Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/petrol

Gas condensate treatment: A critical review of materials, methods, field T

applications, and new solutions
Amjed Hassana, Mohamed Mahmouda,∗, Abdulaziz Al-Majeda, Mustafa Ba Alawia,
Salaheldin Elkatatnya, Mohammed BaTaweelb, Ayman Al-Nakhlib
a
College of Petroleum Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia
b
Saudi Aramco, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Recently, exploration operations for gas wells target deep reservoirs, where the temperature and pressure are
Condensate banking very high. High temperature (more than 200 °C) and pressure (more than 5500 psi) result in degrading the
Gas reservoirs complex organic molecules into dry gas or gas condensate. During gas production the reservoir pressure will
Sandstone rocks decrease below the gas dew point and form a condensate bank near to the borehole. Condensate banking has
Carbonate rocks
been branded to cause serious drop in the gas effective permeability, gas productivity and results in formation
Thermochemical treatment
damage.
Numerous techniques have been adapted to mitigate gas condensate banking effects in gas wells. These
approaches include the injection of solvents and chemicals to alter formation wettability to minimize condensate
blockage. Other methods include acids injection, fracturing treatments, and drilling horizontal wells. These
methods will lower the rate of pressure drop and permit the production of a single phase gas.
This paper critically reviews the causes and instants of condensate banking in gas reservoirs. The developed
models that capture and enumerate this phenomenon, and the most adapted mitigation techniques in accordance
to the leading conditions are thoroughly discussed. The most successful agents for enhancing condensate pro-
duction are reported and their effects on the condensate behavior is identified. Furthermore, novel and new
technique for permanent condensate removal is presented in this paper. This review will fill the gap in the area of
condensate removal treatments by critically analyzing and summarizing the techniques proposed in the litera-
ture.

1. Introduction developing concentric sectors with different condensate liquid satura-

In the last few decades, natural gas has been considered as a clean
and low-price energy around the world (BP, 2013). Based on the hy-
drocarbon composition and the reservoir conditions, gas reservoirs can
be classified as dry gas and retrograde condensate gas reservoirs.
During gas production, condensate liquid may accumulate around the
borehole when the reservoir pressure falls below the dew point pressure
(Kniazeff and Naville, 1965). Condensate accumulation around the
wellbore will result in significant reduction in the effective gas per-
meability which consequently decreases the total gas production
(Muskat, 1949; Kniazeff and Naville, 1965). In carbonate reservoirs, the
effective permeability of gas may reduce up to 80% due to the con-
densate banking (Asgari et al., 2014).
Considering the pressure decline propagation from the borehole and
into reservoir's region, the formed condensation varies correspondingly
tions as illustrated in Fig. 1. Additionally, the condensation progression
carries on as the pressure is decreasing until the maximum liquid
dropout is reached. Based on the gas composition, the gas condensate is
categorized into either being rich or lean. If the percentage of heavy
component is relatively high, then the gas is considered as rich gas. The
rich gas condensate has the capacity of dropping more amounts of li-
quid than the lean one as both are subjected to the same pressure drop
(Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten, 2006). Fevang and Whitson (1996) and
Marokane et al. (2002) investigated the physics of developing con-
densate banking and proposed a flow-region theory. The gas condensate
around the wellbore is subdivided into four regions, based on the phase
distribution, flowing behavior and the reservoir pressure distribution,
as the following:
1. Single-phase gas flow away from the wellbore, the reservoir

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mmahmoud@kfupm.edu.sa (M. Mahmoud).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2019.02.089
Received 19 December 2018; Received in revised form 27 February 2019; Accepted 27 February 2019
Available online 04 March 2019
0920-4105/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
A. Hassan, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613

Nomenclature Sgc = critical gas saturation

Sgr = residual gas saturation
cg = Gas compressibility, psi−1 Swi = irreducible water saturation
kmax = Maximum effective permeability to gas, md t= Time, hr
kmin = Minimum effective permeability to gas, md tD = Dimensionless time
kr = relative permeability tpD = Dimensionless production time
Pc = capillary pressure, psi α= Scaling term for pressure behavior, (cp-psi−1)/md
pD = Dimensionless pressure αD = Dimensionless empirical scaling term for pressure beha-
pDdr = Dimensionless pressure derivative function in radial dis- vior
tance ΔtD = Dimensionless shut-in time
pDdt = Dimensionless pressure derivative function in time ε= Boltzmann transform variable (r2/(4t))
rD = Dimensionless radius εD = Dimensionless Boltzmann transform variable
rw = Wellbore radius, ft λ= Mobility (mD/cp)
s= Skin factor, dimensionless μ= viscosity, cP
Scon = condensate saturation ϕ= porosity
Sconr = residual condensate saturation

Fig. 1. Regions around the wellbore in gas condensate reservoir and saturation distribution in radial distance (Sayed and Al-Muntasheri, 2016).

pressure is higher than the dew point.
2. Single-phase gas flow with immobile condensate, condensate
banking is formed but the condensate saturation is lower than the
residual liquid saturation.
3. Two-phase flow of both gas and liquid but with consideration of
petrophysical attributes of the formation (high or low permeability,
heterogeneity, etc.).
4. Gas dominant flow directly around the wellbore due to its higher
velocity with respect to liquid.
The condensate liquid accumulation around the wellbore estab-
lishes a serious damage of reducing the gas relative permeability sig-
nificantly as gas saturation is reduced and, consequently, gas pro-
ductivity decreases significantly (Maleki et al., 2012; Havlena et al.,
1967). This issue becomes serious in low permeability or tight re-
servoirs, where the accumulated condensate liquid is considerably im-
mobile and acting as a block against gas bubbles to be produced on
which gas productivity might decline to zero (Liu et al., 2015; Sayed
and Al-Muntasheri, 2016). Fig. 2 shows the impact condensate blockage
on reducing the gas relative permeability. Tight reservoirs are char-
acterized by having low permeability values ranging from 1 micro-
Darcy to 1 mD (Crotti et al., 2007). They can be found around the globe;
from Cal Canal field in California to Kalinovac field at the Hungarian
boarders, and Headlee Devonian field in West Texas, all of which are
honored in many of the research done on tight gas condensate re-
servoirs in literature (O’Dell and Miller, 1967; Economides et al., 1989).
As condensate liquid effect in gas reservoirs is significant, modeling its
accumulation/banking has become very important to plan for the best
mitigation plan to reduce it.
Modeling the condensate drop out and mobilization in tight gas
reservoirs require a robust prediction of gas/condensate relative per-
meability in tight gas reservoirs. Up to the authors' knowledge all
previous models used empirical models for relative permeability (Ojha
et al., 2017). The empirical models used in gas/condensate flow

