IPTC-19603-Abstract

Enhance the Gas Productivity for Shale Gas Reservoirs Using

Thermochemical Treatment

Amjed Hassan, Mohamed Mahmoud, and Abdulaziz Al-Majed, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals;
Ayman Al-Nakhli, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2020, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 13 – 15 January 2020.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The
material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial
purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented.
Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435.

Abstract
In shale reservoirs, the gas productivity is severely reduced due to the formation tightness. The extreme low
permeability of shale formations can result in reducing the gas flow into the borehole, and consequently
the gas production can be significantly reduced. This paper presents an effective technique for enhancing
the gas productivity for shale gas reservoirs using thermochemical fluids. The used chemicals can generate
heat and pressure in-situ and improve the flow condition by creating micro- factures in the shale rocks.
Experimental measurements and analytical calculations were carried out to investigate the enhancement in
gas productivity for shale samples due to the injection of thermochemical fluids.
Coreflooding experiments and rate transient analysis (RTA) were conducted as well as nuclear magnetic
resonance (NMR) measurements. Tight core samples from eagle ford formation were used in the flooding
experiments. The improvement in gas productivity due to thermochemical injection was evaluated using rate
transient analysis. The profiles of pressure-drop and gas flow-rate were used to estimate the gas productivity
before and after the chemical treatment. NMR measurements were used to study the changes in the pore
network due to thermochemical stimulation. The T2 signal distribution was obtained before and after the
chemical injection. Furthermore, analytical calculations were performed to estimate the enhancement in
gas productivity due to the thermochemical treatment. The increase in absolute open flow (AOF) and the
productivity index (PI) due to the chemical treatment were determined.
Results showed that treating shale rocks with thermochemical fluids can enhance the gas productivity by
62% and reduce the capillary pressure by more than 45%. Also, the absolute open flow can be increased
four times due to the thermochemical injection into shale reservoirs. The generated heat and pressure due
to thermochemical treatment can induce permanent alterations in the shale matrix and then improve the
hydrocarbon flow for long term. NMR measurements, before and after the treatment, confirm the creation
of tiny fractures during the chemical injection. The novelty of this work is that an effective treatment is
presented to enhance the gas productivity for shale formations. Ultimately, this study will be very useful for
treating the shale reservoirs with thermochemical fluids to improve the gas productivity, and consequently
enhance the total gas production from shale reservoirs.
2 IPTC-19603-Abstract

Keywords: Shale reservoirs, gas productivity, effective treatment, thermochemical injection, rate
transient analysis

