SPE 107168
Comparison of Vertical, Slanted, and Horizontal Wells Productivity in Layered Gas-
Condensate Reservoirs
M. Jamiolahmady, P. Ghahri, O.E. Victor, and A. Danesh, Heriot-Watt U.
Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and
Exhibition held in London, United Kingdom, 11–14 June 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract:
The performance of a horizontal (highly slanted) well (HW) or
a slanted well (SW), is generally believed to be better than that
of a vertical well (VW) due to its greater exposure to the
reservoir. However, the costs of drilling and completion are
more and the options for monitoring, control and intervention
often limited. Gas-condensate reservoirs are increasingly
considered as suitable candidates for drilling SWs or HWs.
These reservoirs pose special challenges selecting one type or
the other due to the complex nature of fluid flow in porous
media exhibited by these low interfacial tension systems,
which are different from those of conventional gas-oil
systems.
In this study we have investigated the performances of
SW, HW and VW in both single-layer homogenous and
layered gas-condensate reservoirs. ECLIPSE 300
compositional reservoir simulator, which includes our in-
house relative permeability (kr) correlation accounting for the
coupling (increase in kr by an increase in velocity and
interfacial tension) and inertial (decrease in kr by an increase
in velocity) effects, has been used to conduct a series of
sensitivity analysis on a single-well model resulting in some
important practical guidelines. The effect of fluid properties
and that of reservoir anisotropy (vertical to horizontal
permeability ratio, kv/kh) have also been studied.
For homogenous systems, HW and SW have higher
productivities. The improvement due to increase in lateral
reach is less pronounced at lower kv/kh values especially for
SW. In the case of layered reservoirs, the productivity of SW
is adversely affected by the extended cross flow from low
permeability to high permeability layers. In this case the
impact of position of layers and that of kv/kh is more
pronounced for SW and both at lower kv/kh. The decrease in
velocity around the wellbore of HW decreases the impact of kr
velocity dependency on production.
Introduction
In last few years, many horizontal wells have been drilled
around the world. The major purpose of horizontal well is to
enhance reservoir contact and thereby enhance well
productivity[1]. Numerous studies have been done to
investigate the performance of horizontal well in oil and gas
reservoir but there are a few studies on the application of
horizontal well in gas condensate reservoir. For gas
condensate reservoir when the pressure falls below the dew
point, a region of condensation is formed around the well,
which impairs the well deliverability. The bank of
condensation may be minimized using a horizontal well in gas
condensate reservoir due to less pressure draw down for a
horizontal well compared to that for a vertical well. The less
pressure draw down values obtained in horizontal wells than
vertical wells in the gas-condensate fields of Dejel Bissa[2] and
Hassi R Mel[3] were reported.
Hashemi and Gringranton[4] have compared the well
productivity between vertical, horizontal and hydraulically
fractured wells in a gas condensate reservoir using a single
well compositional model. They have also examined the
impact of the length of the horizontal well on the pressure
draw down and condensate blockage around the well. Their
results showed that the pressure draw down and condensate
blockage is smaller for a horizontal well compared to that of a
vertical well. They accounted for the coupling and inertial
effect by choosing a fine grid near the well bore and
calculating the core specific constant that simulator needs for
expressing these two effects from well test data. Davis[5]
compared the performance of a conventional vertical well with
that of a horizontal well for single phase dry gas using a
conventional black oil simulator. Her results were limited by
the inability of the simulator to model phase changes in the
near well bore region and its impact on the relative
permeability.
The effect of heterogeneity on the flow performance of
horizontal wells in gas condensate systems has been studied
by Muldi[6]. They simulated a single well model consisting of
eleven layers with different layering using a compositional
reservoir simulator. They also applied the Dykstra- Parson
coefficient[7] to quantify the heterogeneity levels in the model.
2 SPE 107168
The Dyskstra- Parsons coefficient was varied between zero
and one, with higher heterogeneity represented by the larger
numbers and zero signifying homogenous reservoirs. They
found that the distribution of heterogeneity had an important
impact on the performance of horizontal well but the level of
heterogeneity using the Dykstra- Parson Coefficient7 didn’t
affect production performance of the horizontal well. They
also showed that the position of a horizontal well in tight gas
condensate reservoirs is more sensitive to the permeability
distribution and for the case with high average permeability
the performance of the horizontal well is better than that of the
vertical well. However his work didn’t account for the impact
of inertial and coupling effects, which have been shown to
impact the flow performance of these low IFT systems
significantly[9-11].
The main objective of this study is to compare the
productivity of Horizontal (highly slanted), slanted, and
vertical wells in layered and homogenous gas condensate
reservoirs including the positive coupling and the negative
