SPE 121848

Well Test Dynamics in Rich Gas Condensate Reservoirs under Gas Injection
Aluko, O.A., SPE and Gringarten, A.C., SPE, Imperial College London

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for pres entation at the 2009 SPE EUROPEC/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–11 June 2009.

This paper was selected for pres entation by an SPE program c ommittee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s ). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not neces sarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Elec tronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abs tract mus t contain conspic uous acknowledgment of SPE copy right.

Abstract
This paper investigates the well test behaviour of rich gas condensate reservoirs below the dew point pressure and the impact
of re-vaporisation of the condensate bank due to re-pressurisation by gas injection. Results from compositional simulation,
verified with field data, suggest that the near-wellbore fluid saturation below the dew point pressure in a build up is different
from that at the end of the preceding drawdown, because of significant differences in fluid properties and saturation
distributions. A condensate bank is created during drawdowns, which disappears during subsequent build ups. As a result, the
corresponding pressure derivatives are different, with the drawdown derivative being the mirror image of the derivative in the
subsequent build up. This is different to what happens in lean gas condensate reservoirs and similar to the well test behaviour
of volatile oil reservoirs. Drawdowns and build ups in rich gas condensate reservoirs below the dew point pressure exhibit a
composite behaviour, which can be analysed to provide the gas mobility in the bank two-phase region. A practical method is
proposed to evaluate the bank storativity, which is then used to calculate the bank radius. The study also shows that the loss of
productivity due to liquid drop out can be reversed by a properly designed gas injection scheme and that the corresponding
changes in saturation distributions can be monitored by well test analysis.
These theoretical investigations are used to explain a series of production tests conducted in a rich gas condensate reservoir in
North Africa. A well test analysis methodology is proposed for such systems, which combines conventional well test
interpretation methods, deconvolution and verification with both a single phase voranoid grid simulator and a numerical
compositional simulator.

Introduction and background

Rich gas condensate reservoirs are a topic of increasing interest as deeper and hotter hydrocarbon reservoirs are being
exploited (Barnum et al. 1995). Rich gas condensate reservoirs are characterised as having a high liquid hydrocarbon yield and
are often developed for their liquid reserves.
There is no clear definition in the literature of where the transition between rich and lean condensates occurs on the phase plot.
Compared to lean gas condensates, rich gas condensates have higher percentage of intermediates and C7+ components, higher
specific gravity and lower gas-oil-ratio. The following guidelines are often used to distinguish rich condensate fluids: an initial
producing gas-oil-ratio of 3300 to 5000 scf/stb (McCain 1989), heptane plus concentrations close to 12.5% (Danesh 1998),
maximum liquid drop-outs of up to 35% and an initial liquid yield of over 100 stb/MMscf. Yisheng et al. (1998) attempted to
categorise condensate fluids as lean, middle, rich and near critical based on their fluid properties. Lumping the rich and near
critical gases as “rich”, their property ranges can be summarised as: C7+, 4.0 – 12.5 mol%; density, 19 – 31 lb/ft3; GOR, 2800
– 8000 scf/STB.

Rich gas condensate reservoirs pose a challenging problem for fluid characterisation and well test analysis due to their near-
critical nature, and a unique problem in reservoir development as a result of condensate deposit below the dew point pressure
and the creation of a condensate bank which decreases productivity and may result in a potentially significant loss of liquid
reserves. Productivity loss from gas condensate reservoirs due to condensate blockage is well documented in the literature
(Hinchman and Barree 1985, Economides et al. 1987, Yu et al. 1996, Bloom and Hagoort 1998, Gringarten et al. 2000,
Hashemi 2006).
Kniazeff and Naville (1965) and Eilerts et al. (1965, 1967) were the first to numerically model gas-condensate well
deliverability, including non-Darcy flow. Their studies show saturation and pressure profiles in the reservoir as functions of
time and other operational variables, confirming that condensate blockage reduces well deliverability.
Barnum et al. (1995) showed that productivity impairment results in significant reduction in gas recovery for wells with a
permeability-thickness below 1000 mD-ft. They concluded that, the richer the gas condensate, the greater the liquid build up in
the near-wellbore region and consequently the larger the productivity impairment. In extreme cases, wells may cease
production below the dew point pressure.
Whitson and Fevang (1996) modelled the deliverability of gas-condensate well using a modified form of the Evinger and
Muskat (1942) pseudo-pressure. They derived the pressures and saturations from the instantaneous producing GOR (i.e. the
2 SPE 121848

producing well stream composition). A key observation and conclusion from their study (using lean and rich gas condensate
samples) was that critical oil saturation has no direct effect on well deliverability. In addition, they showed that interfacial
tension (IFT) dependence of relative permeability has little or no effect on gas-condensate well performance. The effect of
condensate blockage becomes important only when the corresponding pressure drop is significant relative to the total pressure
drop (reservoir, completion and tubing) and gas relative permeabilities at low oil saturations (krg > 0.3) affect deliverability
only for the richer gas condensates.
Using compositional simulation, Gringarten et al. (2000) confirmed that production below the dew point leads to a non-
reversible reduction in productivity in lean condensate reservoirs.

Condensate banking effects are compensated by velocity stripping which increases the gas mobility in the immediate vicinity
of the wellbore (Gondouin et al. 1967). Velocity or viscous stripping, also called “positive coupling” (Boom et al., 1995;
Henderson et al., 1995 and 2000; Ali et al., 1997; Blom et al., 1997) occurs at high capillarity number, a dimensionless
parameter that represents a ratio of viscous to capillary forces (Moore et al., 1995; Bardon et al., 1980):
vµ (1)
Nc =
σ
where ν represents the velocity, µ the viscosity, and σ the interfacial tension (IFT). High capillary numbers are obtained for
high flowrate (Gondouin et al. 1967) or low interfacial tension (Danesh et al., 1991). Gringarten et al. (2000) provided the
first well test evidence in the literature of the existence of the velocity stripping zone. Previous well test publications had only
reported the existence of a condensate bank as a two-region radial composite behaviour (Economides et al. 1987, Whitson and
Fevang 1996, Ali et al. 1997, Mott et al. 1999). Using a homogeneous radial compositional model, Gringarten et al (2000)
calculated the liquid condensate profile around the wellbore during production and shut-in periods for a lean gas condensate,
with and without capillary number (Nc) effects. They showed the early time mobility is much lower without Nc effects than
with Nc effects and that the relative permeability profile away from the wellbore exhibits a minimum when Nc effects are
incorporated. This improved mobility in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore yields three stabilisations on the corresponding
pressure derivative, representing the capillary effect zone, the condensate bank and the reservoir above the dew point pressure,
respectively. They performed a similar test using a rich gas and found the relative permeability distribution did not show a
minimum, suggesting that the corresponding derivative should have only two stabilisations.
Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten (2004) presented drawdown versus build up condensate saturation distributions of a lean gas
condensate sandstone reservoir of infinite extent. They showed that the saturation distributions at the end of a drawdown and
that in the subsequent build up are very similar when the well is produced below the dew point because the high accumulation
of condensate mass near the well prevents the re-vaporisation of the liquid condensate during shut-in. They introduced a
method for estimating the condensate-bank radius from build up data. The method uses the dry gas pseudo-pressure and an
independent determination of the storativity ratio between the two-phase condensate bank region around the well and the gas
region with the original condensate saturation away from the well. The storativity ratio is based on the total compressibility
ratio between two zones (Eq. 2), taking into account mass exchange between the reservoir liquid and gas phase at reservoir
conditions (Eq. 3). This method was shown to be applicable to lean condensate reservoirs producing at relatively low flow
rates. The procedure was verified on actual well test data by comparison with results from compositional simulation using
capillary number and non-Darcy effects. It is very dependent on having a well tuned EOS model from a PVT package for the
generation of live-oil and wet-gas properties prior to the interpretation of the build up derivative.
c t1
[φc t h ]1 / 2 = (2)
ct 2
 S g  − dB g  dR v  B o − R s B g    
  +   
 B g  dp
  dp  1 − R s R v     (3)
C tc = (1 − S w )  + S wCw + C r
 S  − dB  dR s  B g − R v B o    
+ o  o
+     
 B o  dp  dp  1 − R s R v    
 
Rich gas condensates reservoirs are often developed using secondary or enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods to maximise
liquids recovery. Monitoring and understanding behaviour of the two-phase condensate bank during production is vital in
assessing the potential impact on productivity and ultimate recovery. Gas injection is the most popular EOR option in rich gas
condensate reservoirs and has long been applied to try and maintain the average reservoir pressure (and possibly the flowing
bottomhole pressure) above the dew point pressure, because hydrocarbon liquid recovery is less efficient below the dew point
pressure. In addition, gas injection below the dew point can improve condensate recovery by displacing condensed liquids
towards producing wells and vaporising the intermediate and heavy components of the condensate. As illustrated in this paper,
time-lapse well test pressure derivatives can be used to monitor changing fluid saturations in rich gas condensate reservoirs
undergoing gas injection following primary production.

