Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Dyung T. Yo, SPE, U. of Tulsa; .Jack R .Jones, SPE, Amoco Production Co.; and
Rajagopal Raghavan, * SPE, U. of Tulsa
Summary. This paper considers some reservoir engineering aspects of the performance of gas-condensate reservoirs that are important
for commercial exploitation: calculation of producible fluids, material-balance computations, well deliverability predictions, estimates
of the size of the two-phase zone, and saturation changes during the buildup period. Two production modes (constant pressure and constant
rate) are considered. Both transient and boundary-dominated periods are examined. Extrapolation of results derived from data above
the dewpoint pressure to conditions below the dewpoint pressure is discussed.
Introduction
In this paper, we apply the results of Refs. 1 and 2 to examine gascondensate-reservoir behavior above and below the dewpoint
pressure. We examine the applicability of using the conventional
material-balance equation to predict reserves. A practical procedure
to compute the appropriate two-phase compressibility factor is
presented. The importance of these results is that we establish that
data above the dewpoint pressure can be used to predict reservoir
performance below the dewpoint pressure. The second part ofthis
work examines methods to compute well deliverability in condensate
reservoirs. We show that the average reservoir pressure and total
skin factor computed with the single-phase gas analog 3 can be used
to predict well deliverability. The steady-state l,4 analog is inadequate for predictil1g well deliverability primarily because skin-factor
estimates from this analog deteriorate with producing time during
the boundary-dominated flow period.
Jones and Raghavan 1 showed that condensate well performance
can be correlated with liquid-flow solutions in terms of the reservoir
integral. Using this observation as a basis, we correlate the radius
of the two-phase region as a function of time in terms of the
Aronofsky-Jenkins 5 drainage-radius concept. We then show that
the radius of the two-phase zone can be estimated from pressurebuildup data.
In the last part of this paper, we examine changes in saturation
and composition that take place during a buildup test. 6,7 In the vicinity of the wellbore, the liquid-phase saturation increases after
the well is shut in; i.e., the liquid phase does not vaporize during
the shut-in period in the near-well region. As suggested by
Aanonsen,7 on the basis of iJ-model simulations, the phase behavior of condensate systems in the vicinity of the well is similar
to that of solution-gas-drive reservoirs. An explanation for this behavior is presented.
Definitions
For purposes of generality, all results in this paper are presented
in dimensionless form. Because condensate reservoir solutions are
compared with the liquid solutions, appropriate definitions for a
liquid-flow system are stated first. The dimensionless pressure,
PD(rD,tD), dimensionless time, tD' and dimensionless distance,
rD, are defined by the following equations:
576
..................................
(3)
PsD,
. ....................... (5)
p p (p)=2J
Pb
P'
--dp'
(pZ)g
........ (8)
............................. (9)
[(krolf.loZo) + (kr/f.lgZg)]p'dp'.
. .......... (10)
Pb
1.0
0.9
0'
0.8
e0.7
.;
....
0.6
CI
-l
iii
c(
L&.I
cL
0.5
~3000
:;:)
en
en
L&.I
a:
Q.
:E
a:
L&.I
Q.
0.4
L&.I
>
fi-l
0.3
L&.I
2000
a: 0.2
0.1
1.0
PWS
T:620oR,
Pdew :3,969.6 psia,
% Lmax :4.6
2
T:740oR,
Pdew :3,106.9 psia,
% Lmax =7.0
4
T:740oR,
Pdew:4,189.7 psia,
% Lmax :12.4
Liquid
~~~~
0.01800 0.02590 0.03618 0.24854
Pwj,s
.................................... (12)
~dpl
...... (13)
Pwj,s (pZ)g
Results
In the following, we assume that p can be determined from the
Homer 12 buildup analysis, using the single-phase gas analog, and
we will use this to explore reservoir engineering aspects of producing
gas-condensate reservoirs. 2 Methods to estimate the radius of the
two-phase zone from both drawdown and buildup tests are also presented, and saturation changes during a buildup test are discussed.
