Studying The Effect of Condensate Satura PDF

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
University Of Baghdad
College of Engineering
Petroleum Engineering Department
Studying the Effect of Condensate Saturation

Bank Development around a Production Well in
Siba Field / Yamama Formation
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF BAGHDAD IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THEREQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING
By
Mohammed Mohsin Hameed
(B.Sc. 2012)
Supervised by
Dr. Jalal Abdulwahid Al-Sudany Dr. Ali Hussein Jawad
2015 A.D. 1436 A.H

‫صدق هللا العظيم‬
‫سورة البقرة‪ /‬اية الكرسي( ‪)522‬‬

DEDICATION
To my love H. A. Jaber
Acknowledgements
First of all, I praise God, the Almighty, Merciful and Passionate, for
providing me this opportunity and granting me the capability to proceed
successfully.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my

supervisors, Dr. Jalal Abdulwahid Al-Sudani and Dr. Ali Hussein Jawad
for their valuable guidance, advice, and encouragement throughout the
present work. Without their insightful comments, completion of this work
would not have been possible.
I am truly grateful to Dr. Hussein Ali Baker for his help, ideas,
advices and contributions towards the completion of this work. You were
and will be as a father to me.
I would like to thank Farooq Salman Mousa / Ministry of Oil, for his
kindness and assistance during period of this study, his effort will not be
forgotten, nor can the importance of his contribution, and underestimated.
My appreciation goes to my great parents for all the care and advice.
I have received and continue to receive from them. They have sowed into
me the eagerness to learn and I am now reaping the benefits. My
appreciation goes also to my brothers for their valuable support.
Finally, I like to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my

friends Omer Khalid, Reyam Jalil and Samer Jalil and for their support,
help, and kindness that they have shown during all stages of this work.
Thanks to all.
Mohammed
I
Abstract
Gas condensate reservoirs are getting more important due to an
increasing share of gas produced from these reservoirs within the global
structure of gas production. In gas condensate reservoirs when the
bottomhole pressure falls below the dewpoint pressure, liquid will drop out
and condensate will accumulate near the wellbore. Accumulation of
condensate in a reservoir can cause a reduction in gas relative permeability
(as a result decreasing gas well productivity) and loss of valuable heavy-
ends components in the reservoir.
The ultimate objectives of this study are to understand the condensate
blocking mechanisms and how it affects the well productivity. Also, this
study concerned in investigation of the compositional variation in the
reservoir and well stream fluids as a function of pressure. This study focus
on optimization of Siba field which means maximizing liquid hydrocarbon
recovery. The best way to do that is to conduct compositional reservoir
simulation studies of the reservoir, which first requires fine-tuning an
equation of state (EOS) model to the laboratory measured reservoir fluid
PVT data and then using that fine-tuned EOS model for conducting
compositional reservoir simulation studies to investigate various reservoir
exploitation scenarios. Different scenarios have been compared, and the
optimum producing scenarios was suggested for maximum condensate
recovery.
Results from this study show that composition varies significantly as a
function of both bottomhole pressure (BHP) and average reservoir
pressure. Also, results show that the impact of condensate banking can be
reduced and gas /condensate recovery can be improved through the use of
pressure control method (BHP). In this study, periodic injection of gas
(huff 'n' puff method) were also simulated using two different gases (CO2
and CH4) to investigate their capability of vaporization of condensate near
wellbore region. The results from the use of periodic injection of gas
method show no improvement can be made in gas or condensate recovery.
II
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ...………………………………………………....… I
Abstract ...…………………………………………….…….…............ II
Table of Contents ...……………………………………….………...... III
List of Figures ...………..………………………………….................. VII
List of Tables ...…………………………………………….….…….... III
Nomenclature ...…………………………………………….…..…….. III
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ............................................... 1

1.1 Overview .............................................................................. 1
1.2 Modeling condensate blockage ............................................ 2
1.3 Brief Idea about Siba field ................................................... 3
1.4 Objective of study ................................................................ 4
CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review ..................................... 5

2.1 Gas Condensate Reservoirs ................................................. 5
2.2 Condensate Banking ............................................................ 7
2.3 Relative Permeability ......................................................... 10
2.4 Gas Condensate Simulation ............................................... 17
CHAPTER THREE: Flow Behavior ...………………...….... 22

3.1 Natural Gas Reservoirs .................................................... 22
3.1.1 Natural Gas Composition ....................................... 23
3.1.2 Phase Diagram and Classification of Natural Gases
.......................................................................................... 23
3.1. 3 Gas Condensate Reservoir .................................... 26
3.2 Flow Behavior of Gas Condensate .................................... 28
3.2.1 Banking Phenomenon ...…………………..............28
3.2.2 Gas Condensate PVT Analyses ...……………….. 30
III
3.2.2.1 CVD Constant Volume Depletion ...……. 31
3.2.2.2 Constant Composition Expansion (CCE).....33
3.3 Flow regions ...……………….......................................... 35
CHAPTER FOUR: PVT Model .………………................... 38

4.1 Equation of state (EOS) Modeling Software...……….... 38
4.2 Reservoir Sample...…………………............................. 38
4.3 Cubic Equations of State...………………...................... 40
4.3.1 The Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) Equation ...…. 41
4.3.2 Peng-Robinson (PR) Equation ...……………...… 42
4.3.3 Peneloux Volume Correction ...…………………. 43
4.4 Hydrocarbon-Plus Fractions Properties (Characterization)
................................................................................................. 44
4.4.1 Correlations ...………………............................… 45
4.4.2 Splitting and Lumping (C9+ Characterization) ...... 45
4.4.2.1 Splitting ...…………................................. 46
4.4.2.2 Lumping ...………………….................... 47
4.5 Regression to Experimental PVT Data ............................ 49
4.5.1 Selection of Regression Variable ...……….......... 50
4.5.2 Regression Weighting Elements ...…………....... 52
4.5.3. Regression Results ...…………………................ 52
4.6 PVT Simulation ...…………………................................. 55
4.6.1 Phase Envelope ...…………………..................... 55
4.6.2 Constant Mass Expansion (CME) ...…………..… 57
4.6.3 Constant Volume Depletion (CVD) ...………...… 59
4.7 Compositional Changes .................................................... 62
IV
CHAPTER FIVE: Reservoir Modeling.................................. 66
5.1 General and Geological Description of Siba Field/ Yamama
Formation...……………....................................................... 67
5.2 Gridding ............................................................................. 70
5.3 Rock - Fluid Petrophysical Properties…............................ 72
5.3.1 Porosity and Initial Water Saturation ...………..... 72
5.3.2 Permeability Prediction Using FZI Method...….… 73
5.3.3 Net Thickness ......................................................... 75
5.4 Rock Petrophysical Properties Distribution in the Model...77
5.5 Rock Compressibility...…………….................................. 78
5.6 Reservoir Fluid Properties ...………………...................... 79
5.7 Relative Permeability ...……………….............................. 79
5.7.1 Corey’s Model: Oil-Water Relative
Permeability...…………......................................... 80
5.7.2 Corey’s Model: Gas-Oil Relative
Permeability...…………......................................... 80
5.7.3 Stone’s Model: Three-Phase Relative Permeability
……………........................................................... 80
5.8 Initial Conditions...………………..................................... 83
5.9 Well Model ........................................................................ 83
CHAPTER SIX: Results and Discussions ............................. 84

6.1 Initialization Results...………………............................... 85
6.2 Pressure Matching Results...…………............................... 86
6.3 Production Scenarios...……………….............................. 87
6.3.1 BHP 5000 psi ...………………............................. 88
6.3.2 BHP 6000 psi ...………………............................... 92
6.3.3 BHP 7000 psi ...………………............................... 96
6.3.4 BHP 8000 psi ...………………............................. 100
V
6.3.5 Effect of Gas injection on Well Productivity (Huff 'n'
Puff Method) ...………....................................... 103
6.4 Results comparison of BHP control scenarios ................108
6.5 Further investigation...………………............................. 109
6.6 Two-Phase Skin...……………….................................... 110
CHAPTER SEVEN: Conclusions and Recommendations..112

7.1 Conclusions ...………………….................................... 112
7.2 Recommendations ...………………............................... 114
References.......................................................................................... 115
Appendix A ............................................................................ A-1
Appendix B ....................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C ......................................................................................... C-1
VI
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Saturation Distribution for a Typical Gas Condensate System

..................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2 Location of Siba field……………………………...…….……..4
Figure 3.1 Phase diagram (P-T diagram) ...................................................24
Figure 3.2 Ternary diagram ........................................................................25
Figure 3.3 Phase diagram of typical retrograde gas ................................ 27
Figure 3.4 Schematic of CVD experiment............................................... 32
Figure 3.5 Schematic of CCE experiment ................................................ 33
Figure 3.6 Gas condensate P-T diagram, and flow regimes as a function of
the distance from the well ........................................................................ 35
Figure 4.1 The characterization problem ................................................. 46
Figure 4.2 Comparison of experimental and calculated liquid drop out %

from CVD experiments before and after tuning ...................................... 53
Figure 4.3 Comparison of experimental and calculated gas Z factor from

CVD experiments before and after tuning ............................................... 54
Figure 4.4 Comparison of experimental and calculated liquid drop out

from CME (or CCE) experiments before and after tuning....................... 54
Figure 4.5 Comparison of experimental and calculated relative volume

from CME (or CCE) experiments before and after tuning ...................... 54
Figure 4.6 Phase envelope (pressure-temperature diagram (P-T diagram)

................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4.7 Phase envelope of Siba field (Comparison of both characterized

C9+ (splitting and lumping) and characterized C9+ using Twu
correlation)................................................................................................ 57
Figure 4.8 Comparison of experimental and simulated liquid drop out%

vs. pressure (CME experiment) ............................................................... 58
VII
Figure 4.9 Comparison of experimental and simulated relative volume
(CME experiment) ................................................................................... 58
Figure 4.10 Comparison of experimental and simulated liquid drop out%

vs. pressure (CVD experiment) ................................................................ 59
Figure 4.11 Comparison of experimental and simulated gas Z factor vs.

pressure (CVD experiment) ..................................................................... 60
Figure 4.12 Simulated production mole% vs. pressure (CVD experiment)

................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 4.13 Simulated two phase Z factor vs. pressure (CVD experiment)
................................................................................................................. .61
Figure 4.14 Simulated viscosity vs. pressure (CVD experiment) ............61
Figure 4.15 Phase envelopes of produced-well stream at different

BHP……................................................................................................. .64
Figure 4.16 Phase envelopes of condensate liquid at different

pressure..................................................................................................... 65
Figure 4.17 Shift in phase envelope of gas condensate at different average

reservoir pressure (CVD experiment)……………………....................... 65
Figure 5.1 The predicted structural contour map of the top of unit C/
Yamama formation................................................................................... 68
Figure 5.2 Initial grid system ................................................................... 72
Figure 5.3 Reservoir quality index vs. normalized porosity .................... 74
Figure 5.4 Permeability from FZI method and core permeability vs.
depth……………………….......................................................................75
Figure 5.5 Log permeability vs. porosity in unit C and D (core data)….. 76
Figure 5.6 Water saturation vs. porosity in unit C and D (log data) ........ 76
Figure 5.7 Final grid system of Siba field/Yamama formation ............... 78
Figure 5.8 Oil-water relative permeability .............................................. 81
Figure 5.9 Gas-oil relative permeability .................................................. 82
VIII
Figure 5.10 Oil relative permeability by Stone’s second model .............. 82
Figure 6.1 History matches with build-up test ......................................... 87
Figure 6.2 Gas flow rate (MMscf/day) for BHP 5000 psi vs. time (first
scenario) ................................................................................................... 89
Figure 6.3 Condensate flow rate (bbl/day) for BHP 5000 psi vs. time (first
scenario).................................................................................................... 90
Figure 6.4 Condensate profile along unit C and D (first scenario) .......... 90
Figure 6.5 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (first

scenario) ................................................................................................... 91
Figure 6.6 Gas Saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (first scenario)
................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 6.7 CGR and Avg. reservoir pressure vs. time (first scenario) ..... 92
Figure 6.8 Gas flow rate (MMscf/day) for BHP 6000 psi vs. time (second
scenario) ................................................................................................... 93
Figure 6.9 Condensate flow rate (bbl/day) for BHP 6000 psi vs. time
(second scenario)...................................................................................... 94
Figure 6.10 Condensate profile along unit C and D (second scenario)

.................................................................................................................. 94
Figure 6.11 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8

(second scenario) ..................................................................................... 95
Figure 6.12 Gas saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (second

scenario) .................................................................................................. 95
Figure 6.13 CGR and Avg. reservoir pressure vs. time (second scenario)
.................................................................................................................. 96
Figure 6.14 Gas flow rate (MMscf/day) for BHP 7000 psi vs. time (third
scenario) .................................................................................................. 97
(third scenario).......................................................................................... 97
IX
Figure 6.16 Condensate profile along unit C and D (third scenario)
.................................................................................................................. 98
Figure 6.17 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (third

scenario) .................................................................................................. 98
Figure 6.18 Gas saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (third

scenario) ................................................................................................. ..99
Figure 6.19 CGR and Avg. reservoir pressure vs. time (third scenario)
................................................................................................................... 99
Figure 6.20 Gas flow rate (MMscf/day) for BHP 8000 psi vs. time (fourth
scenario) ................................................................................................. 100
(fourth scenario)...................................................................................... 101
Figure 6.22 Condensate profile along unit C and D (fourth scenario)

................................................................................................................. 101
Figure 6.23 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (fourth

scenario) ................................................................................................. 102
Figure 6.24 Gas Saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (fourth

scenario) ................................................................................................. 102
Figure 6.25 CGR and Avg. reservoir pressure vs. time (fourth scenario)
................................................................................................................. 103
Figure 6.26 Comparison of gas flow rate (MMSCF/day) for BHP 6000 psi,
CO2 and CH4 huff 'n' puff methods vs. time........................................... 105
Figure 6.27 Comparison of Condensate flow rate (MMSCF/day) for BHP

6000 psi, Co2 and CH4 huff 'n' puff methods vs. time............................ 105
Figure 6.28 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 at the

end of shut-in of each cycle (fifth scenario)........................................... 106

end of shut-in of each cycle (sixth scenario) ......................................... 106
Figure 6.30 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 after

one month of production for each cycle (fifth scenario) ....................... 107
X
one month of production for each cycle (sixth scenario) ....................... 107

deferent shut-in time .............................................................................. 110
Figure 6.33 Skin Factor vs. relative permeability of gas in Siba 1...... . 111
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Determination of fluid type from production
data............................................................................................................ 25
Table 4.1 Reservoir fluid composition Siba field / Yamama formation /

unit C and D ............................................................................................. 39
Table 4.2 Reservoir Fluid Compositions (After Splitting and Lumping

Process) .................................................................................................... 50
Table 4-3 Regression variables selections ............................................... 52
Table 4-4 Weighting elements used in the regression process ............... 53
Table 4.5 Reservoir Fluid Compositions (After Splitting, Lumping and

regression Process) ................................................................................... 54
Table 4.6 Produced well stream (gas phase) mole% as a function of

BHP........................................................................................................... 64
Table 4.7 Condensate (liquid phase) mole% as a function of pressure

................................................................................................................... 65
Table 5.1 Fluid distribution in Yamama formation units ........................ 70
Table 5.2 Grid size distribution ............................................................... 72
Table 6.1 Initial fluids in place and pore volume of Siba Field/Yamama
Formation/ Unit C and D ......................................................................... 86
Table 6.2 Main difference in well behavior under different well flowing
bottom-hole pressure (BHP) control …………...................................... 109
XI
Nomenclature
a, b, c Constants In Various Equations Of State, Dimensionless

kh Permeability- Thickness, md*m
krg Gas Relative Permeability
Krnwt Relative Permeability of Nonwetting Phase
kro Oil Relative Permeability
krocw Oil Relative Permeability at connate water
Krog Relative Permeability to Oil in the Oil-Gas System
krow Relative Permeability to Oil in the Oil-Water System
krw Water Relative Permeability
Krwt Relative Permeability of Wetting Phase
p Pressure, psia
Pc Critical Pressure, psia
R Gas Constant
S Saturation
Scc Critical Condensate Saturation
Sg Gas Saturation
Sgr Residual Gas Saturation
Snwtr Residual Saturation of Nonwetting Phase
So Oil Saturation
Sor Residual Oil Saturation
Sw Water Saturation
Swir Residual Water Saturation
Swt Wetting Phase Saturation
Swt* Normalized Wetting Phase Saturation
Swtr Residual Wetting Phase Saturation
T Absolute Temperature oF
Tc Critical Temperature oF
XII
Tct cricondentherm Temperature oF
v Molar Volume
Z Compressibility Factor
Greek Symbols
Øe Effective Porosity
Øz Normalized Porosity
ω Acentric factor, dimensionless
Ω Equation of state parameter, dimensionless
Abbreviations
API American Petroleum Institute
bbl Barrel
BHP Bottomhole Pressure, psia
BIP Binary Interaction Parameters
CCE Constant Composition Expansion
CGR Condensate Gas Ratio
CMC Constant Mass Expansion
CMG Computer Modeling Group
CN Carbon Number
COSMOS Compositional System Mobil Oil Simulator
CPI Computer Process Interpretation
CVD Constant Volume Depletion
EOS Equation of State
Exp. Experimental
GOR Gas-Oil Ratio SCF/ STB
HVF High Velocity Flow
IFT Interfacial Tension
LGR Local Grid Refinement
XIII
MMSCF Millions of Standard cubic foot
MSCF Thousands of Standard cubic foot
Nc Capillary Number
NE North East
NGL Natural Gas Liquids
OGIP Original Gas in Place
OOIP Original Oil in Place
PR Peng-Robinson
PVT Pressure, Volume, Temperature
Qg Gas Flow Rate
RQI Reservoir Quality Index
SCF Standard Cubic Foot
SCN Single Carbon Number
SPE Society of Petroleum Engineers
SRK Soave-Redlich-Kwong
STB Stock Tank Barrel
STO Stock Tank Oil
SW South West
XIV
CHAPTER ONE Introduction
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1 Overview
Natural gas has become an important source of global energy and is

projected to be the fastest-growing component of primary world energy
consumption. In the Middle East, gas condensate reservoirs have great
importance due to the high value of condensate serves and their excellent
natural gas depletion potential (Al-Anazi et al., 2010)(1).
Gas condensate reservoirs temperature lies between the

cricondentherm and the critical temperature and usually experience
retrograde conditions when the pressure drops below the dewpoint
pressure. During production, the pressure declines isothermally and if the
well flowing bottom-hole pressure (BHP) drops below the dewpoint
pressure, the condensate drops out of the gas and forms a bank of liquid
around the well and this leads to a loss of valuable hydrocarbons, because
the condensate contains most of the heavy components. As a result, up to
30-60% of initial condensate reserves can remain in the formation
(Shandrygin et al., 2008) (2). Condensate liquid saturation builds up near
the wellbore region first and then propagates radially away along with the
pressure drop (Figure 1.1). Retrograde condensation near wellbore region
leads to a decrease in effective permeability of gas and as a result causes a
reduction in well productivity. The reduction in gas permeability caused by
the condensate bank is called condensate blocking (or condensate
chocking). Near-well chocking can reduce the productivity of a well by a
factor of two to four (Afidick et al., 1994 (3) and Barnum et al. 1995 (4)).
This condensate accumulation around the wellbore not only reduces the
1
effective permeability to gas but will also change the phase composition of
the produced fluids.
Figure 1.1 Saturation distribution for a typical gas condensate system

