IPTC 10382
Experience With Simulation of Condensate Banking Effects in Various
Gas/Condensate Reservoirs
J.W. Barker, Total S.A.
Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 2123 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
In this paper, we describe our experience of using the velocity-
dependent relative permeability model developed by Heriot-
Watt University and the generalized pseudo-pressure model of
Fevang and Whitson to simulate condensate banking effects.
For cases where the generalized pseudo-pressure model fails,
we discuss alternative approaches to simulating condensate
banking effects in full field models, together with their
limitations. Our methodology is illustrated on a number of
different examples, drawn from reservoirs in Indonesia, the
Middle East and the North Sea where Total is either the
operator or an active partner.
Introduction
Condensate banking is a well-known phenomenon in gas
condensate reservoirs. It occurs when the bottom-hole pressure
of a production well falls below the dew-point pressure.
Condensate drops out in the reservoir around the well and
rapidly accumulates as each cubic metre of fresh gas produced
deposits further condensate due to the pressure near the well
being lower than the pressure further away from the well. The
accumulation of condensate near the well reduces the gas
saturation there, in turn reducing the gas relative permeability
and hence reducing the the well productivity.
Although the potential for the occurrence of condensate
banking is widely recognized, there is no consensus within the
industry as to when it occurs and whether or not it will have an
effect on well productivity. There are several possible reasons
for this:
Detecting the presence of a condensate bank from well
test data is not easy because it may be masked by well
bore storage effects, because the data may not be of good
enough quality, or because velocity-dependent relative
permeability effects complicate the analysis.
Decline in productivity with time may be caused by
effects other than condensate banking.
Many gas condensate reservoirs are close to their dew
point pressure at initial conditions, so there may be no
reduction of productivity because the initial productivity
is already a reduced one due to condensate deposition
right from the start of production.
Velocity-dependent relative permeability (VDRP) effects
may mean that there are many gas condensate reservoirs
where condensate banking either does not occur or has no
effect on productivity (i.e. the gas relative permeability
near the well is no lower than that far from the well,
whether or not the condensate saturation near the well is
greater than that in the bulk of the reservoir).
Extensive experimental research into the dependence of
gas and condensate relative permeability on flow velocity and
gas-oil interfacial tension has been conducted at Heriot-Watt
University over the past decade1-5, sponsored by a consortium
of oil companies. Results of the experiments have clearly
demonstrated that relative permeability increases as flow
velocity increases and as gas-oil interfacial tension decreases.
A mathematical model for relative permeability has been
derived from the results3 and has been implemented in some
commercial reservoir simulators. The model includes non-
Darcy flow (turbulence) effects. This model can be used to
study the condensate banking phenomenon in detail, using
grids fine enough to resolve the near-well region.
Other research, notably by Fevang and Whitson6, has led to
a generalized pseudo-pressure (GPP) model for well in-flow
performance in gas condensate reservoirs, which has also been
implemented in some commercial simulators. This model
allows condensate banking effects to be modeled in a much
coarser grid of the type typically used for full field modeling
studies.
In this paper, we describe our experience of using these
models to simulate condensate banking effects in a number of
different reservoirs. First however, we briefly recall the main
points of each of the models.
Effect of flow velocity and interfacial tension on
relative permeability
The mathematical model derived from the results of the
experiments at Heriot-Watt University is described in
references 3 and 7. The effects of flow velocity and (gas-oil)
interfacial tension are not independent and are expressed via a
dimensionless capillary number defined by:
vg g
Nc = (1)
Note that the same value of Nc is used for both phases.
2 IPTC 10382
If the capillary number is less than a threshold value, Ncb,
the base relative permeability curve (krb) is used. Low
capillary number corresponds to the low velocity conditions
encountered in the bulk of the reservoir and to the low
velocity/high interfacial conditions under which relative
permeability curves are conventionally measured.
Once the capillary number exceeds the threshold, an
interpolation between the base relative permeability curve and
a miscible curve (krm) is used:
1 1
k r = r n k rb + (1 r n )k rm (2)
Here the interpolation parameter, r, is given by:
N cb
r= (3)
Nc
and the miscible relative permeability curve is a straight line
with a residual saturation that reduces from its base value (Srb)
to zero as the capillary number increases:
S * Sr
k rm = (4)
1 S r
( )
mr
Sr = 1 e S rb (5)
S equation (9) is no longer treated as a constant, but is included
S* = (6)
1 Sw
The model thus has three parameters, Ncb, m and n, which may
be different for each phase (gas and condensate). More
generally, n may vary with saturation, but we do not use this
feature.
Non-Darcy Flow
Reservoir simulation models are generally based on Darcys
Law, which states that the pressure gradient is proportional to
the flow rate. This is valid at sufficiently low rate, but at
slightly higher rates, the pressure gradient is observed to
increase more rapidly than the flow rate. This can be described
by adding a quadratic term to obtain the well-known
Forchheimer equation:
dp g v g
= + g v g2 (7)
dx k use7, the flow is assumed to be radial and the grid block
Non-Darcy flow effects are usually negligible, except in the
vicinity of wells in some gas reservoirs. Where such effects
are seen, they are often referred to as turbulence, though in
fact the flow remains laminar and the extra pressure drop is
due to inertial effects. In full field simulation models, non-
Darcy flow effects are often modeled simply as a rate-
dependent skin.
The Forchheimer or non-Darcy flow coefficient is
usually measured for single-phase flow (in the presence of
irreducible water saturation), or inferred from multi-rate well
tests. When condensate is deposited in the reservoir, it is
necessary to account for the variation of with gas saturation.
In the VDRP model developed by Heriot-Watt University3,
this dependence is expressed as:
( S g ) = * S gc (kk rg ) d (8)
Note that the value of for single phase flow is given by:
sp = * (1 S w,irr ) c k d (8)
assuming that the end-point relative permeability to gas is
