Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 368e376

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering

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

Effect of components composition of condensate reservoirs on well

test analysis: An experimental design approach
Arash Azamifard a, Seyed Hamidreza Yousefi a, Fariborz Rashidi b, *
a
Petroleum Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Chemical Engineering Department, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Gas condensate is a challenging fluid in reservoir due to difficulties arising from condensate dropout
Received 15 January 2014 around the well. Condensate blockage complicates simulating the behavior of this fluid especially in well
Received in revised form testing. The common approach in gas condensate well testing is using gas single-phase pseudo-pressure.
17 March 2014
In this study, statistical approach is applied to well test analysis in order to investigate the effect of fluid
Accepted 18 March 2014
Available online
composition on reservoir behavior. Mixture design controls the number of otherwise numerous well
testing of fluids to a limited number. The output data of well testings are then used for multivariable
regression to create proxy models of reservoir and fluid properties including initial pressure of reservoir,
Keywords:
Gas condensate
gas permeability in condensate zone and maximum liquid dropout of fluids. Results show that proposed
Well testing model efficiently simulates mentioned properties with high R-squared values. Results also show that the
Design of experiment intensity of condensate formation in the reservoir is a strong function of rich components composition in
Mixture design the reservoir.
Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction Well test analysis is often done by analytical methods. Radial

In gas condensate reservoir, temperature is between critical
temperature and cricondentherm. Since 1930’s, gas condensate
reservoirs gradually become important. At early stages of reservoir
production, fluid is usually a single-phase gas and only below the
dew point pressure, condensate formation and blockage happens,
named condensate blockage. Fig. 1 shows an example of gas
condensate reservoir (Wall, 1982; Moses and Donohoe, 1962).
During production, condensate relative permeability decreases
and its viscosity increases with respect to time. Therefore, con-
densates accumulate in reservoir and cannot be recovered. Two
factors complicate the interpretation of well testing in condensate
reservoirs: simultaneous presence of three phases in reservoir and
change of original fluid composition in the reservoir.
Well test analysis is a common method to investigate well and
reservoir behavior. Pressure transient tests are used to analyze
reservoir’s characteristics. Using well test analysis, well and reser-
voir properties such as permeability, skin factor and wellbore
storage can be calculated.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: a.azamifard@gmail.com (A. Azamifard), hamid34009@gmail.
com (S.H. Yousefi), rashidi@aut.ac.ir (F. Rashidi).
composite model is usually suitable for interpretation of well test
data in gas condensate reservoirs. In these models, by using the
change in Pseudo-Pressure derivative, existence of several regions
with different permeabilities around the wellbore is
distinguishable.
Various problems arise in the well test analysis of gas conden-
sate reservoirs due to multiphase flow around the wellbore. In this
study, an efficient and reliable statistical approach named Design of
Experiments (DOE) has been used in order to predict reservoir and
fluid properties.
In DOE approach, one or more process variables (or factors) are
changed in order to see the effects on the response parameters.
DOE is a systematic, rigorous approach to engineering problem-
solving that applies principles and techniques at the data collec-
tion stage so as to ensure the generation of reliable, defensible, and
supportable engineering conclusions (Natrella, 2014).
The usage of DOE in petroleum industry began since 1990. Many
fields of DOE application have been introduced such as well scheme
optimization (Manceau et al., 2001; Eide et al., 1994; Landa and
Güyagüler, 2003), uncertainty in reservoir performance (Dejean
and Blance, 1999; Friedmann et al., 2003) and history matching.
Especially in early time of reservoir life, DOE can play a significant
role in obtaining useful and sufficient data in order to reduce
reservoir parameter’s uncertainty. Response Surface Method (RSM)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2014.03.015
1875-5100/Ó 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.
 A. Azamifard et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 368e376 369