Well Test Dynamics of Rich Gas Condensate Reservoirs below the Dew Point Pressure
In this paper, compositional simulation is used to investigate and characterise reservoir fluid dynamics and well test behaviour
of wells in rich gas condensate reservoirs. The thermodynamic properties of the fluids are represented by the modified Peng-
Robinson equation of state (EOS), with EOS parameters based on experimental data from an actual reservoir (MTGc, North
SPE 121848 3

Africa). Velocity dependent (Vdep) parameters (Nc and non-Darcy) matched to multi-rate well test data are included in the
numerical modelling.
The study focuses on the effects of:

production rate on the fluid saturation profiles during drawdowns and build ups

geological complexities on the liquid saturation profile

gas injection on re-vaporisation due to re-pressurisation
Near-Wellbore Behaviour in an Infinite Reservoir A radial model was set up with an initial pressure (5000 psi)
just above the dew point pressure (4835 psi), so that the reservoir fluid is initially in single (gaseous) phase. Production was
simulated as three alternating drawdowns and shut-ins, with the flowing bottomhole pressure (FBHP) below the dew point
pressure. Two cases were studied, with and without velocity dependent parameters (Fig. 1). Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show that during
production, the liquid saturation accumulation, the gas relative permeability, and the extent of the two-phase region are a
function of the production rate: the higher the rate, the higher the reduction in gas relative permeability. The capillary number
reduces the condensate saturation and increases the gas relative permeability but velocity stripping effects, characterised by a
lower value of the condensate saturation (Fig. 2, DD3) and a higher value of the gas relative permeability (Fig. 3, DD3) in the
very near-wellbore region are only observed at higher rates. With lean gas, they are observed as soon as the BHP drops below
the dew point pressure.

5000

Dew Point Pressure

4800
DD1 BU1 DD2 BU2 DD3 BU3

4600
Pressure (psia)

4400

4200

4000

- With Vdep
- Without Vdep (Base)
3800

3600
0 100 200 300
Elapsed time (days)
Figure 1: Bottomhole pressure with and without velocity dependent parameters

END DD1 [Oil Saturation vs Radial Distance] END DD2 [Oil Saturation vs Radial Distance] END DD3 [Oil Saturation vs Radial Distance]
0.5 0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4
Oil Saturation (fraction)

0.4
Oil Saturation (fraction)

Oil Saturation (fraction)

0.3 0.3 0.3

Base Base Base
0.2 Vdep 0.2 Vdep 0.2 Vdep

0.1 0.1 0.1

0 0 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Radial Distance from Well (ft) Radial Distance from Well (ft) Radial Distance from Well (ft)

Figure 2: Near-wellbore oil saturation profiles at end of DD1, DD2 and DD3
END DD1 [Krg vs Radial Distance] END DD2 [Krg vs Radial Distance] END DD3 [Krg vs Radial Distance]
1 1 1

0.8 0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6 0.6

Krg

Base Base
Krg

Base
Krg

0.4 0.4 0.4 Vdep

Vdep Vdep

0.2 0.2 0.2

0 0 0

0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Radial Distance from Well (ft) Radial Distance from Well (ft) Radial Distance from Well (ft)

Figure 3: Near-wellbore gas relative permeability profiles at end of DD1, DD2 and DD3

Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the changing pressure and saturation profiles at the end of the second drawdown (DD2) and during the
subsequent shut-in (BU2) when capillary number effects are included. Below the dew point pressure, the oil saturation is
highest at the end of the drawdown then decreases during the subsequent build up at a rate which is a function of the reservoir
4 SPE 121848

and fluid properties (Fig. 7). The increasing pressure (Fig. 4) causes a change in fluid properties for both oil and gas, radially
away from the well as shown in Fig. 7. As time and pressure increase during build up, oil viscosity and density decrease while
gas viscosity and density increase. The surface tension decreases and miscibility develops forming a richer single phase (gas)
fluid when the pressure becomes high enough. Consequently, the oil saturation and radius of the condensate bank reduce as
shown in Fig. 5. After a relative short production period (60 days in Fig. 1), the liquid bank eventually disappears during the
subsequent build up when the near-wellbore build up pressure exceeds the dew point pressure.

BU2 BHP vs. Radial Distance BU2 Oil Saturation vs. Radial Distance

Rate Normalised nm(p) Change & Derivative (psi)

1000
5100 END DD2 0.30 END DD2 Pressure
BU 1e-4 day BU 1.0e-4 day
BU 3e-4 day 0.25 BU 2.0e-4 day
4900 BU 3.0e-4 day

Oil Saturation (fraction)

BU 1e-3 day
0.20 BU 5.0e-4 day 100
BU 3e-3 day
BHP (psi)

BU 7.0e-4 day Derivative

BU 5e-3 day
4700 0.15 BU 1.0e-3 day
BU 1e-2 day
BU 1.4e-3 day
BU 2e-2 day Derivative Stabilisation – Gas at Initial saturation
0.10 BU 1.9e-3 day 10
4500 BU 3e-2 day BU 2.4e-3 day FP3 (DD2)
BU 5e-2 day 0.05 BU 3.0e-3 day FP4 (BU2)
BU 1e-1 day BU 3.3e-3 day
4300 BU 60 days 0.00 BU 5.0e-3 day
1
0.1 10 1000 100000 0.1 1 10 100 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft) Elapsed time (days)
Figure 4: Transient BHP profile (BU2) Figure 5: Transient So profile (BU2) Fig. 6: DD2 vs. BU2 pressure and derivative

BU2 Oil Viscosity vs Radial Distance BU2 Gas Viscosity vs Radial Distance BU2 Oil Density vs Radial Distance
0.090 0.070 BU 1e-4 day 31 BU 1e-4 day
BU 1e-4 day
BU 3e-4 day
0.067 BU 3e-4 day
BU 3e-4 day

Oil Density (lb/cu.ft)

0.085 BU 5e-4 day
Gas Viscosity (cp)
Oil Viscosity (cp)

30
0.064 BU 7e-4 day BU 5e-4 day
BU 5e-4 day
0.080 BU 1e-3 day
BU 7e-4 day 0.061 BU 7e-4 day
BU 3e-3 day 29
0.075 BU 1e-3 day BU 1e-2 day BU 1e-3 day
0.058
BU 1e-1 day
BU 3e-3 day BU 3e-3 day
0.070 0.055 BU 60 days 28
0.1 1 10 100 0.1 10 1000 100000 0.1 1 10 100
Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft)

BU2 Gas Density vs Radial Distance BU2 STEN vs Radial Distance BU2 Krg vs Radial Distance
28 BU 1e-4 day 0.0018 BU 1e-4 day 1 BU 1e-4 day
BU 3e-4 day BU 2e-4 day BU 3e-4 day
0.9 BU 5e-4 day
27 BU 5e-4 day
Gas Density (lb/cu ft)

STEN (Dynes/cm)

BU 3e-4 day BU 7e-4 day

0.0012
BU 7e-4 day
BU 5e-4 day 0.8 BU 1e-3 day
Krg

26 BU 1e-3 day BU 1.4e-3 day

BU 7e-4 day
BU 3e-3 day 0.7 BU 1.9e-3 day
0.0006
25 BU 1e-3 day BU 2.4e-3 day
BU 1e-2 day
BU 3e-3 day 0.6 BU 3e-3 day
BU 1e-1 day
BU 3.3e-3 day
24 BU 60 days 0.0000 BU 5e-3 day
0.5 BU 5e-3 day
0.1 10 1000 100000 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100
Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 7: Changing properties (viscosity, density, surface tension, relative permeability) during shut-in (BU2)

Drawdown vs. build up behaviour Because the condensate bank created during a drawdown disappears in the
subsequent build up, the DD and BU derivatives are mirror images, i.e. the mobility at the end of the drawdown is
approximately the mobility at early times in the subsequent build up. This is illustrated in Fig. 6, which shows the drawdown
(DD2) and subsequent build up (BU2) corresponding to the test shown in Fig. 1.

