SPE 104307

KPIM of Gas/Condensate Productivity: Prediction of Condensate/Gas Ratio (CGR)

Using Reservoir Volumetric Balance
A.F. Olaberinjo, U. of Lagos, Nigeria; M.O. Oyewola, U. of New South Wales, Australia; O.A. Adeyanju and O.A. Alli,
U. of Lagos, Nigeria; A.D. Obiyemi, OSPOTECH, Nigeria; and S.O. Ajala, Globacom, Nigeria

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

The approach will provide a useful tool for rapid
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Canton, Ohio, U.S.A., 11–13 October 2006.
forecasts of condensate well performance, for
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 examining the effects of condensate blockage in
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 different well types or for studying sensitivities. It is
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 also valuable where simple models of condensate
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, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435. reservoir performance are required for use in
integrated studies.
Abstract
Accurate forecasting of condensate well
deliverability usually requires good knowledge of Introduction
the gas condensate vapor – liquid properties. Gas condensates are becoming exceptionally
Condensate well deliverability is particularly important throughout the world. Two common areas
important as it impacts downstream issues such as are of specific interest – characterization and
the number of wells required, surface gas handling retrograde condensation influences on the properties
facilities, drilling schedules and income from gas of gas condensate mixtures.
sales contracts. Retrograde condensation in gas condensate
A new approach for forecasting viability of gas reservoirs and gas liberation in volatile oil
condensate wells and calculating condensate gas reservoirs are examples of two phase flow problems
ratio (CGR), using simpler techniques is presented. currently attracting interest. In simulating such
The calculation uses a volumetric balance model for flows, knowledge of the mutual influences between
reservoir system, standardized and modified the flow of the reservoir fluid and the
correlations, equation of state and a vapor-liquid thermodynamics of the equilibrium is essential. The
equilibrium technique. The technique has been term “retrograde condensation” is used to describe
extended to include mass transfer and also to allow the anomalous behavior of a mixture that forms a
for the changes in produced fluid composition due liquid by isothermal decrease in pressure or by an
to the formation of the condensate bank. isobaric increase in temperature.
2 SPE 104307