(Fan et al., 2005) (5)
1.2 Modeling of Condensate Blockage
Reservoir simulation is commonly used to predict gas condensate

reservoir performance. The typical grid block of a full-field model is much
larger than the condensate zone (the blockage zone), therefore; a coarse
grid model may overestimate well productivity.
In developing gas condensate reservoirs, if problems related to the

condensate bank were not reviewed thoroughly, there would be the
possibility of overestimating or underestimating production performance of
reservoirs (Ali et al. 1997 (6) and Mahbub et al. 2002 (7)). Therefore, when
modeling gas condensate reservoirs, the accurate way to determine near-
2
well behavior is by using a model with a fine grid. The use of fine grid
provides good resolution where the flow is highest and fluids saturations
are the most complex in behavior.
It could be reviewed three different approaches for modeling gas

condensate reservoir in full field reservoir simulation. These approaches
are:
1- Using redial-single well model
2- Local grid refinement (LGR)
3-Pseudopressure methods
In this study, compositional isothermal flow simulations were

performed using multi-layer, three-dimensional radial model with a fine
grid near wellbore region and increase in the direction far from wellbore
region. A perforated vertical well was located in the center of the reservoir
model (Siba 1).
1.3 Brief Idea about Siba Field
In this study, Siba field was chosen to study the effect of condensate
accumulations on well productivity. Siba field/ Yamama formation is one
of the Iraqi gas condensate fields and it is situated in the southern part of
Iraq, in Basra Governorate, some 30 kms south east of Basra city (Figure
5.1)
Gas and oil accumulations have been discovered in the Siba Field. Gas
has been successfully tested in the Yamama Cretaceous formation, while
oil has been confirmed in the Zubair and Yamama Cretaceous formations.
3
Figure 1.2 Location of Siba field
1.4 Objective of Study
The ultimate objectives of the study are to get a better understanding

of how the condensate blocking affects the well productivity and the
compositional variation in the reservoir and well stream fluids as a function
of pressure changes. This study tries to reduce the impact of condensate
banking and improving gas and condensate recovery through the use of
pressure control method (BHP). Moreover, the applicability of periodic
injection of gas (huff 'n' puff method) in vaporization of condensate near
wellbore region was investigated.
4
CHAPTER TWO Literature Review
Chapter Two
Literature Review
This chapter presents a critical review of the literatures in support of
the conceptual framework for the study. It highlights the subject of gas
condensate reservoirs with special emphasis on the phase and flow
behavior, condensate banking phenomena, and fluid dynamics. These
factors lie at the heart of reservoir engineering activities as they affect the
performance of a gas condensate reservoir during the exploitation process.
This chapter reviews the previous studies and researches concerning gas
condensate reservoirs.
2.1 Gas Condensate Reservoirs

(8)
Pollard and Bradley (1962) suggested that the following factors
should be considered when selecting an optimum production method for a
gas condensate reservoir:
1. Reservoir formation and fluid characteristics:

• Occurrence or absence of black oil.
• Size of reserves.
• Properties and composition of reservoir hydrocarbon fluid.
• Productivities and injectivities of wells.
• Permeability variation that controls the flow degree of injected
gas.
• Degree of natural water drives if existing.
2. Reservoir development and its Costs.
3. Plant installation and its costs.
4. Market demand for liquid and gas petroleum products.
5. Future relative value of the products.
5
6. Absence or existence of competitive producing conditions between

operators (in the same reservoir).
7. Taxes and royalties.
8. Special hazards or risks to the investment (e.g. political instability).
9. Overall economic analysis.
(9)
Kniazeff and Naville (1965) were the first to model radial gas
condensate well productivity by numerical simulation. Their study shows
the saturation and pressure profiles as a function of time and other
operational variables. They confirm that condensate blockage reduces well
deliverability. Moreover, they study the non-Darcy flow effect (in the gas
phase) on well deliverability.
Wall (1982) (10) studied the characteristics of gas condensate reservoirs
and he state that gas and gas condensate reservoirs are usually found at
great depths. He submits that the greater the temperature and pressure to
which organic matter has been subjected, the greater is the degree of
degradation of complex organic molecules. Consequently the deeper the
burial of source rock, the greater is the likelihood of a relatively high
proportion of lighter hydrocarbon.
(11)
Cable et al. (2000) studied the parameters affecting on gas
condensate production and how to used special core analysis data for near-
well-region relative permeability to model reservoir productivity in a full
field model for evaluating gas condensate reservoir. They argued that by
using standard techniques used in dry gas reservoir engineering, some
aspects of gas condensate reservoir can be studied and it is also important
to consider issues such as condensate recovery and change in yield during
production time, compositional gradients, and the reduction in well
productivity due to condensate saturation bank.
6
2.2 Condensate Banking

(12)
Eilerts et al. (1965) used the second-order, nonlinear, partial-
differential equation to represent the transient radial flow of gas-condensate
fluids in reservoirs which has been integrated by using finite-difference
equations and electronic computers. Effect was given to pressure-
dependent permeability, viscosity, and compressibility and to distance-
dependent permeability. Implicit methods were used and practical,
convergent solutions were obtained with material balance to less than 6 x
10 for recovery of one-half the reserve at constant flow rate. The result of
the study showed that BHP decreases more rapidly and condensate dropout
is higher around the well in a low permeability reservoir than a high
permeability reservoir for the same production schedule.
(13) (14)
Hinchman and Barree (1985) and Sognesand (1991) stated
that gas condensate reservoirs often experience rapid decline as soon as the
condensate starts to build up and form a ring around the production wells.
The amount of liquid phase present in near wellbore region depends not
only on the pressure, temperature and composition, but also on the
properties of the fluids and relative permeability. They showed that the
range of this region in size is from tens of feet for lean gas condensate
reservoir to hundreds of feet for rich one. Its size is proportional to the
volume of gas drained and the amount of liquid dropout. It extends farther
from the wellbore when the layers have higher permeability than average
since a layer volume of gas has pass through these layers.
Afidick et al. (1994) (3) studied the decline in productivity of the Arun
gas condensate reservoir due to the condensate accumulation. Experimental
PVT analysis of the reservoir fluid showed that the reservoir fluid was a
lean gas condensate with maximum liquid dropout of 1.1%. The decline in
the productivity of the wells by a factor of around two as the reservoir
7
pressure fell below the dewpoint pressure was attributed to accumulation of

condensate around the wellbore. The accumulation of condensate around
the wellbore was confirmed by well tests and the analysis done on the
reservoir cores.
(4)
Barnum et al. (1995) studied the gas condensate reservoirs
included a survey of Exxon and published industry experience, simulations
of single-well-flow models and a review of published laboratory data. In
this study, data from 17 fields were included to explain that severe loss of
gas recovery occurs mostly in reservoirs with low productivity. Also, with
simple radial models, production data from two wells were history matched
to estimate the possible range of the critical condensate saturation (Scc) and
its effect on well productivity. Their main conclusion was that the recovery
factor of gas condensate radial wells is only affected by condensate
blocking if the well’s permeability-thickness (kh) is less than 1,000 md-ft.
For higher quality reservoirs, productivity loss is not very severe.
(15)
Boom et al. (1996) described model experiments to assess the
improved gas/condensate mobility under near-wellbore flow conditions.
Although the experiments used core material from actual gas/condensate
reservoirs, they were model experiments in that the gas and condensate
phase system were represented by a two-phase liquid-gas system at low
interfacial tension (no connate water was present) and a large centrifugal
acceleration substituted for the large pressure gradient in the near-wellbore
region. They showed that even for lean fluids with low condensate dropout,
high condensate saturations could build up as many pore volumes of gas
pass through the near wellbore region.
(16)
Takeda et al. (1997) present fluid condensation behaviors around
a well in a gas-condensate reservoir which is computed using a 2-
dimensional, 2-phase compositional simulator of radial geometry. They
discuss retrograde condensation behavior focusing on near a producing
8
well. The calculation of phase behavior was based on Soave Redlich-

Kwong (SRK-EOS). Using real reservoir rock and fluid properties obtained
from a reservoir offshore Sarawak in Malaysia, they demonstrates some
predicted results of presumable retrograde condensation behaviors around a
well. The result showed that rich gas reservoirs shows considerably higher
condensate saturations around the producing well than lean gas reservoirs
and therefore suffer much higher productivity losses.
Chen et al. (1999) (17)
conducted core-flood experiments on gas
condensate flow behavior for two North Sea gas condensate
reservoirs. They performed relative permeability measurements for two
North Sea gas condensate fluids to study the effects of fluid and rock
characteristics on critical condensate saturation and gas and condensate
relative permeability. The authors used recombined fluids from two North
Sea gas condensate reservoirs and 29 ft composite cores in their study.
The results on gas relative permeability rate sensitivity showed that the
reduction of gas productivity caused by condensate dropout can be
somewhat improved by increasing production rate. High interfacial tension
caused reduction in condensate relative permeability with increasing
condensate saturation. Immobile condensate under gas injection could be
obtained by water injection, but when the condensate saturation prior to
water injection over reached the critical condensate saturation (Scc), more
efficient and immediate condensate recovery was observed.
(18)
Abdullah S. Al-Abri (2011) studied Enhanced Gas Condensate
Recovery by CO2 Injection. The goal of this research work was to get a
better understanding, by means of experiments and numerical simulation,
the interplay among viscous, gravitational, and capillary forces during CO2
injection into gas condensate reservoirs. Rather than analyzing the
individual effect of each of these forces alone, he investigated the
parameters that gauge multiphase flow through porous media such as
9
interfacial tensions, relative permeabilities, mobility ratios, and residual

saturations after drainage with CO2. He mentioned that the liquid
condensate may be pushed into the wellbore by the gas due to its high
velocity, but the gas can also strip some of the lighter components from the
liquid, so called “velocity stripping“.
(19)
Khosravi and Ketabi (2014) presents well test challenges on the
gas condensate reservoirs. It demonstrated phase redistribution, double
porosity, capillary number effects, and partial penetration or composite
behaviors. They concluded that the draw down flow periods were
extremely complex to interpret. Even though the well is depleted below the
reservoir's dewpoint pressure, they showed that the condensate banking
effect can be removed completely with an excellent fracturing job in place.
Also, they represented the composite behavior along increasing the skin.
Their studies have been performed mainly on build-up data, because draw
down data depends on flow rate fluctuations due to noise; especially in the
gas condensate wells. Humping skin effect was observed and the dual
porosity did not disappear immediately before the final radial flow
stabilization.
2.3 Relative Permeability

(13)
Hinchman and Barree (1985) used compositional one-
dimensional radial model to predict the performance of a gas condensate
well. The effect of composition, fluid properties, liquid dropout rate, gas/oil
relate properties and permeability on gas productivity have been
investigated. They showed that the productivity, when the pressure is
higher than the dewpoint pressure, is controlled by the reservoir’s
permeability and thickness, in addition to the viscosity of the gas. Below
the dew point, the degree of productivity reduction is controlled by the
10
critical condensate saturation and the shape of relative permeability curves

for the gas and condensate, as well as the choice between imbibition and
drainage relative permeability curves.
(20)
Gravier et al. (1986) studied rock samples (0.4 to 50 md) from a
carbonate gas field to determine gas and condensate relative permeabilites
using a ternary pseudo-reservoir fluid of methane/pentane/nonane. They
measured the critical condensate saturation and the extent of the reduction
of permeability to gas in the presence of immobile condensate saturation.
Their results showed that the gas relative permeability decreased from an
average value of 0.68 to about 0.10 when the condensate saturation
increased from 0 to 30%. The gas relative permeability decreased when the
initial water saturation increased. The measured critical condensate
saturation was found to be high, ranging from 24.5% to 50.5%.
(21)
Danesh et al. (1989) studied the phenomenon of retrograde
condensation and flow of gas condensate fluids in porous media using glass
micro-models and long sandstone cores. Depletion tests on a 6 component
synthetic gas mixture with a dewpoint of 33 MPa (4800 psi) at 37.8 degrees
C were conducted. Micro-models with homogeneous and heterogeneous
patterns, were employed to observe the patterns, were employed to observe
the mechanisms of gas-condensate flow at the pore level. The authors
observed that the initial formation of condensate in pores is a film-wise
process with a hydraulic conductivity throughout the pores. The authors
showed that at low IFT values the effect of capillary forces become
negligible compared to viscous and gravitational forces. The authors also
suggested that as condensate forms as a film over the interstitial water, the
flow of gas condensate fluid is expected to be different than that of low IFT
gas-oil displacements.
11
Munkerud (1989) (22) showed that the relative permeability curves for
the gas condensate model system in a depletion process are similar to
curves of ordinary gas/oil systems and that gravitational segregation of
condensate is pronounced even at liquid saturation below the critical
saturation. The author also observed that relative permeability to both gas
and oil show strong dependence on IFT depressurization.
Fischlock and Smith (1993) (23) conducted experiments to investigate

the effect of condensate formation on gas and oil relative permeability in
the presence of connate water and three-phase flow in gas condensate
systems under combined effect of water flooding and pressure depletion.
The authors observed a reduction in gas relative permeability by almost
60% for condensate saturation of about 23% in the presence of 19% water
saturation. They also observed that the presence of a condensate phase
reduced both residual gas saturation to water flood and critical gas
saturation.
(24)
Henderson et al. (1998) conducted high-pressure core flood
experiments using gas condensate fluids in long cores of sandstone. Steady-
state relative permeability points were measured with a wide range of
condensate-gas ratios. The effect on relative permeability was observed by
varying of the velocity and interfacial tension (IFT) between tests. The
experimental procedures showed that the phase distribution in the
examined cores was representative of gas condensate reservoirs. They
investigated hysteresis between imbibition and drainage during the steady-
state measurements.
Effect of relative permeability rate for both gas and condensate was
observed, with the relative permeability of both phases increasing with an
increase in flow rate. The effect of relative permeability rate was still
12
obvious as the IFT increased by an order of magnitude. The effect of

observed rate effect was antithesis to that of conventional non-Darcy flow,
where the effective permeability should decrease when the flow rate
increase. Also, they proposed a generalized correlation between relative
permeability, IFT, and velocity.
Finally, their results highlight the need for appropriate experimental

procedures and relative permeability correlation where the phases
distributions are representative of those in the actual gas condensate
reservoirs.
(25)
Whitson et al. (1999) address several issues concerning the
experimental design and modeling of relative permeabilities used for
simulating gas condensate well deliverability. They developed special
steady-state experimental procedures to calculate krg as a function of krg/kro
and capillary number (Nc). Saturations, though they can be measured, were
not necessary. They gave a particular concern to the effect of hysteresis on
the correlation krg=f(krg/kro), based on their observation that many repeated
cycles of complete/partial imbibition and drainage take place in the near-
well region during the production life of a gas condensate well.
They developed an approach for fitting steady-state relative

permeability data of gas condensate and used it for modeling relative
permeability curves. A generalized relative permeability model were
applied, where the “immiscible” or “rock” curves are linked with
“miscible” or “straight-line” curves using a transition function dependent
on the capillary number (Nc). Also, they processed “inertial” high velocity
flow (HVF) within the region of condensate blockage and locally at the
wellbore.
13
They showed that relative permeability effects in gas condensate

reservoirs can be divided into three categories: near well steady-state
gas/oil flow; bulk of reservoir, beyond well vicinity, where liquid mobility
is zero/ negligible; and water encroachment, where gas and/or retrograde
condensate are trapped.
(26)
El-Banbi et al. (2000) constructed a radial, single-well
compositional model to investigate the behavior of one of the wells. The
model consisted of one layer with 36 grid blocks in the radial direction.
They started with a 0.5 ft grid block near the well, increased the size
logarithmically to gird block 10, and then used uniform grids of 100 ft. A
9-component equation of state (EOS) formulation was used. They showed
that the vertical wells productivity in a moderately rich gas condensate
reservoir initially decreased rapidly first and then increased as the reservoir
was depleted. This phenomenon was demonstrated by subsequent
compositional simulations. They also concluded the changes in gas and
condensate compositions in the reservoir which affected viscosities and
densities of the fluids. These effects also have impact on gas productivity.
(27)
Li Kewen and Abbas Firoozabadi (2000) concluded that the
sharp reduction in gas deliverability may be due to the shape of gas phase
relative permeability (krg); the mechanisms of gas productivity impairment
are not yet clear. Two main parameters affect condensate recovery and gas
well deliverability. These two parameters are critical condensate saturation
(Scc, which affects liquid recovery) and gas phase relative permeability (k rg,
which affects well deliverability).Also, Du et al. (2000) (28) and Al-Anzi et
(29)
al. (2003) showed from their core-flood experiments that condensate
dropout reduced the gas relative permeability by an order of magnitude and
the reduction is even more severe in the presence of high water saturation.
14
Bennion et al. (2001) (30) reviewed the basic theory of gas condensate
dropout and characterize, in detail, condensate-blockage problems that may
be related to production of this type of reservoirs. They reviewed and
discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the techniques for
minimizing condensate-blockage problems on a production basis, as well
as stimulation techniques such as repressurization, lean and rich gas
injection, surfactant and solvent injection, in-situ combustion and water/gas
injection. The authors conclude that as a critical saturation of condensate is
higher and a curve of relative permeability to gas is more concave, the
mobility of gas is significantly reduced.
(31)
Mott, R. (2002) developed spreadsheet tools to evaluate well
performance rapidly. The spreadsheet uses a material–balance model for
reservoir depletion and two-phase pseudo pressure integral for well-inflow
performance, and it can use laboratory data in the form of Krg=f(Krg/Kro,
Nc). The calculations are based on a modified black oil formulation with
homogenous reservoir properties. The Arthur concluded that the
accumulations of condensate in a reservoir can cause a reduction in gas
permeability and result in decreasing gas well productivity. However,
according to the research, gas condensate relative permeability varies with
production rate at near wellbore condition.
(32)
Lal (2003) : his study aimed to understand the multiphase flow
behavior that occurs in gas condensate reservoirs and, in particular,
investigated the factors that cause such high saturation profile of
condensate phase in the reservoir. Also, he investigated the compositional
changes in the hydrocarbon fluids due to liquid dropout during depletion.
In particular, he studied the effect of shapes of relative permeability curves
and critical condensate saturation (Scc) on flow behavior and saturation
buildup of condensate. He concluded that the degree of productivity below
15
the dewpoint, however, is a function of the gas and condensate relative

permeability shape and the critical condensate saturation (Scc).
(33)
Ayyalasomayajula et al. (2005) conducted steady state core flood
experiments for gas condensate fluids and measured gas and oil relative
permeability as a function of capillary number for several different
reservoir rocks and for a wide range of Krg/Kro values. The authors showed
significant improvement in gas relative permeability with capillary number
for all the rock types.
(34)
Jamiolahmady et al. (2006) used a large data of gas/condensate
relative permeability to develop a general correlation to account the
combined effect of inertia and coupling as a function of fractional flow.
The new correlation parameters were either could be calculated from
commonly measured petrophysical data or universal, applicable to all types
of rocks. They compared the prediction results of the new correlation with
the measured values of gas and condensate relative permeability at near-
wellbore conditions on reservoir rocks not used in its development as a part
of evaluation of the developed correlation. The results were quite
satisfactory, confirming that the correlation can offer reliable information
on relative permeability variations at near-wellbore conditions with no need
for expensive measurements.
(35)
Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten (2007) showed that well
deliverability of gas condensate reservoir depends mainly on the relative
permeability of gas at both the near-wellbore saturations and the endpoint,
as well as on the absolute reservoir permeability. They, then, demonstrated
how these parameters and the base capillary number can be calculated from
two-phase pseudo pressures and pressure-buildup data by using single-
phase simultaneously. These parameters can in turn be used to calculate the
relative permeability curves of gas phase. Finally, they illustrated this
16
approach with both an actual field case and simulated pressure-buildup

data.
2.4 Gas Condensate Simulation
Spivak and Dixon (1973) (36) described a new method for simulating
gas-condensate reservoirs. The simulator accounts for both retrograde
condensation and vaporization of condensed liquid as well as arbitrary field
shapes, well patterns and heterogeneities. The formulation of the simulator
is based upon a formation volume factor or Beta-type analysis which is
analogous to that used in black-oil simulation models. In the gas-
condensate analogy, mass transfer between the gas and liquid hydrocarbon
phases is handled by an rs term which has units of STB liquid/MSCF dry
gas and is similar to the Rs term in black-oil simulation.
Fluid properties for black-oil simulation models are usually obtained

from laboratory PVT cell depletion data. This type of model is of
questionable reliability only in special cases such as volatile-oil reservoirs
where the reservoir pressure and temperature are close to the critical
pressure and temperature of the oil. It is reasonable to assume, therefore,
that reservoir fluids on the other side of the critical point (e.g., gas
condensate fluids) could be treated in an analogous manner. In other words,
one would expect that gas-condensate reservoirs could be treated by a
formation volume factor approach with fluid properties determined from
laboratory depletion data.
(37)
Coats (1985) presented a generalized equation of state (EOS) that
represents several widely used cubic EOS's. A component pseudoization
procedure that preserves densities and viscosities of the pseudo components
and the original mixture as functions of temperature and pressure was
described. The procedure was applied with material balance in generation
17
of two-component, black-oil properties for gas condensates hydrocarbon.