Relationship between build up derivative and transient liquid saturation profile Gas condensate
reservoirs exhibit a complex behaviour when wells are produced below the dew point, due to the existence of a two fluid
system, reservoir gas and liquid condensate. Different mobility regions develop around the wellbore representing the original
gas in place away from the well, the condensate bank, and the region affected by capillary number effects in the immediate
vicinity of the wellbore. The corresponding contrasts in mobility and storativity yield a composite behaviour in well tests,
which can be identified on pressure derivatives (Bourdet et al. 1983).
Fig. 8 shows a rate-normalised graph of pressure and derivatives for the build ups of Fig. 1. In BU2 and BU3, the liquid drop-
out region is seen up to 0.004 days and 0.05 days, respectively, but the corresponding derivatives do not show a stabilisation.
Instead, the derivatives decrease gradually from a maximum value (corresponding to a minimum gas mobility) at early times
to a stabilised value at later times, representing the reservoir initial gas mobility. This is different from published derivatives
for lean condensate fluids which may exhibit three different stabilisations as time increases. The first one, corresponding to the
velocity stripping zone, is followed by a second one, at a higher level, due to the lower gas mobility in the condensate bank. As
pressure increases above the dew point pressure, this second stabilisation is followed by a steep downward trend and a third
stabilisation at a lower level, which represents the reservoir initial gas mobility.
SPE 121848 5

1000 BU2 Oil Saturation vs. Time

Pressure
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)
0.25

0.20

Oil Saturation (fraction)

100

0.15

Derivative
0.10
Derivative Stabilisation – Gas at Initial saturation
10

FP2 (BU1) 0.05

FP4 (BU2)
FP6 (BU3)
0.00
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Elapsed time (days) Elapsed Time (days)
Figure 8: Rate normalised pressure change and derivative plots Figure 9: BU2 maximum saturation (from Fig. 6) vs. time plot

Fig. 9 presents a plot of the saturation profile maxima in Fig. 5 vs. time, where the condensate saturation reduces from a
maximum of 20% at 0.0001 day to a minimum of 0% after about 0.004 day. Comparing the BU2 derivative from Fig. 8 and
the maximum condensate saturation curve from Fig. 9, shows that it takes the same duration (0.004 days) for the derivative to
reach the radial flow stabilisation corresponding to the reservoir permeability as for the maximum saturation curve to decrease
to zero percent condensate saturation (Fig. 10). The same observation can be made for BU3 in Fig. 11.

BU2 Comparison of Derivative and Condensate Saturation Profiles BU3 Comparison of Derivative and Condensate Saturation Profiles
100 100
Normalised derivative Normalised Derivative
Normailsed Derivative (psi), So (%)

So Asymptote Profile
Normailsed Derivative (psi), So (%)

So Asymptote Profile

10 10

1 1

0.1 0.1

0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Elapsed Time (days) Elapsed Time (Days)
Figure 10: Comparison of derivative and maximum Figure 11: Comparison of derivative and maximum
saturation curve for BU2 saturation curve for BU3

Condensate bank radius The intersections of the derivatives and the maximum condensate saturation curves in Figs.
10 and 11 define the size of the condensate bank. Various methods have been proposed over the years to estimate the
condensate bank radius from well test data. Application of many of these methods can be difficult in practice and may make
the results prone to errors.

Deviation time method (Van Poollen 1964, 1965) calculates a front radius from the time (tend) at the end of the
first semi-log Horner straight line, which represents the two-phase inner region mobility:
A.k1 t (4)
R= . end
(φ. µ.ct )1 (t De ) end
A is a conversion factor and is a theoretical dimensionless deviation time based on the front radius. The accuracy of the
method is very dependent on calculations and the correct identification of the first semi-log straight line which can be masked
by the wellbore storage and phase redistribution effects, or may not develop at all.

Intersection time method (Odeh 1969, Ramey 1970, Merrill et al. 1974) uses the intersection time (tX) of the
two semi-log Horner straight lines which correspond to the mobilities of the two-phase (gas and liquid condensate) inner
region and the single-phase (gas) outer region:
A.t DX A.k1 .t x
RD = (5) t DX = (6)
D M /( M −1) (φ .µ .ct )1 rw2
6 SPE 121848

( k / φ . µ . ct ) 1 (7)
( k / µ )1 (8)
D= M =
( k / φ . µ . ct ) 2 (k / µ ) 2
The intersection method relies on accurately identifying the intersection point from the two Horner semi-log straight lines,
which is not always obvious. Identifying the first and second semi-log straight lines can be further complicated by wellbore
storage effects and boundary effects respectively.

Pressure build up interpretation procedure (Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten 2004) involves the following
steps:

Construct and use a tuned EOS model to predict the actual reservoir fluid properties using a PVT package.

Utilise the tuned EOS model to generate live-oil and wet-gas PVT (Black-oil) tables as a function of pressure.

Calculate the total compressibility for the two-phase region (1) at the pressure at the time of the shut-in and for the
outer gas region, and (2) at the average reservoir pressure, using Equation 2.

Calculate the storativity ratio (Eq. 1) using the calculated storativities for both regions.

Calculate the two-phase viscosity from the generated Black-oil tables using the pressure at the time of shut-in.
µ 2 − φ = S o . µ o + (1 − S o ) µ g (9)

Determine the mobility ratio from the effective permeabilities determined from each derivative radial flow
stabilisation line and the calculated two-phase viscosity.
 kh  ( k 1 / µ 1 ) 2 −φ (10)
  =
 µ 1 / 2 ( k 2 / µ 2 ) drygas

Determine the condensate bank radius from well test analysis using single phase gas pseudo-pressures and a radial
composite model with the calculated storativity and mobility ratios.
This method was demonstrated to be applicable to lean condensate reservoirs producing a relatively low flow rates but has yet
to be validated for rich condensate reservoirs. The method is also very dependent on having a well tuned EOS model from a
PVT package for the generation of live-oil and wet-gas properties prior to the interpretation of build up derivatives. It can be
cumbersome for practical well test analysis.

Proposed method using a simplified estimate of the storativity ratio The total compressibility for a
hydrocarbon reservoir can be expressed as: ct = (1 − S w )[ S g .c gas + So .coil ] + S w cw + cr (11)
As mentioned by Bozorgzadeh et al. (2004) and published in elsewhere (Eclipse 300 Technical Manual), Eq. 11 is equivalent
to Eq. 2. Gas condensate fluids are very compressible and typically exhibit compressibility values that are over an order of
magnitude greater than water or rock compressibilities. Assuming that c g ,o >> cr and c g ,o >> cw , Eq. 2 and Eq. 11 can be
approximated as:
ct = (1 − S w )[ S g .c gas + So .coil ] (12)
and Eq. 3 reduces to:
 S g  − dB g  dR  B 0 − R s B g    
 +  v     
 B g  dp  dp  1 − R R    
 s v (13)
C tc = (1 − S w )  
 S  − dB  dR  B g − R v B o    
+ o  o
+  s     
 B o  dp  dp  1 − R s R v    
 
Above the dew point when only single phase gas exists, the isothermal compressibility value can be calculated by
differentiation of the real gas EOS, pV = ZnRT (McCain 1989), which gives:

 1  dV 1 1 ∂Z (14)
cg = −  = − ( psi ) −1
 V  dP T
p Z ∂P

To a first approximation, this may be evaluated as the reciprocal of pressure i.e. c g ∝

1 (15)
p
Below the dew point, liquid condensate (oil) exists and the oil isothermal compressibility coefficient is related to oil formation
volume factor (Danesh 1998) as:

 ∂B0 
 
∂ p  T
co = − 
1 (16)
∝
Bo Bo
The main controlling factors on the total two-phase compressibility are:

The reservoir pressure which determines the fluid saturations and is also inversely proportional to the gas
compressibility

Oil swelling due to gas dissolving in the oil. It is controlled by Bo which is inversely proportional to the oil
compressibility.
SPE 121848 7

The storativity ratio can be approximated as:

 1 
 p   (B )  p .( B o ) dp
≈  1
ct1 (17)
[φ c t h ]1 / 2 = . o dp  = 2
ct 2  1   ( Bo )1  p 1 .( B o ) 1
 p 
 2 
Depending on reservoir and fluid properties, a correction factor (Ca) might need to be applied to get a closer match between
the method above and the pressure build up interpretation method of Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten (2004).
c p .( B o ) dp (18)
[φ c t h ]1 / 2 = t 1 ≈ C a 2
ct 2 p 1 .( B o ) 1

Compressibility Ratio vs. Pressure Pressure (Psia)

10 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Detailed Method 50% 5
Simplified Method (% Difference)
Simplified Method
Compressibility (Storativity) Ratio

40% Simplified Method with Correction Factor "Ca=1.1" (% Difference) 4

8 Simplified Method with Correction Factor (Ca = 1.1)
Simplified Method (Absolute Difference)
Dewpoint Pressure 30% Simplified Method with Correction Factor "Ca=1.1" (Abs. Difference) 3
Dewpoint Pressure
6 20% 2

Absolute Difference
% Difference
10% 1

4 0% 0

-10% -1
2
-20% -2

-30% -3
0
-40% -4
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure (Psia) -50% -5
Figure 12: Comparison of storativity ratio calculations Figure 13: Error difference between detailed and simplified method

