HadiParvizi86711 MScproject

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/303874049
Field Operational Problems due to Condensate Formation in Retrograde Gas

Reservoirs
Thesis · October 2010

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4184.2800
CITATIONS READS
0 9,614
1 author:
Hadi Parvizi
CEPSA
26 PUBLICATIONS 74 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Novel Approach of Production Forecasting Considering Heterogeneity Impact for Hydraulically Fractured Wells View project
Application of Automatic History Matching Techniques in Reservoir Simulation View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Hadi Parvizi on 09 June 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Petroleum University of Technology
Ahwaz Faculty of Petroleum Engineering
Petroleum Engineering Department
Field Operational Problems due to Condensate Formation

in Retrograde Gas Reservoirs
M. Sc. Degree Thesis
By:
Hadi Parvizi
Supervisor:
Dr. A. Hashemi
Advisor:
Dr. R. Kharrat
Ahwaz-Iran
Oct., 2009
Field Operational Problems due to Condensate
Formation in Retrograde Gas Reservoirs
A thesis
By:
Hadi Parvizi
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Petroleum University of Technology
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Major Subject: Petroleum Engineering
Approved as to style and content by:
Dr. A. Hashemi
(Supervisor) (Internal Referee)
Dr. J. Moghadasi
(External Referee) (Head of Department)
Oct., 2009
Abstract
Reservoirs are categorized to black oil, volatile oil, gas condensate, wet gas and dry gas
reservoirs. Gas condensate reservoirs have more complicated performance than the other
categories because possessing intermediate compositions leads to more complex
thermodynamic and phase behavior. When the well bottom hole flowing pressure falls below
the dew point, condensate liquid builds up around the well bore, causing a reduction in gas
permeability and well productivity. Accurate forecasting of gas condensate well productivity
usually requires fine-grid numerical simulation to model the formation of the condensate
bank and to account for high velocity phenomena such as non-Darcy flow and changes in
relative permeability at high capillary pressure.
Most of the pressure drop from condensate blockage occurs within a few feet of the well
bore, where flow rates are very high. There is a growing body of evidence from laboratory
core flood experiments to suggest that gas condensate relative permeability increases at high
flow rates, and that these changes can be correlated against the capillary number.
In this study, condensate formation around the well bore due to production, relative
permeability changes due to saturation and capillary number variation and the available
techniques for improving the well performance for one of the Iranian gas-condensate
reservoir is investigated by using its 30-year history of the bottom hole pressure and the gas
production rate. The feasibility of gas cycling as a remedial solution to improve the gas well
deliverability is fully investigated.
i
Acknowledgements
I wish to express my thanks to Dr. Hashemi, my supervisor, and Dr. Kharrat, my advisor, for
their unlimited efforts and guidance. My deep appreciation goes to Mr. Mostafa Sadooni -
Instructor of Islamic Azad University of Omidieh- for his continual encouragement and
constructive ideas for each phase of this project. I also wish to express my gratitude to
Abolfazl Dehghan for his kind advices and contributions. Finally, I thank Mr. Meisam Ashraf
-Reservoir Engineer in Schlumberger Information Solutions- who taught me the alphabet of
reservoir simulation and also how to think in reservoir simulation.
I am deeply indebted to my parents and my older brother Alireza for their endless support and
priceless kindness.
ii
Table of Contents
Abstract......................................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures.........................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables ..........................................................................................................................xii
Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................................1
Introduction ............................................................................................................................1
Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................................4
Literature Survey....................................................................................................................4
2.1 Basic Phase Behavior ...................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Phase Behavior Definition............................................................................................. 5

2.1.2 Phase diagram (P-T Diagram) ....................................................................................... 6
2.1.3 Single Component System Phase Behavior ................................................................ 6
2.1.4 Multi -Component System Phase Behavior ................................................................ 8
2.1.5 Classification of Reservoir Fluids Using Phase Diagram ......................................... 9
2.2 Gas Condensate Reservoir..........................................................................................12
2.2.1 Gas Condensate Reservoir Properties ........................................................................12

2.2.2 Drawdown Behavior of Gas Condensate Reservoir ................................................14
2.2.3 Phase Behavior Studies of Gas Condensate Fluids ..................................................16
2.3 Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance Prediction...................................................20
2.3.1Gas-Condensate Reservoir Operation by Pressure Depletion .................................20

2.3.2 Gas-Condensate Reservoir Operation by Pressure Maintenance or Cycling .......22
2.3.2.1 Cycling by Dry-Gas Drive ...................................................................................22
iii
2.3.2.2 Efficiencies .............................................................................................................23
2.3.2.3 Ultimate Recovery of Gas and Condensate Liquids by Cycling.....................24
2.3.3 Economics of Gas-Condensate Recovery .................................................................26
2.4 Parameters Affecting the Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance ...........................27
2.4.1 Condensate Banking.....................................................................................................27

2.4.2 Compositional Changes ...............................................................................................27
2.5 Relative Permeability .................................................................................................27
2.5.1 Velocity-Dependent Relative Permeabilities ............................................................28

2.5.2 Velocity-Dependent Relative Permeabilities Calculation .......................................30
2.5.3 Capillary Number Model .............................................................................................31
2.5.4 Base Capillary Number Estimation ............................................................................33
2.5.5 The Effect of CN on Residual Saturation ..................................................................33
2.5.6 The Effect of CN on Relative Permeability Curves .................................................34
2.5.7 Alternative Model for Capillary Number Effects.....................................................35
2.6 Methods to Reduce Condensate Liquid Dropout…………………………………...36
2.6.1 Gas Condensate Fluid Phase Behavior Alteration…...…………………………37

2.6.2 Reducing Draw Down Pressure…………………..…………………………….37
2.6.3 Maintaining Reservoir Pressure above the Dew Point……….…………………38
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................39
Swelling Test and Constant Volume Depletion Simulation Analysis..................................39
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................40
3.2 Swelling Test ..............................................................................................................40
3.3 Simulation of Swelling Test for Initial Fluid Sample of the Real Case .....................42
3.3.1 Simulation Results for Swelling Test by Nitrogen (N2) ..........................................43

3.3.2 Simulation Results for Swelling Test by Carbon dioxide (CO2) ...........................45
3.3.3 Simulation Results for Swelling Test by First Stage Separator Gas......................46
3.3.4 Comparison of Swelling Test Results ........................................................................46
3.4 Constant Volume Depletion Test Simulation.............................................................47
3.4.1 Constant Volume Depletion Test for Nitrogen Injection ........................................48
iv
3.4.2 Constant Volume Depletion Test for CO2 Injection ................................................49
3.4.3 Constant Volume Depletion Test for Separator Gas Recycling .............................50
3.5 Study of Injection Gas Effect on the Liquid Dropout ................................................51
3.6 Investigation of Suitable Choice for Current Reservoir Fluid....................................55
3.6.1 Selection of Best Injection Gas and Optimized Injection Volume for Current
Reservoir Fluid .......................................................................................................................55
3.6.2 Swelling Test Simulation Results for Current Fluid by N2 Injection ....................56
3.6.3 Swelling Test Simulation Results for Current Fluid by CO2 Injection .................57
3.6.4 Swelling Test Simulation Results for Current Fluid by Separator Gas Recycling
..................................................................................................................................................58
3.6.5 Comparison of Results for Three Types of Injection Gases ...................................59
3.7 Constant Volume Depletion Test Simulation for Current Reservoir Fluid................60
3.7.1 Constant Volume Depletion Test for N2 Injection ...................................................60

3.7.2 Constant Volume Depletion Test for CO2 Injection ................................................61
3.7.3 Constant Volume Depletion Test for Separator Gas Recycling .............................61
3.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................64
Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................65
Synthetic Model ...................................................................................................................65
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................66
4.2 Model Description ......................................................................................................66
4.3 Model Validation........................................................................................................72
4.4 Capillary Number Effect ............................................................................................75
4.5 Gas Injection Analysis................................................................................................79
4.5.1 Nitrogen gas injection ..................................................................................................82

4.5.2 Separator Gas Injection................................................................................................90
4.5.3 Carbon Dioxide Gas Injection ....................................................................................94
4.6 Optimum volume injection and gas type analysis......................................................98
4.7 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................106
v
Chapter 5 ..............................................................................................................................108
Full Field Study and Economical Evaluation.....................................................................108
5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................109
5.2 Reservoir Description...............................................................................................109
5.3 History Matching Phase ...........................................................................................113
5.3.1 Production Rate History Matching .......................................................................... 113

5.3.2 Pressure History Matching ....................................................................................... 115
5.4 Gas Cycling Scenarios..............................................................................................118
5.4.1 Gas Cycling Scenarios Implementation ................................................................. 119

5.4.2 Volume of Injection-Gas Analysis .......................................................................... 120
5.5 Economical Evaluation.............................................................................................123
5.5.1 Indicators of Economical Evaluation ...................................................................... 123

5.5.1.1 Time Value of Money ........................................................................................ 123
5.5.1.2 Compounding...................................................................................................... 124
5.5.1.3 Discounting ......................................................................................................... 124
5.5.1.4 Net Present Value ............................................................................................... 124
5.5.1.5 Rate of Return (ROR) ........................................................................................ 125
5.5.1.6 Payout Period ...................................................................................................... 125
5.5.2 Assumptions of Economical Evaluation ................................................................ 126
5.5.3 Gas Cycling Economical Evaluation ...................................................................... 126
5.5.3.1 Economical Evaluation of Scenario (I) ........................................................... 127
5.6 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................133
Chapter 6 ..............................................................................................................................134
Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................134
6.1 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................135
6.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................136
References .............................................................................................................................. R1
Appendix................................................................................................................................ A5
vi
List of Figures
Fig 2.1 Typical pressure-temperature diagram for a single-component system .......................... 7

Fig 2.2 Pressure-Temperature Diagram of Multi -Component Mixture....................................... 8
Fig 2.3 Diagram of a Typical Dry Gas Reservoir ............................................................................ 9
Fig 2.4 Phase Diagram of a Typical Wet Gas Reservoir ..............................................................10
Fig 2.5 Phase Diagram of a Typical Retrograde Gas Reservoir ..................................................10
Fig 2.6 Phase Diagram of a Typical Volatile Oil Reservoir ........................................................11
Fig 2.7 Phase Diagram of a Typical Black Oil Reservoir ............................................................11
Fig 2.8 :Schematic gas-condensate flow behavior (Roussennac, 2001) .....................................15
Fig 2.9 Gas relative permeability expressed as a function of capillary number for krg/kro=1 .....29
Fig 2.10 Gas relative permeability expressed as a function of capillary number for krg/kro=10..29
Fig 2.11 Gas relative permeability expressed as a function of krg/kro. .....................................30
Fig 2.12 Miscible and Immiscible relative permeability curves ..................................................35
Fig 3.1 Swelling Test Schematic......................................................................................................41
Fig 3.4 Swelling Test for Separator Gas Recycling at 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500 and 2000
scf/bbl of reservoir fluid. ...................................................................................................................46
Fig 3.6 Schematic representation of a constant-volume depletion experiment .........................47
Fig 3.7 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for N 2injection ...............................................49
Fig 3.8 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for CO 2injection ............................................50
Fig 3.9 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for separator gas recycling............................51
Fig 3.10 The effect of N2 ,CO 2and Separator Gas injection on Liquid Dropout at injection
volume of 250 scf/STB .......................................................................................................................51
volume of 500 scf/STB .......................................................................................................................52
volume of 75 0scf/STB .......................................................................................................................52
volume of 1000 scf/STB.....................................................................................................................53
Fig 3.14 The effect of N 2,CO 2and Separator Gas injection on Liquid Dropout at injection
volume of 1500 scf/STB.....................................................................................................................53
volume of 2000 scf/STB.....................................................................................................................54
vii
Fig 3.16 Swelling Test for N 2injection at 250, 500scf/bbl of reservoir fluid. ...........................57
Fig 3.17 Swelling Test for CO 2injection at 250 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid.................................58
Fig 3.18 Swelling Test for separator gas recycling at 250, 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid .......59
Fig 3.19 Comparison of Swelling Test results for three types of injection gases for injection
volumes of 250, 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid ...............................................................................60
Fig 3.20 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for N 2injection at injection volumes of 250
and 500 scf/bbl ....................................................................................................................................61
Fig 3.21 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for CO 2injection at injection volume of 250
scf/bbl ...................................................................................................................................................62
Fig 3.22 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for separator gas recycling at injection
volumes of 250 and 500 scf/bbl .......................................................................................................62
volume of 250 scf/STB) well S14) ...................................................................................................63
volume of 50 0scf/STB) well S14)....................................................................................................63
Fig 4.1 Drainage area of well S2......................................................................................................67
Fig 4.2 The water oil relative permeability curve ..........................................................................70
Fig 4.3The oil gas relative permeability curve...............................................................................70
Fig 4.4 logarithmic diagram of pressure and pseudo pressure versus time ................................73
Fig 4.5 Semi-log diagram of pressure versus time ........................................................................73
Fig 4.6 Pressure and gas flow rate versus time ..............................................................................74
Fig 4.7 Gas flow rate of the models with and without capillary number ...................................76
Fig 4.8 Bottomhole pressure for the models with and without capillary....................................76
Fig 4.9 Average field pressure for the models with and without capillary ................................77
Fig 4.10 Liquid oil in place for the field versus time ....................................................................78
Fig 4.11 Oil saturation versus distance from the well ...................................................................78
Fig 4.12 Bottomhole pressure of injection well versus time for 6 different injection volumes
..............................................................................................................................................................80
Fig 4.13 Gas injection rate versus time for 6 different injection volumes ...............................81
Fig 4.14 Gas injection rate versus time for the injection volumes of 750, 1000, 1500, 2000
scf/bbl ...................................................................................................................................................81
Fig 4.15 GOR of production gas for different nitrogen volume injection versus time.............83
Fig 4.16 Reservoir average pressure for different volumes of nitrogen gas ..............................83
Fig 4.17 Gas production rate versus time .......................................................................................84
viii
Fig 4.18 OGR of production gas for different nitrogen volume injection versus time.............84
Fig 4.19 Condensation in the reservoir for the different scenarios of nitrogen gas injection ..85
Fig 4.20 Nitrogen gas injection rate versus time ...........................................................................86
Fig 4.21 Nitrogen mole fraction for the case 2 at final time step ................................................86
Fig 4.22 Reservoir pressure distribution in initial condition ........................................................87
Fig 4.23 Reservoir pressure distribution at the end of simulation time ......................................87
Fig 4.24 Nitrogen mole fraction distribution for the case 3 at the final time step .....................88
Fig 4.25 Reservoir pressure distribution for the case 3 at the final time step ............................88
Fig 4.26 Nitrogen mole fraction distribution for the nitrogen gas injection of 750 scf/bbl of
reservoir fluid by one injection well at the final time step ...........................................................89
Fig 4.27 Nitrogen mole fraction distribution for the nitrogen gas injection of 750 scf/bbl of
reservoir fluid by four injection wells at the final time step .........................................................89
Fig 4.28 GOR of production gas for different volume of separator gas recycling versus time
..............................................................................................................................................................91
Fig 4 29.Reservoir average pressure for different volumes of separator gas .............................91
Fig 4.30 Gas production rate versus time .......................................................................................92
Fig 4.31 :Final oil gas ratio versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3. ......................................................92
Fig 4.32 oil production rate versus time .........................................................................................93
Fig 4.33 Reservoir oil in place versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3..................................................93
Fig 4.34 Injection gas flow rate versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3 ................................................94
Fig 4.35 Gas oil ratio of production gas versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3 of carbon dioxide
injection ...............................................................................................................................................95
Fig 4.36 Reservoir average pressure versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3 of carbon dioxide
injection ...............................................................................................................................................95
Fig 4.37 Production gas flow rate versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3 of carbon dioxide injection
..............................................................................................................................................................96
Fig 4.38 Oil gas ratio of production gas for different scenarios of carbon dioxide injection ..96
Fig 4.39 Oil production rate versus time for carbon dioxide gas injection scenarios ...............97
Fig 4.40 Condensate in place of the reservoir versus time for carbon dioxide gas injection
scenarios ..............................................................................................................................................97
Fig 4.41 Carbon dioxide injection flow rates versus time ............................................................98
Fig 4.42 Condensate in place versus time for different gas injection volume of 250 scf/bbl of
reservoir fluid ......................................................................................................................................99
ix
Fig 4.43 Condensate in place versus time for different gas injection volume of 500 scf/bbl of
reservoir fluid ................................................................................................................................... 100
Fig 4.44 Reservoir average pressure versus time ....................................................................... 100
Fig 4.45 The reservoir average pressure for different gas production flow rate versus time 102
Fig 4.46 Condensate in place versus time for different scenarios of 500 scf/bbl of reservoir
fluid, gas injection and the natural depletion scenarios of different production rates............ 102
Fig 4.47 Initial distribution of reservoir pressure ....................................................................... 103
Fig 4.48 Final distribution of reservoir pressure ......................................................................... 103
Fig 4.49 Initial distribution of gas saturation in reservoir ......................................................... 104
Fig 4.50 Final distribution of gas saturation in reservoir ........................................................... 104
Fig 4.51 Initial condensate saturation distribution of the reservoir .......................................... 105
Fig 4.52 Final condensate saturation distribution of the reservoir ........................................... 105
Fig 4.53 Final condensate saturation distribution of the cell which well is completed in. ... 106
Fig 5.1 Rock type distribution in the reservoir (2D) .................................................................. 110
Fig 5.2 Rock type distribution in the reservoir (3D) ................................................................. 110
Fig 5.3 Rock type frequencies over the reservoir ....................................................................... 110
Fig 5.4 Oil-water relative permeability of rock types 4, 5, 6, 8 and 15. .................................. 111
Fig 5.5 Gas-oil relative permeability of rock types 4, 5, 6, 8 and 15. ...................................... 111
Fig 5.6 Gas flow rate matching of well 2..................................................................................... 113
Fig 5.7 Gas flow rate matching of well 11 .................................................................................. 114
Fig 5.10 Observed and simulated static pressure of well 2 ....................................................... 115
Fig 5.11 Observed and simulated static pressure of well 11 ..................................................... 116
Fig 5.14 Average pressure of the reservoir .................................................................................. 117
Fig 5.15 Reservoir monthly and cumulative flow rate match ................................................... 118
Fig 5.16 condensation in place reduction for different scenarios ............................................. 121
Fig 5.17 Reservoir average pressure vs. time for different volume of injection .................... 122
Fig 5.18 Cumulative oil production versus time for different volume of injection ............... 122
Fig 5.19 Present value of scenario (I) assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl ............................... 127
x
Fig 5.22 Cost, income and net income of scenario (I) assuming oil price 20 USD/bbl )without
inflation consideration for costs) ................................................................................................... 129
Fig 5.23 Cost, income and net income of scenario (I) assuming oil price 40 USD/bbl (without
Fig 5.25 Net present value of scenario (I) versus time assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl ... 131
Fig 5.26 Net present value of scenario (I) versus time assuming oil price of 40 USD/bbl ... 131
Fig 5. 27Net present value of scenario (I) versus time assuming oil price of 60 USD/bbl ... 132
xi
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Composition and properties of several reservoir fluids ........................................ 13

Table 3.1 First stage separator gas composition ................................................................... 42
Table 3.2 Initial fluid composition (based on real case data) ................................................ 43
Table 3.3 Grouping component/subcomponent of Initial fluid ............................................. 43
Table 3.4 Swelling Test results of N2 injection (well S2)..................................................... 44
Table 3.5 Swelling Test results of CO2 injection (well S2).................................................. 45
Table 3.6 Swelling Test results of Separator Gas Recycling (well S2) ................................. 46
Table 3.7 Swelling Test results of N2 injection (well S14) ................................................... 56
Table 3.8 Swelling Test results of CO2 injection (well SA14) .............................................. 57
Table 3.9 Swelling Test results of separator gas recycling (well S14) .................................. 58
Table 4.1 The specifications of synthetic model based on well S2 data…………….…..….. 67
Table 4.2 The distances from well S2 to rectangle sides (ft) ................................................. 68
Table 4.3 The grid dimensions of the synthetic model ......................................................... 68
Table 4.4 Injection and production wells location on grid .................................................... 68
Table 4.5 The grid dimensions of LGR................................................................................. 69
Table 4.6 The extreme points of water-oil relative permeability curve .................................71
Table 4.7 The extreme points of oil-gas relative permeability curve ..................................... 71
Table 4.8 Bottomhole pressure output of simulator versus time to verify the designed model......... 72
Table 4.9 Result of well test interpretation of data ...........................................................…. 74
Table 4.10 Capillary number parameters for oil and gas ...................................................... 75
Table 4.11 First stage separator gas composition at current reservoir condition ................... 90
Table 4.12 Simulation results of optimum pressure determination for start date of separator
gas injection........................................................................................................................... 101
Table 5.1 Gas-oil relative permeability endpoints data of rock types 4, 5, 6, 8 and 15........ 112
Table 5.2 Initial reservoir fluid components.....................................................................…112
Table 5.3 First stage separator gas components .................................................................. 112
Table 5.4 Grouping information of the reservoir fluid in PVT models ..............….............112
Table 5.5: Injection volume ratios with respect to reservoir pore volume.....................…... 119
Table 5.6 Injection well locations in the simulation model ................................................. 119
Table 5.7 Total gas injection of the scenarios ..................................................................... 119
Table 5.8 Gas flow rate of the production wells of the reservoir in prediction phase.......... 120
xii
Nomenclature
Bg Gas formation volume factor