Agreement between fully compositional and black-oil simulations of gas
condensate reservoir depletion was demonstrated for a very rich, near-
critical condensate. Also, agreement between EOS compositional results
and laboratory expansion data is shown. The fully compositional
simulation necessary for below-dewpoint cycling is performed for the near-
critical condensate with a wide range of component pseudoizations. Results
show the well-known necessity of splitting the C7+ fraction and indicate a
minimal set of about six total components necessary for acceptable
accuracy.
Sotan-Assin et al. (1988) (38) described the simulation of the Arun gas
condensate reservoir using Mobil's fully compositional simulator,
COSMOS (Compositional System Mobil Oil Simulator). The Arun
reservoir is a compositionally dynamic system. The purpose of this
simulation study was to predict future reservoir performance under various
demand scenarios and optimize gas and NGL recovery. The simulation
mode utilizes the recovery. The simulation mode utilizes the Peng-
Robinson equation of state to account for the compositionally dynamic
behavior of the reservoir in predictions of future performance.
The technology presented in the research is applicable to the

management of other gas condensate reservoirs which exhibit physical
phenomenal such as retrograde condensation, revaporization, and water
vaporization.
(39)
Yisheng et al. (1998) introduced condensate gas and its phase
behavior, as well as the development characteristics of gas condensate field
and schemes in China. In this research, they discussed the characteristics of
18
retrograde condensation and revaporization during depletion process of

condensate gas reservoirs with or without condensate saturation; efficiency
of oil displacement using the pilots effects of gas cycling and the energy in
condensate gas cap. They concluded that condensate liquid should be
produced first and then natural gas using gas cycling under the condition of
lacking of both downstream installation and long distance gas pipeline
system, which will bring better effects when developing the condensate gas
reservoir.
(40)
Hai and Roland (2011) studied the impact of compositional
variation on the flow behavior of the gas-condensate system through
numerical simulations and a series of laboratory experiments. The study
verified claims made about effect of flow through porous media on the
apparent phase behavior of a gas-condensate mixture, namely
compositional variation during depletion, saturation profile around the
well, experience on shutting in the wells in an attempt to achieve
condensate revaporization, and the effect of bottom-hole pressures on
condensate banking.
Results from this study show that composition varies significantly

during depletion. Due to the difference in mobilities caused by relative
permeability, the composition of the mixture will change locally. The
overall composition near the wellbore becomes richer in heavy
components. As a result, the phase envelope will shift to the right. Near-
well fluids can undergo a transition from retrograde gas to a volatile oil,
passing through a critical composition in the process. The condensate bank
can be reduced with proper producing sequence, hence the productivity of
the well can be improved, for example by raising the bottomhole flowing
pressure.
19
Finally, the study investigated the effect of compositional variation on

the optimization of the producing strategy for gas-condensate reservoirs,
reducing the impact of condensate banking, and improving the ultimate gas
and condensate recovery. Conducting an optimization calculation using
Genetic Algorithm, an example reservoir was used to determine the optimal
production strategy to benefit from the understanding of composition
change during production. The same approach can be applied to real
producing reservoirs, by substituting the real reservoir configuration in the
numerical simulation model.
(41)
Orodu el al. (2012) developed a predictive model based on an
analytical approach to predict gas flow in gas condensate reservoirs. The
study compared the estimated gas flow from the developed model for gas-
condensate reservoirs to the flow of an existing model for gas reservoirs.
The study observed the effects of liquid drop out on productivity at low
pressures and the condensate unloading pressure, which is comparable to
that of commercial software. Also this study studied well deliverability
(productivity) predictions of gas flow in a gas-condensate reservoir
modeling near critical wellbore problems in 1-D. Since gas condensate is a
mixture of gas and liquid, this work focused on finding the optimum way to
improve gas flow (reducing condensate build up) around the wellbore.
From the results obtained, they recommended that production must be
carried out at a high flowing pressure (far above the dewpoint), irrespective
of the corresponding flow rate. This is to prevent or prolong the formation
of condensates that would further hinder production.
(42)
Mohammad and Hamid (2013) studied the real gas condensate
reservoir behavior of central Iran through interpretation of well test data
and numerical simulation techniques. Their research involves application of
multiphase pseudo pressure function for such reservoirs. To achieve this
20
goal, they simulated the pressure data in a gas condensate reservoir for
pressure build up and draw down states in two different conditions. For the
first condition, they simulated five days of build up pressure and nine days
of draw down pressure with zero initial water saturation while in the
second condition included five days of build up pressure and fourteen days
of draw down with an initial water saturation (Swi) of 30%. Finally, they
compared the obtained parameters of pressure data with primary and actual
ones. The results shows the acceptable applicability of pseudo pressure
function in multiphase systems for accurately estimating reservoir
parameters including total skin factor caused by near wellbore
condensation, effective permeability of phases and initial reservoir
pressure.
21
CHAPTER THREE Flow Behavior
Chapter Three
Flow Behavior
The flow behavior of natural gas reservoirs depends on the phase
envelope of the fluid system (P-T diagram) and the reservoir conditions.
Natural gas reservoirs are determined by the phase envelope and the
location of the initial reservoir conditions. When the reservoir temperature
is above the cricondentherm temperature, the reservoir will flow under
isothermal expansion and the two-phase region will not be entered.
Therefore, the reservoir fluid will remain in single phase (gas) and the total
composition will remain constant during depletion.
On the other hand, if the reservoir temperature lies between the
cricondentherm temperature and the critical temperature, the reservoir will
flow under isothermal expansion. Retrograde condensation (oil) will start
to occur when the path crosses the dewpoint line.
In this chapter, we will define the gas condensate reservoirs and the
mechanism of condensate buildup near wellbore. Also we explore several
key concepts about the flow behavior of the gas condensate system and
define the prospective issues for this study.
3.1 Natural Gas Reservoirs

Reservoirs containing only free gas, in their initial condition, are
termed gas reservoirs. Such a reservoir contains a mixture of hydrocarbons,
which exists wholly in the gaseous state (some cases containing two phase
gas and oil). The mixture may be a dry, wet, or condensate gas, depending
on their composition and the phase envelop, along with the pressure and
temperature at which the accumulation exists.
22
3.1.1 Natural Gas Composition

Natural gas composition varies widely from one type of reservoir to
another. This variation in gas composition is the controlling factor of the
classification of the type of the reservoir. Generally, natural gas reservoir
contains primarily methane (CH4) with decreasing quantities of ethane
(C2H6), propane (C3H8), butane (C4H10), pentane (C5H12), heptane (C6H14),
and may be some of heavy components (C7+). Some natural gas mixtures
(such as gas condensate) can also contain non hydrocarbon gases such as
carbon-dioxide (CO2), oxygen (O2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulphide
(H2S), and may be some traces of rare gases (Ar, He, Ne, and Xe).
Generally, the deeper the reservoir the higher proportion of light
hydrocarbons due to degradation of complex organic molecules; therefore,
gas reservoirs generally exist in deep reservoir.
3.1.2 Phase Diagram and Classification of Natural Gases

Natural gas phase behavior is a function of pressure, temperature, and
volume. For this reason it is very often that natural gas phase behavior is
illustrated by the “P-T diagram” or phase behavior envelope (Figure 3.1).
In general, the hydrocarbon reservoir is classified as a natural gas
reservoir, if the reservoir temperature is higher than the critical temperature
of the reservoir fluids. According to their phase diagrams and the
prevailing reservoir conditions, natural gases can be classified into three
types:
• Dry gas
• Wet gas
• Gas condensate
23
Figure 3.1 Phase diagram (P-T diagram)
It should be pointed out that the hydrocarbon fluids classification

(43)
could also be characterized by its initial composition. McCain (1994)
mentioned that the heavy components have the strongest effect on fluid
characteristics in the hydrocarbon mixtures. The ternary diagram, as shown
in Figure 3.2, with equilateral triangles can be used to roughly define the
compositional classification that separate different types of hydrocarbon
systems.
Also, classification of these natural gas reservoirs may be
accomplished through the use of the surface properties such as color,
(43)
density and gas-oil ratio (McCain, 1994) . The classical types of gas
reservoir including their simplified surface properties are as presented in
Table 3.1. However, the practical classification of the reservoir fluid
mainly depends on its composition and the prevailing reservoir conditions.
24
Figure 3.2 Ternary diagram (McCain, 1994) (43)
Table 3.1 Determination of fluid type from production data (McCain,

1994)(43)
Gas Condensate Wet Gas Dry Gas
Initial GOR > 3,200 > 15,000 up to 100,000
(SCF/STB)
Initial stock-tank
liquid gravity > 40⁰API Up to 70⁰API No liquid
(⁰API)
Color of stock-
Light Colored Water white No liquid
tank liquid
Phase Change No Phase No Phase
In reservoir Dewpoint Change Change
Heptane Plus
<12.5 <4 <0.7
(%mole)
25
3.1.3 Gas Condensate Reservoir

The reservoir is called gas condensate reservoir, if the reservoir
temperature (T) lies between cricondentherm (Tct) and the critical
temperature (Tc) of the reservoir fluid. This type of gas reservoir has a
unique hydrocarbon accumulation. When the pressure is decreased on gas
condensate mixtures, instead of vaporizing (if a liquid) or expanding (if a
gas) as might be anticipated, they condense instead of vaporizing.
The most accurate method to identify gas condensate system is to
study the fluid behavior of reservoir fluid. Consider that the initial
condition of a condensate gas reservoir is located by point 1 on P-T phase
diagram of Figure 3.3. Usually, the hydrocarbon system in the reservoir
exists as a single phase (gaseous) because the initial reservoir pressure is
above the dewpoint pressure. As the reservoir pressure decreases
isothermally during production, the attraction force between the molecules
of the heavy and light components move further apart. When this happens,
attraction forces between the heavy components molecules become more
effective; therefore, liquid begins to condense and drop out of the gas
phase. Retrograde condensation process continues as pressure continues
decreasing until the condensate dropout reaches its maximum value. After
that, the heavy molecules start to vaporize with normal vaporization
process when more reduction in pressure occurs. In this process, fewer gas
molecules strike the condensate surface and more molecules leave than
enter the liquid phase (Tarek Ahmed, 2007) (44).
26
Figure 3.3 Phase diagram of typical retrograde gas (Fan et al., 2005) (5)
Gas condensate reservoirs are characterized by production of both

surface gas and varying quantities of stock-tank oil (STO). The STO is
commonly referred to as "condensate" or "distillate". Typical condensate
(45)
surface yields range from 10 to 300 STB/MMSCF (Kamath, 2007) .
Generally, the gas-oil ratio for a condensate system increases with time due
to the liquid dropout and the loss of heavy components in the liquid and
Stock-tank liquid is usually water-white or slightly colored. The added
economic value of produced condensate, in addition to gas production,
makes the recovery of condensate a key consideration in developing gas
condensate reservoirs. In the extreme case of a non-existent gas market,
producible condensate is the only potential source of income (Shi,
2009)(46).
27
The properties of the separated phases in the gas-condensate systems

can vary considerably. The C1 contents of the gas phase remain high and
can vary from 70 to 90 mole%. In addition, the C7+ fractions remain very
low at less than one mole%. In contrast, for the liquid phase (condensate),
the C1 contents can vary from 10 to nearly 30 mole% and the C7+ contents
vary from 40 to 70 mole% also most known gas-condensate reservoirs are
discovered in formation pressures and temperatures in the ranges of 3,000
to 8,000 psi and 200 to 400oF, respectively (Moses and Donohoe,
1962)(47). These wide ranges of pressures and temperatures, along with the
wide composition ranges, provide a large variety of conditions for gas-
condensate phase behaviors.
3.2 Flow Behavior of Gas Condensate

The flow behavior of a gas-condensate system depends on both the
phase envelope of the fluid and the conditions of the reservoir (such as
pressure, temperature and rock properties etc.). Due to compositional
variation and relative permeability constraints, the build-up of condensate
saturation around the well is a dynamic process and varies as a function of
time, place (distance to wellbore) and phase behavior.
3.2.1 Banking Phenomenon

As the reservoir pressure declines by production and goes below the
dewpoint of the system, liquid drop out may occur and two-phases of gas
and liquid may coexist in the reservoir. The liquid is generally immobile
upon condensation due to the effect of the capillary forces because often,
liquid is generally the wetting phase. Condensate liquid is trapped in small
pores or the pore throats where the capillary pressure may be substantially
higher. The mobility of the gas phase decreases due to an increase in the
condensate saturation and this is reflected in a reduction in the gas relative
28
permeability. The overall mobility decrease is observed in spite of the gas

phase becoming lighter through the loss of the heavier components to the
condensed liquid. The accumulation of the liquid phase (condensate)
continues until the condensate saturation (Sc) reaches the critical
condensate saturation (Scc) at which time the immobile accumulated
condensate starts to be mobile. However, the mobility of both phases (gas
and condensate) now depends on the amount of the pressure drop across
the wellbore region (condensate banking region) to the total reservoir
pressure.
If reservoir pressure drop is significant, then additional pressure drop
caused by condensate blockage can be very serious for well deliverability.
Typically, such condition applied in a formation with a low value of the
product of permeability and net formation thickness (kh). On the contrary,
if little of the overall pressure drop occurs in the reservoir, typically with
formation of high kh, then adding more pressure drop in the reservoir due
to condensate blockage will possibly have less effect on well deliverability.
As a general guiding principle, condensate blockage effect can be,
somewhat, assumed to double the pressure drop in the reservoir for the
same flow rate (Fan et al., 2005) (5).
The region of condensate blockage extends in size from tens of feet
for lean gas condensate reservoir to hundreds of feet for rich condensate
(13)
one (Hinchman and Barree, 1985) . Its size is proportional to the
percentage of liquid dropout and the volume of gas drained. This region
extends farther from the wellbore region for layers with higher
permeability than average since a layer volume of gas has flowed through
these layers (Abdullah S. Al-Abri, 2011) (18).
This phenomenon has been known in the industry as “condensate
banking” and is known to decrease the well productivity severely. The loss
in productivity of the reservoir could be severe for a reservoir having a low
29
product of permeability and formation thickness (kh) in which case the

pressure drawdown can be considerable (Fan et al., 2005) (5).
The reduction in the productivity of the well is not the only
consequence of condensate banking. A common observation is that the
resulting liquids tend to accumulate in the wellbore in a phenomenon
known as liquid loading. This is a consequence of the reduction in the
wellbore gas phase velocity which then hinders the ability of the gas phase
to lift the liquids out of the wellbore. This may then lead to an increased
back pressure on the wellbore sandface leading to a further loss in well
productivity. When it is unchecked, the liquid loading eventually may kill
(48)
the well (Coskuner and Bogdan, 2003) . The gas condensate reservoir
system is generally extremely dynamic and the fluid composition and
saturation constantly changes depending on the local conditions of pressure
and temperature.
3.2.2 Gas Condensate PVT Analyses

The standard experiments for a gas condensate mixture involve (1)
constant volume depletion (CVD) and (2) constant composition expansion
(CCE) (or constant mass expansion (CME)). The two experimental data
(CVD and CCE) are measured with a high-pressure visual cell where the
dewpoint pressure is calculated visually. The liquid drop out and total
volume/pressure behavior is measured in the CCE experiment, while phase
volumes defining condensate behavior are measured in the CVD
experiment together with Z factors and compositions of the produced gas
through C7+.
Gas condensate fluid is investigated primarily using constant volume
depletion (CVD) to simulate reservoir production behavior and constant
composition (mass) expansion (CCE/CME) to obtain the dewpoint.
30
3.2.2.1 CVD Constant Volume Depletion

The CVD experiment is designed to provide compositional and
volumetric data for a specific amount of reservoir mixture (gas condensate
producing by pressure depletion at a fixed temperature, often the reservoir
temperature). A CVD is an experiment where the overall compositions vary
during the process. The CVD experiment on a gas condensate system is
based on the assumption that the condensate is immobile. Figure 3.4 shows
a schematic of the CVD experiment. The system is brought to its dewpoint
which is normally found from the CCE experiment, after which a series of
expansions are conducted by expelling gas at constant pressure until the
cell volume equal to the volume at the dewpoint. For each stage, the
pressure, liquid and gas volumes are recorded. The expelled gas is collected
and determined it's composition then the new overall composition is
calculated based on material balance. The assumption that the condensate
phase is immobile is only valid if the condensate saturation is below the
critical condensate saturation. Also, the CVD experiment does not take into
account the net accumulation of the gas condensate due to relative
permeability effect.
31
Figure 3.4 Schematic of CVD experiment
The CVD test provides five important laboratory measurements that

can be used in a variety of reservoir engineering predictions (Arabi et al.,
2012) (49):
a) Dewpoint pressure.
b) Composition changes of the gas phase with pressure depletion.
c) Deviation (Compressibility) factor at reservoir pressure and temperature.
d) Recovery of original in-place hydrocarbons at any pressure.
e) Retrograde condensate accumulation, that is, liquid saturation.
3.2.2.2 Constant Composition Expansion (CCE)