inertial effects. In this study, ECLIPS 300 compositional
reservoir simulator which includs Heriot Watt the velocity
dependent saturation-based kr correlation has been used to
simulate the complex phase behaviour around a single well.
We have look at the advantages of using deviated well instead
of vertical in terms of pressure redistribution and changes in
drainage patterns for the different well orientations.
The effects of layer arrangement, anisotropy (kv/kh),
changes in the richness of the gas-condensate fluid have also
been evaluated for different well angles.
Reservoir Modelling
A single well is simulated in a three layer reservoir. These
three layers have the core properties of Clashach, Texas
Cream and RC1b with porosities of 0.178, 0.21 and 0.173
respectively. The corresponding experimentally measured core
permeabilities and single-phase inertial factors are 553, 11.1
and 0.18 mD and 1.04E+08, 3.93E+09 and 1.06E+12 m-1,
respectively. The reservoir is 4000 ft in X and Y directions
and 60ft in Z direction. Each layer is 20ft in thickness in the
Z-direction. In the case of homogenous single layer case,
Texas Cream core properties were considered for the whole 60
ft of the reservoir. The depth of the formation top is 14950ft.
The slanted well has been located in the same cell where the
vertical well is completed. The reservoir pressure is 6800psia.
The well is producing at a rate of 400 MSCF/day and a
controlled bottom hole pressure of 4000 psia at the wellbore
radius of 2.76 inches. The net to gross is 1. The core specific
constants of our in-house velocity dependent relative
permeability correlations in ECLIPSE 300 were those
experimentally measured on these cores in this laboratory. The
pseudo-pressure option of ECLIPSE 300 has been used to
account for positive coupling and inertial effects around the
wellbore.
Fluid Properties
Three gas condensate model fluids with 7, 16 and 30% v/v,
maximum liquid dropout (MLDO) in the constant composition
expansion test at the reservoir temperature of 250oF were used
in this study. The corresponding dew point pressure values
were 4132, 5180 and 5405 psia, respectively. In ECLIPSE 300
the Lorentz Bray Clark viscosity correlation and Peng
Robinson Equation of State were used to estimate the
corresponding fluid properties.
Model Gridding
Integration of the Generalised Pseudo pressure function has
removed the need for local grid refinement, which is needed to
model pressure drop in the near well bore region. In modelling
the horizontal well (deviated at 83o) only one grid size was
used for the entire reservoir (100ft in X and Y direction and
10ft in Z). The slanted well (deviated at 32o) was modeled
using grid sizes which measured 100ft in the X direction,
100ft in the Y direction and 10ft in the Z direction far from the
wellbore. Near the well bore, the grid sizes was adjusted to
20ft from the 20th to 24th grid in the X direction to achieve
32o angle. A similar grid system was also used to model the
vertical well. The effect of grid blocks on the flow
performance was confirmed to be minimal. The slanted and
horizontal wells, similarly to the vertical well, penetrated the
whole production pay zone in z-direction but had lateral reach
of 100 ft and 500 ft, respectively, in the x-direction.
Results
The results presented here are for the case of gas-condensate
fluid with intermediate richness unless otherwise stated. In this
study, we considered two different patterns of reservoir
heterogeneities, i.e., high permeability on the top or at the
bottom both with monotonic variation in permeability, as well
as the homogenous single-layer system.
A sensitivity study has been conducted to evaluate the
impact of a change in vertical permeability on the production
rate. The results are shown in Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 2 to
3. These two Tables show the gas production after one year
for three different well angles and three different kv/kh ratios.
The Figures show the total gas production profiles versus time
at different prevailing conditions.
Figure 1, is total gas production versus time for different
well orientation at kv/kh =0.1. It confirms that, in the case of
homogenous single-layer reservoir, increasing the lateral reach
in slanted well (SW) and horizontal well (HW) resulted in
higher recovery compared to that of vertical well (VW). This
trend, which is more pronounced for HW with higher lateral
reach, was observed at all kv/kh ratios albeit to different extent.
Table 1 [12], shows that anisotropy significantly affects SW and
to a lesser degree HW due to it impact on the cross flow near
the wellbore for these scenarios. There is some cross flow in
the vertical direction for the vertical well due to gravity
segregation but its impact is not significant. Hence, the change
in anisotropy does not change the field gas recovery
significantly for this well orientation. This suggests that the
improvement due to increase in lateral reach is less
pronounced at lower kv/kh values, especially for SW.
SPE 107168
Data of Table 2 demonstrates that there are not significant
differences between the total productions after one year for
different well orientation in the case of heterogeneous system,
except when kv/kh =0. However, Figure 12 shows that
application of HW has improved the flow performance by
reaching to its total production plateau faster than VW. The
performance of SW, on the other hand, is slightly poorer than
that of the VW because of adverse affect of the extended cross
flow from low permeability to high permeability layers around
the wellbore. This adverse effect is minimal for HW due to its
