J175145 DOI: 10.
2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 665
Treatment of Condensate and Water
Blocks in Hydraulic-Fractured Shale-Gas/
Condensate Reservoirs
Reza Ganjdanesh, Mohsen Rezaveisi1, Gary A. Pope, and Kamy Sepehrnoori, University of Texas at Austin
Summary
The accumulation of condensate in fractures is one of the chal-
lenges of producing gas from gas/condensate reservoirs. When
the bottomhole pressure drops to less than the dewpoint, conden-
sate forms in and around fractures and causes a significant drop in
the gas relative permeability, which leads to a decline in the gas-
production rate. This reduction of gas productivity is in addition
to the reduction because of water blocking by the fracturing water.
Solvents can be used to remove liquid blocks and increase gas-
and condensate-production rates. In this paper, dimethyl ether
(DME) is introduced as a novel solvent for this purpose. In addi-
tion to good partitioning into condensate/gas/aqueous phases,
DME has a high vapor pressure, which improves the flowback af-
ter the treatment. We compare its behavior with both methanol
(MeOH) and ethanol (EtOH) solvents.
Introduction
Gas/condensate fluids in shale plays are categorized as liquid-rich
shale (LRS) reservoirs. To yield economic production from tight
formations, large pressure drawdowns are imposed on the pro-
ducers (Behmanesh et al. 2013). This drawdown can cause signifi-
cant variation in fluid compositions and properties in both the
fractures and the matrix. When the reservoir pressure decreases to
less than the dewpoint, condensate drops out of the gas phase and
accumulates in fractures near the wellbore and also in the matrix
surrounding the fractures. This condensate banking causes a sig-
nificant decrease in well productivity.
Condensate blockage causes an additional drawdown in the
formation and significant trapping of oil in the reservoir rock
(Whitson and Sunjerga 2012). Several studies have reported the
effect of capillary number on gas-phase relative permeability in
the presence of condensate (Pope et al. 2000). However, most of
the data have been measured at low capillary numbers. Bang et al.
(2006) measured the gas and oil relative permeabilities over a
wide range of capillary numbers. Bang et al. (2008) found that
condensate buildup in the fractures can significantly reduce the
productivity of fractured wells. The steady-state relative perme-
ability in propped fractures is typically on the order of 0.1, which
is approximately the same as in the reservoir rock after conden-
sate buildup.
Another factor that contributes to fracture blockage and loss
of gas productivity is the presence of fracturing water. Field ex-
perience shows that only approximately 10% of the injected
water flows back (King 2010). It is believed that the retained
water is the sum of the water that imbibes into the formation and
the water that is trapped as an immobile phase in the fracture net-
work (Ehlig-Economides and Economides 2011; Jurus et al.
2013). The injected water may be trapped in the fracture and
may affect the cleanup as well as productivity (Sharma and
Agrawal 2013). The flow of water in fractures is controlled by
several mechanisms such as relative permeability, capillary pres-
sure, and stress-sensitive fracture conductivities (Cheng 2012).
1
now with BHP Billiton
Copyright V
C 2016 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 175145) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 28–30 September 2015, and revised for publication.
Original manuscript received for review 15 July 2015. Revised manuscript received for
review 29 November 2015. Paper peer approved 29 December 2015.
April 2016 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 19:41 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010
Total Pages: 10
The combined effect of condensate and water blockage in frac-
tures can significantly decrease the productivity of shale-gas/
condensate wells.
Use of solvents to mitigate the effect of liquid blockage has
shown positive treatment outcomes in conventional gas/conden-
sate reservoirs (Al-Anazi et al. 2005; Sayed and Al-Muntasheri
2014). There have been extensive experimental and numerical-
simulation studies to investigate the use of solvents to remove
condensate and water blocks. Several solvents such as MeOH,
EtOH, isopropanol (IPA), propylene glycol, and 2-butoxyethanol
have been tested. Bang et al. (2010) examined the phase behavior
of MeOH and IPA with mixtures of hydrocarbons and water at
reservoir conditions. They indicated that MeOH has a preference
to mix with the aqueous phase more than with the condensate
phase, whereas IPA preferred the oleic phase to the aqueous
phase. Al-Anazi et al. (2005) reported a successful field applica-
tion of MeOH to remove a condensate bank in the Hatter’s Pond
field in Alabama.
In this paper, the application of solvents to mitigate the liquid
blocking has been extended from conventional reservoirs to hydrau-
lic-fractured unconventional reservoirs, and DME is introduced for
the first time as a candidate solvent for treatment of liquid blocks.
This solvent is miscible with condensate and multicontact miscible
with water at reservoir conditions. Thus, it is capable of removing
both liquid phases at same time. Also, DME is very volatile and
flows back very quickly compared with alcohols and glycols with a
much-lower vapor pressure. The less-volatile solvents contribute to
the liquid blocking until they flow back to the well.
A three-phase flash calculation is essential to model the phase
behavior of mixtures of solvent/hydrocarbons/water during the
injection and flowback. The solvents cause major changes in the
phase behavior, with phases appearing and disappearing during
injection and flowback. These changes cannot be captured by sim-
ulators without a robust three-phase flash capability. If one phase
is mislabeled in one timestep, the relative permeability of that
phase between the two timesteps would be discontinuous. This
discontinuity often reduces the timestep size and causes the simu-
lation to slow down or stop as well as being physically incorrect.
In this study, the three-phase flash simulator UTCOMP (Chang
1990) was used to simulate the solvent-stimulation process. The
relative permeability option developed by Yuan and Pope (2011)
was used in UTCOMP for this study.
In this paper, the details of the simulations of injection, flow-
back, and post-treatment for solvent treatment are explained. The
results of cases with treatment are compared with those without
treatment for two gas/condensate fluid systems. The promising
results of this study justify the further investigation of solvent
treatment for hydraulic-fractured shale-gas/condensate reservoirs.
Phase-Behavior Model
Accurate pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) modeling is impor-
tant for reliable short- and long-term oil- and gas-production fore-
casts. The producing oil/gas ratio (OGR) of LRS wells is
abnormally lower than reservoir OGR as a result of high draw-
down and liquid dropout near the fracture. Conventional PVT
sampling and initialization is not adequate for unconventional res-
ervoir fluids. It is necessary to incorporate production data and nu-
merical modeling of single LRS wells to build appropriate phase-
behavior models.
665
 J175145 DOI: 10.2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 666 Total Pages: 10