In many gas condensate reservoirs well and three regions are created with different liquid
productivity has a major impact on development saturations as shown in Figure B1.
and operational decisions such as the number of Other areas of gas condensate concern were
wells, whether to fracture wells, the size of surface dealt with by other authors, Thomas et al.2, 3 worked
facilities and the level of gas sales contracts. From on optimizing production from a gas condensate
economic point of view, reservoir development and reservoir. Their work seeks to describe some of the
management decisions must be taken in the phenomena that are at work in rich gas condensate
presence of a number of uncertainties. Condensate reservoirs. In this context, specific parameters such
blockage and its impact on well productivity is just as interfacial tension, mobility effects, pore size
one of the uncertainties. distribution and compositional changes are
The uncertainty in gas-condensate well important in the optimization of gas condensate
productivity can be reduced by considering a wells.
number of factors such as: mass transfer effect, Cable et el.4,5 considered issues affecting gas
interfacial tension, viscosity ratio, number of moles condensate production and how special core
of liquid and vapor at equilibrium, condensate gas analysis data for near-well relative permeability
ratio (CGR), compositional changes and the healing may be used to model productivity in a full field
of fractures with its concomitant effect on absolute model for evaluating gas condensate reservoir
permeability. development. They argue that though some aspects
Understanding multiphase flow in condensate of gas condensate reservoir can be studied using
reservoirs is paramount in characterizing condensate standard techniques from dry gas reservoir
dropout and subsequent blockage effect. Fevang et engineering, it is also important to consider issues
al1 presented an accurate yet simple model of a gas such as liquid recovery and change in yield during
– condensate well undergoing depletion which field life, compositional gradients, and the reduction
consists of three flow regions - Region 1: An inner in well deliverability caused by condensate
near - wellbore region where both gas and liquid blockage.
flow simultaneously, Region 2: A region of In furtherance to gas condensate productivity
6,7
condensate buildup where only gas is flowing. studies, Robert Mott reviewed recent
Region 3: A region containing single – phase developments in the understanding of near-well
(original) reservoir gas. This region is the farthest behaviour in condensate reservoirs, and in
away from the well. estimating well productivity through numerical
Fevang et al.1 in their studies showed that, when simulation. Three different approaches for
reservoir pressure around a well drops below the calculating condensate well productivity in full field
dew point pressure, retrograde condensation occurs reservoir simulation were considered - using single
SPE 104307
well calculations to estimate skin factors, local grid
refinement and pseudopressure methods.
Sognesand8 discussed the condensate build up in
vertical fractured gas condensate wells. He showed
that the condensate build up depends on the relative
permeability characteristics and production mode,
increased permeability to gas yields reduced amount
of condensate accumulation, and constant pressure
production yields the largest near fracture
condensate buildup.
Cho et al.9 presented a correlation to predict
maximum condensation for retrograde condensation
fluids and its use in pressure depletion calculations.
The correlation presented is a function of the
reservoir temperature and the heptanes plus mole
fraction.
Based on the above9, Olaberinjo et al10 presented
a reasonably systematic and inexpensive
compositional approach for calculating pressure
depletion performance of gas condensate reservoirs
with consideration to the properties of liquid and
vapor phase with possible presence of impurities –
CO2, H2S and S.
Furthermore, the impact of condensate blockage
is very sensitive to the gas-oil relative
permeabilities in the region around the wellbore.
Several laboratory experiments have demonstrated
an increase in mobility for gas-condensate fluids at
the high velocities typical of the near-well region, a
mechanism that would reduce the negative impact
of condensate blockage. There is also some
evidence from well test results11 to suggest that this
effect occurs in the field.
3
Despite a large number of reported studies
on gas condensate reservoirs, in addition to those
cited here, non of it considered calculations of gas
condensate reservoir performance and productivity
with accurate knowledge of the volumetric
behavior of hydrocarbon mixtures, both liquid and
vapor and other key properties like compressibilities
of the two-phase which are required in the transient
fluid flow problems, and thermal expansion
coefficients which are important in thermal method
of production.
This paper focused basically on forcasting the
viability and performance of gas condensate
reservoir (constant volume depletion calculations
and estimation of condensate gas ratios close to the
well bore) using reservoir volumetric balance. The
approach is economical, reliable and less
cumbersome.
Mathematical Formulations
Considering the inner near - wellbore region
where both gas and liquid flow simultaneously at
different velocities Figure 1, in this region oil
mobility and saturation increases hence a two phase
flow exists. The total volume of fluid flowing in this
region can be given as follows:
Total Volume of Gas Condensate in Place =
(Volume of Condensate + Volume of Vapor)
VFLUID = VCONDENSATE + VVAPOR
The above volumetric balance can be represented as
VGASCON = VC + Vv …………….……….1
Differentiating in turn with special consideration to
4 SPE 104307

Pressure and Temperature, modifications in terms of reduction in the number of

⎛ ∂VGASCON ⎞ ⎛ ∂V ⎞ ⎛ ∂V ⎞ constants, variables and considering pseudo
⎜ ⎟ =⎜ C ⎟ +⎜ V ⎟ …………….2
⎝ ∂P ⎠ T ⎝ ∂P ⎠ T ⎝ ∂P ⎠ T component system – Light (C1), Intermediate (C2-
Also, C6) and Heavier (C7+) and also giving critical

