SPE 63160
Gas-Condensate Well Test Analysis With and Without Relative Permeability Curves
Gherson Penuela and Faruk Civan, SPE, University of Oklahoma
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1–4 October 2000.
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
Based on an analytical analysis of the steady-state theory and
its application to well test interpretation in gas-condensate
reservoirs, two simplified models are proposed when relative
permeability curves are not available. They allow the reservoir
engineer to have relative permeability curves as functions of
bottomhole pressure from constant composition experiments.
Step-by-step procedures explained in the paper rely on the
suitability of the steady-state assumptions. Comparisons are
made using actual field data and discussions on applicability
are also presented. One of the methods is applicable when
very low capillary number can be assumed, and immiscible
relative permeability curves can be used for pressure transient
interpretation. This method is recommended to be used in
pressure buildup data analysis. The other proposed method is
recommended for pressure drawdown data analysis and is
based on the assumption that miscible flow regime controls
the fluid flow in the near wellbore region. It is concluded that,
although it depends on several factors, miscible relative
permeability curves are generally good approximation for
pressure drawdown data analysis.
An additional method is also discussed. It relies on the
ability to simulate properly the near-wellbore fluid flow with
accurate fluid and flow models. Using output data from a
compositional simulator, it was shown that it is possible to
numerically model fluid bank impairment, while analytically,
it is possible to obtain reservoir properties, usually shadowed
in current methods for condensate buildup.
The proposed numerical method requires detailed
information and can be impractical to apply at early stages of
gas-condensate production. On the other hand, the two
analytical methods are shown to give good estimates of
permeability, mechanical skin factor and reservoir initial
pressure at early stages when relative permeability data are not
available or are not sufficiently reliable.
Introduction
The analysis of pressure transient in gas-condensate wells is
strongly influenced by the presence of a liquid phase in the
near wellbore region at reservoir pressures below the
saturation pressure (Fig. 1).
Simplified models have been considered based on
comparisons between analytical and numerical solutions of the
diffusivity equation for these systems. Aanonsen1 introduced a
pseudo-pressure function to linearize the diffusivity equation
inspired by the single-phase pseudo-pressure function of Al-
Hussainy et al.2 Jones et al.3-7 developed a methodology of
well test data analysis in gas-condensate wells. Their approach
considers the application of the steady-state theory and prior
knowledge of relative permeability curves as functions of
pressure.
Among others, Thompson and Reynolds8 recognized the
drawback of requiring such information for practical field
analysis. They proposed a more simplified analytic solution
based on the single-phase pseudo-pressure function and the
radial extent of the liquid zone.
Penuela9 showed that is possible to obtain accurate
reservoir parameter values, such as absolute permeability, if
numerical and analytical solutions are combined. A two-phase
pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time functions can be constructed
using the relative permeability-saturation-pressure relationship
from the output of a numerical simulator. Then, using
analytical solutions from a fully linearized diffusivity
equation, reservoir parameters can be obtained without
assuming steady-state9. Penuela9 accurately predicts the
saturation distribution by considering relative permeability
dependency on capillary number and inertial effects. However,
initial values of the absolute reservoir permeability and
mechanical skin factor are required for rapid convergence of
the iterative process.
This paper reviews the analytical methods that require
relative permeability curves and presents alternative two-
phase approaches when they are not available.
If the relative permeability curves are available, this paper
shows how pressure drawdown and buildup data can also be
analyzed by applying Penuela’s9 comprehensive methodology.
2 GHERSON PENUELA AND FARUK CIVAN SPE 63160

Formulation for Well-Test Analysis
Experimental studies have demonstrated that as a gas-
condensate system approaches to conditions near the critical
point, interfacial tensions decrease and the relative
permeability curves become progressively straighter with a
decrease of the residual fluid saturations10.
However, IFT is not the only parameter that controls the
relative permeability profile. Experimental studies have shown
that the controlling parameter for near-critical relative
permeability is the capillary number, defined as the ratio of the
viscous to capillary forces on the pore escale11,12:
k ∇Φ
Nc = ................................................................. (1)
σφ
Based on the capillary number, two limiting cases can be
identified.
At very high Nc, relative permeability curves are almost
straight lines. This flow regime limit can be named the
miscible limit, which is characterized for very low IFT’s
and/or high flow potentials. Two important features of this
flow regime are very low residual saturations and the sum of
the relative permeabilities is unity for all saturations10.
On the other hand, at very low Nc, relative permeability
curves present significant curvature and considerably high
residual fluid saturations. This flow regime limit, called
immiscible limit, is obtained at very low flow potential and/or
very high IFT. Moreover, in this limit, the sum of relative
permeabilities is less than unity for all saturations.
Steady-State Theory
Well test data analysis using immiscible relative permeability
data has been extensively studied in the literature.
Fundamentally, the applicability of the steady state theory is
assumed.
of relative permeability curves. Methods 3 and 4, proposed in
this study, can be applied in the absence of reliable relative
permeability data.
Method 1
The following pressure buildup data analysis is a step-by-
step procedure applying the steady-state theory and assuming
the knowledge of immiscible relative permeability curves.
This procedure is a modified version of Jones et al.5
1. Use Eq. 2 to calculate the liquid-gas relative permeability
ratio as a function of pressure:
k ro
= f ( p ) ................................................................... (3)
k rg
2. Estimate oil saturation from the liquid-gas relative
permeability ratio as a function of saturation. In this step
relative permeability curves are required (Fig. 2):
k ro (S o )
→ S o ............................................................... (4)
k rg (S o )
3. Compute oil and gas relative permeabilities using the
previous calculated saturation:
k ro = f (S o ) ................................................................... (5)
and
k rg = f (S o ) ................................................................... (6)
4. Estimate phase densities, viscosities and compressibilities
from CCE flash calculation.
5. Compute the two-phase pseudo-pressure function from:
pwf