Initial BIC With

3
Composition Vc (ft /lbm- MW (lb/lbm- Acentric Respect to
(mol%) Pc (psi) Tc (R) mol) mol) Factor Parachor VSP DME
H2O 50.0000 3197.850 1165.140 0.985 18.015 0.344 52.000 0.182 –0.170
N2 0.1981 492.316 227.160 1.437 28.013 0.040 41.000 –0.128 0.100
C1 36.8815 667.198 343.080 1.590 16.043 0.008 77.000 –0.154 0.290
C2 7.5751 708.347 549.720 2.377 30.070 0.098 108.000 –0.102 0.250
C3 2.7420 615.762 665.640 3.260 44.097 0.152 150.300 –0.073 0.250
C4–6 2.1405 501.824 817.090 4.784 66.993 0.229 219.161 –0.038 0.200
C7–80 0.4629 404.140 1322.280 9.250 116.800 0.370 335.851 0.052 0.075
DME 0.0000 789.390 720.510 2.851 46.070 0.200 132.737 0.000 0.000

Table 1—Initial composition and Peng-Robinson EOS parameters for mixtures of Fluid A, water, and DME. BIC 5 binary interaction
coefficients; MW 5 molecular weight; VSP = volume shift parameter.

Initial BIC With

3
Composition Vc (ft /lbm- MW (lb/lbm- Acentric Respect to
(mol%) Pc (psi) Tc (R) mol) mol) Factor Parachor VSP DME
H2O 50.0000 3197.850 1165.140 0.985 18.015 0.344 52.000 0.182 –0.170
N2 0.3909 492.316 227.160 1.437 28.013 0.040 41.000 –0.128 0.100
C1 36.6020 667.198 343.080 1.590 16.043 0.008 77.000 –0.154 0.290
C2–3 10.3675 675.200 591.225 2.690 35.092 0.117 124.300 –0.100 0.250
C4–5 1.4880 525.090 786.182 4.390 63.160 0.208 203.800 –0.050 0.250
C6 0.2000 430.590 913.320 5.930 86.178 0.296 271.000 –0.020 0.200
C7–11 0.5615 370.690 1026.017 8.700 116.145 0.400 331.100 0.010 0.075
C12–20 0.2595 246.190 1253.728 14.300 212.222 0.661 555.900 0.040 0.075
C21–80 0.1305 179.220 1714.509 37.590 506.254 0.843 1243.900 0.060 0.075
DME 0.0001 789.390 720.510 2.851 46.070 0.200 132.737 0.000 0.000

Table 2—Initial composition and Peng-Robinson EOS parameters for mixtures of Fluid B, water, and DME. BIC 5 binary interaction
coefficients; MW 5 molecular weight; VSP = volume shift parameter.

Tables 1 and 2 summarize the compositions and Peng-Robin-
son equation-of-state (EOS) (Peng and Robinson 1976) parameters
for Fluids A and B, respectively. The reservoir temperature is
130 F for both fluids. The fluid compositions and EOS parameters
were derived from PVT data on separator samples and from match-
ing the well-producing OGR. Fig. 1 shows the pressure/tempera-
ture diagram of both fluids. Both fluids are gas condensates.
Condensate fluids can also be divided into subcategories on the ba-
sis of their condensate/gas ratio. The condensate/gas ratio of Fluids
A and B are 12.8 and 30.6 STB/MMscf, respectively. Both are con-
sidered to be lean gas condensates (Dindoruk 2012). Fig. 2 shows
the liquid dropout of both fluids. The dewpoints of the hydrocarbon
mixtures at reservoir temperature are 3,094 and 4,970 psi.
When a good solvent is injected into a gas/condensate well, it
partitions into and displaces the aqueous, condensate, and gas
phases. Therefore, to model the miscibility and partitioning of the
solvents correctly, water must be included in flash calculations
and a three-phase flash routine is needed to simulate the process.
The Peng-Robinson EOS was tuned for the mixture of hydrocar-
bons, water, and DME. The binary interaction coefficients for
hydrocarbon/hydrocarbon interaction were set to zero. The inter-
action parameters of DME/water (Tallon and Fenton 2010) and
DME/hydrocarbon were obtained by tuning the model with exper-
imental data. Also, the interaction parameters of MeOH and
EtOH with hydrocarbon/water components were obtained from
the literature (Bang et al. 2010; Yuan et al. 2011).