Figs. 12 and 13 show the results of the comparison of the total compressibility ratio between the near-wellbore liquid drop-out
region (region1) and the single phase gas region (region2) over a range of pressures below the dew point pressure, using the
“simplified” method of Eq. 18 and the “detailed” pressure build up interpretation method of Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten
(2004). The compressibility ratios derived from both methods match reasonably well. Applying a correction factor of 10% (C a
= 1.1), gives a near perfect match in the medium to high pressure range. Errors of up to 10% in storativity ratio have little
effect on the calculated condensate bank radius from well test analysis. Verification with data from a volatile oil reservoir
(Sanni 2008) also shows a good match with a difference of less than 10%.
Behaviour in a Heterogeneous Reservoir The impact of varying production time on the condensate saturation
profiles were investigated using a compositional simulation model. The model was setup as a geologically composite reservoir
with a permeability of 100mD near the well which decreased to 40mD at a radial distance of 890 ft from the well.
For long production times (Fig. 14) below the dew point pressure, the condensate bank eventually extends into the region of
reduced permeability. The condensate bank is superimposed on the composite reservoir behaviour and well test analysis
requires the use of a 3-region composite model (Fig. 15). Region1 of the composite behaviour represents the condensate bank,
with a radius r1 that increases with time; region2 is the 100mD reservoir at the initial gas saturation with a fixed radius r2; and
region3 corresponds to the 40mD outer reservoir region at the initial gas saturation. Eventually, region1 extends into region3
(i.e. r1 > r2). In this case, the mobility ratio between region2 and region3 can be obtained as:
k2
[kh / µ ]2 / 3 = * ( kh / µ )1 / 2 (19)
k3
1000
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

6000 70
FP2 (BU1)
FP4 (BU2)
60
FP6 (BU3) Pressure
5000 Dew Point Pressure
50
Gas Rate (MMscf/D)

100
Pressure (psia)

40
4000
30

10 Derivative Radial Flow Stabilisation – 40md

20
3000

DD1 BU1 DD2 BU2 DD3 BU3 10

Radial Flow Stabilisation – 100md

2000 0
1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Elapsed time (days) Elapsed time (days)
Figure 14: Simulated pressure – rate history Figure 15: Rate normalised pressures and derivatives
8 SPE 121848

Behaviour in a Closed Reservoir The impact of varying production time on the condensate saturation profiles in a
closed reservoir was investigated using a compositional simulation model. The model was setup as a closed system to allow
the average reservoir pressure to decline during production. The initial pressure was above the dew point pressure. The
simulated pressure and rate histories are shown in Fig. 16. As the reservoir pressure at the boundaries drops below the dew
point, there is liquid drop-out everywhere in the reservoir. The liquid saturation profile is super-imposed on the normal
boundary behaviour, creating a shift in the boundary response (Fig. 17). Increasing the duration of a drawdown increases
slightly the condensate bank maximum saturation in the subsequent build up, but increases significantly the bank radius (BU2
compared to BU1 in Fig. 17). Conversely, reducing the production rate induces some near-wellbore re-vaporisation leading to
decreased near-wellbore condensate saturation and increased near-wellbore gas mobility (BU3 in Fig. 17).

1000

Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

5000 80 Pressure
Dew Point Pressure

60

Gas Rate (MMscf/D)

100 Derivative
4000
Pressure (psia)

40
Radial Flow Stabilisation – Gas at Initial Saturation

3000 10
FP2 (BU1)
20
FP4 (BU2)

DD1 BU1 DD2 BU2 DD3 BU3 FP6 (BU3)

2000 0
1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Elapsed time (days) Elapsed time (days)
Figure 16: Simulated pressure – rate history Figure 17: Rate normalised pressures and derivatives

Fig. 18 shows a simulation of alternating drawdowns and build ups. The corresponding pressure derivatives (Fig. 19) show the
evolution and growth of the condensate bank. All the drawdowns have the same rate and all the flow periods have the same
duration. The pressure derivatives confirm that even at constant rate, the condensate bank grows to maximum liquid saturation
as it expands in lateral extent.

100
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

5000 30
Dew Point Pressure Pressure

4600
Gas Rate (MMscf/D)

10
20
Pressure (psia)

4200

3800
10 1 Derivative

FP2 (BU1)
3400 FP4 (BU2)
FP6 (BU3)
BU1 BU2 BU3 BU4 BU5 BU6 BU7 FP12 (BU6)
FP14 (BU7)
3000 0
0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Elapsed time (days) Elapsed time (days)
Figure 18: Simulated pressure – rate history Figure 19: Rate normalised pressures and derivatives

Effects of Re-vaporisation due to Re-pressurisation on the Derivative Response The impact of re-
vaporisation due to re-pressurisation (gas injection) was investigated using a Cartesian grid compositional model with a 5-spot
isolated pattern (1 producer P1 surrounded by 4 equidistant gas injectors). The average reservoir pressure at the onset of gas
injection was below the dew point pressure. The produced gas was passed through a 3-stage separator, stripping the rich gas of
its heavier components with the resulting leaner gas available for re-injection. In order to re-pressurise the reservoir and return
its pressure back to above the dew point pressure, make-up gas of similar composition to the separator gas output (injected
gas) was added as shown on the schematic of Fig. 20. The model was initially setup as a homogenous reservoir with a
permeability of 100mD. The dimensions for the local grid refinements were defined following grid-size sensitivity runs to
ensure that pressure and saturation changes between injectors and the producer were accurately represented.
SPE 121848 9

5000 50
DP Dew Point Pressure
Primary
Production
4500 Phase 40

Gas Rate (MMscf/D)

Pressure (psia)
4000 30
Gas Injection
Phase

3500 20
FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 18 20

3000 10

2500 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Elapsed time (days)
Figure 20: Fluid separation and gas injection schematic Figure 21: Simulated pressure history (homogenous reservoir)

The simulated pressure history is shown in Fig. 21. The average reservoir pressure increases from below the dew point to
about 100 psi above the dew point pressure. Well P1 production started with FP1 and gas injection commenced with FP5. The
changing condensate saturation profiles during the various flow periods are shown in Figs. 22 and 23. Fig. 22 compares the
condensate saturation profiles at the end of the drawdowns and at the start of the subsequent build ups, whereas Fig. 23
compares the condensate saturation profiles at the end of the drawdowns and at the end of the subsequent build ups. The liquid
saturation profiles show that when the entire reservoir pressure is below the dew point pressure, a liquid bank exists
throughout the reservoir (FPs 3 and 4). After the commencement of gas injection, the oil saturation profile is modified as
follows: first, the oil saturation decreases away from the production well (closer to the injectors) whereas it increases close to
it. As gas injection continues, the near-wellbore oil saturation builds up to a maximum while the liquid region completely
disappears away from the well. Finally, the oil saturation decreases to a minimum and may eventually disappear.

So Profile - END DD v START BU So Profile - END DD v END BU

0.30 END FP3 (DD3) 0.30 END FP3 (DD3)
START FP4 (BU4) END FP4 (BU4)
0.25 END FP9 (DD9) 0.25 END FP9 (DD9)
START FP10 (BU10) END FP10 (BU10)
0.20 0.20
END FP13 (DD13)
END FP13 (DD13)
So (fraction)

So (fraction)

START FP14 (BU14)

END FP14 (BU14)
0.15 0.15
END FP15 (DD15)
END FP15 (DD15)
START FP16 (BU16)
0.10 END FP16 (BU16)
0.10
END FP17 (DD17)
END FP17 (DD17)
START FP18 (BU18)
0.05 0.05 END FP18 (BU18)
END FP19 (DD19)
END FP19 (DD19)
0.00 START FP20 (BU20)
0.00 END FP20 (BU20)
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Distance from Well (ft) Distance from Well (ft)
Figure 22: DD and BU oil saturation profiles during gas Figure 23: DD and BU oil saturation profiles during gas
injection (End DD vs. Start BU) injection (End DD vs. End BU)

Several mechanisms come into play as gas is injected into a condensate reservoir below the dew point. The injected gas
pressurises the regions around the injection wells achieving miscible conditions above the minimum miscibility pressure
(MMP), thereby re-vaporizing the condensed liquids. Further away from the injectors, where pressures are lower, the injected
gas also displaces some condensed liquids towards the wellbore. When the near-wellbore oil saturation increases above the
critical oil saturation, forming a continuous phase, liquids can be produced into the wellbore. As injection continuous and
injected volumes become greater than produced volumes (positive voidage replacement), the re-vaporisation front moves
closer to the producer. At sufficiently high near-wellbore pressures, a significant amount of the near-wellbore liquid volumes
become re-vaporised and flows in the reservoir as a rich gas. Although simulation results suggest that complete re-vaporisation
can occur, it is likely that in actual reservoirs at practical operating pressures and injection gas compositions, the oil
intermediates are completely vaporised and that some of the very heavy ends remain as condensed fluids.
The oil saturation profiles of Fig. 22 also shows a change in behaviour between production and shut-ins (when injectors and
producer are closed). The saturation profile at the start of the build up closely matches the profile at the end of the preceding
drawdown. As pressures increase during the build up, re-vaporisation takes place and causes the oil saturation to decrease over
time. This makes the liquid saturation profile at the end of the build up different from the liquid saturation profile at the end of
the preceding drawdown (Fig. 23). In cases where the final build up pressures exceed the dew point pressure, complete re-
vaporisation occurs as indicated by the flow periods FP16 (BU16), FP18 (BU18) and FP20 (BU20). These behaviours were
further investigated by closely looking at the corresponding oil viscosity and surface tension profiles in Figs. 24 to 27. With
continuous gas injection, the oil viscosity and surface tension both decrease and the properties of the oil and the free gas
10 SPE 121848

become more similar. As pressure rises above the dew point due to either further injection or well shut-in, the surface tension
diminishes to zero and the fluid exists as a single phase rich gas in the reservoir.