⎛ ∂VGASCON ⎞ ⎛ ∂V ⎞ ⎛ ∂V ⎞ considerations to mass transfer effects and vapor-

⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ C ⎟ + ⎜ V ⎟ ……………..3
⎝ ∂T ⎠ P ⎝ ∂T ⎠ P ⎝ ∂T ⎠ P liquid equilibrium of the system (separate mole
It is important to choose accurate expressions fractions of the components); we have for
relating VC to the independent variables which condensate and vapor fraction volumes respectively:
permit greater accuracy in obtaining values for
CONDENSATE (LIQUID) VOLUME, VC
Equations 2 and 3.
⎧ ⎛ xC1 ⎞ ⎛ xC1 ⎞
2
⎛ xC1 ⎞ ⎫
Considering the isothermal compressibility, c ⎪ DO + D1 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + D2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + D3 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎪
⎪ ⎝ 1.01 − xC1 ⎠ ⎝ 1.01 − xC1 ⎠ ⎝ 0.01 + xC7 + ⎠ ⎪
⎪ 2 1 1 ⎪
⎪ ⎛ xC1 ⎞ ⎛ xC2 − 6 ⎞ 2
⎛ xC2 − 6 ⎞ 4
⎪
⎪ D4 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + D5 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + D6 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + ⎪
⎪ ⎝ 0 .01 + xC 7+ ⎠ ⎝ 1. 01 − xC 2−6 ⎠ ⎝ 1 . 01 − xC 2−6 ⎠ ⎪
1 ⎛ ∂V ⎞ ⎪ ⎪
c=− ⎜ ⎟ …………………..4 ⎪ ⎛⎜ xC2 − 6 ⎞⎟
1
2
⎛ xC2 − 6 ⎞
1
4
⎪
V ⎝ ∂P ⎠ T D
⎪ 7 ⎜ 1.01 − xC ⎟ + D ⎜
8⎜
1 . 01 −
⎟
⎟ + ⎪
⎪ ⎝ 2−6 ⎠ ⎝ 2−6 ⎠
xC
⎪
⎪ D9 (0.9(xC1 ) + (1.1xC7 + ) − 1.2( xC2 − 6 )) + ⎪
⎪⎪ ⎪⎪
− ln ⎨ D10 (0.9( xC1 ) + (1.1xC7 + ) − 1.2( xC2 − 6 )) 4 +
1
VC = VREF ⎬
The coefficient of isobaric thermal expansion, β ⎪
D ( 0. 9( xC ) + (1 . 1 xC ) − 1 . 2( xC )) 2
+ D M
⎪
⎪ 11 1 7+ 2−6 12 C 7+ ⎪
is also given as: ⎪+ D13 ρC 7 + + D14 ln( ρC 7 + + 0.01) ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪+ D15 (M C 7 + * ρC 7 + ) + D16 (M C 7 + * ρC 7 + ) +
2
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ D ⎛⎜ xC7 + * T ⎞
⎟ + D T + D P ⎪
⎪ 17 ⎜ (M * ρ ) + 0.01 ⎟ 18 19 ⎪
1 ⎛ ∂V ⎞ ⎪ ⎝ C7+ C7+ ⎠ ⎪
β= ⎜ ⎟ ………………..5 ⎪ ⎪
V ⎝ ∂T ⎠ P ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪⎩ ⎪⎭

From the equations above, the following

expressions for compressibility and thermal ………………………….8
expansion coefficient, respectively, can be written
for a gas condensate reservoir system. Equation 8 can be differentiated to calculate
compressibilies and the thermal expansion
1 ⎛ ∂VGASCON ⎞ 1 ⎧⎛ ∂VC ⎞ ⎛ ∂VV ⎞ ⎫ coefficients of condensate (liquid) fraction.
− ⎜ ⎟ =− ⎨⎜ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ ⎬ …….6
VGASCON ⎝ ∂P ⎠T VC + VV ⎩⎝ ∂P ⎠T ⎝ ∂P ⎠T ⎭ Hence, differentiating with respect to pressure
yields:
1 ⎛ ∂VGASCON ⎞ 1 ⎧⎛ ∂VC ⎞ ⎛ ∂V ⎞ ⎫ ….7
⎜ ⎟ = ⎨⎜ ⎟ +⎜ V ⎟ ⎬
VGASCON ⎝ ∂T ⎠ P VC + VV ⎩⎝ ∂T ⎠ P ⎝ ∂T ⎠ P ⎭
⎛ ∂VC ⎞ ⎛ ∂V ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ REF ⎟ − [(exp(VC − V REF )) * D19 ]
⎝ ∂P ⎠ T ⎝ ∂P ⎠ T
Employing Surjit et al12 approach with sound
…………………………..9
SPE 104307 5