Introduction
Over the past decade, shale gas exploitation and production have developed substantially, because the
hydrocarbon reserves in shale reservoirs is four time greater than that of conventional reservoirs (Wang et
al., 2017; Jia et al., 2019). However, shale rocks are incredibly tight and the average permeability for shale
formations vary between 10 and 1000 nD (Kim et al., 2019). Therefore, extensive stimulation treatments
are applied to improve the gas production from shale gas reservoirs (Sheng 2015). Multi-stage hydraulic
fracturings are implemented to create highly conductive paths allowing the gas to flow from the reservoir
matrix into the wellbore. Also, drilling horizontal wells are used to increase the contact area between
the reservoir formation and production well, and then lower pressure-drop will be required to flow the
hydrocarbon gas (Guo et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2017; Ghahri et al., 2018).
In gas condensate reservoirs, the gas productivity depends on the gas effective permeability, gas
saturation, and the gas flow regimes (Nasriani et al., 2015; Gholampour and Mahdiyar, 2019). During the
gas production, the reservoir pressure decreases due to the reservoir depletion. When the reservoir pressure
falls below the dew point pressure, liquid drop out will be induced due to the pressure reduction and
then condensate liquid will accumulate around the gas producer (Whitson and Sunjerga 2012; Ayub and
Ramadan, 2019). Consequently, the gas condensate reservoirs will exhibit a complex flow behavior due
to the appearance of two-phase; hydrocarbon gas and condensate liquid (Kalla et al., 2014; Yousefi et al.,
2014; Nasriani et al., 2015; Farhoodi et al., 2019). As result the gas velocity and the well productivity will
significantly reduce due to the accumulated condensate in the near wellbore region (Manzoor et al., 2018;
Gholampour and Mahdiyar, 2019).
In shale gas reservoirs, the capillary forces can increase the severity of liquid trapping which will obstruct
the gas flow and decrease the hydrocarbon productivity (Bennion et al., 1994, 1996; Wang et al., 2017).
Kim et al., (2019) studied the effect of reservoir characteristics on the productivity of shale gas reservoir.
They divided the reservoir characteristics into five factors based on the well geometry and reservoir quality.
They found that the shale brittleness and the total organic carbon are the dominant factors that control the
shale productivity. Hussien et al., (2019) investigated the impact of fracking fluids on improving the shale
gas productivity. The effects of surfactants types, chemical additives and water salinity on improving the
performance of the fracturing fluid were studied. Interfacial tension (IFT) and contact angle measurements
were conducted at different reservoir pressures and temperatures. They concluded that using surfactant
fluids for hydraulic fracturing treatment can improve the shale productivity, and more improvement can be
obtained at higher pressure and temperature conditions.
The gas productivity for shale formation can be determined utilizing the profiles of gas flow rates and
flowing pressures (Zhao et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2018). The improvement in gas productivity due to
stimulation treatment can be evaluated using the inflow performance relationship (IPR). Flow-after- flow
test or a multipoint test can be used to estimate the deliverability for gas wells utilizing the stabilized gas
rates and flowing pressures. In general, four or five rates were used, then several methods can be used
to estimate the well deliverability. For oil reservoirs, the IPR model can be obtained by plotting the gas
flow rate against the flowing pressure in normal scale. However, for gas reservoirs, different plotting scales
should be used in order to improve the reliability of IPR model. For example, the gas productivity can be
assessed by plotting the flow rates against the flowing pressure in semi-log or log-log scales. Also, the
pressure square approach can be used to evaluate the inflow performance for the gas production wells.
Equations 1-3 can be used to express the relationship between the gas flow ate and the drawdown pressure
(Rawlins and Schellhardt, 1935).
IPTC-19603-Abstract 3

(1)

(2)

(3)
Where ΔP is the drawdown pressure (psi), qsc is the gas flow rate at standard conditions (MMScf/D), C
and n are empirical parameters that can be determined by fitting the production data, PR is the stabilized or
average reservoir pressure (psia), and Pwf is the flowing pressure (psia).
The extremely low permeability of shale reservoir makes the continuous injection very difficult, instead,
Huff and Puff approach is used to improve the hydrocarbon recovery. Cyclic injection methods showed
effective performance for reducing the damage caused by condensate banking. In this work, thermochemical
fluids were injected into shale rocks to improve the gas productivity. Huff and Puff injection mode was
applied, and five cycles of chemical injections were used. The shale productivity was evaluated before and
after the chemical treatment using rate transient analysis. The profiles of gas flow rate and pressure-drop
across the shale samples were used to determine the improvement in gas productivity.

Materials and Methodology

Rocks and Fluids
In this work, shale samples from eagle ford formation was used, the shale samples were characterized by
determining the rock properties and conducting nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements. The
rock samples have an average gas permeability of 0.0044 mD and total porosity of 3.19%. The core samples
showed higher percentage of calcite (56.42%) and moderate amount of quartz (12.51%), while the clay
content is 20.51%. Also, the shale rocks showed small fraction of dolomite (1.99%) and feldspar (1.28%).
In addition, chemical fluids consist of sodium nitrite (NaNO2) and ammonium chloride (NH4Cl) were used.
The chemical reaction was activated using chemical agent, acetic acid was injected with the thermochemical
fluids to change the system pH and activate the chemical reaction. The thermochemical reaction can be
represented by (Hassan et al., 2018; Alade et al., 2019):
NH4Cl + NaNO2 → NaCl + 2H2O + N2 + ΔH (heat)