Oil Viscosity - END DD v START BU Oil Viscosity - END DD v END BU

0.12 DD 3 0.12 DD 3
BU 4 BU 4
DD 9 DD 9
0.11 0.11
BU 10 BU 10

Oil Viscosity (cp)

Oil Viscosity (cp)

DD 13 DD 13
BU 14 BU 14
0.10 0.10
DD 15 DD 15
BU 16 BU 16
DD 17 DD 17
0.09 0.09
BU 18 BU 18
DD 19 DD 19

0.08 BU 20 0.08 BU 20
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Distance from Well (ft) Distance from Well (ft)
Figure 24: DD and BU oil viscosity profile (End DD vs. Start BU) Figure 25: DD and BU oil viscosity profile (End DD vs. End BU)

Surface Tension - END DD v START BU Surface Tension - END DD v END BU

0.08 0.08
DD 3 DD 3

BU 4 BU 4

DD 9 DD 9
Surface Tension (Dynes/cm)
Surface Tension (Dynes/cm)

0.06 0.06
BU 10 BU 10

DD 13 DD 13

BU 14 BU 14
0.04 0.04
DD 15 DD 15

BU 16 BU 16

DD 17 0.02 DD 17
0.02
BU 18 BU 18

DD 19 DD 19

0.00 BU 20 0.00 BU 20
1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000
Distance from Well (ft) Distance from Well (ft)
Figure 26: DD and BU surface tension (End DD vs. Start BU) Figure 27: DD and BU surface tension (End DD vs. End BU)

Changing late-time behaviour The behaviour described above is investigated in this section using conventional
well test analytical methods, to determine if the advancing gas front (injected gas) and the changing fluid saturation profiles
could be identified by pressure transient analysis. The simulated closed reservoir was initially on primary production followed
by a phase of gas injection.
1000
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change & Derivative (psi)

Pressure

100

Closed System
Derivative Response

10 FP2 (BU1)
FP6 (BU3)
FP8 (BU4) Moving Constant
FP10 (BU5) Pressure Boundary
FP14 (BU7)
FP16 (BU8)
1
0.1 1 10 100
Elapsed time (days)
Figure 28: Build up response of closed system and moving constant pressure boundary

During the primary production phase, the flow eventually reaches pseudo steady-state conditions and the late-time build up
derivative response tends to zero as shown in Fig. 28. Steady-state flow occurs when injection and production are balanced
(Earlougher 1977). Muskat (1949) relates flow rate to inter-well pressure drop for several flooding patterns and expresses the
pressure relationship for a five-spot pattern at steady state with a unit mobility ratio, no skin and the same well radius (r w) in all
wells as:
SPE 121848 11

162 .6 qB µ  A   (20)
( ∆ P ) ss 5 =  log  2  − 0.83867 

kh   rw  
( ∆ P ) ss 5 = p − pwf ( ∆ t = 0 ) (21)

where A is the five-spot pattern area and p is interwell average pressure.

A constant pressure (CP) boundary, characterised by a stabilisation of the pressure, can be obtained analytically using the
method of images. The corresponding derivative exhibits a sharp decreasing trend towards zero on a log-log plot. When there
is a net positive voidage (i.e. injected volumes greater than produced volumes), the downward trend on the derivative
represents a snapshot in time of the location of the moving CP boundary (Fig. 28).

Changing fluid saturations At the end of FP4 (the last build up before gas injection in Fig. 21), there is liquid drop-
out everywhere in the reservoir. After the start of gas injection (at the start of FP5), two main phases can be distinguished with
respect to the producing well: (1) Decreasing liquid saturation in the reservoir and increasing near-wellbore liquid saturation,
as a result of re-vaporisation and fluid displacement, respectively (Phase I); and (2) Decreasing liquid saturation in the
reservoir and decreasing near-wellbore liquid saturation, as a result of re-vaporisation (Phase II).
The derivatives from FP4 to FP12 in Phase-I (Fig. 29) show an increase in the near-wellbore radial flow stabilisation level
(reduced near-wellbore gas mobility) and would show a decrease in the radial flow stabilisation level (from bank to reservoir
mobility) if the radial flow stabilisation corresponding to the reservoir mobility were not hidden by the changing late-time CP
boundary response. As gas injection continues and pressure increases, re-vaporisation occurs throughout reservoir (Phase-II)
and the derivatives from FP12 to FP20 (Fig. 30) show an decrease in the near-wellbore radial flow stabilisation level
(increased near-wellbore gas mobility as a result of re-vaporisation due to re-pressurisation) and a decrease in the radial flow
stabilisation level (from bank to reservoir mobility). This suggests that the changing saturation profiles due to re-pressurisation
can be characterised by pressure derivatives and analysed using conventional well test methods.

1000 1000
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change & Derivative (psi)

Pressure
Pressure

100 100

Derivative Derivative
Reduced Gas Mobility due to Reduced Gas Mobility due to
Condensate Bank Condensate Bank

10 Radial Stabilisation – Single Phase Gas Mobility 10 Radial Stabilisation – Single Phase Gas Mobility

FP4 (BU2)
FP4 (BU2) FP12 (BU6)
FP10 (BU5) FP18 (BU9)
FP12 (BU6) FP20 (BU10)
1 1

0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Elapsed time (days) Elapsed time (days)

Figure 29: BU derivative response FP4 (BU2), FP10 (BU4), Figure 30: BU derivative response FP4 (BU2), FP 12 (BU6),
FP 12 (BU6) FP18 (BU9), FP20 (BU10)

Changing fluid saturations in a heterogeneous reservoir The impact of re-pressurisation by dry gas injection
in a geologically composite reservoir with a fluid bank was investigated using a compositional simulation model. The reservoir
geology was modelled with a mobility ratio of 1/2.5 (reservoir to near-wellbore) and set up to have the reservoir fluid initially
in two-phase, with the pressure below the dew point pressure. The simulated pressure history is shown in Fig. 31. Production
started from FP1 and gas injection commenced with FP5. Gas was continuously injected until the reservoir pressure exceeded
the dew point pressure. As before, there is liquid drop-out everywhere in the reservoir at the end of FP4 (the last build up
before gas injection in Fig. 31). The main stabilisation on the FP4 in Fig. 32 derivative represents the condensate bank
mobility and is at a higher lever that that representing the reservoir mobility.
Upon the start of gas injection, the observed composite behaviour at late times changes to a constant pressure boundary
response accompanied by a changing fluid saturation profile across the entire reservoir. Re-vaporisation initially occurs in the
reservoir closer to the gas injectors but also increases the near-wellbore condensate saturation as a result of fluid displacement.
The near-wellbore condensate saturation builds up to a maximum value, which in this study closely matches the maximum
liquid drop-out obtained from CVD experiments. The increased near-wellbore condensate saturation is an impediment to the
flow of gas and yields an increased skin as seen on the pressure curves from FP4 to FP18 in Fig. 32.
With continued gas injection, the near-wellbore pressure increases and the re-vaporisation front approaches the producing
well. This reduces the skin back to the original wellbore skin value, and lowers the radial flow stabilisation level back to that
representing the reservoir mobility (FP20 to FP22 in Fig. 33).
12 SPE 121848

1000

Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

5000 50 Pressure
Dew Point Pressure
Primary
Production
4500 Phase 40

Gas Rate (MMscf/D)

100
Pressure (psia)

4000 30 Derivative Radial Stabilisation – Single

Gas Injection Phase Phase Gas Mobility (40md)