∫
 k ro k 
Early bases of the steady-state theory were established by Pp =  ρo + ρ g rg dp ....................................... (7)
O’Dell and Miller13. Later, Fussel14 used a compositional  µ µ g 
 o
simulator to demonstrate that O’Dell and Miller’s approach pref
could be used in pressure data analysis if the average reservoir
pressure is above the dew-point pressure. Jones3 generalized 6. Compute the Horner time by:
Fussel’s observations and demonstrated the use of it in t + ∆t
pressure drawdown and buildup data analysis4,5. H= ...................................................... (8)
Jones and Raghavan4 defined the steady-state as the flow  (µ g c g )i 
condition when “all variables of interest – pressure, saturation,   ∆t
and mole fraction of the components in the liquid and vapor  µ g c g 
phases are independent of time at all points in the reservoir.” 7. From the slope (m) of the straight line in a semi-log plot
Based on this concept, they showed that the two-phase of pseudo-pressure vs. Horner time, obtain the absolute
pseudo-pressure could be estimated with constant- permeability by:
composition-expansion (CCE) data using the following
expression: qt
k= ............................................................ (9)
k ro Lρ g µ o 4π C1 h m
= ............................................................... (2)
k rg Vρ o µ g 8. From H=1 in the previous semi-log plot, determine the
initial reservoir pressure or average reservoir pressure.
In the following, four methods for calculating reservoir 9. Read the pseudo-pressure at 1 hr from the straight line (or
absolute permeability and skin factor are presented. Methods 1 its extrapolation) and calculate the mechanical skin factor
and 2 are currently available4-7, which require the knowledge from the following expression:
SPE 63160 GAS-CONDENSATE WELL-TEST ANALYSIS WITH AND WITHOUT RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES 3

1  Pp (∆t = 0 ) − Pp (∆t = 1) 
  where phase saturation are calculated from flash calculations
k
s=  − ln   + 7.443 according to:
2  (− m )  φ (µ g c g ) rw2 
 i   L
.......................................................................................... (10)
ρo
For pressure drawdown data, repeat steps 1 through 5 . Then , So = .........................................................(16)
L V
continue with the following steps: +
6. Compute the corrected flowing time by: ρo ρ g

