THE PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 99-13

First Steps for Developing an Improved Recovery

Method for a Gas
Condensate Reservoir

I. Hernandez
ATECH Application Technology Ltd.

S.M. Farouq Ali, R.G. Bentsen

University of Alberta.

This paper is to be presented at the 1999 CSPG and Petroleum Society Joint Convention, Digging Deeper, Finding a Better Bottom Line, in Calgary,
Alberta, Canada, June 14 – 18, 1999. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if filed in writing with the technical
program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will be considered for publication in Petroleum Society
journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to correction.

ABSTRACT
Simulation of gas condensate reservoir is described for
water injection and gas injection, with the objective of
improving hydrocarbon recovery. A compositional simulator
was used for the studies conducted. The methods investigated
were Continuos and Simultaneous Gas Cycling with Water
Injection (CSGW) and Continuous Gas Cycling with
Alternating Water Injection (CGAW).
Numerous injection-production strategies involving water
injection and hydrocarbon production with gas cycling, were
examined. Fluid saturation distributions were studied for a
three-layer reservoir. These shoved that gravity segregation
plays an important role in all three processes. On the whole,
CSGW recovered 4.6% more oil initially in place than
conventional gas cycling. CGAW performed no better than
conventional gas cycling.
The detailed results show that the water injected
supplemented reservoir energy, improved the mobility ratio,
and helped to maintain a reasonable gas-oil ratio.
Implications of field application are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
As traditionally defined 1 , there are three methods of
recovering gas condensate fluids from a reservoir. One
method of recovery is Gas Cycling (GC) from the beginning
of the operation. A second method is Gas Cycling delayed
until part of the reservoir fluid has been removed by means
of natural depletion and is known as Partial Gas Cycling
(PGC). The third method, Natural Depletion (ND), does not
return gas to the reservoir at any stage of the operation. Gas
Cycling from the beginning of the operation displaces 50
percent, more or less, of the original fluid from a reservoir by
injecting residue gas (dry gas), after being separated at the
surface in a separator, into the formation. The original
reservoir pressure is usually not fully maintained, but the
condensation that occurs in the reservoir is only a fraction of
that which would result without pressure maintenance. The
second method is less efficient than the first for most of the
time, and depends on the stage of operation at which the
residue gas is being injected. Since gas cycling starts after
part of the fluid has been removed without pressure
maintenance, the original reservoir pressure can never be
maintained. Consequently, the condensation occurring in the
reservoir is much greater than that in the first method.
 Natural depletion involves only production. No residue
gas is injected back into the formation. Liquid recovery is
efficient only at the beginning of operations when the
reservoir fluid produced contains the full original content of
liquefiable hydrocarbons. As the reservoir is depleted and the
pressure declines below the dew point, the retrograde
condensation process begins. Butane and heavier
hydrocarbons in the gas condensate will be condensed in the
formation. The actual percentage condensed will vary with
the composition of the fluid. Recovery of part of this
percentage by evaporation at lower pressures is not fully
assured. Recently, two other methods have been used in the
recovery of gas condensate: Waterflooding (WF) and Water-
Alternating-Gas (WAG). Variations of these methods include
Immiscible WAG (ImWAG) and Simultaneous WAG
(SWAG).
In this study a new method is tested. Continuous and
Simultaneous Gas Cycling with Water Injection (CSGW)
consists of injecting water and gas simultaneously and
continuously right from the beginning of operations. The
recovery, which is based on the amount of gas and water
injected, is higher than any other method. The pressure is
maintained above the dew point pressure for a long period,
thus reducing the amount of condensation. The recovery
efficiency depends on the role of water as an efficient
displacing agent for gas, which depends upon three main
conditions 1 . These are: (1) The initial water saturation, (2)
the residual gas saturation in the portion of the reservoir
invaded by water, and (3) the fraction of the initial reservoir
volume invaded by water. This last factor depends upon well
location and the effect of permeability stratification and,
more importantly, upon the degree of water saturation at the
bottom of the water front.
Another variation of this new method is The Continuous
Gas Cycling with Alternating Water Injection (CGAW)
method. More than 100 computer runs were analysed. Only
the result of comparison 5 with 3 runs is presented in this
paper.
METHODOLOGY
The reservoir simulator used in this study was GEM, a