Estimating Initial In-Place Fluids-Material-Balance Computations. For single-phase gas reservoirs, a plot of average reservoir
pressure,p, divided by the gas deviation factor at average pressure
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989
1.00
MIX 2,SET 3
r.D~ 1600, 5:
= 1900psio (I >50days)
IN
rL
~
>
----- --
:::; 0.88
iii
Vi
(J")
00 00
w
a::
~
0.84
0,0
u
0.80
0
Pj : 4500psia
-------/
....
<[
0-
o CONSTANT RATE
0 CONSTANT PRESSURE
PRODUCTION
Pi: 31 10psia
CONSTANT PRESSURE
PRODUCTION
MIX 2, SET 3
iii.
IN
.....
Ie.
00
2500
SIMULATOR, EO. 14
FLASH, EO. 20
0.1
FRACTION OF INITIAL FLUID PRODUCED, Gp/G i
-SfMULATOR
0.7
15000'----OL.I--0.L.2--0-'-.3--0--'.4--0--'.-5--0--'.LS---'0.7
FRACTION OF INITIAL FLUID PRODUCED, Gp/Gj
p,
.............................. (16)
To test the validity ofEq. 20 when CCE data are used to evaluate
the needed factors on the right, we used the results of compositional simulations to compute appropriate values for the two-phase
deviation factor from Eqs. 14 and 20. Values of Z(p) for two uch
simulations are plotted in Fig. 3. This is a Cartesian plot of Z(p)
vs. GpiGi. The circular data points are values computed from Eq.
14 with simulator results for a constant-molar-rate case, while the
square data points are those computed for a50nstant-pressure case.
The unbroken line represents the values of Z computed from Eq. 20
with CCE data. The dashed curve that overlies the unbroken line
for GplGi <0.22 is the response of the single-phase gas deviation
factor calculated with the equilibrium gas compositions obtained
from CCE data. Both simulations were performed with Mixture
2 and Set 3 relative permeability data with Pi =4,500 psia [31
MPa). For the constant-pressure production example, the well
flowed with PWj=3,200 psia. [22.1 MPa) untilp was 3,309 psia
[22.8 MPa) (about 50 days). After this, Pwj was lowered to 1,900
psia [13.1 MPa], and the simulation was continued until 60% of
the fluid in place was produced. Such production schemes were
considered to ensure that the conclusion we propose is not affected
by the mode of production or well bore pressure level (above or
below the dewpoint pressure).
_
From Fig. 3 we see that the values of Z(jj) form a unique curve
independent of production mode or pressure level (jj=Pdew for
GpiGi ""'0.22). The values of Z calculated from Eq. 20 agree with
those computed from Eq. 14 within 2 % for the range of cumul~tive
production shown. The advantage of Eq. 20 is that values of Z can
be obtained when only the initial composition of the gas in place
is known. Although the results in Fig. 3 clearly establish that the
0.7r---r--r-r"TTTTTr--;-;-rrrrm--r-r-rrnTrr-'
MIX 2, SET 3
O.S
ql = 10,000 Ibm mollO
o
en
Z
o
0.5,----,,_
s:0
~ 04~------',---"'-.:---=~0?=-_
0::
~ 0.3
en 0.2
..J
t[a
MIX2, SET3
Pwf : 2500 psio
0
0 .8
0.6
OL-~~~llL~LLLU~~~bQ~~~
I
10
102
10 3
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD
f===-=-_
0::
::>
~ 0.4~:;;;~==~~~~
(/)
0.1
s: 0
(/)
FLOWING TIME,
t,days
..J
0.2
oL-~~wL-L~UW~~~~~~~
I
10
10 2
103
104
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rO
578
two-phase gas deviation factor can be computed from a CCE experiment, it does not necessarily follow that the compositions at p
are unchanged. The success of Eq. 20 depends primarily on our
ability to compute h(p) and fv(p) accurately. To test this
hypothesis, we simulated the performance of a system with
Pi'" P dew' If Pi'" P dew' then we expect that the changes in overall
compositions at the location of p in the reservoir will occur earlier
in the life of the well. Thus, this initial condition represents a severe
test of the applicability of Eq. 20 to yield reliable values of Z.