Differentiating Equation 8 with respect to ⎡ (exp (VV − V REF (V ) )) *⎤

⎢ ⎥
temperature yields the following expression: ⎛ ∂ VV ⎞ ⎛ ∂ V REF (V ) ⎞
⎟ + ⎢⎛⎜ B17 2 − B18 − ⎞⎟ ⎥
T T
⎜ ⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎝ ∂P ⎠ T ⎝ ∂P ⎠ T ⎢⎜ P P ⎟⎥
⎢⎜ ⎟⎥
⎛ ∂VC ⎞ ⎛ ∂VREF ⎞ ⎡ xC7+ ⎤
(
⎣⎢⎝ B19 ln T * 10
−2
)
⎠ ⎦⎥
⎜ ⎟ =⎜ ⎟ − ⎢(exp(VC −VREF )) * D17 + D18 ⎥
⎝ ∂T ⎠ P ⎝ ∂T ⎠P ⎣ (MC7+ * ρC7+ ) + 0.01 ⎦ ……………………..12
Differentiating with respect to temperature yields:
……………………..….10
⎛ ∂ VV ⎞ ⎛ ∂V REF (V ) ⎞
⎜ ⎟ = ⎜⎜ ⎟ [
⎟ − (exp (VV − V REF (V ) )) * ]
⎝ ∂T ⎠ P ⎝ ∂T ⎠P
⎡ yC 7 + * 10 − 2 ⎤
+⎥
⎢ 15
(( ) )
B
⎢ yC 7 + * T * 10 + 0.01 * ((M C 7 + * ρ C 7 + ) + 0.01) ⎥
−2

⎢ −1 ⎥
1
( )
2
VAPOR VOLUME, VV: ⎢B T + B17 + B18 ln P * 10 − 3 + B19
P ⎥
⎢⎣ 16
2 P T ⎥⎦
⎧ ⎛ yC1 ⎞
2
⎛ yC1 ⎞
3
⎛ yC1 ⎞
4
⎫
⎪B0 + B1⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + B2 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + B3 ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎪ …………………….13
⎪ ⎝ 1.01 − yC 1⎠ ⎝ 1.01 − yC 1⎠ ⎝ 1.01− yC1 ⎠ ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪+ B4 (6 yC2−6 ) 2
1
⎪ Where VREF and VREF(V) are reference volumes for
⎪ 2 ⎪
⎪ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎪ the condensate and vapor respectively and can be
+ B
⎪ 5 7+ ( yC ) + B ⎜
6⎜
yC1
⎟ ⎜
yC1
⎟ 7 ⎜ 0.01+ yC ⎟ +
+ B ⎟ ⎪
⎪ ⎝ 0.01+ yC7+ ⎠ ⎝ 7+ ⎠ ⎪ determined using Equation 14.
⎪ ⎛ yC ⎞ ⎪
⎪B8 ⎜⎜ 2 −6
⎟⎟ + ⎪
⎪ ⎝1.01− yC2−6 ⎠ ⎪
⎪ 1 ⎪ n n
⎪ ⎛ yC2−6 ⎞ 2 ⎪
⎪ 9⎜ ⎜ ⎟ + B10(1.1yC1 + 1.2 yC2−6 ) + B11ρC7+
⎟ ⎪ ⎛ RT ⎞ T T
(mT + C) = 0
B Ke Ke
⎪⎪ ⎝1.01− yC2−6 ⎠ ⎪⎪ V 3 − ⎜ + mT + C⎟V 2 + V−
VV = VREF(V ) − ln⎨ ⎡
⎛ yC * MC7+ ⎞ ⎛⎜ 2 ⎞⎤ ⎬ ⎝ P ⎠ P P
⎪B12 ⎢⎜ 7+ ⎟ * ⎜1.0 + ⎟⎥ + ⎪
⎪ ⎢⎣⎝ 50.0 ⎠ ⎝ 0.01+ ρC7+ ⎟⎠⎥⎦ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ …………………….14
2
⎪ ⎡⎛ yC7+ * MC7+ ⎞ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤ ⎪
⎪B13 ⎢⎜ ⎟ * ⎜⎜1.0 + ⎟⎥ + ⎪
⎪ ⎣⎢⎝ 50.0 ⎠ ⎝ 0.01+ ρC7+ ⎟⎠⎦⎥ ⎪
⎪ 1 ⎪ Equation 14 provides functional relationships
⎪ ⎡⎛ yC7+ * MC7+ ⎞ ⎛ 2 ⎞⎤ 2 ⎪
⎪B14 ⎢⎜ ⎟ * ⎜⎜1.0 + ⎟⎥ + ⎪
⎪ ⎣⎢⎝ 50.0 ⎠ ⎝ 0.01+ ρC7+ ⎟⎠⎦⎥ ⎪
between pressure, temperature, volume and
⎪
[( )
⎪B ⎡ ln yC7+ * T *10 + 0.01 ⎤ + B T 12 +
−2
] ⎪
⎪ composition in a fluid system. In vapor-liquid
⎪ ⎣ (MC7+ * ρC7+ ) + 0.01 ⎥⎦ 16
15 ⎢
⎪
⎪ ⎪ equilibrium calculations, it is a common practice to
( ( ))
⎪B T + B T * ln P *10−3 + B P * ln T *10−2
⎪⎩ 17 P 18
(
19 ( )) ⎪
⎪⎭ use a single equation of state for liquid and vapor.
The equation is usually cubic in volume where the
………………………..11
smallest root is chosen for liquid and the largest for
Equation 11 can be differentiated to calculate
vapor.
compressibilities and thermal expansion coefficients
of the vapor fractions.
Analysis of Results:
Differentiating with respect to pressure yields:
From practical point of view, the liquid
phase viscosity, molal density and volume affect the
pressure. The liquid phase fraction determines the
6 SPE 104307