603
A. Hassan, et al.
Fig. 2. Condensate blockage schematic with reflection to relative permeability curves (Sayed and Al-Muntasheri, 2016).
modeling were established initially for conventional reservoirs not for
tight gas reservoirs. The use of these models will usually lead to mis-
leading results.
PVT analysis provides an estimation of the dew point pressure that
could be used as an indicator for the potentiality of gas condensation
(Najafi-Marghmaleki et al., 2018). However, well testing is the prin-
cipal approach for establishing its presence and performance effects
(Wilson, 2004). Additionally, numerical modeling through composi-
tional simulation provides more flexible solution. Kniazeff and Naville
(1965) reported the first attempt to model radial gas condensate using
numerical techniques. Their model has been adapted widely to study
condensation effect of productivity (Fussell, 1973). The adapted models
enumerated the condensate liquid accumulation around the wellbore
and how it progressed into reducing gas relative permeability sig-
nificantly and as low as zero at some cases in tight gas reservoirs
(Barnum et al., 1995). Takeda et al. (1997) provided a model on which
they evaluated the factors of gravity force and interfacial tension effect
on relative permeability reflecting the buildup potentiality of con-
densate around the wellbore. Wilson (2004) established an analytical
modeling mean on which he used a functional form of gas mobility ratio
and coupled it with diffusivity equations. Ultimately, condensate
banking modeling provides a primary tool to designing the optimum
techniques in gas condensate effects mitigation.
Multiple techniques have been studied and implemented to mitigate
the condensate blockage around the wellbore in gas condensate re-
servoirs. Uses of acidizing, solvents, inhibited diesel and wettability
alteration chemicals have been widely adapted in many field cases and
simulation studies to reduce condensate blocking in gas wells (Sayed
and Al-Muntasheri, 2016; Fahes and Firoozabadi, 2007). Additionally,
horizontal wells and hydraulic fracturing are commonly deployed in
many of tight gas reservoirs to establish a larger surface contact area of
the wellbore with the reservoir and altering gas flow from radial to
linear, and consequently lead to delay condensate banking (Settari
et al., 1996). Finally, gas cycling and injection of both carbon dioxide
and nitrogen assist into maintaining reservoir pressure above the dew
point limiting condensate banking from encroaching further into
604
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613
reservoirs area and sweeping more fluids into the wellbore vicinity
enhancing the well productivity (O’Dell and Miller, 1967).
The objective of this paper is to critically review the developed
models that capture and enumerates this gas condensation phenomenon
in tight gas reservoirs and the most adapted mitigation techniques in
accordance to the leading conditions; all supported with several field
cases and simulation studies published in the literature. The most
successful methods for removing condensate accumulation and im-
proving the gas productivity are discussed. This work will fill the gap in
the area of condensate removal treatment by critically reviewing and
summarizing the techniques proposed in the literature and provides a
novel permanent solution to this problem.
2. Well testing for condensate banking
Buildup and drawdown tests are directly affected by the wellbore
conditions such as the fluid type in borehole, rate variations, and fluid
dynamics (Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten, 2006). Although it is presumed
that condensate will be re-evaporated owing to the increase of pressure
during buildup test. Vo et al. (1989) verified that vaporization will
happen only if the shut-in was preceded by high depletion rates. Con-
sidering the case of tight gas reservoirs, however, the well is not ex-
pected to be depleted with high rates on which liquid vaporization
chances are low. This is owing to pressure gradient attributed to hys-
teresis effect and the high level of condensate accumulation near the
wellbore (Fussell, 1973). Additionally, as lighter components are being
produced, heavier components condense near the wellbore region and
their saturation is increased. Fevang (1995) reported that the dew point
pressure might become higher due to the changes in hydrocarbon
compositions; light hydrocarbons are being produced before the heavy
components.
From well testing, the first three regions, of all aforementioned four
regions, can be captured using the derivative of pressure curve
(Daungkaew, 2002). With the utilization of single phase pseudo-pres-
sure function. The condensate bank increases the skin factor and con-
sequently changes the slope of pressure derivative curve, as shown in
A. Hassan, et al.
Fig. 3. Pressure and pressure derivative for condensate reservoir (Daungkaew,
2002).
Fig. 3. If the condensate radius is very small, the wellbore storage may
distort the pressure data and condensate radius may not be detected
accurately. The radius of condensate bank region has to be large enough
so that it can be detected from the well test data. Also, the wellbore
storage effect can be minimized by using downhole shut-off methods,
which will reduce the distortion of early time data and improve the
prediction of condensate radius. Chu and Shank (1993) linearized the
diffusivity by treating gas as the dominant phase replacing condensate
by an equivalent single fluid. Gas condensate pressure transient data
analysis helps in quantifying the reservoir effective permeability,
Fig. 4. Pressure curves for a typical gas condensate well (Wilson, 2004).
605
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613
formation damage, and the fluid mobility in different regions. Type
curves matching serves to the same purpose as well as examined by
Olarewaju and Lee (1989). However, as PVT data for the different
phases differ, the storativity ratio of different regions cannot be sepa-
rated from the radius (Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten, 2006). Hence, the
storativity ratio on where condensate drops must be estimated in-
dependently which will be complex due to the continuous composi-
tional changes (Novosad, 1996). This analysis will primarily assist in
determining condensate saturation profiles, which can level up to 100%
(Fevang and Whitson, 1995).
Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten (2006) presented a new model that
estimates the storativity ratios between different regions based on the
capillary number and non-Darcy effect. Their method has been applied
in several condensate reservoirs around the world. Through PVT ana-
lysis, they were able to build representing different condensate fluids,
characterize them and model their relative permeability behaviors.
They showed that condensate saturation will continuously increase as
the pressure falls below the dew point pressure. However, as capillary
number and inertia were incorporated in their simulation model, this is
alleged to have encountered the variable drawdown rates levels prior to
the shut-in effects and to enable the model to calculate the storativity
ratio between gas regions. Correspondingly, this resulted in calculating
the condensate bank radius.
Wilson (2004) provided an analytical solution for modeling gas
condensate banking by utilizing the functional form of gas mobility
ratio. The model forecasts permeability throughout the transient flow
between both maximum and minimum permeability values. The cal-
culation of maximum and minimum gas relative permeability obtained
at original gas conditions/region and at the maximum liquid dropout,
respectively. The following is empirical model (Eq. (1)) that in-
corporates the above permeability values:
A. Hassan, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613

−1 r ⎞ ⎤ 2
k = kmin + (kmax − kmin ) ⎡1 − exp ⎛ ⎜ … ⎟

⎢ α t ⎠⎥ (1)
⎣ ⎝ ⎦ “Pressure Derivative in time”
αD 4
Where, k is the effective gas permeability, kmax is the maximum ⎡ ⎡1 + α ⎤ 2
∂pD 1 k 4 ⎡ 4 rD k ⎤
= ⎡ min ⎤ ∗ exp ⎢− ⎣ 4 ⎦ ln ⎢e αD 4tD − ⎛1 − min ⎞ ⎥
D
value of effective gas permeability, kmin is the minimum value of ef- tD ⎜ ⎟

∂tD ⎢ kmax ⎦
2⎣ ⎥ ⎢ ⎝ kmax ⎠
fective gas permeability, r is the distance from wellbore, t is the time, α αD ⎣ ⎦
⎣
is the model parameter that can be obtained based on the fluids and
rock properties. kmax and kmin are determined based on the minimum 4 rD2 ⎤
⎥…
+
and maximum condensate saturation, respectively. Wilson's model αD 4tD ⎥
considers that the effective gas permeability is varying with time and ⎦ (3)
distance, k = f(t,r). The maximum gas permeability is assigned for the
condition where no condensate is generated and only gas is flowing.
The minimum gas permeability is obtained at the maximum condensate “Pressure Derivative in readial distance”
αD 4
saturation. The distribution of effective gas permeability can be ob- ⎡ ⎡1 + α ⎤ 2
∂pD k 4 ⎡ 4 rD k ⎤
= ⎡ min ⎤ ∗ exp ⎢− ⎣ 4 ⎦ ln ⎢e αD 4tD − ⎛1 − min ⎞ ⎥
D
tained by coupling Wilson's model with the radial flow diffusivity − rD
⎢
⎜ ⎟

equation. Then, the resulting differential equation can be solved using

∂rD ⎣ kmax ⎥
⎦ ⎢
αD ⎣ ⎝ kmax ⎠
⎦
⎣
the Boltzmann transformation (Wilson, 2004). The model was built as a
result of numerically simulated studies; the gas mobility and con- 4 rD2 ⎤
⎥…
+
densate saturation are strong functions of reservoir radius. Ultimately, αD 4tD ⎥
his work focused on coupling the functional form of gas mobility ⎦ (4)
alongside the empirical model with diffusivity equation for liquid case Wilson (2004) showed no limiting assumptions making it feasible to
utilizing Boltzmann ratio. be deployed in any typical gas condensate wells. He further extended
Wilson (2004) work resulted in the following solutions for pressure his study to validate the developed solution to many published pressure
transient and its derivatives with respect to either time or radial dis- transient works in the literature. Fig. 4 shows the good agreement be-
tance (Equations 2 to 4): tween Wilson's model and actual well test data. The pressure and
“Pressure solution” pressure derivatives obtained from Wilson's model (red curves) match
αD 4
the well test data for all regions; early, middle and late time regions.
∞ ⎡ ⎡ ⎡1 + α ⎤ Fig. 5 confirmed that Wilson's model can predict the pressure response
1 k 4
⎢ 1 exp ⎢− ⎣ D⎦ 4 k
pD = ⎡ min ⎤ ∗ ∫ ln ⎡e αD εD − ⎛1 − min ⎞ ⎤
⎜ ⎟

2⎢ k ⎥ ⎢ εD ⎢ 4 ⎢ k ⎥ for gas condensate reservoirs with high accuracy. The dimensionless

⎣ max ⎦ εD αD ⎣ ⎝ max ⎠ ⎦
⎢
⎣ ⎣ variables (pD, tD, and rD) were utilized to capture the pressure re-
sponses, which makes the model more general.
⎤
4 ⎤ Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten (2006) provided a new solution of
+ εD ⎥ ⎥ dεD…
αD ⎥ ⎥ modeling the oil saturation with respect to radial distance at the time of
⎦⎥⎦ (2) shut-in, where the storativity ratio between two adjacent regions was

Fig. 5. Pressure derivative curves for gas condensate reservoir (Wilson, 2004).