equal to unity.
Generalised Pseudo-Pressure Model
The usual inflow performance relationship for a gas in a
reservoir simulator is:
Q = CF .k r (S b ).( b w ) (9)
where CF is the connection transmissibility, subscript b
denotes a grid block value and is the real gas pseudo-
pressure defined by:
s RT P
1
( P) = 2( ) dP (10)
M Pref
B
This relationship assumes constant values of saturation and
relative permeability within the grid block. Non-Darcy flow
effects are accounted for by a rate-dependent skin.
The generalized pseudo-pressure (GPP) model of Fevang
and Whitson6 accounts for the variations of saturation and
relative permeability within the grid block that are caused by
condensate banking. The relative permeability term in
in a pseudo-pressure integral similar to that of equation (10).
Details are given in references 6 and 7. Evaluation of the
integral now requires knowledge of the variation of saturation
with pressure. This can be obtained by assuming that the
flowing composition is constant over the pressure range of
interest.
This assumption requires that the so-called region 1
extends over most of the grid block and that conditions in the
grid block are changing relatively slowly (i.e. that a pseudo
steady state exists). Region 1 is the region around the well in
which both gas and condensate are mobile6. The assumption is
therefore more likely to be valid for smaller grid blocks than
for larger ones.
VDRP and the non-Darcy flow effect can be incorporated
in the GPP model7. However, this requires additional
assumptions in order to determine the fluid velocity at each
pressure in the pseudo-pressure integral. In the software we
pressure is assumed to occur at the Peaceman pressure
equivalent radius (which isnt necessarily the case when
condensate is present).
Methodology
The first question in any condensate banking study is whether
or not a significant reduction in productivity is likely to occur.
To answer this we use a finely-gridded single well model. For
vertical or near-vertical wells this is usually a radial model,
either one- (single layer) or two-dimensional (layered model).
For horizontal or deviated wells, or for fractured wells, a
Cartesian local grid refinement is used. Ideally, this model is
compositional and accounts for VDRP and non-Darcy flow. If
appropriate, it may be necessary to model explicitly the
perforations and any formation damage or stimulation.
If productivity impairment does seem to be a possibility,
the second question is how to simulate it in a full field model.
Ideally, the GPP method would always be used. Indeed, if we
IPTC 10382
had complete confidence in the GPP method, it would not be
necessary to use the finely gridded single well model.
However, in our experience, the GPP is not always valid.
Additionally, if the full field model is black oil, it is not
currently possible to take into account the VDRP effects with
the software available to us. Thus, alternative methods are
needed.
The most obvious alternative is to use an LGR around each
well. This is feasible in certain cases, but the LGR cells near
the well usually have to be very small to resolve the
condensate bank explicitly and the computing time may
therefore be prohibitive, especially if there are many wells. A
possible compromise is to use both an LGR and the GPP
model. In this case, the LGR does not have to be fine enough
to resolve the condensate bank, so computing time remains
reasonable, while the GPP method may work better on the
smaller cells of the LGR.
We shall discuss some other alternatives later in the paper.
Whichever method is used, a key point is to ensure that the
results of the fine grid single well model are matched using a
coarse grid model of the same well the coarse grid model
having the same grid size as the full field model.
In the following sections, we illustrate aspects of this
methodology on a number of different cases.
Case Study Reservoir A
Reservoir A is located in the North Sea and is relatively rich in
condensate (~2000 sm3/Msm3) with a maximum condensate
saturation of 0.24 in a constant volume depletion experiment
(Figure 1). Initial pressure is well above the dew point. A
study was made to estimate the potential impact of condensate
deposition on well productivity once the dew point is reached.
A single well, one-dimensional, radial model was set up
using average reservoir properties in the vicinity of a
particular well (see Table 1). Very small grid blocks are used
near the well in order to accurately represent the deposition of
condensate there. Fluid properties were described by a 7-
component equation of state model. Base relative permeability
curves for gas and condensate are shown in Figure 2. A small
amount of mobile water is present in the model. A gas
production rate is set for the well, subject to a minimum tubing
head pressure (THP). Vertical flow performance tables are
used to relate THP to flowing bottom-hole pressure (BHP).
A Cartesian model was also set up with grid blocks the
size of those used in the full field model. This model covers
the same area as the radial model, and uses the same reservoir
properties, EOS model and base relative permeability curves.
Radial Model Results. Figure 3 shows the predicted gas
production rate for three simulations made with the radial
model. The first simulation uses the base relative permeability
curves throughout, neglecting the velocity-dependence. It also
neglects the non-Darcy flow effect. When the pressure at the
well reaches the dew point, there is a sharp reduction in
productivity due to the formation of a bank of condensate with
saturation up to 35%. At its maximum, the condensate bank
extends to a distance of between 10 and 20 metres from the
well. The gas relative permeability falls from 0.8 to about
0.04. The second simulation includes VDRP with the base
parameter values shown in Table 2: there is now only a slight
3
reduction in productivity below the dew point. Even though
the condensate saturation still reaches 30% near the well, the
gas relative permeability remains above 0.2 due to the positive
effect of the high velocity. The third simulation includes the
non-Darcy flow effect as well as VDRP. This leads to a slight
reduction in productivity before the dew-point is reached
(when the Forchheimer coefficient is equal to its single-
phase value), and to a greater reduction afterwards, when
increases as the gas saturation decreases. Overall, however,
the positive effect of the velocity-dependence outweighs the
negative effect of the non-Darcy flow in this case.
Cartesian Model Results. Figure 4 shows results of the
same three simulations made with the Cartesian model. In the
Cartesian model, the non-Darcy effect is represented by a rate-
dependent skin (D-factor) rather than via the Forchheimer
coefficient . Also, because of software limitations, the
velocity-dependent relative permeability and the D-factor
could not both be used in the same simulation. However,