response of a gas condensate system. The gas lg

= f (P )
V
= …………………….15
deviation factor, viscosity and the formation volume L lo
factor (Bg) are functions of pressure only in situ,
where lg and lo are flow coefficient of gas and oil
although the deviations are usually small. The
phase respectively.
leaner the retrograde gas, the smaller the deviations.
Table 1 shows the two cases considered - lg K ρgμo
= rg
…………………..16
Rich Gas Condensate Reservoir and Lean Gas lo K ro ρoμ g
Condensate Reservoir. The predicted liquid molal
volume (Figure B2), isothermal compressibility and For gas condensate with low dropout, the

the liquid phase density were calculated based on change in pressure difference with time is not

the liquid phase composition in the overall mixture. significant since the flow coefficient of gas phase to

Figure B3 shows the variation of vapor phase oil phase and relative permeability to gas is

compressibility factor with pressure. considerably high. Unlike in the case of a gas
condensate with high liquid dropout where
TABLE 1:
retrograde condensations impairs the relative
Gas Condensate Feed Composition
permeability to gas.
MOLE % - MOLE % -
Rich Gas Lean Gas Increase reservoir pressure increases the gas
COMPONENT Condensate Condensate
condensate viability and productivity. Figure B4
C1 (Light) 58.77 73.190
C2 - C6 shows significant productivity loss due to
(Intermediate) 18.33 15.920
condensate richness. The productivity loss also
C7+ (Heavier) 21.76 08.210
depends on the relative permeability characteristics,
N2 00.21 00.310
the production mode and most especially the initial
CO2 00.93 02.370
reservoir pressure. The total flow rate decreases
TOTAL MOLE 100.00 100.000
with decrease in pressure as a result of liquid hold-
up.
Equations 15 and 16 established that the flow
Figure B5 shows the plot of estimated
coefficient of gas phase to oil phase which depends
Condensate Gas Ratio (CGR) to a vertical well. The
greatly on pressure is equal to the ratio of the total
change in CGR is due to the loss of oil in Region 2
moles of vapor to liquid hence the justification of
(R2) as the condensate bank builds up.
the reservoir volumetric balance in the
determination of the constant volume depletion of Comparatively, constant volume depletion