Experiments
In this study, three sets of experiments were conducted to evaluate the gas productivity for shale samples
before and after the chemical treatment. The experimental work includes coreflooding tests, NMR
measurements and rate transient experiments. Coreflood tests were performed by injecting thermochemical
fluids into the shale rock to create multiple fractures and improve the core conductivity. During the fluid
injection, the injected chemicals meet only at the core face, hence the heat and pressure will be generated
only inside the treated core. Five cycles of chemical injection were applied by injecting the reactive fluids
and soaking the sample for a period of time till the pressure across the core stabilizes. Moreover, NMR
measurements were carried out before and after the thermochemical injection to capture the changes in
shale matrix due to the injected chemicals. The uncertainty of NMR measurements was minimized by
applying same experimental conditions before and after the chemical treatment. Finally, rate transient
analysis was performed by measuring the flow rate as a function of pressure-drop across the rock sample.
The profiles of gas flow rate and pressure-drop were used to determine the enhancement in gas productivity.
The productivity index (PI) and the absolute open flow (AOF) were calculated before and after the chemical
injection.
4 IPTC-19603-Abstract

Results and Discussion

Before Thermochemical Treatment
The shale rocks are characterized with extremely low permeability and significantly high capillary pressure
which will restrict the gas flow. In this study, the used shale samples have an average gas permeability of
0.0044 mD. Initially, rate transient analysis was conducted on the rock sample to assess the original shale
productivity, before any stimulation treatment. Figure 1 shows the profiles of gas flow rate and flowing
pressure for the shale rock before thermochemical treatment. Seven intervals of gas flow rates and flowing
pressures are shown. At each interval, a certain flowing pressure was applied, and the corresponding gas
flow rate was measured. The gas flow rate is zero till the pressure drop across the sample reach 354 psi
then the gas starts to flow across the shale rock, which indicates that a pressure gradient of 168.57 psi/in
is required to allow the gas flowing in the shale rock. The relationship between the gas flow rate and the
pressure-drop across the core samples was studied by plotting the gas flow against the drawdown pressure.
Figure 2 shows a cross plot for the gas flow rate against the pressure drop across the shale sample, before
the thermochemical injection. The relationship between gas flow rate and pressure drop can be represented
by an exponential model with correlation coefficient of 0.93.
Absolute open flow (AOF) is one of the main theoretical characteristics that can be used to evaluate the
gas reservoirs. Several methods can be used to estimate the AOF (Rawlins and Schellhardt, 1935). In this
work, the pressure square approach was used. Figure 3 shows the gas flow rate against the square of pressure-
drop in a log-log scale. For this sample, the absolute open flow is around 100 cm3/min which is equivalent
to around 5.08 MMScf/day in the reservoir scale. Moreover, the gas productivity before thermochemical
treatment was estimated as shown in Figure 4. The gas productivity was determined by calculating the
ratio between the gas flow and the pressure drop across the shale sample. The average gas productivity is
around 0.0021 cm3/min/psi which indicates the poor shale productivity, and therefore stimulation treatment
is required to improve the rock conductivity and increase the gas productivity.

Figure 1—Profiles of flow rate (A) and flowing pressure (B) for the shale rock, before thermochemical treatment.
IPTC-19603-Abstract 5

Figure 2—Cross plot for the flow rate and pressure-drop for the shale sample before thermochemical injection.

Figure 3—Log-log plot for flow rate and the square of pressure drop for the shale sample before the chemical treatment.

Figure 4—Profile of productivity index for the shale rock before injecting thermochemical fluids.
6 IPTC-19603-Abstract

Thermochemical Treatment
In this study, thermochemical treatment was carried out in order to improve the gas productivity for shale
rock. The chemical fluids were injected using cyclic injection method, five cycles of chemical injection
were applied. Figure 5 shows the pressure profiles at the inlet and outlet of the core sample. The total
treatment duration is 50 hours, and each cycle took around 10 hours in average. All cycles were conducted by
injecting thermochemical fluids, soaking the shale sample, and producing the injected fluids. The duration
for each interval was determined based on the pressure profiles. In general, the inlet and outlet pressures
were increased with number of cycles as more thermochemical fluids were injected. Also, the pressure
profiles indicate that the outlet pressure increased after 10 hours of the chemical injection revealing the
poor rock conductivity. In all cycles the pore pressure increased dramatically during the chemical injection,
the maximum pressures are 2065 and 1250 at the inlet and outlet of the shale sample, respectively. The
rapid increase in the core pressure can cause significant changes in the shale matrix. Therefore, the impact
of thermochemical injection on the shale rock was investigated using NMR measurements. The profiles
of relaxation time were obtained for the shale sample before and after the chemical treatment. Figure
6 shows the incremental and cumulative porosity profiles pre- and post- the thermochemical injection.
Microfractures were induced in the shale sample due to the chemical injection. The Microfractures were
indicated by the second peak in the incremental porosity profile after the treatment. Also, the injected
chemical led to enlarge the pore sizes of the shale samples as indicated by the shift in the incremental porosity
profile after the treatment. The peak of T2 relaxation was shifted from around 0.25ms to 0.63ms due to the
thermochemical treatment. Consequently, the cumulative core porosity was increased from 3.19% to 5.88%.