6,000 6.0
Fluid A Fluid A
5,000 Fluid B 5.0
Fluid B
Liquid Dropout (%)
Pressure (psi)

4,000 4.0

3,000 3.0

2,000 2.0

1,000 1.0
Tres
0 0.0
–200 0 200 400 600 800 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Temperature (°F) Pressure (psi)

Fig. 1—Pressure/temperature diagram of Fluids A and B. Fig. 2—Liquid dropout for Fluid A and Fluid B at T 5 1308F.

666 April 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 19:41 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010

 J175145 DOI: 10.2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16
500
450 DME
400 EtOH
MeOH
Pressure (psi) 350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
–50 0 50 100 150
Temperature (°F)
Fig. 3—Vapor pressure of DME, EtOH, and MeOH.
DME has recently been gaining attention as a clean-burning
fuel (Park et al. 2007). In this study, DME has been introduced
as a powerful solvent for hydrocarbon mixtures. This compo-
nent is similar to liquefied petroleum gas such as propane and
butane. It can be liquefied, stored, and shipped easily because it
is not a cryogenic liquid. It boils at –11 F under atmospheric
conditions and condenses at less than 100 psi at 60 F. DME
becomes miscible with hydrocarbons under reservoir conditions.
It can flow back and remove the condensate block very quickly
because it is very volatile and has low viscosity compared with
the other solvents. Fig. 3 compares the vapor pressure of DME,
EtOH, and MeOH.
Also, DME is partially miscible with water and the solubility
of water in DME increases with pressure (Pozo and Streett 1984).
For example, water solubility in pure DME at 2,000 psi and 130 F
is approximately 22 mol%. If enough DME is injected into the
well, DME can extract the water block after removing the conden-
sate block. Fig. 4 shows the pressure/composition diagram of
water and DME at 130 F estimated by the Peng-Robinson EOS by
use of the van der Waals mixing rules and the experimental data
reported by Pozo and Streett (1984) and Tallon and Fenton (2010).
The binary mixture exhibits a Type III system in the phase-equilib-
rium classification (Konynenburg and Scott 1980). The Peng-Rob-
inson EOS by use of the van der Waals mixing rules predicts the
phase behavior accurately, except for the solubility of DME in the
water-rich phase. The mixing rules useful for modeling polar com-
ponents, such as Wong-Sandler (Valtz et al. 2004), can be used in
future studies to improve the phase-behavior model.
Relative Permeability Model
Relative permeability is a function of saturation but also composi-
tion because composition affects both the wettability and interfa-
cial tension of the phases and therefore the relative permeability
of each phase. The equilibrium distribution of phases in pores cor-
responds to the minimum Gibbs free energy of the total rock/fluid
system, including all interfaces. However, calculating the total
Gibbs free energy from fundamental principles is difficult.
Instead, Yuan and Pope (2011) proposed that the molar Gibbs free
energy of each phase be correlated with its relative permeability.
A composition-dependent relative permeability model is used in
this method. The Peng-Robinson EOS is used to calculate the Gibbs
free energy of all three phases. Interpolation can be used to calculate
Oil Gas
Endpoint
relative 0.6 0.6
permeability
Residual saturation 0.25 0.25
Corey exponent 2.0 2.0
Table 3—Reference parameters for relative permeability model
used in the simulation of solvent treatment.
April 2016 SPE Journal
ID: jaganm Time: 19:41 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010
Stage: Page: 667 Total Pages: 10
10,000
L1 L1L2 L2
1,000
Pressure (psi)
100
L2V
L1V
10
V
200 250 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
DME (mol%)
Fig. 4—DME/water binary mixture by Peng-Robinson EOS. Ex-
perimental data points by Pozo and Streett (1984) and Tallon
and Fenton (2010). L1 5 Liquid 1; L2 5 Liquid 2; V 5 vapor.
the relative permeability parameters such as residual saturations,
endpoint relative permeability, and Corey (1954) exponents on the
basis of the measured reference values for each phase at a specific
composition, pressure, and temperature. A simplified Corey-type
model was used to calculate the relative permeability of each phase
by use of the interpolated relative permeability parameters.
This approach results in relative permeability values that are
independent of the phase numbers from the flash calculations.
Therefore, mislabeling does not affect the continuity of the phase
relative permeability. The relative permeability parameters for
reference phases used in this study are summarized in Table 3. It
should be mentioned that the relative permeability in shale matrix
has not yet been understood thoroughly, and the existing models
are limited to single-phase permeability (Sakhaee-Pour and Bry-
ant 2012).
Simulation Model
The compositional simulation of a gas/condensate well was per-
formed by use of UTCOMP (Chang 1990) with a three-phase
flash option. A horizontal producer with a lateral length of 5,000
ft was modeled; 25 transverse fractures were distributed along the
wellbore with equal spacing of 200 ft. The fracture half-length
was 300 ft. The well spacing was 160 acres, and the reservoir
thickness was 100 ft. The model is shown in Fig. 5.
A 2D model with 33  301 gridblocks in the x-, y-, and z-
direction was used to simulate a 200  700100-ft3 segment of a
reservoir. The wellbore and fractures are extended in the x- and y-
direction, respectively. The well is perforated only where the frac-
tures intersect the wellbore. The fracture is planar, which is a
valid assumption for the early stages of production, and it pene-
trates the entire formation height. The fracture half-length is
gridded with 18 cells, which are refined at the two ends. Also, the
gridblocks are refined in the x-direction near the fracture faces to
capture the liquid dropout around the fracture. It is assumed that
all fractures are identical and symmetrical in both sides. There-
fore, only one half-fracture is modeled and the total gas and pro-
duction rates are obtained by doubling and multiplying the rates
by the total number of fractures. The reservoir is assumed to be
homogeneous with stress-independent porosity and permeability.
The fracture aperture is 0.01 ft with a conductivity of 100 md-ft.
Table 4 shows the gridblock sizes in the x- and y-direction.
Aqueous
X 5,000 ft
0.2 Y
1,400 ft
600 ft
0.2 Wellbore
3.0
Fracture Simulated Segment
Fig. 5—Sketch of a hydraulic-fractured horizontal well.
667
 J175145 DOI: 10.2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 668 Total Pages: 10