The constant composition expansion (CCE) (or constant mass
expansion (CME)) experiment is showed in Figure 3.5 for a gas condensate
mixture. This experiment provides information about the dewpoint pressure
32
at the reservoir temperature and about the relative volumetric amounts of

gas and condensate in the reservoir at various stages of the production time
of the reservoir (Pedersen and Christensen, 2007) (50).
In this experiment, a fixed amount of a reservoir fluid is put in a
closed cell in which the temperature is remains constant, usually at the
reservoir temperature. The experiment is started with a pressure higher than
the dewpoint pressure. The initial mixture volume is recorded. The pressure
is then reduced stepwise by increasing the cell volume while maintaining
the temperature and composition of the mixture constant. At each step the
mixture volume and the cell pressure are measured. Furthermore, the
dewpoint pressure is recorded. For a gas condensate mixture, the gas phase
compressibility factor Z is recorded above the saturation pressure. Below
the dewpoint, the liquid (condensate) volume of a gas condensate (liquid
dropout) is recorded as the percentage of the total volume of the mixture at
the dewpoint.
Figure 3.5 Schematic of CCE experiment
33
3.3 Flow regions

Flow in gas condensate fields can be divided into three reservoir
regions, although in some situations not all three are present. The two
regions closest to a well can exist when bottomhole pressure is below the
dewpoint of the fluid. The region away from producing wells exists only
when the reservoir pressure is above the dewpiont (Fevang and Whitson,
1996(51) and Roussennac, 2001(52)).
A number of flow regions can be identified (Figure 3.6):
Region A: A region containing single phase (original) reservoir gas.
Region B: A region of condensate buildup where the liquid condensate is
immobile and only gas is flowing.
Region C: An inner near-wellbore region saturated with oil and gas which
both are flowing simultaneously.
Depending on production condition, one, two or three zones might

occur. These three regions introduce pseudo-steady state flow state
signifying that they represent steady state in a certain interval of time but
steady state gradually changes during reservoir depletion (as a series of
steady state conditions) (Fevang, 1995) (53).
34
Figure 3.6 Gas condensate P-T diagram, and flow regimes as a function of
the distance from the well (Richard and Carlos, 2007) (54).
1- Region A
Far from the wellbore region, the pressure is decreasing slowly and
the amount of condensation depends on the reservoir dewpoint and the
thermodynamic properties of the gas. Above the dewpoint there is only gas
phase; therefore, only gas is flowing. As the pressure drops to below the
dewpoint, liquid will drop out from the gas phase. Predicting the magnitude
of the liquid dropout within the reservoir is the crux of the engineering
difficulties of managing condensate reservoirs. When the pressure is below
the dewpoint the process is probably best described by constant volume
depletion. The gas will flow towards the wellbore but the liquid will be
immobile (Richard and Carlos, 2007) (54).
2- Region B
Define as a region of net accumulation of condensate. The condensate
formed in this region has zero or very low mobility (immobile).
Effectively, only gas is flowing. The buildup of condensate is caused by
35
two mechanisms: (a) the condensate dropping out of the reservoir gas due
to pure decline in the bulk of the reservoir pressure, and (b) the condensate
dropout due to the pressure gradient imposed on the flowing reservoir gas
within Region B (Fevang, 1995) (53).
The size of Region B changes with respect to time as region C
continually grows far from the wellbore with continuing depletion. The size
of Region B depends on the dewpoint pressure of the reservoir fluid and the
critical condensate saturation (Scc).When condensate starts to drop out, in
this region, the condensate tends to accumulate because the condensate
saturation is lower than the critical condensate saturation. In this region, the
composition changes for both vapor and liquid phase.
3-Region C
In the wellbore region, condensate accumulation may become mobile
and as it moves towards the wellbore, the liquid saturation will increase.
Also, the pressure drop is greater; therefore, the gas will now experience a
lower pressure and more condensate will drop out, as a result increasing the
liquid saturation further. If it becomes high enough, the condensate will
start to flow and form a bank. The condensate saturation now would not be
the same as that given by a constant volume depletion analysis of the
original reservoir fluid. As one gets closer to the wellbore, both the liquid
and vapor flow as mobile phases of probably near constant vapor/liquid
ratio if the liquid saturation is high enough (Whitson and Brule, 2000) (55).
(56) (57)
Also, (Fussel, 1973 , Mott et al., 2000 , and Gringarten et al.,
(58)
2000 ) proposed presence of a fourth region in wellbore vicinity. High
capillary number and low interfacial molecular tension in high flow rates
results in reduction of condensate saturation and increase the gas relative
permeability. They concluded that the new region in wellbore vicinity with
high capillary number contributes to noticeable enhancement of well
36
productivity. Very close to the wellbore vicinity most of the pressure drop
occurs and it is where the relationship between pressure and flow rate
become more complex due to the increase in gas and condensate relative
permeabilities at high capillary number and the non-Darcy effect of the gas
flow. The overall result of these high velocity effects, especially at low
interfacial tensions, will improve well productivity. Because of this
complexity, it's preferred to distinguish this near wellbore region as a
separated region (Region D).
37
CHAPTER FOUR PVT Model
Chapter Four
PVT Model
A proper analysis and fluid characterization is an essential key for
successful modeling the behavior of gas condensate reservoir. Reservoir
engineering techniques are applied to improve the understanding of the
reservoir performance and fluid properties. This chapter includes the
calibration of an EOS using PVTsim software to describe the phase
behavior of the reservoir fluid. Also in this chapter, the simulation
parameters used in the current study are presented.
4.1 Equation of State (EOS) Modeling Software
PVTsim software was used to simulate the PVT model of Siba

field/Yamama formation. PVTsim is a versatile equation of state (EOS)
modeling software that allows the user to simulate fluid properties and
experimental PVT data.
4.2 Reservoir Sample
Hydrocarbon fluid in unit C and D/ Yamama formation in the north

dome is considered to be gas condensate fluid according to the results of
laboratory analysis of oil and gas taken from well Siba 1. Also, the mole
percent of C1 and Heptane plus (C7+), GOR, and the color of condensate
confirm the assumption that Siba field contain a gas condensate reservoir in
C and D units/ Yamama formation (59).
(60)
According to PVT reports from ELF .R.B (1969) , the reservoir
fluid in Siba field/units C and D is a gas condensate fluid with an initial
reservoir pressure of 8341 psia and initial reservoir temperature of 263.12 F
38
at 13180 ft. RKB. According to the PVT test, the dewpoint is 9021 psia
which is higher than reservoir pressure at initial condition. The API gravity
of condensate fluid is 43.3 at standard condition.
Other information are as follow:
Producing zone: Yamama C + D
Perforated zones: 13096-13138, 13193.9– 13229.9, and 13229.98-

13264.1ft. RKB
Z factor at dewpiont: 1.3474
Total density at dewpiont: 25.0247 lb/ft3
Table 4.1 shows reservoir fluid composition which was obtained by a

recombination process from separator fluids.
Table 4.1 Reservoir fluid composition of Siba field /

Yamama formation / unit C and D (60)
component Mole %
CO2 3.3
C1 81.69
C2 4.93
C3 2.36
iso-C4 0.52
n-C4 1.05
iso-C5 0.46
n-C5 0.51
C6 1.04
C7 0.73
C8 0.82
C9+ 2.59
Sum 100
C9+ Molecular weight = 290.34 g/mole

C9+ Density at 60 °F = 54.09788 lb/ft3
Total molecular weight = 28 g/mole
39
4.3 Cubic Equations of State
The equation of state (EOS) is an analytical expression relating the

pressure (P) to the temperature (T) and the volume (V). A proper
description of this PVT relationship for real hydrocarbon fluids is needed to
determine the volumetric and phase behavior of hydrocarbon reservoir
fluids; these can be described accurately by using equations of state (EOS).
Instead of using K-value correlation to calculate vapor-liquid equilibrium,
An EOS can be used as an alternative in such calculation. In general, most
of the EOS's require only the critical properties and acentric factor of each
individual components of the hydrocarbon mixture. The main advantage of
using an EOS is the capability of assuring consistency when performing
phase equilibria calculations because the same equation can be used to
model the behavior of all present phases.
The most used EOS in studying gas condensate behavior are PR and
SRK; therefore, the present study are concerned with these two equations
to study the phase behavior of Siba field (unit C and D) and then chose the
proper EOS which give a good representation of phase behavior for our
sample of study.
In this study, the Soave-Redlich-Kwong with Peneloux volume

correction (SRK- Peneloux) EOS was chosen to generate the EOS model,
because it has been found to give a better agreement with experiential data
and dewpiont pressure for unit C and D / Yamama reservoir/ Siba field.
40
4.3.1 The Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) Equation

(61)
Soave (1972) observed that the pure-component vapor pressures
(62)
calculated from the Redlich–Kwong equation (1949) (RK) to be
somewhat inaccurate, therefore, he suggested replacing the term in the
√
RK equation by a more general temperature dependent term, ( ), giving

an equation of state of the form:
RK equation ………4-1
( )√
( )
SRK equation ………4-2
( )
Where:
a(T) = ac α(T )……………………………..4-3
……………………….4-4
………………………….4-5
( ) ( ( √ )) ……………….4-6
m = 0.3796 + 1.54226 – 0.2699 …….…4-7
Where:
p= pressure
v= molar volume
R= universal gas constant
41
T= absolute temperature
Tc and Pc= critical temperature and critical pressure, respectively
ω= acentric factor
4.3.2 Peng-Robinson (PR) Equation
Peng and Robinson (1976) (63) conducted a comprehensive study to

evaluate the use of the SRK equation of state (EOS) for predicting the
hydrocarbon systems behavior. Due to the fact that the liquid-phase
densities predicted using the SRK equation are in general too low;
therefore, they illustrated the need for an improvement in the capability of
the EOS to predict liquid densities and other fluid properties, particularly in
the vicinity of the near critical region. Peng and Robinson proposed the
following equation of state (PR EOS), as a basis for creating an improved
model:
( )
……………….4-8
( ) ( )
Where:
a(T) = ac α(T )……………………………………..4-9
………………………………..4-10
…………………………………...4-11
( ) ( ( √ )) ………………………..4-12
= 0.37464 + 1.54226 − 0.26992 …...............4-13
42
4.3.3 Peneloux Volume Correction
Until 1982, the application of the SRK equation was only used in
calculation of phase equilibrium and gas-phase density. Having low
predictions of liquid density, the SRK equation was often applied with
external liquid density correlations. This caused problems, specially, when
dealing with near critical systems because it is hard to distinguish between
(64)
gas and liquid phase. In 1982, Peneloux et al. presented a SRK
modification with a volume translation parameter. The Peneloux equation
(SRK-Peneloux) as follow:
( )
…………………….4-14
( )( )
The parameter c is called a volume translation or volume-shift

parameter. It is possible to relate the molar volumes and the b-parameters
entering into the SRK and SRK–Peneloux equations as follows:
V Pen = V SRK – C ...…………4-15
b Pen = bSRK – C …..………..4-16
Where the subindex SRK stands is for SRK equation and Pen for
SRK–Peneloux equation.
Where:
( )
……………….4-17
Where ZRA is the Rackett compressibility factor.
ZRA= 0.29056- 0.08775 …………….4-18
43
It should be noted that the Peneloux volume translation is not only

limited to the SRK equation, but also is applicable to the PR equation
(65)
(Jhaveri and Youngren, 1988) . With the Peneloux volume correction,
the PR equation becomes (PR–Peneloux) as follows:
( )
( )(
…………4-19
)) ( )( )
Generally, it is necessary to correct the volume in SRK liquid

densities calculations, whether it is less obvious whether such correction is
needed for the PR equation because the PR equation was developed with
more focus on liquid density predictions.
4.4 Hydrocarbon-Plus Fractions Properties (Characterization)
When using EOS to predict the volumetric and phase behavior of the
hydrocarbon mixtures, the critical property (critical pressure and critical
temperature) and the acentric factor for each component in the mixture
must be provided. Problems appear when dealing with the C9+ fraction. To
minimize those problems, it requires either characterizing the C9+ fraction
or fine-tuning the EOS parameters or both. Several methods for C9+
characterization were proposed. Those methods are classified into two
main categories: correlation and splitting and lumping.
44
4.4.1 Correlations
Correlations refer to the process of predicting C9+ properties only from

its specific gravity and molecular weight and/or true boiling point and;
therefore, it will become as an individual hydrocarbon component. The
predicted properties of C9+ using these correlations are the critical pressure,
the critical temperature, the acentric factor and sometime molecular weight.
The most common correlations are listed below:
1-Kesler-Lee’s Correlation (1975).
2-Riazi and Daubert’s Generalized Correlation (1987).
3-Twu’s correlation (1984).
4.4.2 Splitting and Lumping (C9+ Characterization)
Gas condensate mixtures may contain thousands of different

components. Such high numbers are impractical in flash calculations. Also
representing the hydrocarbon component higher than C8 with one
pseudocomponent (C9+) may cause errors in such calculations. For these
reasons, some components must be split and, then, lumped together to be
represented as pseudocomponents. C9+ characterization consists of
representing the hydrocarbons with nine and more carbon atoms (C9+) as a
convenient number of pseudocomponents and to find the needed EOS
parameters (Tc, Pc, and ω) for each of these pseudocomponents. However,
reducing the need for extensive tuning of the EOS can be done with proper
characterization of the plus fraction. Thus, characterization of C9+ is
considered the most important step related to the description of reservoir
(66)
fluids (Naje, 2006) . The characterization problem is illustrated in
Figure 4.1.
45
(Pedersen and Christensen, 2007) (50) stated that characterization of

the plus fraction involves:
1-Estimation of the molar distribution (mole fraction vs. carbon

number)
2-Estimation of Tc, Pc, and ω of the resulting carbon number

fractions.
3-Lumping of the carbon number fractions into a reasonable

number of pseudocomponents.
Figure 4.1 The characterization problem.
4.4.2.1 Splitting
Splitting schemes refer to the procedures of breaking down the C9+

fractions into hydrocarbon groups with a single carbon number which they
described by the same physical properties used for pure components.
Based on extensive compositional data for reservoir fluids from most

(67) (68)
of the world, Pedersen et al. (1983 , 1984 ) proposed that reservoir
fluids for carbon numbers (CN) above C6 exhibit an approximate linear
46
relationship between carbon number and the logarithm of the

corresponding mole fraction, ZN, as the following equation:
CN = A + B ln ZN …………4-21
Lohrenz et al. (1964) (69) proposed that the C7+ fraction could be split
into pseudocomponents with carbon numbers that range from 7 to 40. Also,
Pedersen et al. (2004) (70) proposed that for ordinary reservoir fluids, C80 is
a reasonable choice as the heaviest component to be considered. In heavy
oils, components as heavy as C200 may influence the phase behavior.
In this study, C9+ in gas condensate sample from well Siba 1 ( unit C
and D) in Table 4.1 is consider as a normal heavy component, therefore;
C9+ have been splitted until C80. The splitting process has been done with
the aid of PVTsim software. The total number of component after the
splitting process was 83 pure and pseudocomponents (CO2, C1, C2, C3, iC4,
nC4, iC5, nC5, C6, ….…Cn…... C80).
4.4.2.2 Lumping
The characterized mixture of Siba fluid sample now consists of 83

pure and pseudocomponents. It is desirable to minimize this large number
of components before performing phase equilibrium calculations.
Lumping consists of grouping specific carbon number fractions into a

desirable number of pseudocomponents. Averaging Tc, Pc, and ω of the
individual carbon number fractions to one representative Tc, Pc, and ω for
the each lumped pseudocomponent.
47
Several lumping schemes have been proposed in literatures such as

Pedersen et al. (1984), Whitson et al. (1989), Danesh et al. (1992),
Leibovici (1993), and Lomeland and Harstad (1994)
As we referred, heavy component (C9+) was splitted into 83 pure

components (CO2, C1, C2, C3, iC4, nC4, iC5, nC5, C6…Cn…... C80).
Compositional reservoir simulation studies are often quite time consuming
and the simulation time increases with the number of components;
therefore, compositions used in compositional reservoir simulation studies
should be lumped. In this study, the pseudocomponents after the splitting
process were lumped to five pseudocomponents (C9), (C10-C17), (C18-C25),
(C26-C37), and (C38-C80) as shown in Table 4.2. These pseudocomponents
were chosen to characterize the C9+ after many trails and errors to find out
the most representive simulation of Siba fluid sample.
48
Table 4.2 Reservoir Fluid Compositions (After Splitting and Lumping

Process)
4.5 Regression to Experimental PVT Data
Phase behavior models based on EOS may predict highly erroneous

results even for well characterized model fluids. Real reservoir fluids,
which composed of thousands of components, are described by a limited
number of carbon groups and pure substances. The predicted compositional
results of these fluids are not always very realistic and the carbon groups
are not fully defined.
49
The current approach in the industry to encounter the above

deficiencies is to calibrate (tune) an EOS model against measured data
generated at pertinent conditions for specific reservoir fluid. The industry
has not applied a single standard method for tuning, and those different
methods are generally similar. To minimize the difference between the
predicted and measured values, some inaccurate values of input data to
phase behavior model are adjusted (Danesh, 1998) (71).
However, the open literature has shown that there is no consistency in

the number of single carbon number (SCN) groups, lumping schemes, EOS
tuning parameters and weight factors applied to the experimental when
tuning an EOS used for compositional analysis studies, particularly when
dealing with gas condensate fluids (Raffie et al., 2013) (72).
4.5.1 Selection of Regression Variable
The parameters that are often used in tuning are binary interaction
parameters (BIP), parameters of EOS and properties of pseudocomponents,
particularly the critical properties. An effective, but not necessarily the
most appropriate, approach is to select and calibrate those parameters upon
which the simulated properties are the most sensitive. The tuning is then
accomplished with minor modification in original parameters.
Depending on the tested fluid, the prediction problem and selecting

the most effective variables for regression, Gani and Fredenslund
(1987)(73) suggested an approach for tuning EOS parameters based on
establishing the sensitively of the predicted results. In a number of tested
cases, the BIP was selected as the most effective parameters.
50
The critical properties and the acentric factor of pseudocomponents

are the least accurate input data, hence, may be used in tuning. The
adjustment of the critical properties affected the predicted result through
changing parameters of EOS. A direct regression of EOS parameters, or
their coefficient Ωa and Ωb (Ωa and Ωb are the EOS coefficients), have
also been investigated.
The reservoir fluid of Siba field / units C and D presented in Table 4.2
was regressed according to the above recommendations. The regression
variables selections as shown in Table 4.3 below and the BIP between the
lightest component and five pseudocomponents (C9), (C10-C17), (C18-C25),
(C26-C37), and (C38-C80) (see APENDEX A ), have been chosen by trial and
error until getting the best tuning results. The regression process was
applied on Siba fluid sample using two experimental data (CVD and CCE)
and compared the simulated result with the experimental data.
Table 4.3 Regression variables selections
Component Crit T Crit P Acentric Omega Omega

factor A B
C1 x x
C9 x x x x x
C10-C17 x x x x x
C18-C25 x x x x x
C26-C37 x x x x x
C38-C80 x x x x x
Where x is the selected parameter
51
4.5.2 Regression Weighting Elements

(74)
Coats and Smart (1986) recommended to use 40, 20 and 10 for
Dewpoint, Density and volume, respectively as a weighting elements.
Table 4.4 show the weighting elements used in regression process of our
study.
Table 4.4 Weighting elements used in the regression process
property Dewpoint Z factor Liquid Other