606
A. Hassan, et al.
calculated independently. Their assumptions and parameters were
based robustly to incorporate multiple unique scenarios of im-
plementing the well testing in addition to fluids different compositions
and condensate type (lean or rich). Wilson (2004) provided a mathe-
matical model that enumerates the oil mobility with radius and time
reflecting the intensity of condensate banking problem. Both ap-
proaches have successfully provided sufficient results referring to ap-
plying them in many field cases and simulation studies. However, it is
worth to mention that both approaches used the diffusivity equation
k
neglecting changes in diffusivity g which occur with respect to both
ϕμg cg
radius and time in actual conditions and this will lead to inaccurate
prediction.
Generally, condensate banking in tight gas reservoirs will highly
affect the well testing operations. Gas condensate wells can be inter-
preted as high abnormal pressure gas reservoirs due to the condensate
blockage. Cautions should be taken when analyzing the well testing
data for gas condensate wells to avoid wrong and inaccurate quantifi-
cation of reservoir pressure and permeability.
3. Mitigation of gas condensate banking
Several methods were introduced in the literature to mitigate the
problem of condensate banking. Well treatments such as chemical in-
jections or hydraulic fracturing operations are extensively applied to
remove the accumulated condensate and improve the reservoir deli-
verability. Many of the succeeding applications of chemical injection
target enhancing the condensate recovery by creating more favorable
flow condition for the accumulated condensate, which involve reducing
the condensate viscosity and/or changing the wettability condition
toward gas-wet state. Chemical injection was extensively applied to
remove the condensate damage, the efficiency of each method depends
mainly on the injected chemicals and reservoir properties.
The mechanisms of chemical interaction with rock and condensate
system are different depending on rock mineralogy, and hydrocarbon
composition. Understanding the wettability alteration mechanisms is
very essential to adjust the reservoir wetting condition in such a way
that more gas condensate can be produced (Mohammed and Babadagli,
2015). Thermal EOR process such as steam injection may lead to in-
crease the temperature in region near to wellbore. Sufficient heat
transfer between injected fluids and reservoir liquids will lead to va-
porize the condensate into gas phase and reduce the condensate sa-
turation. This section looks at each of these techniques highlighting
their benefits, risks, and role to restore gas original productivity prior to
condensation occurrence. The methods of condensate removal can be
classified into two groups temporary (short term acting) and permanent
(long term acting) methods, based on their effects on the reservoir
system. The impact of temporary methods on reservoir system is van-
ished after a short period of time, while permanent techniques create
long-term changes in the reservoir, such as hydraulic fractures or hor-
izontal well drilling.
3.1. Temporary methods (short term solutions)
3.1.1. Acid treatments
Acidizing operations have been introduced to stimulate the wells
productivity by removing the damages in sandstone formations or
creating wormholes in carbonate formations, which consequently im-
proves the permeability around the wellbore (Gidley, 1985). Acid
treatments are applied in gas condensate reservoirs to increase the
permeability around the wellbore and to improve the flow condition for
condensate liquid. Therefore, the trapped condensate can be produced,
and condensate bank will be minimized. Al-Anazi et al. (2007) at-
tempted to stimulate both carbonate and sandstone gas reservoirs with
methanol/acids mixtures. They found out that, the injected mixtures
can restore the initial productivity of gas wells. Alcohol injection served
607
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613
to improve the gas relative permeability after the acid treatment due to
its role in lowering the interfacial tension at the gas and condensate
interface (Walker, 2000). However, it was pointed out that alcoholic
acids have slower reactivity with rocks than regular acids. They ex-
tended their examinations by adding methanol to the acids which
caused deeper acid penetration and achieved a lowered interfacial
tension, therefore, allowed for more gas to be produced. Alcohol also
contributed to prevent the probable precipitation resulted in the case of
stimulating formations with silicate contents by hydrofluoric acid.
In general, acid treatment represents a good remedial solution for
gas condensate banking problem given its abundance and design ap-
plicability to be implemented to different reservoir rock types.
However, given the situations of high temperature reservoirs, the acid
performance might get affected consequently. For instant, hydrochloric
acid and carbonate react very fast before it gets to create wormholes in
temperatures higher than 200 °F, causing face dissolution due to the
high acid consumption. Acid treatment is a very challenging task in
complex mineralogy tight gas sandstone. Sandstone mineralogy is very
complex, it consists of clays, feldspars, carbonates, iron minerals, etc.
(Mahmoud, 2017, 2018). Up to the authors' knowledge, till now there is
no effective solution to acidize complex sandstone mineralogy. Most of
the available methods either have low efficiency or they produce da-
mage after the acid treatment (Kamal et al., 2018; Mahmoud, 2018).
3.1.2. Solvents injection
Solvents injection is applied to decrease the interfacial tension at the
condensate-gas interface, by dissolving portion of the liquid condensate
into gaseous phase. Ultimately, solvents injection enhances the gas ef-
fective permeability and improves the gas mobility. Methanol is the
most commonly used solvent both in laboratory and field applications.
Methanol displacement of liquid accumulations is attributed to the
multi-contact-miscible technique (Al-Anazi et al., 2005). Du et al.
(2000) conducted a successful methanol application to dissolve and
sweep accumulated liquids. They found that, methanol injection can
significantly reduce the condensate blockages and increase the total gas
production. However, they observed that the condensate was accumu-
lated again, and the gas production was reduced.
Al-Anazi et al. (2002a,b, 2003, 2005) investigated the application of
methanol treatment in sandstone and carbonate reservoirs. They re-
ported that the condensate banking was displaced using methanol in-
jection, and consequently the relative permeability of gas was im-
proved. They mentioned that the gas production was dropped from 2.7
MMSCF/D to 0.25 MMSCF/D. This was attributed to condensate accu-
mulation that blocked the region around the wellbore. The treatment
was designed to interfere the formation with 1000 bbl. of methanol
which resulted in increasing the gas production from 0.25 MMSCF/D to
0.5 MMSCF/D. However, it was recorded that the production rates re-
sumed to decline again after four months from the treatment subjective
to the depletion of methanol and its effects during well production.
Kumar et al. (2006) investigated the performance of solvent treat-
ment on enhancing the gas mobility; core flooding experiments and
fine-grid compositional simulations were conducted. The solvent in-
jection showed significant impact on removing the condensate blockage
and increasing the gas production. The gas production and the relative
permeability was improved by a factor of 1.8 and 2 respectively. Bang
et al. (2010) used isopropyl alcohol to mitigate the condensate damage.
They concluded that solvents injection into gas reservoirs will lead to
delay the condensation process by reducing the dew point pressure. The
reduction in gas relative permeability due to condensate banking was
investigated by Asgari et al. (2014). They reported that the gas relative
permeability could be reduced by 80% in carbonate formation due to
the accumulation of condensate liquid. However, the gas relative per-
meability could be improved by a factor of 1.5 by using methanol in-
jection.
The use of solvents in mitigating condensate banking problem is
effective and has been adapted in many of the field cases in industry.
A. Hassan, et al.
However, several cases have shown the enhancement will fade away
after few months which is attributed to solvents being depleted during
well production leading to decrease their effects significantly.
Therefore, solvents injection could be considered as a temporary
method for condensate removal, and the treatment should be repeated
every 3–6 months based on the reservoir situations. Also, health and
safety issues are associated with solvents treatment especially in hot
areas in which the surface temperature reaches 120 °F during the
summer. The use of some solvents will be risky specially for solvents
with low flash point.
3.1.3. Gas injection
The use of re-injecting natural gas, CO2, or nitrogen into gas re-
servoirs helps sustain the pressure above dew point (Sänger and
Hagoort, 1998; Hoier et al., 2004). Consequently, this will counter the
condensation phenomenon to be significant in the porous medium. Aziz
(1983) showed that condensate recoveries have a probability of in-
creasing up to 75% by reinjecting dry gas into the reservoir. However,
due to the recent increase of natural gas economic value, it has become
uneconomic to utilize it for gas cycling projects (Sayed and Al-
Muntasheri, 2016). Hence, carbon dioxide and nitrogen injection were
presented as alternatives. Linderman et al. (2008) presented a simula-
tion study for condensate removal using nitrogen injection. They found
out that, nitrogen injection into a condensate region will reduce the
condensate saturation. The injected nitrogen will increase the pressure
around the wellbore and help vaporize the condensate liquid into
gaseous phase. Also, they concluded that mixing nitrogen with lean gas
can increase the condensate recovery. Carbon dioxide injection into gas
reservoirs can additionally reduce the dew point pressure (Odi, 2012).
Also, it can lower the possibility of paraffin fluids to accumulate in gas
oil systems (Monger and Khakoo, 1981). Zhengyuan et al. studied the
effectiveness of injecting carbon dioxide in removing the condensate
banking, using coreflooding experiments and PVT measurements. They
concluded that, CO2 injection is more recommended than solvent in-
jection in improving the gas productivity.
Gas injection may raise the potential of early gas breakthrough in
addition to gas fingering across high permeability layers (Cullick et al.,
1993; Wan and Mu, 2018). Gas cycling provides an ideal mitigation
technique for condensate banking problems. However, given the
growing uses and applications of gas in different industries, the eco-
nomic assessments might conflict with utilizing it for gas cycling pro-
jects. CO2 injection is a common and very effective solution to mitigate