Figure 4 shows that the non-Darcy flow effect is negligible in
the Cartesian model because the coefficient remains at its
single-phase value throughout. The effect of velocity-
dependent relative permeability is also small, because the
region of high velocity around the well is not resolved, due to
the large grid block size.
GPP Model Results. Figure 5 compares the radial and
Cartesian models for the case with no VDRP and no non-
Darcy flow. It also shows the result of using the GPP inflow
relationship in the Cartesian model. The Cartesian model with
the conventional inflow relationship under-estimates the
productivity reduction, compared to the radial model. The
reduction also occurs later in the Cartesian model than in the
radial one. When the GPP inflow relationship is used, the
Cartesian model results are quite similar to the radial model
ones, especially just after the dew point is reached. The GPP
model captures the earlier impact of condensate deposition
seen in the radial model. However, later on, the GPP model is
somewhat optimistic compared to the radial model.
Figure 6 makes the same comparison for the case with
VDRP, but still with no non-Darcy flow. The Cartesian model
with the conventional inflow relationship is now pessimistic
compared to the radial model. However, when the GPP inflow
relationship is used, the Cartesian model becomes overly
optimistic, predicting essentially no loss of productivity at all.
Some numerical instability is also evident in the GPP case,
despite damping of the changes in the blocking factor from
one time step to the next.
Finally, Figure 7 makes the same comparison for the case
with both velocity-dependent relative permeability and non-
Darcy flow. The GPP model is again overly optimistic, in fact
more so. The radial model is the only one to see any
significant impact of the non-Darcy flow.
To summarise, in this case the GPP model seems to work
reasonably well without VDRP, but not with VDRP. Nor does
it capture the non-Darcy flow effect.
4 IPTC 10382
Case Study Reservoir B
Reservoir B is a gas reservoir in Indonesia. The reservoir
consists of several producing layers, and within each layer
there are many independent sand bodies. Gas composition
varies with depth and between layers. The condensate content
is generally low (100-400 sm3/Msm3) but the saturation
pressure is usually close to the initial pressure. Most of the
wells have commingled production from several layers.
Three wells were selected for detailed analysis. Each had
produced for a lengthy period from a single sand body, and a
back pressure test (BPT) had been performed at the beginning
and at the end of this period.
All three wells showed a lower productivity during the
second BPT than during the first. Conventional analysis of the
BPTs revealed no indication of the presence of a condensate
bank, except for an increased skin for wells B-1 and B-3 (11.7
and 0 instead of 4.2 and -2.2 respectively).
A study was made to determine whether condensate
banking could explain the productivity reduction and if so, to
examine the implications for future well productivity.
A one-dimensional, radial model was set up for each well.
A total of 36 grid blocks were used, with size varying
gradually from 0.5 metres near the well to over 100 metres far
from the well. Parameters used in the models (after history
matching) are shown in Table 3. A 7-component EOS model
was used for the fluid properties. Well B-1 produces a richer
gas than the other two wells. Base relative permeability curves
are shown in Figure 8 (the same curves are used for each well
but scaled to the appropriate irreducible water saturation).
Parameters for the VDRP model and for the non-Darcy flow
effect were estimated from the Heriot-Watt University
experimental data.
History Matching. The actual historical production rates
were imposed on each well, and the model parameters were
adjusted to obtain a match to the pressures recorded during the
different flow periods of the BPTs. The parameters adjusted
were the mechanical skin S, the non-Darcy flow coefficient ,
and the parameters m and Ncb in the velocity-dependent
relative permeability model. For well B-1, the dew-point
pressure was also adjusted. The values shown bold in Table 3
are those that were adjusted during the matching. Figure 9
shows the match obtained for well B-1. The quality of the
matches for the other wells is similar.
The matches to the three wells are in many ways
consistent, but not entirely so:
The matched values for mechanical skin are very
different.
The non-Darcy coefficient is divided by 10 for wells B-
1 and B-3, but multiplied by 20 for well B-2. This is at the
limit of the range of uncertainty on this parameter, and
although the value still increases with increasing
permeability, the variation is much bigger than in the
original estimation.
The velocity-dependent relative permeability parameter
Ncb reduced from 2x10-6 to 2x10-7 for wells B-2 and B-3
but left unchanged for well B-1.
The velocity-dependent relative permeability parameter m
reduced from 30 to 3 for well B-3, but unchanged for
wells B-1 (40) and B-2 (40), suggesting a stronger
dependence on permeability than initially estimated
It is encouraging that the behaviour of the wells can be
matched with parameters not too far from their initial values.
The lack of complete consistency between the matches serves
as a reminder that uncertainty remains on the parameter values
for the velocity-dependent relative permeability model, as it
does on any reservoir property. It should also be noted that, in
the simulation model, condensate banking is the only
mechanism for reducing productivity so although the observed
reduction in PI can be explained by condensate banking, other
explanations are not excluded.
Predictive Simulations. The matched models were re-run
with a fixed THP, starting from the initial conditions. A
classical pseudo-pressure based productivity index was
calculated from the gas production rate, bottom hole and
reservoir pressures at each time step (i.e. making no allowance
for the presence of condensate).
This PI is plotted against reservoir pressure for well B-2 in
Figure 10 (a number of cases are shown with different THP
limit, but all show the same behaviour). The corresponding
values of condensate saturation in the first grid block are
shown in Figure 11, along with the liquid drop-out curve from
a CVD experiment (scaled to account for the presence of
water). There is a drop in productivity corresponding to the
formation of a condensate bank around the well. Condensate
saturation near the well reaches about 30% even though the
maximum liquid drop-out is only 2%. Productivity later
recovers as the condensate saturation near the well decreases.
This is a sort of reverse banking effect as the bottom hole
pressure becomes less than the pressure corresponding to the
maximum liquid drop-out.
The behaviour of the other two wells is similar, except that
for the lower permeability well B-3, productivity does not