Volume properties
weight 40 10 10 1
4.5.3. Regression Results
Tuning the EOS parameters in Table 4.3 to match the simulated and
experimental data has been done using the weighting elements in Table 4.4.
Table 4.5 shows the reservoir fluid component after subjecting to the
regression process. Regression results are plotted in Figures 4.2 to 4.5.
These figures give a comparison between the experimental and calculated
CVD and CME experiment before and after tuning of EOS parameters
(under a regression process).
52
Table 4.5 Reservoir fluid compositions (after splitting, lumping and

regression process)
Figure 4.2 Comparison of experimental and calculated liquid drop out

% from CVD experiments before and after tuning
53
Figure 4.3 Comparison of experimental and calculated gas Z factor

from CVD experiments before and after tuning
Figure 4.4 Comparison of experimental and calculated liquid drop

out% from CME (or CCE) experiments before and after tuning
54
Figure 4.5 Comparison of experimental and calculated relative volume

from CME (or CCE) experiments before and after tuning
4.6 PVT Simulation
Siba fluid sample was well characterized and the EOS model used to
describe the phase behavior related to vaporization and condensation was
tuned to PVT experimental data. After finishing the PVT model, we present
the final simulation results which represent the phase behavior of our
sample of study.
4.6.1 Phase Envelope
Figures 4.6 show the phase envelope of Siba reservoir fluid

composition (After Splitting, Lumping and regression Process (Table 4.5)).
The P-T diagram shows a Cricondentherm and a Cricondenbar with values
of 828 °F and 9060 psia, respectively. Dewpiont pressure was detected to
be 9001 psia at reservoir temperature 263.12 °F while the experimental
55
value of dewpoint pressure was 9021 psia (deviation of -0.2%). According

to the P-T diagram, Siba field/unit C and D contains gas condensate fluid
and the initial condition located in the two phase zone with liquid of 1.8%
of the total volume of the mixture. The location of the initial condition in
the two phase region refer to absence of region A (Figure 3.6); therefore,
the flow regions in unit C and D may consist of only two regions (region B
and C).
Figure 4.6 Phase envelope (pressure-temperature diagram (P-T

diagram))
Figure 4.7 shows a comparison of phase envelopes with both

characterized C9+ (splitting and lumping) and characterized C9+ using
(75)
correlation. Twu (1984) correlation was used to characterize C9+ and
obtained a critical point with a pressure of 6401.44 psia and a temperature
of 20.37°F. The critical point with a characterized C9+ (splitting and
lumping) was not detected.
56
phase envelope
10000
EOS = SRK Peneloux
9000
8000
7000
Pressure /psia
6000
5000
characterized C9+
4000 (splitting and lumping)
Correlation
3000
critical point
2000
1000
0
-100 100 300 500 700 900
Temperature/°F
Figure 4.7 Phase envelope of Siba field (Comparison of both

characterized C9+ (splitting and lumping) and characterized C9+ using Twu
correlation)
4.6.2 Constant Mass Expansion (CME)
This experiment is described in chapter three for the gas condensate

composition Table 4.1. The composition is characterized for the Soave-
Redlich-Kwong (SRK) equation with volume shift.
Experimental and simulated CME results are plotted in Figure 4.8 and
4.9. Figure 4.8 shows liquid volumes (liquid volume in percentage of
saturation point volume) while Figure 4.9 shows relative volumes (total
volume divided by saturation point volume). Simulation results are shown
for the mixture composition in Table 4.5. The simulated liquid volume
agrees nicely with the experimental results with an average deviation of -
57
1.3%, but some deviations are seen between the experimental and the
simulated relative volumes with an average deviation of 10.15%.
Figure 4.8 Comparison of experimental and simulated liquid drop out

% vs. pressure (CME experiment)
Figure 4.9 Comparison of experimental and simulated relative volume

(CME experiment)
58
4.6.3 Constant Volume Depletion (CVD)
This experiment is described in chapter three for the gas condensate

composition presented in Table 4.1. The composition is characterized for
the Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) equation with volume shift.
Experimental and simulated CVD results are plotted in Figure 4.10

and 4.11. Figure 4.10 shows the simulated liquid volumes (liquid volume in
percentage of saturation point volume) where the Figure 4.11 shows the
simulated gas Z factor. Figure 4.12 shows the simulated production mole %
and Figure 4.13 shows the simulated two phase Z factor and Figure 4.14
shows the simulated viscosity. The average deviation between the
experimental and simulated liquid drop out and gas Z factor were 1.5%and
-0.01429% respectively
Figure 4.10 Comparison of experimental and simulated liquid drop

out% vs. pressure (CVD experiment)
59
Figure 4.11 Comparison of experimental and simulated gas Z factor

vs. pressure (CVD experiment)
Constant Volume Depletion at 263.12 °F

Siba field units C&D EOS = SRK Peneloux
100
90
80
% Prod. Mole
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Pressure psia
Figure 4.12 Simulated production mole% vs. pressure (CVD

experiment)
60

1.4
1.2
Two phase Z factor
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Pressure psia
Figure 4.13 Simulated two phase Z factor vs. pressure (CVD

experiment)

0.16
0.14
Viscosity lb/ft hr
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Pressure psia
Figure 4.14 Simulated viscosity vs. pressure (CVD experiment).
61
4.7 Compositional Changes
As the heavier components are dropped out in the reservoir, the

composition of the producing well stream will change significantly during
depletion. Due to the difference in mobility of both gas and condensate
which caused by relative permeability, the composition of the produced
well stream and the composition of mixture near the wellbore will change.
The flowing gas composition in the reservoir becomes lighter during its
way to the wellbore region due to the low pressure at this region. The
heavy components drop out from the gas phase as pressure decrease. The
produced well stream composition varies with the flowing bottomhole
pressure (BHP) and the average reservoir pressure. Table 4.6 shows
composition of produced well stream as a function of pressure which
simulated with the CVD experiment. The simulation results show that the
mole% of the light component such CO2, C1 and C2 increase as the pressure
decrease while the mole% of the other component(C3+) decrease as
pressure decrease. Figure 4.15 shows the changes in phase envelop due to
the changes in produced-well-stream composition.
Table 4.7 shows the changes in the remaining condensate composition

as a function of pressure. The simulation results (simulated with the CVD
experiment) show that the mole% of the light component such CO2, C1 and
C2 decrease as the pressure decrease while the mole% of the other
component (C3+) increase as pressure decrease. Figure 4.16 shows the
changes in phase envelop due to the changes in condensate composition.
These simulated phase envelopes are pushed down and to the right of the
(32)
original phase diagram (Lal, 2003) . It should be noted that Fgure 4.16
does not represent the actual condensate phase diagram near wellbore of
Siba 1 because the CVD experiment does not take into account the net
accumulation of the condensate due to relative permeability effect.
62
Also, as average reservoir pressure decline below the dewpiont

pressure, liquid will drop out from the gas phase in all reservoir regions. In
case of Siba field, initial reservoir pressure lie in the two phase region and
the overall mixture composition will change as a function of average
reservoir pressure. The retrograde liquid saturation (in the region far from
the well bore region) is usually lower than the critical condensate saturation
(Scc). Because the immobile condensate saturation contains the most of the
heavier components in the original mixture while the gas phase is mobile,
the overall molecular weight of the remaining reservoir fluid increases
during depletion. Figure 4.17 shows different phase envelopes due to
composition change in hydrocarbon with pressure decline in the region
when condensate starts to form far from the wellbore region.
Table 4.6 Produced well stream (gas phase) mole% as a function of BHP.
63
Figure 4.15 Phase envelopes of produced-well stream at different BHP
Table 4.7 Condensate (liquid phase) mole% as a function of pressure
64
Figure 4.16 Phase envelopes of condensate liquid at different pressure
10000
9000
8000
7000
Pressure/psia
6000 7000 psia to initial condition
5000 5000 psia

3000 psia
4000
1000 psia
3000
2000
1000
0
-100 100 300 500 700 900
Temperature/°F
Figure 4.17 Shift in phase envelope of gas condensate at different average

reservoir pressure (CVD experiment)
65
CHAPTER FIVE Reservoir Model
Chapter Five
Reservoir Modeling
The predictive ability of reservoir simulation software help engineers
design field scale projects. The current practices in predicting reservoir
performance is based on numerical simulation, because reservoir
simulation can solve problems that quantitatively describe the multiple-
phase flow in a heterogeneous reservoir. GEM simulator, a subgroup of
CMG (Computer Modeling Group), was used for this study. A single well
compositional model was performed using a fine grid in wellbore region to
study the effect of condensate build up on both gas and condensate
production.
The assumptions used in our simulation model are:
• Three phase flow.

• Non-Darcy flow effects are not considered.
• Capillary pressure is not considered.
• Condensate blockage near wellbore is accurately represented by
the use of fine grid around the wellbore region.
• Phase equilibrium is accurately calculated by SRK- Peneloux
equation of state (EOS).
• A reduced permeability zone (skin) is not considered (mechanical
skin = 0).
• No compositional gradient is considered.
• Natural depletion.
66
5.1 General and Geological Description of Siba Field/

Yamama Formation
From the depth contour maps, the Siba structure appears as an

elongated anticline running NE-SW which extends across Shatt al-Arab
into Iran. The dimensions of Siba field are about 21 kms long and 6 to13
kms wide. The part of the structure in Iraq has two culminations, northern
and southern, separated by a structural saddle (59).
Based on the seismic data well Siba 1 was drilled in 1968 in the north-
East dome. The drilling operation stops at a depth of 13700.7 ft in Yamama
formation and the well did not reach its target due to high pressure in this
formation. The results of Siba 1 confirm that Yamama formation / unit C
and D contain gas condensate while Zubair formation contains oil. In 1974
Siba 2 was drilled in the south-west dome and reaches a depth of 14117 ft
in Yamama formation. The results of Siba 2 showed that the south-west
dome contain heavy oil and water in both Zubair and Yamama formations.
Well Siba 3 was drilled in the north-East dome. This well penetrated all
Yamama formation, but no hydrocarbon accumulation has been found in
this formation. It has been found that unit C contains water while it
contains tar in unit D.
Figure 5.1 shows the structural contour map of the top of unit C/
Yamama formation after predicting the Iranian side of Siba field using
software (Didger and Surfer).
67
Figure 5.1 The predicted structural contour map of the top of unit C/
Yamama formation
Yamama formation is consist mainly of limestone rock with some

shale and it has an average total thickness of 935 ft divided vertically into
nine main units on the basis of lithology and characteristics from (A) to (I)
separated by compact layers. The nine units contain different types of
fluids as in Table 5.1. In this study we are concerned of unit C and D
because they are the most important units in Yamama formation and they
are the only units containing gas condensate accumulations (76).
68
Table 5.1 Fluid distribution in Yamama formation units
Type of fluid
unit N-E S-W
dome dome
heavy heavy
A
oil+tar oil
Imperm
B oil
eable
Imperm
C gas
eable
gas+wat Imperm
D
er eable
E water oil
F-G oil oil
H, I water water
The primary units in Yamama formation are:
1-Unit C
Unit C is one of the primary units of Yamama formation with a

average thickness of 89 ft, average porosity of 11.6% and average water
saturation of 27.3%.
Unit C contains gas condensate in north-east dome (Siba 1) while it

contains tar in the southern side of the north-east dome (Siba 3). This unit
becomes impermeable in the south-west dome (Siba 2).
2-Unit D
Unit D is the second primary unit of Yamama formation with average

thickness of 93 ft, average porosity of 13.9% and average water saturation
of 29%.
69
Unit D contains gas condensate in north-east dome (Siba 1) while it

contains water in Siba 3. Unit D becomes impermeable in south-west dome
(Siba 2).
5.2 Gridding
When the bottomhole pressure (BHP) of gas condensate wells is
below the dewpoint pressure, the gas becomes saturated and condensate
starts to drop out from the gas phase in the near wellbore region.
Condensate amount deposits actually in the reservoir which depends on the
condensate relative permeability are much higher than the condensate
volume obtained from the CVD experiment. Fine gridding near wellbore
region is required to predict the pressure profile that gas condensate
experiences when it flows towards the wellbore. Due to the fact that the
pressure drops are lower considerable in the region far from the wellbore
region, wider grid size is acceptable (Bertram et. al. 1997) (77).
Therefore, the use of fine grids near the wellbore is required when
dealing with compositional simulation of gas condensate reservoir due to
several physical effects, such as:
• Flowing pressure profile
• Phase distribution
• Relative permeability
A radial compositional model consisting of 40*20*22 cells was used

in modeling of unit C and D/ Yamama formation/ Siba field. Condensate
liquid saturation builds up near the wellbore first and then propagates
radially away along with the pressure drop; therefore, the grid size was
increased as the distance away from the wellbore region increased. The
70
grid size distribution is shown in table 5.2. Unit C (91.84 ft) was divided to
11 layers (from 1 to 11) followed by a barrier (22.96 ft) divided to 2 layers
(layer 12 and 13) where unit D (91.84) was divided to 9 layers (from 14 to
22); therefore, the total number of layer were 22 layers.
Table 5.2 Grid size distribution
r size (ft) 3*6, 9, 13.5, 20.25, 30.375, 45.5625, 68.3438, 102.516,

153.773, 230.66, 345.99, 518.985, 778.478, 1167.72,
1751.58, 23*2000
Ø divisions 20*18
Layers (ft) 9.84, 6.56, 9.84, 2*6.56, 3*9.84, 2*6.56,
2*9.84, 2*13.12 9.84, 2*13.12, 9.84,
6.56, 2*9.84, 6.56
The center of the grid blocks was Siba 1 well because it was the only
well found to be a hydrocarbon producer and located approximately in the
center of the north-east dome. Figure 5.2 shows the grid system and top
grid view.
71
Figure 5.2 Initial grid system
5.3 Rock - Fluid Petrophysical Properties
After finishing the grid system design, rock-fluid properties must be

assigned for each grid block. These properties are porosity, initial water
saturation, net thickness and permeability. All these data should be
prepared before they are distributed for each grid block.
5.3.1 Porosity and Initial Water Saturation
In the absence of core data for unit C and D except for few intervals in
Siba 2 and Siba 3, we use the CPI logs to obtain porosity and initial water
saturation values for each well (Siba 1, Siba 2 and Siba 3).
72
5.3.2 Permeability Prediction Using FZI Method
Permeability values from core data are obtained for few intervals of
unit C and D of Yamama formation. Coring in these two units is only
available in Siba 2 and Siba 3 for few intervals; therefore, permeability has
been predicated by using the flow zone indicator (FZI) method for the unit
C and D for all three wells (Siba 1, Siba 2 and Siba 3). This method
attempts to identify the flow zone indicator in un-cored wells using log
records. When the flow zone indicator is calculated from the core data, a
relationship between this FZI value and the well logs (Ø log) can be
obtained.
The relationship between permeability, effective porosity and FZI in

hydraulic flow units is presented in the following equation (Al –Ajmi and
Holditch, 2000) (78):
RQI = Øz * FZI ………..5.1
Where:
Øz = …………5.2
𝑅𝑄𝐼 = 0.0314 √ …………..5.3
𝑅𝑄𝐼: Reservoir quality index.
K: permeability (md)
Øe: effective porosity
Øz: normalized porosity
Taking the logarithm of both sides of equation 5.1 yields:
Log (RQI) = log (FZI) + log (Øz) ……..5.4
73
Also, Al–Ajmi and Holditch considered that in a Log-Log plot of RQI

versus all the samples with similar FZI values gives a straight line with a
slope of one as in Figure 5.3.
RQI vs Øz
1
0.1
FZI = 1
RQI
FZI = 0
0.01
0.001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Øz
Figure 5.3 Reservoir quality index vs. normalized porosity
FZI is then correlated with certain combinations of logging tool

responses to predict permeability values in cored and un-cored intervals of
wells (Figure 5.4) using the following equation:
=1014∗ (𝐹𝑍𝐼𝑚 𝑎𝑛) ∗

2
…..5.6
Where
FZImean: the average flow zone indicator.
74
4140
4120
4100
4080
Depth
4060 K core
K- predicted
4040
4020
4000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
log (k)
Figure 5.4 Permeability from FZI method and core permeability vs.
depth
5.3.3 Net Thickness
The determination of the net thickness for the two units (C and D) is
based on the value of cut off (porosity, permeability and water saturation
cut off). As we are dealing with gas reservoir, cut off permeability were
assumed to be 0.01. Porosity cut off is obtained from porosity-permeability
plot by a semi-log plot (Figure 5.5). Porosity cut off was 4% for the two
units, while water saturation cut off was 70% (Figure 5.6). Based on the
three cut off values above, the net thickness in Siba 1 value was 81.2 ft and
82.8 ft for unit C and D, respectively.
75
100
10
Log Permeability
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Porosity %
Figure 5.5 Log permeability vs. porosity in unit C and D (core data)
1.2
1
water saturation
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Porosity
Figure 5.6 Water saturation vs. porosity in unit C and D (log data)
76
5.4 Rock Petrophysical Properties Distribution in the Model
After preparing rock petrophysical properties (porosity, permeability,

net thickness and water saturation), these properties should be distributed
for each grid block, because we are dealing with heterogonous reservoir.
Using geostatic option in builder (using ordinary kriging method), the
distribution of porosity and permeability was achieved.
Water saturation and net thickness were distributed with a fixed value
along the 22 layers depending on the water saturation and net thickness of
Siba 1(see APPENDIX B) because it was found that the distribution of
these properties using geostatic option were affected by the other wells
(Siba 2 and Siba 3) which lead to underestimated the overall hydrocarbons
initially in place. After finishing the distribution of the petrophysical
properties, many of grid blocks were neglected using null blocks option
(Figure 5.7). The cause of using the null block option is to fit the reservoir
size and to isolate the south-west dome because it does not contain gas
condensate and there is no communication between the two domes
(presence of saddle).finally, the number of active blocks was 10626.
77
Figure 5.7 Final grid system of Siba field/ Yamama formation
5.5 Rock Compressibility

Rock compressibility is one of the most important parameters that
must be considered in reservoir calculations. Unfortunately, there is no
rock compressibility measurement for Yamama formation (carbonate
formation); therefore, rock compressibility of Yamama formation was
(79)
estimated using standard correlations . The rock compressibility used in
the model was 6.44^10-6 psi-1. This low value of rock compressibility is due
to the fact that unit C and D are limestone rock and have low porosity.
78
5.6 Reservoir Fluid Properties

The reservoir fluid model was obtained from the simulation of the
actual PVT measurements using PVTsim software as presented in Chapter
four.
5.7 Relative Permeability