 (µ g c g )i  and
D=  t ........................................................ (11)
 µ g c g 
V
ρg
7. From the slope (m) of the straight line in a semi-log plot Sg = .........................................................(17)
L V
of pseudo-pressure vs. corrected time, obtain the absolute +
permeability using: ρo ρ g
qt Method 4
k= ..................................................... (12)
4π C1 h (− m ) This method is an equivalent of method 2, which is used
for miscible flow regime in gas condensate systems. This
8. Read the pseudo-pressure at 1 hr from the straight line (or method assumes that steady-state theory holds. Additionally,
its extrapolation) and calculate the mechanical skin factor the gas condensate system is producing at high gas flow rate
from the following expression: (high flow potential) and/or at conditions close to the critical
point (low IFT and therefore high Nc). It also assumes that,
1  Pp (t = 0 ) − Pp (t = 1)  k  
s=  − ln  + 7.443 .... (13) under these conditions, straight-line relative permeabilities do
2 m  φ (µ g c g ) rw 
2
 not represent adequately the flow system, although the sum of
  i 
the relative permeabilities is unity for all saturations10.
In the previous equations, C1 = 0.00633 is a unit conversion A step-by-step procedure for well-test data analysis is
factor. similar to the process outlined for method 1. However, steps 1
and 2 are not required, and instead of Eq. 5 and 6, the
Method 2 following expressions are used to calculate the relative
A step-by-step process similar to the previous method is permeability curves:
applied by assuming straight-line relative permeability curves.
µ o So
The only difference is the estimation of oil saturation from the k ro = ..................................................(18)
liquid-gas relative permeability ratio as a function of µo So + µ g S g
saturation (step 2). The relative permeability ratio is obtained
from the assumed straight-line relation (Fig. 2). and
µ g Sg
Method 3 k rg = .................................................(19)
A rigorous analysis of the derivation of Eq. 2 leads to the µo So + µ g S g
development of methods in which relative permeability curves
where phase saturations are estimated from Eq. 16 and 17. See
are not required. In the Appendix A, the details of the
Appendix A for details on derivation of Eq. 18 and 19.
derivation are presented.
When immiscible conditions prevail the flow of gas-
Unsteady-State Theory
condensate, the sum of relative permeabilities is less that one
Accurate interpretation of transient data and the flow
and method 1 should be employed. However, it can not be
complexity in the near-wellbore region in gas-condensate
used if relative permeability curves are not available. For this
reservoirs requires the coupling of the analytical and
case, method 3 is suggested following a step-by-step
numerical solutions9. On one hand, the accuracy of the
procedure similar to method 1. The basic difference is that
numerical solution depends on the proper selection of the grid
steps 1 and 2 are not required, and in step 3, the relative
size and time increment. On the other hand, to generate an
permeabilities are obtained from:
analytical solution for the same problem requires the
µg * saturation values at the sandface generated by the numerical
k rg = k rg S g ........................................................ (14) solution approach. Simultaneously, the absolute permeability
µ g*
and skin factor values to be obtained from the numerical and
analytical solutions must be the same while both solutions
µo So match the pressure transient data. Therefore, in the following,
k ro = k rg ........................................................ (15)
µg Sg the same problem is solved both analytically and numerically
to determine the optimum values of the grid size, time
4 GHERSON PENUELA AND FARUK CIVAN SPE 63160

increment, sandface saturation, absolute permeability and skin 2π C1 kh 1  φ rw2 

factor values.
qt
[
Pp ( pi ) − Pp (p wf ) = − Ei − ]
2  4C1 kt p
 ....... (27)

Appendix B describes the mathematical formulation of the 
numerical solution approach. The logarithmic approximation of Eq. 27 for a well where
The analytical solution approach proposed in this study the wellbore storage is ignored, is given by:
uses the numerical simulator output data to solve the
2π C1kh 1   C1kt p  
diffusivity equation given by:
qt
[
Pp ( pi ) − Pp (p wf ) = ln ]
2 
2   φ rw 
 + 0.80907

C1 ∂   k ro k rg  ∂p  ∂
kr  ρ o
r ∂r   µ o
+ ρg   = φ (ρ o S o + ρ g S g )
µ g  ∂r  ∂t
[ ] ............................................................................................ (28)
The above formulation is similar to that used in a single-
phase pressure drawdown2. Therefore, after calculating the
....................................................................................... (20)
pseudo-functions, the data analysis is similar to the traditional
Two pseudo-functions are required to linearize Eq. 20. methods used for single-phase fluid systems.
They are the conventional pseudo-pressure function3 given by:
Field applications
pwf The type of method to be applied for a specific application

∫
 k ro k  depends on the information available for data analysis and the
Pp =  ρo + ρ g rg dp ................................. (21) flow regime under which the gas-condensate is producing.
 µ µ g 
 o At early stages of production from a gas-condensate well,
pref
the conventional gas well analysis can be used for estimating
and, a pseudo-time function is defined as follows9: the absolute permeability and the skin factor. However, below
the dew-point pressure, the condensate drastically reduces the
t
 ∂ (ρ o S o + ρ g S g )
−1 effective permeability to gas and the previous method should
tp =
∫
tref


 ∂Pp
 dt ................................ (22)


be used.