Capillary number expresses the ratio of viscose forces to capil-

Fig. 1. Two phase envelope of gas condensate reservoir.
is a kind of DOE designs which correlate multiple parameters.
Usually RSM is constructed by artificial neural network (Damsleth
et al., 1992), interpolation (Eide et al., 1994) as well as regression
methods.
Mixture experiments are special case of response surface ex-
periments in which response depends on the proportions of the
various components, but not on the absolute amounts (Gary, 2010).
It should be noted that proportions must be positive and add up
to one which is the key feature of mixture designs (Natrella, 2014).
In this study, response of components percentage variations on
well test behavior of gas condensate reservoirs is discussed.
Applying mixture designs, we use a D-optimal design in order to
reduce the number of synthetic fluids to be produced and at the
same time cover all feasible combinations of component percent-
ages. DOE polynomial model is used to relate reservoir and fluid
property to components compositions variations. Finally a robust
model is developed to find effects of various components per-
centages in reservoir and fluid parameters.
2. Gas condensate flow behavior
lary forces. Two or three feet around the well, high capillary
number at high gas velocity decreases oil saturation and increases
relative gas permeability. They showed that this new region near to
the well with high capillary number increases productivity of gas
condensate reservoirs significantly. It should be noted that negative
inertia phenomena has reverse effect but the impact of capillary
number is higher than negative inertia (Gringarten et al., 2000).
With respect to previous studies; four regions have been pro-
posed in gas condensate reservoirs, which are briefly introduced.
Region 1 exists when bottomhole pressure (Pw) is lower than the
dew point pressure of external boundary of the region 2 (P*)
(Roussennac, 2001). In this region, gas relative permeability will
decrease, which is the most important reason for well deliverability
decrease (Mott, 2002).
Region 2 is a transition zone where at its outer edge, the first
droplets of liquid condenses from the original gas. The amount of
condensate formed in this region is less than the critical amount, so
still gas is the only mobile phase (Roussennac, 2001).
In the region 3, pressure is above the dew point pressure and
there is only mobile single-phase gas which is reservoir’s original
gas.
Region 4 exists in the vicinity of well where due to capillary
number effect, condensate saturation decreases and therefore
reservoir productivity increases (Gringarten et al., 2000).
Fig. 2 shows condensate saturation profile for gas condensate
reservoir.
3. Well test analysis
Well test analysis is formation evaluation method. The tech-
nique is an inverse problem where well and reservoir are identified
by using well bottomhole pressure data versus time.
Well test analysis began by Theis (1935) for underground wa-
ters. Later, Horner proposed semi-logarithm curves for transient
regime (Miler et al., 1950). Ramey introduced type curves analysis
(Gringarten et al., 1975). Bourdet et al. (1983) enhanced type curves
by employing derivative pressure curves. Recently Schroeter et al.
(2004) have introduced the method of Deconvolution.

During production from gas condensate reservoir, pressure will

decrease near wellbore below the dew point and condensation 3.1. Gas condensate well test analysis
begins. In this section methods and theories about gas condensate
flow behavior are reviewed. Usually buildup test is applied in gas condensate reservoirs
O’Dell and Miller (1967) proposed a two region model con- under dew point pressure, because in drawdown test, formation of
taining condensate and gas based on the concept of steady state condensate diverts production flow rate from being constant.
flow supposing constant fluid composition in the time of pro-
duction. Fussel (1973) illustrated that deliverability of gas
condensate well is more than what was shown by O’Dell and
Miller (1967). Boe et al. (1981) introduced a technique to calcu-
late saturation in systems where saturation and pressure profiles
are single-valued functions of (r2/t). However in gas condensate
reservoirs with non-zero skin, pressure and saturation are not in
the form of f(r2/t). Jones and Raghavan (1988) showed that in gas
condensate systems when pressure is changed to steady state
two-phase pseudo pressure, buildup and drawdown tests can be
interpreted by classical liquid equations (Jones and Raghavan,
1988; Raghavan et al., 1995). Fevang and Whitson (1995) intro-
duced a transient region between the two mentioned regions
where gas and oil are present but only gas moves and oil is
immobile. They presented separate two-phase pseudo pressure
for three regions using the relationship between pressure and
saturation. Gringarten et al. (2000) recommended a fourth region
in the vicinity of well when the velocity becomes high for these
reservoirs using capillary number effect. Fig. 2. Four possible flow regions around gas condensate reservoir.
370 A. Azamifard et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 368e376

Above the dew point pressure, in gas condensate reservoirs, the

diffusivity equation is exactly like gas reservoirs. This equation is
shown below.

