoir,
The fluctuations did not correlate with changes in the Immortelle reservoir and a Teak reservoir. The increase in
production rate.] yield often occurred at or near the time of water breakthrough.
In some of the Teak reservoirs the yield initially increased
after water breakthrough and then dropped again (see Figure
40 18).
35
25 Sand FB VI
30
Yield (b/MMscf)

25 80 1600

70 1400
20 Cassia 30 sand
60 1200
Yield (B/MMscf)

Water Rate (b/d)

15 50 1000

40 800
10 Flamboyant MP50
30 600
5 20 400
Immortelle 23 sand
0 10 200

0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 0

Jul-98 Dec-98 Jun-99 Dec-99 Jun-00 Dec-00 Jun-01 Dec-01
Cumulative Gas Produced (bcf)
Time

Figure 13: Condensate Yield versus Reservoir Pressure

Figure 15: Mahogany well waterdrive yield trend
Trend B: As mentioned in the Fluid Type section, two
reservoirs showed a large drop-off in the yield shortly after
production started and they were the Cassia 23 sand and the
Immortelle Ia-11 18 sand
Teak 7al sand (see Figure 12). These reservoirs showed a
50% drop in yield after only a small fraction of their reserves 35 200
were produced (see Figure 14). 180
30
160
25 140
Water Rate (b/d)
Yield (b/MMscf)

60 60 120
20
Cassia 23 sand Teak 7al 100
50 50 15
80
40 40 10 60
Yield (b/MMscf)

40
30 30 5
20

20 20 0 0
Aug-99 Feb-00 Sep-00 Mar-01 Oct-01 May-02
10 10 Time

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
Cumulative Gas Produced (bcf) Cumulative Gas Produced (bcf) Figure 16: Immortelle well waterdrive yield trend

Figure 14: Cassia 23 and Teak 7al Yield Data

6 SPE 81011

with an average of 0.51. The three fields below the average

TD5 in Teak 6 Sand value were Cassia 23 sand and the Cassia 30 sand, and both
30 700
were compartmentalized.

600
25
Yield Relationship
500
(Average Yield / Initial Yield)
20

Water Rate (b/d)

Yield (b/MMscf)

400 6
15

300 5 volumetric
waterdrive

Number of Reservoirs
10
200 4

5 3
100

0 - 2
- 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Cumulative Produced Gas (bcf) 1

Figure 17: Teak well waterdrive yield trend 0

0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 0.5-0.6 0.6-0.7 0.7-0.8 0.8-0.9 0.9-1.0
YIELD TD4 in Teak 4 sand Average Yield / Initial Yield

30 180

Figure 19: Average yield trend

25 150
Water Production Rate (b/d)

20 120 The Teak reservoirs, which were all waterdrive, displayed an

Yield (B/MMscf)

average condensate yield ratio (Ya/Yi) of 0.35, with a range of

15 90 0.21-0.59. Only one of the reservoirs had a value above 0.5
10 60
and it was the 2 Sand, with a value of 0.59. This sand had a
strong aquifer, while the others were weak or moderate in
5 30 strength.
0 0
- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
The waterdrive drive reservoirs in Flamboyant, Cassia and
Cumulative Produced Gas (bcf) Mahogany displayed an average condensate yield (Ya/Yi) of
0.70 with a range of 0.38-0.83.
Figure 18: Teak waterdrive yield trend – late-life increase and then
decrease Figure 20 shows the condensate recovery factors for the
volumetric and waterdrive reservoirs. The volumetric
As yet the cause of the late-life yield increase is not known, reservoirs had a range of 0.29 to 0.4, with an average of 0.34.
but evaluations are underway to fully understand the
phenomenon. A number of hypotheses have been proposed: 5

• Vaporization of condensate liquid, volumetric waterdrive

• Displacement of the liquids that dropped out near 4

Number of Reservoirs

the wellbore by the encroaching aquifer, and

• Displacement of a liquid condensate/oil leg toward 3
the producing wellbore by the underlying aquifer.
2
Jemmott [5] provides further examples of Trends A and C.
1
Condensate Recovery Factors / Average Produced
Yields
0
To date 35 reservoirs have been produced, of which 12 have 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 0.5-0.6
been fully exploited and a further 6 have sufficient history to Condensate Recovery Factor
predict the condensate recovery factor. The condensate
recovery factor and average produced yield values for these
reservoirs are reported in Table 1.
Figure 20: Condensate recovery factor