BHFP Bottom hole flowing pressure
Bo Oil formation volume factor
BPD Barrel per day
C7 + Heptane-plus fractions
CCE Constant composition expansion experiment
CGR Condensate to gas ratio
CN Capillary number
(CL)re Condensate (natural-gas liquids) content of the wet gas
CVD Constant volume depletion experiment
EOS Equation of state
EA Areal sweep efficiency
ED Displacement efficiency
EI Invasion efficiency
Ep Pattern efficiency
ER Reservoir cycling efficiency
FGIPR Field gas in-place
FGIR Field gas injection rate
FGIT Field gas injection total
FGOR Field gas/oil ratio
FGPR Field gas production rate
FGPT Total gas production
FLPR Field liquid production rate
FOIPR Field oil in-place
FOPR Field oil production rate
FOPT Total oil production
FPR Field pressure (Average pressure of reservoir)
FWPR Field water production rate
FWPT Total water production
GL Condensate (natural-gas liquids) in place
Gwg Wet gas in place
xiii
GOR Gas/oil ratio
(Gp)wg Cumulative wet gas produced
(Gp)L Cumulative volume of condensate liquids produced
IFT Interfacial tension
kRG Gas relative permeability
kRGR Gas relative permeability at critical liquid saturation
kRO Oil relative permeability
kRORW Oil relative permeability at critical water saturation
kRW Water relative permeability at ultimate water saturation
kRWR Water relative permeability at critical oil saturation
MMSCFD 106 Standard cubic feet per day
MSCFD 103 Standard cubic feet per day
MW Molecular weight
NC Capillary number
Psat Bubble point pressure
Pc Critical pressure
Pdew Dew point pressure
PI Productivity index
Pini Initial pressure of reservoir
PR EOS Peng-Robinson Equation of state
Pres Reservoir pressure
PVT Pressure-Volume-Temperature
qg Gas flow-rate
Rso Gas solubility in oil phase
Scc Critical condensate saturation
SCF Standard cubic feet
Sg Gas saturation
SGCR Critical gas saturation
SGL Least gas saturation
SGU Utmost gas saturation
SOCR Critical Oil saturation
SOWCR Critical liquid saturation
Sw Water saturation
SWCR Critical water saturation
xiv
SWL Connate water saturation
SWU Utmost water saturation
STB Stock tank barrel
Tc Critical temperature
USD United state dollar
vg Gas velocity
Vre Reservoir volume
Vrel Relative volume
Vsat Oil volume at the saturated pressure
WBHP Well bottom-hole pressure
Greek Letters
β Forchheimer parameter
∆t Time-step
∆x Element in x direction
∆y Element in y direction
∆z Element in y direction
Ф Porosity
µ Viscosity
ρL Condensate density
σ Surface tension
xv
Chapter 1
Introduction
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Introduction
Reservoirs are usually classified to black oil reservoirs, volatile oil reservoirs, retrograde gas
reservoirs, wet gas reservoirs and dry gas reservoirs. In retrograde gas reservoirs, the
reservoir temperature is above critical temperature and below Cricondenterm. A liquid phase
develops within the reservoir when pressure declines below the upper dew point owing to
retrograde condensation. The retrograde condensate liquid that forms is trapped as an
immobile liquid phase within the pore spaces of the reservoir; therefore, a considerable
amount of intermediate hydrocarbons, which are very valuable, may be left in the reservoir.
Moreover, the liquid build up in a gas reservoir seriously reduces the effective gas
permeability and consequently the productivity of the reservoir.
Gas-condensate reservoirs may occur at pressures less than 2000psia and temperatures below
100°F and probably can occur at any higher temperatures and pressures within reach of the
drill. The trend to deeper drilling in many areas have led to the discovery of reservoirs with
higher temperatures and pressures. This tends to result in the discovery of a greater
proportion of condensate and dry-gas reservoirs, as is evident from phase diagrams. Most
known gas-condensate reservoirs are in the ranges of 3000 to 6000 psia and 200 to 400°F[2].
These ranges, together with wide variations in composition, provide a great variety of
conditions for the physical behavior of condensate deposits, emphasizing the need for very
meticulous engineering studies of each case in order to select the best modes of development
and operation.
Accuracy in engineering computations for gas-condensate systems (e.g., well testing,

estimating reserves, sizing surface facilities, and predicting productivity trends) depends upon
a basic understanding of phase and flow behavior relationships. If the gas-condensate
reservoirs are compared to dry-gas reservoirs, it can be seen that there are many special
factors that affect the performance of gas-condensate reservoir during the exploitation
process.
At the time of discovery, a typical gas-condensate reservoir pressure might be above or close
to the critical pressure. At this time there exists only single-phase gas. However as the
production is carried out, there is isothermal pressure decline and as the bottom hole pressure
in a flowing well falls below the dew point of the fluid a liquid hydrocarbon phase is formed.
This retrograde condensate formation results in build up of a liquid phase around the
wellbore, leading to a decrease in the effective permeability to gas into the wellbore.
2
Chapter 1 Introduction
Understanding the multiphase flow phenomenon in such reservoirs is key in characterizing

the condensate dropout and subsequent blockage effect. It is generally believed that the flow
behavior of gas-condensate in porous media is different from that of gas-oil and water-oil
systems.
The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of gas cycling in one of the gas
condensate reservoirs in south of Iran in terms of
• Fluid behavior analysis deploying swelling test and constant volume depletion test
techniques
• Well productivity analysis for the most important well of the reservoir
• Effect of gas injection of different types and volumes on condensate recovery of the
reservoir
And finally
• Economical evaluation of the most suitable scenario for developing the reservoir.
The comprehensive reservoir-scale study shows that gas cycling scenarios in this condensate
reservoir are not feasible based on the economical assumptions of the national Iraninan oil
company.
Chapter 2 is a literature review on fluid phase behavior, gas condensate reservoirs,

condensate blockage phenomenon, gas cycling treatment and capillary number modeling. In
chapter 3, the focus is on the reservoir fluid to analyze gas types and the volume of injection
effects. Swelling and constant volume depletion tests are simulated for the fluid samples and
the results are discussed. In Chapter 4, based on well test of one of the most important wells
of the field, a synthetic model is established and validated and capillary number effect is fully
discussed. In such a porous media the gas injection scenarios are applied and there is an effort
to bring some important facts to light because of the difference for the results of swelling test
and porous media analysis. In chapter 5, firstly the model is tuned with the available history
data and then the gas injection scenarios are applied to the reservoir-scale model to
investigate the condensate recovery enhancement of the reservoir. Having obtained the
reservoir performance for the prediction phase, it is used in the economical evaluation study
to examine the feasibility of the gas cycling scenarios. Chapter 6 is the conclusions of the
study and recommendations for further works.
3
Chapter 2
Literature Survey
4
Chapter 2 Literature Survey
2.1 Basic Phase Behavior
When considering hydrocarbon reservoirs, terms such as “oil reservoirs” and “gas reservoirs”
are used both in colloquial speech and technical literature. However, these terms are
insufficient. Changes in the state of aggregation during production should always be taken
into account in consequence of changes of the reservoir pressure and changes of pressure and
temperature in the production system (tubing, pipe lines, separator and tank).
Thermodynamics has evolved to a science of studying changes in the state of a system with
changes in the conditions, i.e. temperature, pressure, composition.
2.1.1 Phase Behavior Definition
A "phase" is defined as any homogeneous part of system that is physically distinct and
separated from other parts of the system by definite boundaries. For example, ice, liquid
water, and water vapor constitute three separate phases of the pure substance H20 because
each is homogeneous and physically distinct from the others; moreover, each is clearly
defined by the boundaries existing between them. Whether a substance exists in a solid,
liquid, or gas phase is determined by the temperature and pressure acting on the substance. It
is known that ice (solid phase) can be changed to water (liquid phase) by increasing its
temperature and, by further increasing temperature, water changes to steam (vapor phase).
This change in phases is termed Phase Behavior.
Hydrocarbon systems found in petroleum reservoirs are known to display multi-phase

behavior over wide ranges of pressures and temperatures. The most important phases which
occur in petroleum reservoirs are:
• Liquid phase, e.g., crude oils or condensates
• Gas phase, e.g., natural gases [2]
The phase behavior of the actual hydrocarbon mixture in the reservoir can be described as a
function of the state of the system. A system in thermodynamic equilibrium possesses an
accurately defined relationship between the state variables. These are united in the so-called
“equation of state”:
F ( P, V , T ) = 0 Equation (2.1)
By specification of two variables, the third will be estimated. [5]
5
2.1.2 Phase diagram (P-T Diagram)
A phase diagram predominantly is a graph of pressure plotted against temperature showing

the condition under which the various phases of a substance will be present. Phase diagrams
are often called pressure –temperature diagram .
Phase diagram or phase envelope is very desirable in the study of reservoir fluids. Pressure-
composition, and composition-composition, and pressure-temperature diagrams are
particularly useful in design of gas injection processes. Pressure-temperature diagrams also
required for design of pipelines or surface facilities (separators), and temperature–
composition diagrams find application in separation processes. [6]
2.1.3 Single Component System Phase Behavior
Consider a single, pure fluid at constant temperature, in a cylinder fitted with a frictionless
piston. If a pressure is applied on the piston which is greater than the vapor pressure of the
liquid, the system will consist entirely of liquid when equilibrium is reached. No vapor will
be present since at pressures greater than the vapor pressure it condenses into liquid. If, on the
other hand, the pressure applied on the piston is less than the vapor pressure of the liquid only
vapor will be present at equilibrium. If both liquid and vapor are present in equilibrium with
one another, the pressure must be exactly equal to the vapor pressure. Pure substances behave
in this manner and liquid and vapor can coexist at a given temperature only at a pressure
equal to the vapor pressure. The relative amounts of liquid and vapor that coexist is
determined by the volume of the system, and can vary anywhere from an infinitesimal
amount of liquid to an infinitesimal amount of vapor.
For a single-component system at a given temperature the pressure determines the kind and
number of phases that are present. If the vapor pressure is plotted as a function of
temperature, the resulting curve can be thought of as being the dividing line between the area
where liquid exists and the area where vapor or gas exists. If the line OA (Fig 2.1) represents
the vapor pressure as a function of temperature the systems which are represented by points
above OA are composed of liquid only. Similarly, points below OA represent systems that
are all vapor. If the system is represented by a point on the line OA then the system consists
of both liquid and vapor.
The upper limit of the vapor pressure line is the point A. This is known as the critical point
and the temperature and pressure represented by this point are the critical temperature Tc and
6
the critical pressure Pc, respectively. At this point the intensive properties of the liquid phase
and the vapor phase become identical and they are no longer distinguishable. For a single-
component system the critical temperature may also be defined as the temperature above
which a vapor cannot be liquefied, regardless of the applied pressure. Similarly, the critical
pressure of a single-component system may be defined as the minimum pressure necessary
for liquefaction of vapor at the critical temperature.
Fig 2.1 Typical pressure-temperature diagram for a single-component system. [1]
It is also the pressure above which liquid and vapor cannot coexist regardless of the
temperature. The lower end of the vapor-pressure line is limited by the triple point O. This
point represents the pressure and temperature at which solid, liquid, and vapor coexist under
equilibrium conditions. Since the petroleum engineer seldom deals with hydrocarbons in the
solid state it will not be necessary to deal with this region of the diagram extensively. The
sublimation pressure (vapor pressure) curve of the solid is given by the line OB which
divides the area where solid exists from the area where vapor exists. Points above OB
represent solid systems, and those below OB represent vapor or gaseous systems. The lime
OC represents the change of melting point with pressure and divides the solid area from the
liquid area. For pure hydrocarbons the melting point generally increases with pressure so the
slope of the line OC is positive as shown. Water is exceptional in that its melting point
decreases with pressure so in this case the slope of the line OC is negative. Each pure
hydrocarbon has a pressure-temperature diagram similar to the one shown in Fig 2.1. [1]
7
2.1.4 Multi -Component System Phase Behavior
The phase behavior of a multi-component system is more elaborate than that of a pure
compound. The complexity generally compounds as component with widely different
structure and molecular sizes comprise the system. Reservoir fluids are mainly composed of
hydrocarbons with similar structures. Their phase behavior, therefore, is not generally highly
complex. For multi component system, the location of the lines on a phase diagram depends
on composition.
Unlike the pure component system, in the phase envelope of the multi-component system,
there is a two-phase region between the bubble curve and dew curve (Fig 2.2). The size of
this two-phase region depends on the composition.
Cricondenbar
Cricondentherm
Fig 2.2 Pressure-Temperature Diagram of Multi -Component Mixture. [3]
In the phase envelope some points are very important to phase behavior analysis:
Cricondenbar: The highest pressure on the saturation envelope that two phase can be coexist
is called the cricondenbar. Point B in Fig 2.2 refers to cricondenbar point.
Cricondentherm: The highest temperature on the saturation envelope that two phase can be
coexist is called the cricondentherm. Point D in Fig 2.2 refers to cricondentherm point [6].
Critical point: The critical point for a multi-component mixture is referred to as the state of
pressure and temperature at which all intensive properties of the gas and liquid phases are
8
equal (All differences between the two phases vanish and the phases become
indistinguishable). The bubble point curve and dew point curve meet at the critical point. This
point is shown by point C in Fig 2.2.
At critical point the K-value of each component approaches unity, it means the fugacity
coefficient (ϕ) of liquid and gas are equal at critical point [3].
Bubble point and dew point: the point at which the first few molecules leave the liquid and
form a small bubble of gas is called the bubble point, Pb. The point at which only a small
drop of liquid remains is known as the dew point, Pd .the bubble point and dew point are
indicated by the sharp changes in slope along the isotherm line. For a pure substance, the
pressure at the bubble point and dew point is equal to the vapor pressure of the substance at
the temperature of interest [6].
2.1.5 Classification of Reservoir Fluids Using Phase Diagram
A reservoir fluid is classified as:
• Dry gas: when the reservoir temperature is greater than the cricondentherm and
surface/transport conditions are outside the two-phase envelope. The phase envelope is
relatively tight and mostly located below the ambient temperature.
Fig 2.3 Diagram of a Typical Dry Gas Reservoir. [6]
• Wet gas: when the reservoir temperature is greater than the cricondentherm and
surface/transport conditions lie within the phase envelope, causing some liquid to be formed
at the surface.
9
Fig 2.4 Phase Diagram of a Typical Wet Gas Reservoir. [6]
• Gas Condensate: A typical gas condensate phase diagram is shown in Fig 2.5. The
presence of heavy hydrocarbons expands the phase envelope relative to a wet gas; hence, the
reservoir temperature lies between the critical point and the cricondentherm. The gas will
dropout liquid by retrograde condensation in the reservoir, when the pressure falls below the
dew point, from 1 to 2 in Fig 2.5.
Fig 2.5 Phase Diagram of a Typical Retrograde Gas Reservoir. [6]
• Volatile Oil: A typical volatile oil phase diagram is shown in Fig 2.6. The reservoir
temperature is near the critical temperature; hence, volatile oils are referred to as near- critical
oils. Iso-volume lines are tighter and closer near the bubble point curve. A small reduction of
pressure below the bubble point vaporizes a significant fraction of the oil.
10
Fig 2.6 Phase Diagram of a Typical Volatile Oil Reservoir. [6]
• Black oil: A typical black oil phase diagram is shown in Fig 2.7. The quality lines are
broadly spaced at reservoir conditions with separator conditions lying on relatively high
quality lines. Black oils, or ordinary oils, are the most common type of oil reserves. The name
does not reflect the color, but to distinguish it from the volatile oil. [6]
Fig 2.7 Phase Diagram of a Typical Black Oil Reservoir. [6]
11
2.2 Gas Condensate Reservoir
2.2.1 Gas Condensate Reservoir Properties
Most known gas-condensate reservoirs are in the ranges of 3000 to 6000 psia and 200 to
400°F. These ranges, together with wide variations in composition, provide a great variety of
conditions for the physical behavior of condensate deposits, emphasizing the need for very
meticulous engineering studies of each case in order to select the best modes of development
and operation. [7]
Table 2.1 compares the molar compositions and properties of gas-condensates with other
reservoir fluids.
Fig 2.5 is a pressure-temperature diagram for a typical gas-condensate fluid. Point 1, is the
initial reservoir state and point 3, is the state at abandonment. S represents the surface
(separator) conditions. At initial reservoir conditions (1) the fluid is a gas. As reservoir fluid
is withdrawn, the pressure in the entire reservoir is reduced. Since reservoir temperature does
not change, the reduction in reservoir pressure is an isothermal process and is designated by
the line 1-3. When the reservoir pressure declines to the point where the phase boundary is
crossed, liquid will be condensed from the reservoir fluid and a two-phase fluid saturation
will exist in the reservoir. When reservoir pressure is reduced further some of these
condensed liquids will revaporize until at abandonment (3). As this liquid saturation can
never be reduced to zero, some valuable hydrocarbons will have been lost.
This phenomenon of a liquid being condensed from the reservoir fluid (which is gas) on
reduction of pressure at constant temperature is called isothermal retrograde condensation.
These reservoirs are known as gas-condensate reservoirs, and the reservoir fluids are
commonly called gas-condensate fluids. [7]
As the liquefiable portions of the reservoir, fluids are usually the most valuable components;
losing part of these fluids could substantially reduce the ultimate income from the property.
In a dry-gas reservoir, it is not unusual to recover more than 80% of the initial gas in place. In
gas-condensate reservoirs, although 80% of dry gas can be recovered by pressure depletion, it
is not unusual to lose as much as 50 to 60% of the liquefiable hydrocarbons because of
retrograde condensation. [7]
12
[7]
Table 2.1: Composition and properties of several reservoir fluids.
Gas-condensate production is between oil and gas. The liquid condensed in the surface
separators is sometimes called distillate and is usually light-colored or colorless with a
gravity of more than 45°API. Gas-condensate reservoirs have grown in importance since the
late 1930s. Their development and operation for maximum recovery require engineering and
operating methods significantly different from crude-oil or dry-gas reservoirs. The most
striking single factor about gas-condensate systems is that they exist either wholly or almost
as vapor phase in the reservoir at the time of discovery. The properties of the fluids govern
the development and operating programs for recovery of hydrocarbons from such reservoirs
and determine the best program in each case. A thorough understanding of fluid properties is
therefore required for optimum engineering of condensate reservoirs, together with a good
knowledge of the special economics involved. [7]
13
2.2.2 Drawdown Behavior of Gas Condensate Reservoir
As the average pressure in a gas-condensate reservoir continues to decline on production,

condensate dropout occurs across the reservoir. An accurate yet simple model of a gas
condensate well undergoing depletion consists of three flow regions (Fevang and Whitson [21],
1995).
• Region 1: An inner near-wellbore region where both gas and liquid flow simultaneously (at
different velocities).
• Region 2: A region of condensate buildup where only gas is flowing.
• Region 3: A region containing single-phase (original) reservoir gas. This region is the
farthest away from the well.
For a given producing condition, one, two, or all three regions may exist. These three regions
define pseudo steady-state flow conditions, meaning that they represent steady-state
conditions at a given time but that the steady-state conditions change gradually during
depletion. Figure 2.4 shows the schematic representation of gas-condensate flow during
production. The three regions are identified with a block representation of condensate
accumulation and mobile phases in the three regions.
Region 1: The condensate saturation in this region is above the critical condensate saturation
(Scc) and hence both gas and liquid phases are mobile. The flowing composition (GOR)
within Region 1 is constant throughout. That means that the single phase gas entering
Region 1 has the same composition as the produced wellstream mixture. Conversely, if we
know the producing wellstream, then we know the flowing composition within Region 1.
Furthermore, the dew-point of the producing wellstream mixture equals the reservoir pressure
at the outer edge of Region 1.
14
Fig 2.8: Schematic gas-condensate flow behavior (Roussennac, 2001). [8]
Region 1 is the main source of deliverability loss in a gas-condensate well. Gas relative
permeability is reduced drastically in this region due to condensate buildup. The reduction in
relative permeability to gas is the most in this region. Even though condensate buildup starts
from Region 2, the liquid phase is immobile. Two-phase flow in Region 1 is the main cause
of gas relative permeability reduction. The size of Region 1 increases with time.
For steady-state conditions, the condensate saturation in Region 1 is determined (as a