the condensate damage in tight gas reservoirs. The problem with CO2
injection is that it is a temporary solution and has to be repeated fre-
quently in the field in addition to the supply limitations of CO2 in some
areas. Also, the infrastructure required at the surface to handle CO2
injection makes it expensive to apply CO2 injection for condensate re-
moval.
3.1.4. Water alternating gas (WAG) injection
Gas injection may lead to early gas breakthrough due the high
mobility of injected gas. Therefore, liquids are used to reduce the gas
mobility and form stable displacement process. Cullick et al. (1993)
presented a simulated application of water-alternating-gas (WAG)
method in enhancing gas condensate production. In heterogeneous
permeability strata, the injected water will divert the injected gas from
high permeability channels and push it into low permeability ones. This
method also supports gas recovery for the favorable water mobility and
gravity segregation, as water will sweep the un-swept gas at lower parts
of reservoir layers. Several findings are addressing WAG technique to
cause gas to be trapped behind the water front. However, Cullick et al.
(1993) suggested that this is caused by the injection of excessive water
volumes. But, nevertheless, their work shows that gas recovery will be
improved even though the volume of water injected is limited.
Injection of steam or hot water into sandstone formation, during
WAG operations, result in formation damage due to clay swelling, fine
608
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613
migration, precipitation or throat plugging. Consequently, the forma-
tion permeability and porosity are significantly reduced. Plugging and
surface deposits are considered as the main factors that lead to per-
meability porosity reduction, respectively (Krueger, 1988; Zhou et al.,
1995; Hayatdavoudi and Ghalambor, 1998; Clarke, 2014; Al-Yaseri
et al., 2015). Kamal et al. (2018) reported that water injection into
Berea sandstone cores led to reduce the core permeability by 84% due
to the fine migration. Also, a reduction of 65% in the permeability was
observed in Bandera Grey sandstone core and that was associated to
swelling of illite minerals. However, a slight change was observed in the
core porosity. They concluded that, water injection into sandstone re-
servoirs will lead to severe fine migration which may plug the pore
throat and reduce the absolute permeability.
The injection of water along with the gas still needs big economical
investment to establish the required infrastructure to inject both water
and gas. In addition, some areas need water supply because of the
scarcity of water. In tight sandstone the water injection may destabilize
clay minerals and causes formation damage. In very tight rocks the
water may block the pore throats and causes water blockage which will
require additional treatments. Based on the experience and the litera-
ture, this method (WAG) is a good candidate for temporary condensate
removal in tight carbonate reservoirs to avoid damaging the reservoir
integrity in sandstone reservoir. However, for long term application
WAG may result in significant reduction in the reservoir permeability
due to the fine migration and plugging of pore throat.
3.2. Permanent methods (long term solutions)
3.2.1. Wettability-alteration chemicals
Wettability-alteration chemicals can increase the productivity of gas
wells by changing the wettability condition toward gas-wet state.
During the process of condensate development and recovery, the
wettability condition can be investigated by using spontaneous im-
bibition and contact angle experiments (Ali et al., 2019). Also, en-
vironmental scanning electron microscope analysis can be utilized to
evaluate the wettability alteration at the pore scale level (Al-Anazi
et al., 2007). Various chemical-based treatments have been injected
into gas condensate reservoirs, to alter the rock wettability, reduce the
condensate saturation and increase the gas relative permeability. The
main target of condensate treatment is to reduce the condensate sa-
turation around the wellbore. The injected chemicals will alter the rock
wettability to a weak liquid-wet state, therefore, the condensate liquid
will be mobilized and can be removed. Initially, the condensate liquid
acts as a bank and block the gas flow due to the high saturation of liquid
around the wellbore. However, after the treatment, the condensate
saturation will be significantly reduced, which will result in enhancing
the gas relative permeability (Jadhunandan and Morrow, 1995;
Owolabi and Watson, 1993; Al-Anazi et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2015; Ali
et al., 2019). Extensive numerical modeling and laboratory experiments
were conducted to investigate the impact of chemical injection on
changing the wettability condition and increasing the gas mobility
(Bang, 2007; Asgari et al., 2014; Maleki et al., 2012; Ali et al., 2019).
Al-Anazi et al. (2007) studied several chemical treatments to re-
move the trapped condensate and to maintain high productivity. The
main objective was to enhance the gas relative permeability by altering
the rock wettability toward gas-wetting condition. Core flooding tests
and contact angle measurements were carried out using sandstone and
carbonate samples, fluorochemical and silane were injected at different
concentrations to remove the trapped condensate and delay liquid ac-
cumulation. The effect of surfactant type, treatment volume, formation
permeability, temperature, and aging time on the treatment perfor-
mance were investigated. They concluded that the absolute perme-
ability has a significant role in controlling the performance of injected
chemicals to alter the rock wettability. The gas relative permeability
was enhanced by 42% for sandstone samples due to wettability al-
teration. While less improvement was obtained on the gas relative
A. Hassan, et al.
permeability for carbonate samples (less than 17%). Contact angle
measurements were used to confirm the wettability alteration toward
gas-wetting status.
Substituting one or more hydrogen atoms from carbon backbone
that assembles the hydrophobic part results in Fluorinated surfactants.
Fluoropolymers are also designed to alter the wettability of rocks pore
spaces. Fluorinated surfactants and polymers aid in reducing the in-
terfacial tension and they distinguished for their high chemical and
thermal stability (Schultz et al., 2003). The literature records many
safety risks associated with the use of fluorochemicals which becomes
severer when they degrade (Strazza et al., 2013). Yet, fluoro-surfactants
and fluoropolymers have intensively appreciated recently in the in-
dustry for their application in mitigating condensate effects. Kumar
et al. (2006) examined treating core samples with wettability alteration
chemicals and yielded an improvement in gas relative permeability
with reduction in oil saturation.
Bang et al. (2010) and Wu and Firoozabadi (2010) showed that
water salinity will affect the performance of fluorochemical application
to alter the rock wettability. Several researchers studied the applic-
ability of different chemical treatment to alter the rock wettability at
room and reservoir temperature (20–140 °C), Kansas chalk and Berea
sandstone core samples were used (Li and Abbas, 2000; Fahes and
Firoozabadi, 2007; Wu and Firoozabadi, 2010). They concluded that,
the reservoir wettability could be permanently changed into inter-
mediate gas-wetting which improves the liquid mobility significantly.
Further investigation to improve the relative permeability to gas phase
was conducted by Li et al. (2011) who introduced cost-effective che-
micals to change the wettability conditions to preferential gas-wetting.
Zheng and Rao (2011) showed that at reservoir condition, anionic
surfactants can reduce the interfacial tension at water/gas interface.
Consequently, the rock wettability can be altered from strong liquid-
wet to weak liquid-wet condition.
Al-Yami et al. (2013) applied a treatment of polymeric fluorinated
surfactant in one of wells in Saudi that suffers from condensate accu-
mulation problem. The gas production was decreased from 20 to 1.56
MMSCF/D within six years due to condensate blockage. The treatment
was initiated by 257 bbl. of solvents as a pre-flush and followed by 900
bbl. of fluorinated polymeric surfactant injection. After three months of
the treatment, gas production rate increased to 2.85 MMSCF/D. Ad-
ditionally, condensate production rate increased from 279 bbl./d to
1152 bbl./d. Although, the treatment successfully doubled the pro-
duction rate. However, the post-treatment production rate was around
14% of the initial production rate, which reveals that the condensate
saturation after the treatment is significantly high. Also, it can be
concluded that solvent injection is not an effective method for removing
the condensate banking compared to the other methods such as hy-
draulic fracturing. The latest records from Al-Yami et al. (2013) showed
that the well productivity was decreased after several months of de-
pletion reflecting the temporary removal of condensate banking.
Sharifzadeh et al. (2015) employed chemical treatments to change
the wettability condition from liquid-wet to gas-wet. They used various
experimental tests to examine the effectiveness of chemicals flooding
process. Thermogravimetric analyses and scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) were used for sample characterization. Also, coreflooding tests
and contact angle measurements were performed to quantify the
wettability alteration. Significant improvement in the total production
(56–78%) was achieved by using fluorinated surfactant, nona-
fluorohexyltriethoxy silane and ethanol as solvent.
Karandish et al. (2015) developed new chemical treatment to en-
hance gas relative permeability through wettability alteration me-
chanism in carbonate formations. They used different mixtures of sur-
factants and solvents to improve the gas relative permeability. Contact
angle and spontaneous imbibition were carried out to evaluate the
wettability alterations. The gas relative permeability was enhanced by a
factor of 1.7 at reservoir conditions. Sayed et al. (2018) developed a
nanoparticle treatment fluid that altered successfully sandstone
609
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613
wettability and changed it from liquid wet to neutral or gas wet.
Wettability alteration chemicals provide an encouraging solution
for mitigating condensate problems giving their effectiveness, dur-
ability, design-flexibility and costs. However, there are not sufficient
count of field applications of these chemicals to further optimize their
design for any treatment. Nanoparticles treatment fluids is a new
technology that was made by Sayed et al. (2018). However, they con-
cluded that these nanoparticles sizes need to be optimized as they en-
countered pores to be plugged which damages the formation and re-
duces the reservoir deliverability. Gas condensate reservoirs commonly
have high temperature (more than 250 °F), this temperature will limit