Figure 5—Results of treating the shale sample with thermochemical fluids,

five cycles were applied, and the total treatment duration is 50 hours.
IPTC-19603-Abstract 7

Figure 6—The pore size distribution for the shale sample pre- and post-
treatment. Microfractures were generated due to the chemical injection.

In addition, the reduction in capillary pressure due to thermochemical treatment was estimated. Figure
7 shows the profiles of capillary pressure before and after the chemical stimulation. The capillary pressure
was reduced by 47.3% in average due to the thermochemical injection into the shale rock. The reduction
in capillary pressure is attributed mainly due to the microfractures creation and pores enlargement after
the chemical treatment. Injecting thermochemical fluid into shale rock led to increase the pores diameter
as indicted in the NMR profiles, having larger pore throat can significantly reduce the capillary forces.
Equation 4 can describe the relationship between the pore throat and capillary pressure;
(4)

Figure 7—Reduction in capillary pressure due to the injection of thermochemical

fluids, the capillary pressure reduced by 47.3% after the treatment.

Where, Pc is the capillary pressure in dynes/cm2, ### is the interfacial tension at water-oil contact in dynes/
cm, # is the contact angle in degree, r is the pore radius in cm.
8 IPTC-19603-Abstract

Furthermore, the produced effluent from the flooding experiments was analyzed, ICP (Inductively
coupled plasma) analysis was carried out to determine the ions concentration for the injected fluids and the
produced effluent. The produced effluent showed considerable concentrations of calcium and potassium
ions, more than 450ppm. While, traces of iron, magnesium and aluminum ions were observed, less than
10ppm. The used shale sample showed higher percentages of calcite (56.42%) and illite (6.32%) minerals.
Therefore, the high concentration of calcium and potassium ions in the produced effluent can be attributed
to the dissolution of calcite and illite minerals. However, the lower concentration of iron, magnesium and
aluminum ions in the produced effluent can indicate that the injected fluids did not dissolve the other
minerals such as smectite or kaolinite minerals.

After Thermochemical Treatment

The impact of thermochemical fluids on enhancing the gas productivity was evaluated by conducting
rate transient analysis for the shale sample after the chemical injection. Figures 8-11 show the results of
rate transient measurements for the treated shale rock after the thermochemical treatment. The absolute
open flow (AOF) after the treatment is around 450 cm3/min which is equivalent to 22.89 MMScf/day in
the field scale. The AOF increased by a factor of 4.5 compared to the AOF before the treatment. Also,
injecting thermochemical fluids into the shale sample showed good improvements in the gas productivity.
The chemical treatment led to increase the gas productivity by 62%, the productivity indexes are 0.0021 and
0.0034 cm3/min/psi before and after the thermochemical treatment, respectively. During the treatment, the
injected chemicals react inside the shale pores and increase the pressure rapidly, therefore, microfractures
are induced in the treated shale. The generated fractures improve the shale conductivity and increase the
gas productivity. Moreover, the results suggest that more injection cycles are preferable in order to achieved
higher improvement in the gas productivity. Generally, increasing the treatment cycles can lead to more
improvements in the shale matrix. Injecting more thermochemical fluids into the shale rock can enlarge
the existing fractures and generate new microfractures, hence more enhancement can be achieved in the
shale productivity.

Figure 8—Profiles of flow rate (A) and flowing pressure (B) for the shale sample after the chemical injection.
IPTC-19603-Abstract 9

Figure 9—Cross plot for the flow rate and pressure drop across the shale sample after thermochemical injection.

Figure 10—Log-log plot for the flow rate and square of pressure-
drop, after treating the shale sample with thermochemical fluids.