Relative permeability to fluids found in a particular layer is measured
by laboratory experiments on the core sample taken from the thin layer.
Unfortunately, there is no experimental relative permeability data have
been made for Siba field/ Yamama formation. In the absence of such data
which are quite important, some relative permeability correlations were
used to generate these data. As known, when dealing with a gas condensate
reservoir, there are three fluids in the porous media which they are: water,
oil (condensate) and gas.
Three-phase relative permeability was generated using stone’s second

model. Estimating the three-phase relative permeability can be done
depending on two sets of two-phase data. These two sets of two-phase data
were generated using Corey’s relative permeability model for two phases.
Corey’s model (1954) (80) is used for this purpose based on its simplicity
and limited input data requirements (Swir and Sor in water-oil relative
permeability and Sor and Sgr in gas-oil relative permeability). This model
was derived from capillary pressure concepts and is widely accepted to be
fairly accurate for consolidated formation experiencing drainage
(Honarpour et al., 1986) (81) .Corey’s model is as follow:
Swt*= ……..5.7
krwt =Swt*4………………….5.8
krnwt=(1- Swt*)2 (1 -Swt*2)…..5-9
79
Where:
Swt: wetting phase saturation.
Swt* normalized wetting phase saturation.
Snwtr: residual saturation of nonwetting phase.
Swtr: residual wetting phase saturation.
Krnwt: relative permeability of nonwetting phase.
Krwt: relative permeability of wetting phase.
5.7.1 Corey’s Model: Oil-Water Relative Permeability
Corey’s model (1954) (Equations 5-7 to 5-9) is used to generate oil-

water relative permeability (Figure 5.8) using Snwtr (Sor) and Swtr (Swir)
values equal to 0.1 and 0.3 respectively. The wetting phase saturation (Swt)
is water saturation (Sw) and the non-wetting phase saturation (Snwt) is oil
(So).
5.7.2 Corey’s Model: Gas-Oil Relative Permeability
Corey’s model (1954) (Equations 5-7 to 5-9)is used to generate gas-oil

relative permeability (Figure 5.9) using Snwtr (Sgr) and Swtr (Sor) values equal
to 0.05 and 0.30 respectively. The wetting phase saturation (Swt) is oil
saturation (So) and the non-wetting phase saturation (Snwt) is gas saturation
(Sg).
5.7.3 Stone’s Model: Three-Phase Relative Permeability
In general, the relative permeability of each phase (water, gas, and oil)
in a three-phase system is related to the existing saturation as follows:
Krw=f (Sw)
Krg=f (Sg)
Kro =f (Sw,Sg)
Stone’s second model is used to generate the three-phase relative

permeability (Figure 5.10). Stone (1973) (82) developed a probability model
80
to estimate three-phase relative permeability data from the laboratory-

measured two-phase data. Stone’s second model is more appropriate for
water-wet systems. Stone proposed the following normalized expression:
Kro=krocw*( )( ) ( )+…. 5.10
Figure 5.8 Oil-water relative permeability
81
Figure 5.9 Gas-oil relative permeability
Figure 5.10 Oil relative permeability by Stone’s second model
82
5.8 Initial Conditions
Initial reservoir pressure was 8341 psi at well depth 13180.1 ft, also
the gas water contact GWC were 13471.1 ft for both units (C and D) as
suggested by ELF-Iraq company.
5.9 Well Model
The well Siba 1 was chosen in this study due to its location which,
approximately, lay in the center of the north-east dome and it contains gas
condensate in unit C and D. The well is vertical type of radius 0.208 ft. In
this study the skin factor was assumed to be zero.
83
CHAPTER SIX Results and Discussions
Chapter Six
Results and Discussions
The ultimate goal of reservoir studies is to choose the optimum
scheme of development and production for oil or gas reservoir. Based on
the best estimated reservoir characterization considered at the last stage,
prediction studies are conducted to forecast the reservoir production
performances under various production strategies.
In this study, four production scenarios are presented (applied on Siba

1) to evaluate condensate and gas production, condensate gas ratio (CGR)
and saturation distribution of both condensate and gas around the wellbore
region for each scenario .The effect of condensate bank on gas production
has been investigated. The four production scenarios were evaluated with
six year of production from 2014 to 2020.
The four production scenarios were set at a constant bottomhole

pressure in order to observe the two-phase flow of natural gas and
condensate. These production scenarios permit the comparison of different
bottomhole pressures and their effects on CGR and condensate saturation
around the wellbore region. Also, two scenarios were presented using
periodic gas injection techniques (also, called as huff 'n' puff method) to
study its capability of vaporizing of condensate which has been built up
during the production period.
Moreover, as a further investigation, the condensate saturation

behavior was presented after producing for one year followed by a year of
shut-in period.
84
6.1 Initialization Results
The initial conditions presented in the previous chapters have been fed
to the constructed model. The initialization results of fluids saturation are
used to calculate OGIP. Table 6.1 shows the values of total pore volume,
hydrocarbon pore volume and initial gas and oil in place. The OGIP
obtained from the present study is 3.93E+12 SCF while the reservoir study
(76)
performed by ELF-Iraq is 3.478E+12 SCF. The estimated OGIP was
higher than OGIP estimated by ELF-Iraq by 12.9%. This increment in
OGIP is due to the additional volume added to the total reservoir volume
by predicted of the Iranian side of Siba field. Also, this increment may due
to the use of the new contour map of Siba field (after drilling Siba 3) which
used in this study.
Table 6-1Initial fluids in place and pore volume of Siba field/Yamama

formation/ unit C and D
Variables unit Value
Total Bulk Reservoir Volume RES FT3 3.21E+11
Total Pore Volume RES FT3 2.56E+10
Total Hydrocarbon Pore Volume RES FT3 1.24E+10
Original Oil in Place (OOIP) STD BBL 2.86E+08
Original Gas in Place (OGIP) STD FT3 3.93E+12
Original Water in Place (OWIP) STD BBL 2.40E+09
85
6.2 Pressure Matching Results

History matching is the process of manipulating reservoir model
parameters until the simulated data generated by the model matches the
actual data of the field. However, the history match is not always address
the perfect model simulation; but it is needed to indicate whether or not, the
model is applicable for a practical purpose. Model verification with a
history match may be limited to a single-point test.
In the absence of production and pressure history, Siba field/Yamama

formation/ unit C and D history match was built depending on elongated
well tests. The well test for Yamama formation exists for well Siba 1which
consists of 1002 minutes of productive time (draw down) and 555 minutes
of shut-in (build up) time, the flowing bottomhole pressure (BHP) is 6126
psi at perforated interval from 13180 ft to 13264 ft (unit D). These data
applied in single well model. The run of the model were set as the actual
test with the same perforation intervals, BHP, draw down and build up
times. The best history match has been obtained by multiplying the
permeability of the overall constructed twenty two layers of Siba 1 by
factor of three, as shown in Figure 6.1.
86
simulated well test

unit D
well test uint D
(observed)
Figure 6.1 History matches with build-up test
6.3 Production Scenarios

At the surface, gas condensate reservoir is characterized by producing
both gas and liquid (condensate). The high economic value of produced
condensate makes the recovery of condensate a priority concept when
developing gas condensate reservoirs (Shi, 2009) (45).
Six production scenarios (applied on Siba 1) are presented depending

on using four different BHP and two different injected gases of huff 'n' puff
method.
The suggested scenarios are as follows:
1- BHP 5000 psi (first scenario)
2-BHP 6000 psi (second scenario)
3-BHP 7000 psi (third scenario)
87
4-BHP 8000 psi (fourth scenario)
5-Carbon dioxide (CO2) huff 'n' puff method (fifth scenario)
6- Methane (CH4) huff 'n' puff method (sixth scenario)
The effect of BHPs show different impact on both of well productivity

and CGR; while, Huff 'n' puff process were capable of removing some of
the condensate from near wellbore, but no enhancement in gas or
condensate productivity was observed, which can be detailed as follows:
6.3.1 BHP 5000 psi
In this scenario, BHP was set to 5000 psi with producing period of six
years (from 2014 to 2020). Figure 6.2 and 6.3 show gas and condensate
production rates respectively which exhibit a severe decline at the first days
of production due to the effect of condensate blockage. At the first minutes
of production, gas rate reaches to 140 MMSCF/day followed by a sudden
decline to reach 54 MMSCF/day after one month. This decline in gas rate
(-61.4%) is due to the dropout of liquid close to the wellbore region which
causes a reduction in gas relative permeability.
Figure 6.4, 6.5 and 6.7 show the vertical and horizontal (along unit C
and D) the gas and condensate saturation profile for different periods of
production. The maximum condensate saturation (Figure 6.4) reaches to
24% for both units which cause a reduction in gas relative permeability
leading to a reduction in gas flow rate. Different layer properties resulted in
different extent of condensate saturation build up. Figure 6.5 and 6.6
illustrate that gas and condensate saturation are variable with time and
distance from the wellbore
88
As time increase, the oil ring saturation around the wellbore will
increase which cause a continuous change in fluid composition. Also, the
local difference in condensate saturation (Sc) refers to local composition
change. As gas flows toward low pressure region (wellbore region), heavy
components drop out from the gas phase and cause the accumulation of
condensate.
The decrease of CGR value from 65 bbl/MMSCF at the beginning of

production time to 62 bbl/MMSCF after six years (Figure 6.7) gives an
indication of the composition change in gas phase as average reservoir
pressure decrease, which causes farther condensate drop out from gas phase
in the entire reservoir and that means the flowing gas towards the
production well becomes lighter due to loss of heavy components.
Figure 6.2 Gas flow rate (MMSCF/day) for BHP 5000 psi vs. time
(first scenario)
89
(first scenario)
Figure 6.4 Condensate profile along unit C and D (first scenario)
90

(first scenario)
Figure 6.6 Gas saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (first scenario)
91
Figure 6.7 CGR and Avg. reservoir pressure vs. time (first scenario)
6.3.2 BHP 6000 psi
Figures 6.8 and 6.9 show the flow rate behavior of gas and condensate
respectively for six years of production. Gas rate starts with 105
MMSCF/day for few munities of production and decrease suddenly by -
61.9% to reach to 40 MMSCF/day after one month that is due to
condensate build up around the wellbore region.
The maximum condensate saturation (Figure 6.10) in perforated

intervals reaches to 22% which have less impact on productivity than the
first scenario. Also, Figure 6.11 shows that the condensate saturation in the
horizontal distance far from wellbore for different production time is less
than the first scenario.
92
The CGR (Figure 6.13) was 66.3 at the beginning of production and
decreased to 64.1 bbl/MMSCF after six years of production. However, this
value is higher than the reduction in CGR in first scenario for the same
production period. The decrease in CGR value (in this scenario) is due to
the decrease of the average reservoir pressure with time.
Figure 6.8 Gas flow rate (MMSCF/day) for BHP 6000 psi vs. time (second
scenario)
93
(second scenario)
Figure 6.10 Condensate profile along unit C and D (second scenario)
94
Figure 6.11 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (second

scenario)
Figure 6.12 Gas saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (second

scenario)
95
Figure 6.13 CGR and Avg. reservoir pressure vs. time (second scenario)
6.3.3 BHP 7000 psi
Figure 6.14 and 6.15 show gas and condensate flow rate, respectively,
which they show a continuous decline as the saturation of condensate (S c)
developed with both time and distance. Gas rate starts with 63.2
MMSCF/day for few minutes of production and decrease suddenly by -
59.65% to reaches 25.5 MMSCF/day after one month. This is due to
condensate build up around the wellbore region.
Figure 6.16 show maximum Sc of 19.5% which is less than the

previous scenarios. Figure 6.17 and 6.18 show the development of Sc and
gas saturation respectively as a function of time and distance.
The CGR (Figure 6.19) was 68 bbl/MMSCF at the beginning of

production time and decreased to 67 bbl/MMSCF after six years of
96
production period. However, this is higher than the reduction encountered

in CGR in the previous scenarios for the same production period because
the reduction in average reservoir pressure in this scenario is lower than the
previous scenarios.
Figure 6.14 Gas flow rate (MMSCF/day) for BHP 7000 psi vs. time (third
scenario)
(third scenario)
97
Figure 6.16 Condensate profile along unit C and D (third scenario)
Figure 6.17 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (third

scenario)
98
Figure 6.18 Gas saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (third scenario)
Figure 6.19 CGR and Avg. reservoir pressure vs. time (third scenario)
99
6.3.4 BHP 8000 psi
Figures 6.20 and 6.21 show gas and condensate flow rate respectively,
they show a continuous decline as the saturation of condensate (S c)
developed with both time and distance. Gas flow rate (Figure 6.20) starts
with 15.4 MMSCF/day for few minutes of production time and decrease
suddenly by 50.65% to reach 7.6MMSCF/day after one month; that is also
due to condensate build up around the wellbore region.
The maximum Sc is 14% (Figure 6.22) which is lower than the

previous scenarios. Figure 6.23 gives condensate saturation development as
a function of time and distance which show the lowest Sc value among the
four scenarios.
The behavior of CGR value seems to be constant (Figure 6.25) due to

low average reservoir pressure decline with time. CGR value (70.3
bbl/MMscf) is the highest value of the four scenarios.
Figure 6.20 Gas flow rate (MMSCF/day) for BHP 8000 psi vs. time
(fourth scenario)
100
(fourth scenario)
Figure 6.22 Condensate profile along unit C and D (fourth scenario)
101

(fourth scenario)
Figure 6.24 Gas saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (fourth

scenario)
102
Figure 6.25 CGR and Avg. reservoir pressure vs. time (fourth scenario)
6.3.5 Effect of Gas injection on Well Productivity (Huff 'n' Puff

Method)
The effect of gas injection on well productivity for gas and condensate
has been studied. A case study, proposed the well is subjected to one year
of continuous production by natural depletion; this followed by five years
of Huff 'n Puff cycles. Each year consist of one month of gas injection,
followed by two months of shut-in period to allow enough time for mass
transfer between the condensate/gas and the injected gas; while, the
remaining nine months of the year is used for well natural production with
BHP of 6000. The rate of injected gas was assumed to be 20 MMSCF/day.
103
Injection of gas (Periodic injection) is expected to serve two purposes:
1- Miscible interaction with the condensate phase to reduce the

dewpoint pressure of the oil/gas phase.
2-Repressurization of the reservoir fluid in the near wellbore region, so

that the pressure is raised above the dewpoint.
Two scenarios were investigated using the huff 'n' puff method using
two different injected gases, as follows:
1- Carbon dioxide (CO2) huff 'n' puff method (fifth scenario)
2- Methane (CH4) huff 'n' puff method (sixth scenario)
The results for both scenarios show no enhancement in gas or

condensate recovery as shown in figure 6.26 and 6.27. However, in spite of
these two injected gases have some capability of removing some distance
of condensate bank saturation by revaporization effect, as shown in figure
6.28 and 6.29. However, the two scenarios were not capable of revaporize
of all condensate because condensate bank extend to a high distance from
wellbore; therefore, no enhancement in gas or condensate recovery could
be observed.
In addition, the condensate bank returns to build up soonest restart the

well production, leading to rapid reduction in gas productivity, as shown in
figures 6.30 and 6.31. The CO2 huff 'n' puff process led to minimize Sc to
zero along 27 ft distance from the wellbore; while, the CH4 huff 'n' puff
process led to minimize Sc to zero along 12 ft distance from wellbore, as
shown in figures 6.28 and 6.29, respectively.
104
200
180 BHP 6000 psi

(second
Gas Rate SC (MMSCF/day)
160 scenario)
140 CO2 huff 'n' puff
method (fifth
120
scenario)
100 CH4 huff 'n'
80 puff method
(sixth scenario)
60
40
20
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
TIME (Year)
Figure 6.26 Comparison of gas flow rate (MMSCF/day) for BHP 6000 psi,
CO2 and CH4 huff 'n' puff methods vs. time
7000
BHP 6000
psi (second
6000 scenario)
CO2) huff 'n'
Oil Rate SC (bbl/day)
5000
puff method
(fifth
4000 scenario)
CH4) huff 'n'
puff method
3000 (sixth
scenario)
2000
1000
0
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
TIME (Year)
Figure 6.27 Comparison of Condensate flow rate (MMSCF/day) for BHP

6000 psi, Co2 and CH4 huff 'n' puff methods vs. time
105

end of shut-in of each cycle (fifth scenario)

end of shut-in of each cycle (sixth scenario)
106

one month of production for each cycle (fifth scenario)

one month of production for each cycle (sixth scenario)
107
6.4 Results comparison of BHP control scenarios

The compositional behavior under different well flowing bottomhole
pressure (BHP) control was investigated. The four scenarios show a
different behavior with the applied of different BHP's. Table 6.2 show the
well Siba 1 behavior under the four scenarios.
Table 6.2 Main difference in well behavior under different well

flowing bottom-hole pressure (BHP) control
Scenario Max. Sc % Reduction % in Initial CGR

Qg after one month bbl/MMSCF
BHP 5000 24 -61.4 65
BHP 6000 22 -61.9 66.3
BHP 7000 19.5 -59.65 68
BHP 8000 14 -50.65 70.3
The results of the four bottomhole pressure control scenarios indicate

that the higher BHP at the producer, the smaller condensate saturation
around the wellbore region. This result confirms the simulation results
reported previously by Shi (2009). The pressure control scenarios, applied
on Siba 1, showed that gas and condensate saturation are variable with
time, BHP and distance from the wellbore.
Also, the results show that the higher the BHP (lower pressure drop)
at the producer, the higher CGR at the surface. This is due to the effect of
producing pressure (BHP) on the reservoir fluid composition. When
producing at high pressure drop below the dewpoint, more heavy
components accumulate in the wellbore region which means the flowing
mixture (gas phase) becomes lighter. Also, the results show that CGR is
affected by the average reservoir pressure which means as the average
reservoir pressure decreases, the obtained CGR also decreases.
108
Finally, the results showed that the condensate banking effect can be
reduced and more condensate recovery can be obtained by minimizing the
pressure drop below the dewpoint pressure.
It showed be pointed out that the results of fluids saturation were

shown for layer 8 and for the others perforated layers see APPENDIX C
6.5 Further investigation

A case study of one year of continuous natural depletion followed by
one year shut-in period for well producing under BHP of 6000 psia has
been studied to investigate the shut-in periods on reservoir fluid
composition. It is noticed that, the overall composition near the wellbore
region becomes richer in heavy components. As a result of composition
change, the phase envelope will shift down and to the right (Lal, 2003) (32).
The fluid in near wellbore region can develop from retrograde gas to a
volatile oil.
Results show that reservoir fluid near wellbore region could not return
to the original composition due to composition change in this region (which
confirmed by the presence of condensate in near wellbore region after
shun-in period). Figure 6.32 shows a continuous decline in condensation
saturation after shut-in period due to the mass transfer between condensate
and gas phase.
109

different shut-in time
6.6 Two-Phase Skin
The effect of condensate blockage in gas condensate reservoir is

considered to be as one of the skin factor types. This type of skin is only
known in a gas condensate system and it is called "two-phase skin"
(83)
(Raghavan et al., 1995) . When BHP is below the dewpoint pressure, a
condensate bank around the wellbore can develop and cause a reduction in
gas relative permeability. While flowing through the condensate bank area,
gas will experience an extra pressure drop. In other words, the flowing gas
from the reservoir towards the wellbore will find it harder to flow in such
low-relative-permeability region due to the condensate accumulation
around the wellbore region. Figure 6.33 shows the skin factor value as a
110
function of relative permeability of gas in Siba 1 using the following

equation:
( ) ………….. 6.1
Where:
S2p = two- phase skin
Krg-outside = relative permeability of gas outside of the wellbore region
Krg-near= relative permeability of gas near the wellbore region
rb = radius of condensate blockage
rw = well raduis
Typically, two-phase skin ranges from 0 to 30. The value of the two-
phase skin is proportional to the condensate saturation exists in the
wellbore region which depend on the producing BHP.
Figure 6.33 Skin factor vs. relative permeability of gas in Siba 1
111
CHAPTER SEVEN Conclusion and Recommendation
Chapter Seven
Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
1- The SRK- Peneloux EOS was chosen to generate the PVT model using
PVTsim softwere, because it has been found to give a better agreement
with experiential data and dewpiont pressure.
2- C9+ was split until C80 and then lumped to five pseudocomponents (C9),
(C10-C17), (C18-C25), (C26-C37), and (C38-C80) and, then, the SRK-
Peneloux EOS was successfully tuned against the measured data.
3- According to the P-T diagram, unit C and D/ Yamama formation/ Siba

field contains gas condensate fluid and the initial condition located in the
two phase zone with liquid of 1.8% of the total volume of the mixture.
4- The OGIP and OOIP obtained from the present study were 3.93E+12
SCF and 2.86E+08 STB, respectively.
5- The best history match (using well test) has been obtained by
multiplying the permeability of the overall constructed twenty two layers
of Siba 1 by a factor of three.
6- Gas and condensate production of Siba 1 exhibit a severe decline at the

first days of production due to the effect of condensate blockage.
7- The pressure control scenarios, applied on Siba 1, showed that gas and
condensate saturation are variable with time, BHP and distance from the
wellbore and the higher BHP at the producer, the smaller condensate
saturation around the wellbore region.
112
8- The CGR is affected by the average reservoir pressure which means as

the average reservoir pressure decreases, the obtained CGR also
decreases.
9- The condensate banking effect can be reduced and more condensate

recovery can be obtained by minimizing the pressure drop below the
dewpoint pressure (by producing the well at low rate).
10- The "Huff 'n' Puff" process was capable of removing some of the
condensate from near wellbore (the CO2 huff 'n' puff process led to
minimize Sc to zero along 27 ft distance from the wellbore; while, the
CH4 huff 'n' puff process led to minimize Sc to zero along 12 ft distance
from wellbore), but no enhancement in gas or condensate productivity
were observed.
11- Condensate accumulation in the near wellbore region could not return
to the original composition due to composition change which is
confirmed by the presence of condensate in near wellbore region after
shut-in period.
12- The effect of condensate blockage in unit C and D/ Yamama formation/