the surfactant applications. Also, surfactant may hydrolyze and lose
their efficiency at high temperature. In addition, in carbonate re-
servoirs, one of the serious issues encountered with surfactant injection
is the adsorption of surfactant on the carbonate surface and this will
diminish the efficiency of surfactant injection.
3.2.2. Drilling horizontal wells
Horizontal wells increase the contact area between the reservoir and
the wellbore, which in turn, enhance the productivity of the well by
distributing the pressure drop over that area. Therefore, pressure drop
will not be effectively significant which, consequently, will delay the
condensation phenomenon to occur. Miller et al. (2010) provided a
numerical examination of horizontal wells in the North field in Qatar
versus vertical ones. While subjecting both horizontal and vertical wells
to production, horizontal well requires lower drawdown pressure than
the vertical well, which manifested in lower condensate banking
around the wellbore for the horizontal well (Ghahri et al., 2018).
Horizontal wells have been adapted widely in most of reservoirs
around the world. They present an improved productivity and more
efficiency in mitigating condensate problems than vertical wells in most
conditions. However, their application to mitigate condensate problems
is not a permanent solution. Horizontal wells can only delay the de-
velopments of gas condensate around the wellbore. After a period of
depletion, the pressure is expected to drop below dew point and con-
densate will accumulate correspondingly. Additionally, costs of hor-
izontal wells are very high compared to vertical drilling.
3.2.3. Hydraulic fracturing
Fractures create longer conductive paths between the reservoir and
the fractured well. This conductive path assists in the reduction of
pressure drop. Hydraulic fractures are similar to horizontal well dril-
ling, they will delay the onset of condensate drop out. Additionally,
these conductive paths will contribute in condensate production and to
reduce its saturation near the wellbore region. Khan et al. (2010) pre-
sented a case in Delta field where condensate was being produced and
marked to reduce the gas productivity year by year. After hydraulically
fracturing the well, the well yielded an improvement in its production
rates by three times. Franco et al. (2011) illustrated acid fracturing
technique in tight carbonate gas reservoirs in Saudi Arabia that were
originally completed only with vertical wells. It was concluded that a
single lateral with three stages of acid fractures had a much higher
productivity of gas and condensate than dual and triple lateral wells
and better than fractured vertical wells.
Hydraulic fracturing provides a similar objective to horizontal wells
in reducing pressure drop over the wellbore. Additionally, it effectively
increases the production of both gas and liquid subjecting to fractures
high conductivity. The performance of fracturing treatment depends on
several factors including; formation properties, hydrocarbon composi-
tion, and the type of injected fluids. However, these fractures will only
delay the condensation phenomenon to occur as they do not present a
permanent mitigation technique (Mahdiyar and Jamiolahmady, 2014).
After sufficient time, liquids will accumulate in the created fractures
and reduce the gas mobility. Also, hydraulic fracturing is considered as
an expensive treatment, the operational cost varies between $300K and
$800K for treating the vertical wells, and it could reach to $2 million
A. Hassan, et al.
for the horizontal wells. Moreover, fracturing operations might result in
several environmental concerns such as contamination of groundwater
or small earthquakes (EPA, 2018). Although, the possibility of
groundwater contamination is too low at these depths, fluids leakage
may occur during the hydraulic fracturing and results in contaminating
the groundwater at shallow depths.
4. Comparison between different condensate removal methods
Methods of condensate removal can be categorized into two
methods based on their effect on the reservoir system, permanent and
temporary methods. Among all methods of condensate removal, the
most common techniques are; chemical treatments, hydraulic frac-
turing, and gas cycling. Table 1 provides a comparison between the
different methods of condensate removal in term of the situation sui-
table for applying each method, the frequency of application and the
operational cost for each technique. Although, the operational cost is
varying from one location to another and with time, an average cost per
well is provided in Table 1 for each method.
The formation type is playing a significant role in selecting the
suitable method for mitigating the condensate banking. Each formation
type has its own characteristic that may limit the effectiveness of con-
densate treatment for example, clay swelling, and fines migration are
the major concerns for treating the condensate banking in tight sand-
stone. Therefore, acid or solvent injections are not effective in removing
the condensate damage. Instead, hydraulic fracturing or drilling hor-
izontal wells can be used to remove the condensate and improve the gas
production. However, the main disadvantage associated with these
operations is that the operational cost is very high, it could reach to
several millions in case of drilling horizontal wells. Table 2tbl3 lists the
suitable methods and the major concerns for condensate removal in
several formation types.
A combination of the aforementioned mitigation methods provides
a collective enhancement of gas condensate banking removal results.
For example, a mixture of CO2 and solvents could be injected into re-
servoirs, solvents will decrease the IFT between the injected solutions
and reservoir fluids, and CO2 will increase the mobility of injected
fluids. Table 3 illustrates some possibilities of combining different mi-
tigation methods.
5. New technique for condensate removal
The high temperature condition of gas reservoirs may result in de-
creasing the effectiveness of chemical injection. Developing a new
technique for permanent removal of condensate is highly required to
improve the reservoir deliverability for long-term periods as well as
reduce the operational cost (Sayed and Al-Muntasheri, 2016; Restrepo
et al., 2012).
Chemically induced-pulse fracturing is one of the promising new
technologies that can be used to enhance the hydrocarbon mobility by
altering the phase behavior and reducing the capillary forces.
Thermochemical fluids can be injected into the reservoir to react and
generate in-situ heat and pressure of nitrogen gas. The reaction of
thermochemical fluids will be triggered within the reservoir matrix by
Table 1
Comparison between different methods of removing condensate banking.
Methods Type Suitable situation
Acid treatments short term Damage or low permeability around wellbore
Solvents injection short term High IFT between condensate and gas
Gas recycling short term Significant pressure reduction
Water alternating gas short term Vertical heterogeneous reservoir
Wettability alteration long term Liquid-wet reservoirs
Horizontal wells long term Thin reservoir formation
Hydraulic Fracturing long term Tight reservoirs
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613
either the reservoir temperature or external activator. Reservoir tem-
perature can be used to trigger the thermochemical reaction, and this
will shorten the time of reaction. The generated pressure and tem-
perature could be increased up to 5000 psi and 600 °F, respectively (Al-
Nakhli et al., 2016). The following equation can represent the chemical
reaction during thermochemical treatment (Hassan et al., 2018):
NH4 Cl + NaNO2 → NaCl + 2H2 O + N2 (gas ) + ΔH (heat )
Thermochemical treatment results in considerable changes in the
phase behavior of reservoir fluids. Fig. 6 illustrates the influence of
thermochemical injection on fluid behavior for gas reservoirs. WinProp
suit from CMG software was used to develop the phase behavior for gas
condensate reservoir. Actual gas composition and real reservoir con-
dition were used. Fig. 6 shows that the condensate liquid can be con-
verted to gas phase by pressurizing the condensate region, which results
in significant reduction in the hydrocarbon viscosity and evaporation of
the liquid condensate in the gaseous phase. Moreover, the reservoir
deliverability will be enhanced significantly due the removal of con-
densate banking. The novelty of this technique is that, the pressure
pulse generated due to the reaction and the high temperature are able
to create micro fractures and this reduced the capillary forces that hold
the condensate, and this can be considered as permanent removal for
gas condensate.
Thermochemical treatment showed significant reduction in the ca-
pillary forces that hold the condensate, which will lead to enhance the
gas mobility. The improvement in capillary conditions due to thermo-
chemical treatment was determined using capillary forces model. The
profiles of capillary pressure before and after the treatment were pre-
dicted using equation (5) (Brooks and Corey, 1964);
1
Pc = Pd Se− λ … (5)
Scon − Sconr
Se = …
1 − Sconr (6)
Where Pd is the displacement or threshold pressure, Se is the effective
fluid saturation and λ is the pore-size-distribution parameter, for
sandstone lambda is 4.17. Scon is the condensate saturation and Sconr is
residual saturation of condensate.
Coreflooding experiments were carried out to evaluate the perfor-
mance of thermochemical treatment in removing the condensate
banking. The flooding tests showed that, more than 70% of the con-
densate liquid can be removed by injecting thermochemical fluids. The
impact of thermochemical treatment in reducing the capillary forces
can be determined by combining the results of coreflooding experi-
ments with the capillary pressure model (Equations (5) and (6)). Fig. 7
shows the profiles of capillary pressure versus condensate saturation,
before and after thermochemical treatment. Equations (5) and (6) were
used to estimate the reduction in capillary pressure due to decreasing
the condensate saturation (Scon). In these equations, all the parameters
are kept unchanged except the condensate saturation, which was re-
duced by 70% after the thermochemical treatment. The capillary
pressure was reduced by 51% after injecting the thermochemical fluids,
the values of capillary pressure before and after treatment are 65.5 and
32.4 psi, respectively. Therefore, injecting thermochemical fluids into
Frequency of application Cost per well (USD) References
3–6 months 300,000 to 700,000 Al-Anazi et al. (2007)
4–8 months 400,000 to 800,000 Du et al. (2000)
6–8 months 300,000 to 600,000 Linderman et al. (2008)
8–12 months 400,000 to 700,000 Cullick et al. (1993)
One time 400,000 to 800,000 Li et al. (2011)
One time 2,500,000 to 4,000,000 Ghahri et al. (2018)
One time 500, 000 to 1,000,000 Mahdiyar and Jamiolahmady (2014)
610
A. Hassan, et al. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613