Pressure Buildup Test

Gas flow rate at the wellbore is not instantly zero when a well
where pref and tref are convenient reference values of pressure is shut-in at the surface. The afterflow rate causes a
and time. To the best knowledge of the authors, Eq. 22 is a phenomenon called wellbore storage, and as long as such flow
new equation introduced first in this paper. rate is present, pressure response can not be used to calculate
Lee and Holditch15 also utilized pseudo-times, however, the reservoir parameters, such as permeability or skin factor.
their approach may be used if condensate saturation is very The reduction of flow rate at the sandface is equivalent to a
small, and therefore, the fluid system may be considered as a decrease to the flow potential and therefore a consequent
single-phase dry gas. It is expected that the more general case reduction of Nc. When the wellbore storage effects are
represented by Eq. 22 will be valid regardless of fluid negligible, zero Nc can be assumed and immiscible relative
saturation and compressibility changes. permeability curves can be used for pressure transient
Invoking Eq. 21 and 22 into Eq. 20 yields the following analysis. Then, methods 1 or 3 are applicable.
diffusivity equation: For illustration, the pressure buildup in Well Kal-5 before
C1 ∂  ∂Pp  φ ∂Pp a massive hydraulic fracturing described by Economides et
r = ......................................... (23) al.16 was selected to apply methods 1 and 3.
r ∂r  ∂r  k ∂t p Table 1 presents reservoir, well, and fluid information for
A solution for infinite acting radial flow under constant- the well, which is characterized for producing a gas
rate production requires the following boundary conditions: condensate with initial conditions at the retrograde
condensation point. Further details about this well are given
∂Pp qt elsewhere by Economides et al.16
r = , r → 0, t p ≥ 0 ......................... (24) Fig. 2 shows immiscible relative permeability curves that
∂r 2πC1kh
are assumed in method 1. Fig. 3 is the CCE liquid dropout
and curve required for the relative permeability calculation. Table
2 was prepared using Fig. 3 and a tuned EOS9.
Pp = Pp ( pi ), r → ∞, t p ≥ 0 ............................... (25) Applying method 1, the absolute permeability, the skin
The initial condition is the uniform pressure throughout the factor, and the initial pressure are estimated, respectively as
reservoir, i.e.: k=0.0048 md, s=4.7 and pi=6732.1 psia.
However, in absence of relative permeability data, the
Pp = Pp ( pi ), 0 ≤ r ≤ ∞, t p = 0 ......................... (26) proposed method 3 can be used along with Table 2. Following
the previously explained step-by-step method, the reservoirs
The analytical solution is given by: parameters are calculated as k=0.0030 md, s=4.1, and
SPE 63160 GAS-CONDENSATE WELL-TEST ANALYSIS WITH AND WITHOUT RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES
pi=6728.6 psia. These values compare well with k=0.003 md,
s>10 and pi=6700 psia obtained by Economides et al.16 Note
that this skin factor (observed or apparent skin) value is large
because it includes the mechanical skin (true skin) and the
skin due to liquid block in the near-wellbore formation.
Fig. 4 and 5 presents relative permeability estimations
from the previous methods.
In the numerical-analytical approach (the unsteady-state
method), numerical values for absolute permeability and skin
factor obtained as explained before are used as input data in a
compositional simulator9.
Fig. 6 shows the comparison between the field pressure
and numerical pressure (first run) responses. Two variables
that affect the numerically obtained curve need to be adjusted
in order to get an acceptable match. By modifying the absolute
permeability, the slope approaches to the observed slope in the
semilog plot of pressure vs. time, and by adjusting the skin
factor, the pressure difference between the field measured and
modeled pressure values is reduced. Note that a straight line in
the radial flow region is not present in gas-condensate well-
test semilog plots when pressure and time are used as
variables, and therefore, the slope in this plot varies with time.
A straight line is obtained when pseudo-functions are used
(Eqs. 21 and 22). It is recommended to match the slope of the
curve for permeability first and then the pressure difference
for skin factor.
Finally, Fig. 7 shows a satisfactory match between curves
with permeability k=0.0035 md and skin factor s=6.8. These
results are expected to satisfactorily represent the absolute
reservoir permeability without any relative permeability
effects, and the skin factor should be a representative average
value of the mechanical damage in the near wellbore region
without any condensate accumulation effect.
To verify these results, the saturation at the sandface (Fig.
8) obtained from simulator output (numerical solution) is used
to compute the pseudo-time given by Eq. 22, and from
bottomhole pressure, pseudo-pressure is evaluated (Eq. 21).
Having the pseudo-functions, Eq. 28 is used to calculate the
reservoir permeability k=0.0037 md and skin factor s=6.7,
which agree well with matched values obtained from
numerical part of the process.
Pressure Drawdown Test
High gas flow rates make the capillary number to increase and
the miscible relative permeability curves should be applicable
in well test interpretation.
A common assumption is that the straight-line relative
permeability curves are a good approximation for describing
fluid flow at the predominant miscible limit around the
wellbore (method 2). However, to be consistent with the
steady-state theory, method 4 should be applied. As shown in
Figs. 4 and 5, for all practical purposes, method 2 and 4 would
yield the same results in this particular example.
Well test interpretation of the pressure drawdown section
in Fig. 8 gave almost the same reservoir parameter values, i.e.
k and s, obtained for the pressure buildup period.
5
The results obtained by the proposed methods are
summarized and compared in Table 3.
Discussion and Conclusions
Two new methods, referred here as methods 3 and 4, have
been presented for determination of permeability and skin
factor by well test data interpretation. They are based on the
assumption that the steady-state theory is applicable.
It has been shown that the proposed and traditional
methods, where immiscible limit applies, yield different
relative permeability curves as a function of pressure. A
possible explanation for this is the invalidity of the steady-
state assumption for this case. Also laboratory measurements
may not always be reliable.
The concept of using two different sets of relative
permeability curves for pressure buildup and drawdown
periods was discussed. The application of this concept
depends on the magnitude of the capillary number at the
specific rate of production. In general, it is expected that the
miscible conditions prevail in pressure drawdown and
immiscible conditions during pressure buildup.
Methods 1 and 3 apply for interpretation of pressure
buildup data and methods 2 and 4 for pressure drawdown data.
The numerical-analytical combined method presented in
this paper may be useful in reservoir analysis where a
complete well/reservoir description and a specially tuned EOS
are available. This method of interpretation can be extended to
heterogeneous reservoirs with the pseudo-functions used for
the present homogenous reservoir analysis.
Nomenclature
D = Corrected flowing time, days
H = Horner time, dimensionless
h = Formation thickness, ft
k = Reservoir permeability, md
kro = Relative permeability to oil phase, dimensionless
krg = Relative permeability to gas phase, dimensionless
L = Mole fraction of liquid in the hydrocarbon system,
dimensionless
M = Total number of components
n = Number of moles
Nc = Capillary number, dimensionless
p = Pressure, psia
pwf = Bottomhole flowing pressure, psia
Pp = Pseudo-pressure, (lb-mole.psi2)/(ft3.cp)
qt = Total flow rate at sandface, lb-mole/D
r = Radius, ft
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
Sg = Gas saturation, dimensionless
So = Oil saturation, dimensionless
t = Time, days
V = Mole fraction of gas in the hydrocarbon system,
dimensionless
xi = Mole fraction of component i in oil phase,
dimensionless
yi = Mole fraction of component i in gas phase,
dimensionless
6 GHERSON PENUELA AND FARUK CIVAN SPE 63160