multidimensional equation-of-state compositional simulator
developed by the Computer Modelling Group. The GEM
simulator provides solid simulator control features.
Correlations for the relative permeability, interfacial tension
and saturation distribution are built into the preprocessor.
GEM, also utilizes either the Peng-Robinson or the Soave-
Redlich-Kwong equation of state to predict the equilibrium
compositions and densities of the oil and gas phases. In this
study, water injection is used. Therefore, the explicit
formulation is not considered; instead, the Adaptive-Implicit
method 2 is used. This method is based on the idea that, at a
2
given time during a simulation, only same grid blocks need
to be solved implicitly, while the remaining grid blocks are
solved explicitly. Thus, during a simulation, blocks are
switched automatically between explicit and implicit to allow
the use of a large time step.
RESERVOIR MODELLING AND ADAPTATIONS
The model used for the study was a model built in GEM
for the SPE-3 Comparative Problem.
The reservoir is a homogeneous, volumetric retrograde gas
condensate reservoir with the reservoir pressure higher than
the dew point pressure; therefore, only a single phase is
present. The reservoir fluid is directly assigned as gas. It is a
three-layer reservoir with a 9x9x3 grid. The permeability of
the first layer is 150 md, the second 20 md and the third 40
md. The porosity is constant at 0.13.
Mattax and Dalton 3 pointed out that modelling the
depletion of a gas condensate reservoir requires that all
components through hexane must be included, with the
heptane plus fraction being lumped. If depletion is by gas
cycling, the model must include a breakdown of the
composition of the heptane-plus fraction, because an
important part of the process is evaporation of heavy
components. If this detailed breakdown is not used, the
model will eventually compute that the oil was vaporized,
which is physically unrealistic. GEM meets all these
requirements and has the additional data required, such as
phase equilibrium, phase densities and phase viscosities.
Separator conditions to simulate surface separations are also
included as well as the critical pressure, temperature, specific
volume, molecular weight and acentric factor for each
component.
The original data set was in field units and it was
converted to SI. Since the model was initially designed only
for gas cycling, but not for natural depletion, water injection,
WAG and the new Continuous Gas Cycling with
Simultaneous Water Injection, another modification had to
be made. The interfacial tension effect on relative
permeability was included in the rock fluid section. The
purpose of including the effect of interfacial tension on
relative permeability is to force the relative permeability
curves for gas and oil to become linear functions of the
respective saturation. The gas-oil capillary pressure
approaches zero when the phases become nearly
indistinguishable (and hence the interfacial tension between
the two phases approaches zero). Originally, the model had
one producer and one injector. For the purpose of this study
one more injector was added. Other changes were made in
the original data set, such as the depth of the reservoir, size,
numbers and height of layers, the reference, global and
water-oil contact depths. The most important changes were
made in the well and recurrent data section, where all the
constraints, perforation locations and well parameters were
changed. Notice that the components of the original data set
were invariant. A material balance error diagram is shown in
Appendix 1 to confirm the quality of the results.
FIELD APPLICATION
The constraints such as GOR, WOR, maximum BHP at
injectors, minimum BHP at the producer, water and gas
surface rates, back flow and water cut were chosen to be
practical and as close as possible to a real field situation.
The implications of the field applications were also simulated
through the slug size and injection rate of water and gas.
Well data and separator data (temperature and pressure) for
the three-phase separator were taken from GEM model and
from the field respectively.
Notice that all the above mentioned parameters are part of
a real field scenario. The new method is applicable in the
field because of the inclusion of the above mentioned
parameters, and because of its flexibility with water
management. The water injector can be located close to the
producer and strategically conveniently for the cycling
process. The major impact of the water in the recovery
method is not due to horizontal distance to the producer, but
rather to the vertical location of the water-condensate contact
in the reservoir, because the invaded water plays the role of
an aquifer by maintaining the reservoir pressure enabling the
reservoir to drain effectively. The main advantage of
recycling the produced water is the economic and useful
solution to the water disposal.
COMPARISON
The base case, and the various combinations thereof, were
analyzed as two main cases, each based on two different well
locations. Due to the large size of the study, only the results
of one comparison are presented in this paper. The