Figure 19 shows the average yield (Ya) of the produced gas The waterdrive reservoirs on Cassia, Flamboyant and
reported as a fraction of the initial yield (Yi). The data in Mahogany had a condensate recovery factor range of 0.31 to
Table 1 and Figure 19 indicate that the condensate yield ratio 0.57, with an average of 0.48. The values for these water-drive
(Ya/Yi) for the volumetric reservoirs varied from 0.44 to 0.59, reservoirs were higher than the volumetric reservoirs because
SPE 81011 7

of the aquifer pressure support that meant the reservoirs were

abandoned at a higher pressure. Amherstia A-05
30 4500

4000
The Teak waterdrive reservoirs had condensate recovery 25
3500
factor range of 0.18 to 0.43, with an average of 0.26. Teak,
even with the aquifer pressure support, had lower condensate 20 3000

Yield (b/MMscf)

Pressure (psi)
recovery values than the volumetric reservoirs and this was 2500
15
because of the different fluid characteristics. 2000

10 1500
Condensate Banking 1000
To date, over fifty gas wells have been produced in 35 5
500
reservoirs in 6 fields. Typically these wells have not seen
0 0
evidence of near wellbore condensate banking. Figure 21 4/19/2001 7/28/2001 11/5/2001 2/13/2002 5/24/2002 9/1/2002 12/10/2002
shows three examples from the Mahogany field in which there Yield Time
FBHP Res Pressure
is close agreement between the field data and the predicted
CVD results. Figure 22: Condensate banking – Amherstia A-05

Reviews of the Teak, Cassia, Flamboyant and Immortelle
production data also didn’t show any compelling evidence for
near wellbore condensate banking. The Trinidad data have
indicated that, in general, condensate banking is not an issue
for the high permeability reservoirs, even when the wells were
produced at high rates (75 MMScf/d – 150 MMScf/d).
The data for well A-02 are reported in Figure 23. The data
show the reservoir pressure drops gradually, and it also shows
three instances where the flowing bottom-hole pressure
(FBHP) changes and the condensate yields shows a similar
change. In effect the condensate yield in this well was being
influenced by the drawdown on the well.

35 Amherstia A-02
30 18 5000
Yield (b/MMScf)

16
25 4000
14
Condensate Yield

Pressure (psi)
20 12
(b/MMScf)

3000
15 10
8
10 2000
6
2 3
5 4 1 1000
0 2
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 0
2/1/2001 5/3/2001 8/2/2001 11/1/200 1/31/200 5/2/2002
Reservoir Pressure (psi) Yield FBHP
1 2
Reservoir pressure