Siba field is considered to be as one of the skin factor types and its value
is a function of relative permeability of gas. In other words, the value of
the two-phase skin is proportional to the condensate saturation existing
in the wellbore region which depends on the producing BHP.
113
7.2 Recommendations
Some subjects rose from this study which can be recommended for future
works, as follows:
1- Study the detailed mechanism of condensate buildup near wellbore.
2- Introduce more simplified analytical approaches to analyze condensate

buildup around the wellbore region.
3- Making a phase behavior study after getting a fluid sample and its
condition which is considered the base of the reservoir studies to test
the different production scenarios and field development plans.
4- Drilling horizontal wells which have a low pressure difference and;

therefore, can reduce condensate saturation.
5- Carry out a field study to evaluate the petrophysical properties of

Yamama reservoir.
114
References
1- Al-Anazi, H. A., Al-Baqawi, A. M., Abdul Aziz, A. A., and Al-Kanaan,
A.A., “Effective Strategies in Development of Heterogeneous Gas
Condensate Carbonate Reservoirs”, Saudi Aramco Journal of
Technology, pp. 56-66, winter, 2010.
2- Shandrygin, A. N., Cholovsky, V. I. Stephen, C. Dolgushin, N. V.,

Kolbikov, S. V. Komin. M. A., Lomeland, F. Lyutomsky. S. M.,
Miskevich, V. E. O’Gallagher, T, and Van-der-Hem, P., “Condensate
Recovery in Gas Condensate Fields”, SPE, Applied Technology
Workshop, Lesnaya, Moscow, Russia, 14-16 May, 2008.
3- Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N. J., and Bette, S., “Production Performance

of Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of the Arun Field”, SPE
Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 7-10
November, 1994
4- Barnum, R. S., Brinkman, F. P., Richardson, T. W., and Spillette, A. G.,

“Gas Condensate Reservoir Behavior: Productivity and Recovery
Reduction due to Condensation”, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October, 1995.
5- Fan, L., Harris, B. W., Jamaluddin, A., Kamath, J., Mott, R., Pope, G.
A., Shandrygin, A., and Whitson, C.H., “Understanding gas
condensate reservoir”, Oil field review, pp.14-27, 2005.
6- Ali, J. K., P. J. McGauley, and Wilson, C. J., “Experimental studies and

modelling of gas condensate flow near the Wellbore”, SPE, Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, 30 August-3 September, 1997.‫‏‬
7- Mahhub A., Al-Qahtani, M. Y. and Rahim, Z., “ Quantifying Production

Impairment Due To Near-Wellbore Condensate Dropout and Non-
Darcy Flow Effects in Carbonate and Sandstone Reservoirs With and
Without Hydraulic Fractures in the Ghawar Field”, SPE, Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, USA, 29 September-2
October, 2002.
8- Pollard, T. A., and Bradley, H. B., “Gas Condensate Reservoirs”, New

York, McGraw-Hill, 1962.
115
9- Kniazeff, V. J. and Naville, S. A., “Two-Phase Flow of Volatile
Hydrocarbons”, SPE, Trans., AIME, 234, pp. 37-44 March 1965.
10- Wall, C. G., “Characteristics of Gas Condensate Reservoirs and

Traditional Production Methods”, London, England, Oyez Scientific
& Technical Services Ltd, 1982.
11- Cable A. S., Mott R. E., and Mike S. “X-Ray in-situ saturation in gas
condensate relative permeability studies”, AEA Technology PLC,
Winfrith Technology Center, Dorchester, Dorset, DT2 8ZE, UK,
2000.
12- Eilerts, C. K., Sumner, E. F., and Potts, N. L., “Integration of Partial
Differential for Transient Radial Flow of Gas-Condensate Fluids in
Porous Structures”, SPE, LA, USA, 6-9October, 1965.
13- Hinchman, S. B., and Barree, R. D., “Productivity Loss in Gas

Condensate Reservoirs”, SPE ,Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Las Vegas, Nevada, 22-26, September, 1985.
14- Sognesand, S., “Long-Term Testing of Vertically Fractured Gas

Condensate Wells”, SPE, Production Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, OK, 7-9 April, 1991.
15- Boom, W., Wit, K., Zeelenberg, J. P., Weeda, H. C., and Maas, J. G.,
“On the Use of Model Experiments for Assessing Improved Gas
Condensate Mobility Under Near-Wellbore Flow Conditions”, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6-9
October, 1996.
16- Takeda, T., Fujinada, Y. and Fujita, K., “Fluid Behaviors Around a
well in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs”, SPE, Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 14-16 April,
1997.
17- Chen, H. L., Wilson, S. D., and Monger-McClure, T. G.,

“Determination of Relative Permeability and Recovery for North Sea
Gas Condensate Reservoir”, SPE Reservoir Evaluation and
Engineering, pp. 939-402, 1999.
116
18- Abdullah, S. A., “Enhanced Gas Condensate Recovery by CO2
Injection”, PhD Dissertation, Curtin University of Technology,
March, 2011.
19- Khosravi, V., Ketabi, S., “Well Test Analysis of Gas Condensate
Reservoirs from Pressure Build Up and Draw Down Tests”, Offshore
Technology Conference, pp. 1961-1970, 2014.
20- Gravier, J. F., Lemouzy, P., Barroux, C., and Abed, A., “Determination
of Gas Condensate Relative Permeability on Whole Cores under
Reservoir Conditions”, SPE, Formation Evaluation, pp. 9-15,1986.
21- Danesh, A., Henderson, G. D., and Peden, J. M., “Experimental

Investigation of Retrograde Condensation in Porous Media at
Reservoir Conditions”, SPE, Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 2-5 October, 1989.
22- Munkerud, P. K., “Measurement of Relative Permeability and Flow

Properties of a Gas Condensate System during Pressure Depletion and
Pressure Maintenance”, SPE, Gas Technology Symposium, Dallas,
Texas, 7-9 June, 1989.
23- Fishlock, T. P., and Smith, R. A., “Three-Phase Studies of Gas

Condensate Flow Behaviour”, SPE Advanced Technology Series,
1993.
24- Henderson, G., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D., Al-Shaidi, S., and Peden, J.,
“Measurementand Correlation of Gas Condensate Relative
Permeability by the Steady-State Method”, SPE, Reservoir Evaluation
& Engineering, pp. 134 – 140, 1998.
25- Whitson, C. H., Fevang, O., and Saevareid, A., “Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability for Well Calculations”, SPE, Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3-6 October, 1999.
26- El-Banbi, A. H., McCain, W. D., and Semmelbeck, M. E.,

“Investigation of Well Productivity in Gas Condensate Reservoirs”,
SPE/CERI Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 3-
5 April, 2000.
117
27- Li, K., and Firoozabadi, A., “Experimental Study of Wettability
Alteration to Preferential Gas-Wetting in Porous Media and Its
Effects”, SPE, Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, Richardson,
Texas, 2000.
28- Du, L., Walker, J. G., Pope, G. A., Sharma, M., and Wang, P., “Use of
Solvents to Improve the Productivity of Gas Condensate Wells”, SPE,
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4
October, 2000.
29- Al-Anzi, H., “Experimental Measurements of Gas Blockage and

Treatments in Low and High Permeability Cores”, PhD Dissertation,
University of Texas at Austin, 2003.
30- Bennion, D. B., Mastmann, M. and Moustakis, M. L., “Retrograde

Condensate Dropout Phenomena in Rich Gas Reservoirs – Impact on
Recoverable Reserves and Permeability and Diagnosis and
Stimulation Techniques”, SPE, Canadian International Petroleum
Conference, Calgary, Canada, 12-14June, 2001.
31- Mott, R., “Engineering Calculations of Gas Condensate Well

Productivity”, SPE, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 29 September-2 October, 2002.
32- Lal, R. R., “Well Testing in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs”, MSc

Dissertation, Stanford University, June, 2003.
33- Ayyalasomayajula, P., Silpngarmlers, N., and Kamath, J., “Well

Deliverability Predications for a Low-Permeability Gas Condensate
Reservoir”, SPE, Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, 9-12 October, 2005.
34- Jamiolahmady, M., Ali D., Tehrani, D. H., and Mehran, S, “Variations
of Gas/Condensate Relative Permeability with Production Rate at
Near-Wellbore Conditions: A General Correlation”, SPE, Reservoir
Evaluation and Engineering, P 688 – 697, 2006.
35- Bozorgzadeh, M., and Gringarten, A. C., “Estimating Productivity-

Controlling Parameters in Gas/Condensate Wells from Transient
Pressure Data SPE, Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, P 100 –
111, 2007.
118
36- Spivak, A., and Dixon T. N., “Simulation of Gas Condensate
Reservoir”, SPE Symposium on Numerical Simulation of Reservoir
Performance, Houston, Texas, 11-12 January, 1973.
37- Coats, K. H., “Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance”,

SPE, Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 1,870 - 1,886, October,
1985.
38- Sutan-Assin, T., Rastogi, S. C., Abdullah, M., Hidayat, D., Bette, S.,
and Heineman, R.F., “Use of Compositional Simulation in the
Management of Aurn Gas Condensate Reservoir”, SPE, Offshore
South East Asia Show, Singapore, 2-5 February, 1988.
39- Yisheng, F., Baozhu, L., Yongle, H., Zhidao, S., and Yuxin, Z.,
“Condensate Gas Phase Behavior and Development”, SPE,
International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China,
2-6November, 1998.
40- Hai, X. V., and Roland N. H., “Composition Variation During Flow of
Gas Condensate Wells”, Final Report to Research Partnership to
Secure Energy for America, 5 December, 2011.
41- Orodu, O. D., Ako, C. T., Makinde, F. A., and Owarume, M. O., “Well
Deliverability Predictions of Gas Flow in Gas Condensate Reservoirs,
Modelling Near-Critical Wellbore Problem of Two Phase Flow in 1 -
Dimension”, Brazilian Journal of Petroleum and Gas, , pp. 159-169,
2012.
42- Mohammad A. L., and Hamid R. D., “Estimation of Gas Condensate

Reservoir Behavior Using Multi Phase Pseudo Pressure Function and
Well Test Analysis”, Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 13
September, 2013.
43- McCain, William D. Jr., “Heavy Components Control Reservoir Fluid

Behavior”, SPE, Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 746-750,
September, 1994.
44- Tarek, Ahmed, “Equations of State and PVT Analysis”, Gulf

Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 2007.
119
45- Kamath, J., “Deliverability of gas condensate reservoirs - field
experiences and prediction techniques”, SPE, Journal of Petroleum
Technology, pp. 94-99 April, 2007.
46- Shi, C., “Flow Behavior of Gas Condensate Wells”, PhD Dissertation,
Stanford University, March 2009.
47- Moses, P. L., Donohoe, C. W., “Gas Condensate Reservoirs”, SPE,

Petroleum Engineering Handbook, 1962.
48- Coskuner, G., and Bogdan, T. S., “Production Optimization of Liquid

Loading Gas condensate Wells: A Case Study”, SPE, Journal of
Canadian Petroleum Technology, November, 2003.
49- Arabi, H., Farahani, S., and Javadifar, A., “Theoretical and
Experimental Enalysis of Constant Volume Depletion Test and Flash
Calculation by Using a Modified Algorithm”, North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 63, pp. 89-94, 2012.
50- Pedersen, K. S., and Christensen P. L., “Phase Behavior of Petroleum

Reservoir Fluids”, CRC press, Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, Boca
Raton, London, New York, 2007.
51- Fevang, Ø., and Whitson, C. H., “Modeling Gas Condensate Well
Deliverability”, SPE, Reservoir Engineering, pp. 221-230, November,
1996.
52- Roussennac, B., “Gas Condensate Well Test Analysis”, MSc

Dissertation, Stanford University, California, 2001.
53- Fevang, Ø., “Gas Condensate Flow Behavior and Sampling”, PhD
Dissertation, University of Trondheim, Norway, October, 1995.
54- Richard, A. D., and Carlos, A. G., “Fluid flow behaviour of gas
condensate and near-miscible fluids at the pore scale”, Elsevier,
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, pp. 228–236, 2007.
55- Whitson, C., and Brule, M., “Phase Behaviour”, Monograph Series,
SPE, Richardson, Texas. 2000.
56- Fussel, D. D., “Single-Well Performance Predictions for Gas

Condensate Reservoirs”, JPT, pp. 860-870, 1973.
120
57- Mott, R., Cable, A., and Spearing, M., “Measurements and Simulation
of Inertial and High Capillary Number Flow Phenomena in Gas
Condensate Relative Permeability”, SPE, Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, 2000.
58- Gringarten, A. C., Al-Lamki, A., Daungkaew, S., Mott, R., and Whittle,
T.M., “Well Test Analysis in Gas Condensate Reservoirs”, SPE,
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas 1-4
October, 2000.
59- Reservoirs and Fields Development directorate / ministry of oil at the

Iraqi Oil Ministry “A Preliminary Reservoir Study to Evaluate Units C
and D / Yamama Formation/Siba Field”,
60- ELF-R.E., “Thermodynamic Study and Physic Properties of Reservoir

Fluid from Well Siba 1, Yamama C + D”, 29 April, 1969.
61- Soave, G., “Equilibrium constants from a modified Redlich-Kwong

equation of state”, Pergamon Press, Chemical Engineering Science,
1972.
62- Redlich, O. and Kwong, J. N. S., “The thermodynamics of solutions. V.

An equation of state. Fugacities of gaseous solutions”, Chemical
Reviews, pp. 233-244, February, 1949.
63- Peng, D. Y., and Robinson, D. B., “The Characterization of the

Heptanes and Heavier Fractions for the GPA Peng-Robinson
Programs”, Gas Processors Association, Project 756, March, 1978.
64- Peneloux, A., Rauzy, E., and Fréze, R., “A consistent correction for
Redlich-Kwong-Soave volumes”, Elsevier, Fluid Phase Equilibria, pp.
7-23, 1982.
65- Jhaveri, B. S., and Youngren, G. K., “Three-parameter modification of

the Peng-Robinson equation of state to improve volumetric
predictions”, SPE, Reservoir Engineering, pp. 1033–1040, August,
1988.
66- Naji, H. S., “A Polynomial Fit to the Continuous Distribution Function

FOR C7+ Characterization”, Emirates Journal for Engineering
Research, pp. 73-79, 2006.
121
67- Pedersen, K. S., Thomassen, P., and Fredenslund, A., “SRK-EOS
calculation for crude oils”, Fluid Phase Equilibria, pp. 209-218, 1983.
68- Pedersen, K. S., Thomassen, P., and Fredenslund, A.,

“Thermodynamics of petroleum mixtures containing heavy
hydrocarbons. 1. Phase envelope calculations by use of the Soave-
Redlich-Kwong equation of state”, Industrial and Engineering
Chemistry Process Design and Development, pp. 163–170, 1984.
69- Lohrenz, J., Bray B. G., and Clark C. R., “Calculating Viscosities of
Reservoir Fluids from Their Compositions”, SPE, journal of
Petroleum Technology, pp. 1171-78, October, 1964
70- Pedersen, K.S., Milter, J., and Sorensen, H., “Cubic equations of state
applied to HT/HP and highly aromatic fluids”, SPE, Technical
Conference and Exhibition, pp. 186-192, June 2004.
71- Danesh, A., “PVT Phase Behaviour of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids”,

Elsevier science B.V., 1998.
72- Raffie, H., Tennyson, J., and Richard, A. D., “A Method for Predicting
the Phase Behavior of Trinidad Gas Condensates”, The West Indian
Journal of Engineering, pp. 22-30, 3 January, 2013.
73- Gani, R., and Fredenslund, A., “Thermodynamics of Petroleum

Mixtures Containing Heavy Hydrocarbons: Am Expert Tuning
System”, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, pp. 1304-
1312, 1987.
74- Coats, K. H., and Smart, G. T., “Application of a Regression-Based

EOS PVT Program to Laboratory Data”, SPE, Reservoir Engineer
November, pp. 575-582, 1986.
75- Twu, C. H., “An internally consistent correlation for predicting the
critical properties and molecular weights of petroleum and coal-tar
liquids”, Fluid Phase Equilibria, pp. 137–150, 1984.
76- ERAP, Iraq-Branch, “Principal well results- Siba 1”, Baghdad. 10 July,
1969.
122
77- Bertram, D. A., McDevitt, B. S.,Leemput, L.E., and Al Harthy, N. M.,
“Experiences in Gas-Condensate Well Test Analysis Using
Compositional Simulation”, SPE, ,Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
Dallas, Texas, 8-11 June, 1997.
78- Al-Ajmi, F. A., and Holditch, S. A., “Permeability Estimation using

Hydraulic Flow Units in a Central Arabia Reservoir”, SPE, Saudi
Aramco-Schlumberger, 2000.
79- Akhoundzadeh, H., Moghadasi, J., and Habibnia, B., “Correlation of

Pore Volume Compressibility with Porosity in One of the Iranian
Southern Carbonate Reservoirs”, Petroleum University of
Technology, Abadan, Iran.
80- Corey, A. T., “The Interrelation between Gas and Oil Relative
Permeabilities,” Producers Monthly, pp. 38-41, November, 1954.
81- Honarpour, M., Koederitz, L.F., and Harvey, A. H., “Relative

Permeability of Petroleum Reservoir,” CRC Press, Florida, Boca
Raton, USA, 1986.
82- Stone, H. L., “Estimation of Three-Phase Relative Permeability and

Residual Oil Data”, Canadian Petroleum Technology, pp. 12-53,
October, 1973.
83- Raghavan, R, Chu, W., and Jones J. R., “Practical Considerations in the
Analysis of Gas-Condensate Well Tests”, SPE, Annual technical
conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October, 1995.‫‏‬
123
APPENDIX A
This illustrates the regression results and comparison of

experimental and calculated data before and after tuning of Siba field
units C&D.
1- Constant Mass Expansion at 263.12 °F EOS =SRK Peneloux