recover. At the minimum productivity, one third to one half of
the initial productivity is lost in all three wells. At its
maximum, the condensate bank extends to over 50 metres
from well B-1, between 10 and 20 metres for the other wells.
GPP Model. Cartesian models with 99 grid cells were built
for each well and the predictive simulations re-run using the
GPP option. Results are shown in Figures 12-14. For well B-1
(Figure 12), the GPP model is pessimistic, predicting an initial
rate that is lower than that given by the radial model. For well
B-2 (Figure 13), the GPP model is initially slightly optimistic
but in general works very well. For well B-3 (Figure 14), the
GPP model works very well throughout.
Exactly why the GPP model should work well in two cases
but not in the third is not completely clear. The distinguishing
feature of the B-1 well is that it produces the richer gas, but it
is not particularly rich in absolute terms. Further investigation
appears to show that the hypothesis of a constant flowing
composition throughout the cell containing the well is not
valid for well B-1.
Case Study Reservoir C
Reservoir C is a gas reservoir in the Middle East with a
condensate content of 482106 m3/m3. Initial pressure is about
IPTC 10382
100 bars above the dew point. The objective of the study was
to determine the optimal operating strategy to maximize
condensate production. A three-dimensional, Cartesian, layer-
cake model was built, covering the drainage volume of a
single well. The model contains 13 reservoir layers, separated
by impermeable shales. Layer thickness varies from 3 to 30
metres (the thickest layers are represented by two numerical
layers); layer permeability varies from 1 to 150 mD.
The grid size used in the Cartesian models was varied:
models 1, 2 and 3 used cells of size 300m300m, 100m100m
and 42.9m42.9m respectively (each model covers the same
area). Further, each model was run three times, first with no
special treatment for condensate banking, second with a radial
LGR in the column of cells containing the well, and third
without the LGR but using the GPP option. The radial LGR
contains 10 cells between the well radius and an outer radius
of 30m. A fluctuating gas production rate was imposed,
corresponding to the historical production rate of a particular
well in the field. Initially, velocity-dependent relative
permeability and non-Darcy flow are neglected.
Figure 15 shows the predicted bottom-hole pressure for
each model and each option (radial LGR, GPP or neither). The
Cartesian models with no LGR see no condensate effect. All
three models with LGR give the same result, with an extra
drawdown, compared to the previous cases, that increases
gradually one the dew point is reached and attains 60 bars by
the end of the simulation. All three models with the GPP
option are pessimistic, particularly just after the dew point is
reached when an extra drawdown of over 100 bars is
predicted. The error decreases gradually at later times. Greater
errors are seen on the coarser grids than on the finer ones.
The likely explanation for the failure of the GPP model in
this case is that the zone of condensate deposition is
significantly smaller than the grid block size. If the simulation
is run for a longer period, the model may become more
accurate as the size of the zone increases.
Alternatives to the GPP Approach
We have seen that the GPP model may not always give good
results, for a number of possible reasons. Alternative
approaches for accounting for condensate banking effects in a
full field model are therefore sometimes needed. As already
mentioned, the simplest would be to use an LGR around each
well, but this may be prohibitive in terms of computing time.
We therefore discuss three other possible alternatives.
Manual adjustment of connection factors. In this
approach, the idea is to manually adjust the connection factors
during the coarse grid simulation so as to match the results of
the fine grid single well model. The coarse grid simulation
model here is the single well model, having the same grid size
as the full field model.
This is illustrated in Figure 16 for another case study,
Reservoir D, a low permeability (~1 mD), relatively rich
(~900 sm3/Msm3) gas condensate reservoir in the North Sea.
In this case, a region is defined consisting of the column of
cells in which the well is completed. A multiplicative factor of
0.7 is applied to the transmissibility of all the connections
when the region pressure falls below 580 bars (using the
5
ACTIONR and WPIMULT keywords of the Eclipse
simulator). Further multipliers of 0.7, 0.6 and 0.6 are applied
at region pressures of 500, 450 and 420 bars respectively.
Figure 16 shows that a good match to cumulative production
has indeed been achieved by using these multiplier values.
Note that multipliers are applied for region pressures well
above the dew point pressure of 390 bars: this is because the
bottom-hole pressure reaches the dew point and a condensate
bank starts to form while the cell pressures are still well above
the dew-point. The low permeability in this case results in a
large drawdown. However, the drawdown obviously depends
on the rate, illustrating one disadvantage of this approach
which is that it may not be robust to changes in rate or other
operating conditions. The other disadvantage is that the
matching process may be relatively time-consuming.
Finally note that in this case, the overall multiplying factor
is 0.70.70.60.6=0.18, i.e. a 5-fold reduction in connection
transmissibility. However, VDRP has been neglected, so the
result may be pessimistic.
Upside and downside cases. It should be remembered
that there is always uncertainty associated with the parameters
needed to model the condensate banking effect accurately. In
particular, the parameters in the velocity dependent relative
permeability model are relatively poorly constrained at
present, due to the limited amount of experimental data
available. There is also uncertainty over the effect of the
perforations and formation damage in the near-well region.
Figures 3-7 presented results for Reservoir A using the
base case parameters for the VDRP model given in Table 2.
Figures 17-18 show results from radial model simulations,
with VDRP and non-Darcy flow effects, for a range of
parameters. In these simulations, the parameters were varied
one at a time between the minimum and maximum values
given in Table 2. Also shown are the results of two Cartesian
model simulations, one in which no special action is taken to
model condensate banking, the other in which the connection
transmissibility is halved when the average pressure in the cell
containing the well falls to 6 bars above the dew point (this
second case was in fact obtained by matching against a radial
model neglecting VDRP effects, which was one of the more
pessimistic radial models). It can be seen that there is a
considerable spread of results from the radial models, and that