We simulated the performance of such a system using Mixture
2 and Set 3 data with the reservoir initially at 3,110 psia [21.44
MPa], which is about 3 psi [21 kPa] above the system dewpoint
pressure of 3,106.9 psia [21.42 MPa]. The well was assumed to
be damaged in this case with a skin factor of seven corresponding
to a skin-zone radius of 1.5 ft [0.46 m] (rsD =6.03). The well was
produced at constant wellbore pressure of 2,500 psia [17.2 MPa]
for nearly 1,000 days, and subsequently flowed at 2,200 psia [15.2
MPa] for an additional 5,000 days. At this time, the well had drained
about 27% of the initial moles of the fluid in place.
For this case, our computations indicate that the values of Zcomputed from Eq. 20 agree with those obtained from Eq. 14 within
0.5% for the range of cumulative production indicated. The overall
compositions of the fluid in place corresponding to the average
pressure at the end of this simulation are z2 =0.11443 and
Z3 =0.05307 (initial values of Z2 and Z3 were 0.11306 and 0.04752,
respectively). The vapor saturation corresponding to p was 0.937.
This simulation confirms that, even in the case when overall compositions at average pressure have changed from their initial values,
Eq. 20 still can be used to correlate well performance for a
reasonably long production period.
Fig. 4 is a Cartesian plot ofpIZ(p) vs. G/Gi for the data shown
in Fig. 3 and for the case discussed abov~ where Pi "'Pdew' The
intent of Fig. 4 is to show that values of Z from Eq. 20 and CCE
data can be combined with cumulative production and average
pressure data to predict initial gas in place, Gi , accurately. The
circular, square, and triangular data points were computed from
Eq. 20 using CCE data, while the unbroken line represents the
values from Eq. 14 using simulator results. The circles (constantrate case) and the square (constant-pressure case) data points are
for the simulations discussed in Fig. 3 (initial pressure of 4,500
psi a [31 MPa)). The triangular data points denote the responses
from the constant-pressure production case with initial pressure of
3,110 psia [21.44 MPa). Note that well-defined straight lines can
be drawn in the data from above, through, and below the dewpoint
pressure for all cases. The arrows denote the value of GplGi at
which p = Pdew' An extrapolation of lines constructed through these
data points to p =0 yields GplGi values within 2 % ofthe expected
value of unity.
These results lead us to conclude that, with a limited set of cumulative production data recorded during the eady stages of
depletion of a gas-condensate well, the conventional procedure may
be used to determine initial fluid in place provided that Zis computed
as sugge~ted by Eq. 20. (Although for the examples we have discussed, Z was computed for the entire production period, it is not
necessary in practice to compute Zduring the entire depletion period
to obtain an estimate of initial fluids in place.) Eq. 20 works best
for the data obtained during the period when condensation (from
CCE) occurs. This suggests that our proposed procedure works best
for the period when P~PLmax (Fig. 2). We believe this will give
a conservative estimate of the range over which Eq. 20 applies.
Our derivation of Eq. 20 implies that saturation corresponding to
average reservoir pressure may be approximated from CCE data. A
detailed justification for this observation is provided in the Appendix.