CME1
Table A.1 Saturation Pressure

Saturation Pressure Weight= 40
psia
Temp Exp Before %Dev After %Dev
°F value tuning before tuning after
263.12 9021.38 11427.6 26.7 9001.23 -0.2
Table A.2 Relative volume

Rel Vol Weight= 1
V/Vd
Pressure Exp Before %Dev After %Dev
psia value tuning before tuning after
10167.18 0.9671 1.0442 8 0.9568 -1.1
9021.38 1 1.0955 9.5 0.9992 -0.1
7991.61 1.02 1.1551 13.2 1.051 3
7266.42 1.0389 1.2086 16.3 1.0972 5.6
6541.23 1.0645 1.276 19.9 1.1554 8.5
5090.84 1.1735 1.4814 26.2 1.3348 13.7
3640.46 1.4385 1.8938 31.7 1.7046 18.5
2915.27 1.7246 2.2873 32.6 2.0646 19.7
2190.08 2.287 2.9819 30.4 2.7073 18.4
1464.89 3.5222 4.4365 26 4.0616 15.3
A-1
Table A.3 Liquid drop out%
Liq Vol Weight= 10
% of Vd
10167.18 0 3.17
9021.38 0 5.51
7991.61 2.2 7.57 244.7 2.67 21.7
7266.42 4.71 9.12 93.6 4.55 -3.5
6541.23 7.65 10.73 40.3 6.69 -12.5
5090.84 12.04 13.87 15.2 11.43 -5.1
3640.46 15.56 16.28 4.6 15.17 -2.5
2915.27 16.69 16.95 1.6 16.14 -3.3
2190.08 17.06 17.14 0.5 16.4 -3.9
1464.89 16.58 16.75 1.1 15.93 -3.9
2- Constant Volume Depletion at 263.12 °F EOS =SRK Peneloux

CVD
Table A.4 Saturation Pressure

Saturation Pressure Weight= 40
psia
Temp Exp Before %Dev After %Dev
°F value tuning before tuning after
263.12 9021.35 11427.6 26.7 9001.23 -0.2
Table A.5 Liquid drop out%

Liq Vol Weight= 10
% of Vd
9021.35 0 5.51
7991.58 2.2 7.4 236.5 2.67 21.6
6541.2 6.41 10.1 57.5 6.51 1.5
5090.83 10.13 12.43 22.7 10.55 4.2
3640.45 12.59 13.78 9.4 13.11 4.1
2190.07 13.66 13.77 0.8 13.3 -2.6
1111 12.5 12.89 3.1 12.24 -2.1
14.5 10.29 9.34 -9.2 8.63 -16.2
A-2
Table A.6 Gas Z factor
Z Factor Weight= 10
Gas
9021.35 1.347 1.37 1.7 1.374 2
7991.58 1.243 1.271 2.3 1.265 1.7
6541.2 1.121 1.142 1.9 1.123 0.2
5090.83 1.017 1.034 1.7 1.004 -1.3
3640.45 0.934 0.958 2.6 0.926 -0.9
2190.07 0.907 0.931 2.6 0.907 0
1111 0.95 0.946 -0.4 0.934 -1.7
14.5 0.999 0.998 -0.1 0.998 -0.1
3- General Regression Results
Object function before tuning 4.356E-02
Object function after tuning 5.67E-02
Table A.7 Corr fac 1: Crit T (°F). Max adjustment: 20.00%.

Before tuning After tuning %Adjustment of Crit T in K
C9 577.768 653.487 7.299
C10-C17 709.464 794.796 7.299
C18-C25 891.063 989.649 7.299
C26-C37 1067.9 1179.392 7.299
C38-C80 1375.497 1509.44 7.299
Table A.8 Corr fac 2: Crit P (psia). Max adjustment: 20.00%.

Before tuning After tuning %Adjustment
C9 381.99 402.48 5.364
C10-C17 280.37 295.41 5.364
C18-C25 213.29 224.73 5.364
C26-C37 190.79 201.02 5.364
C38-C80 179.79 189.43 5.364
A-3
Table A.9 Corr fac 3: Acentric factor. Max adjustment: 20.00%.
C9 0.5399 0.5107 -5.405
C10-C17 0.7098 0.6715 -5.405
C18-C25 0.973 0.9204 -5.405
C26-C37 1.208 1.1428 -5.405
C38-C80 1.2901 1.2204 -5.405
Table A.10 Omega A and B

Corr fac 4: Omega A SRK. Max adjustment: 10.00%.
C1 0.42748 0.47023 10
Corr fac 5: Omega A SRK. Max adjustment: 10.00%.

C9 0.42748 0.41677 -2.506
C10-C17 0.42748 0.41677 -2.506
C18-C25 0.42748 0.41677 -2.506
C26-C37 0.42748 0.41677 -2.506
C38-C80 0.42748 0.41677 -2.506
Corr fac 6: Omega B SRK. Max adjustment: 10.00%.
C1 0.08664 0.08546 -1.359
Corr fac 7: Omega B SRK. Max adjustment: 10.00%.
C9 0.08664 0.09443 8.985
C10-C17 0.08664 0.09443 8.985
C18-C25 0.08664 0.09443 8.985
C26-C37 0.08664 0.09443 8.985
C38-C80 0.08664 0.09443 8.985
Table A.11 Match liquid densities selected. Cpen (ft³/lb-mol).

C6 0.288 0.29 0.693
C7 0.155 0.155 0
C8 0.223 0.223 0
C9 0.353 0.672 90.585
C10-C17 0.718 1.192 65.854
C18-C25 0.77 1.466 90.294
C26-C37 0.122 0.985 704.369
C38-C80 -1.865 -0.78 -58.176
A-4
Table A.12 Corr fac 8: SRK kij. Max adjustment: 0.2000. (Before tuning)
CO2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10-C17 C18-C25 C26-C37
C9 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C10-C17 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C18-C25 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C26-C37 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C38-C80 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table A.13 Corr fac 8: SRK kij. Max adjustment: 0.2000. (After tuning)
CO2 C1 C2 C3 iC4 nC4 iC5 nC5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10-C17 C18-C25 C26-C37
C9 0.1254 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231
C10-C17 0.1254 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231
C18-C25 0.1254 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231
C26-C37 0.1254 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231
C38-C80 0.1254 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231 0.0231
Table A.14 Sensitivity matrix:

Corr fac d(Obj)/d(Corr fac)
1 1.04E+02
2 3.76E+01
3 4.37E+01
4 -4.12E+01
5 7.88E+01
6 5.12E+01
7 -1.15E+02
8 1.02E+02
A-5
Table A.15 Viscosity
1st visc correction factor (CSP)
1 1 0
2nd visc correction factor (CSP)
1 1 0
3rd visc correction factor (CSP)
1 1 0
4th visc correction factor (CSP)
1 1 0
Vc correction factor (LBC)
1 1 0
a1 (LBC)
0.1023 0.1023 0
a2 (LBC)
0.023364 0.023364 0
a3 (LBC)
0.058533 0.058533 0
a4 (LBC)
-0.04076 -0.040758 0
a5 (LBC)
0.009332 0.0093324 0
A-6
APPENDIX B
The distribution of the petrophysical properties in the model
Figure B. 1 Porosity distribution in the model in layer 1
Figure B. 2 Horizontal permeability distribution in the model in layer 1
B-1
Figure B. 2 Vertical permeability distribution in the model in layer 1
Table B. 1 Distribution of water saturation in the model

1 0.07979
2 0.202963
3 0.367195
4 0.23
5 0.231504
6 0.306108
7 0.427279
8 0.222992
9 0.273561
10 0.47034
11 0.418266
12 1
13 1
14 0.460577
15 0.41426
16 0.304354
17 0.316373
18 0.321129
19 0.34416
20 0.346164
21 0.409254
22 0.423775
B-2
APPENDIX C
This section will illustrate the different production scenarios applied
in reservoir simulation study for well Siba 1for different perforated
layers.
C1- First Scenario
Figure C1.1 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 6 (first

scenario)
C-1
scenario)

scenario)
C-2
Figure C1.4 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 10
(first scenario)

(first scenario)
C-3
(first scenario)

(first scenario)
C-4
(first scenario)

(first scenario)
C-5
(first scenario)

(first scenario)
C-6
(first scenario)
C2- Second scenario

(second scenario)
C-7
(second scenario)

(second scenario)
C-8
(second scenario)

(second scenario)
C-9
(second scenario)

(second scenario)
C-10
(second scenario)

(second scenario)
C-11
(second scenario)

(second scenario)
C-12
(second scenario)
C3- Third Scenario
Figure C3.1 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 6 (third

scenario)
C-13
scenario)

scenario)
C-14
(third scenario)

(third scenario)
C-15
(third scenario)

(third scenario)
C-16
(third scenario)

(third scenario)
C-17
(third scenario)

(third scenario)
C-18
(third scenario)
C4- Forth Scenario

(fourth scenario)
C-19
(fourth scenario)

(fourth scenario)
C-20
(fourth scenario)

(fourth scenario)
C-21
(fourth scenario)

(fourth scenario)
C-22
(fourth scenario)

(fourth scenario)
C-23
(fourth scenario)

(fourth scenario)
C-24
(fourth scenario)
C-25
‫الخالصة‬
‫حقٕل انغبص انًزكثف رضداد أًْ‪ٓٛ‬ب ثسجت انحصخ انًزضا‪ٚ‬ذح يٍ انغبص انًُزح يٍ ْزِ انحقٕل ضًٍ‬
‫انٓ‪ٛ‬كم انعبنً‪ ٙ‬إلَزبج انغبص‪ .‬ف‪ ٙ‬يكبيٍ انغبص انًزكثف عُذيب ‪ُٚ‬خفض ضغظ انقبع انجئش٘ رحذ‬
‫ضغظ انُذٖ فبٌ انسبئم سٕف ‪ٚ‬زسبقظ ٔانًكثفبد سٕف رزشاكى ثبنقشة يٍ انجئش‪ .‬رشاكى انًكثفبد‬
‫ف‪ ٙ‬انًكًٍ ‪ًٚ‬كٍ أٌ رسجت اَخفبضب ف‪ ٙ‬انُفبر‪ٚ‬خ انُسج‪ٛ‬خ انغبص (كُز‪ٛ‬دخ‪ ,‬رقه‪ٛ‬م ف‪ ٙ‬إَزبخ‪ٛ‬خ انجئش نهغبص)‬
‫ٔفقذاٌ انًشكجبد راد انُٓب‪ٚ‬بد انثق‪ٛ‬هخ انق‪ًٛ‬خ ف‪ ٙ‬انًكًٍ‪.‬‬
‫رسٔح األْذاف نٓزِ انذساسخ ْ‪ ٙ‬نفٓى آن‪ٛ‬بد حدت انًكثفبد ٔك‪ٛ‬ف رؤثش عهٗ إَزبخ‪ٛ‬خ ا‪ٜ‬ثبس‪ .‬أ‪ٚ‬ضب ‪,‬‬
‫فئٌ ْزِ انذساسخ يعُ‪ٛ‬خ ف‪ ٙ‬انزحق‪ٛ‬ق ف‪ ٙ‬رجب‪ ٍٚ‬انًشكجبد ف‪ ٙ‬انًكًٍ ٔانسٕائم انًُزدخ كذانخ نهضغظ‪.‬‬
‫ْزا انذساسخ رشكض عهٗ رعظ‪ٛ‬ى االسزفبدح يٍ حقم س‪ٛ‬جّ ٔانز٘ ‪ٚ‬عُ‪ ٙ‬ص‪ٚ‬بدح اسزخالص انٓ‪ٛ‬ذسٔكشثٌٕ‬
‫انسبئم‪ٔ .‬أفضم طش‪ٚ‬قخ نزنك ْ‪ ٙ‬ثئخشاء دساسبد يحبكبح انًكبيٍ انزشك‪ٛ‬ج‪ٛ‬خ نهًكًٍ‪ ,‬األيش انز٘‬
‫‪ٚ‬زطهت أٔال ضجظ ًَٕرج يعبدنخ انحبنخ (‪ )EOS‬نج‪ٛ‬بَبد ‪ PVT‬نسٕائم انًكًٍ انًقبسخ يخزجش‪ٚ‬ب ٔيٍ‬
‫ثى اسزخذاو رنك ًَٕرج ‪ EOS‬انًظجظ إلخشاء دساسبد يحبكبح انًكبيٍ انزشك‪ٛ‬ج‪ٛ‬خ نهزحق‪ٛ‬ق ف‪ٙ‬‬
‫يخزهف انس‪ُٛ‬بس‪ْٕٚ‬بد اسزغالل انًكًٍ‪ .‬رى يقبسَخ س‪ُٛ‬بس‪ْٕٚ‬بد يخزهفخ‪ٔ ،‬اقزشحذ ايثم‬
‫انس‪ُٛ‬بس‪ْٕٚ‬بد نإلَزبج ألقصٗ قذس يٍ اسزخالص انًكثفبد‪.‬‬
‫َزبئح ْزِ انذساسخ رظٓش أٌ انزشاك‪ٛ‬ت رخزهف اخزالفب كج‪ٛ‬شا ثٕصفٓب دانخ نكم يٍ ضغظ انقبع انجئش٘‬
‫(‪ٔ )BHP‬يزٕسظ ضغظ انًكًٍ‪ .‬كًب أظٓشد انُزبئح أٌ رأث‪ٛ‬ش رشاكى انًكثفبد ‪ًٚ‬كٍ رقه‪ٛ‬هّ ٔ‪ًٚ‬كٍ‬
‫رحس‪ ٍٛ‬ااسزخالص انغبص ‪ /‬انًزكثفبد يٍ خالل اسزخذاو طش‪ٚ‬قخ انس‪ٛ‬طشح عهٗ انضغظ (‪ .)BHP‬ف‪ٙ‬‬
‫ْزِ انذساسخ‪ ،‬أ‪ٚ‬ضب رى يحبكبح انحقٍ انذٔس٘ نهغبص (طش‪ٚ‬قخ ‪ ) huff 'n' puff‬ثبسزخذاو اثُ‪ ٍٛ‬يٍ‬
‫انغبصاد انًخزهفخ (‪ )CH4ٔ CO2‬نهزحق‪ٛ‬ق ف‪ ٙ‬قذسرٓب عهٗ رجخ‪ٛ‬ش يٍ انًكثفبد قشة يُطقخ انجئش‪.‬‬
‫انُزبئح يٍ اسزخذاو طش‪ٚ‬قخ انحقٍ انذٔس٘ نهغبص نى رظٓش أ٘ رحسٍ ف‪ ٙ‬اسزخالص انغبص أٔ‬
‫انًزكثفبد‪.‬‬
‫وزارة انتعهيى انعاني وانبحث انعهًي‬
‫جايعت بغداد‬
‫كهيت انهندست‬
‫قسى هندشت اننفط‬
‫دراسة تبثير تطور ضفة تشبع انمتكثفبت حول بئر منتج‬

‫في حقم سيبه ‪ /‬تركيب انيمبمة‬
‫رسانت‬
‫يقديت انى كهيت انهندست في جايعت بغداد‬
‫وهي جسء ين يتطهباث نيم درجت انًاجستير‬
‫في عهىو هندست اننفط‬
‫ين قبم‬
‫يحًد يحسن حًيد‬
‫)بكهىريىش هندست نفط ‪0220‬و(‬
‫باشراف‬
‫د‪ .‬عهي حسين جىاد‬ ‫د‪ .‬جالل عبد انىاحد انسىداني‬
‫‪ 2141‬هـ‬ ‫‪0222‬و‬

Studying The Effect of Condensate Satura PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studying The Effect of Condensate Satura PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

Studying the Effect of Condensate Saturation

Dr. Jalal Abdulwahid Al-Sudany Dr. Ali Hussein Jawad

2015 A.D. 1436 A.H

‫سورة البقرة‪ /‬اية الكرسي( ‪)522‬‬

I would like to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my

Finally, I like to express my deepest appreciation and gratitude to my

Nomenclature ...…………………………………………….…..…….. III

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ............................................... 1

CHAPTER TWO: Literature Review ..................................... 5

CHAPTER THREE: Flow Behavior ...………………...….... 22

CHAPTER FOUR: PVT Model .………………................... 38

CHAPTER SIX: Results and Discussions ............................. 84

CHAPTER SEVEN: Conclusions and Recommendations..112

Figure 1.1 Saturation Distribution for a Typical Gas Condensate System

Figure 3.4 Schematic of CVD experiment............................................... 32

Figure 3.5 Schematic of CCE experiment ................................................ 33

Figure 4.1 The characterization problem ................................................. 46

Figure 4.2 Comparison of experimental and calculated liquid drop out %

Figure 4.3 Comparison of experimental and calculated gas Z factor from

Figure 4.4 Comparison of experimental and calculated liquid drop out

Figure 4.5 Comparison of experimental and calculated relative volume

Figure 4.6 Phase envelope (pressure-temperature diagram (P-T diagram)

Figure 4.7 Phase envelope of Siba field (Comparison of both characterized

Figure 4.8 Comparison of experimental and simulated liquid drop out%

Figure 4.10 Comparison of experimental and simulated liquid drop out%

Figure 4.11 Comparison of experimental and simulated gas Z factor vs.

Figure 4.12 Simulated production mole% vs. pressure (CVD experiment)

Figure 4.14 Simulated viscosity vs. pressure (CVD experiment) ............61

Figure 4.15 Phase envelopes of produced-well stream at different

Figure 4.16 Phase envelopes of condensate liquid at different

Figure 4.17 Shift in phase envelope of gas condensate at different average

Figure 5.2 Initial grid system ................................................................... 72

Figure 5.3 Reservoir quality index vs. normalized porosity .................... 74

Figure 5.7 Final grid system of Siba field/Yamama formation ............... 78

Figure 5.8 Oil-water relative permeability .............................................. 81

Figure 5.9 Gas-oil relative permeability .................................................. 82

Figure 6.1 History matches with build-up test ......................................... 87

Figure 6.5 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (first

Figure 6.10 Condensate profile along unit C and D (second scenario)

Figure 6.11 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8

Figure 6.12 Gas saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (second

Figure 6.17 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (third

Figure 6.18 Gas saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (third

Figure 6.22 Condensate profile along unit C and D (fourth scenario)

Figure 6.23 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (fourth

Figure 6.24 Gas Saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 (fourth

Figure 6.27 Comparison of Condensate flow rate (MMSCF/day) for BHP

Figure 6.28 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 at the

Figure 6.29 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 at the

Figure 6.30 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 after

Figure 6.32 Condensate saturation vs. horizontal distance in layer 8 after

Table 4.1 Reservoir fluid composition Siba field / Yamama formation /

Table 4.2 Reservoir Fluid Compositions (After Splitting and Lumping

Table 4-3 Regression variables selections ............................................... 52

Table 4-4 Weighting elements used in the regression process ............... 53

Table 4.5 Reservoir Fluid Compositions (After Splitting, Lumping and

Table 4.6 Produced well stream (gas phase) mole% as a function of

Table 4.7 Condensate (liquid phase) mole% as a function of pressure

Table 5.1 Fluid distribution in Yamama formation units ........................ 70

Table 5.2 Grid size distribution ............................................................... 72

a, b, c Constants In Various Equations Of State, Dimensionless

Natural gas has become an important source of global energy and is