mc4 vmðPÞ
V2 mðpÞ ¼ (1)
k vt

Where,

Zp
pdp
mðpÞ ¼ 2 (2)
mZ
p0

However, for pressures below dew point, single or two-phase

pseudo pressure methods are utilized. In single phase pseudo
pressure, radial composite model is used (Yadavalli and Jones,
1996). In this model, reservoir is divided into condensate forma-
tion zone and single phase gas zone. Therefore, permeability can be
calculated for both regions separately. In condensate zone, the
calculated permeability is the effective permeability of gas phase in
presence of condensate. In single phase gas zone, it is the absolute
permeability. In this method the condensate is not regarded as the
second phase and the effect of condensate formation around the
well is demonstrated as a skin factor around the well.
Due to shortcomings of single-phase pseudo pressure, the two-
phase pseudo pressure was subsequently introduced. In the
buildup test, the two-phase pseudo pressure is defined as follow
(Jones and Raghavan, 1988; Chopra and Carter, 1986):

Zpwf !
rg krg ro kro
mðpÞ ¼ þ dp (3)
mg mo
pwfs

Two-phase pseudo pressure has a higher accuracy than single- Fig. 3. Procedure of this study.
phase pseudo pressure because in its definition both gas and
condensate properties have been included. However, in two-phase
compositions. Equation (4) shows that molar composition should
pseudo pressure, we need relative permeability curves, GOR and
add up to one:
PVT properties to be accurate. Roussennac (2001) showed that er-
ror in these parameters has significant effect on calculation of two-
zC14 þ zC10 þ zC7 þ znC4 þ zC1 ¼ 1 (4)
phase pseudo pressure and consequently property calculations will
not be accurate. Hence using two-phase pseudo pressure could Compositions of a very lean and a very rich fluid are added as
have high uncertainty and therefore if one cannot trust the input boundary constraints for design of this study which are constraints
data, single-phase gas pseudo pressure might be more suitable to in addition to the essential constraint of mixture designs. Therefore
be used. For more details, see Yousefi et al. (2014). DOE software will always select the design points between these
boundary constraints. Table 1 shows composition of these fluids. D-
optimal algorithm was employed to cover all feasible mixture
4. Methodology
compositions.
In this section produced condensate near the wellbore and the
4.2. Constructing fluids by PVT software
effect of variation of components composition on the interpretation
of well testing in gas condensate reservoirs are investigated. To do
In this part, by employing a commercial PVT module, and using
this, twenty gas condensate fluids are constructed using appro-
three variable PengeRobinson equation of state maximum liquid
priate module of a PVT software. Compositions of twenty fluids are
dropout is determined. PVT properties of the two boundary fluids
designed by a statistical software. Subsequently, using the
are shown in Table 2.
mentioned synthetic fluids, reservoir simulation is carried out with
a compositional simulator to produce pressure versus time data.
4.3. Reservoir model simulation
This data is imported to a well test analysis software to obtain
reservoir and fluid properties which is a back calculation procedure.
To simulate gas condensate reservoir, a compositional simulator
Obtained reservoir and fluid properties are finally returned to the
was used.
statistical software as response to develop polynomial models by
Following assumptions are considered in reservoir simulation:
multivariable regression. This algorithm is illustrated in Fig. 3.
The reservoir has no geological complexities. The model is
single-well and geometry is one-dimensional radial. Flow regime is
4.1. Designing synthetic fluids by statistical software assumed infinite acting by definition of large grid blocks at outer
boundary to dissipate no flow boundary effect. A fine-grid block
In order to study effect of fluid richness on different properties, a system is defined around the wellbore to better simulate conden-
D-optimal mixture design was chosen to determine component sate formation effects. The statistical petrophysical properties of
 A. Azamifard et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 368e376 371

Table 1 Table 3
Molar compositions of twenty two synthetic fluids. Well and reservoir data in the simulation model.