Δx
30.769 28.503 16.771 9.868 5.807 3.417 2.01 1.183 0.696 0.41 0.241
0.14 0.083 0.049 0.029 0.017 0.01 0.017 0.029 0.049 0.083 0.142
0.241 0.41 0.696 1.183 2.01 3.417 5.807 9.868 16.771 28.503 30.769
Δy
10 10 15 15 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
20 20 15 10 5 3 2 2 3 5 10
15 20 20 25 50 50 100 100

Table 4—Gridblock sizes in x- and y-direction.

Reservoir temperature (°F) 130 Horizontal length (ft) 5,000

Initial pressure, Fluid A (psi) 3,100 Well spacing (acre) 160

Initial pressure, Fluid B (psi) 5,000 Fracture spacing (ft) 200

Depth at top of formation, Fluid A (ft) 5,000 Fracture half length (ft) 300
Depth at top of formation, Fluid B (ft) 7,500 Fracture porosity 0.30

Reservoir thickness (ft) 100 Fracture permeability (md) 10,000

Rock porosity 0.1 Fracture aperture (ft) 0.01

Rock permeability (md) 0.0001 Fracture conductivity (md-ft) 100

Table 5—Reservoir parameters of simulation model. Table 6—Well parameters of simulation model.

treatment were compared to determine the benefit of solvent

Fluid A is in a reservoir with a depth of 5,000 ft and an initial
pressure of 3,100 psi. The reservoir for Fluid B is at 7,500 ft and
5,000 psi. Both reservoirs have a temperature of 130 F, with pres-
sure narrowly higher than their dewpoint pressures. Reservoirs A
and B have initial water saturations of 19.0 and 23.0%. The flow-
back of fracturing water is not included in this study. Instead, it is
assumed that the flowback phase is already passed and the water
that is present in the fracture is immobile. Gas desorption is
ignored in this study. Both reservoir models use the same gridd-
ing. Tables 5 and 6 summarize the reservoir and well parameters
used for single-well simulations.
Simulation Results
The simulation study was performed on both Reservoirs A and B.
The same well model was used in all cases. First, the simulations
were performed for production from both reservoirs for 600 days
without any treatments. Then, the same simulations were per-
formed with solvent treatments after 200 days of production for
the same total period of 600 days. DME, EtOH, and MeOH were
used as solvents. The production rates with and without solvent
injection.
Base-Case Simulations Without Treatment. Reservoirs A and
B were opened for production with a bottomhole pressure of
1,000 psi. Both fluids are slightly undersaturated, with zero con-
densate saturation at initial conditions. By reservoir depletion as a
result of gas production, the reservoir pressure drops to less than
the dewpoint and the condensate drops out and accumulates in the
fracture and matrix. The liquid accumulation in a fracture is more
severe than in the rock matrix because of lower pressure and
higher mass-flow rate. Figs. 6 and 7 show the condensate buildup
in the fracture for Fluids A and B, respectively. Condensate bank-
ing is higher for Fluid B because of higher dropout at reservoir
conditions. Figs. 8 and 9 show the variation of gas saturation in a
fracture for both fluids. The gas saturation in the fracture
decreases near the wellbore as the condensate builds up. Figs. 10
and 11 show the gas relative permeability in the fracture for Flu-
ids A and B, respectively. The condensate buildup and water dam-
age significantly decrease the gas relative permeability.
Solvent Injection. In this subsection, the mechanism of remov-
ing the condensate and water blocks from fractures is described

0.35 0.35
50 days 50 days
0.30 0.30 100 days
100 days
Condensate Saturation

Condensate Saturation

200 days 200 days

0.25 0.25
300 days 300 days
0.20 400 days 0.20 400 days
500 days 500 days
0.15 0.15
600 days 600 days
0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft) Distance (ft)

Fig. 6—Condensate buildup in fracture for Fluid A. Fig. 7—Condensate buildup in fracture for Fluid B.

668 April 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 19:41 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010

 J175145 DOI: 10.2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 669 Total Pages: 10

0.90 0.90

0.80 0.80

Gas Saturation

Gas Saturation
0.70 0.70
50 days 50 days
100 days 100 days
0.60 0.60
200 days 200 days
300 days 300 days
0.50 400 days 0.50 400 days
500 days 500 days
600 days 600 days
0.40 0.40
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft) Distance (ft)

Fig. 8—Gas saturation in fracture for Fluid A. Fig. 9—Gas saturation in fracture for Fluid B.