the two Cartesian models more or less bracket the radial model
responses, at least in terms of cumulative production (Figure
18). These two cases, neglect of condensate banking and
reduction of the connection transmissibility by a factor of two,
could thus be retained as up- and down-side cases in the full
field model study.
We note in passing that the parameter with the most impact
on the results is Ncb. The two extreme radial runs in Figures
17-18 correspond to the minimum and maximum values of
this parameter. The range of values used for Ncb in this case is
possibly a bit wide, however.
Sensitivity case. This approach is similar to the previous
one but it dispenses with the radial models. It consists of
neglecting condensate banking in the base case model, and
testing a reduction of the connection factors as a sensitivity
case. The reduction factor is chosen arbitrarily, usually
6 IPTC 10382
between 1.5 and 3, and applied at a pressure just above the
dew point.
This approach is justified if one is confident that the
reduction in productivity due to banking will be negligible.
This is often the case in high permeability (100 mD or greater)
reservoirs. Even where some reduction does occur, it may be
of second order compared to other uncertainties on well
productivity such as formation permeability or non-Darcy
flow effects. Productivity reduction may also be a second
order effect if drawdown in the reservoir is much smaller than
the pressure losses in the tubing (often the case for deeply-
buried reservoirs of reasonable permeability).
We have in fact already carried out some investigations of
a generic nature in an attempt to determine when condensate
banking leads to significant productivity reduction and when it
does not. A systematic series of one-dimensional radial
simulations was carried out for a range of permeability from
0.001-1000mD and for four different values of CGR (744,
1010, 1130 and 1400 sm3/Msm3). For each case, simulations
were run with and without the VDRP model.
The results showed that productivity reduction (expressed
as a skin see Tables 4 and 5) occurred essentially for the
richer fluids in the lower permeability rocks. VDRP was
significant for intermediate permeabilities (0.1-10mD): at
lower permeability the velocity was not high enough while at
higher permeability there was no reduction in productivity
even without VDRP.
However, caution should be exercised in generalizing these
results. All were obtained using a single EOS model, the same
parameters in the VDRP and non-Darcy flow models, the
same initial pressure with respect to the dew point, the same
base relative permeability curves, etc. Further work is needed
to complete an exhaustive search of the parameter space, even
for a single-layer, homogeneous model. Thus, we are not yet
safe from a surprise if this method is adopted too often.
Conclusions
We have outlined our methodology for simulating the effects
of condensate banking. Finely-gridded, compositional, single
well models (radial or otherwise) are used, with velocity-
dependent relative permeability and non-Darcy flow. These
are considered to be the most accurate models available today,
even though uncertainty remains on the input parameters.
If productivity impairment does seem to be a possibility, it
can sometimes be simulated in a full field model using the
GPP method. However, this method should always be
compared against the finely-gridded model as we have seen
several cases where it is not accurate. In cases where the GPP
model fails, introduction of a very fine LGR around each well
is the simplest alternative but is often prohibitively expensive.
Combining a less fine LGR with the GPP model is a possible
solution in some cases.
Another option is manual adjustment of the connection
transmissibilities, but this approach may be time-consuming
and is not necessarily robust. A simpler alternative is to retain
two cases, neglect of condensate banking and reduction of the
connection transmissibilities below the dew point by a given
factor, as up- and down-side cases in the full field model. The
reduction factor can be calibrated against the finally-gridded
model neglecting VDRP, which is usually pessimistic.
In some cases it is reasonably clear that productivity
reductions due to condensate banking will be negligible, or of
second order compared to other factors. In these cases, a
productivity reduction may be retained as a sensitivity case,
but no fine grid simulation would be performed. Ideally, the
conditions under which this approach can be taken with
confidence could be defined by a systematic study to
determine the conditions under which productivity reductions
occurs. Although we have made a start on this, the parameter
space is very large and no definitive conclusions can be drawn
as yet.
Acknowledgements
The author is very grateful for the contributions to this paper
made directly or indirectly by many colleagues at Total
including Grald Hamon, Bruno Decroux, Olivier Bernet-
Rollande, Batrice Glachant, Jean-Luc Boutaud-de-la-Combe,
Chantal Ducap, Roger Brousse, Guy Debray and Marie-Laure
Baratin; by Mohamed Al-Nuaimi of Dolpin Energy Ltd,
during his secondment to Total; and by Tu Loan Tran and
Antoine Rech during their student placements at Total.
References
1. Danesh, A., Khazam, M., Henderson, G.D., Tehrani, D.H.,
and Peden, J.M., "Gas Condensate Recovery Studies",
Proceedings of the UK DTI EOR Seminar, London (June
1994).
2. Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., and Peden,
J.M., "Measurement and Correlation of Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability by the Steady-State Method", SPE
Journal, June 1996.
3. Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Henderson, G.D., Al-Kharusi, B.,
Jamiolahmady, M., Ireland, S. and Thomson, G., Gas
Condensate Recovery Studies: Near Wellbore Relative
Permeability Including The Inertial Effect, Proceedings of
the UK DTI IOR Seminar, London, June 2000.
4. Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Duncan,
D.B., A Mechanistic Model of Gas Condensate Flow in
Pores", Transport In Porous Media, Vol 41, No. 1, pp. 11-46
(October 2000).
5. Jamiolahmady, M., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. H. and Duncan,
D. B., Positive Effect of Flow Velocity on Gas-Condensate
Relative Permeability: Network Modelling and Comparison
with Experimental Results, Transport in Porous Media Vol.
52, No. 2, pp. 159-183, 2003.
6. Fevang, O, and Whitson, C.H., Modeling Gas Condensate
Well Deliverability, SPE 30714, SPE Reservoir
Engineering, November 1996, pp. 221-230.
7. Eclipse Technical Description, version 2004a_1,
Schlumberger.
Nomenclature
B = Formation volume factor
c,d = Parameters in VDRP model
CF = Connection transmissibility (m3.cP/day/bar)
k = Permeability (mD)
kr = Relative permeability
M = Molecular weight (kg/mol)
m,n = Parameters in VDRP model
Nc = Capillary number
p = Pressure (bar)
Q = Injection/production rate (m3/day)
IPTC 10382 7

