Gas Reservoir Management

Section 3-5

Fluid Flow and Well Testing

Gas Condensate Reservoirs
 Gas Condensate Behavior
ƒ Reservoir fluid splits into two phases (vapor
and liquid) once pressures are below the
saturation pressure (dew point pressure)
ƒ Wellbore flowing pressure < Pdp – affects
calculation of skin factor
ƒ Drainage area pressure < Pdp – affects gas
permeability calculations

Gas Reservoir Management

Fluid Flow and Well Testing 3.5.2
 Gas Condensate Reservoirs
ƒ Well Test Analysis for Unfractured Wells
– Drawdown and buildup analyses with single phase
fluid properties will give good estimates for kgh
and average reservoir pressure. The calculated
skin factor is a combination of the true mechanical
skin and the liquid condensate skin.
– Two-phase pseudo-pressures can be developed by
assuming a steady state saturation distribution in
the condensate zone. This requires both fluid
property data (CCVE tests) and imbibition relative
permeability curves. The skin factors calculated
from this analysis usually provide a lower bound
on the mechanical skin factor.
Gas Reservoir Management
Fluid Flow and Well Testing 3.5.3
Gas Condensate Reservoirs
Unfractured Well Build-up Response

Gas Reservoir Management

Fluid Flow and Well Testing 3.5.4
 Gas Condensate Reservoirs
ƒ Well Test Analysis in Hydraulically Fractured Wells
– Buildups in fractured wells show two distinct shapes.
• The Type I response occurs while the condensate bank is
linear along the fracture.
• Type II response occurs once the condensate bank grows
beyond the fracture and assumes a more radial shape.

– Buildups with Type I response can be analyzed using

single phase pseudo-pressures. Good estimates of
fracture length, conductivity and reservoir permeability
can be obtained. The condensate bank can be
modeled as a fracture face skin.

Gas Reservoir Management

Fluid Flow and Well Testing 3.5.5
 Gas Condensate Reservoirs
ƒ Well Test Analysis in Hydraulically Fractured
Wells
– Buildups with Type II responses can be analyzed for
permeabilities beyond the condensate bank and an
average permeability in the intermediate saturation
bank immediately outside the fracture (zone 2).
Semi-log analysis using the zone 2 permeability gives
a pseudo-radial skin that approximates the true well
skin. Calculation of the true xf and FCD, however are
more difficult.

Gas Reservoir Management

Fluid Flow and Well Testing 3.5.6
Gas Condensate Reservoirs
Type I Fractured Well Response

Gas Reservoir Management

Fluid Flow and Well Testing 3.5.7
Gas Condensate Reservoirs
Type II Fractured Well Response

Gas Reservoir Management

Fluid Flow and Well Testing 3.5.8
 Gas Condensate Reservoir Test Design

ƒ For buildup tests where the flowing pressures are

below dew point pressure, the buildup may be
affected by wellbore phase redistribution
ƒ This can significantly delay the start of the radial flow
(semilog) line and can cause changes in the
derivative response that may be incorrectly
interpreted as boundaries
ƒ Test design should plan to set pressure bombs as
close to the perforations as possible and evaluate
ways to minimize wellbore storage volumes

Gas Reservoir Management

Fluid Flow and Well Testing 3.5.9
Gas Condensate Well Testing References
ƒ Raghavan, R., Chu, Wei Chun, and Jones, J.R., “Practical
Considerations in the Analysis of Gas-Condensate Well Tests”,
SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, June 1999, pg. 288-
295.
ƒ Yadavalli, S.K. and Jones, J.R., “Interpretation of Pressure
Transient Data from Hydraulically Fractured Gas Condensate
Wells”, SPE paper 36556 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver CO, October 6-9,
1996.

Gas Reservoir Management

Fluid Flow and Well Testing 3.5.10