for Fluid A. After 200 days of production, the producer is shut in
for 0.25 days. Next, 300 bbl of solvent is injected into the well in
0.25 days. A slug of chase gas should be injected to push the sol-
vent from wellbore into the fracture. The well is kept shut-in for
0.5 days after injection to let the reservoir soak. Finally, the well
is reopened to production. The results of injection of three sol-
vents (DME, EtOH, and MeOH) are compared in this subsection.
Fig. 12 shows the overall concentration of solvent, water, and
total hydrocarbon components in the fracture at the end of solvent
injection at 200.5 days. The injected solvent displaces both the
water and hydrocarbon components. The fracture water is humped
up as it is displaced back away into the fracture and formation. It
is impossible to show this mechanism in a two-phase flash simula-
tor because it does not include the aqueous phase in the flash cal-
culations. When the solvent is injected into the reservoir, up to
two liquid phases and one gas phase can form. During the solvent
injection, the conventional labeling notation of oil/gas/aqueous
phases is no longer meaningful because the solvent may be the
dominant component in any or all the phases in gridblocks that
are closer to the injector. Labeling the flow of solvent as oil or
water is arbitrary and has no physical justification. Therefore, the
general labeling notation of Liquid 1/gas/Liquid 2 is used during
the injection and early flowback of solvents. The hydrocarbon-
rich liquids are labeled as Liquid 1, and the water-rich liquids are
labeled as Liquid 2.
Figs. 13 and 14 show the saturation of the two liquids in the
fracture detected by the simulator at the end of injection. DME
and EtOH completely sweep the first few feet of the fracture, but
this is not true for MeOH injection. The Liquid 1 phase merges
into the condensate in the fracture, whereas Liquid 2 merges with
the aqueous phase. It can be seen from Figs. 12 and 13 that the
DME front is miscible with the condensate phase. Furthermore,
Figs. 12 and 14 show that EtOH and MeOH are miscible with
aqueous phase at their front. Fig. 15 shows the partitioning of the
solvent and water components in the first liquid phase. DME par-
titions mainly into Liquid 1. Also, partial miscibility of water in
DME solubilizes some water into the Liquid 1 phase. Fig. 16
shows the partitioning of the solvent and water in Liquid 2. It can
be seen that EtOH and MeOH prefer the water-rich phase and par-
tition into Liquid 2.
Solvent Flowback. After the treatment process, the well is reop-
ened to production at the same bottomhole pressure of 1,000 psi
and the simulation is continued to 600 days. Figs. 17 and 18 illus-
trate the flowback of solvents for Reservoirs A and B, respec-
tively. All the injected DME flows back in less than 2 days for
both cases, whereas it takes much longer for EtOH and MeOH to
flow back. The reason is that DME is more volatile and flows
back mainly with hydrocarbon phases. But, EtOH and MeOH par-
tition into the aqueous phase, which is more viscous and less mo-
bile in water-wet fractures. Figs. 19 and 20 compare the gas-
production rates for all three treatment cases with base case for
both Reservoirs A and B. It can be seen that the gas-production
rate after treatment is twice higher than the rate before the treat-
ment. Figs. 21 and 22 show the cumulative produced gas for both
reservoir fluids. It is noted that the treatment by DME leads to a
higher cumulative gas production after 600 days compared with
EtOH and MeOH treatment. Also, the cumulative produced gas
by DME treatment is approximately 70–100% higher compared
with the production without treatment. Figs. 23 and 24 show the
oil-production rates of the cases with and without treatment for
both reservoirs. Comparison of Figs. 23 and 24 reveals that sol-
vent treatment has a higher effect on oil-production rate of Reser-
voir B, which has the richer gas/condensate fluid. Figs. 25 and 26
show the cumulative produced oil for Reservoirs A and B. DME
treatment causes a 17% increase for Reservoir A and a 48%

0.60 0.60
Gas Relative Permeability

Gas Relative Permeability

0.50 0.50

0.40 0.40

0.30 50 days 0.30 50 days

100 days 100 days
0.20 200 days 0.20 200 days
300 days 300 days
400 days 400 days
0.10 0.10
500 days 500 days
600 days 600 days
0.00 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft) Distance (ft)

Fig. 10—Gas relative permeability in fracture for Fluid A. Fig. 11—Gas relative permeability in fracture for Fluid B.

April 2016 SPE Journal 669

ID: jaganm Time: 19:41 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010

 J175145 DOI: 10.2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 670 Total Pages: 10

1.00 1.00
DME in DME treatment H2O in DME treatment
EtOH in EtOH treatment H2O in EtOH treatment
0.80 0.80
Overall Concentration

Overall Concentration
MeOH in MeOH treatment H2O in MeOH treatment

0.60 0.60

0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft) Distance (ft)
(a) (b)

1.00
Total HC in DME treatment
Total HC in EtOH treatment
0.80
Overall Concentration

Total HC in MeOH treatment

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft)
(c)

Fig. 12—Overall concentration in the fracture at the end of solvent injection (t 5 200.5 days) for (a) solvent; (b) water; and (c) total
hydrocarbon (HC) components.

1.00 1.00
DME treatment DME treatment
EtOH treatment EtOH treatment
0.80 0.80
MeOH treatment MeOH treatment
Liquid 1 Saturation

Liquid 2 Saturation

0.60 0.60

0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft) Distance (ft)

Fig. 13—Saturation of Liquid 1 at t 5 200.5 days. Fig. 14—Saturation of Liquid 2 at t 5 200.5 days.

1.00 1.00
DME in DME treatment H2O in DME treatment
Concentration in Liquid 1

Concentration in Liquid 1

0.80 EtOH in EtOH treatment 0.80 H2O in EtOH treatment

MeOH in MeOH treatment H2O in MeOH treatment

0.60 0.60

0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft) Distance (ft)
(a) (b)

Fig. 15—Concentration in Liquid 1 phase in the fracture at the end of solvent injection (t 5 200.5 days) for (a) solvent and (b) water.