Table 2
The major concerns and the suitable methods for treating condensate banking in different formations types.
Formation type Major concerns Suitable methods References

Tight sandstone clay swelling and fines migration Horizontal wells, Hydraulic fracturing (Liu et al., 2015; Ghahri et al. (2018))
Carbonate adsorption and retention of injected fluids Solvents injection (Karandish et al., 2015; Sharifzadeh et al., 2015)
Wettability alteration
Shaly sandstone clay swelling and fines migration Horizontal wells, Hydraulic fracturing (Ojha et al., 2017; Wan and Mu, 2018)

Table 3
Combination of different mitigation techniques possibilities and benefits.
Methods Benefit

Hydraulic fracturing and wettability alteration
chemicals
Solvents and wettability alteration chemicals
Acidizing and solvents
Clean fractures creation with wettability alteration chemicals assistance in retaining fracturing fluids to the wellbore.
Ultimately, maximize fractures conductivity.
Superior advantage as the wettability condition is changed to gas-wet and the interfacial tension is reduced by the
enhancement of gas relative permeability.
Alcohol will lower the IFT between the acid and gas enabling the liquid to be removed from the resultant wormholes.
Additionally, the gas relative permeability is improved given the treatment of acid to the formation.

Fig. 6. Illustration of thermochemical treatment for gas reservoirs.

Fig. 7. Profiles of capillary pressure against liquid saturation, before and after thermochemical treatment.