The standard methods 13 for predicting the depletion performance of a gas-condensate reservoir are based on the assumptions
that the liquid dropped in the reservoir remains immobile. We l 2
have shown that this is generally not true. Figs. 5 and 6 present
the saturation profiles for the constant-rate and constant-pressure
production cases considered earlier. We see from these two figures
that liquid is mobile for 1:5 rD:5 100 over some time period
(Soc =0.38 for Set 3). The liquid phase in the mobile bank near
the well is then vaporized after a certain time and, subsequently,
the liquid phase becomes immobile throughout the reservoir. Much
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989
Skin
Factor
tAD
Rates, qt
(Ibm mol/D)
Simulator
By Eq. 24
% Difference
Constant-Rate Production
.-._._.... _ ..... _0.0501
0
7,500.00
7,451.74
0.64
0.1018
7,500.81
0.01
0.5021
7,432.85
0.04
0.0524
10,000.0
9,900.74
0.99
0
0.0631
9,950.73
0.49
0.1019
10,008.1
0.08
0.1551
10,004.9
0.05
0.0517
7,500.00
7,445.12
0.73
5
0.1055
7,462.50
0.50
1.2389
7,491.41
0.12
0.1030
-1
10,000.0
9,518.4
4.82
1.4660
9,707.58
2.92
Constant-Pressure Production, P wI = 2,500 psia
0.0520
0
9,725.60
9,669.70
0.58
0.1085
9,075.93
9,031.16
0.49
0.0518
5
5,051.30
4,990.91
1.20
0.1047
4,872.53
4,875.19
0.06
0.5099
4,352.02
4,345.54
0.15
0.1660
-1
11,869.9
11,291.1
4.88
0.5265
9,326.48
8,858.40
5.02
In Eq. 21,
.M is
........................... (21)
A.t=ilt1f.l.g(Pws)cg(pws),
........................... (22)
27rkhC1
qr-
(In
reD-0.5+s)
r reD[(Po-+P
kro -krg) -op-
J
1
f.l.o
f.l. g
orb
l '
drD'
tD
.................................... (23)
Here, S is the skin factor caused by mechanical damage only. This
equation has theoretical significance but cannot be used in practical
computations.
To develop a practical deliverability equation, we chose to test
.................... (24)
for accuracy. The pseudopressure in Eq. 24 is taken to be the singlephase gas function defined in Eq. 9. To perform this test, simulated buildup data were analyzed for p and St. These values were
used in Eq. 24 to obtain a predicted rate, (qr)bu' This rate was then
compared with the producing rate before shut-in. Table 2 shows
this comparison for a number of cases generated with Mixture 2
579
-:::0
o
Q.a.
o
....J
<t
0::
(!)
I~
opo(ro"o)
CONSTANT RATE
PRODUCTION
0::
~
0::
CIl
W
0::
reo
12
=4000, S =5
101~~~~~~10--~~LUIU02~~~~~~~3~~~~104
14~1~~~~~10--~~LUIUO~3~~~~10U4~~~~WI05
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD
21fkhC 1 reD [( k ro
krg) op ]
PpDtD(rD)=------J
Po-+P g ---,
drb
qt
rD
P.o
p.g orD tD
.................................... (26)
has been shown to behave similarly to the single-phase dimensionless
pressure, PD, given by
PD(rD,tD) = khl141.2qBp.[Pe -p(r,t)]. . ............... (27)
. ...................... (31)
............................ (32)
to yield Eq. 31 again; however, now Eq. 31 applies only for t large
enough to give ro(tr s ' This is not a serious limitation if s~O.
As a practical matter, care should be taken if plots similar to Figs.
7 and 8 are used to determine ro(t). The equality in Eqs. 28 and
32 is valid only if roD ~ reD'
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989
MIX2 SET3
Pi = 3250 psio
Pdew =3106.922 psio
MIX I SET3
Pi =4250 p.io
Pdew= 3969.699 psio
A~.A-<>-A-"l...q,""'1600
CONSTANT RATE
(q,=5000,7500, 10,000)
Ibm mol/O
05=0
0.=5,-1
Pi =3300 psio
o SET I, (s =0),
q, -10,000 Ibm mol/O
CONSTANT PRESSURE.
Pwf 2500 paio
OS-o
sZ5
104
105
106
DIMENSIONLESS TIME.
10 4
1'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (35)
where rdew,D is the dimensionless radius of the two-phase zone for
dimensionless time, tD' Eq. 35 can be arranged to give
27rkhC 1 r rdew,D
In rdew,D=ln roD(tD).+--- \
qt
~eD
Jl.g
a~
arD tD
Jl.o
Jl.g
1 =r
drb
D tD
Pdew
g
P dp,
...... (37)
Jl.g
=ln~(tD)
_ 27rkhC 1
'w
rw
qt
Pdew
Pg dp.