R = Gas constant
r = Interpolation parameter Well B-1 B-2 B-3
S = Saturation Top depth (mSS) 3345.6 4099.7 4153.9
Sr = Residual saturation Outer radius (m) 1420 1020 467
t = Time (days) Well bore radius (m) 0.18 0.18 0.18
T = Absolute temperature (K) Net thickness (m) 3.9 18.7 11
v = Darcy velocity (m/day) Porosity 0.131 0.139 0.168
x = Distance (m) Permeability (mD) 81.4 135 7.1
= Non-Darcy flow coefficient (F) Initial water saturation 0.352 0.263 0.235
= Constant in Non-Darcy flow equation (F.mD-d) Initial pressure (bar) 343.4 388.7 389.3
= Viscosity (cP) Dew point pressure (bar) 317.8 344.9 344.9
= Density (kg/m3) Initial CGR (sm3/Msm3) 432 102 102
= Interfacial tension (dynes/cm) Skin 5.5 18 -3
= Real gas pseudo-pressure mg 40 40 3
Subscripts mc 40 40 3
b = base value or grid block value 1/ng 0.245 0.245 0.418
c = condensate 1/nc 0.017 0.017 0.018
g = gas Ncb 2x10-6 2x10-7 2x10-7
irr = irreducible c -0.21 -0.21 -0.21
m = miscible d -2.15 -2.15 -2.15
ref = reference value
* 4664 1732600 372
sp = single phase value
s = value at surface conditions
w = water or well Table 3. Parameters for radial models, Reservoir B