Figure 21: Condensate trends – Lab and Field (lab data are solid
lines, field results are depicted with symbols)
A long-term production test that was conducted on the low
permeability Mahogany 24a sand in Fault Block 5 suggested
that condensate banking occurred in this reservoir. (6) This
could not be confirmed with condensate yield trends because
the available original reservoir fluid samples were not
considered reliable. Also pressure data was not collected on
this reservoir.
The Amherstia field, which started up in 2000, currently has
two wells that have shown evidence of condensate banking.
These wells were A-05 and A-02, which produce from the 23L
Sand and 24M Sand, respectively. The data for well A-05 are
reported in Figure 22. The data show a gradual drop in the
reservoir pressure, and it also shows that the condensate yield
follows the bottom-hole flowing pressure (FBHP) trend. In
effect the condensate yield was being influenced by the
drawdown on the well.
Figure 23: Condensate banking – Amherstia A-02
A generic study was undertaken to evaluate whether
condensate banking could occur in the Trinidad gas reservoirs.
The approach used was that of Fevang and Whitson (7) and
Mott (8). The spreadsheet approach of Mott (8) was used to
determine the impact of drawdown on the producing
condensate yield. This approach was used because it could
quickly evaluate the impact of well type, production rate or
drawdown on various reservoir descriptions, including
permeability, thickness, fluid-type and in-place volumes.
The model was run by inputting the fluid properties, reservoir
properties, defining the well type, setting the maximum gas
production rate and the minimum bottom-hole pressure. The
results for a gas sample having a dew point of 5,065 psi and
initial separator yield of 14 bbl/MMscf are shown in Figure
24. The data show that condensate banking is not an issue in
the Trinidad reservoirs when the drawdowns are low, but it
could occur for some fluids if the wells were produced with
high drawdowns.
8 SPE 81011
16
14
Condensate yield (b/MMscf)
12
10
8 pressure support, had lower condensate recovery values
6
4
2 f)
0 waterdrive reservoirs in late-life. This increase in yield is
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Reservoir pressure (psi)
Lab Data 3000 psi drawdown 1500 psi drawdown
250 psi drawdown 100 psi drawdown 500 psi drawdown
Figure 22: Condensate banking prediction
The field results therefore indicate that in general near
wellbore condensate banking is not a major issue in the
Trinidad gas reservoirs, as it has only been observed in 2 to 3
wells out of a total of more than fifty wells. The predictive
study and the field results indicate that condensate banking
may occasionally occur in low permeability reservoirs or
reservoirs produced with high drawdowns.
Conclusions
a) The gas resources in the Cassia, Teak, Flamboyant
Immortelle, Amherstia and Mahogany are retrograde
condensates. The reservoir pressures are very close to
dew point.
b) All fields showed a general increase in initial condensate
yield with both reservoir depth and initial pressure. There
are, however, a few fluids samples that are significantly
rich and leaner than the general trend.
c) Volumetric drive reservoirs displayed an average
condensate yield ratio (ratio of the average to the initial
allocated yields (Ya/Yi)) of 0.51 with a range of 0.44-
0.59. The average condensate recovery factor was 0.34
with a range of 0.29 to 0.40.
d) The waterdrive drive reservoirs in Flamboyant, Cassia
and Mahogany displayed an average condensate yield
(Ya/Yi) of 0.70 with a range of 0.38-0.83. The average
condensate recovery factor was 0.48, with a range of 0.31
to 0.57. The values for these water-drive reservoirs were
higher than the volumetric reservoirs because they were
abandoned at a higher pressure as a result of the aquifer
pressure support.
e) The Teak waterdrive reservoirs displayed an average
condensate yield ratio (ratio of the average to the initial
allocated yields (Ya/Yi)) of 0.35 with a range of 0.21-
0.59. The average condensate recovery factor was 0.26,
with a range of 0.18 to 0.43. Teak, even with the aquifer
than the volumetric reservoirs and this was because of the
different fluid characteristics.
The condensate yield increased, for many of the
associated with water breakthrough.
g) Near wellbore condensate banking or dropout is not a
major issue for Trinidad reservoirs. It has only been
observed in two Amherstia wells, and possibly one
Mahogany reservoir.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank bpTT for permission to publish the
paper.
References
1. Lumsden, P.: “The Kapok Field, Trinidad: A Step Change for
Trinidad Gas Developments” paper SPE 75670 presented at SPE
Gas Technology Symposium in Calgary, Alberta, Canada Apr. 30
– May 2 2002.
2. Pucknell, J., Holder, G. & Seesahai, T.: “Amherstia Field,
Trinidad: Breaking Barriers in the New Millennium” paper SPE
81012 presented at 2003 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference in Trinidad, Apr. 27-30
3. Hallam, R. & Lumkin, M.: “Performance of Trinidad Gas
Reservoirs (Cassia, Immortelle, Flamboyant, Mahogany,
Amherstia and Teak)” paper SPE 81010 presented at 2003 SPE
Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference in Trinidad, Apr. 27-30
4. Bayley-Haynes, E. & Shen, E.: “Thin Oil Development in the
Amherstia / Immortelle Fields, Offshore Trinidad” paper SPE
81088 presented at 2003 SPE Latin American and Caribbean
Petroleum Engineering Conference in Trinidad, Apr. 27-30.
5. Jemmott, S.: “Producing Characteristics of Gas-Condensate
Reservoirs of Trinidad and Tobago”, University of West Indies
M.Sc. Thesis, 2003
6. Maharaj, S.; Jones, J.R.; Mackow, H.M. & Lachance, D.P.,
“design and Interpretation of Long-Term Test in the mahogany
Field, Offshore Trinidad, paper SPE 59794 presented at the 2000
SPE/CERI gas technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada,
3-5 April 2000
7. Fevang, O., Whitson, C.H., “Modeling Gas-Condensate Well
Deliverability”, SPERE (November 1996) 221
8. Mott, R., “Engineering Calculations of Gas Condensate Well
Productivity”, paper SPE 77551 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas,
September 2002.
SPE 81011 9