3500 20
Radial Stabilisation – Single Phase Gas Mobility (100md)
FP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 10

3000 10 FP4 (BU2)

FP10 (BU5) Constant Pressure
Boundary
FP18 (BU9)
2500 0
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Elapsed time (days) Elapsed time (days)
Figure 31: Simulated pressure history (heterogenous reservoir) Figure 32: BU derivatives FP4 (BU2), FP10 (BU5), FP18 (BU9)

1000
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change & Derivative (psi)

Pressure

100

Derivative Radial Stabilisation – Single

Phase Gas Mobility (40md)

Radial Stabilisation – Single Phase Gas Mobility (100md)

10

FP4 (BU2)
FP18 (BU9) Constant Pressure
FP20 (BU10) Boundary
FP22 (BU11)
1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
0.001
Elapsed time (days)
Figure 33: BU derivative response FP4 (BU2), FP 18 (BU9), Figure 34: MTGc top structure schematic showing faults, wells,
FP20 (BU10), FP 22 (BU11) well utility and distances

Well Test Analysis in a Rich Condensate Reservoir

The theoretical investigations described in the previous sections are used to explain a series of production tests conducted over
three years in the MTGc (North Africa) reservoir. The analysis is performed using conventional well test methods,
deconvolution and verified with both a single phase voranoid grid simulator (Saphir from Kappa Engineering) and a numerical
compositional simulator (Eclipse 300 from Schlumberger). The reservoir fluid is a rich gas condensate overlying a thin oil rim.
The section focuses primarily on well test analysis from the W-7 well (Fig. 34). The MTGc development history in terms of
well testing can be subdivided into three main periods:

Production with reservoir pressure above the dew point pressure.

Primary depletion where the reservoir pressure falls below the dew point pressure.

Gas injection period.
Fig. 34 is a plan view schematic of the reservoir showing the main faults, various wells, their utility and distance from the test
well (W-7). The MTGc reservoir contains a very rich gas-condensate fluid with a saturation pressure of 4835 psi. Initial
reservoir pressure from wireline formation tester (RCI) ranges from 5150 to 5180 psi and averages at 5164 psi. The reservoir
also contains a thin volatile oil rim. All the producers are located at the crest in the condensate region and the injectors at the
flanks of the reservoir. The condensate/gas ratio (CGR) varies from 175 stb/MMscf at the top interval to 320 stb/MMscf in the
oil rim. The pressure and rate histories from Well W-7 are shown in Fig. 35. They include an initial extended well test
(IEWT) from FP8 to FP11 (Fig. 36) followed by a series of flow and shut-in periods over approximately 3 years. The IEWT
consisted of three relatively short drawdowns (4hrs, 4hrs and 4days) of progressively increasing rates followed by an extended
build up lasting 105 days.
Fig. 37 is a rate-normalised log-log plot of IEWT pressure changes and derivatives. The late time behaviour of the extended
build up (FP11) shows a reduction of mobility due to geology at late times, followed by a closed reservoir behaviour. This
diagnosis is in agreement with seismic and petrophysics interpretations, deconvolution studies and is verified by numerical
modelling. The initial drawdown, DD1, is affected by phase redistribution and therefore un-analysable. The second drawdown,
DD2, starts at around the dew point pressure and drops to about 250 psi below. The initial radial flow stabilisation corresponds
approximately to the reservoir permeability-thickness value obtained from core analysis. The DD2 derivative increase after
this radial flow stabilisation is due to either liquid drop-out (reducing gas mobility) as the condensate bank develops, or to the
presence of the nearby faults shown in Fig. 34. DD2 is followed by a higher rate drawdown (DD3), at the end of which the
pressure is over 500 psi below the dew point pressure. The DD3 derivative stabilises around 0.03 day at approximately the
SPE 121848 13

level reached at the end of the DD2 derivative (reflecting the condensate bank mobility) and then increases as time increases,
due to the liquid bank being super-imposed on the geological decrease in mobility. The derivative of the subsequent build up,
FP11, exhibits a shape which is a mirror image of the drawdown, as pictured in Fig. 6: there is a stabilisation around 0.08 day
at the same level as the DD3 derivative (condensate bank mobility) and a second one around 0.2 day at twice the original
radial flow stabilisation (sealing fault). This is followed by a channel-like response at about 1 day, which corresponds to
geological decrease in mobility.

6000 70
5200 60

5000 Dew Point Pressure 60

5000 FP11 (BU)
Gas Injection Phase 50
4000 50
Primary Production Phase

Gas Rate (MMscf/D)

FP8 (DD1)

Gas Rate (MMscf/D)

4800
40

Pressure (psia)
5200 60
Pressure (psia)

3000 40
4600 5000 50
FP9 (DD2)
FP 11 13 94 140 192 232 4800 DD1 30
30 40
2000 4400 DD2
4600
30
FP10 (DD3) 4400 DD3 20
1000 20 20
4200 4200

4000 10
0 10 10
4000 0
3800
2 3 4 5 6 7 8

-1000 0 3800 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Elapsed time (days) Elapsed time (days)
Figure 35: W-7 rate and bottomhole pressure history Figure 36: IEWT pressure and rate history

10000 10000
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change & Derivative (psi)
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

Start DD2 (approx) End DD2

Stabilisation Stabilisation
Level Level
1000

1000

100

10 x2 100
Reservoir kh – Core Arithmetic Average Permeability
FP 11
FP 32
1
FP 43
FP8 (DD1) FP65
10 FP 79
FP9 (DD2) FP 85
0.1 FP 161
FP10 (DD3) FP 164
FP11 (BU) FP 189
FP 232
0.01 1
0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Elapsed time (days) Elapsed time (days)
Figure 37: Log-log rate validation of IEWT flow periods Figure 38: W-7 rate validation of analysable production build ups

Fig. 38 is a rate-normalised log-log plot of pressure change and derivative of some of the analysable build ups during the three
year production. The following behaviours can be inferred from Fig. 38:
(1) Wellbore storage and skin dominates at early times.
(2) The derivatives of the build ups FP 32, 43 and 65 exhibit stabilisations at progressively higher levels relative to that in the
initial extended build up (FP 11). As the pressures during the test were always below the dew point pressure, this suggests
a reduction in mobility, most likely due to the growth of a condensate bank. This assumption is consistent with the increase
in total skin shown by the pressure traces. The extent of the condensate bank cannot be established due to the short duration
of these build ups.
(3) The stabilisations for BU 79 and 85 are at comparatively higher levels for the entire duration, indicating that the condensate
bank extends to the entire region seen during the test.
(4) The derivative for BU 161 has a distinctively different shape from the prior build ups: it stabilises at a higher level (around
0.07 to 0.3 day), then decreases, and finally increases again to follow the geological decrease in mobility at late times. The
production time at which this occurs corresponds to time when the injection front starts approaching the producing well.
This behaviour is similar to that described in Figs. 32 and 33. The gas re-injection scheme was designed to be a multi-
contact miscible process with a minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) of about 4200 psi. In theory, as the injection gas
moves towards the producer, it should mix, thereby absorbing a significant amount of condensed liquids in its flow path.
This implies that the gas relative mobility at the front should increase while the liquid saturation decreases. The
corresponding well test derivative should stabilise at a lower level, approaching the level for the single phase reservoir
permeability-thickness product (kh). This trend is repeated in BU 164, 189 and 232. FP 232 is a build up of relatively long
duration. Its first derivative radial radial stabilisation shows the most severe reduction in near-wellbore gas mobility and its
late time response closely matches the boundary response observed during the IEWT.

Deconvolution Analysis Deconvolution was applied to the initial extended well test and to all the production build ups to
diagnose the late time behaviour using the algorithm developed by von Schroeter et al., 2001 (TLSD software from Imperial
14 SPE 121848

College). The deconvolved derivatives were constrained by the initial pressure of 5164 psi determined from wireline formation
tester (RCI) measurement. As the IEWT includes a flowing period of 4.7 days followed by a 105-day shut-in, deconvolution
only adds 4.7 days to the build up. The main benefit of deconvolution in this instance, however, is the conversion of the build
up derivative response into an equivalent drawdown derivative response: in a closed reservoir, this converts the downward
trend of the build up derivative into a unit slope straight line on a log-log plot.
Fig. 39 compares the unit-rate normalised drawdown derivative obtained from deconvolution of FP11 (the IEWT final build
up) with the FP11 build up derivative. There is a reasonable match at early, middle, and early-late times whereas at late-late
times, the deconvolved derivative shows the start of an upward trend. This is actually a closed reservoir response as shown by
the unit slope log-log straight line obtained by deconvolving all the production build ups over the 3.3 year history (Fig. 40).
Deconvolution therefore confirms the composite behaviour due to a geological reduction of mobility, followed by a closed
reservoir behaviour.