function if radius) specifically to ensure that all liquid that condenses from the single-phase
gas entering Region 1 has sufficient mobility to flow through and out of Region 1 without
any net accumulation. Since the composition of the flowing mixture is constant throughout
Region 1, the liquid saturation could be calculated by a constant composition expansion of
the producing fluid. The amount of liquid dropout in Region 1 depends primarily on the PVT
properties of the gas-condensate mixture and the production rate.
Region 2: This is the intermediate zone where condensate dropout begins and it defines a
region of net accumulation of condensate. The condensate saturation is below the critical
value (Scc) and, effectively, only gas is flowing in this region because oil mobility is zero (or
very small). Condensate saturations in Region 2 are closely approximated by the liquid
dropout curve from constant volume depletion (CVD) test corrected for water saturation.
The size of Region 2 is largest at early times just after the reservoir pressure drops below the
dew-point. Region 2 decreases with time because Region 1 is expanding. The size and
importance of region 2 is greater for lean gas-condensate. The critical condensate saturation
15
(Scc) also affects the size of Region 2. The size of this region increases for increasing values
of Scc. Hence, Scc is significant in studying the changing composition of the fluid because
Region 2 has a constantly changing composition of the reservoir fluid. The main consequence
of Region 2 is that producing well stream composition (GOR) is leaner than calculated by a
simple volumetric material balance (e.g., CVD measurements).
Region 3: This is the region farthest away from the well where reservoir pressure exceeds the
dew-point pressure of the original reservoir fluid. Single-phase gas is present and hence is the
only mobile phase.
Coexistence of Flow Regions: Initially, when the reservoir pressure is above the dew point,
the whole reservoir is Region 3. As the reservoir is depleted, Regions 2 and 1 appear
depending on the condensate buildup across the reservoir. If bottom hole flowing pressure
(BHFP) is less than the dew-point, Region 1 will always exist (after a short transient required
to buildup the steady-state saturations in Region 1). Region 1 will not exist if flowing bottom
hole pressure is greater than the dew-point.
Region 2 will always exist together with Region 1 after reservoir pressure drops below the
dew-point. In this case Region 3 will not exist. All three regions exist for reservoirs that are
slightly undersaturated and BHFP is less than the dew-point. Region 2 may “disappear” or
have negligible effect for highly undersaturated reservoirs. Region 2 is negligible or very
small for rich gas-condensates.
It is not possible for Regions 2 and 3 to exist in the absence of Region 1 (after steady-state
conditions are reached). For a very rich (near-critical) gas-condensate, region 1 may exist
throughout the drainage area (in the absence of Regions 2 and 3), after reservoir pressure
drops below the dew point.
2.2.3 Phase Behavior Studies of Gas Condensate Fluids
The phase behavior of gas condensate fluids is an important factor controlling the reservoir
performance of gas condensate fields. Phase behavior study of gas condensate fluids can be
grouped into two main categories:
• Experimental phase behavior study of gas condensate fluids.
• Modeling the PVT properties of gas condensate fluids accurately using an equation-of-state
(EOS) or other correlation.
16
Ahmed (1986) did a comprehensive study using eight EOS models to model gas condensate
systems. The equations of state used were: Peng-Robinson (1976), Soave-Redlich-Kwong
(1976), the Schmidt-Wenzel (1980), the Usdin Mc Auliff (1976), the Heyen, the Kubic
(1983), the Adachi-Lu (1984) and the Patel-Teja (1982).
Experimental data of four gas condensate hydrocarbon mixtures were compared with the
predicted PVT properties from the above-mentioned equations of state. The author concluded
from his studies that the Schmidt-Wenzel EOS gave a better prediction of the volumetric
properties than the others. Reliable compressibility predictions were obtained from Patel-Teja
and Schmidt-Wenzel EOS. Peng-Robinson, Patel-Teja and Schmidt-Wenzel equations were
found to give good vapor-liquid equilibrium predictions.
[9]
Wang et al. gave an optimized procedure for tuning the equation of state parameters to
match the experimental phase behavior of gas condensate fluid so as to be used in reservoir
simulations for more accurate well deliverability calculations.
Arcia et al. [10] developed a simplistic approach to determine the saturation pressure based on
easily acquired down-hole data. The method is applicable to black oil, volatile oil and gas
condensate types of fluids where the reservoir and bottomhole pressures are above saturation
pressure and no free water is produced from the reservoir. The dynamic pressure profile of a
producing well is recorded using a pressure gauge. The recorded pressure profile is then
analyzed to establish pressure gradients, density and gradient derivative in the wellbore and
this, in turn, is interpreted in terms of condensation, segregation, fluid convection and flow
regime identification in the wellbore. The inflection point of the gradient plot corresponds to
the saturation pressure. The dew point pressure obtained from this method was verified using
the PVT analysis in laboratory and EOS calculations.
[11]
Elsharkawy et al. using compositional analysis from 1200 compositions of gas
condensates, evaluated several methods for estimating two-phase compressibility factors for
gas condensates. The authors based their study on the large data set of gas condensate fluids
and proposed a new method to calculate the pseudo-critical properties of the gas condensate
fluids, which can be used in turn to calculate the compressibility factors for gas condensates.
[12]
Kokal et al. performed an experimental phase behavior study for a Saudi Arabian gas
condensate fluid with water/brine. For the dry gas condensate (without water) studied, there
was not a significant effect of temperature on the clew point. However, there was a
significant effect on the liquid dropout; the liquid dropout reduced significantly with the
17
increase in temperature. For the gas condensate-water system studied, the dew point pressure
decreased slightly and the amount of liquid dropout increases slightly with increasing
water/condensate ratio. Phase behavior of gas condensate-water mixtures was modeled using
SRKEOS and reasonable agreement was obtained between the calculated and experimental
results.
[13]
Pederson et al. studied the effect of salt on the mutual solubility of water and gas
condensate mixtures over a wide range of temperatures and pressures. Their results show that
the dissolved salts reduce the gas solubility in water, which is in agreement with the results of
Kokal et al. [12]. The gas solubility in water phase is reduced because the presence of salt in
water lowers the mole fraction and fugacity coefficient of the water phase. The lowering of
mole fraction is dependent on the concentration of salt and the lowering of fugacity
coefficient depends on ion-water interactions. Their results also show that the mole fraction
of water in the hydrocarbon phase, in equilibrium with water or brine, can be significant at
high temperatures and pressures and is not sensitive to salt concentration of around 3.5mole
percent. The authors modeled the phase behavior of these mixtures using SRK and PR
equations of state with the Huron-Vidal mixing rules. For modeling, ions were treated as
hypothetical molecules with critical properties close to glycols.
[14]
Wang, et al. studied the behavior of hydraulic fracturing in gas condensate wells and
concluded that the liquid deposition around the wellbore in low permeability reservoirs is a
factor that can greatly reduce the well productivity index. They stated that liquid deposition
increases the length of the fracture necessary to have the same value of production. Once
again in hydraulic fracturing the idea is to reduce the pressure drawdown of the near wellbore
formation in order to avoid liquid deposition.
[15]
Bang et al. experimentally studied the phase behavior of condensate hydrocarbons in
mixtures with: water, methanol, hydrocarbon-water isopropanol (IPA), and fluoro-surfactants
FC4432 and S10. Effects of factors including temperature, pressure and the molar
concentrations of the components on the phase behavior were studied. The result was that for
hydrocarbon-water- methanol mixtures the aqueous phase volume fraction increased while
the dew point pressure decreased with increasing mole fraction of methanol, hydrocarbon-
isopropanol-water mixtures behaved similarly but had a greater increase in aqueous fraction
than a similar composition hydrocarbon-methanol-water mixture. The mixtures were also
modeled the Peng-Robinson equation-of-state with the temperature-dependent Peneloux
volume corrections and classical van der-Waals mixing rule (PR78 Peneloux (T)). Mr. Bang
18
found that the equation of state could be tuned using the binary interaction parameters and
temperature dependent volume shift parameters.
Ayyalasomyajula et al. [16] used SAFT (Statistical Associating Fluid Theory) equation of state
to model gas condensate-water-methanol mixtures. SAFT equation of state is based on
statistical mechanical theories and takes into account the intermolecular potential function. It
captures the major effect of non-spherical nature and association among molecules by a
modified definition for the compressibility factor. The authors show that for the pure
hydrocarbon gas condensate mixture Peng-Robinson EOS gave better results than the SAFT
EOS. However, for the gas condensate-methanol mixtures, after regressing both the equation
of states to match the experimental data, the binary interaction parameters showed less
dependence on temperature for the SAFT EOS than that for PREOS. Overall, the authors
concluded that the predictions from SAFT EOS are more accurate than those from PREOS
for the phase behavior of studied mixtures.
[17]
Al-Anazi, et al. showed a field test of a methanol treatment in the Hatter’s Pond field
where the injection of 1000 barrels of methanol caused an increased in production by 100%
the first four months and 50% thereafter; the improvement is explained to be due to the water
and condensate removal near the wellbore.
[18]
Du, et al. studied the use of solvents to improve the productivity of gas condensate
reservoirs; in studies performed with cores they showed that methanol injection can
substantially improve the gas relative permeability because of the miscible displacement of
the water and condensate. Further, the beneficial effects of the methanol injection are more
pronounced with high initial water saturations. In addition, this method is less expensive than
alternatives such as hydraulic fracturing.
Ahmed et al. [19] studied the effectiveness of injecting lean gas, nitrogen and carbon dioxide
(CO2) using a huff ‘n’ puff injection technique to remove the liquid deposition near the
wellbore. The results of this study show that the gases injected can actually increase the
liquid deposition around the wellbore. Large quantities of gases must be injected in order to
assure liquid evaporation. Those amounts depend on the pressure of the reservoir, the liquid
content of the gas, and the composition of the injection fluid. The study concluded that the
huff ‘n puff method is a viable option because it might reduce the liquid saturation near the
wellbore but no dynamic study was presented to explain how often the treatment must be
performed.
19
Jamaludin, et al. [20] concluded that a mixture of CO2 and propane has the ability to vaporize
the condensate liquids near the wellbore.
2.3 Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance Prediction
The following discussion is taken after an excellent treatment of the subject by Pollard and
Bradley [22]. Predicting the future performance of a gas-condensate reservoir is desirable in
order to establish the optimum reservoir operating plan. Theoretically, several operating
programs are possible:
1. Pressure depletion without any form of pressure maintenance or gas return. For
reservoirs that have active natural water drives, this may be a very efficient and
economical method of operation.
2. The produced fluid can be passed through a gasoline plant where liquids are recovered
and dry gas is returned to the reservoir. This is a form of pressure maintenance and is
called cycling. Cycling maintains reservoir pressure above the phase boundary,
preventing condensation of liquids in the reservoir.
3. The reservoir can be produced by pressure depletion to the economic limit at which
time gas return operation can be initiated with the objective of sweeping the accumulated
liquids from the reservoir. This is usually not economical. [7]
2.3.1Gas-Condensate Reservoir Operation by Pressure Depletion
Depletion Prediction Using Laboratory-Derived Data and Hydrocarbon Analyses
If the liquid condensed in the reservoir during pressure depletion remains immobile,
laboratory-cell studies of pressure-depletion composition history can be used directly to
predict reservoir performance. The initial hydrocarbon pore space is given by
(
Vre = 7758 Ahϕ 1 − S w ) Equation (2.2)
where Vre is in reservoir barrels.
The original wet gas and condensate liquids in place at standard conditions are given by
5.615Vre preTb zb
Gwg = Equation (2.3)
pbTre z re
20
Gwg
GL = (C L ) re Equation (2.4)
10 6
where
Gwg is wet gas in place, scf
GL is condensate (natural-gas liquids) in place, measured at standard conditions, STB
(CL)re is condensate (natural-gas liquids) content of the wet gas at reservoir conditions,
STB/MMscf
If the original reservoir pressure of the condensate reservoir is above the dew point, the
amount of wet gas and natural-gas liquids to be produced between original pressure and dew
point can be predicted by using Equations (2.3) and (2.4) for both the original pressure and
dew-point pressure, the respective differences representing the amounts of wet gas and
condensate production to be expected through the pressure interval involved. [7]
With knowledge of the HC pore volume (Equation (2.2)) and the cumulative wet gas
removed from cell (test data), the progressive removal (cumulative production) of wet gas
from the reservoir as pressure declines can be calculated. A plot of condensate content of the
produced gas as a function of cumulative wet gas produced (both having been determined as
functions of declining reservoir pressure) can be made. From this, actual barrels of
condensate liquids (Gp)L produced during any interval of wet-gas production, or cumulative
for the life of the operation, can be obtained by tabular or graphical integration methods.
The gas and condensate recoveries can be converted to moles as follows:
(G p ) wg
(n p ) wg = Equation (2.5)
379.4
42(G p ) L ρ L
(n p ) L = Equation (2.6)
ML
where
(np)wg is cumulative wet gas produced (recovered) lb-mol
(Gp)wg is cumulative wet gas produced (recovered to abandonment pressure), scf
379.4 is volume equivalent of each lb-mole of the HC liquid mixture, scf / lb-mol
21
(np)L is cumulative condensate liquids produced (recovered), lb-mol
(Gp)L is cumulative volume of condensate liquids produced (recovered to abandonment

pressure), bbl
ρ L is "weight-weighted" average density of all produced condensate liquids, lbm / gal
M L is "mole-weighted" average molecular weight of all produced condensate liquids,

lbm / lb-mol
Residue or dry gas recovered to abandonment pressure, in Mscf, is given by
 (n ) − (n ) 
G p = 379.4 p wg 3 p L  Equation (2.7)
 10 
Recovery efficiencies (fraction) for the wet gas and the condensate (natural-gas liquids) are
given, respectively, by [7]
(G p ) wg
( E R ) wg = Equation (2.8)
Gwg
(G p ) L
( ER ) L = Equation (2.9)
GL
2.3.2 Gas-Condensate Reservoir Operation by Pressure Maintenance or Cycling
Pressure maintenance of a gas condensate reservoir can exist by an active water drive after
moderate reduction of pressure from early production, pressure maintenance through water-
injected operations, injection of gas, and combinations of these. Certain reservoirs may be
encountered from time to time having fluids near their critical points; these may be
candidates for special recovery methods such as the injection of specially tailored gas
compositions to provide miscibility and phase-change processes that could improve recovery
efficiency. [7]
2.3.2.1 Cycling by Dry-Gas Drive
Comparative economics determine whether a gas-condensate reservoir should be produced by

pressure maintenance or by pressure depletion.
22
The objective of using dry-gas injection in gas-condensate reservoirs is to maintain the

reservoir pressure high enough (usually above or near the dew point) to minimize the amount
of retrograde liquid condensation. Dry field gases are miscible with nearly all reservoir gas-
condensate systems, methane normally being the primary constituent of dry field gas. Dry gas
cycling of gas-condensate reservoirs is a special case of miscible-phase displacement of HC
fluids for improving recovery. The displacement of one fluid by another miscible with it is
highly efficient from a microscopic point of view, usually considered 100%. This is one of
the factors explaining the effectiveness and attractiveness of cycling.
Another favorable factor in the early days of cycling was a means for obtaining liquid
recoveries from reservoirs at economic rates while avoiding wastage of the produced gas; at
termination, the operation provided a reservoir of dry gas with potentially greater economic
value. In recent years, the demands for dry gas have risen considerably, and the economic
aspects of retaining dry cycled gas in reservoirs for future use have a changing significance.[7]
2.3.2.2 Efficiencies
Areal sweep efficiency, EA, is the area enclosed by the leading edge of the dry gas front (outer
limit of injected gas) divided by the total area of reservoir that was productive at the start of
cycling. Area of sweep can be estimated from potentiometric model studies or by observing
the locations of wells developing dry-gas content during actual operation.
Pattern (hφS-weighted) efficiency, Ep, is the hydrocarbon pore space enclosed by the
projection (through full reservoir thickness) of the leading edge of the dry gas front, divided
by the total productive hydrocarbon pore space of the reservoir at start of cycling. EA = Ep for
uniform thickness, porosity, interstitial water content, and effective permeability.
Invasion efficiency, EI, is the hydrocarbon pore space invaded (contacted or affected) by the
injected gas, divided by the hydrocarbon pore space enclosed by the projection (through full
reservoir thickness) of the leading edge of the dry gas front. EI is 100% full uniform effective
permeability in a gas-condensate reservoir.
Displacement efficiency, ED, is the volume of wet hydrocarbons swept out of individual pores
divided by the volume of hydrocarbons in the same pores at the start of cycling. Note that
both volumes must be calculated at the same conditions of temperature and pressure. ED is
usually assumed 100% for gas condensate cycling operations.
23
Reservoir cycling efficiency, ER, is the reservoir wet-hydrocarbons recovered during cycling
divided by the reservoir wet-hydrocarbons in place in the productive volume of the reservoir
at the start of cycling. Both figures must be computed at the same temperature and pressure.
The reservoir cycling efficiency is the product of the pattern (hφS-weighted), invasion, and
displacement efficiencies: [7]
ER = EP EI ED Equation (2.10)
2.3.2.3 Ultimate Recovery of Gas and Condensate Liquids by Cycling
When there is no water drive, the calculations are made first for the cycling period and then
for a blow-down period in which the reservoir would be depleted to some arbitrary
abandonment level.
Cycling
1. Determine the total reservoir cycling efficiency (fraction) using Equation(2.10) Ep is

determined from potentiometric model study.
El is estimated from knowledge of how extreme the permeability variation may be.
ED is considered to be unity (100%) when cycling is being carried out at or above the dew
point.
2. Cumulative wet gas produced during cycling period is given by:
(∆GP ) wgm = Gwg ( E R ) m Equation (2.11)
where
(∆Gp)wgm is cumulative reservoir wet gas produced during cycling period, scf
Gwg is wet gas in place, scf
(ER)m is total reservoir cycling efficiency as determined from Equation (2.10)
Subscript m applies to the cycling (pressure-maintenance) period. Note that the reservoir
wet gas (∆Gp)wgm produced during the cycling period is not the total well effluent during
the cycling period. The latter may consist of reservoir wet-gas diluted with increasing
amounts of dry injected gas after breakthrough has occurred in one or more wells. [7]
24
3. Amount of condensate liquids recovered during the cycling period in barrels at standard
conditions is given by
(∆G p ) wgm (C L ) rem

(∆GP ) Lm = Equation (2.12)
10 6
where
(CL)rem is condensate content of the wet gas as the reservoir cycling pressure, measured
at standard conditions, STB / MMscf
Blow-down
1. Estimate of reservoir wet gas to be recovered:
(∆GP ) wgd = (G p ) wg [1 − ( E R ) m ] Equation (2.13)
where
(∆Gp)wgd is cumulative wet gas produced to abandonment pressure for some reservoir
in absence of cycling, Mscf
Subscript d applies to the depletion period.
A table or graph or incremental or cumulative wet-gas production to any pressure can

he prepared by using Equation (2.13) for each pressure step with the corresponding
cumulative wet-gas production for the no-cycling case. Then, as described earlier,
incremental or cumulative condensate liquids production during pressure depletion
after cycling can be obtained by tabular or graphical integration.
Dry Gas
Total residue or dry gas recovered during a combination cycling and pressure
depletion operation can be predicted by using each of Equations (2.5) and (2.6)
separately for the cycling and the depletion phases to obtain total pound-moles of
condensate liquids. Subtracting this latter figure in Equation (2.7) from overall total
wet-gas recovery (properly converted to pound-moles) provides the overall total
residue gas recovery. Fractional recovery efficiencies for the combined cycling and
depletion operation can be calculated by applying Equations (2.8) and (2.9).
25
2.3.3 Economics of Gas-Condensate Recovery
In choosing between pressure depletion and pressure maintenance as operating methods for a
gas-condensate reservoir, detailed analyses must be made for predicting optimum economics.
Cycling and gas-processing procedures require sizable expenditures on plants. Possible
processing methods, whether reservoir fluids are cycled or not, include stabilization,
compression, absorption, and fractionation.
[22]
The following factors by Pollard and Bradley should be considered when selecting an
optimum production method for a gas-condensate reservoir:
1. Reservoir formation and fluid characteristics.
(a) Occurrence or absence of black oil.
(b) Size of reserves of products.
(c) Properties and composition of reservoir hydrocarbons.
(d) Productivities and injectivities of wells.
(e) Permeability variation that controls the degree of bypassing of injected gas.
(f) Degree of natural water drive existing.
2. Reservoir development and operating costs.
3. Plant installation and operating costs.
4. Market demand for gas and liquid petroleum products.
5. Future relative value of the products.
6. Existence or absence of competitive producing conditions between operators (in the

same reservoir).
7. Taxes: severance, ad valorem, and income.
8. Special hazards or risks (limited concession or lease life, political climate, etc.).
9. Overall economic analysis. [7]
26
2.4 Parameters Affecting the Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance
2.4.1 Condensate Banking
Understanding of the multiphase flow phenomena is key to characterization and development

of gas-condensate reservoirs. As the pressure of the wellbore falls below the dew-point of the
condensate fluid, liquid dropout occurs due to retrograde condensation.
This results in liquid saturation buildup, starting from the wellbore and moving away from it
with time. Depending on the value of critical condensate saturation (Scc), the liquid phase
maybe mobile or immobile. Even if the liquid is immobile (Region 2), this may reduce the
relative permeability to gas. However, the magnitude of this is not fully understood. As liquid
dropout continues, the producing wellstream gets leaner as more and heavier components are
deposited in the reservoir.
When the liquid saturation exceeds the critical condensate saturation, both gas and liquid
phases are mobile (Region 3). Moving liquid phase reduces the relative permeability to gas
drastically and hence the well deliverability also decreases. Once the liquid is mobile, the
producing composition (GOR) reaches a constant value (higher GOR than the original fluid).
This phenomenon of condensate dropout is referred to as “condensate banking”.
Condensate banking decreases the gas production and also the dropped out liquid in the
reservoir becomes unrecoverable. Which means that the dropped out liquid cannot be
revaporized and produced, even if the reservoir pressure is increased by gas injection to value
above the dew-point.[23]
2.4.2 Compositional Changes
As the heavier components are dropped out in the reservoir, the composition of the producing
wellstream changes. The composition changes once the pressure is below the dew point
pressure (Pdew ). The overall composition in the Region 1 and 2 will be richer than the original
reservoir fluid. [23]
2.5 Relative Permeability
Well deliverability is an important issue in the development of many gas condensate