670 April 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 19:41 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010

 J175145 DOI: 10.2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 671 Total Pages: 10

1.00 1.00
DME in DME treatment H2O in DME treatment

Concentration in Liquid 2

Concentration in Liquid 2
0.80 EtOH in EtOH treatment 0.80 H2O in EtOH treatment
MeOH in MeOH treatment H2O in MeOH treatment

0.60 0.60

0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft) Distance (ft)

(a) (b)

Fig. 16—Concentration in Liquid 2 phase in the fracture at the end of solvent injection (t 5 200.5 days) for (a) solvent and (b) water.
Cumulative Flowback Solvent (STB)

Cumulative Flowback Solvent (STB)

500.0 500.0

400.0 400.0

300.0 300.0

200.0 200.0

DME DME
100.0 100.0
EtOH EtOH
MeOH MeOH
0.0 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 17—Solvent flowback from Reservoir A. Fig. 18—Solvent flowback from Reservoir B.

5.0E+06 8.0E+06
Base case Base case
Gas-Production Rate (scf/D)

Gas-Production Rate (scf/D)

DME 7.0E+06
DME
4.0E+06
EtOH 6.0E+06 EtOH
MeOH MeOH
3.0E+06 5.0E+06

4.0E+06
2.0E+06 3.0E+06

2.0E+06
1.0E+06
1.0E+06

0.0E+00 0.0E+00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 19—Gas-production rate from Reservoir A. Fig. 20—Gas-production rate from Reservoir B.

1.0E+09 1.0E+09
Base case Base case
DME DME
Cumulative Gas (scf)

Cumulative Gas (scf)

8.0E+08 EtOH 8.0E+08 EtOH

MeOH MeOH

6.0E+08 6.0E+08

4.0E+08 4.0E+08

2.0E+08 2.0E+08

0.0E+00 0.0E+00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 21—Cumulative produced gas from Reservoir A. Fig. 22—Cumulative produced gas from Reservoir B.

April 2016 SPE Journal 671

ID: jaganm Time: 19:41 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010

 J175145 DOI: 10.2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 672 Total Pages: 10

50.0 150.0
Base case Base case
Oil-Production Rate (STB/D)

Oil-Production Rate (STB/D)

DME DME
40.0 EtOH 120.0 EtOH
MeOH MeOH

30.0 90.0

20.0 60.0

10.0 30.0

0.0 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 23—Oil-production rate from Reservoir A. Fig. 24—Oil-production rate from Reservoir B.

5,000 20,000
Base case Base case
DME DME
4,000 16,000
Cumulative Oil (STB)

Cumulative Oil (STB)

EtOH EtOH
MeOH MeOH

3,000 12,000

2,000 8,000

1,000 4,000

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 25—Cumulative produced oil from Reservoir A. Fig. 26—Cumulative produced oil from Reservoir B.

Oil (STB) Gas (MMscf)

Base Case DME EtOH MeOH Base Case DME EtOH MeOH
Fluid A 3858 4519 4377 4304 494 827 762 726
Fluid B 12730 18805 17802 17770 479 994 869 869

Table 7—Cumulative produced oil and gas from Reservoirs A and B.

increase for Reservoir B. It is seen that the DME treatment is compared with MeOH treatment is USD 250,000 for Fluid A and
more effective than the treatment by other solvents. Table 7 sum- USD 350,000 for Fluid B.
marizes the cumulative oil and gas production for all solvents and
both fluids. The results indicate the advantage of DME over the Post-Treatment. The results of simulations of post-treatment of
other solvents. DME in Reservoir A are presented in this subsection. The DME
Assuming the cost of USD 100/bbl of DME and USD 50 per concentration is dominant in the effluent stream for the first few
barrel of MeOH, and the price of USD 50/bbl of oil and USD days after reopening the producer. Then, the hydrocarbon compo-
2,500/MMscf of gas, the additional net revenue of DME treatment nents dominate the production stream and the oil/gas/aqueous re-
gime forms again throughout the fracture. Fig. 27 shows the oil
0.35 saturation in fracture for 5, 10, 100, and 400 days after treatment.
t = 205 days It is observed that the pushed-back condensate bank creeps toward
0.30
t = 210 days the wellbore and the bank size increases with time because of fur-
Condensate Saturation

t = 300 days ther liquid dropout. Fig. 28 shows the gas saturation in fracture
0.25
t = 600 days
for the same times. It is noted that the gas saturation near the well-
0.20 bore decreases slowly with time. Fig. 29 illustrates the aqueous-
phase saturation in fracture for the same times. It is seen that the
0.15 humped water remains almost immobile. Fig. 30 shows the gas
0.10
relative permeability in fracture for the same times. Comparison
of gas relative permeability at 300 days in Figs. 10 and 30 shows
0.05 that DME treatment increases the gas relative permeability adja-
cent to the wellbore from 0.14 to 0.35.
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft) Summary and Conclusions
A compositional reservoir-simulation study was used to better
Fig. 27—Condensate saturation after DME treatment for Fluid A. understand the solvent stimulation of fractured shale-gas/

672 April 2016 SPE Journal

ID: jaganm Time: 19:41 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010

 J175145 DOI: 10.2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16 Stage: Page: 673 Total Pages: 10

1.00 0.30

0.25
0.80

Water Saturation
Gas Saturation 0.20
0.60
0.15
0.40
t = 205 days 0.10 t = 205 days
t = 210 days t = 210 days
0.20
t = 300 days 0.05 t = 300 days
t = 600 days t = 600 days
0.00 0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Distance (ft) Distance (ft)