Parameter Radial Cartesian CGR Permeability (mD)

Model Value Model Value (m3/Mm3) .001 .01 .1 1 10 100 1000
Number of grid cells 2211 27271 1400 25 34 49 77 81 5 0
Grid cell size From 0.25 m 81 m 81 m 1130 14 24 32 43 38 2 0
to 362 m 1010 8 17 23 28 14 2 0
Reservoir thickness 181 m 744 0 4 4 4 3 2 0
Porosity 0.176
Net-to-gross 0.78 Table 4. Condensate skin for simulations without VDRP
Horizontal permeability 18.8 mD
Irreducible water saturation 0.26 CGR Permeability (mD)
(m3/Mm3) .001 .01 .1 1 10 100 1000
Critical condensate saturation 0.104
Well bore diameter 0.22 m 1400 21 34 39 8 5 1 0
Skin (mechanical) 1.0 1130 14 24 14 4 3 1 0
Target gas production rate 2 000 000 sm3/day 1010 9 17 8 3 2 2 0
Minimum THP 30 bars 744 0 4 3 3 1 0 0

Table 1. Parameters for radial and Cartesian models, Table 5. Condensate skin for simulations with VDRP (bold
Reservoir A values are those significantly different from Table 4)

Parameter Minimum Base Value Maximum

mg 4 20 40
mc 4 20 40
1/ng 0.2 0.4 0.5
1/nc 0.01 0.015 0.03
Ncb 210-7 210-6 210-5
c -0.31 -0.21 -0.11
d -2.65 -2.15 -1.15
* - 227500 -