zi = Total mole fraction of component i in the 14. Fussell, D.D.: “Single-Well Performance Predictions of Gas-
hydrocarbon mixture, dimensionless Condensate Reservoirs,” JPT (July 1973) 850.
φ = Porosity, fraction 15. Lee, W.J., and Holditch, S.A.: “Application of Pseudotime to
Buildup Test Analysis of Low-Permeability Gas Wells With
µ = Viscosity, cp Long-Duration Wellbore Storage Distortion,” JPT (Dec. 1982)
ρ = Molar density, lb-mole/ft3 2877-87.
Φ = Flow potential, psi 16. Economides, M.J., Cikes, M., Pforter, H., Udick, T.H., and Uroda,
σ = Interfacial tension, dyne/cm P.: “The Stimulation of a Tight, Very-High-Temperature Gas-
Condensate Well,” SPEFE (March 1989) 63-72.
Subscripts
i = Component SI Metric Conversion Factor
o = Oil phase cp × 1.0* E−03 = Pa.s
g = Gas phase dyne/cm × 1.0* E+00 = mN/m
ft × 3.048* E−01 = m
Acknowledgments ft3 × 2.831 685 E−02 = m3
o
The first author gratefully acknowledges the financial support F (oF-32)/1.8 = oC
from the Colombian Institute for the Development of Science lb-mole/D × 4.535 924 E−01 = kmol/D
and Technology - Francisco José de Caldas - COLCIENCIAS md × 9.869 233 E−04 = µm2
during the course of this work. psi × 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
o
F (oF-32)/1.8 = oC
References
1. Aanonsen, S.I.: “Nonlinear Effects During Transient Fluid Flow *Conversion factor is exact.
in Reservoirs as Encountered in Well Test Analysis,” Ph.D.
Dissertation, U. of Bergen, Norway (1985). Appendix A
2. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey H.J. Jr., and Crawford P.B.: “The Flow This section presents the mathematical basis for the well-test
of Real Gases Through Porous Media,” JPT (May 1966) 624-36. analysis methods when relative permeability data are not
3. Jones, J.R.: “Computation and Analysis of Single Well Responses
available or are not sufficiently reliable. Proposed methods are
for Gas Condensate Systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, U. of Tulsa,
OK (1985).
based on the assumption that the steady-state theory is
4. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R.: “Interpretation of Flowing Well applicable.
Response in Gas-Condensate Wells,” SPEFE (Sep. 1988) 578- Let n be the total number of moles in the gas-condensate
94. mixture. Then, the number of moles of component i in the
5. Jones, J.R., Vo, D.T., and Raghavan, R.: “Interpretation of mixture is given by:
Pressure-Buildup Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells,” SPEFE
(March 1989) 93-104. ni = zi n ....................................................................(A-1)
6. Vo, D.T., Jones, J.R., and Raghavan, R.: “Performance
Predictions for Gas-Condensate Reservoirs,” SPEFE (Dec. where, zi is the total mole fraction of component i in the
1989) 576-84. mixture and is defined as:
7. Vo, D.T. and Raghavan, R.: “An Approximate Analysis Method
for Multiphase Flow Data,” SPEFE (March 1991) 121-28.
zi = Lxi + Vyi ...........................................................(A-2)
8. Thompson, L.G., and Reynolds, A.C.: “Pressure Transient L and V are the mole fraction of liquid and vapor phase in the
Analysis for Gas Condensate Reservoirs,” In Situ, 21 (2), 1997,
gas-condensate mixture at thermodynamic equilibrium. These
101-44.
9. Penuela-P, G.: “Prediction of the Gas-Condensate Well fractions are defined as:
Productivity and Field Implementation using a Compositional ρo So
Model,” MS. Thesis, U. of Oklahoma, OK (1999). L= ....................................................(A-3)
10. Bardon, C. and Longeron, D.G.: “Influence of Very Low ρ o So + ρ g S g
Interfacial Tension on Relative Permeability,” SPEJ (Oct. 1980)
391-401. and
11. Blom, S.M.P., Hagoort, J.: “The Combined Effect of Near-Critical
ρg Sg
Relative Permeability and Non-Darcy Flow on Well Impairment V= ....................................................(A-4)
by Condensate Drop Out,” SPEREE (Oct. 1998) 421-29. ρo So + ρ g S g
12. Blom, S.M.P., Hagoort, J.: “How to Include the Capillary Number
in Gas Condensate Relative Permeability Functions?” paper SPE Differentiating Eq A-1 with respect to time, the following
49268 prepared for presentation at the 1998 SPE Annual expression is obtained:
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September
27-30. ∂ni ∂n ∂z
= zi + n i ..................................................(A-5)
13. O’Dell, H.G., and Miller R.N.: “Successfully Cycling a Low- ∂t ∂t ∂t
Permeability, High-Yield Gas Condensate Reservoir,” JPT (Jan.
1967) 41-47.
SPE 63160 GAS-CONDENSATE WELL-TEST ANALYSIS WITH AND WITHOUT RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES 7