increased exposure. This trend was observed at all kv/kh values
for both high permeability on top or at the bottom.
From Table 2 it is noted that kv/kh ratio does not
significantly impact the total gas production of HW, unless
kv/kh is close to zero. However, looking at data of Figure 2, it
is noted that a slower recovery is obtained for the HW when
kv/kh is reduced from 0.1 to 0.01. Figure 2 shows the gas
recovery profile for SW and HW at different kv/kh with high
permeable layer at the bottom. In the case of SW the impact of
kv/kh on the cross flow between layers especially around the
wellbore, is significant due to the limited reach (drainage
geometry) of this well compared to that of the HW. This has
resulted in more pronounced improvement in flow
performance by using HW rather than SW at lower kv/kh
values, Figure 2. HW reaches the total production plateau after
250, 220 and 200 days, for kv/kh of 0.01, 0.1 and 1.0,
respectively. The corresponding values for SW were 400, 300
and 260 days, respectively. Hence, the preference of having
HW is economically more defendable at lower kv/kh values
because of faster reservoir production. The impact of a change
in kv/kh for VW is more pronounced than HW but less than
that of SW, Table 2.
There is a significant difference between the layer
permeabilities; hence, it is expected that the overall delivery of
the fluids into the wellbore will be controlled by the position
of the high permeability layer as well as cross flow between
the layers. Production performance is always improved for the
wells when the order of the permeability layer was reversed
from high permeability layer on top compared to that at the
bottom. This improvement in production rate is due to the
impact of gravity segregation of liquid condensate toward the
lower layer, impeding the flow of gas, when high permeability
is at the bottom.
However, the impact of position of layers is minimal for
the horizontal well (HW), Figure 4. The ordering of layers
affects the performance of vertical well (VW), slightly more
but still insignificant, Figure 5.
Figure 3 shows the gas recovery profile for SW and HW at
different kv/kh with high permeable layer on top. In both
Figures 2 and 3, it is noted that quicker recoveries are obtained
at higher kv/kh for SW. However, when high permeability is on
top, Figure 3, the total production is achieved faster compared
to the case of high permeability at the bottom, Figure 2. The
plateau production reached at 280, 320 and 400 days at kv/kh
of 1, 0.1 and 0.01, respectively, with high permeability on top,
3
Figure 3. Comparing these values with the corresponding
values when high permeability layer is at the bottom, Figure 2,
highlights that the ordering of layers is more pronounced at
lower kv/kh due to its greater impact on cross flow between
layers, Figure 6. It should be noted that these results are
affected by the extent of lateral reach of HW and SW
compared to the reservoir dimensions.
Figures 7 and 8 show the total gas production rate for HW
with three different fluid composition (intermediate, lean and
rich gas-condensate systems) when the high permeability layer
is on top or at the bottom all at kv/kh =0.1, respectively. In
these plots we have also included the results of unrealistic
scenario of neglecting the positive coupling and negative
inertial effects. It can be seen that an increase in the fluid
richness has decreased the total gas production rate for all
cases considered here. The increase in fluid richness results in
more liquid drop out, thus reducing gas relative permeability
and hence, gas productivity. From Figure 7 it is noted that
velocity effects have minimal impact on HW for lean and
intermediate fluid richness as it has reduced the velocity
around the wellbore. However, for richer gas-condensate
systems, where positive coupling effect is more dominant,
inclusion of velocity depend kr option has improved the
productivity. The same trend also observed when the high
permeability layer is at the bottom, Figure 8.
When the velocity around the wellbore has increased in the
case of SW, Figure 9, compared to that of HW, Figure 7, the
impact of coupling effect has become evident for both
intermediate and rich fluid systems. In the case of having the
high permeability system at the bottom, Figure 10, the
velocities are significantly increased and inertial effect
becomes more dominant than coupling for lean and
intermediate richness fluid systems. However, the effect of
coupling is still more pronounced than inertia for the rich gas
condensate system.
Figure 11 shows a plot of the total gas production versus
time for different well orientations when the high permeability
layer is at the bottom with lean gas condensate system. This
Figure, similarly to that of Figure 12 shows that application of
HW has improved the flow performance by reaching to its
total production plateau faster than VW. The performance of
SW is slightly poorer than that of the VW because of adverse
affect of the extended cross flow from low permeability to
high permeability layers around the wellbore.
Conclusion
A series of sensitivity exercise were conducted to compare the
performance of vertical, slanted and horizontal wells for a
single-well gas condensate system. Following conclusions
were obtained from the results of our simulations studying the
impact of heterogeneity, anisotropy, fluid richness as well as
well orientation:
1. For homogenous systems, HW and SW have higher
productivities. The improvement due to increase in lateral
reach is less pronounced at lower kv/kh values especially for
SW.
4 SPE 107168