Fluid number C1 n  C4 C7 C10 C14 Property Quantity

Lean fluid 0.77 0.111 0.102 0.009 0.008 Initial reservoir pressure, psi Dew point pressure þ 250
Rich fluid 0.89 0.083 0.022 0.003 0.002 Reservoir temperature,  F 200
1 0.816 0.083 0.086 0.006 0.008 Reservoir thickness, ft 50
2 0.849 0.100 0.045 0.003 0.002 Top of reservoir height from ground surface, ft 9000
3 0.801 0.099 0.083 0.009 0.008 Rock and fluid compressibility, psi1 6.02E-6
4 0.871 0.095 0.023 0.009 0.002 Absolute permeability, mD 5
5 0.881 0.083 0.022 0.006 0.008 Porosity, % 20
6 0.804 0.083 0.099 0.009 0.004 Well radius, ft 0.354
7 0.860 0.111 0.023 0.004 0.002 Reservoir drainage radius, ft 7000
8 0.797 0.093 0.102 0.006 0.002 Produced flow rate, MMscf/day 5
9 0.805 0.083 0.101 0.003 0.008
10 0.782 0.111 0.102 0.003 0.002
11 0.841 0.084 0.070 0.003 0.002
12 0.775 0.111 0.102 0.009 0.003 skin are negligible and therefore at pressures above the dew point
13 0.818 0.111 0.059 0.007 0.005 (single phase) model is acceptable. Consequently, any variation in
14 0.822 0.096 0.077 0.003 0.002 well and reservoir properties below the dew point is because of
15 0.887 0.084 0.022 0.003 0.004
condensate blockage around the wellbore. Fluid composition below
16 0.867 0.083 0.042 0.006 0.002
17 0.849 0.083 0.051 0.009 0.008 the dew point pressure controls condensate blockage. Hence, well
18 0.847 0.111 0.025 0.009 0.008 test analysis was carried out separately for each of the twenty
19 0.828 0.111 0.049 0.004 0.008 synthetic fluids.
20 0.773 0.111 0.102 0.006 0.008
In all reservoir models, the initial pressure of the reservoir has
been taken to be 250 psi above the dew point pressure, which
makes equal condition for all twenty fluids.
model are assumed to be constant in the reservoir and the me- Single-phase pseudo pressure method was used for well test
chanical skin factor is zero. analysis. As it was mentioned, when reliable PVT data is unavai-
Data of synthetic reservoir and well are shown in Table 3. In lable, single phase gas pseudo pressure is utilized. Radial composite
addition, the relative permeability data for gas-oil and water-oil are model is the most common model for well test interpretation. In
imported to model. radial composite analysis, there are two concentric zones around
Also, in all simulation models, effects of non-Darcy flow and the wellbore with different permeabilities. In this study, the inner
capillary number were considered in order to make the results zone represents gas effective permeability in condensate and the
more reliable. Increasing of capillary number near the wellbore has outer zone represents single phase gas permeability.
two important effects namely decrease of residual oil saturation For the twenty synthetic fluids, production rate is assumed to be
and changing relative permeability curves from immiscible to fixed at 5 million cubic feet per day and production and shut-in (for
miscible situation. buildup test) times were assumed equal and to be 10.11 days. As
Forchheimer added non-Darcy term to Darcy flow equation to example, for fluids 3 and 11, pressure versus time response in
explain the relationship between velocity and drawdown in porous logarithmelogarithm scale is illustrated in Figs. 6 and 7 respec-
media in high gas rates (Forchheimer, 1914). tively. With reference to these figures, it is apparent that perme-
ability estimated for richer fluid (11) would be higher than the
leaner one (3).
4.4. Well test analysis

Outputs of the software (pressure versus time data) and physical 4.5. Reservoir and fluid property modeling by statistical software
properties of the model were used as input to the well test
software. Since well testing in gas condensate reservoirs could be a
At first, to check the model validity, well test analysis is carried problematic task, a polynomial proxy model is proposed to simu-
out above dew point where there is no condensate in reservoir late the results. To do this, gas permeability of condensate zone,
and only single-phase gas is present. Initial reservoir pressure is initial reservoir pressure and maximum liquid dropout are taken as
set at 5000 psi. Other features of the model are listed in Table 3. response for the proposed statistical software. The polynomials are
Fluid No. 19 is selected and drawdown test for 19 days was then derived from multivariable regression in terms of component
considered.
Fig. 4 illustrates bottomhole pressure drop versus time for this
model. Logarithmelogarithm diagram of this model is shown in
Fig. 5. This figure shows a good agreement between input charac-
teristic data and the calculated ones. Skin factor is predicted to be
0.008 and permeability to be 4.89 mD. Errors for permeability and

Table 2
General properties of lean and rich fluids in the model.