Fig. 28—Gas saturation after DME treatment for Fluid A. Fig. 29—Water saturation after DME treatment for Fluid A.

condensate reservoirs. This is the first time that DME has been
proposed as a solvent for this purpose. The results indicate that it
is a superior solvent compared with conventional solvents such as
light alcohols and glycols. On the basis of this study, the follow-
ing can be concluded.
1. Condensate and water blocking significantly reduces produc-
tion rates from shale-gas/condensate reservoirs by reducing the
gas relative permeability in the fractures.
2. Fracture-stimulation treatments by use of solvents can improve
the productivity of shale-gas/condensate wells by removing the
liquid blocks in the fractures. The numerical simulations indi-
cate that an improvement in gas relative permeability on the
order of 2.5 can be obtained. Such a large increase in relative
permeability leads to a significant increase in gas- and conden-
sate-production rates.
3. DME demonstrates an advantage for treatment of condensate
and water blocks compared with EtOH and MeOH. DME is
very volatile and prefers to partition into and mix with hydro-
carbon-rich phases. Also, DME is multicontact miscible with
water, whereas EtOH and MeOH prefer to partition into the
aqueous phase. As a result, EtOH and MeOH flow back much
slower than DME and delay the increase in production rates.
4. Solvent treatment of water blocking is long-lasting, whereas
treatment of condensate blocking is temporary. However, the
solvent treatment can be repeated to restore productivity after
more condensate accumulates in the fractures.
5. A mechanistic numerical reservoir simulator with a three-phase
flash is essential to capture the complex phase behavior and
transport of mixtures of hydrocarbons, solvents, and water.
6. Additional simulations are needed to fully understand the treat-
ment of fractures by use of solvents. More phase-behavior data
are needed for mixtures of polar solvents. More-complex mix-
ing rules should be implemented in compositional simulators
to better model the phase behavior of the mixtures of solvents,
hydrocarbons, and water.
1.00
t = 205 days
Gas Relative Permeability
7. More simulations should be performed to find the optimum sol-
vent mixture, slug size, and cycle period of treatment.
8. The effect of injecting dry gas after the solvents should be
investigated.
9. Laboratory experiments for propped fractures should be con-
ducted at reservoir pressure and temperature by use of DME.
The improvement of gas relative permeability in experiments
can justify field test of DME injection.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Mohsen Tagavifar for useful discussions
and comments during the writing of this paper. Gary Pope holds
the Texaco Centennial Chair in Petroleum Engineering at the Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin. Funds from this Chair provided partial
financial support for this study. Also, we would like to acknowl-
edge Shell and Rex Energy for their partial financial support.
References
Al-Anazi, H. A., Walker, J. G., Pope, G. A. et al. 2005. A Successful
Methanol Treatment in a Gas/condensate Reservoir: Field Application.
SPE Prod & Fac 20 (1): 60–69. SPE-80901-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/80901-PA.
Bang, V. S. S., Ayyalasomayajula, P. S., Kumar, V. et al. 2006. Relative
Permeability of Gas/Condensate Fluids: A General Correlation. Pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, Texas, 24–27 September. SPE-102741-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/102741-MS.
Bang, V. S. S., Pope, G. A. and Sharma, M. M. 2010. Phase-Behavior
Study of Hydrocarbon/Water/Methanol Mixtures at Reservoir Condi-
tions. SPE J. 15 (4): 952–962. SPE-102100-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/102100-PA.
Bang, V. S. S., Yuan, C., Pope, G. A. et al. 2008. Improving Productivity
of Hydraulically Fractured Gas Condensate Wells by Chemical Treat-
ment. Presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 5–8
May. OTC-19599-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/19599-MS.
Behmanesh, H., Hamdi, H., and Clarkson, C. R. 2013. Production Data
Analysis of Liquid Rich Shale Gas Condensate Reservoirs. Presented

t = 210 days
0.80 at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference Canada, Calgary,
t = 300 days
t = 600 days 5–7 November. SPE-167160-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/167160-
0.60 MS.
Chang, Y. B 1990. Development and Application of an Equation of State
Compositional Simulator. PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at
0.40 Austin, Austin, Texas.
Cheng, Y. 2012. Impact of Water Dynamics in Fractures on the Perform-
0.20 ance of Hydraulically Fractured Wells in Gas-Shale Reservoirs. J Can
Pet Technol 51 (2): 143–151. SPE-127863-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/127863-PA.
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Corey, A. T. 1954. The Interrelation Between Gas and Oil Relative Perme-
Distance (ft) abilities. Producers Monthly 19 (1): 38–41.
Dindoruk, B. 2012. Development of a Correlation for the Estimation of
Fig. 30—Gas relative permeability after DME treatment for Fluid Condensate to Gas Ratio (CGR) and Other Key Gas Properties From
A. Density Data. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and