2. In heterogeneous system, HW improved the flow Fractured Wells in Gas Condensate Reservoirs”, SPE 94178, 13-16
performance by reaching to its total production plateau faster June 2005.
than VW. The performance of the SW, on the other hand, is 6. Davis, J., “Assessing the Value of High Angle Wells in the
adversely affected by the extended cross flow from low Britannia Field”, MSc. Thesis, Heriot Watt University, 2003
7. Jerny L. Jensen, Larry W. Lake,” The Influence of Sample Size
permeability to high permeability layers. . and Permeability Distribution on Heterogeneity Measures”, SPE
3. The impact of kv/kh on production is more pronounced for Reservoir Engineering, May 1988.
SW, then VW and finally HW especially at lower kv/kh ratio. 8. Danesh A, PVT and phase behaviour of petroleum reservoir fluids,
Hence, the preference of having HW is economically more 1998, ELSEVIER Science B.V., Amsterdam, Netherland.
defendable at lower kv/kh. 9. Danesh, A., Khazam, M., Henderson, G.D., Tehrani, D.H., Peden.
4. The ordering of the layers only affects the well productivity J.M.: ‘Gas Condensate recovery study’ DTI improved oil recovery
of slanted well at low kv/kh ratios. and research dissemination seminar London, June 1994.
5. Production decreased by an increase in the level of fluid 10. Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H. and Duncan,
richness. This is due to the increased level of liquid drop out D.B.:’ A mechanistic model of gas –condensate flow in pores’
Transport in pores media, Oct. 2000, 41 (1), 17-46.
reducing the gas relative permeability. 11. Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., and Sohrabi, M.
5. Coupling effect is more dominant than inertial effect for 2006c. Variations of Gas/Condensate Relative Permeability With
richer fluid systems. Production Rate at Near-Wellbore Conditions: A General
6. The decrease in velocity around the wellbore of HW Correlation. SPEREE 9 (6): 688–697. SPE-83960-PA.
decreases the impact of kr velocity dependency on production. 12. Behzadi, S. H.G, Comparison of productivity of highly slanted
gas condensate wells with that of conventional wells. MSc Thesis,
However, it should be noted that these results are affected by Heriot Watt University, 2003/2004
the extent of lateral reach of horizontal and slanted wells
compared to the reservoir dimensions.
Table 1- Field gas recovery of horizontal, slanted
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS and vertical wells at different kv/kh after 1 year,
The above study has been sponsored by: The UK Department homogenous porous medium.
of Trade and Industry, BP Exploration Company (Colombia) Field Gas Recovery
kv/kh
Ltd, Gaz de France, Petrobras, Statoil A.S.A. and Total Horizontal Well Slanted Well Vertical Well
Exploration UK plc, which is gratefully acknowledged. (HW) (SW) (VW)
0.01 18.5 12.3 11.3
Nomenclature 0.1 21.5 17.9 12.7
EOS = equation of state. 1 23.7 21.7 14.1
FGPT = total field gas production.
h = net pay thicknesst.
k = permeability, mD.
kr = relative permeability, mD. Table 2- Field gas recovery of horizontal, slanted
kh = horizontal permeability. and vertical wells at different kv/kh after 1 year,
kv = vertical permeability. hetrogenous porous medium with three layers.
Mscf/day= Thousand standard cubic feet per day.
Field Gas Recovery
MMscf/day= million standard cubic feet per day. High Permeability High Permeability Layer at
SW =slanted well. kv/kh
Layer on Top the Bottom
HW =horizontal well. HW SW VW HW SW VW
VW =vertical well. 0.01 29.8 26.5 24.5 30.0 27.0 26.0
0.1 29.8 29.8 29.8 30.0 29.6 30.0
1 29.8 30.0 29.8 30.2 29.8 30.2
Subscripts
g = refers to gas
h = refers to horizontal dimension
v = refers to vertical dimension