. ............ (38)
Jl. g
Here, ro(tD) would be given by Eq. 31. Note that Eq. 38 implicitly
assumes that two-phase flow begins before the outer boundary is
felt. To extend Eq. 36 into the boundary-dominated period, additional assumptions must be invoked. If we accept that,o(t) should
be identical to the Aronofsky-Jenkins transient drainage radius, rd'
then we can intuitively extend Eq. 38 by replacing 'o(tD) by
rd(tD)=0.472'e and Pi by p. Thus, our final equation for the radius
of the two-phase zone, 'dew, during the boundary-dominated flow
period is
In rdew
=In':d(tD~_~7rkhCl
'w
'w
qt
[ft
Pg dp,
Pdew
Jl. g
'dew,D
--
II
rg
p Pg
Pe Pg
drb= \
-dp+
-dp.
ar'D - tD
"
Pdew Jl.g
P
Jl.g
k,g) ap
g-
107
to
rPe (p/Jl.g)dp=l)i .
p
Combining Eqs. 36, 40, and 41 and noting that In roD=ln(O.606'el
rw) during boundary-dominated flow, we obtain Eq. 39 .
We tested Eqs. 38 and 39 by simulating drawdowns with
Pi> Pdew and using simulator results to estimate r dew as a function
of time. These values for r dew' along with a value for the integral
of single-phase gas properties over the range Pdew to Pi or p, were
used in Eqs. 38 and 39, respectively, to obtain values of ro(tD}'
These values were then compared with the published correlation 5
for rd' Recall that we have shown that rd(tD) is identical to ro(tD)
for transient flow. Figs. 9 and 10 compare the results of some of
these simulations with 1n(rdlrw) vs. tD' Data for constant-rate and
constant-pressure drawdowns for skin factor values of 0, 5, and
-1 are shown. Here, we show only data for r dew> rs if s *0. All
data except those indicated by "x" marks have Pi=3,250 psia
[22.1 MPa]. The data denoted by "x" marks are associated with
Pi=3,300 psia [22.75 MPa]. The unbroken lines represent the
Aronofsky !md Jenkins 5 correlation for r d(tD), and the dashed line
of slope 0.5 indicates the extension of the correlation for the transient period. Fig. 9 shows the data generated from Mixture 2 and
Fig. 10 shows the data for Mixture 1. The data for the two plots
were generated with Set 3 relative permeability curves, except for
the square data points in Fig. 10, which were obtained with Set
1 relative permeability data. Similar results were obtained for
Mixture 4.
From these figures, we see that Eqs. 38 and 39 work very well.
A detailed examination of tabulated values shows that the results
typically differ by about 6 % with differences as high as l3 % for
some constant-pressure-production cases during transient flow. For
boundary-dominated flow, we generally find that r dew can be predicted to within 5 % if
27rkhC 1Iqt] p (p/Jl.g)dp 2! 0.50. . .................... (42)
Pdew
............. (39)
10 5
106
DIMENSIONLESS TIME.
27rkhC 1lqlj
\,rdew,D[( kro
krg) ap
rdew,D
--Po-+P g -drD=ln---,
qt
~eD
Jl.o
Jl.g arb tD
roD (tD)
Jl. o
=5
107
o =0
to
27rkhC 1
CONSTANT RATE
(q, =5000,7500,10,000) Ibm mol/O
qt
JPdew
Pwf,s
Jl.g
"8
-0
Q.
0-
...i
0:
2
10-2
IJJ-
I-..?
z0
o~ Co
-.J
(!)
IX:
(!)
>0-
IJJ
0:'
I-
~
0:
wen..? e
w-o
>
IX:
IJJ
en
z'a
- 0-
'eo = 4000, S = 5
12
'eo=4000,s=5
'AD = 1.2389
(!)
'40"1.2389
J:
IJJ
0:
10 2
10
10
IX: -
103
13
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD
102
10
104
10 3
liquid phase takes place; thus, rdew decreases with increasing At.