As a constraint of CCE experiments, zi is constant, and L ρ o S o ...............................................................(A-13)

therefore, its derivative with respect to pressure is zero. Then, =
V ρg Sg
Eq A-5 can be written in the following form:
qi = zi qt .................................................................. (A-6) Comparing Eqs. A-12 and A-13, the following relationship for
the relative permeabilities can be obtained:
where the component and total molar rates are defined, k ro µ o S o .............................................................(A-14)
respectively by: =
k rg µ g S g
∂ni   k k rg  ∂p 
qi = = 2πkhC1 r  ρ o ro xi + ρ g yi   .. In method 4, at very high Nc, the sum of the relative
 µ g  ∂r 
∂t   µ o r = rw
permeabilities is assumed unity for all saturations:
....................................................................................... (A-7) k ro + k rg = 1 ..............................................................(A-15)
and
Solving simultaneously Eq. A-14 and A-15 for the relative
∂n   k k rg  ∂p  permeabilities yields:
qt = = 2πkhC1 r  ρ o ro + ρ g   .... (A-8)
∂t  µ µ  ∂ µ o So
  o g  r  r =rw k ro = ..................................................(A-16)
µo So + µ g S g
Combining Eq. A-6 through A-8, the total mole fraction
composition is given by: for the relative permeability to oil phase. Similarly, for the gas
phase:
 k   k 
 ρ o ro   ρ g rg  µ g Sg
 µo   µg  .. (A-9) k rg = .................................................(A-17)
zi =   xi +  yi µo So + µ g S g
k k k k
 ρo ro
+ ρg
rg
  ρo ro
+ ρg
rg

 µo µ g   µo µ g  Eqs. A-16 and A-17 are the viscosity-weighted average
 
saturations approach for relative permeabilities obtained from
Eq. A-9 has the same form of Eq. A-2, where the mole the principles and assumptions of the steady-state theory.
fraction of the liquid phase given by:
k ro Method 3
ρo This method assumes that the relationship expressed by Eq. A-
µo ............................................... (A-10) 15 does not hold. For this case, a different approach is
L=
k k developed.
ρ o ro + ρ g rg Comparing Eq. A-4 and A-11, the following relationship for
µo µg
gas phase holds:
and the mole fraction of gas phase at equilibrium is given by: k rg
k rg = constant.......................................................(A-18)
ρg µg Sg
µg ............................................... (A-11)
V= This constant is found from the equilibrium limit at the dew-
k k point pressure of the condensate system defined by:
ρ o ro + ρ g rg
µo µg
S g → 1 , k rg → k rg* , µ g → µ g* .............................(A-19)
The ratio of Eq. A-10 and A-11 yields:
where k rg* is the end-point relative permeability for the gas
k
ρ o ro phase and µ g* is the gas viscosity at the dew-point pressure.
L µ o ............................................................. (A-12)
= Taking into account Eq. A-19, Eq. A-18 becomes:
V k
ρ g rg µg *
µg k rg = k rg S g .........................................................(A-20)
µ g*
Eq. A-12 is the traditional equation used to calculate the
relative permeability curves directly from constant- The relative permeability to the oil phase can be estimated
composition expansion (CCE) experiments. Eq. 2 and A-12 from Eq. A-14.
are the same.
Appendix B
Method 4 The compositional model formulation is based on the
The ratio of Eqs. A-3 and A-4 gives: following assumptions9:
8 GHERSON PENUELA AND FARUK CIVAN SPE 63160