gas condensate reservoir. calculations for retrograde condensate fluid for Cho
et al 9, Firoozabadi13 and the one predicted by
Olaberinjo et al ( New Approach), shows good
SPE 104307 7

agreement between predicted values and ρ Density, lbm / ft3

experimental values. Figure B6 presents the plot of
μ Viscosity, cp
9
the three methods above, Cho et al made use of
x Liquid Composition
percentage mole of C7+ in their correlation while the
new approach take into consideration C1 (Light), C2 y Vapor Composition
–C6 (Intermediate) and C7+ (Heavier). L Mole Fraction of Liquid
The adopted reservoir volumetric approach
V Mole Fraction of Vapor
expresses molal volume of retrograde liquid with
considerably greater accuracy than methods of
prediction presently available, and applies over References

wider ranges of the variables involved. 1. Fevang, O. and Whitson, C. H.,

(1995):”Modeling Gas Condensate Well
Deliverability, SPE paper 30714. Paper
Conclusions
prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual
This work formulate a better method for
Technical Conference & Exhibition held in
determining the constant volume depletion
Dallas, U.S.A., 22-25 October, 1995. pp.
calculations for retrograde condensate fluid and also
103-118.
for calculating accurately the volumes,
2. Thomas F. B., Bennion D. B., Bennion D.
compressiblities and thermal expansion coefficients
W. and Zhou X. L. ‘Optimizing Production
of both liquid and vapor components of a gas
from Gas Condensate Reservoir’, JCPT
condensate system which are highly essential in
Oct., 1997, Vol. 36, No. 9
gas condensate reservoir performance and
3. Thomas F. B., Bennion D. B., Bennion D.
productivity analysis.
W. and Zhou X. L. (1995) ‘Towards
Optimizing Gas Condensate Reservoir’,
Nomenclature Petroleum Society of CIM and CANMET
c Compressibility, Psia-1 Paper No. 95-09.
4. Cable A. S., Mott R. E. and Mike S. (2000):
M Molecular Weight, lbm / lbmol
“X-Ray In-situ Saturation in Gas
P Reservoir Pressure, psia
Condensate Relative Permeability Studies”,
R Universal Gas Constant, 10.73 SCA 2000 – 39 AEA Technology PLC,

(Psia ft3 / mol R) Winfrith Technology Centre, Dorchester,

Dorset, DT2 8ZE, UK
T Formation Temperature oF

Z Gas Compressibility Factor

8 SPE 104307

5. Cable A. S., Mott R. E. and Wicken L. M. Condensate Reservoirs”. SPESA Paper

(2002): “Field Model Predictions To 0604. Paper Presented at SPE (Saudi Arabia)
Demonstrate the Value of Integrated Gas 2006 Technical Symposium, May 2006.
Condensate Near-Well SCAL Data”, SCA 12. Surjit M. and Kennedy, H. T. (1968): the
2002-46. AEA Technology plc, Winfrith Prediction of Volume, Compressibilities and
Technology Centre, Dorchester, Dorset, Thermal Expansion Coefficients of
DT2 8ZE, UK. Hydrocarbon Mixtures SPEJ June, 1968
6. Robert Mott (1999), “Calculating Well pp.95 – 106
Deliverability in Gas Condensate 13. Firoozabadi, A.: “Reservoir Depletion
Reservoirs”, EAGE - 10th European Calculations for Gas Condensates Using
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery, Extended Analysis in the Peng – Robinson
Brighton, UK, 18-20 August, 1999 p 104. Equation of State,” SPE Reprint Series
7. Robert Mott (2002), “Engineering Number 15, Phase Behaviour.
Calculations of Gas Condensate Well
Productivity”, SPE 77551, Presented at SPE
APPENDIX A:
Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio
COEFFICIENTS FOR EQUATIONS 8
Texas, USA, Oct. 2002.
D0 0.35568804*102 D10 0.47097391*10
8. Sognesand S. (1991) Long – Term Testing
of Vertically Fractured Gas Condensate D1 -0.13527706 D11 0.15158952*10
Wells, SPE Paper 21704
D2 0.92788640*10-1 D12 -0.25714342*10-1
9. Cho S. J., Civan F. and Starling K. E.
(1985): A Correlation to Predict Maximum D3 0.14113548 D13 -0.37107261*102