The two-phase zone varies from approximately rD =42 at At=O
to about rD =22 at At=7 days. Revaporization at the edge of the
two-phase zone was previously reported by Fusse1l 6 for pressurebuildup tests. However, he reported that changes in So near the
well were minimal. This behavior for the near-well changes in So
has been noted by Aanonsen 7 from ..{3-model" simulations of gascondensate pressure buildup.
Fig. 14 shows mole fractions ofC I and C 4 , for the liquid and
vapor phases, vs. rD' These data are for the same buildup test
documented in Fig. 13, and again, the variable of interest is At.
Here, we see that the revaporization of the liquid phase near r=
r dew causes the liquid-phase mole-fraction profiles to contract as
At increases. More interesting is the behavior of the mole fractions
with time near the well. The data show that the liquid phase is
swelling because the light end (C I ) is moving out of the gas phase
and into the liquid phase; i.e., gas is preferentially dissolving in
the oil phase. This behavior is typical of a black-oil (solution-gasdrive) system.
We have computed the critical temperatures at shut-in for the
overall fluid as a function of rD from simulator results using Li's
method as given in Ref. 16. This computation is outlined in the
Appendix and the values are shown as the dashed line in Fig. 13.
Comparing these values with the reservoir temperature for this simulation, T=740oR [411 KJ, we see that in the region where "condensation" occurs (So increasing with At), fluid critical temperatures are greater than T, and revaporization occurs where fluid
psD(rD,AtD)=PD(rD,tD)-PD(rD,AtD)'
.............. (44)
We now tum our attention to the behavior of saturation distributions during the pressure-buildup period. Fig. 13 shows So vs. rD
at tAD =0.0042, which corresponds to shutting in the well during
transient flow. The variable of interest here is the shut-in time, At.
From the plot, we see that as pressure builds up in the system, the
liquid saturations near the well increase with At. The change in
So at rD = I from At=O to 7 days is more than 30%. For radii near
the edge of the two-phase zone, some revaporization of the in-place
0.8
Q 0.6
~
a:
::::>
~ 0.4
en
"
..J
(3
0.2
OIL SATURATION
--CRITICAL
\,
TEMPERATURE
..........
_------
:l:J
900 ~
(')
l>
r
800
r;l
3:
"0
rrt
:l:J
700 ~
C
:l:J
rrt
600 o-i
o
:l:J
0~~~~~--~~~~~~~~500
10
102
103
r!o
.;;
IIl,days
f0
yc,
o.el=====:,.;:~=======::r----~I>7
)(
Z
$7
o 0.6b--:::=~~========T-IXCI
i=
1../
.... 0
~
e:
'/
0.4
0.2
..--0
7 ....
-0
7jt
xC4
YC4
I-:
10
104
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD
Fig. 13-Saturatlon and critical temperature profiles.
582
r~O
Sl
--"
.....
II:
!:(
0.4
tf)
LIt, days
-I
(5
><
!:i
c
::0
rr1
"........
--------
600 ~
o
- - OIL SATURATION
- - CRITICAL TEMPERATURE
::0
01 _____~______~._--~~==~~500
rn
tAo =1.2389
::0
700
0.2
LIt, days
"'''===;G~l~!===~----------YCI
rr1
:;)
;';;-0.8
OLI~~~~~10-~~~~10~2~~~~1~03'-~~~WI04
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rO
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rO
Conclusions
Numerical simulation results from the model developed by Jones 17
have been used to examine the performance of gas-condensate
reservoirs. The following conclusions were demonstrated.
1. Two-phase compressibility factors based on flash (CCE) data
can be used to predict reserves from_data measured above or below
the dewpoint pressure. A plot of pIZ(p) vs. Gp yields an excellent
straight line above and below the dewpoint pressure, provided that
compressibility factors are defined appropriately.
2. Well deliverability can be evaluated by computing average reservoir pressure and total skin factor with the single-phase gas analog.
Some care should be taken in extrapolating well performances over
long time spans because the total skin factor will change.
3. It is possible to determine the radius of the two-phase zone
from pressure-buildup data provided that the average reservoir
pressure is above the dewpoint pressure. The size of the two-phase
zone can be predicted from an estimate of the total skin factor, vapor
phase compositions, and dewpoint pressure and wellbore pressure
at shut-in. The radius of the two-phase zone also may be predicted
by invoking the drainage-radius concept. 5 This procedure does not
require knowledge of the two-phase skin factor.