1. There is a single well in the center of a cylindrical M

drainage region. ∑x
i =1
i = 1 ...................................................................(B-6)
2. The reservoir is horizontal, uniform thickness,
homogeneous, and isotropic, but a small region around M
the wellbore forms the skin zone. This zone is formed
from mechanical and chemical transformation of the
∑y
i =1
i = 1 ...................................................................(B-7)
original rock during drilling and workover operations.
3. A gas condensate with an initial pressure, pi, above the f Vi = f Li 1 ≤ i ≤ M .......................................(B-8)
dew-point pressure, pdew, is present in the reservoir.
4. The reservoir is an isothermal system with temperature, T; Eq. B-8 is a set of M algebraic equations that implement
above the critical fluid temperature, but below the the assumption of thermodynamic equilibrium, which requires
cricondentherm of the condensate fluid. that the fugacity of component i in the vapor phase, f Vi , be
5. Below the initial dew point pressure, two hydrocarbon
phases in thermodynamic equilibrium are present. equal to the fugacity of component i in the liquid phase, f Li .
6. Gravity and capillary effects are neglected.
7. The porosity and water saturation are uniform and
constant throughout the reservoir. The formulation is
carried out by attributing any connate water present to the
matrix so that porosity refers to pore volume available for
the hydrocarbons, i.e. φhc=φ(1-Swic), where φ denotes
porosity and Swic denotes the connate water saturation.
The diffusivity equation written for component i is given
by:

C1 ∂   k ro k rg  ∂p  ∂
r ∂r  
kr ρ o
 µo
xi + ρ g yi   =
µ g  ∂r  ∂t
[ ]
φ (ρ o S o x i + ρ g S g y i )

....................................................................................... (B-1)
where 1 ≤ i ≤ M, and M denotes the total number of Table 1 Reservoir, well, and fluid information for well Kal-5
16
components. (after Economides et al. )
As stated in the assumptions, there is initially a uniform Initial pressure, pi 6750 psia
pressure and species composition throughout the reservoir: Dew point pressure, pd 6750 psia
γg (to air) 0.94
p (r , t ) = pi , yi (r , t ) = yii 1 ≤ i ≤ M , rw ≤ r ≤ re , t = 0 Lmax, vol. % 8.7
....................................................................................... (B-2) Temperature, T 354 oF
The reservoir is produced at a constant molar rate Molar flow rate, qt 200 lb-mole/D
according to the following inner boundary conditions: Thickness, h 216.5 ft
Porosity, φ 0.062
 k k rg  ∂p qt Wellbore radius, rw 0.54 ft
r  ρ o ro + ρ g  = , r = rw , t > 0 (B-3)
 µo µ  ∂r 2πC kh Drainage radius, re 600 ft
 g  1

A closed boundary condition according to the following

expression is considered for the external boundary of the
cylindrical drainage region:
∂p
= 0 , r = re , t ≥ 0 ........................................ (B-4)
∂r
The above set of equations indicate that 2M+3 variables
need to be found, p(r , t ), S o (r , t ), S g (r , t ), xi (r , t ), yi (r , t ),
1 ≤ i ≤ M . Because Eq. B-1 only represents M equations, one
per component, M+3 constraint equations are required. Thus,
the solution should also satisfy the following relationships:
S o (r , t ) + S g (r , t ) = 1 ............................................... (B-5)
SPE 63160 GAS-CONDENSATE WELL-TEST ANALYSIS WITH AND WITHOUT RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES 9

Table 2 Gas-condensate fluid properties during pressure buildup.