Fluid sample/ Temperature,  F Dew point Condensate Maximum liquid

general pressure, psi gas ratio,a dropout (%)
properties bbl/MMscf

Lean fluid 200 2775.1 9.9 1.26

Rich fluid 200 3604.5 104.6 28.9
a
Condensate gas ratio (CGR). Fig. 4. Bottomhole pressure vs. time above dew point in drawdown test.
372 A. Azamifard et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 368e376

Fig. 5. Logarithmelogarithm plot for fluid No. 19 in drawdown test above dew point pressure.

Fig. 6. Logarithmelogarithm plot for fluid 3 in buildup test below dew point pressure.

compositions. Backward elimination reduces the number of co-
efficients needed for polynomial model. Because it is unknown
which terms are important in polynomial model, backward elimi-
nation is a more suitable approach for choosing terms in poly-
nomial instead of forward or stepwise elimination approach.
Backward approach requires an uncertainty value, between zero
and one, in order to distinct between significant terms and
insignificant ones in polynomial. In this study 0.05 was taken as the
uncertainty value.
5. Results and discussion
The procedure illustrated in Fig. 3 is applied to develop a robust
model to the three mentioned reservoir and fluid properties.

Fig. 7. Logarithmelogarithm plot for fluid 11 in buildup test below dew point pressure.
 A. Azamifard et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 368e376 373

Table 4
Reservoir and fluid properties in the simulation model.

Fluid sample Gas absolute permeability, Gas permeability in condensate Maximum liquid drop out, Initial pressure, psi
mD zone, mD percent

Actual Predicted Actual Predicted Actual Predicted

Fluid 3 5 4.90 2.45 24.7 20.3 4260.4 4260.3

Fluid 11 5 4.57 1.39 20.3 27.0 3410.6 3410.8

5.1. Model development

Table 5
R-squared and Adjusted R-squared for proposed model. Table 4 shows predicted absolute gas permeability and initial
Property R-squared Adjusted R-square pressure for fluids 3 and 11. It is seen that the results are acceptable
with regard to the predefined data. Therefore a proxy model can be
Gas permeability of condensate zone 0.959 0.870
Initial pressure of reservoir 0.991 0.968
constructed based on property derived from well test
Logarithm of maximum liquid dropout 0.934 0.903 interpretation.
Proposed polynomials for gas permeability of condensate zone
and initial pressure are shown in equations (5) and (6) respectively.

Fig. 8. Crossplots for gas permeability of damaged zone, initial pressure and maximum liquid drop out.
374 A. Azamifard et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 368e376

Fig. 9. Residual vs. run number plot for three parameters.

Pi ¼ ð  127:854ÞzC1  ð319336ÞzC4  ð4183:56ÞzC7

Kg ¼ ð0:641ÞzC1 þ ð40:407ÞzC4  ð171:557ÞzC7
þ ð1019001ÞzC10  ð6021750ÞzC14 þ ð382723:6ÞzC1 zC4
þ ð38760:67ÞzC10 þ ð63407:75ÞzC14 þ ð176:896ÞzC1 zC7
þ ð7265:686ÞzC1 zC7  ð1026724ÞzC1 zC10
 ð38464:9ÞzC1 zC10  ð63838:7ÞzC1 zC14 þ ð301:650ÞzC4 zC7
þ ð6308046ÞzC1 zC14 þ ð445752:1ÞzC4 zC7  ð386100ÞzC4 zC10
 ð45860:1ÞzC4 zC10  ð65200:3ÞzC4 zC14  ð38284:4ÞzC7 zC10
þ ð6315323ÞzC4 zC14  ð1105607ÞzC7 zC10
 ð64342:6ÞzC7 zC14  ð99422:2ÞzC10 zC14
þ ð5172899ÞzC7 zC14 þ ð6295054ÞzC10 zC14
(5)
(6)

Fig. 10. 3D plot for gas permeability in condensate zone. (a): high level of heavier components, (b): low level of heavier components.
 A. Azamifard et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 368e376 375

Fig. 11. 3D plot for initial pressure. (a): high level of heavier components, (b): low level of heavier components.

Fig. 12. 3D plot for maximum liquid dropout. (a): high level of heavier components, (b): low level of heavier components.