reservoirs. When the well bottom hole flowing pressure falls below the dew point, condensate
liquid builds up around the well bore, causing a reduction in gas permeability and well
27
productivity. The liquid saturation may reach values as high as 50 or 60 percent, and the well
deliverability may be reduced by up to an order of magnitude. The loss in productivity due to
condensate banking effect may be significant, even in very lean gas condensate reservoirs.
Most of the pressure drop from condensate blockage occurs within a few feet of the well
bore, where flow rates are very high. There is a growing body of evidence from laboratory
core flood experiments to suggest that gas condensate relative permeabilities increase at high
flow rates, and that these changes can be correlated against the capillary number [24], [25], [26], [27].
The capillary number is a dimensionless number which measures the relative strength of
viscous and capillary forces. The increase in mobility at high capillary number is sometimes
termed ‘velocity stripping’. There are several gas condensate fields where simulation with
conventional relative permeability models has been found to underestimate well productivity
[28], [29], [30]
. To obtain a good match between simulation results and observed data, it was
necessary to increase the mobility in the near well region, either empirically or through a
model of the velocity stripping effect. Velocity stripping can increase well productivity
significantly, and in some cases may eliminate most of the effect of condensate blockage.
2.5.1 Velocity-Dependent Relative Permeabilities
Saevareid et al. [31] conducted steady state core flood experiments for gas condensate fluids
and measured gas and condensate relative permeability as a function of gas-oil interfacial
tension and velocity. The authors showed significant improvement in gas and condensate
relative permeability with capillary number (i.e. Nc = k∆P/σL).
Ayyalasomayajula et al. [32] conducted steady state core flood experiments for gas condensate
fluids and measured gas and oil relative permeability as a function of capillary number for
several different reservoir rocks and for a wide range of krg/kro values. The authors showed
significant improvement in gas relative permeability with capillary number for all the rock
types.
The relative permeability measurements for gas condensate fluids done by the various authors
have been analyzed by expressing gas and condensate relative permeability as a function of
krg/kro and capillary number. Figures 2.9 and 2.10 show gas relative permeability reported by
the various authors as a function of capillary number at krg/kro=1 and krg/kro=10 respectively.
The data reported by all authors show an increase in gas relative permeability with capillary
number; however the increase with capillary number is not consistent. Fig 2.11 shows the gas
28
relative permeability reported by various authors expressed a function of krg/kro for a range of
capillary numbers. Again the data reported by various authors show an increase in gas
relative permeability with krg/kro ratio. The figures also show the comparison of the measured
data with the gas relative permeability calculated using capillary number dependent relative
permeability model by Pope et al. [33]. The results show that most of the measured data are
scattered around the gas relative permeability curve calculated from the model, however
some measured gas relative permeability data are off from the calculations, which is probably
because of the differences in rock type and initial water saturations. The capillary numbers
which are relevant for well deliverability depend on the flow rate, fluid type and well bottom
hole pressure, but as a general rule, values between 10-6 and 10-3 are most important.
Fig 2.9 Gas relative permeability expressed as a function of capillary number for krg/kro=1 [34]
Fig 2.10 Gas relative permeability expressed as a function of capillary number for krg/kro=10. [34]
29
Fig 2.11 Gas relative permeability expressed as a function of krg/kro. [34]
2.5.2 Velocity-Dependent Relative Permeabilities Calculation
One of the non_Darcy effects which is considered most of the time in high velocity flow is
Forchheimer correction; which takes into account the inertia effects due to high velocity that
may occur in high permeability regions, such as fractures. For a homogeneous reservoir the
model writes (cgs units):
dP  µ 
2
q + βρ  
q
=  Equation (2.14)
dx  Kk r A   A
where
q is the volumetric flow rate
K is the rock permeability
kr is the relative permeability
A is the area through which flow occurs
µ is the fluid viscosity
ρ is the fluid density
β is the Forchheimer parameter
dP/dx is the pressure gradient normal to the area
In the above discussion the Forchheimer parameter (β) is a constant which is calculated from
one of two models implemented in ECLIPSE 300.
30
Model 1:
ap
βp =
φ S
bp cp
p (Kk )rvp
dp Equation (2.15)
Model 2:
β p = β dp S p (Kk rvp )d
cp p
Equation (2.16)
The set of parameters (ap, bp, cp, dp) or (βp, cp, dp) are experimentally determined.
At high gas velocities, in addition to the Forchheimer correction, it also possible to take into
account more complex effects by introducing a velocity dependence of the relative
permeabilities. The model may make the oil and gas relative permeabilities functions of
Capillary Number (CN) and/or the Forchheimer parameter.
These models are intended for gas condensate systems where the expected reduction in
Productivity Index (PI) when a well bottom hole pressure drops below the fluid dew point
pressure has not been observed in practice. Several theories have been suggested as to why
the gas relative permeability in particular remains relatively high but the current consensus
seems to imply that a combination of low Interfacial Tensions (IFT’s) at reservoir conditions
and high velocities as flow converges towards a producer are the main driving forces.
Normal engineering practice is to combine IFT and velocity through the so-called Capillary
Number: several alternative definitions are possible and three are shown below. Of course,
where flow velocities are high, turbulence effects as predicted by the Forchheimer model
become significant and a model for this effect has been developed as part of this overall
scheme. These modes do not work with black oil runs since they are intended for gas
condensate systems.
2.5.3 Capillary Number Model
The CN model has two effects on the gas and oil relative permeabilities, namely as the CN
increases:
• It reduces the residual saturations
• It changes the relative permeability from the user-specified (immiscible) saturation curves
towards an internally-generated miscible curve.
31
The CN is calculated from one of three alternate models. For phase p = (oil, gas)
• Capillary number model 1:
ν g µg
N cp(1) = Equation (2.17)
σ
Kk rvp ∆Pp
N cp( 2 ) = Equation (2.18)
σ
∆Pp
N cp( 3) = (2φS p Kk rvp )2
1
Equation (2.19)
σ
Sp is the normalized phase saturation (more details below)
∆Pp is the pressure drop of the pth phase in the direction of flow
µg is the gas viscosity
υg is the gas velocity in the direction of flow
σ is the gas-oil surface tension
krvp is the CN-modified relative permeability of the pth phase (more details
below)
The CN-modified relative permeabilities krvp are calculated at the previous time-step. We will
discuss this last point in more detail shortly.
Capillary Number Model 1 for the oil and gas phases depends only on the gas velocity and
gas viscosity. This apparent discrepancy has been verified by experiment.
Given a phase the CN calculated from Equations (2.17), (2.18), (2.19) and Normalized
Capillary Number (NCN) are defined by:
N cbp
N cnp = Equation (2.20)
N cp
32
where Ncbp is the phase Base Capillary Number (BCN). The phase BCN is a lower threshold
value below which the CN has no effect on the phase relative permeabilities. As with all the
parameters in this and the Forchheimer models, the phase BCN should be determined
experimentally for the reservoir and fluid of interest. If this data is not available, it may be
estimated using the following procedure.
2.5.4 Base Capillary Number Estimation
Generally, the rock or base relative permeability curves used to describe the flow of gas and
oil within the reservoir will have been generated at or near ambient conditions. Ideally, the
phase CNs will have been measured from these laboratory analyses and are reported to you;
in practice, this is rarely the case. At ambient conditions, the reservoir gas and condensate are
as different in composition as it is possible to get; therefore, the gas-oil surface tension is
likely to be its maximum. In addition, the low pressure gas viscosity is likely to be at its
minimum. Using PVTi, it should be possible to perform a Constant Volume Depletion (CVD)
experiment on the reservoir fluid, starting from the dew point and ending at the likely
abandonment pressure. The values of the gas-oil surface tension and gas viscosity can then be
taken from this final stage pressure.
Away from the wells, fluid velocities rarely exceed 10 ft/day [~ 3.5×10-5 m/s]. This value for
gas velocity along with the low pressure gas-oil surface tension and gas viscosity can be used
in Equation (2.17) to estimate the oil and gas BCN in the absence of experimental data.
2.5.5 The Effect of CN on Residual Saturation
Experimental evidence suggests that as the CN rises above the BCN, the residual saturation is
reduced. In the CN model implemented here, this effect is modeled through the use of the
saturation scaling parameter, Xp, where:
X p = 1 − exp(− m p N cnp ) Equation (2.21)
where mp is, and must be, an experimentally determined parameter. Therefore, given a phase
residual saturation Srbp determined from routine Special Core Analysis (SCAL), the effect of
the CN dependency is to change the residual saturation to:
Srbp →XpSrbp Equation (2.22)
33
Note if the mp-parameter is set to zero, it has the effect of setting that phase residual
saturation to zero regardless of the value of the phase CN.
2.5.6 The Effect of CN on Relative Permeability Curves
We can construct a miscible or straight-line relative permeability curve from:
k rmp =
(S − X S )
p p rbp
(1 − X S ) p rbp
Equation (2.23)
where Sp is the normalized or HCPV saturation of the pth phase, which is related to the true
saturation Sp(3p) by:
S p(3 p )
Sp = Equation (2.24)
1 − Sw
where Sw is the water saturation.
The user-input base relative permeability curves, krbp, are modified because of the change in
residual saturation through Equation (2.24). The CN-modified relative permeability curve for
phase p is now calculated from:
1/ n
(
k rvp = N cnp p k rbp + 1 − N cnp p k rmp
1/ n
) Equation (2.25)
where np is given by:
n p = n1 p S p2 p
n
Equation (2.26)
and (n1p, n2p)are, and must be, experimentally determined parameters. Therefore relative
permeability curve changes from user-specified (immiscible) to miscible curve (internally
generated) as shown in Fig 2.12.
34
Immiscible Miscible
Kro Kro
Krg Krg
Soi Soi
CN at or below BCN Very high CN
Fig 2.12 Miscible and Immiscible relative permeability curves
2.5.7 Alternative Model for Capillary Number Effects
An alternative model for CN effects in gas relative permeability has been implemented
following some of the ideas introduced in the work of Whitson, Fevang and Saevareid [35].
This model is designed for near wellbore flows exhibiting condensate ‘blockage’ type
behavior in a gas condensate reservoir.
This model is more straightforward than the above in that:
• Only the gas relative permeability is modified
• There is no effect on residual saturations
• There is no lower threshold or base capillary number value. (Below which the CN has no
effect on the gas relative permeabilities.)
• It depends on only two parameters, both of which have default values.
In the implementation in ECLIPSE 300, the CN-modified gas relative permeability, krg, is an
admixture of a straight-line miscible relative permeability, krgM, and the user-input
immiscible, rock relative permeability, krgI; this admixture is controlled by a CN dependent
transition function, fI:
k rg = f I krgI + (1 − f I )k rgM Equation (2.27)
where krgI is the relative permeability curve at low capillary number, and krgM is a straight
line. fI is an interpolation function, which can take values between 0 (at very high capillary
number) and 1 (at very low capillary number). A similar expression is used for the oil relative
permeability, although the parameters in the interpolation function are usually different for
35
the oil and gas phases. To avoid discontinuities in the critical saturation, the end points on
both the base and miscible curves are usually scaled to a value of fISgc.
The transition function depends on the gas capillary number, Ncg, and is given by:
1
fI =
(α.N )cg
n
+1
Equation (2.28)
where
k rgM + k rgI
α = α 0 / k rg with k rg = Equation (2.29)
2
and α0 is a constant depending only on rock properties:
αc 0
α =
0
Equation (2.30)
K .φ
where K is the rock permeability and φ is the porosity. The gas capillary number is calculated
from Model 1 using a pore gas velocity:
vg
v pg = Equation (2.31)
φ .(1 − S w )
This model depends on two parameters: the exponent n in Equation (2.28) and the coefficient
αc0 in Equation (2.30). These parameters are defaulted to 0.65 and 1.04 respectively. This
alternative model for CN effects in gas flows cannot of course be used at the same time as the
original CN model for gas flows. It can, however, be used in conjunction with the original
model for CN effects in oil flows and the Forchheimer model for inertial effects in oil and gas
flows.
2.6 Methods to Reduce Condensate Liquid Dropout
Several methods have been proposed and investigated to lower liquid dropout and its
subsequent problems. The most common approach can be divided in three categories, based
on the idea behind them.
36
2.6.1 Gas Condensate Fluid Phase Behavior Alteration
Injecting miscible fluids can alter gas phase behavior and lift dew point pressure of the gas
condensate. Dependant on the injecting fluid, the miscibility and performance of operation
may be different.
Luo et al.33 carried out experiments on an actual rich gas condensate fluid to investigate
condensate recovery and quantitatively determine the revaporization efficiency of retrograde
condensate by lean gas injection. Their analysis of the produced condensate phase shows that
a greater percentage of the heavier components are vaporized and recovered when gas is
injected above the saturation pressure compared to when gas is injected below the saturation
pressure. Their results also show that cumulative condensate recovery is higher when
injection is done above the saturation pressure. The authors also observed that during gas
injection at the reservoir pressure, the mass transfer between the dry-gas injected and the
original gas condensate leads to a rise in dew point pressure and earlier retrograde
condensation, which may reduce the condensate recovery to some extent.
As previously depicted, Ahmed et al.19 studied the effectiveness of lean gas, N2, and CO2
Huff ‘n’ Puff injection technique. They concluded that pure CO2 is the most effective gas in
reducing the liquid dropout as compared to others when injected at the same pressure.
Marokane et al.34 studied the injection of produced gas to remove the condensate bank for
lean and rich gas condensate fluids. The authors found that to achieve maximum recovery for
a lean gas condensate, produced gas should be injected after the average reservoir pressure
around a producing well falls below the maximum liquid dropout pressure. For rich gas
condensate, gas injection is more efficient when the produced gas is injected at a pressure
greater than the maximum liquid dropout pressure.
2.6.2 Reducing draw down pressure
Most of the pressure drop, which causes liquid to be condensed from flowing gas, occurs near
the wellbore. Drilling horizontal wells and Hydraulic fracturing can be used to enhance gas
productivity by significantly increasing the area available to flow. This allows the well to be
produced at a higher bottom hole pressure for longer periods of time thereby delaying the
onset of condensate formation around the wellbore.
37
Al-Hashim et al.37 performed a simulation study to investigate the improvement of PI in gas

condensate wells, both above and below the dew point, due to fracturing. The authors show
that hydraulic fracturing increases the time at which the dew point pressure is reached during
depletion as compared to the non- fractured base case.
Kumar36 studied the effect of an idealized vertical fracture in a gas condensate well. The
author predicted that for two-phase flow of gas and condensate, the productivity of a
fractured well could be as high as eight times the productivity of an unfractured well.
2.6.3 Maintaining reservoir pressure above the dew point
Water and dry gas injection can help the reservoir to maintain the pressure above the dew
point for longer period.
Ahmed et al.19 analyzed the effect of water flooding in gas condensate reservoirs and
compared it with gas injection. Their results showed improvement in gas and condensate
production rates for both gas and water injection. Although gas injection showed higher
condensate recovery factors, the authors suggest that gas injection may not be economical
due to the large initial investment required, higher operating costs, and delay of gas sales.
They further show that, if water injection is to be used in gas condensate reservoirs, the
reservoir should be blown-down before water invades the majority of the producing wells and
increases the water cut. Blow-down also helps re-mobilize some of the gas trapped by the
injected water.
Cullick et al.35 performed simulation and experimental studies to investigate the efficiency of
WAG to improve recovery from gas condensate reservoirs. They proposed to use WAG
instead of dry gas injection in the full pressure maintenance process and also as an alternative
to early blow-down. Their results show an improvement of about 28% to 54% in total
recovery over that with continuous gas injection for full pressure maintenance.
38
Chapter 3
Swelling Test and Constant

Volume Depletion Simulation
Analysis
39
Chapter 3 Swelling Test and Constant Volume Depletion Simulation Analysis
3.1 Introduction
The PVT study is necessary to determine the type of hydrocarbon reservoir fluid and its
properties. There are several experiments that can be done on a reservoir fluid sample. The
required information determines the type and amount of experiment. Generally, three type of
experiment are carried out on the hydrocarbon reservoir fluids:
a) Preliminary Experiments
Usually, the relative density and gas oil ratio of produce hydrocarbon fluid are
determined.
b) Formal Experiments
These experiments characterize the hydrocarbon fluids and include:
Determination of fluid composition, Molecular weight, viscosity, compressibility,

saturation pressure, formation volume factor, solubility, differential liberation,
constant volume depletion and constant composition expansion.
c) Special Experiments
In addition to preliminary and formal experiments, done in standard form, maybe

some special experiments are required. One of these special experiments is Swelling
Test. This test is usually performed in the gas condensate reservoir to predict the
amount of change in saturation pressure and reservoir fluid volume increments. The
information obtained from this test is necessary for gas recycling in the gas
condensate reservoir in order to increase the recovery.
If this information is not available the Equation of State (EOS) is a suitable tool to
achieve these data and phase behavior prediction.
In this chapter the Swelling Test procedure is described and then the required experiments for
the real case are simulated by PVTi.
3.2 Swelling Test
A swelling test (or swelling experiment) starts with reservoir oil at its saturation point in a
PVT cell kept at the reservoir temperature. A known molar amount of injection gas is
transferred into the PVT cell. The pressure is increased, maintaining a constant temperature
until all the gas has dissolved. When the last gas bubble disappears, the new cell mixture (oil
40
+ injected gas) is at its saturation point. The pressure and the swelled volume are recorded.
More gas is injected, and the pressure increased until all gas is in solution in the oil. This
process is repeated for a number of stages. The swelling experiment is illustrated in Fig 3.1.
A swelling experiment is carried out to investigate how a reservoir fluid will react to gas
injection. To the extent the gas dissolves in the oil, the oil volume will increase (the oil will
swell) and the saturation point of the oil will increase. The increase in volume and saturation
pressure is key factors in determining whether gas injection will result in an enhanced
recovery.
The information obtained from this test is:
a) The relation between saturation pressure and injected gas volume.
b) Volume of saturated fluid mixture compares to initial saturated fluid volume.
Lean Gas
Ps Ps (Ps)new
(Vsat)orig
(Vsat)new
A B C
Fig 3.1 Swelling Test Schematic

The swelling test procedure includes the below steps:
Step 1) the sample of hydrocarbon mixture with known overall composition (Zi)
enters the transparent PVT cell at the reservoir saturation pressure and temperature.
(Fig 3.1.A)
Step 2) a definite volume of gas (with same composition as proposed injection gas) is
added to the hydrocarbon mixture as shown in Fig 3.1.B. Then the pressure of cell is
increased until a single phase system is obtained. The swelling factor is
Vsat
Vrel = Equation (3.1)
(Vsat ) Orig .
where
41
Vrel is Swelling Factor (S.F)

Vsat is new saturated volume
(Vsat)orig is initial saturated volume.
Step 3) repeat the step 2 until the molar percent of injected gas in the fluid sample or
the ratio of injected gas per one barrel of fluid sample reaches a prespecified value.
(T.Ahmed, 1989) [2]
The change of pressure and volume of saturated reservoir fluid per different volume
of injected gas can be obtained from this experiment.
By this information one can estimate the best type of injection gas and the correspond
injection volume according to this criteria:
The most suitable injection gas is one that has the maximum saturation pressure
reduction at a specified injection volume.
3.3 Simulation of Swelling Test for Initial Fluid Sample of the Real Case
The swelling test is required to determine the best type of injection fluid, volume of injection
and optimum saturation pressure. Unfortunately this information is not provided by the
company in charge of developing the field.
Perforce it is decided to use the match between the experimental data obtained from well S2-
one of the very important wells of the field- and EOS for Swelling Test Simulation.
To determine the best type of injection gas three type of gases are selected:
Nitrogen, Carbon dioxide and the First Stage Separator Gas of the Field (the composition of
this gas is predicted by Eclipse-300 according to pressure and temperature of separator
Table 3.1.)
Table 3.1 First stage separator gas composition
42
Table 3.2 Initial fluid composition (based on real case data)
Table 3.3 Grouping component/subcomponent of Initial fluid
Table 3.2 shows reservoir fluid composition of the real case initial. Because of high number
of components and simulation problems, this composition is obtained by grouping and tuning
the experimental data together with EOS. Table 3.3 shows the grouping information of the
initial reservoir fluid.
[2]
According to T. Ahmed study in 1988 six injection volumes are proposed say 250, 500,
750, 1000, 1500 and 2000 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid. For each injection gas these six volumes
are investigated for injection purposes.
3.3.1 Simulation Results for Swelling Test by Nitrogen (N2)
First of all the Nitrogen gas is studied for injection purposes. The results are shown in
Fig 3.2 and Table 3.4.
43
Table 3.4 Swelling Test results of N2 injection (well S2)
Fig 3.2 shows that the higher the injection volume of N2 the lower the saturation pressure and
the higher Swelling Factor.
The reduction in saturation pressure means that by pressure reduction due to production the
condensate is formed at the pressure lower than initial state. e.g. at injection volume of 2000
scf/bbl of reservoir fluid, the saturation pressure reduces from initial state of 5200 psia to
3890 psia. Also the swelling factor at this volume is 3.29 (i.e. the ratio of mixture saturation
volume of N2 and reservoir fluid to initial saturation volume is 3.29. this volume increment is
due to lightening the reservoir fluid by N2 injection.
Swelling Test (N2 injection)
6000 3.50
5000 3.00
4000
Psat.(Psia)
2.50
Psat
S.F
3000
S.F
2.00
2000
1.50
1000
0 1.00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
GOR(MSCF/STB)
Figure 3.2. Swelling Test for N2 injection at 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500 and 2000 scf/bbl of reservoir
fluid
44
3.3.2 Simulation Results for Swelling Test by Carbon dioxide (CO2)
In this section CO2 gas is studied for injection purposes. The results are shown in Fig 3.3 and
Table 3.5.
Fig 3.3 demonstrates that by increasing the injection volume of CO2 the saturation pressure
reduces and the Swelling Factor increases.
For injection volume of 2000 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid, the saturation pressure reduces from
initial state of 5200 psia to 1793 psia. Also the swelling factor at this volume is 5.54 due to
lightening the reservoir fluid by CO2injection.
Table 3.5 Swelling Test results of CO2 injection (well S2)
Swelling Test (CO2 Injection)
6000 6.00
5.50
5000
5.00
4000 4.50
Psat.(psia)
4.00
Psat
S.F
3000 3.50
S.F
3.00
2000
2.50
2.00
1000
1.50
0 1.00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
GOR(MSCF/STB)
Figure 3.3 Swelling Test for CO2 injection at 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500 and 2000 scf/bbl of reservoir
fluid
45
3.3.3 Simulation Results for Swelling Test by First Stage Separator Gas
Finally the First Stage Separator Gas is studied for injection purposes. The results are shown
in Fig 3.4 and Table 3.6. As the two pervious cases by increasing the injection volume of gas
the saturation pressure reduces and the Swelling Factor increases.
Table 3.6 Swelling Test results of Separator Gas Recycling (well S2)
For injection volume of 2000 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid, the saturation pressure reduces from
initial state of 5200 psia to 2819 psia. Also the swelling factor at this volume is 3.88.
Swelling Test(Sep. Gas Recycling)
6000 4.50
5000 4.00
3.50
4000
Psat. (psia)
3.00
Psat. (psia)
S.F
3000
S.F
2.50
2000
2.00
1000 1.50
0 1.00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
GOR(MSCF/STB)
Fig 3.4 Swelling Test for Separator Gas Recycling at 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500 and 2000 scf/bbl of
reservoir fluid.
3.3.4 Comparison of Swelling Test Results
Fig 3.5 compares the results for three type of injection gas used here.
46
As shown in this figure CO2 gas has the maximum increase in swelling factor and reduction
in saturation pressure with increasing in injected gas volume. Separator gas has the second
place and Nitrogen has the last place.
Swelling Test
6000 6.00
5.50
5000
5.00
Psat , N2
4.50
4000 Psat,CO2
Psat.(psi)
4.00
Psat,Sep. Gas
S.F
3000 3.50
S.F,N2
3.00
S.F,CO2
2000
2.50 S.F, Sep. Gas
2.00
1000
1.50
0 1.00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
GOR(MSCF/STB)
Figure 3.5 Comparison of Swelling Test results for three type of injection gas.
3.4 Constant Volume Depletion Test Simulation
The constant-volume depletion experiment is plotted in Fig 3.6. A fixed amount of reservoir
fluid (gas condensate or volatile oil) is transferred to a cell kept at a fixed temperature, often
the reservoir temperature. The volume of the cell may be varied. This may be accomplished
by moving a piston up and down. The cell is equipped with a valve on top allowing depletion
of gas during the experiment.
Fig 3.6 Schematic representation of a constant-volume depletion experiment.[36]
47
The experiment is started at the saturation point. The saturation point pressure, Psat, and the
saturation point volume, Vsat, are recorded. The volume is increased, which will make the
pressure decrease, and two separate phases are formed in the cell. The mixture volume is
subsequently decreased to Vsat by letting out the excess gas through the valve on top,
maintaining a constant pressure. The molar amount of gas depleted as a percentage of the gas
initially in the cell and the liquid volume in the cell as a percentage of the saturation point
volume are recorded.
The compressibility factor at cell conditions and the molar composition of the depleted gas
are measured. The volume is increased again, the excess volume is depleted and so on until
the pressure is somewhere between 100 and 40 bar.
The constant-volume depletion experiment has been designed to gain knowledge about the
changes with time in PVT properties of the produced well streams from gas condensate and
volatile oil reservoirs. The reservoir is seen as a tank of fixed volume and at a fixed
temperature. During production the pressure decreases because material is removed from the
field, while the volume and temperature remain (almost) constant. When the pressure reaches
the saturation point, the mixture splits into a gas and a liquid phase. If all the production
comes from the gas zone, the mixture produced will have the same composition as the gas
removed from the cell in a constant volume depletion experiment. This gas will gradually
become less enriched in heavy hydrocarbons, and less liquid will be produced from the
topside separation plant.
The amount of reservoir fluid removed from the reservoir from the time the pressure is P1
until it has decreased to P2 corresponds to the amount of gas removed through the valve on
top of the PVT cell in the depletion stage at pressure P2. [36]
3.4.1 Constant Volume Depletion Test for Nitrogen Injection
In the first stage the amount of liquid dropout at different stage of pressure reduction is
investigated. Then the nitrogen is injected at six volumes of 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500 and
2000 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid and the pressure reduction is calculated and compared with
initial state.
Fig 3.7 shows the liquid dropout for different injection volume versus pressure reduction.
48
CVD Test ( Liquid Saturation ,N2 Injection)