t† pws † ρo ρg µo µg L cg
days psia lbmole/ft3 lbmole/ft3 cp cp fraction psi-1
0 1083.1 0.3214 0.1274 0.0184 0.0170 0.0556 0.0009037
0.0070 1174.5 0.3248 0.1383 0.0192 0.0172 0.0567 0.0008329
0.0139 1226.7 0.3268 0.1445 0.0196 0.0172 0.0573 0.0007971
0.0208 1303.6 0.3296 0.1537 0.0203 0.0173 0.0582 0.0007494
0.0417 1490.6 0.3366 0.1759 0.0219 0.0176 0.0604 0.0006534
0.0833 1751.6 0.3465 0.2067 0.0240 0.0180 0.0634 0.0005523
0.1250 2046.0 0.3578 0.2411 0.0264 0.0185 0.0666 0.0004678
0.1667 2279.4 0.3669 0.2680 0.0282 0.0189 0.0692 0.0004155
0.2500 2759.4 0.3861 0.3219 0.0316 0.0200 0.0742 0.0003338
0.3333 3246.5 0.4065 0.3745 0.0347 0.0212 0.0789 0.0002739
0.5000 4221.0 0.4499 0.4717 0.0399 0.0240 0.0860 0.0001924
0.6667 5162.0 0.4964 0.5540 0.0436 0.0273 0.0857 0.0001405
0.9167 6161.0 0.5530 0.6267 0.0460 0.0315 0.0610 0.0001001
1.1667 6336.5 0.5640 0.6376 0.0462 0.0323 0.0497 0.0000940
1.4167 6406.1 0.5686 0.6418 0.0463 0.0327 0.0440 0.0000916
1.7500 6452.5 0.5716 0.6444 0.0463 0.0329 0.0398 0.0000900
2.0833 6487.3 0.5740 0.6464 0.0464 0.0331 0.0363 0.0000888
2.4167 6507.6 0.5753 0.6476 0.0464 0.0332 0.0342 0.0000881
2.8333 6526.5 0.5766 0.6486 0.0464 0.0333 0.0322 0.0000875
3.4167 6556.9 0.5787 0.6503 0.0464 0.0335 0.0287 0.0000864
4.0417 6574.3 0.5798 0.6512 0.0464 0.0336 0.0266 0.0000858
4.6667 6587.3 0.5807 0.6520 0.0464 0.0336 0.0250 0.0000854
5.8750 6601.8 0.5818 0.6527 0.0464 0.0337 0.0230 0.0000849
†Economides et al.16

Table 3 Comparison of the various methods for the gas-condensate pressure transient data.
Relative
Test Method k, md s
permeability
Method 1 Immiscible 0.0048 4.7
Pressure Steady-state theory
Method 3 Not required 0.0030 4.1
buildup
Unsteady-state theory Immiscible 0.0037 6.8
Method 2 Miscible 0.0040 4.5
Pressure Steady-state theory
Method 4 Not required 0.0035 4.8
drawdown
Unsteady-state theory Immiscible 0.0037 6.7
10 GHERSON PENUELA AND FARUK CIVAN SPE 63160

MOBILE GAS MOBILE GAS

AND AND
MOBILE IMMOBILE MOBILE GAS
CONDENSATE CONDENSATE REGION
REGION REGION
WELL

GAS

CONDENSATE

TWO-PHASE ONE-PHASE
ZONE ZONE
Fig. 1 Schematic near-wellbore region fluid description.

1 10
Immiscible limit curves
Miscible limit curves

0.8 8
Relative Permeability, fraction

CCE Liquid Dropout, %

Krg Kro
0.6 6

0.4 4

2
0.2

0
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Condensate saturation, fraction Pressure, psia
Fig. 2 Miscible and immiscible relative permeability curves. Fig. 3 CCE liquid dropout curve.
SPE 63160 GAS-CONDENSATE WELL-TEST ANALYSIS WITH AND WITHOUT RELATIVE PERMEABILITY CURVES 11

1 0.2
Method 1
Relative Permeability to gas phase, fraction

Relative Permeability to oil phase, fraction

Method 3
0.8 0.16 Method 2 and 4

0.6 0.12

0.4 0.08

Method 1
0.2 Method 3 0.04
Method 2 and 4

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Pressure, psia Pressure, psia
Fig. 4 Prediction of relative permeability to gas phase by different Fig. 5 Prediction of relative permeability to gas phase by different
methods. methods.

10000
Pressure, psia

Simulated test (first run)

16
Economides et al.

1000
4 6 8 10 12
Time, days
Fig. 6 Comparison between the field measured and predicted pressure responses.
12 GHERSON PENUELA AND FARUK CIVAN SPE 63160

10000

Pressure, psia

Simulated test
16
Economides et al.

1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time, days
Fig.7 Satisfactory pressure match obtained using k = 0.035 and s = 6.8.

0.4
Methods 1 and 3
Condensate saturation at the wellbore,

application region
0.3 Methods 2 and 4
application region
fraction

0.2

Pressure Drawdown
0.1 Pressure Buildup

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time, days
Fig.8 Saturation at the wellbore from numerical simulation output.