611
A. Hassan, et al.
gas condensate reservoirs could lead to reduce the condensate satura-
tion around the wellbore, and consequently enhance the total gas
production. Also, thermochemical injection will result in long-term
removal of condensate banking, since the injected chemical can create
tiny fractures that enhance the condensate recovery.
6. Conclusions and remarks
Gas reservoirs contribute significantly to the world demand of en-
ergy resources. However, as depletion is taking place, they are sub-
jected to potential condensate accumulation problems which can be as
severe as reducing the production to zero. The literature has provided
many means of numerical and analytical modeling of gas condensate
banking, enabling to enumerate its potential effect and to design the
optimum mitigation technique. Although these models might have
several assumptions when they were developed, still, they account for
the factors and parameters that lead behavior of condensation in gas
reservoirs.
Mitigation techniques have been thoroughly reviewed detailing
their role in reducing or preventing condensate accumulation problems
and highlighting some of the drawbacks of each one of them.
Combination of different mitigation techniques is ought to provide a
collaborative solution improving the mitigation results significantly.
Finally, a novel technique is proposed to remove the condensate
banking by in-situ generation of heat and pressure using thermo-
chemical treatment.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the College of Petroleum
and Geoscience at King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals and
Saudi Aramco for the support and permission to publish this work.
References
O’Dell, H.G., Miller, R.N., 1967. Successfully cycling a low permeability, high-yield gas-
condensate reservoir. J. Pet. Technol. 19 (01), 41–47.
Al-Anazi, H.A., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Metcalfe, R.S., 2002a. Laboratory measure-
ments of condensate blocking and treatment for both low and high permeability
rocks. In: SPE 77546 Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition.
Al-Anazi, H.A., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Metcalfe, R.S., 2002b. Laboratory measure-
ments of condensate blocking and treatment for both low and high permeability
rocks. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Al-Anazi, H.A., Walker, J.G., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Hackney, D.F., 2003. A successful
methanol treatment in a gas-condensate reservoir: field application. In: SPE 80901
Presented at the SPE Production and Operations Symposium. Society of Petroleum
Engineers.
Al-Anazi, H.A., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., 2005. Laboratory Measurement of Condensate
Blocking and Treatment for Both Low and High Permeability Rocks, SPE 77546.
Al-Anazi, H.A., Xiao, J.J., Al-Eidan, A.A., Buhidma, I.M., Ahmed, M.S., Al-Faifi, M., Assiri,
W.J., 2007. Gas productivity enhancement by wettability alteration of gas-con-
densate reservoirs. In: SPE Paper 107493. Presented at the European Formation
Damage Conference Held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May–1 June.
Al-Nakhli, A.R., Sukkar, L.A., Arukhe, J., Mulhem, A., Mohannad, A., Ayub, M., Arifin, M.,
2016. December. In-situ steam generation a new technology application for heavy oil
production. In: SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition, SPE 184118, Presented at
the SPE Heavy Oil Conference and Exhibition Held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 6-8
December.
Al-Yami, A.M., Gomez, F.A., Al-Hamed, K.I., et al., 2013. A successful field application of
a new chemical treatment in a fluid blocked well in Saudi Arabia. In: Presented at the
SPE Saudi Arabia Section Technical Symposium and Exhibition, Al-Khobar, Saudi
Arabia, 19–22 May, SPE-168086-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/168086-MS.
Al-Yaseri, A.Z., Lebedev, M., Vogt, S.J., Johns, M.L., Barifcani, A., Iglauer, S., 2015. Pore-
scale analysis of formation damage in Bentheimer sandstone with in-situ NMR and
micro-computed tomography experiments. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 129, 48–57.
Ali, N.E.C., Zoghbi, B., Fahes, M., Nasrabadi, H., Retnanto, A., April 2019. The impact of
near-wellbore wettability on the production of gas and condensate: insights from
experiments and simulations. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 175, 215–223. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.petrol.2018.12.029.
Asgari, A., Dianatirad, M., Ranjbaran, M., Sadeghi, A.R., Rahimpour, M.R., 2014.
Methanol treatment in gas condensate reservoirs: a modeling and experimental study.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 92 (5), 876–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.08.015.
Aziz, R.M., 1983. A 1982 critique on gas cycling operations on gas/condensate reservoirs.
612
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613
In: Presented at the Middle East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Manama,
Bahrain, 14–17 March, SPE- 11477-MS. https://doi.org/10.2118/11477-MS.
Bang, V., 2007. Development of a Successful Chemical Treatment for Gas Wells with
Condensate or Water Blocking Damage. In: PhD Thesis. The University of Texas at
Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Bang, V.S.S., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., 2010. Phase-behavior study of hydrocarbon/
water/methanol mixtures at reservoir conditions. SPE J. 15 (4), 952–962. SPE-
102100-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/102100-PA.
Barnum, R.S., Brinkman, F.P., Richardson, T.W., Spillette, A.G., 1995. Gas condensate
reservoir behaviour: productivity and recovery reduction due to condensation. In:
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, SPE 30767, Presented at SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, USA.
Bozorgzadeh, M., Gringarten, A.C., 2006. Condensate bank characterization from well
test data and fluid PVT properties. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 9 (05), 596–611.
BP, 2013. BP statistical review of world energy. In: World Wide Web Address, . http://
www.bp.com/ June.
Brooks, R.H., Corey, A.T., 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media. Hydrology Papers,
No. 3. Colorado State U., Fort Collins, Colorado, pp. 22–27.
Chu, W.C., Shank, G.D., 1993. A new model for a fractured well in a radial, composite
reservoir (includes associated papers 27919, 28665 and 29212). SPE Form. Eval. 8
(03), 225–232.
Clarke, T., 2014. Application of a Novel Clay Stabilizer to Mitigate Formation Damage
Due to Clay Swelling (Doctoral Dissertation). Texas A&M University.
Crotti, M.A., 2007. Water saturation in tight gas reservoirs. In: SPE 107145 Presented at
the Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, 15–18 April,
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Cullick, A.S., Lu, H.S., Jones, L.G., Cohen, M.F., Watson, J.P., 1993. WAG may improve
gas-condensate recovery. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.2118/
19114-PA.
Daungkaew, S., 2002. New Developments in Well Test Analysis (Doctoral Dissertation,
Imperial College London (University of London).
Du, L., Walker, J.G., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Wang, P., 2000. January. Use of solvents
to improve the productivity of gas condensate wells. In: SPE 62935 Presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
Economides, M.J., Cikes, M., Pforter, H., Udick, T.H., Uroda, P., 1989. The Stimulation of
a Tight, Very-High- Temperature Gas-Condensate Well. Society of Petroleum
Engineershttps://doi.org/10.2118/15239-PA.
EPA, 2018. Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing
Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States, Executive Summary.
Fahes, M.M., Firoozabadi, A., 2007. Wettability alteration to intermediate gas-wetting in
gas/condensate reservoirs at high temperatures. SPE J. 12 (4), 397–407. SPE-96184-
PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/96184-PA.
Fevang, Φ., 1995. Gas Condensate Flow Behavior and Sampling”. Ph D. Dissertation.
University of Trondheim.
Fevang, Ø., Whitson, C.H., 1996. Modeling gas-condensate well deliverability. SPE
Reservoir Eng. 11 (04), 221–230.
Fevang, Ø., Whitson, C.H., 1995. Modeling Gas-Condensate Well Deliverability. SPE
30714.
Franco, C.A., Solares, J.R., Asiri, K.S., Shammari, N., Alabbad, E.A., Gomez, A.F.A., 2011.
Optimization of conventional acid jobs and the historical trend leading to multi-stage
acid fracturing stimulation to increase gas-condensate productivity in carbonate re-
servoirs in Saudi Arabia. In: SPE-141339-MS Presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and
Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 25–28 September, . https://doi.org/
10.2118/141339-MS.
Fussell, D.D., 1973. Single-well performance predictions for gas condensate reservoirs. J.
Pet. Technol. 25 (07), 860–870.
Ghahri, P., Jamiolahmadi, M., Alatefi, E., Wilkinson, D., Dehkordi, F.S., Hamidi, H., 2018.
A new and simple model for the prediction of horizontal well productivity in gas
condensate reservoirs. Fuel 223, 431–450.
Gidley, J.L., 1985. Acidizing sandstone formations: a detailed examination of recent ex-
perience. In: SPE-14164-MS Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Nevada, USA, 22–26 September, . https://doi.org/10.2118/14164-MS.
Hassan, A.M., Mahmoud, M., Al-Majed, A.A., Elkatatny, S., Al-Nakhli, A.R., Bataweel,
M.A., 2018. A novel technique to eliminate gas condensation in gas condensate re-
servoirs using thermochemical fluids. Energy Fuels.
Havlena, Z.G., Griffith, J.D., Pot, R., et al., 1967. Condensate recovery by cycling at de-