0.0160
0.0140
Liquid drop-out (Fraction)
N2-250 SCF
0.0120
N2-500 SCF
0.0100 N2-750 SCF
0.0080 N2-1000 SCF

N2-1500 SCF
0.0060
N2-2000 SCF
0.0040 Original Fluid
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)
Fig 3.7 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for N2 injection
As illustrated in this figure increasing the injection volume decreases the amount of liquid
dropout relative to initial state. In the best case, if 2000 scf/bbl is injected liquid dropout
reduces from 1.47% to 0.22%.
3.4.2 Constant Volume Depletion Test for CO2 Injection
Constant volume depletion test for different injection volume of CO2 gas is investigated and
for each injection volume is simulated. The results are shown in Fig 3.8.
49
CVD Test (Liquid Saturation ,CO2 Injection)

0.0160
0.0140
0.0120 CO2-250 SCF

CO2-500 SCF
0.0100
CO2-750 SCF
0.0080 CO2-1000 SCF
CO2-1500 SCF
0.0060
CO2-2000 SCF
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)
Fig 3.8 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for CO2 injection
This figure shows that increasing the injection volume has the salient effect on liquid
dropout. In the best case, if 2000 scf/bbl is injected liquid dropout reduces from 1.47% to
0.08%.
3.4.3 Constant Volume Depletion Test for Separator Gas Recycling
In this section the first stage separator gas at different injection volume of 250, 500, 750,
1000, 1500 and 2000 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid is used and the results are shown in Fig 3.9.
As shown in this figure increasing the injection volume causes the reduction in liquid dropout
where in the best case reduces from 1.47% to 0.23%.
Constant volume depletion test shows that the liquid dropout reduces for injection of all three
types of the gases applied here. But one important point that must be considered is:
What volume of gas can be injected in the reservoir scale in continuous and practical
manner?
50
CVD Test (Liquid Saturation , Separator Gas Recycling)
0.0160
0.0140
Liquid drop-out (Fration)
0.0120
Sep. Gas-250 SCF
0.0100 Sep. Gas-500 SCF
Sep. Gas-750 SCF
0.0080
Sep. Gas-1000 SCF
0.0060 Sep. Gas-1500 SCF
Sep. Gas-2000 SCF
0.0040
Original Fluid
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)
Fig 3.9 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for separator gas recycling.
3.5 Study of Injection Gas Effect on the Liquid Dropout

In this section a comparison between three types of gases for each injection volume are
prepared in order to determination of the best type of injection gas. This is done through Fig
3.10 to Fig 3.15.
Liquid Saturation
0.0160
0.0140
0.0120

N2-250 SCF
0.0080
CO2-250 SCF
0.0060 Sep. Gas-250 SCF
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Presuure (psia)
Fig 3.10 The effect of N2, CO2 and Separator Gas injection on Liquid Dropout at injection volume of
250 scf/STB
51
Liquid Saturation
0.0160
0.0140
0.0120

N2-500 SCF
0.0080
CO2-500 SCF
0.0060 Sep. Gas-500 SCF
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)
500 scf/STB
Liquid Saturation
0.0160
0.0140
0.0120

N2-750 SCF
0.0080
CO2-750 SCF
0.0060 Sep. Gas-750 SCF
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)
750 scf/STB
52
Liquid Saturation
0.0160
0.0140
Liquid drop-out (Fration)
0.0120

N2-1000 SCF
0.0080
CO2-1000 SCF
0.0060 Sep. Gas-1000 SCF
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)
1000 scf/STB
Liquid Saturation
0.0160
0.0140
0.0120
0.0100 Origin Fluid
N2-1500 SCF
0.0080 CO2-1500 SCF
0.0060 Sep. Gas-1500 SCF
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (psia)
1500 scf/STB
53
Liquid Saturation
0.0160
0.0140
0.0120

N2-2000 SCF
0.0080
CO2-2000 SCF
0.0060 Sep. Gas-2000 SCF
0.0040
0.0020
0.0000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure(psia)
2000 scf/STB
It can be seen by comparison that the best type of injection gas is CO2. First Stage Separator
Gas is the next and the Nitrogen is the worst gas for injection between these types of gases.
That is if CO2 gas is injected in the reservoir fluid the amount of liquid dropout for this case
is lesser than two other gases.
It should be noted that:
a) All of these results are obtained for PVT cell and cannot be generalized for porous
media because firstly, in swelling test, perfect mixing and equilibrium are assumed
and secondly, some phenomena such as relative permeability changes, capillary
number, Darcy effect and effect of pressure increase due to the same volume injection
in other parts of porous media are not considered. To study these effects a synthetic
model is built and results are investigated in chapter 4.
b) PVTi simulator gives the results for gas injection at saturation pressure of initial
reservoir fluid. But the current reservoir pressure of the real case is less than initial
54
state. Thus, according to current reservoir fluid condition and prediction of new
composition, the best type of injection gas and ideal injection volume must be studied.
3.6 Investigation of Suitable Choice for Current Reservoir Fluid
Up to now, all tests are for the initial reservoir fluid. For applying the results to current
reservoir condition the same scenario must be done on the current reservoir fluid. So, in this
section the effect of gas injection on the current reservoir fluid for three types of gases are
studied. The initial reservoir fluid composition is selected from well S2 samples.
Because no test is carried out for current condition of well S2, the simulation study is applied
to predict the current reservoir fluid composition. But another problem is that the components
of sample taken from well S2 are grouped to be used in compositional simulator. Therefore, it
is not recommended to use this sample for PVTi input because of simulation error.
Due to lack of information from the real case fluid sample instead of well S2 sample, the
well S14 sample (completed in another formation of the field) is used. This sample is
compatible with samples taken from the aforementioned first formation.
It does not mean that this sample data is used for current reservoir condition, because the
entire data about grouped components, critical properties, acentric factors and binary
interaction coefficients are available for simulator from start point to end of simulation.
Actually simulator treats the unknown components as known components, because it has
their properties. So, using the well S14 sample is limited to PVTi simulator due to its
limitation.
3.6.1 Selection of Best Injection Gas and Optimized Injection Volume for Current
Reservoir Fluid
Unfortunately, the swelling test was not carried out on the well S14 sample. So, after tuning
the experimental data by equation of state, the swelling and constant volume depletion tests
are simulated.
In the gas condensate reservoir the dew point pressure reduces as the production proceeds.
For well S14 fluid the dew point at 250 °F is 3650 psia and the liquid dropout in constant
55
volume depletion is 0.56% for current condition whereas the dew point of initial sample (well
S2) was 5120 psia and liquid dropout was 1.48%.This is due to production of considerable
amount of condensate from the reservoir.
For prediction of best injection gas all the steps, implemented on the initial sample, are
performed for current reservoir sample. All the new results are coinciding with the pervious
results.
3.6.2 Swelling Test Simulation Results for Current Fluid by N2 Injection
Again N2 is injected at the six injection volumes. Nitrogen injection has the considerable
effect on the liquid dropout reduction in such a way that the condition of mixture of injected
gas and reservoir sample (at injection volume of 750 scf/bbl) in the phase envelope falls in
the single-phase region. It means that this mixture does not form any liquid dropout and has
the Dry Gas behavior.
Fig 3.16 and Table 3.7 shows the results of this test for injection volume of 200 and 500
scf/bbl. Fig 3.16 demonstrate that the higher the injection volume the lower the saturation
pressure and the higher the swelling factor.
The saturation pressure drops from 3665 to 3404 psia and the swelling factor become 1.64 for
injection volume of 500 scf/bbl.
Table 3.7 Swelling Test results of N2 injection (well S14)
56
Swelling Test (N2 Injectin)
3700 1.70
3650 1.60
Saturation Pressure (psia)
3600 1.50
Swelling Factor
3550 1.40 Psat
3500 1.30 S.F
3450 1.20
3400 1.10
3350 1.00
0 0.25 0.5
GOR(MSCF/STB)
Fig 3.16 Swelling Test for N2 injection at 250, 500scf/bbl of reservoir fluid.
3.6.3 Swelling Test Simulation Results for Current Fluid by CO2 Injection
In this part the CO2 gas is injected at the same six injection volumes and changes of
saturation pressure and swelling factor are recorded. Again CO2 has the considerable effect
on the liquid dropout reduction in such a way that for injection volume of 500 scf/bbl the
mixture behaves like a dry gas.
Fig 3.17 and Table 3.8 shows the results of this test for injection volume of 250 scf/bbl. The
saturation pressure drops from 3665 to 2268 and swelling factor 1.84 for injection volume of
250 scf/bbl.
Table 3.8 Swelling Test results of CO2 injection (well SA14)
57
Swelling Test (CO2 Injection)
4000 2.00
3500
3000 1.75
Swelling Factor
2500
Psat
2000 1.50
S.F
1500
1000 1.25
500
0 1.00
0 0.25
GOR (MSCF/STB)
Fig 3.17 Swelling Test for CO2 injection at 250 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid.
3.6.4 Swelling Test Simulation Results for Current Fluid by Separator Gas Recycling
At the third stage the First Stage Separator Gas is studied for injection. The saturation
pressure and swelling factor changes are investigated at different six injection volumes. The
injection of this gas has a significant effect on reduction of liquid dropout. In such a way that
for injection volume of 750 scf/bbl the mixture does not have any liquid dropout for different
pressure. Fig 3.18 and Table 3.9 show the results for injection volume of 500 scf/bbl
(maximum injection volume) the saturation pressure drop from initial state of 3665 psia to
2363 psia and swelling factor become 2.15.
Table 3.9 Swelling Test results of separator gas recycling (well S14)
58
Swelling Test (Sep. Gas Recycling)
4000 2.4000
3500 2.2000
3000
2.0000
Swelling Factor
2500
1.8000 Psat
2000
1.6000 S.F
1500
1.4000
1000
500 1.2000
0 1.0000
0 0.25 0.5
GOR (MSCF/STB)
Fig 3.18 Swelling Test for separator gas recycling at 250, 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid
3.6.5 Comparison of Results for Three Types of Injection Gases
Fig 3.19 compares the results for three types of gases at injection volumes of 250 and 500
scf/bbl. As shown in figure injection of each gas has significant effect on saturation pressure
reduction in such a way that for injection volume above 500 scf/bbl the mixture behaves like
a dry gas. For CO2 this phenomenon happens for injection volumes above 250 scf/bbl. The
sequence of most effective gas for liquid dropout reduction is CO2, first stage separator gas
and N2.
59
Swelling Test
4000 2.80
3500 2.60
3000 2.40
Psat.(N2)
Swelling Factor
2.20 Psat.(CO2)
2500
2.00 Psat(sep. gas)
2000
1.80 S.F(N2)
1500 S.F(CO2)
1.60
1000 1.40 S.F(sep. gas)
500 1.20
0 1.00
0 0.25 0.5
GOR (MSCF/STB)
Fig 3.19 Comparison of Swelling Test results for three types of injection gases for injection volumes
of 250, 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid
3.7 Constant Volume Depletion Test Simulation for Current Reservoir Fluid
The constant volume depletion test must be done after carrying out the swelling test and
determination of best injection gas. The liquid dropout is investigated by this test for three
types of gases.
3.7.1 Constant Volume Depletion Test for N2 Injection
The liquid dropouts at the different steps are measured for different stages of pressure
reduction. Then the nitrogen is injected at different volumes of 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500 and
2000 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid, at different stages of pressure reduction and the liquid
dropouts are compared with initial fluid condition.
At injection volume above 500 scf/bbl the mixture behaves as dry gas. Fig 3.20 shows the
liquid dropout for different steps of pressure reduction. For injection volume of 500 scf/bbl
the liquid dropout reduces from 0.6% to 0.16%.
60
CVD Test (Liquid Saturation)
0.007
0.006
Liquid dropout(Fraction)
0.005

N2-250 SCF
0.003 N2-500 SCF
0.002
0.001
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Pressure (psia)
Fig 3.20 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for N2 injection at injection volumes of 250 and
500 scf/bbl
3.7.2 Constant Volume Depletion Test for CO2 Injection
In this section the CO2 is injected at six injection volumes of 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500 and
2000 scf/bbl and the liquid dropout at different stages of pressure reduction are compared
with initial fluid condition.
Fig 3.21 shows this liquid dropout versus pressure reduction. For injection volumes of 250
scf/bbl the liquid dropout reduces from 0.6% to 0.12%.
3.7.3 Constant Volume Depletion Test for Separator Gas Recycling
In this section, by injecting the first stage separator gas for six volumes of 250, 500, 750,
1000, 1500 and 2000 scf/bbl, the liquid dropout at different stages of pressure reduction are
compared with initial fluid condition. At injection volume above 500 scf/bbl, the liquid
dropout was not formed.
Fig 3.22 shows the liquid dropout for different stages of pressure reduction. For injection
volume of 500 scf/bbl the liquid dropout reduces from 0.6% to 0.1%.
61
0.007
0.006
Liquid dropout (fraction)
0.005

CO2-250 SCF
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Pressure (psia)
Fig 3.21 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for CO2 injection at injection volume of 250
scf/bbl
CVD Test(Liquid Saturation)
0.007
0.006
Liqid dropout(Fraction)
0.005

Sep Gas-250 SCF
0.003 Sep. Gas-500 SCF
0.002
0.001
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Pressure(psia)
Fig 3.22 Constant Volume Depletion Test results for separator gas recycling at injection volumes of
250 and 500 scf/bbl
In the last step the three types of gases are studied in order to select the best one. Because at
injection volumes higher than 500 scf/bbl all three gases behave as dry gas; thus, only two
injection volumes of 250 and 500 scf/bbl are chosen to study.
62
Results are shown on Fig 3.23 and Fig 3.24. These figures show that the CO2 has the most
effect on liquid dropout reduction. Then the First Stage Separator Gas and N2 have the best
effect respectively.
0.007
0.006
Liquid dopout(Fraction)
0.005
Original Fluid
0.004 N2-250 SCF
CO2-250 SCF
0.003
Sep Gas-250 SCF
0.002
0.001
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Pressure (psia)
250 scf/STB (well S14)
0.007
0.006
Liquid dropout(Fraction)
0.005
Original Fluid
0.004 N2-500 SCF
CO2-500 SCF
0.003
Sep. Gas-500 SCF
0.002
0.001
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Pressure(psia)
500 scf/STB (well S14)
63
3.8 Summary and Conclusions
Constant volume depletion simulation of the reservoir fluid and Swelling test for different
gases of several volumes of injection are analyzed. It brought some important facts to the
light, which is crucial for further required justifications in the next chapters. We need to
determine and dissect the fluid behavior and performance as it exposes to other gases in
order to be able for interpreting the reservoir performance by simulation predictions. The
following conclusions would be recalled.
• Simulation results show that gas injection can reduces the liquid dropout even though
the injection volume is low.
• The higher the injection volume the lower the liquid dropout.
• The sequence of most effective injection gas for initial and current reservoir fluid is:
CO2, First Stage Separator Gas and finally the N2 gas.
• For current reservoir condition if the injection volume is greater than 500 scf/bbl then
during life of the reservoir up to abandonment pressure, liquid dropout is not
supposed to be generated in the reservoir.
• All these results are obtained from simulation of swelling and constant volume
depletion tests on fluid samples in PVT cell (not in porous media). It is obvious that
the porous media condition having complicated phenomena may give different
results.
• In this chapter the goal of N2, CO2 and separator gas injection study is to compare the
fluid performance in the theoretical point of view. The feasibility of such scenarios in
terms of gas resources, well injectivity restrictions and required facilities are another
issue and needs to be investigated.
64
Chapter 4
Synthetic Model
65
Chapter 4 Synthetic Model
4.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, the swelling test and constant volume depletion of the reservoir fluid
are analyzed to determine the most suitable injection gas out of Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen,
and field gas produced from the first separator. In this chapter, optimum type and amount of
injection gas would be determined deploying a synthetic model representative of porous
media specifications around well S2 and also fluid sample of the same well. This well has
two important advantages than the others. Firstly, it has fluid sample of initial condition of
reservoir that is the pressure higher than the dew point. Secondly, well S2 is completed in
first formation of the reservoir which is the client’s favorite layer for analysis. Thus, having
the average gas flow rate of well S2 according to production history, porosity, net to gross,
datum depth and the pressure at the datum depth, top of the layer, thickness of the first
formation at location of well S2, well S2 completion intervals, relative permeability curves,
relevant capillary pressure curves, drainage area by well test, absolute permeability and tuned
EOS based on the fluid sample of well S2, a synthetic model is designed to find the type and
the amount of optimum injection gas. In addition the capillary number effect on well
deliverability is studied in this chapter.
Finally, in prediction phase, some scenarios as below are studied:
• Gas production continuing the same average rate of well S2
• Injection of three different gases each having the varying volume of injection to cover
a wide range of possible scenarios and choose the most optimum one.
4.2 Model Description
The designed synthetic model has the specification of Table 4.1.
Since the well is cased hole and perforated as two separate intervals along 206 ft of the
production interval, the model is divided into 4 layers to apply the exact length of production
along the correct depth interval. Thus, the well is completed in the first and third layer.
Based on well test analysis, the drainage area of well S2 is rectangle illustrated in the Fig 4.1.
66
Table 4.1 The specifications of synthetic model based on well S2 data.
Parameter Value Unit