4. Liquid-phase saturations near the wellbore increase when the
well is shut in. Near-well composition changes can be significant
enough for the in-place fluid to behave as if it were a black oil rather
than a gas condensate.
Nomenclature
A = drainage area, ft2 [m 2]
B = FVF
gas-phase compressibility, psi - 1 [kPa - 1]
Ct = total compressibility, psi -I [kPa -I ]
Cg =
'0
583
Subscripts
c = critical
D = dimensionless
g = gas
i = initial component number
m = oil or gas
a = oil or liquid phase
s = skin
ss = steady-state
Superscripts
= average
= derivative
Acknowledgments
This work constitutes portions of an MS thesis by Vo, who was
supported by a grant from Phillips Petroleum Co. A grant by
Chevron Oil Field Research Co. also was used to finance portions
of this work. Computing time was provided by the U. of Tulsa.
We are grateful to these sources of financial assistance.
References
1. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Flowing Well
Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells," SPEFE (Sept. 1988) 578-94.
2. Jones, J.R., Vo, D.T., and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Pressure
Buildup Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells," SPEFE (March 1989)
93-104.
3. AI-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Media," JPT (May 1966) 624-36;
Trans., AIME, 237.
4. Chopra, A.K. and Carter, RD.: "Proof of the Two-Phase Steady-State
Theory for Flow Through Porous Media," SPEFE (Dec. 1986) 603-08.
5. Aronofsky. J.S. and Jenkins, R.: "A Simplified Analysis of Unsteady
Radial Gas Flow," Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 149-54.
6. Fussell, D.D.: "Single-Well Performance Predictions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs," JPT (July 1973) 860-70; Trans., AIME, 255.
7. Aanonsen, S.I.: "Nonlinear Effects During Transient Fluid Flow in
Reservoirs as Encountered in Well-Test Analysis," PhD dissertation,
U. of Bergen. Norway (1985).
8. Coats, K.H.: "An Equation of State Compositional Model," SPEJ (Oct.
1980) 363-76.
9. Zudkevitch, D. and Joffe, J.: "Correlation and Prediction of VaporLiquid Equilibria With the Redlich-Kwong Equation of State, " AIChE
J. (Jan. 1970) 112-19.
10. Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: "A Note on the Skin Effect," Trans., AIME(1956)
207, 356-57.
584
11. O'Dell, H.G. and Miller, RN.: "Successfully Cycling a LowPermeability, High-Yield Gas Condensate Reservoir," JPT(Jan. 1967)
41-47.
12. Horner, D.R: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells," Proc. Third World Pet.
Cong., The Hague (1951) n, 503-21.
13. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1959) 80-82.
14. Scott, J.O.: "Application ofa New Method for Determining Flow Characteristics of Fractured Gas Wells in Tight Sands," paper SPE 7931
presented at the 1979 SPE Symposium on Low-Permeability Gas
Reservoirs, Denver, May 20-22.
15. Vo, D.T.: "Single Well Predictions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs,"
MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1987).
16. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M., and Sherwood, T.K.: The Propenies of
Gases and Liquids. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1977).
17. Jones, J .R.: "Computation and Analysis of Single Well Responses for
Gas Condensate Systems," PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
(1985).
I;
liVe;
;=1
Tc =
. .............. (A-3)
Thus, we can evaluate Zi using the simUlator results and, consequently, the in-place-fluid critical temperature, Te. at any location
in the reservoir may be obtained from Eq. A-2.
Estimate of Average Saturation. Saturation at each location in
the reservoir is defined by
So = VolVp = Vol(Vo + Vg). . ....................... (A-4)
t,
E-Ol
E-03
kmol
MPa
K
SPEFE
Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 27. 1987. Paper accepted for publication
April 12, 1989. Revised manuscript received Feb. 10. 1989. Paper (SPE 16984) first
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas.
Sept. 27-30.