For maximum liquid dropout a logarithmic transformation is
used to model the data more accurately as shown by equation (7):
lnðMLÞ ¼ ð1:1833ÞzC1  ð17:2948ÞzC4  ð144:537ÞzC7
 ð425:512ÞzC10 þ ð77:1334ÞzC14 þ ð219:229ÞzC1 zC7
Scattered trend in these plots show desired behavior of polynomial
models in different design points. Scattered trend and sets of plus
and minus residuals indicate that mathematical model predictions
are higher than experimental values in some design points and
lower in other ones.

þ ð5174:3ÞzC4 zC10
(7)
5.2. Model validation
R-squared values of model are shown in Table 5. High R-squared
values indicate efficient modeling of properties with polynomials.
Adjusted R-squared value determines accuracy of model with re-
gard to the number of model terms and is an indicator of increase in
model accuracy by adding a new term. It should be noticed that by
adding new terms Adjusted R-squared value goes up at initial
stages but after reaching a certain number of terms in the poly-
nomial, Adjusted R-squared value starts to decrease by adding new
terms. Small difference between R-squared value and Adjusted R-
squared values indicate polynomials have no inappropriate co-
efficients and corresponding terms.
Crossplots for these properties are shown in Fig. 8 which con-
firms efficiency of models. In order to investigate existence of pure
error for models, residual plot vs. run number is plotted in Fig. 9.
5.3. Model interpretation
In Figs. 10e12, 3D plots for the three properties are illustrated.
Each reservoir and fluid property is investigated in two cases: a-
‘high level’, measuring high concentration of a particular compo-
nent and b-‘low level’, measuring low concentration of the same
component.
Gas permeability 3D plots (Fig. 10) show that in high levels of C10
and C14 maximum permeability happens at highest value of C1. It
means that simultaneous high composition of C1, C10 and C14
components leads to increasing permeability and consequently
reducing condensate blockage. In low levels of C10 and C14, model
shows maximum permeability where C4 is at its maximum value.
Therefore, in case of low level C10 and C14 any increase in C4 will
result in permeability increase which means decrease in conden-
sate blockage. Consequently, in situations where C1 and C4 have
equal chances of injection into a reservoir, C1 could be a good choice
for injection in rich condensate reservoirs and C4 a better candidate
for lean condensate reservoirs.
376 A. Azamifard et al. / Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 18 (2014) 368e376
Initial reservoir pressure 3D plots (Fig. 11) show that for high
levels of C10 and C14, increasing C1 leads to increasing initial pres-
sure. For low levels of C10 and C14, the higher C7 composition, the
higher initial pressure. In both cases, increasing C4 composition,
decreases initial pressure.
3D plots for maximum liquid dropout is illustrated in Fig. 12. For,
both cases liquid dropout increases by increasing intermediate
component (C7). While for high levels of C10 and C14 the liquid drop
out decrease by decreasing C4, for low levels of C10 and C14, the
liquid dropout increase by decreasing C4.
6. Conclusions
In this study, damaged permeability in condensate zone, initial
reservoir pressure and maximum liquid dropout in terms of com-
ponents compositions were studied by means of statistical design.
Condensate fluids obtained by mixture design and well test simu-
lation data are used to create polynomial models for reservoir and
fluid properties. On the basis of introduced procedure, the
following conclusions are made:
1. Gas permeability in condensate zone, initial reservoir pressure
and maximum liquid dropout were successfully modeled with
good accuracy employing multivariable regression and back-
ward elimination.
2. The simple polynomial models developed in this study can
replace complex well test analysis of gas condensate reservoirs.
3. Variations of heavy components compositions in fluid samples
lead to different behaviors in damaged zone permeability, initial
reservoir pressure and maximum liquid drop out.
4. The 3D plots obtained in this study suggest that; in situations