Reference
1. S.D. Joshi, Horizontal Well Technology, 1991.
2. A. Dehane, Sonatrach PED, D. Tiab, and S.O. Osisanya,
“Performance of Horizontal Wells in Gas condensate Reservoirs,
Djebel Bissa Field”, SPE CIM 65504, 6-8 Nov 2000.
3. A. Muladi, and W.V. Pinczewski, “Application of Horizontal Well
in Heterogeneity Gas Condensate Reservoir”, SPE 54351, 20-22
April 1999.
4. Boualem Marir, Sonatrach Inc. and Djebbar Tiab,” Performance of
Horizontal Wells in Gas Condensate Resevoirs: Hassi R’Mel Field,
Algeria”, SPE 100753, Oct 2006.
5. A. Hashemi, and A.C. Gringarten, “Comparison of Well
Productivity between Vertical, Horizontal and Hydraulically
SPE 107168 5

High permeability layer on top

Slanted Well
Horizontal Well

High permeability layer at bottom

Vertical Well

Fig.1- Comparision of the vertical, horizontal and slanted well Fig. 4- Gas production vs. time for horizontal well with high
performance at the kv/kh of 0.1 (intermediate condensate& permeability layer on top or at the bottom, kv/kh =0.1.
homogenous reservoir)

High Permeability Layer on Top

Horizontal Well kv/kh=0.1 Horizontal Well kv/kh=1.0

Horizontal Well kv/kh=0.01

Slanted Well kv/kh=0.1 High Permeability Layer at Bottom

Slanted Well kv/kh=1.0

Slanted Well kv/kh=0.01

Fig. 5- Gas production vs time for vertical well with high

Fig. 2- Gas production vs. time for slanted and horizontal well at permeability on top or at bottom, kv/kh =0.01.
different kv/kh, high permeability layer at the bottom.

Horizontal Well kv/kh=0.1 High permeability layer on top

Horizontal Well kv/kh=1.0

Horizontal Well kv/kh=0.01

High permeability layer at bottom

Slanted Well kv/kh=1

Slanted Well kv/kh=0.1

Slanted Well kv/kh=0.01

Fig. 6- Gas production vs. time for slanted wells with high
permeability layer on top or at the bottom, kv/kh=0.01.
Fig. 3- Gas production vs. time for slanted and horizontal well at
different kv/kh, highly permeability layer on top.
6 SPE 107168

Lean Condensate Lean Condensate

No Effect-Lean Condensate No Effect-Lean Condensate

Rich Condensate

Intermediate Condensate Intermediate Condensate

No Effect-Intermediate Condensate No Effect-Intermediate Condensate

No Effect-Rich Condensate Rich Condensate

No Effect-Rich Condensate

Fig. 7- Gas production vs. time for different fluid rechness with
and without velocity dependent kr option, horizontal well, high
permeability layer on top.
Fig. 10- Gas production vs. time for different fluid rechness with
and without velocity dependent kr option, slanted well, high
permeability layer at the bottom.

Lean Condensate Horizontal Well

No Effect-Lean Condensate

Slanted Well
Rich Condensate

Vertical Well
Intermediate Condensate

No Effect-Intermediate Condensate

No Effect-Rich Condensate

Fig. 11- Comparison of the vertical, horizontal and vertical well

performance at the same kv/kh of 0.1, lean condensate, high
Fig. 8- Gas production vs. time for different fluid rechness with permeability at the bottom.
and without velocity dependent kr option, horizontal well, high
permeability layer at the bottom.

Horizontal Well
Lean Condensate
No Effect-Lean Condensate
Slanted Well
Rich Condensate

Intermediate Condensate Vertical Well

No Effect-Intermediate Condensate

No Effect-Rich Condensate

Fig. 12- Comparision of the vertical, horizontal and slanted well

performance at the kv/kh of 0.1, intermediate condensate, high
Fig. 9- Gas production vs. time for different fluid rechness with
permeability at the bottom.
and without velocity dependent kr option, slanted well, high
permeability layer on top.