Condensation for Retrograde Condensation

D4 -0.32315277*10-1 D14 0.27414938*102
Fluids and its use in Pressure Depletion
D5 -0.10549435*10 D15 0.30740710*10-1
Calculations, SPE Paper 14268.
10. Olaberinjo A. F. and Omole O. O. (2004) “A D6 0.10252432*10 D16 -0.52353616*10-5
Compositional Approach for Calculating
D7 0.51822466 D17 -0.74618823*10-2
Pressure Depletion Performance of Gas
condensate Reservoirs”, PTDF Report Series D8 -0.49754594 D18 -0.56509643*10-4

2004, Department Of Petroleum

D9 -0.48125456*10 D19 -0.51760612*10-5
Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
11. Olaberinjo A. F. (2006): “Modeling the
Effects of Compositional Changes in Gas
SPE 104307 9

COEFFICIENTS FOR EQUATIONS 11 FIGURE B2: PRESSURE VARIATION WITH MOLAL VOLUME OF LIQUID
4.5

B0 0.13530821*10 B10 -0.28777369 4

3.5

LIQ U ID V O LU M E , C U FT/LB M O L
-2
B1 0.19848504*10 B11 -0.30461668 3

2.5

B2 -0.19844088*10-3 B12 -0.81160977 2

1.5

B3 0.51379175*10-5 B13 0.94223921*10-1 1

Rich Gas Condensate

0.5 Lean Gas Condensate

B4 0.24836420*10-1 B14 0.32539924 0

5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
PRESSURE, PSIA

B5 0.44694647*10 B15 0.30306454*10

B6 -0.14129608*10-2 B16 0.10854281*10-1

FIGURE B3: VARIATION OF PRESSURE WITH VAPOR PHASE COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR, Z
B7 0.34589052*10-4 B17 -0.33153892
0.98

Rich Gas Condensate

B8 -0.12601651 B18 -0.15405355*10-3
0.96

Lean Gas Condensate

0.94

0.52470355*10-5
CO MPRESSIBIL ITY FACTO R,Z
B9 0.12378339 B19 0.92

0.9

0.88

APPENDIX B: FIGURES 0.86

0.84

1
Figure B1: Schematic Gas Condensate Flow Regimes 0.82
5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
PRESSURE, PSI

FIGURE B4: VARIATION OF PRESSURE (PSI) WITH TOTAL FLOWRATE, qT (LBMOL/DAY)

400000

350000
TOTAL FLOWRATE, (LBMOL/DAY)

300000

250000

200000
Rich Gas Condensate
150000
Lean Gas Condensate

100000

50000

0
6500 5500 4500 3500 2500 1500 500
PRESSURE, PSIA
10 SPE 104307

FIGURE B5: EXTIMATED FLOWING CONDENSATE-GAS RATIO TO A VERTICAL WELL

200

180

160
EXTIMATED FLOWIN G CGR (STB/MMsc

140

120

100

80

60

40 VAPOUR PHASE

VAPOUR +
20 CONDENSATE

0
1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04
DISTANCE FROM WELL (FT)

FIGURE B6: CONSTANT VOLUME DEPLETION CALCULATION FOR RETROGRADE CONDENSATE

FLUID - CONDENSATE YIELD VERSUS PRESSURE

Olaberinjo et al

5 Firoozabadi et al.
C O N D E N S A T E L IQ U ID M O L A L V O L U M

Cho et al.
4

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
PRESSURE, PSI