Figure 11—Profile of productivity index for the shale rock after thermochemical injection.
10 IPTC-19603-Abstract

Productivity Enhancement
Figure 12 shows the profiles of productivity index pre- and post- the thermochemical treatment. Before
the chemical injection, the gas productivity varies between 0.00093 and 0.0030 cm3/min/psi, while after
the stimulation treatment the productivity varies between 0.0024 and 0.0044 cm3/min/psi. In general, the
gas productivity can be improved with increasing the number of injection cycles as more chemicals are
injected. Injecting more thermochemical fluids into the shale rock can increase the shale productivity by
creating tiny fractures in the shale matrix. In this work, five cycles of chemical injections were applied, and
the gas productivity was increased by 62% in average. The pressure profiles during the thermochemical
treatment indicate that the considerable changes in the shale rock was induced during the fourth and fifth
injection cycles, because the generated pressure during these cycles are significantly higher than that during
the previous cycles. Increasing the magnitude of the generated pressure during thermochemical fluids can
provide better improvements in the shale productivity as more fracture can be generated.

Figure 12—Enhancement of gas productivity due to thermochemical injection.

The productivity index increased by 62% after the chemical treatment.

In this study five cycles of thermochemical treatments improved the gas productivity by 62% and
increased the absolute open flow by four folds. However, further enhancement in the gas productivity can
be achieved by injecting more thermochemical fluids into the shale rocks. Also, increasing the chemical
concentration can lead to increase the gas productivity after the treatment. The generated pressure during
thermochemical reaction has strong relationship with the concentration of the reactant fluids. Alade et al,
(2019) mentioned that the thermochemical reaction has first order reaction model which indicates that
the generated heat or pressure from thermochemical reaction can be increased by increasing the chemical
concentrations.

Conclusions
This work investigates the impact of thermochemical fluids on improving the gas productivity for shale
rocks. Experimental measurements including coreflooding experiments, rate transient analysis and NMR
measurements were carried out. The absolute open flow (AOF) and productivity index were used to evaluate
the effectiveness of thermochemical treatment in enhancing the shale productivity. The used chemicals
showed good potential for increasing the gas productivity for shale reservoirs. The injected chemical can
IPTC-19603-Abstract 11

create microfractures and improve the gas flow in shale formations. In this work, five cycles of chemical
injection led to increase the absolute open flow by a factor of 4.5 and enhance the productivity index by
around 62%. The improvement in shale conductivity is attributed mainly to the insitu generated pressure
which induce tiny fractures in the shale rock. The generated fractures reduced the capillary forces for the
shale rock by 47% in average. This study indicates that more improvements in the shale productivity can
be achieved by injecting more thermochemical fluids.

Acknowledgment
The college of Petroleum and Geoscience, at King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, and Saudi
Aramco are acknowledged for the support and permission to publish this work. Saudi Aramco is also
acknowledged for funding this research under project number CIPR2317. Authors are grateful to Mr. Eassa
Abdullah and Mr. Mahmoud Elsayed for helping in the experimental work. We also thank Dr. Abdulrauf
Adebayo for approval to access the NMR equipment at the Center for Integrative Petroleum Research
(CIPR) – CPG, KFUPM.