1 1

#(1-232)[11]{1.89086E+03}5164.00
Observed Data

#(1-232)[11,32,43,65,79,85,161,164,189,232]{1.62653E+06}5164.00
0.1 Deconvolved Derivative #(1-232)[11]{1.89086E+03}5164.00 0.1
D e c on vo lv ed D e riv ative s

D e c on vo lv ed D e riv ative s
0.01 0.01

0.001 0.001
Unit Slope (1)

0.0001 0.0001
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Elapsed Time hrs Elapsed Time hrs

Figure 39: Comparison of the IEWT (FL-11) build up and Figure 40: Comparison of deconvolved derivatives of the 1st
deconvolved derivatives (BU11) and all (BU1- BU232) build ups

Voronoi Grid Numerical Simulation The deconvolved derivative of the production build ups in Fig. 40 is verified by
simulating the reservoir description shown in Fig. 34 with a single phase voronoi grid simulator (Saphir from Kappa
Engineering, Fig. 41).

1.E+00
Saphir - Simulated Extended Drawdown (500 days) Response

Deconvloved Derivative #(1-232)[11,32,43,65,79,85,161,164,189,232]{1.62653E+07}5164.00

1.E-01
Normalised Derivatives

1.E-02

1.E-03
Unit Slope (1)

1.E-04
1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 1.E+00 1.E+01 1.E+02 1.E+03 1.E+04 1.E+05
Elapsed Time hrs

Figure 41: MTGc composite Voronoi grid Figure 42: Comparison of deconvolved derivative and simulated extended
with faults and active wells drawdown derivative

The late-time derivative response for a simulated 500 day drawdown closely matches the deconvolved derivative response and
confirms the composite behaviour due to a reduced permeability away from the well, followed by a closed system response
(Fig. 42).

Numerical Compositional Modelling Numerical compositional simulations can model complex geological
geometries whilst taking into account the compositional changes of the gas condensate fluid during production and can be used
to verify conventional well test interpretation results. Their main advantage is to provide insight into the effects of condensate
drop-out in the reservoir. Inputs into the compositional simulation model are guided by measured data and well test
interpretation results and the outputs should reasonably match the observed data, including the pressure transient log-log
SPE 121848 15

derivatives. The process for developing a model honouring the main geological features identified from well test analysis can
be summarised as follows:

Construct a multi-well 3D Cartesian model (with local grid refinement - LGR) based on the basic reservoir/well parameters
obtained from W-7 well test interpretations and core analysis with the entire W-7 production history.

Include the other five wells (producers and injectors) using their averaged production and injection rate histories (as only
limited information was available from the other wells, the production rates from W-1 and W-4 had to be adjusted to match
the depletion observed in W-7)

Use the developed EOS, relative permeability curves Nc and non-Darcy models developed for the MTGc reservoir.
The model was setup as a closed rectangle of 10,000 ft x 36,000 ft with a thickness of 27 ft which closely approximates the
size of the MTGc structure. The model was represented by 50,700 cells including LGR. The compositional simulation of the
IEWT and production from W-7 matches reasonably well the actual pressure history (Fig. 43). The rate-normalised log-log
plot of pressure changes and derivatives in Fig. 44 also shows a good match between the simulated and observed data at
middle and late times (the discrepancy at early times is due to the compositional simulation model not taking into account
wellbore storage effects). This suggests the interpreted permeability, skin, geological features and boundary distances from
conventional well test analysis are consistent.

6000
10000

FP 11 FP 79

nm(p) change and derivative (psi)

5000
1000
Bottomhole Pressure (psia)

4000
100

3000
10

Observed Data FP11 - Actual Data FP11 - Simulated Data

Simulated Data FP79 - Actual Data FP79 - Simulated Data
2000
1
-50 0 50 150 250 350 450 550 650
1E-05 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (days) Elapsed Time (days)
Figure 43: Comparison of simulated and observed Figure 44: Comparison of simulated and observed pressure
pressure history change and derivatives (FP11 & FP79)

Flow Period 79 (BU) - Simulated Pressure Profile Flow Period 79 (BU) - Condensate Saturation Profile
5000 0.4
Start BU (END DD) Start BU (END DD)
Condensate (Oil) Saturation (fraction)

BU @ 1 day BU @ 1 day
4800 BU @ 2days BU @ 2days
0.3 End BU @ 3.6days
End BU @ 3.6days
Block Pressure (psia)

4600

0.2
4400

0.1
4200

4000 0
10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000
Distance from Well (ft) Distance from Well (ft)
Figure 45: Changing pressure profile around W-7 during Figure 46: Changing condensate saturation profile around W-7
build up (FP79) during build up (FP79)

The pressure derivative of FP79 is displaced upwards relative to FP11 in Fig. 44, as a result of the reduction of the gas
mobility due to condensate drop-out. This is associated with an increase of the total skin effect. The corresponding pressures
and condensate saturation profiles in the reservoir are shown at the start of the build up, during the build up and at the end of
the build up in Figs. 45 and 46, respectively. Fig. 46 shows that the condensate saturation distribution changes as a result of
changes in pressure profiles. The condensate drop-out region extends to approximately 4,000ft away from the well, with a
condensate saturation which reduces from about 32% near the wellbore to zero 4,000ft away. This is in agreement with the
well test analysis of FP79, which suggests that a reduced mobility region due to condensate drop-out exists for the entire test
duration.
On the other hand, modelling the pressure transient response during gas injection proved challenging due to possible layering
effects not accounted for, uncertainties on the flow paths of the injected gas, and changing reservoir fluid composition down
dip where the injectors are located.
16 SPE 121848

Conclusions
Retrograde condensation occurs below the dew point pressure in a rich gas condensate reservoir, and a condensate bank
develops around the producing well. The near-wellbore liquid saturation reaches a maximum whereas the condensate bank
continues to grow radially as the reservoir pressure declines. Eventually, the condensate bank can extend across the entire
reservoir when the pressure at the boundaries drops below the dew point pressure. This process leads to a loss of well
productivity and reduction in hydrocarbon recovery. Productivity loss below the dew point pressure is primarily due to
reduced effective gas permeability and can be overestimated if capillary number effects are not taken into account. Unlike
what has been observed in lean gas condensate reservoirs, the near-wellbore velocity stripping region is only visible at high
rates in well test analysis data.

The study suggests that, contrary to what happens in lean gas condensate reservoirs, the near-wellbore fluid saturation below
the dew point pressure in a build up is different from that at the end of the preceding drawdown, because of the significant
differences in fluid properties and saturations. In rich condensate fluids, it was shown the oil and gas properties in the two-
phase region are strongly dependent on pressure and the separated phases have similar properties. As pressure increases
during the build up, re-vaporisation takes place and the fluids can recombine to form a single-phase rich gas just above the
dew point pressure. The composite behaviour due to changing fluid saturations is shown to be reflected on the well test
pressure derivative. As a result of revaporisation during build ups, log-log pressure derivatives in build ups exhibit shapes
which are mirror images from that in the preceding drawdowns.

A practical method to evaluate the condensate bank storativity, which is required to calculate the bank radius, has been
developed and verified. The calculated bank radius approximates the extent of the two-phase region at the end of preceding
drawdown when the near-wellbore pressure is below the dew point pressure.

Finally, it is shown that when a reservoir is re-pressurised as a result of gas injection, the effects of fluid displacement,
changing late-time behaviour and re-vaporisation can be captured and characterised using well test analytical methods.

The theoretical results presented in the paper are used to explain a series of production tests conducted in a rich gas condensate
reservoir in North Africa. A well test analysis methodology is proposed for such systems, which combines conventional well
test interpretation methods, deconvolution and verification with both a single phase voranoid grid simulator and a numerical
compositional simulator.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a consortium of industrial sponsors comprising BG, Burlington Resources, ConocoPhillips, Eni,
Petrom, PetroSA and Total. We are grateful to Kappa Engineering (Saphir), Paradigm (Interpret) and Schlumberger (Eclipse
300, PVTi) for providing the software used in this study. Sponsorship of Lekan Aluko’s PhD studies at Imperial Collge
London by Petroleum Technology Development Fund, Nigeria is gratefully acknowledged.