Continuous and Simultaneous Gas Cycling with Water
Injection (CSGW), Continuous Gas Cycling with Alternating
Water Injection (CGAW) and Gas Cycling (GC) methods are
compared. The amount of gas and water injected was the
same, as were the separator conditions. The production well
and the injector wells have the same location for the three
methods. Run 22 represents the gas Cycling (GC) case, Run
25 is the Continuous and Simultaneous Gas Cycling with
Water Injection (CSGW) case, while Run 28 is the
Continuous Gas Cycling with Alternating Water Injection
(CGAW) case.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Continuous Gas Cycling with Alternating Water Injection
(CGAW), an alternative to the Continuous and Simultaneous
Gas Cycling with Water Injection (CSGW), showed a final
3
recovery of 56.86 % of OOIP at 11,281 days (almost 31
years). This method clearly showed that, in gas condensate
reservoirs, maintenance of the reservoir pressure and the
retardation of retrograde condensation by means of gas
cycling is essential. The reservoir pressure was not fully
maintained, and the percentage of OOIP was slightly higher
than for Gas Cycling (0.08 %).
The influence of the water front was not noticeable. This
was because the alternating water front was not steady,
allowing a portion of the condensate liquid to remain in the
reservoir. The GOR, daily oil produced, percentage of
original oil-in-place and the pressure have almost the same
values as for Run 22, the gas cycling case. Refer to tables
and figures 1 to 4 for more information. The only significant
difference was in the duration of the simulation. Run 22 took
a total of 11,431 days, 150 days more than CGAW (11,281
days). Note that for convenience 11,231 days are used also
for the CGAW case. The CGAW method yielded a total
recovery of 56.86 %, as compared to 56.78 (%) for the GC
case. Consequently, it appears that there is no significant
advantage in using the CGAW method, as compared to the
GC method.
The average reservoir pressure was maintained near the
dew point pressure for a long time in the (CGAW) case; this
was attributed to gas cycling. The role of the water as an
efficient displacing agent for gas, and as the energy source to
maintain the reservoir pressure, was not achieved. It is clear
that the poor performance of the water as a displacing fluid is
mainly due to the low initial water saturation and to the late
and interrupted water injection rate. Because of the 5 years
delay in the beginning of the first slug of water, the water
front never reaches the condensate with enough force to
drive it and the rest of injected dry gas, towards the
production well; consequently it has a low impact on the
daily production and in the total recovery. Figures 5.1.1 to
10.3.9 illustrate the ideas discussed above and the saturation
distribution for the three methods. These figures represent
the first 1,825 days and the end of the simulation.
Notice that, at the end of Run 28, the water saturation
profile is different from that of Run 25; moreover, the
amount of water injected at the same time is one half that of
Run 25. The amount of void space filled by the water plays
an important role, since it helps to maintain and to stabilize
the reservoir pressure. It also reduces the chance of the
injected dry gas expanding across the reservoir. This forces
the gas to occupy a smaller area, thus forcing the gas front to
move toward the production well more quickly. The rate at
which the gas front propagates through the reservoir,
displacing condensate ahead of it, is a key factor in
determining the profitability of the process.
 The absence of water injection in the first 5 years in Run
28 delays greatly the impact it has on the daily oil
production. While Run 25 has a rate of 69.94 sm3 /day, Run
28 has a rate of 52.20 sm3 /day. Table 3 and figure 3 show the
daily oil rate vs time. The Gas Cycling recovery method,
Run #22, has a typical performance profile. As shown in
Figures 5.1.1 to 5.3.3 and Figures 8.1.1 to 8.3.3 dry gas has
swept some areas of the reservoir at the time the producing
well has been invaded by it. Other areas are not swept by the
gas, because of the location and flow rate of the production
and injection wells, mainly because of stratification effects,
leaving wet gas in the lower permeability (tighter) stringers.
The GOR hits a maximum of 8,784 and then descends to
3,705 at the abandonment pressure of 1,286 KPa in 11,431
days. Refer to Figure 2 and Table 2 for details. This
abandonment pressure is one of the lowest and eventually
allows the reservoir to go through the evaporation process.
Despite that, Run 22 produces for a longer time (200 days)
than the CGSW method. Its oil recovery percentage, 56.78, is
lower than 61.42 % of the CGWS run. For more information
on recovery OOIP refer to Figure 4 and Table 4. Also, refer
to Figure 1 and Table 1 for the average reservoir pressure
decline in time. The average reservoir pressure is linearly
proportional to the per cent of OOIP recovered. The CSGW
shows the slowest pressure decline and consequently the
highest recovery.
The success of the CGSW is attributed to the continuous
injection of water, and to the amount of injected water.