Table 1 : Trinidad Reservoir Property Data

Field Reservoir Ref Depth Res. Pressure Permeability Initial Yield (Yi) Average Yield (Ya) Ya/Yi Condensate Drive
ft TVDSS Psi md b/MMscf b/MMscf Rec Factor Mechanism
Cassia 22 8150 3712 - 8 5.8 0.73 0.48 waterdrive
Cassia 23 9200 4370 5 25 11.9 0.48 0.29 Volumetric
Cassia 25 11150 5150 6 9 5.0 0.56 0.34 Vol. Comp
Cassia 30 12200 7420 13 36 16.0 0.44 0.33 Vol. Comp
Teak 2 8600 3700 85 20 11.7 0.59 0.43 waterdrive
Teak 4 9554 4420 32 25 7.5 0.30 0.22 waterdrive
Teak 6 10908 5020 70 30 9.6 0.32 0.24 waterdrive
Teak 7 12415 5732 7 30 9.6 0.32 0.25 waterdrive
Teak 7al 13000 6525 7 50 10.6 0.21 0.18 waterdrive
Immortelle 13 5927 2638 970 1 - - - waterdrive ?
Immortelle 15 6930 3084 145 4 - - - waterdrive ?
Immortelle 18 7806 3473 180 10 - - - waterdrive
Immortelle 23 9764 4345 165 13 7.2 0.55 0.35 waterdrive ?
Immortelle 25N 10951 5085 254 22 13 0.59 0.40 Vol., comp
Immortelle 30 12100 5385 6 25 - - - Vol., comp
Flamboyant G60 10440 6000 500 16 14.2 0.89 0.57 waterdrive
Flamboyant MP50 12730 7389 1025 24 12 0.50 0.35 volumetric
Amherstia 13 5084 2305 480 1 - - - ?
Amherstia 22 9100 4025 90 10 - - - waterdrive ?
Amherstia 23L 23 U 9250 4350 38 9.5 - - - ?
Amherstia 24M 24 U 9490 4500 20 9 - - - ?
Mahogany 17 FBII 7690 3477 747 6 5 0.83 0.49 waterdrive
Mahogany 18 FBII 8315 3845 853 8.4 5.2 0.62 0.37 waterdrive
Mahogany 18a FBII 8500 3915 138 9.5 - - - waterdrive
Mahogany 18a FBIII 8315 3522 131 10 5.8 0.58 0.31 waterdrive
Mahogany 19 FBII 8850 4132 560 6.3 5.1 0.81 0.57 waterdrive
Mahogany 20 FBIV 9685 4758 539 15.5 - - - waterdrive ?
Mahogany 20 FBV 9685 4731 418 15.8 - - - waterdrive ?
Mahogany 23 FBV 11022 5875 188 22 15 0.68 0.55 waterdrive
Mahogany 24 FBVI 11000 5983 253 27 - - - waterdrive
Mahogany 24a FB V 12519 7352 6 31 11.9 0.38 - volumetric*
Mahogany 24a FB VI 11600 7328 5 35 - - - waterdrive
Mahogany 25 FBVI 12573 6008 83 20 16.6 0.83 - waterdrive

Footnotes:
? = unknown as yet
volumetric * = well in small compartment - main reservoir may be waterdrive
vol, comp = Volumetric with Compartmentalization
waterdrive ? = expected to be waterdrive but too early to have definitive data