Table 2. Parameters for velocity-dependent relative

permeability model, Reservoir A
8 IPTC 10382

0.3
CONDENSATE SATURATION

0.2

CARTESIAN WITH VDRP

CARTESIAN

0.1

CARTESIAN WITH NON-

DARCY FLOW (D-FACTOR)
0.0
160 200 240 280 320
PRESSURE (BARSA)
Figure 1. Liquid dropout curve, Reservoir A. Figure 4. Gas production rate for Cartesian models, with and
without VDRP and non-Darcy flow, Reservoir A

1.0
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

.75
GAS

.50
CARTESIAN

CARTESIAN
-GPP
.25

CONDENSATE
RADIAL
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CONDENSATE SATURATION
Figure 2. Base relative permeability curves, Reservoir A.
Figure 5. Comparison of Cartesian and radial models without
VDRP or non-Darcy flow, Reservoir A

RADIAL WITH VDRP

CARTESIAN-GPP
RADIAL WITH VDRP AND
NON-DARCY FLOW (BETA) RADIAL

RADIAL
CARTESIAN

Figure 3. Gas production rate for radial models, with and without
VDRP and non-Darcy flow, Reservoir A
Figure 6. Comparison of Cartesian and radial models with VDRP
but without non-Darcy flow, Reservoir A
IPTC 10382 9

SM3.CP/DAY/BAR2

PI

CARTESIAN-GPP

CARTESIAN

RADIAL RESERVOIR PRESSURE

Figure 10. Productivity in predictive simulations, well B-2 (several

Figure 7. Comparison of Cartesian and radial models with both cases with different THP).
VDRP and non-Darcy flow, Reservoir A

1.0
VARIOUS SIMULATIONS
WITH DIFFERENT THP
RELATIVE PERMEABILITY

.75
GAS

CVD EXPERIMENT
.50

.25
RESERVOIR PRESSURE
CONDENSATE

0.0
Figure 11. Condensate saturation in first grid cell, predictive
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
CONDENSATE SATURATION simulations, B-2.
Figure 8. Base relative permeability curves, Reservoir B.

SIMULATED SIMULATED
MEASURED MEASURED

CARTESIAN

RADIAL

CARTESIAN
-GPP

BACK PRESSURE TEST 1 BACK PRESSURE TEST 2

Figure 9. Match to flowing bottom-hole pressures during back Figure 12. Gas production rate for radial and Cartesian models,
pressure tests, well B-1. Well B-1.
10 IPTC 10382

Cartesian
initial PI
CARTESIAN
Cartesian matched
with WPIMULT

CARTESIAN
-GPP

RADIAL

Radial Model

Figure 13. Gas production rate for radial and Cartesian models,
Well B-2. Figure 16. Cumulative gas production, Reservoir D

CARTESIAN

CARTESIAN

CARTESIAN
-GPP

RADIAL ALL RADIAL

MODELS CARTESIAN, 50%
CF REDUCTION

Figure 14. Gas production rate for radial and Cartesian models, Figure 17. Gas production rate for two Cartesian models and all
Well B-3 radial models with VDRP and non-Darcy flow, Reservoir A

BHP bars Gas Rate (m3/d)

600 2400000
42.9*42.9
42.9*42.9 LGR
42.9*42.9 PSEUPRES
CARTESIAN
100*100
500 100*100 LGR 2000000
100*100 PSEUPRES
300*300
300*300 LGR
300*300 PSEUPRES
SR87 Gas Rate
400 1600000
ALL RADIAL
MODELS
300 1200000

200 800000
CARTESIAN, 50%
CF REDUCTION

100 400000

0 0
juil 1998 dc 1998 juil 1999 janv 2000 juil 2000 janv 2001 juil 2001 janv 2002 juil 2002 janv 2003

Figure 15. Bottom-hole pressure, Reservoir C: radial LGR vs. GPP

Figure 18. Cumulative gas production for two Cartesian models

and all radial models with VDRP and non-Darcy flow, Reservoir A