Regardless, it is dependent on the rock pore structure and the
fact that it can trap dry gas together with condensate as the
front passes by, increasing the gas saturation and reducing
the oil saturation in a particular portion of the reservoir or
block. Water injection with gas cycling has several
advantages; it:
1 forces the gas to dissolve in the condensate, when a large
number of pore volumes of water is injected, increasing
the mobility of the front toward the production well and
helping to maintain a manageable GOR.
2 fills the void space and maintains the reservoir pressure
at or near the dew point for a longer time, avoiding early
condensation of liquid;
3 increases the sweep efficiency by double sweeping any
residual condensate left behind after the dry gas has
passed through a particular area; and
4 improves the mobility ratio by reducing the interfacial
tension with a reduction in the viscosity difference,
helping the condensate to move faster and to be more
accessible for recovery.
Without doubt, the success of the CGSW method is due to
the continuous nature of the injection process. In the CGAW
4
method, the condensate never gets trapped between two
fronts, as is the case in the CGSW method. Notice that the
saturation profiles for Run 22 (GC) and Run 28 (CGAW) are
the same for the first 1,825 days refer to Figure 5.1.1 to
Figure 5.3.3 and to Figure 7.1.1 to Figure 7.3.3. However, as
time goes by, the saturation profiles change a bit. The
saturation profiles for Run 28 became more like those for
Run 25 (CGSW) during the last period (end of the
simulation) refer to Figure 9.1.1 to Figure 10.3.3. Yet, a
slight difference is seen in all the phases. The biggest
difference is seen in the lowest layer, Plane 1, where the
residual oil saturation of Run 28 is bigger, and the gas and
water saturation are smaller. That is, the water front does not
drive out as much oil as Run 25. Although, Run 22 has a
smaller residual oil saturation (0.01%) the reservoir area
occupied by the gas is much bigger than the reservoir area
occupied by the gas in Run 25 due to the presence of the
water front. That is why in Run 25, the water front
contribution helps to achieve a better sweet efficiency. The
saturation profiles displayed for Run 22 show this behaviour.
There is only one front and it moves quickly and in one
direction; that is, it is a typical gas saturation profile. Figures
5.1.1 through Figures 10.3.3 show the above mentioned. The
advantage of the CGSW method over the GC and CGAW
methods is shown in a combined result for the three methods
in table 5.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study is the first step toward implementing a new
recovery method for a gas condesate reservoir. The results of
this study are based on and rely only on the data given and
the accuracy of the compositional simulator GEM of the
Computer Modelling Group. Nevertheless, it be should stated
that the validity of GEM has been confirmed by running it
with the data provided for the SPE-3 comparative problem
and by matching the results.
Three recovery methods for gas condensate reservoir were
analyzed, the traditional Gas Cycling method (GC), the new
Continuous and Simultaneous Gas Cycling with Water
Injection method (CSGW), and a variant of the previous
method, Continuous Gas Cycling with Alternating Water
Injection method (CGAW). Additional numerical and
laboratory studies will have to be undertaken before a
complete understanding of the complex behaviour involved
in this new recovery method can be understood fully. The
following conclusions are drawn from this study.
1 The readjusted model appears to work properly. Also,
the results of the simulation are consistent with the
predictions reported in the literature for gas cycling.
2 The CSGW method recovered, in 11,231 days, 61.42 %
of original oil-in-place. That is, the CSGW method
 recovered 4.56 % more than the CGAW method (11,281
days) and 4.64 % more than the GC method (11,431
days). There is no advantage in using the CGAW over
the GC method.
3 It is demonstrated that the CSGW method improves oil
recovery. This is not only because water is a good
energy source and filler of void space, but also because
it helps to increase the mobility ratio, to maintain a
manageable GOR and to increase the sweep efficiency,
improving the recovery efficiency.
REFERENCES
1 Craft, B.C., and Hawkins, M.F., “Applied Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering,” (2nd ed./revised by Ronald E.
Terry., New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1990), Chapter 4.
2 Collins, D.A., Nghiem, L.X., Li, Y.K., and
Grabenstetter, J.E., “An Efficient Approach to Adaptive-
Implicit Compositional Simulation with an Equation of
State,” SPEJ (May 1992) 259-64.
3 Mattax, C.C., and Dalton, R.L., “Reservoir Simulation”,
(SPE Monograph Series, 1989), Chapter 11.
APPENDIX 1
Material Balance Error
This appendix includes the average material balance error
for the three analysed mechanisms in this study. The Material
Balance Equation used in GEM is:
(Current moles - initial moles - moles injected + moles produced)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(Current moles – initial moles)