where C1 and C4 have equal chances of injection into a reservoir,
C1 could be a good choice for injection in rich condensate res-
ervoirs and C4 a better candidate for lean condensate reservoirs.
References
Boe, A., Skjaeveland, S.M., Whitson, C.H., 1981. Two-phase Pressure Test Analysis.
SPE paper 10224.
Bourdet, D., Ayoub, J.A., Pirard, Y.M., 1983. Use of the Pressure Derivative in Well
Test Interpretation.
Chopra, A., Carter, R.D., 1986. Proof of the Two-phase Steady State Theory for Flow
Through Porous Media. SPE 14472.
Damsleth, E., Hage, A., Volden, R., 1992. Maximum information at minimum cost: a
North Sea field development study with an experimental design. J. Pet. Tech-
nol., 1350e1356.
Dejean, J.-P., Blance, G., 1999. Managing Uncertainties on Productions Using Inte-
grated Statistical Methods. paper SPE 56696, presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3e6 October.
Eide, A.L., Holden, L., Reiso, E., Aanaonsen, S.I., 1994. Automatic History Matching by
Use of Response Surfaces and Experimental Design. presented at 4th European
Conference on Mathematics of Oil Recovery, Røros, Norway, 7e10 June.
Fevang, O., Whitson, C.H., 1995. Modeling Gas Condensate Deliverability. SPE 30714.
Forchheimer, P., 1914. Hydraulik. Teubner, Leipzig, pp. 116e118. Chap. 15.
Friedmann, F., Chawathé, A., Larue, D.K., August 2003. Assessing uncertainty in
channelized reservoir using experimental designs. SPE Reserv. Eval. Eng., 264e
274.
Fussel, D.D., 1973. single well performance for gas condensate reservoir. J. Pet.
Technol. 255, 860e870.
Gary, W. Oehlert, 2010. A First Course Design and Analysis of Experiments. Uni-
versity of Minnesota,.
Gringarten, A.C., Al-Lamki, A., Daungkaew, S., Mott, R., Whittle, T.M., 2000. Well Test
Analysis in Gas Condensate Reservoirs. SPE 62920.
Gringarten, A.C., Ramey, H.J., Raghavan, R., 1975. Applied Pressure Analysis of
Fractured Wells.
Jones, J.R., Raghavan, R., 1988. Interpretation of Flowing Well Response in Gas
Condensate Wells. SPE paper 14204.
Landa, J.L., Güyagüler, B., 2003. A Methodology for History Matching and the
Assessment of Uncertainties Associated with Flow Prediction. paper SPE 84465,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in
Denver, Colorado, USA, 5e8 October.
Manceau, E., Meaghani, M., Zabalza-Mezghani, I., Roggero, F., 2001. Combination of
Experimental Design and Joint Modeling Methods for Quantifying the Risk
Associated With Deterministic and Stochastic Uncertainties e an Integrated
Test Study. paper SPE 71620 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 Septembere3
October.
Miller, C.C., Dyes, A.B., Hutchinson, C.A., 1950. Estimation of Permeability and
Reservoir Pressure from Bottom-hole Characteristics. AIME.
Moses, P.L., Donohoe, C.W., 1962. Gas Condensate Reservoirs, Petroleum Engineer-
ing Handbook, vol. 39. SPE, pp. 1e28,.
Mott, R., 2002. Engineering Calculation of Gas Condensate Well Productivity. SPE
77551.
Natrella, M., 2014. NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. http://
www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/.
O’Dell, H.G., Miller, R.N., 1967. Successfully cycling a low-permeability high yield gas
condensate reservoir. J. Pet. Technol., 41e47.
Raghavan, R., Chu, W.C., Jones, J.R., 1995. Practical Considerations in the Analysis of
Gas Condensate Well Tests. SPE paper 30576.
Roussennac, B., 2001. Gas Condensate Well Test Analysis (MSc thesis). Stanford
University, USA.
Schroeter, T., Hollaender, F., Gringarten, A.C., 2004. Deconvolution of well test data
as a nonlinear total least squares problem. SPE J. 9 (4), 375e390.
Theis, C.V., 1935. The relationship between the lowering of the piezometric surface
and the rate and duration of discharge using ground-water storage.
Wall, C.G., 1982. Characteristics of Gas Condensate Reservoirs and Traditional Pro-
duction Methods. Oyze Technical Service, pp. 1e12.
Yadavalli, S., Jones, J., 1996. Interpretation of Pressure Transient Data from Hy-
draulically Fractured Gas Condensate Wells. SPE 36556.
Yousefi, S.H., Eslamian, A., Rashidi, F., 2014. Investigation of well test behavior in gas
condensate reservoir using single-phase pseudo-pressure function. Korean J.
Chem. Eng. 31 (1), 20e28.