Nomenclature
BHP: Bottom Hole Pressure. M: mobility ratio
BOPD: Barrel of oil per day n: quantity of gas (lb moles)
(Bo)dp: oil formation volume factor at the dew point Nc: capillary number.
(Bo)1: oil formation volume factor at pressure p1 P: pressure
Bα: formation volume factor for phase α p1: flowing bottomhole pressure at shut-in
BU: build up p2: average reservoir pressure
c: compressibility Pav: average reservoir pressure
ct: total compressibility P i: initial reservoir pressure
ct1: region 1 compressibility Pc: critical pressure
ct2: region 2 compressibility PVT: pressure Volume Temperature
Ca: correction factor q: volumetric flow rate
D: diffusivity ratio R: universal gas constant (10.732)
DD: drawdown RD: Dimensionless bank radius
DP: Dew point pressure Rs : solution gas /oil ratio
EOS: equation of State ri: radius of Investigation
FBHP: Flowing Bottomhole Pressure rw: wellbore radius
GOR: producing gas to oil ratio Rv: dissolved oil/gas ratio
h: formation thickness s: skin
IEWT: Initial Extend Well Test S: saturation
k: absolute Permeability Sgc: critical gas saturation
Keff: effective reservoir permeability ST: surface tension
Kr: relative permeability T: absolute temperature (R)
Kα: effective permeability of phase α Tc: critical reservoir temperature
Krα: relative permeability of phase α V: volume (cu.ft)
L: well length Z: dimensionless, Z-factor
SPE 121848 17

Greek Subscripts
µ: viscosity α: phase
v: velocity g: gas
ø: porosity o: oil
ρ: density t: total
β: non-Darcy flow effect.
λ: mobility ratio
σ: interfacial tension

References
Ali, J.K., McGauley, P.J., and Wilson, C.J.: “Experimental Studies and Modelling of Gas Condensate Flow, Near the
Wellbore,” paper SPE 39053, presented at the 5 th latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference and
Exhibition, Brazil, 30 Aug – 03 Sep, 1997.
Ali J. K., McGauley, P. J., and Wilson, C. J.: "The effects of high velocity flow and PVT changes near wellbore on condensate
well performance," paper SPE 38923 presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 5-8 Oct.
Bardon, C. and Longeron, D.G.:”Influence of very low interfacial tension on relative permeability,” SPEJ (Oct. 1980)391-401.
Barnum, R.S., Brinkman, F.P., Richardson, T.W. and Spillette, A.G.: "Gas Condensate Reservoir Behaviour: Productivity and
Recovery Reduction Due to Condensate," paper SPE 30767 presented at the 1995 SPE ATCE, 1. Dallas, Texas, Oct. 22- 25.
Blom, S. M. P., Hagoort, J., and Soetekouw, D. P. N.: “Relative Permeability at Near-Critical Conditions,” SPE 38935, paper
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Antonio, Texas, March 5-8, 1997.
Blom, S.M.P., and Hagoort, J.:” The Combined effect of Near-Critical Relative Permeability and Non-Darcy Flow on Well
Impairment by Condensate Drop-Out,” paper SPE 39976 presented at the 1998 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Canada,
Mar 15-18, 1998.
Boom, W., Wit, K., Schulte, A. M., Oedai, S., Zeelenberg, J. P. W., and Maas, J. G.: “Experimental Evidence for Improved
Condensate Mobility at Near-Wellbore Flow Conditions,” SPE30766, paper presented at the 70th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX, U.S.A., October 22-25, 1995.
Bozorgzadeh, M., and Gringarten, A.C.: “New Estimate of the Radius of a Condensate bank from Well Test Data Using Dry
Gas Pseudo-Pressure”, paper SPE 89904, Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston,
Texas, U.S.A 26-29 September 2004.
Danesh A. S., Dandekar. A. Y., Todd A. C., Sakar R.: “ A Modified Scaling Law and Parachor Method Approach for
Improved Prediction of Interfacial Tension of Gas Condensate System,” SPE22710, paper presented at the 66th Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineer held in Dallas, TX, October 6-9, 1991.
Danesh, A.: 47 PVT and Phase Behaviour of Petroleum Fluids, Developments in Petroleum Science (1998) 22-29.
Earlougher, R.C. JR.: “Advances in Well Test Analysis”, 1977 Edition , ISBN 0-89520-204-2, Pg-14.
Eclipse Technical Description Manual: Total Compressibility Checks. Chapter 67, Pg 973, Pg 618-620 (2006)
Economides, M.J., Dehghani, K., Ogbe, D.O., and Ostermann, R.D.: “Hysteresis Effects for Gas Condensate Wells
Undergoing Build up Tests below the Dew Point Pressure”, paper SPE 16748, presented at the 62nd Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, TX September 27-30, 1987.
Ecrin 4.02.05 Kappa Engineering, Saphir Welltest Interpretaion Software v4.0, 2007.
Evinger, H.H., and Muskat, M.: “Calculation of Theoretical Productivity Factor” Trans., AIME (1942) 146, 126.
Gondouin, M., Iffly, R. and Husson, J.: “An Attempt to Predict the Time Dependence of Well deliverability in Gas-
Condensate Fields,” Society of Petroleum Engineering Journal (June 1967), pp. 112-124.
Gringarten, A.C., Al-Lamki, A., Daungkaew, S., Mott, R., Whittle, T.M.: "Well Test Analysis in Gas Condensate Reservoirs",
paper SPE 62920, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, Oct.1-4, 2000.
Gringarten, A.C., Bozorgzadeh M., Daungkaew, S., and Hashemi, A.: "Well Test Analysis in Lean Gas Condensate
Reservoirs," paper SPE 100993, presented at the Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference, Moscow, Russia, Jun 3-6, 2006.
Hashemi, A.: “Evaluation of Horizontal Gas-Condensate Wells Using Pressure Transient Analysis and Compositional
Simulation” PhD Thesis, University of London, March 2006.
Henderson, G. D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. H., Al-Shaidi, S., and Peden, J. M., “Measurement and Correlation of Gas-
condensate Relative Permeability by the Steady-State Method”, SPE30770, SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition,
Dallas, October 1995.
18 SPE 121848

Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Al-Kharusi, B.: "The relative significance of positive coupling and inertial
effects on gas condensate relative permeabilities at high velocity," paper SPE 62933 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 Oct.
Hinchman, S.B., and Barree, R.D.: “Productivity Loss in Gas Condensate Reservoirs”, paper SPE 14203, paper presented at
the 60th Annual Technical Conference and SPE Exhibition, Las Vegas Sep 22-25, 1985.
Kniazeff, V.J., and Naville, S.A.: “Two-Phase Flow of Volatile Hydrocarbons” SPEJ (March 1965) 37; Trans., AIME, 234.
McCain, W.D.: The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, 2nd Edition PennWell (1990) 152-157, 170-177, TN870.5.M386, 1989.
Merrill, L.S., Kazemi, H., and Gogarty, W.B.: “Pressure Falloff Analysis in Reservoirs with Fluid Banks,” J. Pet. Tech. (Jul.
1974) 809-18.
Moore, T.F. and Slobod, R.L.:”Displacement of Oil by Water-Effect of Wettability, Rate, and Viscosity On Recovery,” SPE
paper 502, presented at the 30th Annual Fall Meeting of the Petroleum Branch of the AIME, New Orleans, La., Oct. 2-5, 1955.
Mott, R., Cable, A., and Spearing, M.: “A New Method of Measuring Relative Permeabilities for Calculating Gas-Condensate
Well Deliverability” paper SPE 56484, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, Oct
3-6, 1999.
Muskat, M.: “Physical Principles of Oil Production”, McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York City (1949).
Odeh, A.S.: “Flow Test Analysis for a Well with Radial Discontinuity,” J. Pet. Tech. (Feb. 1969) 207-10.
Ramey, H.J., Jr.: “Approximate Solutions for Unsteady Liquid Flow in Composite Reservoirs,” J. Can. Pet. Tech. (Jan-Mar,
1970) 32-37.
Sanni, M.: PhD Thesis “Well Test Analysis in Volatile Oil Reservoirs”, University of London and the Diploma of Imperial
College London, September 2008.
Schlumberger ECLIPSE compositional reservoir simulation software E300 v.2007.1.
Van Poollen, H.K.: “Radius of Drainage and Stabilisation Time Equations,” Oil and Gas Journal (Sep. 14, 1964).
von Schroeter, T., Hollaender, F. and Gringarten, A.C.: “Deconvolution of Well Test Data as a Nonlinear Total Least Squares
Problem” paper 71574, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, Sep 30 – Oct 3, 2001.
Whitson, C.H. and Fevang, O.: “Modelling Gas-Condensate Well Deliverability”, paper SPE 30714, Nov, 1996.
Yisheng, F., Baozhu, L., Yongle H., Zhidao, S., and Yuxin, Z.: “Condensate Gas Phase Behaviour and Development,” paper
SPE 509025, paper presented at the 1998 SPE International Conference and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, November 2-
6, 1998.
Yu X., Lei, S., Liangtian, S., and Shilun, L.: “A New Method for Predicting the Law of Unsteady Flow Through Porous
Medium on Gas Condensate Well,” paper SPE35649 presented at SPE Program Conference, Canada, 28 Apr- 1 May, 1996.