Porosity 0.08 -
Number of layers in z-direction 4 -
Total Thickness 206 ft
First Layer Thickness 49 ft
Second Layer Thickness 30 ft
Third Layer Thickness 16 ft
Fourth Layer Thickness 111 ft
Production Intervals First &Third Layers -
Permeability X 32.56 md
Permeability Y 32.56 md
Permeability Z 3.256 md
Top 8143 ft
Average Production Rate 26250 Mscf/d
Start of Production 2009-Dec-20 -
Well Radii 0.2 ft
Model Area (from well test) 7645 acre
Datum Depth 8281 ft
Initial Pressure 5200 psia
Dew point Pressure 5094 psia
Production History 22 year
Prediction History 30 year
Net to Gross 0.73 -
Fig 4.1 Drainage area of well S2
67
Table 4.2 shows the distances from well S2 to rectangle sides.
Table 4.2 The distances from well S2 to rectangle sides (ft)
d1 3238
d2 39820
d3 3890
d4 6900
Table 4.3 and 4.4 show the grid dimensions and the well coordination on the grid net.
Table 4.3 The grid dimensions of the synthetic model
Dimension
Nx Ny Nz
50 8 4
DX (ft)
1600×935
DY (ft)
1600×890
DZ (ft)
Layer #1 Layer #2 Layer #3 Layer #4
49 30 16 111
Table 4.4 Injection and production wells location on grid
Well Type i j k
Production Well 8 5 1,3
Injection Well 50 1 1
The synthetic model is Cartesian having 50, 8 and 4 cells in x, y and z dimension
respectively. In order to model complex fluid behavior especially around the production well,
68
it is necessary to use local fine redial grid. Deploying local grid refinement application of a
state-of-art simulator of compositional Eclipse, the radial logarithmic grids are locally
generated around the production well whereas the global grid remains Cartesian. The local
grid dimensions are shown in Table 4.5.
It is essential for capillary number analysis to refine the model around the production well
unless the model cannot cover the full physics of occurring phenomenon around the
production well. There must be fine grids of few foot orders to demonstrate very sharp
pressure drop. The local grid refinement must be logarithmic, since the pressure drop is
logarithmic and in order to reduce the numerical dispersion, it is much better to apply the
same pressure drop across the cells. By this method the velocity across each cell approaches
each other and the model performance is better.
The other data of the model are shown in Table 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and Fig 4.2 and 4.3.
Table 4.5 The grid dimensions of LGR
Dimension
NR N Nz
29 1 4
DR (ft)
0.52 0.62 0.75 0.90 1.08 1.29
1.55 1.86 2.23 2.68 3.21 3.85
4.62 5.55 6.66 7.99 9.59 11.50
13.80 16.57 19.88 23.85 28.62 34,35
41.22 49.46 59.36 71.23 85.47
D
116×360
DZ (ft)
Layer #1 Layer #2 Layer #3 Layer #4
49 30 16 111
69
Oil - Water Relative Permeability Curve
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60
Kro
Krw
Kro
0.50 0.50
Krw
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Sw
Fig 4.2 The water oil relative permeability curve
Gas - Oil Relative Permeablity Curve
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60
Krg
Krg
Kro
0.50 0.50
Kro
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Sg
Fig 4.3The oil gas relative permeability curve
70
Table 4.6 The extreme points of water-oil relative permeability curve
End Point Symbol Value

Connate water saturation SWL 0.23
Critical water saturation SWCR 0.25
Utmost water saturation SWU 1.00
Critical oil saturation SOCR 0.00
Water relative permeability KRW 0.70
at ultimate water saturation
oil relative permeability at KRO 1.00
Utmost oil saturation
Water relative permeability KRWR 0.70
at critical oil saturation
oil relative permeability at KRORW 0.86
critical water saturation
Table 4.7 The extreme points of oil-gas relative permeability curve
End Point Symbol Value

Least gas saturation SGL 0.00
Critical gas saturation SGCR 0.19
Utmost gas saturation SGU 0.78
Critical liquid saturation SOWCR 0.26
(SWC+ SOC)
Gas relative permeability at KRG 1.00
ultimate gas saturation
oil relative permeability at KRO 1.00
Utmost liquid saturation
Gas relative permeability at KRGR 0.76
critical liquid saturation
oil relative permeability at KRORW 0.31
critical gas saturation
71
4.3 Model Validation
In order to verify the model output, a well test is designed on simulation model. Applying a
gas production flow rate of 5 MMscfd for 300 hours, flowing bottom hole pressure is
recorded to be used as input for well test software -Saphir-. In this model, the initial pressure
of 6000 psi is considered where the dew point of gas is about 5200 psi and the test is so
designed to have one phase flow during the test by maintaining the pressure above dew point.
The output pressure of simulation model is tabulated in Table 4.8.
Table 4.8 Bottomhole pressure output of simulator versus time to verify the designed model
The logarithmic diagram of pseudo pressure and the derivative with respect to time are
illustrated in Fig 4.4. The early slope of –1/2 shows a partial well completion. Intermediate
period - having slope of about zero- reveals radial flow and final rise-up brings the fact of
closed boundary to light. These finds are compatible with our earlier knowledge about well
S2. As a matter of fact, the early derivative perturbations are the consequence of not uniform
perforation of the well. To analyze the bottom hole pressure output of simulator, a model of
partial penetration in early period, homogenous model in intermediate period and a closed
72
rectangle at the final stage is utilized. Figures 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate logarithmic, semi log
and Cartesian graphs of pressure versus time respectively.
Fig 4.4 logarithmic diagram of pressure and pseudo pressure versus time
Fig 4.5 Semi-log diagram of pressure versus time
73
Fig 4.6 Pressure and gas flow rate versus time
Table 4.9 Result of well test interpretation of data
Results of well test interpretation show a very good compatibility between the assumptions of
simulation model and the model output. On the other words, the simulation model possessing
the aforementioned grid network has accurate and valid behavior. For example permeability
74
input of simulator is 32.56 md and the well test interpretation shows the value of 30.2 for
permeability or the simulator input for skin is zero and well test interpretation
is about –0.248.
4.4 Capillary Number Effects
As it has already been discussed, if capillary number effect is not considered in the simulation
model, the pressure drop and consequently the well deliverability will not been accurately
calculated. As capillary number increases, the relative permeability curves tend to become
straight line around the production wells and oil critical saturation decreases. To apply the
capillary number effect, there must be a set of special core data to obtain parameters of
correlations of Danesh and et al (Ali Danesh, Graeme D. Anderson, 2000). These parameters
are needed for Eclipse compositional runs to involve the capillary number effect into
simulation. Unfortunately, there is such data neither for described field nor any other Iranian
gas condensate reservoir. In addition, the draw down period of well test of well S2 is too
short to obtain the aforementioned parameters. On the other hand, it is not right to ignore the
phenomenon. Thus, based on the rock type of well S2, the literature data is used as
Table 4.10 demonstrates these parameters. The simulation model is run for 22 years since
1986 until 2008. The gas flow rate of well S2 is assumed 26250 Mscfd that is the average of
wellS2 production from 1986 until 2003 based on delivered data from ICOFC. Model ND-
26250-CART-NONC represents the simulation model without considering capillary number
and ND-26250-CART-NC is the same model just considering capillary number of the
Table 4.10 parameter values. Fig 4.7 shows the gas flow rate of both models. Comparing with
the observed field data, the capillary number cannot be ignored, since without capillary
number effect, the model cannot match the observed gas flow rate of the field. figures 4.8 and
4.9 show the bottomhole pressure and field average pressure for both the cases of considering
and ignoring capillary number effect.
Table 4.10 Capillary number parameters for oil and gas
Phase M n1 n2 Ncb
Oil 79.6 24.2 0 1E-6
Gas 23.89 6.23 0 1E-6
75
With Capillary Number Effect
W
ith
ou
t Ca
pil
la ry
Nu
m be
r Ef
fec
t
Fig 4.7 Gas flow rate of the models with and without capillary number
W
ith
C ap
W illa
ith r yN
ou um
t Ca
pil be
lar rE
yN ffe
um c t
be
r Ef
fec
t
Fig 4.8 Bottomhole pressure for the models with and without capillary
76
With
out
C
apill
Wit ary
hC Num
api ber
llar Effe
yN ct
um
ber
Eff
ect
Fig 4.9 Average field pressure for the models with and without capillary
As Fig 4.8 demonstrates, in the case of capillary number effect ignorance, the bottomhole
pressure drops from 5200 psi to 1000 psi which is the minimum authorized bottomhole
pressure defined in simulation model in 8 years.
Due to the bottom hole pressure drop to 1000 psi, the gas flow rate would be dramatically
decreased and cannot produce the observed rate. In the case of considering capillary number
effect, after 46 years, the bottom hole pressure reaches the minimum value of 1000 psi, since
capillary number causes less gas condensate saturation around the well and increases the
relative permeability that prevents an extra pressure reduction.
Volume of liquid oil in place of the reservoir and the condensate saturation from the well
along the x-axis at the current condition are illustrated in Figures 4.10 and 4.11. As Fig 4.10
demonstrates the gas condensate formation around the well S2 at the current condition is
about 4.7 million STB and at the end of prediction phase assuming the same constant gas flow
rate of 26.25 million scfd, there will be about 7.3 million STB of condensate in the reservoir.
The capillary number effect on the condensate formation allover the reservoir is not
significant, since the physics of this phenomenon manipulates only up to about 100 feet far
from the well at utmost condition say high permeability area.
77
Fig 4.11 shows the radius of condensate formation (oil bank) for the cases of considering and
ignoring the capillary number effect at the current condition. Considering capillary number
effect causes a reduction of oil saturation from 25% to 10% near the well bore.
e ct
r E ff
e
u mb
yN
llar c t
Capi r Effe
th e
Wi Nu mb
Current Condition y
a pillar
tC
ithou
W
Fig 4.10 Liquid oil in place for the field versus time
0.3
0.25
W
0.2
ith
o ut
Ca
pil ND-NC
Soil
0.15 l ar
yN ND-NONC
um
be
0.1 rE
ffe
With C ct
apillar
y Num
0.05 ber Ef
fect
0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
Distance
Fig 4.11 Oil saturation versus distance from the well
78
4.5 Gas Injection Analysis
Gas condensation in a gas condensate reservoir causes the loss of valuable components of gas
and well deliverability reduction. The unfavorable consequences can be depicted in terms of:
• Gas relative permeability reduction
• Gas flow rate reduction
• Extra pressure drop due to liquid saturation increase around the well
• Condensate to gas ratio reduction (CGR)
Gas injection in purpose of pressure maintenance or pressure increase may prevents the
reservoir from further damages or even cures some operational problems due to condensation
in underground. In previous chapter, deploying the swelling test of PVTi, we have come to
this point that carbon dioxide, separator gas and nitrogen are the optimum gas respectively to
be injected. In addition, different volumes of gas injection are tested say 250, 500, 750, 1000,
1500 and 2000 resulting in the best performance of 2000 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid. The
available gas amount is not considered in this case.
In this chapter, having matched the simulation model with the observed well data, the same
gas injection scenarios are carried out in the reservoir considering the porous media
parameters as well using Eclipse 300. The equivalent gas injection volumes are respectively
2.12, 4.24, 6.36, 8.48, 25.73 and 65.97 million scfd. The following calculations present how
the aforementioned figures of gas injection rates are obtained.
FGIT MSCF
FGIR = ( ) Equation (4.1)
30 * 365.25 * 1000 DAY
where
FGIT is Field Gas Injection Total (Mscf)
FGIR is Field Gas Injection Rate
79
Assuming the scenario of gas cycling by 100% -that is injection of all separator gas into the
reservoir says 24.4 million scfd-, the equivalent volume of total gas injection would be 500
scf/bbl of reservoir fluid. On the other hand, the fluid reservoir has a CGR of 24 STB/million
scf, which is close to lean gas condensate reservoirs. Thus, although the injection of volumes
greater than 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid has better results in the swelling test, it is not
feasible and economic to be implemented in the scale of the reservoir and porous media
environment.
Furthermore, considering the maximum bottom hole pressure of 5200-psi -Reservoir initial
pressure- is a restriction against the gas volume injections of 750 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid.
(Figures 4.12 and 4.13) Since there is only one injection well in the model, this idea may
comes up that by increasing the number of injection wells can solve the problem of gas
injection under 5200 psi. Fig 4.14 exhibits that even in the case of four injection wells, the
injection bottomhole pressure exceeds the limitations of maximum pressure as well. Solid
line and dotted line is representative of injection by four wells and injection by one well
respectively. None of them can inject under the predefined condition. Thus, in later analysis,
we only consider injection volumes of 250 and 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid.
1000 SCF/bbl 1500 , 2000 SCF/bbl

750 SCF/bbl
500 SCF/bbl
250 SCF/bbl
Fig 4.12 Bottomhole pressure of injection well versus time for 6 different injection volumes
80
2000 SCF/bbl
1500 SCF/bbl
1000 SCF/bbl
750 SCF/bbl
500 SCF/bbl
250 SCF/bbl
Fig 4.13 Gas injection rate versus time for 6 different injection volumes
2000 SCF/bbl
1500 SCF/bbl
1000 SCF/bbl
750 SCF/bbl
Fig 4.14 Gas injection rate versus time for the injection volumes of 750, 1000, 1500, 2000 scf/bbl
81
4.5.1 Nitrogen gas injection
In order to investigate nitrogen gas injection effect on the gas condensation in the reservoir,
two nitrogen injection rates of 250 and 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid are applied (Figures
4.15 up to 4.20). Three distinct scenarios are defined as below:
• Case1: ND-26250-CART-NC presents the natural depletion (black line)
• Case2: N2INJ-250-CART presents nitrogen injection honoring the injection rate of

250 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid (blue line)
• Case3: N2INJ-250-CART presents nitrogen injection honoring the injection rate of

500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid (red line)
In all cases the effective production history is 22 years and the prediction phase is 30 years
since 2008. The effect of gas nitrogen on the important production parameters such as gas oil
ratio, reservoir average pressure, gas production rate, condensate gas ratio, volume of
reservoir condensate formation in the reservoir and gas injection rate versus time are
illustrated. As Fig 4.15 displays in natural depletion case, while pressure drops due to
production, condensate formation increases in the reservoir leading to CGR decrease.
Nitrogen gas injection of 250 and 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid causes GOR reduction from
123 to 102 and 72 Mscf/STB respectively.
Fig 4.16 shows that average pressure of the reservoir decreases up to 1800 psi in the case of
natural depletion whereas if nitrogen injection scenarios are applied the reservoir average
pressure will be 2800 and 3900 psi as 250 and 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid nitrogen injection
respectively.
Fig 4.18 exhibits that if nitrogen gas volume of 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid is injected into
the reservoir, it may cause re-vaporization of the condensates and the oil gas ratio will
increase from 8 STB/scf of natural depletion scenario at the end of the prediction phase to 14
STB/scf.
Fig 4.19 exhibits the effect of gas injection volumes of 250 and 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid
on condensation reduction from 7.3 million STB at the end of prediction phase to 6 and 3.8
million STB respectively. The initial available vaporized condensate of the reservoir is 12
million STB.
82
n
tio
e
epl
l D
ura
t
Na F/ bbl
S C
250
500 SC
F/bbl
Fig 4.15 GOR of production gas for different nitrogen volume injection versus time
500 SCF/bbl
250 SC
F/bbl
Na
tur
al D
epl
etio
n
Fig 4.16 Reservoir average pressure for different volumes of nitrogen gas
83
250,500 SCF/bbl
Natural Depletion
Fig 4.17 Gas production rate versus time
500 SCF/bbl
250
SCF
Na /bbl
tura
lD
epl
etio
n
Fig 4.18 OGR of production gas for different nitrogen volume injection versus time
84
Fig 4.20 shows the gas injection rate to prove that model has no problem in the injection of
the required volumes during the prediction phase period.
Fig 4.21 illustrates the mole fraction of nitrogen along the reservoir for Case 2 at the end of
prediction phase. Figures 4.22 and 4.23 exhibits the cell pressures for the initial time and at
the end of the simulation for Case 2 respectively.
The nitrogen mole fraction and cell pressures for Case 3 are demonstrated in Figures 4.24 and
4.25 and finally Figures 4.26 and 4.27 exhibit the mole fraction of nitrogen for volume
injection of 750 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid in the cases of one and four injection wells
respectively.
pl etion
e
t ural D
Na
l
CF/bb
250 S
500 S
CF/bb
l
Fig 4.19 Condensation in the reservoir for the different scenarios of nitrogen gas injection
85
500 SCF/bbl
250 SCF/bbl
Fig 4.20 Nitrogen gas injection rate versus time
Fig 4.21 Nitrogen mole fraction for the case 2 at final time step
86
Fig 4.22 Reservoir pressure distribution in initial condition
Fig 4.23 Reservoir pressure distribution at the end of simulation time
87
Fig 4.24 Nitrogen mole fraction distribution for the case 3 at the final time step
Fig 4.25 Reservoir pressure distribution for the case 3 at the final time step
88
Fig 4.26 Nitrogen mole fraction distribution for the nitrogen gas injection of 750 scf/bbl of reservoir
fluid by one injection well at the final time step
Fig 4.27 Nitrogen mole fraction distribution for the nitrogen gas injection of 750 scf/bbl of reservoir
fluid by four injection wells at the final time step
89
4.5.2 Separator Gas Injection
To inject the separator gas, the composition determination is necessary. Table 4.11 presents
the composition of separator gas with the flow rate of 26.25 million scfd at 2008.
Table 4.11 First stage separator gas composition at current reservoir condition
Three distinct scenarios are considered to analyze the separator gas injection in the reservoir.
• Case 1: ND-26250-CART-NC that presents natural depletion (black line).
• Case 2: SEPGAS-250-CART that presents the separator gas injection of 250 scf/bbl of
reservoir fluid (blue line).
• Case 3: SEPGAS-500-CART that presents the separator gas injection of 500 scf/bbl of
reservoir fluid (red line).
In all cases there is a history of 22 years (up to 2008) and the same condition is kept for the
prediction phase of 30 years. The results of each scenario are compared with the natural
depletion (Case1).
In case 1, gas oil ratio gradually increases up to 123 Mscf/STB at the end of prediction phase
whereas applying scenarios of case 2 and 3 causes gas oil ratio control as much as 105 and 79
Mscf/STB at final time step respectively (Fig 4.28).
The final reservoir average pressure in the cases 2 and 3 are 2600 and 3600 psi that is much
greater than case 1 having the final pressure of 1800 psi (Fig 4.29). Fig 4.30 exhibits that
reservoir is not able to produce the rate of 26.25 million scfd for more than 46 years by
natural depletion but obviously by gas injection of cases 2 and 3 there would be such
potential for gas production. Final oil gas ratios of cases 2 and 3 which are 9.5 and 14
STB/scf, compared with 8 STB/scf of case 1, become more favorable (Fig 4.31).
90
etion
l
Dep
r al /bb
l
t u C F
Na 250 S
500 SCF/bbl
Fig 4.28 GOR of production gas for different volume of separator gas recycling versus time
500 SCF/bbl
250
SCF
Na /bbl
tur
al
De
ple
tio
n
Fig 4.29 Reservoir average pressure for different volumes of separator gas
91
250,500 SCF/bbl
Natural Depletion
Fig 4.30 Gas production rate versus time
500 SCF/bbl
Na 250
tur SCF
al /bbl
De
ple
tio
n
Fig 4.31: Final oil gas ratio versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3.
Final oil flow rate of cases 2 and 3 are 250 and 335 STB whereas case 1 provides only 155
STB at the end of prediction phase (Fig 4.32). In case 1, 7.3 million STB condensates are
92
trapped in the reservoir whereas case 2 and 3 can produce 16.5% and 44% of these
condensates respectively as well (Fig 4.33).
Fig 4.34 proves that there would be no trouble for the injection rate under the predefined
restrictions.
500 SCF/bbl
250
SCF
Na /bbl
tur
al D
epl
eti on
Fig 4.32 oil production rate versus time
tion
e ple
lD
atura
N l
CF/bb
250 S
500 SCF/b
bl
Fig 4.33 Reservoir oil in place versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3
93
500 SCF/bbl
250 SCF/bbl
Fig 4.34 Injection gas flow rate versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3
4.5.3 Carbon Dioxide Gas Injection
The following scenarios investigate carbon dioxide gas injection in reservoir:
Case 1: ND-26250-NC-CART presents natural depletion as the previous sections (black line)
Case 2: CO2INJ-250-CART presents carbon dioxide gas injection of 250 scf/bbl of reservoir
fluid (blue line).
Case 3: CO2INJ-500-CART presents carbon dioxide gas injection of 500 scf/bbl of reservoir
fluid (red line).
Final gas oil ratio of cases 2 and 3 are 114 and 100 Mscf/STB respectively whereas gas oil
ratio of case 1 increases up to 123 Mscf/STB at the end of prediction phase (Fig 4.35). As
already shown for naturally depletion scenario, the final reservoir average pressure is 1800
psi whereas in the cases 2 and 3, it does not decrease less than 2400 and 2800 psi respectively
(Fig 4.36). Carbon dioxide gas injection provides the reservoir to produce the constant gas
flow rate of 26.25 million scfd whereas in the case of natural depletion, the gas flow rate
reduced to 18.8 million scfd after 46 years.
94
tion
e ple
lD
t ur
a
/ bbl
F
Na 0 SC
25 l
S C F/bb
500
Fig 4.35 Gas oil ratio of production gas versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3 of carbon dioxide injection
500 SC
F/bbl
250
Na SCF
tur /bbl
al D
ep
leti
on
Fig 4.36 Reservoir average pressure versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3 of carbon dioxide injection
95
250,500 SCF/bbl
Natural Depletion
Fig 4.37 Production gas flow rate versus time for cases 1, 2 and 3 of carbon dioxide injection
Na 500 S
tur 2 CF/b
al D 50 S bl
ep CF/b
leti bl
on
Fig 4.38 Oil gas ratio of production gas for different scenarios of carbon dioxide injection
Cases 2 and 3 of carbon dioxide gas injection causes final oil gas ratio increase from 8 to 9
and 10 STB/MMscf respectively (Fig 4.38).
96
Fig 4.38 exhibits that cases 2 and 3 increase the final oil production rate from 155 STB of
case 1 to 230 and 260 STB respectively. Cases 2 and 3 produce 15% and 30% of final
unrecoverable condensate in place of case 1 (Fig 4.40), that is the production of 1.1 and 2.2
out of 7.3 million STB final condensate in place of natural depletion. Fig 4.41 proves that the
injection volumes are feasible under the predefined conditions.
500 S
Nat 250 CF/
ural SCF bbl
Dep /b b l
letio
n
Fig 4.39 Oil production rate versus time for carbon dioxide gas injection scenarios
l etion
ep
ural D
t
Na
/bbl
250 SCF
500 SCF/bbl
Fig 4.40 Condensate in place of the reservoir versus time for carbon dioxide gas injection scenarios
97
500 SCF/bbl
250 SCF/bbl
Fig 4.41 Carbon dioxide injection flow rates versus time
4.6 Optimum volume injection and gas type analysis
The results of previous sections of nitrogen, separator gas and carbon dioxide are combined
to determine the most effective gas volume injection and gas type. In the figures of this
section, red, green, blue and black lines are assigned to nitrogen, separator gas, carbon
dioxide injections and natural depletion scenarios respectively.
The same volume of 250 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid injection of nitrogen, separator gas and
carbon dioxide recover19.2%, 16.4% and 15.1% of final 7.3 million STB condensate in place
of natural depletion scenario (Fig 4.42).
The greater volume of 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid injection of nitrogen, separator gas and
carbon dioxide produce 46.6%, 42.5%, and 30.1% of 7.3 million STB condensate in place of
natural depletion scenario at the end of prediction phase (Fig 4.43). Therefore, nitrogen is the
most effective gas in reduction of final condensate in place then separator gas and carbon
dioxide is effective respectively.
98
This seems incompatible with swelling test results which demonstrate the carbon dioxide has
the best performance then separator gas and nitrogen respectively. The mechanism of
condensate in place reduction of gas injection in porous media is based on reservoir average
pressure increase to re-vaporize condensate since there is no perfect mixing between injection
gas and reservoir fluid as considered in swelling test.
Since nitrogen injection of the same volume comparing with other gases, causes the greater
pressure increase, the re-vaporization increases or the condensation control- due to pressure
drop control- and leads to better performance.
Separator gas has the better performance than carbon dioxide injection and less than nitrogen,
due to the same reason of pressure increase order of scenarios (Fig 4.44). Figures 4.21 and
4.24 show how the injection gas is mainly focused in a portion of reservoir and is not
dispersed all over the reservoir. In swelling test, the assumption is that injection is mixed with
reservoir fluid completely and reached the thermodynamic equilibrium to apply flash
calculation.
l etion
p
al De CO2 Injection
t ur Sep. Gas Recycling
Na
ction
N 2 Inje
Fig 4.42 Condensate in place versus time for different gas injection volume of 250 scf/bbl of reservoir
fluid
99
n
pl etio
al De
atur
N
CO2 Injection
Sep. Gas R
ecycling
N2 Injec
tion
Fig 4.43 Condensate in place versus time for different gas injection volume of 500 scf/bbl of reservoir
fluid
0
N2 Injection,50
Sep. Gas Recycling,500