clining pressure. In: Presented at the Annual Technical Meeting, Banff, Alberta,
Canada, 24–26 May, PETSOC-67-04. https://doi.org/10.2118/67-04.
Hayatdavoudi, A., Ghalambor, A., 1998. January. Controlling formation damage caused
by kaolinite clay minerals: Part II. In: SPE Formation Damage Control Conference.
Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Hoier, L., Cheng, N., Whitson, C.H., 2004. Miscible gas injection in under saturated ga-
s–oil systems. In: Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
26–29 September, Houston, Texas, SPE 90379. https://doi.org/10.2118/90379-MS.
Jadhunandan, P.P., Morrow, N.R., 1995. Effect of wettability on waterflood recovery for
crude-oil/brine/rock systems. SPE Res. Eng. 10 (1), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.2118/
22597-PA.
Kamal, M.S., Mahmoud, M., Hanfi, M., Elkatatny, S., Hussein, I., 2018. Clay minerals
damage quantification in sandstone rocks using core flooding and NMR. J Petrol Exp
Produc Technol 1–11.
Karandish, G.R., Rahimpour, M.R., Sharifzadeh, S., Dadkhah, A.A., 2015. Wettability
alteration in gas-condensate carbonate reservoir using anionic fluorinated treatment.
Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 93, 554–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2014.05.019.
Khan, M.N., Siddiqui, F.I., Mansur, S., Ali, S.D., 2010. January. Hydraulic fracturing in
gas condensate reservoirs: successes, setbacks and lessons learnt. In: SPE/PAPG
Annual Technical Conference. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.
A. Hassan, et al.
2118/142848-MS.
Kniazeff, V.J., Naville, S.A., 1965. Two-phase flow of volatile hydrocarbons. Soc. Petrol.
Eng. J. 5 (01), 37–44.
Krueger, R.F., 1988. January. An overview of formation damage and well productivity in
oilfield operations: an update. In: SPE California Regional Meeting. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Kumar, V., Bang, V.S.S., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Ayyalasomayajula, P.S., Kamath, J.,
2006. January. Chemical stimulation of gas/condensate reservoirs. In: SPE 102669,
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Society of
Petroleum Engineers.
Li, K., Abbas, F., 2000. Experimental study of wettability alteration to preferential gas-
wetting in porous media and its effects. SPE Reservoir Eval. Eng. 3 (02), 139–149.
SPE-62515-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/62515-PA.
Li, K., Liu, Y., Zheng, H., Huang, G., Li, G., 2011. Enhanced gas-condensate production by
wettability alteration to gas wetness. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 78 (2), 505–509.
Linderman, J.T., Al-Jenaibi, F.S., Ghori, S.G., et al., 2008. Feasibility study of substituting
nitrogen for hydrocarbon in a gas recycle condensate reservoir. In: SPE-117952-MS
Presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu
Dhabi, 3–6 November, . https://doi.org/10.2118/117952-MS.
Liu, X., Kang, Y., Luo, P., You, L., Tang, Y., Kong, L., 2015. Wettability modification by
fluoride and its application in aqueous phase trapping damage removal in tight
sandstone reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 133, 201–207.
Mahdiyar, H., Jamiolahmady, M., 2014. Optimization of hydraulic fracture geometry in
gas condensate reservoirs. Fuel 119, 27–37.
Mahmoud, M., 2017. New formulation for sandstone acidizing that eliminates sand
production problems in oil and gas sandstone reservoirs. J. Energy Resour. Technol.
139 (4), 042902.
Mahmoud, M., 2018. Reaction of chelating agents and catalyst with sandstone minerals
during matrix acid treatment. Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 43 (11), 5745–5756.
Maleki, M.R., Rashidi, F., Mahani, H., Khamehchi, E., 2012. A simulation study of the
enhancement of condensate recovery from one of the Iranian naturally fractured
condensate reservoirs. J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 92, 158–166.
Marokane, D., Logmo-Ngog, A.B., Sarkar, R., 2002. January. Applicability of timely gas
injection in gas condensate fields to improve well productivity. In: SPE/DOE
Improved Oil Recovery Symposium. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/
10.2118/75147-MS.
Miller, N., Nasrabadi, H., Zhu, D., 2010. On application of horizontal wells to reduce
condensate blockage in gas condensate reservoirs. In: SPE-130996-MS Presented at
the International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition in China, Beijing, 8–10 June,
. https://doi.org/10.2118/130996-MS.
Mohammed, M., Babadagli, T., 2015. Wettability alteration: a comprehensive review of
materials/methods and testing the selected ones on heavy-oil containing oil-wet
systems. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 220, 54–77.
Monger, T.G., Khakoo, A., 1981. The phase behavior of CO2 – appalachian oil systems. In:
SPE-10269-MS Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
San Antonio, Texas, USA, 4–7 October, . https://doi.org/10.2118/10269-MS.
Muskat, M., 1949. Complete-Water-Drive Reservoirs (1949 PPOP Chapter 11). Society of
Petroleum Engineers, pp. 528–644.
Najafi-Marghmaleki, A., Tatar, A., Barati-Harooni, A., Arabloo, M., Rafiee-Taghanaki, S.,
Mohammadi, A.H., 2018. Reliable modeling of constant volume depletion (CVD)
behaviors in gas condensate reservoirs. Fuel 231, 146–156.
Novosad, Z., 1996. Composition and phase changes in testing and producing retrograde
gas wells. SPE Reservoir Eng. 11 (04), 231–235.
Odi, U., 2012. January. Analysis and potential of CO2 huff-n-puff for near Wellbore
condensate removal and enhanced gas recovery. In: SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition. Society of Petroleum Engineers. https://doi.org/10.
2118/160917-STU.
613
Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 177 (2019) 602–613
Ojha, S.P., Misra, S., Tinni, A., Sondergeld, C., Rai, C., 2017. Relative permeability esti-
mates for Wolfcamp and Eagle Ford shale samples from oil, gas and condensate
windows using adsorption-desorption measurements. Fuel 208, 52–64.
Olarewaju, J.S., Lee, W.J., 1989. New pressure-transient analysis model for dual-porosity
reservoirs. SPE Form. Eval. 4 (03), 384–390.
Owolabi, O.O., Watson, R.W., 1993. January. Effects of rock-pore characteristics on oil
recovery at breakthrough and ultimate oil recovery in water-wet sandstones. In: SPE
Eastern Regional Meeting. Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Restrepo, A., Ocampo, A., Rendon, N., et al., 2012. Wettability modifier field trial in a
sandstone condensate system: facts and gaps of a promising technology. In: SPE-
152310-MS Presented at the SPE Latin America and Caribbean Petroleum
Engineering Conference, Mexico City, 16–18 April, . https://doi.org/10.2118/
152310-MS.
Sanger, P.J., Hagoort, J., 1998. Recovery of gas-condensate by nitrogen injection com-
pared with methane injection. SPE J 3 (01), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.2118/30795-
PA. SPE-30795-PA.
Sayed, M.A., Al-Muntasheri, G.A., 2016. Mitigation of the effects of condensate banking: a
critical review. SPE Prod. Oper. 31 (02), 85–102.
Sayed, M., Liang, F., Ow, H., 2018. Novel Surface Modified Nanoparticles for Mitigation
of Condensate and Water Blockage in Gas Reservoirs. Society of Petroleum
Engineershttps://doi.org/10.2118/189959-MS.
Schultz, M.M., Barofsky, D.F., Field, J.A., 2003. Fluorinated alkyl surfactants. Environ.
Eng. Sci. 20 (5), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1089/109287503768335959.
Settari, A., Bachman, R.C., Hovem, K.A., Paulsen, S.G., 1996. Productivity of fractured gas
condensate wells-a case study of the Smorbukk field. SPE Reserv Eng 11 (04),
236–244. SPE-35604-PA. https://doi.org/10.2118/35604-PA.
Sharifzadeh, S., Hassanajili, S., Rahimpour, M.R., Mousavi, M.A., 2015. Preparation of the
modified limestone possessing higher permeability of gas well based on fluorinated
silica: effect of catalyst. J Fluor Chem 173, 35–46. 10.1016/j.jfluchem.2015. 01.016.
Strazza, C., Del Borghi, A., Gallo, M., 2013. Development of specific rules for the appli-
cation of life cycle assessment to carbon capture and storage. Energies 6 (3),
1250–1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6031250.
Takeda, T., Fujinaga, Y., ujita, K., 1997. Fluid behaviors around a well in gas/condensate
reservoirs. In: SPE-38062-MS Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, 14–16 April, . https://doi.org/10.2118/
38062-MS.
Vo, D.T., Jones, J.R., Raghavan, R., 1989. Performance predictions for gas-condensate
reservoirs. SPE Form. Eval. 4 (04), 576–584.
Walker, J.G., 2000. Laboratory Evaluation of Alcohols and Surfactants to Increase
Production from Gas-Condensate Reservoir. The University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, TX, MS Thesis.
Wan, T., Mu, Z., 2018. The use of numerical simulation to investigate the enhanced Eagle
Ford shale gas condensate well recovery using cyclic CO 2 injection method with
Nano-pore effect. Fuel 233, 123–132.
Wilson, B.W., 2004. Modeling of Performance Behavior in Gas Condensate Reservoirs
Using a Variable Mobility Concept (MS thesis, Texas A&M University).
Wu, S., Firoozabadi, A., 2010. Effect of salinity on wettability alteration to intermediate
gas-wetting. SPE Reserv Eval Eng 13 (02), 228–245. SPE-122486-PA. https://doi.
org/10.2118/122486-PA.
Zheng, Y., Rao, D.N., 2011. Experimental study of spreading and wettability effects by
surfactants in condensate reservoirs at reservoir conditions. In: SPE-141016-MS
Presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, the Woodlands,
Texas, USA, 11–13 April, . https://doi.org/10.2118/141016-MS.
Zhou, Z.J., Gunter, W.O., Jonasson, R.G., 1995. January. Controlling formation damage
using clay stabilizers: a review. In: Annual Technical Meeting. Petroleum Society of
Canada.