References
Alade, 0., Mahmoud, M., Hasan, A., Al-Shehri, D., Al-Nakhli, A. and Bataweel, M., 2019. Evaluation of kinetics and
Energetics of Thermochemical Fluids for Enhanced Recovery of Heavy Oil and Liquid Condensate. Energy & Fuels.
Ayub, M. and Ramadan, M., 2019. Mitigation of near wellbore gas-condensate by CO2 huff-n-puff injection: A simulation
study. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 175, pp.998–1027.
Bennion, D.B., Bietz, R.F., Thomas, F.B., Cimolai, M.P., 1994. Reductions in the productivity of oil and low permeability
gas reservoirs due to aqueous phase trapping. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 33 (09).
Bennion, D.B., Thomas, F.B., Bietz, R.F., 1996. Low permeability gas reservoirs: problems, opportunities and solutions
for drilling, completion, stimulation and production. SPE 35577 Presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium.
Calgary, Canada.
Farhoodi, S., Sadeghnejad, S. and Dehaghani, A.H.S., 2019. Simultaneous effect of geological heterogeneity and
condensate blockage on well test response of gas condensate reservoirs. Journal of Natural Gas Science and
Engineering, 66, pp.192–206.
Ghahri, P., Jamiolahmadi, M., Alatefi, E., Wilkinson, D., Dehkordi, F.S. and Hamidi, H., 2018. A new and simple model
for the prediction of horizontal well productivity in gas condensate reservoirs. Fuel, 223, pp.431–450.
Gholampour, F. and Mahdiyar, H., 2019. A new correlation for relative permeability in gas-condensate reservoirs. Journal
of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 172, pp.831–838.
Guo, B., Gao, D., Wang, Q., 2011. The role of formation damage in hydraulic fracturing shale gas wells. SPE 148778
Presented at the SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Ohio, USA.
Hassan, A.M., Mahmoud, M.A., Al-Majed, A.A., Elkatatny, S., Al-Nakhli, A.R. and Bataweel, M.A., 2018. Novel
Technique to Eliminate Gas Condensation in Gas Condensate Reservoirs Using Thermochemical Fluids. Energy &
fuels, 32 (12), pp.12843–12850.
Huang, S., Ding, G., Wu, Y., Huang, H., Lan, X. and Zhang, J., 2018. A semi-analytical model to evaluate productivity of
shale gas wells with complex fracture networks. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 50, pp.374–383.
Hussien, 0.S., Elraies, K.A., Almansour, A., Husin, H., Belhaj, A. and Ern, L., 2019. Experimental study on the use
of surfactant as a fracking fluid additive for improving shale gas productivity. Journal of Petroleum Science and
Engineering, 183, p. 106–426.
Jia, B., Tsau, J.S. and Barati, R., 2019. A review of the current progress of CO2 injection EOR and carbon storage in
shale oil reservoirs. Fuel, 236, pp.404–427.
Kalla, S., Leonardi, S.A., Berry, D.W., Poore, L.D., Sahoo, H., Kudva, R.A. and Braun, E.M., 2014. Factors that affect
gas-condensate relative permeability. IPTC 17264 presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference,
Doha, Qatar.
Kim, G., Lee, H., Chen, Z., Athichanagorn, S. and Shin, H., 2019. Effect of reservoir characteristics on the productivity
and production forecasting of the Montney shale gas in Canada. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 182,
p.106276.
Manzoor, S., Middya, U., Byer, T.J. and Crumpton, P.I., 2018, September. Efficient Modeling Of Near Wellbore
Phenomena For Large Scale Gas-Condensate Systems In Massively Parallel Reservoir Sim. In ECMOR XVI-16th
European Conference on the Mathematics of Oil Recovery.
12 IPTC-19603-Abstract

Nasriani, H.R., Asadi, E., Nasiri, M., Khajenoori, L. and Masihi, M., 2015. Challenges of fluid phase behavior modeling
in Iranian retrograde gas condensate reservoirs. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental
Effects, 37 (6), pp.663–669.
Nasriani, H.R., Borazjani, A.A., Iraji, B. and MoradiDowlatAbad, M., 2015. Investigation into the effect of capillary
number on productivity of a lean gas condensate reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering, 135,
pp.384–390.
Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A. 1935. Backpressure Data on Natural Gas Wells and Their Application to Production
Practices, 7. Monograph Series, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Sheng, J.J., 2015. Increase liquid oil production by huff-n-puff of produced gas in shale gas condensate reservoirs. Journal
of Unconventional Oil and Gas Resources, 11, pp.19–26.
Wang, L., Tian, Y., Yu, X., Wang, C., Yao, B., Wang, S., Winterfeld, P.H., Wang, X., Yang, Z., Wang, Y. and Cui, J., 2017.
Advances in improved/enhanced oil recovery technologies for tight and shale reservoirs. Fuel, 210, pp. 425–445.
Whitson, C.H. and Sunjerga, S., 2012. PVT in liquid-rich shale reservoirs. SPE 155499 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Texas, USA.
Yousefi, S.H., Eslamian, A. and Rashidi, F., 2014. Investigation of well test behavior in gas condensate reservoir using
single-phase pseudo-pressure function. Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, 31 (1), pp.20–28.
Zhao, X., Rui, Z., Liao, X. and Zhang, R., 2015. A simulation method for modified isochronal well testing to determine
shale gas well productivity. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering, 27, pp.479–485.