CO In
2 jection
,500
Na
tur
al
De
p let
ion
Fig 4.44 Reservoir average pressure versus time
100
Following gas type and injection volume, the optimum reservoir pressure to commence gas
injection should be determined. In order to investigate this issue, the following scenarios are
defined (Fig 4.45):
• Case 1- SEPGAS-250-P3600: To commence separator gas injection at the beginning

of the prediction phase with reservoir average pressure of 3600 psi (red line).
• Case 2 – SEPGAS-250-P3000: To commence separator gas injection at the beginning

of the prediction phase with reservoir average pressure of 3000 psi (blue line). Thus,
the gas flow rate is increased from 26.25 to 37.5 Mscfd to meet such pressure after 22
years.
• Case 3 – SEPGAS-250-P2500: To commence separator gas injection at the beginning

of the prediction phase with reservoir average pressure of 2500 psi (green line).
Therefore, the gas flow rate is increased from 26.25 to 50 Mscfd to meet such pressure
after 22 years.
The Table 4.12 and Fig 4.46 demonstrate that the sooner gas injection plan, the higher
reservoir average pressure, the more condensate recovery.
Table 4.12 Simulation results of optimum pressure determination for start date of separator gas
injection
Simulation Case1 Case2 Case3

Results Unit Nat. Dep. Gas Inj. Nat. Dep. Gas Inj. Nat. Dep. Gas Inj.
Final condensate in place MMSTB 7.3 6.1 7.6 6.8 7.7 7.1
Extra condensate recovery Percentile

16.40% 9.30% 7.80%
w.r.t. Nat. dep. Scenarios
The reservoir pressure distribution at initial and final condition, gas saturation distribution at
initial and final condition and condensate saturation profile in the cell, which well is
completed in, are shown in the figures 4.47 to 4.57 respectively.
101
Natu
ral D
eple
tion
3000
psi
2500
psi
Fig 4.45 The reservoir average pressure for different gas production flow rate versus time
2500 psi
si
3000 p
ion
ra l Deplet
Natu
Fig 4.46 Condensate in place versus time for different scenarios of 500 scf/bbl of reservoir fluid, gas
injection and the natural depletion scenarios of different production rates
102
Fig 4.47 Initial distribution of reservoir pressure
Fig 4.48 Final distribution of reservoir pressure
103
Fig 4.49 Initial distribution of gas saturation in reservoir
Fig 4.50 Final distribution of gas saturation in reservoir
104
Fig 4.51 Initial condensate saturation distribution of the reservoir
Fig 4.52 Final condensate saturation distribution of the reservoir
105
Fig 4.53 Final condensate saturation distribution of the cell which well is completed in.
4.7 Summary and Conclusions
In this chapter, we aim to analyze the reservoir performance around the most important
well of the field. Previously, we determined the fluid behavior especially as it exposes to
the injection gases and now it would be more convenient to interpret the effect of gas
injection on the reservoir performance incorporating the porous media as well. The
followings are the facts obtained by the analysis in this chapter.
• The study shows that although the reservoir fluid is lean gas, the gas injection
improves the well deliverability and causes more condensate recovery.
• Nitrogen, separator gas and carbon dioxide are respectively preferred gases for
injection. In the cases of no gas supply restriction, the volume of 500 scf/bbl of
reservoir fluid optimizes the condensate recovery.
• From the aspect of pressure increase and re-vaporization mechanism, nitrogen has the
best performance to reduce condensate in place whereas carbon dioxide works much
better considering diffusion of the fluids. That is, carbon dioxide mole fraction
106
increase tends to re-vaporizing condensates but it does not boost pressure as much as
nitrogen or separator gas does.
• The higher the reservoir average pressure at the beginning of gas injection, the more
the condensate recovery. The separator gas injections in reservoir average pressure of
2500, 3000, and 3600 psi recover 7.8%, 9.3% and 16.4% of final condensates of
natural depletion of the same rate respectively.
• The required gas injection volume for recovery of about half of condensates in natural
depletion case, is the same as total gas production of well S2 in the case of nitrogen
injection as the most effective scenario. This is not economic scenario regarding the
gas supply restrictions.
107
Chapter 5
Full Field Study and

Economical Evaluation
108
Chapter 5 Full Field Study and Economical Evaluation
5.1 Introduction
The scope of this chapter is to demonstrate and analyze the field scale process of different
volume injection of separator gas into reservoir. Deploying the previously matched PVT
model of well 2, well test results, available porosity and NTG distribution map, location and
history of the wells, and having the structure of the reservoir, history-matching phase is
carried out to tune the model with production history and observed static pressure of the
wells.
The injection wells are designed in proper locations to implement the different volume gas
injection into the reservoir.
5.2 Reservoir Description
The reservoir is mainly limestone and has original gas in place of 4.135 TSCF. Total pore
volume of reservoir is 7.62 billion barrel where hydrocarbon pore volume is 2.75 billion bbl
including 60.4 million STB condensates. 1.11 TSCF gas and 14.81 million STB condensates
are recovered from the reservoir till November 2008.
There are 20 rock types in the reservoir each representing a different rock fluid interactions
resulting in different behavior in terms of relative permeability and capillary pressure curves.
The most productive one is the RT1 and productivity is decreased as your rock type number
increases. figures 5.1 and 5.2 demonstrate the rock type distribution in 2D and 3D
respectively and Fig 5.3 exhibits rock type frequency over the favorite formation of the
reservoir.
As Fig 5.1 exhibits well 13 in RT4, wells 2, 7, 11, 12 in RT5, well 10 in RT6, well 6 in RT8,
and well 8 in RT 15 are located. Endpoints data and relative permeability curves of these rock
types are exhibited in Table 5.1 and figures 5.4 and 5.5.
The model has 40, 50, and 2 grids in x, y, and z dimensions respectively. Tables 5.2 and 5.3
represent the composition of the initial reservoir fluid and first stage separator gas injection
respectively. Table 5.4 shows the components of each group in the PVT model and grouping
process.
109
Fig 5.1 Rock type distribution in the reservoir (2D)
Fig 5.2 Rock type distribution in the reservoir (3D)
Fig 5.3 Rock type frequencies over the reservoir
110
Roc
kT
ype
R
Ro
oc
Ro
k
Ro
#15
ck
ck
Ty
Ty
Ty
pe
k
Ty
pe
pe
#5
pe
#4
#8
#6
Fig 5.4 Oil-water relative permeability of rock types 4, 5, 6, 8 and 15.

e#15p
Rock Ty
e#8
#4
#5
#6
ype
Typ
ype
ype
kT
kT
k
kT
Roc
Roc
Roc
Roc
Fig 5.5 Gas-oil relative permeability of rock types 4, 5, 6, 8 and 15.
111
Table 5.1 Gas-oil relative permeability endpoints data of rock types 4, 5, 6, 8 and 15.
Table 5.2 Initial reservoir fluid components
Table 5.3 First stage separator gas components
Table 5.4 Grouping information of the reservoir fluid in PVT models
112
5.3 History Matching Phase
There is no evidence proving any aquifer in the reservoir. Condensate gas ratio of the data is
found unreliable, hence the production history of the wells and acquired static pressures
versus time are the observed data to tune the model with.
There is no observed flowing bottom hole pressure. Therefore the strategy is to get the
production rate match and then pressure match.
5.3.1 Production Rate History Matching
Figures 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10 demonstrate how accurately the model is producing the
same gas rate of the history.
Fig 5.6 Gas flow rate matching of well 2
113
114
5.3.2 Pressure History Matching
Recovering the same amount of production history lets us compare the pressure of the model
with the observed static pressure of the wells and calibrate the model to behave the same as
observed data. The figures 5.10 to 5.13 show how the model is tuned to get the same pressure
response due to production history.
Fig 5.10 Observed and simulated static pressure of well 2
115
116
As it is reported by the company in charge of developing this reservoir, the current pressure
of the reservoir (November 2008) is almost 3600 psi that Fig 5.14 shows the same pressure
reported by model at this time. Fig 5.15 demonstrates a thorough production match of the
reservoir and the model.
Fig 5.14 Average pressure of the reservoir
117
Fig 5.15 Reservoir monthly and cumulative flow rate match
Considering production and pressure match of the model with the observed data, the validity
of the model is granted and the result of this model for production phase would be reliable
and the result of this model for prediction phase would be reliable.
5.4 Gas Cycling Scenarios
In this section, gas cycling effect on reduction of condensate formation in the reservoir is
investigated. In-place condensate formation reduction leads to higher condensate-gas ratio
and condensate recovery enhancement. Since there are 16 active rock types in this pay zone,
simulator must be provided by 16 sets of capillary number data to honor capillary number
effect. Unfortunately such data are not available and due to lack of flowing bottom hole
pressure, there is no way to analyze the validity of any guess from papers. On the other hand
the scope of this chapter does not include well productivity analysis but general effect of
injection scenarios compared with natural depletion. Thus, capillary number effect is not
considered in upcoming analysis.
118
5.4.1 Gas Cycling Scenarios Implementation
In order to investigate gas cycling in the reservoir, four scenarios are considered:
• Scenario (I) : Recycling 25% of the produced gas into reservoir
• Scenario (II) : Recycling 50% of the produced gas into reservoir
• Scenario (III): Recycling 75% of the produced gas into reservoir
• Scenario (IV): Recycling 100% of the produced gas into reservoir
Injection gas volumes in terms of pore volume ratio and injection gas (SCF) to reservoir fluid
barrel ratio (GOR) are presented in the table 5.5.
Table 5.5: Injection volume ratios with respect to reservoir pore volume
To implement the injection process in the most suitable condition, there should be 5 injection
wells of the following locations in the reservoir (Table 5.6). Table 5.7 shows total gas
injection of each scenario.
Table 5.6 Injection well locations in the simulation model
Table 5.7 Total gas injection of the scenarios
119
Having dissected the scenarios and the project requirements, prediction phase period is
considered 35 years including 5 years natural depletion for foundation of the scenario
requirements such as drilling new wells and establishment of new facilities and 30 years of
gas-cycling process.
Having carried out sensitivity analysis, we come to point to take 240 million SCFD as
suitable gas flow rate of the reservoir to honor production optimization according to a proper
plateau and decline rate for prediction phase and gas flow rate of production wells are
ordered as table 5.8 based on well potential analysis.
Table 5.8 Gas flow rate of the production wells of the reservoir in prediction phase.
5.4.2 Volume of Injection-Gas Analysis
Fig 5.16 and Table 5.9 demonstrate the amount of condensation in place reduction compared
with natural depletion for different gas injection volumes.
Table 5.9 condensation in place reduction compared with natural depletion for different scenarios at
the end of prediction phase
120
Natural Depletion
25%
50%
75 %
100
%
Fig 5.16 condensation in place reduction for different scenarios
As table 5.9 shows the fourth scenario, which has the maximum gas injection cycling, would
result in only 16.86 million barrel condensate in addition to natural depletion scenario. Fig
5.17 shows the average reservoir pressure versus time for different volume of gas injection. It
demonstrates how reservoir average pressure increases by gas injection volume increase.
Table 5.10 demonstrates the amount of reservoir average pressure changes as a result of gas
injection for different volume of injections at the end of prediction phase. The more the
pressure increase, the less the condensate formation in the reservoir.
As Fig 5.18 and Table 5.11 exhibit increase the injection volume of gas injection volume of
gas enhances the condensate recovery.
Table 5.10 Reservoir average pressure increase for the four scenarios at the end of prediction phase
121
100%
75%
50%
Na 25
tu %
ra
lD
ep
le
tio
n
Fig 5.17 Reservoir average pressure vs. time for different volume of injection
%
100
75%
5 0%
25%
n
letio
r a l Dep
Natu
Fig 5.18 Cumulative oil production versus time for different volume of injection
122
Table 5.11 Cumulative oil production versus time for different volume of injection at the end of
prediction phase
In the scenario of injection of 100% produced gas into the reservoir, it is possible to recover
7.96 million STB in addition to natural depletion scenario. The point is that the recovery
improvement in this case needs investment and 30 years to generate the revenue. Some items
such as oil price makes the decision complex and obviously the final decisions would be
upon the economical evaluation of the process. Hence next section depicts the economical
evaluation of the process to reveal the feasibility of the projects.
5.5 Economical Evaluation
In previous section the simulation model reports the oil and gas flow rate by time and there
should be an economical model to convert the oil and gas flow into current cash. Then the
feasibility of the project can be brought to light. First of all, the economical indicators are
introduced by next section.
5.5.1 Indicators of Economical Evaluation
5.5.1.1 Time Value of Money
Money is worth less; the longer one has to wait to receive it. In the same regard, money
received yesterday is worth more than money received today. Consider that one can take
yesterday’s earnings and invest it, earning additional value. If you have to wait to receive
money, you must delay the investment, therefore potentially losing money.
Also consider that inflation will erode the value of money. For example, if the inflation rate is
5%, a dollar today is worth $1.05 next year, or $1.00  (1 + .05). In general, goods purchased
in one year’s time will cost 5% more.
This time value of money concept is applied through Compounding and Discounting.
123
5.5.1.2 Compounding
Compounding refers to moving a present value forward in time to a future value. A savings
account would be one example of a compounding investment. If the savings account
compounded yearly then each year a new balance would be calculated on the account based
on the cash in the account and the interest rate.
F = P(1 + i ) n Equation (5.1)
Where
F is the Future Value
P is the Present Value
i is the Interest Rate
n is the Number of time periods
5.5.1.3 Discounting
Discounting, is the opposite of compounding, and is used to move future cash flows back in
time to a present value. The basic formulas are:
F
P= Equation (5.2)
(1 + i ) n
5.5.1.4 Net Present Value
With the concepts of discounting and compounding covered we can now look at a project’s
cash flow over time and determine the net present value (NPV) for the project.
T
Ct
NPV = ∑ − C0 Equation (5.3)
t =1 (1 + i ) t
Where
Ct is Cash flow in Period T,
C0 is Initial Investment,
t:is Time period,
i is Inflation rate,
124
NPV is Net present value.
5.5.1.5 Rate of Return (ROR)
The rate of return (ROR) or internal rate of return (IRR) is the single discount rate that
produces a NPV of zero. It is also described as the discount rate that equates the present
worth of cash flows to be equal to the present worth of the investments. It is obtained by trial
and error of solving the following equation.
N
CFn
∑ (1 + i)
n=0
n
=0 Equation (5.4)
Where
CF is Cash flow in each period
i is Internal rate of return obtaining by trial and error
5.5.1.6 Payout Period
The Payout period is the time to return an investment. It is calculated from the net cash flow
stream. The point at which the cumulative net cash flow stream becomes positive is the
Payout. There are advantages and disadvantages to using this method as an indicator of
income potential. Some of the advantages are:
• Simple and easy to calculate
• Measure of rate at which revenue is generated early in a project
• Measure of time risk. The quicker the payout, the less the risk
• Estimates the time at which a liability to the treasury is removed
But it fails to consider:
• Consider the time value of money
• Consider the magnitude and timing of cash flows after the pay back period
• Measure total cumulative cash flow
• Consider that a project may have multiple payout periods
Having recognized the economical indicators, assumptions of the project economical analysis
are exhibited in next section.
125
5.5.2 Assumptions of Economical Evaluation
The followings are assumed in the economical evaluation of this project.
1- Drilling Cost of each well is considered approximately 5 million USD with a yearly
inflation rate of 3%.
2- In economical sensitivity analysis 20, 40, and 60 USD/bbl are assumed as possible oil
prices.
3- In inflation sensitivity analysis 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% are assumed as possible
inflation rates.
4- Four gas-cycling scenarios are all covered by economical evaluation. Scenario (I) is
discussed here and the rest will be in Appendix A.
5- 5 new injection wells are considered to inject the required gas into the reservoir.
6- In order to have required time for establishing facilities, the pipe lines and drilling
new injection wells; the injection operation is considered to commence from 2014.
7- Lean gas price is based on energy value and is considered 50% of the oil price of the
same energy value. Gas price (USD/MMSCF) is assumed 92.763 times oil price.
8- Condensate price is assumed 80% of oil price.
9- Having analyzed the requirements, capital expenditure is obtained as 170 million

USD in 4 years.
10- Economical evaluation is considered for a period of 35 years of prediction phase.
5.5.3 Gas Cycling Economical Evaluation
Additional cumulative condensate recovery versus total volume of injected gas at the end of
prediction phase is shown in Table 5.12.
Table 5.12 Additional condensate recovery versus total injected gas at the end of prediction phase.
126
Since the reservoir fluid is lean gas, it is shown that even 100% of gas cycling in 30 years
leads to just 8 million of additional condensate recovery.
5.5.3.1 Economical Evaluation of Scenario (I)
The scope of this section is to determine if the first scenario of 25% of produced gas
recycling in 30 years is economical. figures 5.19, 5.20, and 5.21 show the economical
indicator of present value versus time.
Scenario (I)
20%
PV with different Discount Rates
15%
Oil Price =20$/BBL 10%
10 5%
-10
PV (MM$)
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
Fig 5.19 Present value of scenario (I) assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl
Scenario (I) 20%

PV with different Discount Rates 15%
5%
20
10
0
-10
PV (MM$)
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
127
Scenario (I) 20%

PV with different Discount Rates
15%
Oil Price =60$/BBL
10%
20 5%
-20
PV (MM$)
-40
-60
-80
-100
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
Thus considering present value of the three assumptions of oil prices, it is negative up to 26
years after project commencement; that is, the project is less profitable compared with the
natural depletion one; because the gas injection costs and profit loss of not selling 25% of
produced gas are not compensated by exporting additional condensate recovery as the gas
cycling output. In last 9 years due to gas cycling the reservoir pressure drop is controlled and
causes higher gas flow rate that leads to positive present value and additional condensate
recovery does not have considerable revenue. For example:
• Assuming oil price of 40 USD/bbl
• Income due to condensate at the end of prediction phase would be 2.88 million USD.
• Income due to additional gas recovery would be 33.29 million USD.
• Total income is 35.59 million USD
• Assuming yearly inflation rate of 20%, 15%, 10%, and 5% the present value would be
0.07, 0.31, 3.91, and 6.77 million USD.
Figures 5.22, 5.23, and 5.24 demonstrate cost, income and net income of the project versus
time. The income of natural depletion project is subtracted from the reported incomes. This is
128
the reason of initial negative income; because export of 25% produced gas is stopped and
causes profit loss.
cost
Scenario (I)
Cash Flow income
Oil price=$20/bbl Net Income
80
60
40
20
$MM
0
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
-20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-40
-60
-80
inflation consideration for costs)
cost
Scenario (I)
Cash Flow income
80
60
40
20
0
$MM
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
-20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-40
-60
-80
-100
129
cost
Scenario (I)
Cash Flow income
100
50
0
$MM
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-50
-100
-150
There are capital expenditures in initial 5 years. Income is zero in this period since there is no
perturbation in gas export compared with natural depletion. In later 21 years income is
negative since the additional condensate export revenue cannot compensate the profit loss
due to recycling gas.
In last 9 years of prediction phase the gas flow rate is kept higher than natural depletion
scenario; since gas cycling partially maintained reservoir pressure and it causes the higher
income compared with natural depletion. Operation costs of gas wells are considered but
since it is low; it is not appeared in the figure’s scale. The higher the oil price, the higher the
gas price, the higher the profit loss in first 21 years and the higher the net income in last 9
years (Refer to Appendix A).
Figures 5.25, 5.26, and 5.27 show that net present value of the scenario (I) versus time. As
they demonstrate the project is absolutely not economic based on oil price 20 up to 60
USD/bbl and for a range of 5% to 20% of yearly inflation rate.
As Table 5.13 demonstrates net present value of the scenario at the end of prediction phase,
the project is not economic.
130
Dis rate=20%
Scenario (I) Dis rate=15%
Net Present Value Dis rate=10%
Oil price=$20/bbl Dis rate=5%
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
NPV,$MM
-250
-300
-350
-400
-450
-500
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
Fig 5.25 Net present value of scenario (I) versus time assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl
Dis rate=20%
-100
-200
-300
NPV,$MM
-400
-500
-600
-700
-800
-900
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
131