When computing the average material balance error, GEM

does a weighted average, with the weighting factor being the
normalised difference (current moles – initial moles).
Tabulated results are displayed in table 6 and illustrated in
figure 11. These results represent a typical average material
balance error profile. They are similar to other reported
material balance error profiles.

5
TABLE 1: AVERAGE RESERVOIR PRESSURE VS TIME

Time, days 1825 3652 5478 9131 11 231 11 431

Ave Pr, Kpa Run 22 19,025 15,305 12,004 5619 1286
Ave Pr, Kpa Run 25 20,425 17,350 14,127 6761 1944
Ave Pr, Kpa Run 28 19,025 16,273 12,693 6195 1778

TABLE 2: GOR VS TIME

Time, days 1825 3652 5478 9131 11 231 11 431

GOR, m3/m3 Run 22 1915 3259 5248 8784 3705
3 3
GOR, m /m Run 25 1616 2715 4681 9492 5603
GOR, m3/m3 Run 28 1915 2944 5043 9272 5119

TABLE 3: QO VS TIME

Time, days 1825 3652 5478 9131 11 231 11 431

Qo, m3/d Run 22 52.2 30.68 19.05 11.38 26.98
Qo, m3/d Run 25 61.81 36.83 21.36 10.53 17.85
Qo, m3/d Run 28 52.2 33.96 19.83 10.78 19.53

TABLE 4: OOIP VS TIME

Time, days 1825 3652 5478 9131 11 231 11 431

OOIP, % Run 22 21.96 34.58 42.11 50.86 56.78
OOIP, % Run 25 23.89 39.23 47.97 57.09 61.42
OOIP, % Run 28 21.96 35.28 43.34 52.18 56.86

TABLE 5: SUMMARY TABLE

Run 22 1825 days 3652 days 5478 days 9131 days 11 431 days
Ave Pr, Kpa 19 025 15 305 12 004 5619 1286
GOR, m3/m3 1915 3259 5248 8784 3705
OOIP, % 21.96 34.58 42.11 50.86 56.78
Np, m3 127 060 200100 243 650 294 280 328 550
Qo, m3 52.2 30.68 19.05 11.38 26.98
Run 25 1825 days 3652 days 5478 days 9131 days 11 231 days
Ave Pr, Kpa 20 425 17 350 14 127 6761 1944
GOR, m3/m3 1616 2715 4681 9492 5603
OOIP, % 23.89 39.23 47.97 57.09 61.42
Np, m3 138 240 227 020 277 590 330 360 355 380
Qo, m3 61.81 36.83 21.36 10.53 17.85
Run 28 1825 days 3652 days 5478 days 9131 days 11 281 days
Ave Pr, Kpa 19 025 16 273 12 693 6195 1778
GOR, m3/m3 1915 2944 5043 9272 5119
OOIP, % 21.96 35.28 43.34 52.18 56.86
Np, m3 127 060 204 140 250 800 301 920 329 000
Qo, m3 52.2 33.96 19.83 10.78 19.53

6
TABLE 6: AVERAGE MATERIAL BALANCE ERROR
Time (days) 365 1825 5478 9131 11231 11431
Ave. Mat. Bal (%) Run 22 0.0093432 0.013249 0.021382 0.023921 0.021601
Ave. Mat. Bal (%) Run 25 0.012324 0.0089657 0.011872 0.00843 0.0048589
Ave. Mat. Bal (%) Run 28 0.0093432 0.013249 0.046118 0.022156 0.016827

Run 22 Run 22
GOR Vs Time Reservoir Average Pressure Vs Time
Run 25 Run 25
25,000
10000 Run 28 Run 28

9000
20,000

Reservoir Ave Pressure, Kpa

8000
7000
GOR, m3/m3

6000 15,000
5000
4000 10,000
3000
2000
5,000
1000
0
1825 3652 5478 9131 11 231 11 431 0
1825 3652 5478 9131 11 231 11 431
Time, days
Time, days

FIGURE 1: RESERVOIR AVERAGE PRESSURE VS TIME FIGURE 2: GAS-OIL RATIO VS TIME

Run 22 Run 22
Daily-Oil-Produced Vs Time Original-Oil-In-Place Recovered Vs Time
Run 25 Run 25
70 70
Run 28
Run 28
60 60
Original-Oil-In-Place, (%)

50 50
Q o, m 3/d

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
1825 3652 5478 9131 11 231 11 431 1825 3652 5478 9131 11 231 11 431
Time, days Time, days

FIGURE 3: DAILY OIL RATE VS TIME FIGURE 4: ORIGINAL OIL IN PLACE VS TIME