April 2016 SPE Journal 673

ID: jaganm Time: 19:41 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010

 J175145 DOI: 10.2118/175145-PA Date: 29-March-16
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 8–10 October. SPE-160170-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/160170-MS.
Ehlig-Economides, C. A. and Economides, M. J. 2011. Water As Prop-
pant. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, Denver, 30 October–2 November. SPE-147603-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/147603-MS.
Jurus, W. J., Whitson, C. H., and Golan, M. 2013. Modeling Water Flow in
Hydraulically-Fractured Shale Wells. Presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–2
October. SPE-166439-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/166439-MS.
King, G. E. 2010. Thirty Years of Gas Shale Fracturing: What Have We
Learned? Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Ex-
hibition, Florence, Italy, 19–22 September. SPE-133456-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/133456-MS.
Konynenburg, P. H. V. and Scott, R. L. 1980. Critical Lines and Phase
Equilibria in Binary Van Der Waals Mixtures. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A
298 (1442): 495–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1980.0266.
Park, S.-J., Han, K.-J. and Gmehling, J. 2007. Isothermal Phase Equilibria
and Excess Molar Enthalpies for Binary Systems with Dimethyl Ether
at 323.15 K. J. Chem. Eng. Data 52 (5): 1814–1818. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1021/je700174h.
Peng, D. Y. and Robinson, D. B. 1976. A New Two-Constant Equation of
State. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals 15 (1):
59–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/i160057a011.
Pope, G. A., Wu, W., Narayanaswamy, G. et al. 2000. Modeling Relative
Permeability Effects in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs With a New Trap-
ping Model. SPE Res Eval & Eng 3 (2): 171–178. SPE-62497-PA.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/62497-PA.
Pozo, M. E. and Streett, W. B. 1984. Fluid Phase Equilibria for the System
Dimethyl Ether/Water from 50 to 220. degree. C and Pressures to 50.9
MPa. J. Chem. Eng. Data 29 (3): 324–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
je00037a030.
Sakhaee-Pour, A. and Bryant, S. 2012. Gas Permeability of Shale. SPE
Res Eval & Eng 15 (4): 401–409. SPE-146944-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/146944-PA.
Sayed, M. A. and Al-Muntasheri, G. A. 2014. Liquid Bank Removal in
Production Wells Drilled in Gas-condensate Reservoirs: A Critical
Review. Presented at the SPE International Symposium and Exhibition
on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette, Louisiana, 26–28 February.
SPE-168153-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168153-MS.
Sharma, M. and Agrawal, S. 2013. Impact of Liquid Loading in Hydraulic
Fractures on Well Productivity. Presented at the SPE Hydraulic Frac-
turing Technology Conference, The Woodlands, Texas, 4–6 February.
SPE-163837-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/163837-MS.
Tallon, S. and Fenton, K. 2010. The Solubility of Water in Mixtures of Di-
methyl Ether and Carbon Dioxide. Fluid Phase Equilibr. 298 (1):
60–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2010.07.009.
Valtz, A., Chapoy, A., Coquelet, C. et al. 2004. Vapour–Liquid Equilibria
in the Carbon Dioxide–Water System, Measurement and Modelling
674
ID: jaganm Time: 19:42 I Path: S:/J###/Vol00000/160010/Comp/APPFile/SA-J###160010
Stage: Page: 674 Total Pages: 10
from 278.2 to 318.2 K. Fluid Phase Equilibr. 226 (10 December):
333–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fluid.2004.10.013.
Whitson, C. H. and Sunjerga, S. 2012. PVT in Liquid-Rich Shale Reser-
voirs. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibi-
tion, San Antonio, Texas, 8–10 October. SPE-155499-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/155499-MS.
Yuan, C., Ahmadi, M., Pope, G. A. et al. 2011. The Modeling of Solvents
Flow-Back in the Chemical Treatment to Remove Liquid Block. Pre-
sented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Bang-
kok, 15–17 November. IPTC-15219-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2523/
IPTC-15219-MS.
Yuan, C. and Pope, G. A. 2011. A New Method to Model Relative Perme-
ability in Compositional Simulators to Avoid Discontinuous Changes
Caused by Phase Identification Problems. Presented at the SPE Reser-
voir Simulation Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, 21–23 February.
SPE-142093-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/142093-MS.
Reza Ganjdanesh is a post-doctoral fellow at the Bureau of
Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin. His
research interests include enhanced oil recovery (EOR), reser-
voir engineering, natural-gas engineering, phase behavior of
complex fluids, reservoir simulation, and carbon capture and
storage. Ganjdanesh holds a PhD degree in petroleum engi-
neering from the University of Texas at Austin.
Mohsen Rezaveisi is a reservoir engineer at BHP Billiton. His
research interests include phase behavior and composition-
dependent relative permeability modeling for reservoir simula-
tion. Rezaveisi holds a PhD degree in petroleum engineering
from the University of Texas at Austin.
Gary A. Pope is the Texaco Centennial Chair in Petroleum En-
gineering at the University of Texas at Austin. Previously, he
worked in production research at Shell Development Com-
pany for 5 years. Pope’s teaching and research are in the
areas of EOR, geological storage of greenhouse gases, reser-
voir engineering, natural-gas engineering, and reservoir simu-
lation. He was elected to the National Academy of
Engineering in 1999 for his contributions to understanding mul-
tiphase flow and transport in porous media and applications
of these principles to improved oil recovery and aquifer reme-
diation. Pope is an honorary member of SPE. He holds a bach-
elor’s degree from Oklahoma State University and a PhD
degree from Rice University, both in chemical engineering.
Kamy Sepehrnoori is a professor in the Department of Petro-
leum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of Texas at
Austin where he holds the W. A. (Monty) Moncrief Centennial
Chair in Petroleum Engineering. His research interests and
teaching include computational methods, reservoir simula-
tion, parallel computing, EOR, naturally fractured reservoirs,
and unconventional-reservoir simulation. Sepehrnoori holds a
PhD degree from the University of Texas at Austin.
April 2016 SPE Journal