Dis rate=15%
0
-200
-400
NPV,$MM
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
Table 5.13 Net present value based on different inflation rates and oil prices for scenario (I) at the end
of prediction phase
The same analysis is applied on scenarios (II), (III) and (IV). As the economical evaluation
figures show (Refer to Appendix A), the profit loss increases by increasing the percent of gas
cycling of produced gas, as the worst scenario is scenario (IV), which has the maximum gas
cycling ratio. That is, all the aforementioned scenarios of gas cycling are not economic in this
reservoir.
132
5.6 Conclusions
• The economical evaluation of the gas cycling scenarios shows that gas injection of
any volume say 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of produced gas into reservoir is not
economical assuming oil price of 20,40, and 60 USD/bbl and yearly inflation rate of
5%, 10%, 15% and 20%. Since present value of the scenarios would be negative if the
natural depletion income is subtracted from their income. Thus, natural depletion is
more profitable than other aforementioned scenarios.
• The more the gas injection volume, the less the profit of the project; because as soon
as the gas export is stopped, there would be a profit loss that can not be compensated
by additional condensate recovery and that is the main reason of making the project
infeasible. If the reservoir fluid was richer then there might have been more additional
condensate recovery due to gas cycling and the project economical status might
improve. But this reservoir fluid is not capable of carrying that much condensate to
change the economical status. Not to mention that the assumptions makes the
condition for condensate production tighter. Since we consider the condensate price
80% of oil price and it is officially reported by national oil companies in Iran.
• The higher the oil price, the higher the gas price; hence considering negative present
value of the project, the initial profit loss of not exporting gas increases and the
project profit will tumble more sharply.
• It is recommended not to implement any gas cycling project in this reservoir and
invest the budget on richer gas reservoirs to gain more profits due to same amount of
investment.
133
Chapter 6
Conclusions and
Recommendations
134
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Conclusions
• In order to analyze gas cycling projects it is better to approach the solution from fluid
point of view and then dissecting porous media physics separately. That provides the
reservoir engineer with more comprehensive insight about the occurring processes in
reservoir.
• Reservoir fluid analysis by swelling test demonstrates the sequence of most effective
injection gas for initial and current reservoir fluid is: CO2, First Stage Separator Gas
and finally the N2 gas to reduce liquid drop out.
• The swelling test analysis is not adequate to make discretion about the most effective
injection gas type. The swelling test output is in spite of synthetic model study result,
which depicts nitrogen has the best performance to reduce oil in place from the aspect
of pressure increase and re-vaporization mechanism in porous media. Swelling test
simulation proves carbon dioxide injection is much more effective from the angle of
the diffusion of the fluids to reduce liquid drop out. That is, carbon dioxide mole
fraction increase tends to re-vaporizing condensates but it does not increase pressure
as much as nitrogen or separator gas does.
• Synthetic model study shows that in case of gas injection process with the objective of
condensate-in-place reduction, the higher the reservoir average pressure at the
commencement of gas injection, the more the condensate recovery.
• The reservoir simulation model is tuned by static pressures of the wells producing the
same flow rates of the reservoir history. After history matching based on sensitivity
analysis, prediction phase rates of the wells are assigned and the reservoir
performance is reported. This performance is the input for an economical model to
report the feasibility of the project. Finally, the reservoir-scale study shows that gas
cycling scenarios in this reservoir are not economical. This result is based on some
official economical assumptions and has covered ranges of 20 to 60 USD/bbl oil price
and 5% to 20% yearly inflation rate.
135
Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations
6.2 Recommendations
• The reservoir relation with adjacent formations must be more accurately clarified to
get a reliable model and correct reservoir performance prediction.
• The full field study of this reservoir needs some experiments to determine capillary
number data sets for different rock types unless well modeling would be very difficult
and the model validity checking is troublesome.
• The reservoir study needs more observed data such as bottom hole flowing pressure,
more static pressure, accurate condensate to gas ratio and better reservoir
characterization to tune the reservoir engineering simulation model and get more
accurate output.
• Bottom hole flowing pressure data can provide the reservoir engineers with very
invaluable insight to the occurring phenomena around the wells and the well
deliverability calculation whereas there is not any in this reservoir. In addition tuning
a reservoir simulation model with bottom hole flowing pressure massively enhances
the reliability of the model especially in complex reservoirs. The more the observed
data, the more accurate the prediction phase output of the reservoir simulator.
• It might be a good idea to deploy a rich gas PVT data of a reservoir in the same range
of pressure and compare the result with the obtained one to have a sense about the
difference between gas cycling in a lean gas reservoir and rich gas reservoir.
• The current economical evaluation methods, which are used in national Iranian oil
companies, are very simple and in my opinion there should be some explanations
about the ambiguities of the criteria granted as a base of the economical evaluation.
That would be a fertile ground for further studies in future.
136
References
1. Emil J. Burcik: "Properties of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids"; Pensylvania State University;

International Human Resources Development Corporation, Bosron; 1979.
2. Ahmed, Tarek, H.: "Hydrocarbon Phase Behavior"; Gulf Publishing Company; Houston,
Texas;1989.
3. Ali Danesh.: "PVT and Phase Behavior of Petroleum Reservoir Fluids"; first edition;
Elsevier B.V.
4. Heinemann, Zolatan, E. Weinhardt, Brigitte, E.:"Reservoir Fluids Properties"; the

University of Leoben, October 2004.
5. Pedersen, Karen Schou. Christensen Peter L.; "Phase Behavior of Petroleum Reservoir
Fluids" ; Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, 2007.
6. William D. Mc-Cain, Jr.; "The Properties of Petroleum Fluids"; second edition; 1990;
Pennwell publishing company.
7. Ikoku, Chi, U.: "Natural Gas Reservoir Engineering"; the Pennsylvania State University;
Krieger Publishing Company Malabar, Florida, 1992.
8. Rousennac, B.: "Gas Condensate Well Test Analysis," MS thesis, Stanford University.
2001,
9. Du, L., Walker, J.G., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M. and Wang, P.: “Use of Solvents to
Improve the Productivity of Gas Condensate Wells,” paper SPE 62935 presented at the 2000
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 1-4.
10. Arcia, M.E, Rodriguez, F. and Madail, W.: “Estimation of Saturation Pressure Through
Wellbore Measurements,” paper SPE 90186, presented at the 2004 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX, September 26-29.
11. Elsharkawy, A.M.,Yosef, S. Kh, Hashem, S. and Alikhan, A. A.: “Compressibility Factor
for Gas Condensates,” paper SPE 59704, presented at SPE 2000 Permian Basin Oil and Gas
Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, March 21-23.
12. Kokal, S., Mohammad Al-Dokhi and Selim, S.: “Phase Behavior of Gas
Condensate/Water System”, SPE62931, presentation at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000.
R1
References
13. Pederson, K.S. and Milter, J.: “Phase Equilibrium between Gas Condensate and Brine at
HT/HP Conditions,” paper SPE 90309, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference,
Houston, TX, September 26 – 29, 2004.
14. Pope, G.A., Wu, W., Narayanaswamy, G., Delshad, M., Sharma, M.M. and Wang, P.:
“Modeling Relative Permeability Effects in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs with a New Trapping
Model”, SPE 62497, published in SPEREE, April 2000.
15. Bang, Vishal: "Phase Behavior Study of Hydrocarbon-Water-Alchohol Mixtures", MS

thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2005.
16. Ayyalasomayajula P., Silpngarmlers N., Berroteran J., Sheffield J. and Kamath J.:
“Condensate Relative Permeability Data for Well Deliverability Predictions for a Deep
Marine Sandstone Reservoir,” paper SCA 2003- 33.
17. Al-Anazi, H. A., Pope, G. A. and Sharma, M. M.: “Laboratory Measurement of

Condensate Blocking and Treatment for Both Low and High Permeability Rocks”, paper SPE
77546, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, TX,
29 September-2 October 2002.
18. Graves Hunter; "Experimental Investigation of Condensate Blockage in High and Low
Permeability Cores" M. Sc. Thesis, University of Texas at Austin, January 2006.
19. Ahmed, T., Evans, J., Kwan, R. and Vivian, Tom: “Wellbore Liquid Blockage in Gas-
Condensate Reservoirs”, SPE51050, presented at the 1998 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting
held in Pittsburgh, PA, 9-11 November.
20. Jamaluddin, A.K.M., Thomas, S.Y.J., D’Cruz, D., and Nighswander, J.: “Experimental
and Theoretical Assessment of Using Propane to Remediate Liquid Buildup on Condensate
Reservoirs,” paper SPE 71526 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, New Orleans, LO, September 30-October 3.
21. Fevang, Φ. Whitson, C.H.: "Modeling Gas Condensate Deliverability,"

SPE paper 30714, 1995.
22. Pollard, T. A. Bradley, H. B. "Gas-Condensate Reservoirs," Chapter 36 of Petroleum

Production Handbook, edited by T. C. Frick and R. W. Taylor, New York: McGraw-Hill,
1962.
23. Rajeev R. Lal.; "Well Test in Gas Condensate Reservoir," MS thesis, Stanford University.
2003,
R2
References
24. Afidick, D., et al.: “Production Performance of a Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case
Study of the Arun Field,” paper SPE 28749, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference, Melbourne, November 1994.
25. Henderson, G.D. et al.: “Measurement and Correlation of Gas Condensate Relative
Permeability by the Steady-State Method,” SPEJ, June 1996.
26. Ali, J.K. et al.: “The Effects of High-Velocity Flow and PVT Changes near the Wellbore
on Condensate Well Performance,” paper SPE 39823, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, 5-8 October 1997.
27. Boom, W. et al: “Experimental Evidence for Improved Condensate Mobility at Near-
Wellbore Flow Conditions,” paper SPE 30766, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22-25 October 1995.
28. Kalaydijan, F. J-M. et al: “Predicting Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance: How Flow
Parameters are Altered when Approaching Production Wells,” paper SPE 36715, presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 6-9 October 1996.
29. Diamond, P.H. et al.: “Probabilistic Prediction of Well Performance in a Gas Condensate
Reservoir,” paper SPE 36894, presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Milan,
22-24 October 1996.
30. Salino, P.A.: “Modelling Gas Condensate Reservoirs - Reconciling Laboratory and
Welltest Data,” IBC UK Conference Optimisation of Gas Condensate Fields, London, 28-29
January 1999.
31. Saevareid, A., Whitson, C.H. and Fevang, Φ .: “An Engineering Approach To Measuring
And Modeling Gas Condensate Relative Permeabilities,” paper presented at the 1999 SCA
conference held in Goldon, CO, Aug. 2-4, 1999.
32. Whitson, C.H., Fevang, Φ. and Saevareid, A. "Gas Condensate Relative Permeability for
Well Calculations" SPE 56476, SPE Annual Technical Conference, Houston, Texas, USA,
October 1999
33. Luo, K., Shi, L., Zeng, X., Chen, G., Dai, Z. and Liu, N.: “Experimental Investigation in
Revaporization of Retrograde Condensate by Lean Gas Injection,” paper SPE 68683
presented at the SPE Asia – Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Jakarta, Indonesia, April 17-19,
2000.
R3
References
34. Marokane, D., Logmo-Ngog, A.B. and Sarkar, R.: “Applicability of Timely Gas Injection
in Gas Condensate Fields to Improve Well Productivity”, SPE75147, presented at the
SPE/DOE Thirteenth Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 13-17 April
2002.
35. Cullick, A.S., Lu, H.S., Jones, L.G., Cohen, M.F. and Watson, J.P.: “WAG May Improve
Gas Condensate Recovery,” paper SPE 19114, presented at 1989 SPE Gas Technology
Symposium, Dallas, Texas, June 7-9.
36. Kumar, R.: “Productivity Improvement of Gas-Condensate Wells by Fracturing”, MS

thesis, The University of Texas at Austin, August 2000.
37. Al-Hashim, H.S. and Hashmi, S.S.: “Long Term Performance of Hydraulically Fractured
Layered Rich Gas Condensate Reservoir,” paper SPE 64774, presented at SPE International
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Beijing, China, November 7-9, 2000.
R4
Appendix
Appendix
Scenario (II): Recycling 50% of the produced gas into reservoir
The economical evaluation results of the second scenario are demonstrated in Figures A-1 to
A-9. All the graphs prove the scenario is not economical based on the aforementioned
assumptions.
Scenario (II) 20%

Present Value with different Discount Rates 15%
5%
10
0
-10
-20
PV (MM$)
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
Fig A-1 Present value of scenario (II) assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl
Scenario (II) 20%

5%
20
0
-20
-40
PV (MM$)
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
R5
Appendix
Scenario (II) 20%

Present Value w ith different Discount Rates 15%
Oil Price =60$/BBL
10%
5%
50
-50
PV (MM$)
-100
-150
-200
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
Scenario (II) cost

Cash Flow income
Oil price=$20/bbl
Net Income
80
60
40
20
0
$MM
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
-20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-40
-60
-80
-100
Fig A-4 Cost, income and net income of scenario (II) assuming oil price 20 USD/bbl (without
R6
Appendix
Scenario (II) cost

Cash Flow
income
Oil price=$40/bbl
Net Income
100
50
0
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
$MM
-50
-100
-150
-200
Scenario (II) cost

Cash Flow income
Oil price=$60/bbl
Net Income
100
50
0
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
-50
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
$MM
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
R7
Appendix
Dis rate=20%
Scenario(II) Dis rate=15%
-100
-200
-300
NPV,$MM
-400
-500
-600
-700
-800
-900
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
Fig A-7 Net present value of scenario (II) versus time assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl
Dis rate=20%
Scenario (II) Dis rate=15%
-200
-400
-600
NPV,$MM
-800
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
R8
Appendix
Dis rate=20%
Scenario (II) Dis rate=15%
-500
-1000
NPV,$MM
-1500
-2000
-2500
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
R9
Appendix
Scenario (III): Recycling 75% of the produced gas into reservoir
The economical evaluation results of the third scenario are shown in Figures A-10 to A-17.
All the graphs prove the scenario is not economical based on the aforementioned
assumptions.
Scenario (III) 20%

Oil Price =20$/BBL
10%
5%
0
-20
-40
PV (MM$)
-60
-80
-100
-120
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
Fig A-10 Present value of scenario (III) assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl
Scenario (III) 20%

5%
0
-20
-40
-60
PV (MM$)
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
-200
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
R10
Appendix
Scenario (III) 20%

5%
0
-50
-100
PV (MM$)
-150
-200
-250
-300
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
cost
Scenario (III)
Cash Flow income
100
50
0
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
$MM
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-50
-100
-150
Fig A-12 Cost, income and net income of scenario (III) assuming oil price 20 USD/bbl (without
R11
Appendix
cost
Scenario (III)
Cash Flow income
100
50
0
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-50
$MM
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
cost
Scenario (III)
Cash Flow income
100
50
0
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
-50
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-100
$MM
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
R12
Appendix
Dis rate=20%
Scenario (III) Dis rate=15%
Dis rate=5%
Oil price=$20/bbl
-200
-400
NPV,$MM
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
-1400
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
Fig A-15 Net present value of scenario (III) versus time assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl
Dis rate=20%
Dis rate=5%
Oil price=$40/bbl
-500
-1000
NPV,$MM
-1500
-2000
-2500
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
R13
Appendix
Dis rate=20%
-500
-1000
-1500
NPV,$MM
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
R14
Appendix
Scenario (IV): Recycling 100% of the produced gas into reservoir
The economical evaluation results of the fourth scenario are shown in Figures A-18 to A-26.
All the graphs prove the scenario is not economical based on the aforementioned
assumptions.
Scenario (IV) 20%

Oil Price =20$/BBL
10%
5%
0
-20
-40
PV (MM$)
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
Fig A-18 Present value of scenario (IV) assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl
Scenario (IV) 20%

Oil Price =40$/BBL
10%
5%
0
-50
-100
PV (MM$)
-150
-200
-250
-300
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
R15
Appendix
Scenario (IV) 20%

5%
0
-50
-100
-150
PV (MM$)
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Time (year)
cost
Scenario (IV)
Cash Flow income
100
50
0
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
$MM
-50
-100
-150
-200
Fig A-21 Cost, income and net income of scenario (IV) assuming oil price 20 USD/bbl (without
R16
Appendix
cost
Scenario (IV)
Cash Flow income
100
50
0
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
-50
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-100
$MM
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
cost
Scenario (IV)
Cash Flow income
100
0
09
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
-100
-200
$MM
-300
-400
-500
-600
R17
Appendix
Dis rate=20%
Scenario (IV) Dis rate=15%
Dis rate=5%
Oil price=$20/bbl
-200
-400
-600
-800
NPV,$MM
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
Fig A-24 Net present value of scenario (IV) versus time assuming oil price of 20 USD/bbl
Dis rate=20%
Dis rate=5%
Oil price=$40/bbl
-500
-1000
NPV,$MM
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000
-3500
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
R18
Appendix
Dis rate=20%
Dis rate=5%
Oil price=$60/bbl
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
NPV,$MM
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
-4500
-5000
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
time (year)
R19
View publication stats

HadiParvizi86711 MScproject

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HadiParvizi86711 MScproject

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Field Operational Problems due to Condensate Formation in Retrograde Gas

Thesis · October 2010

Application of Automatic History Matching Techniques in Reservoir Simulation View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Field Operational Problems due to Condensate Formation

M. Sc. Degree Thesis

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of

Approved as to style and content by:

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iii

List of Tables ..........................................................................................................................xii

Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................... xiii

2.1 Basic Phase Behavior ...................................................................................................5

2.1.1 Phase Behavior Definition............................................................................................. 5

2.2 Gas Condensate Reservoir..........................................................................................12

2.2.1 Gas Condensate Reservoir Properties ........................................................................12

2.3 Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance Prediction...................................................20

2.3.1Gas-Condensate Reservoir Operation by Pressure Depletion .................................20

2.4 Parameters Affecting the Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance ...........................27

2.4.1 Condensate Banking.....................................................................................................27

2.5 Relative Permeability .................................................................................................27

2.5.1 Velocity-Dependent Relative Permeabilities ............................................................28

2.6 Methods to Reduce Condensate Liquid Dropout…………………………………...36

2.6.1 Gas Condensate Fluid Phase Behavior Alteration…...…………………………37

Swelling Test and Constant Volume Depletion Simulation Analysis..................................39

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................40

3.2 Swelling Test ..............................................................................................................40

3.3.1 Simulation Results for Swelling Test by Nitrogen (N2) ..........................................43

3.4 Constant Volume Depletion Test Simulation.............................................................47

3.4.1 Constant Volume Depletion Test for Nitrogen Injection ........................................48

3.5 Study of Injection Gas Effect on the Liquid Dropout ................................................51

3.6 Investigation of Suitable Choice for Current Reservoir Fluid....................................55

3.7.1 Constant Volume Depletion Test for N2 Injection ...................................................60

3.8 Conclusions ................................................................................................................64

Synthetic Model ...................................................................................................................65

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................66

4.2 Model Description ......................................................................................................66

4.3 Model Validation........................................................................................................72

4.4 Capillary Number Effect ............................................................................................75

4.5 Gas Injection Analysis................................................................................................79

4.5.1 Nitrogen gas injection ..................................................................................................82

4.6 Optimum volume injection and gas type analysis......................................................98

4.7 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................106

Full Field Study and Economical Evaluation.....................................................................108

5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................109

5.2 Reservoir Description...............................................................................................109

5.3 History Matching Phase ...........................................................................................113

5.3.1 Production Rate History Matching .......................................................................... 113

5.4 Gas Cycling Scenarios..............................................................................................118

5.4.1 Gas Cycling Scenarios Implementation ................................................................. 119

5.5 Economical Evaluation.............................................................................................123

5.5.1 Indicators of Economical Evaluation ...................................................................... 123

Conclusions and Recommendations...................................................................................134

6.1 Conclusions ..............................................................................................................135

6.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................136

Fig 2.1 Typical pressure-temperature diagram for a single-component system .......................... 7

Table 2.1 Composition and properties of several reservoir fluids ........................................ 13

Bg Gas formation volume factor

Accuracy in engineering computations for gas-condensate systems (e.g., well testing,

Understanding the multiphase flow phenomenon in such reservoirs is key in characterizing

Chapter 2 is a literature review on fluid phase behavior, gas condensate reservoirs,

2.1 Basic Phase Behavior

2.1.1 Phase Behavior Definition