SPE 134452

Comparative Well-Test Behaviours in Low-Permeability Lean, Medium-rich,

and Rich Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Thabo C. Kgogo, SPE, and Alain C. Gringarten, SPE, Imperial College London

Copyright 2010, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Florence, Italy, 19–22 September 2010.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Large condensate banks develop around producing wells in gas-condensate reservoirs when pressure drops below the dew point
pressure, inducing severe losses of productivity. Actual well test behaviours depend on fluid composition, formation permeability
and production rates.
Several publications have presented well test behaviours in high permeability lean and rich gas-condensate reservoirs. This
paper investigates well test behaviours below the dew point pressure in low permeability lean, medium-rich and rich gas-
condensate reservoirs using 3-D compositional simulation. It is shown that during a drawdown below the dew point pressure,
medium-rich to rich gas-condensate fluids in the condensate bank change to near critical fluid near the wellbore. If such a
drawdown is followed by a shut-in where the pressure builds up above the saturation pressure, the oil revaporizes completely and
the fluid in the wellbore vicinity becomes single-phase gas again. This does not occur in lean gas reservoirs, where the condensate
saturations at the end of a drawdown and in the subsequent build up are very similar. Another difference is that lean and medium-
rich gas-condensate fluids yield three mobility zones on a derivative plot corresponding to: (1) the original gas in place away from
the well where the pressure is above the dew point pressure; (2) the condensate bank closer to the well; and (3) capillary number
effects in the immediate vicinity of the well. By contrast, only two mobility zones are created in the case of rich gas-condensate
fluids (capillary number effects are not seen in practice).
The understanding of pressure behaviour in low permeability, gas-condensate reservoirs developed in this paper was applied to
actual well test data from a South Coast Gas field located offshore South Africa and helped optimize well performance and
reservoir management strategies in that field.

Introduction and background

Gas-condensate reservoirs exhibit complex flow behaviours due to the build up of condensate banks around the wells when the
bottom-hole pressure drops below the dew point pressure. Condensate banks create a blockage which rapidly lowers well
productivity by a factor of two to four (Afidick et al., 1994; Barnum et al., 1995).
Medium-rich to rich gas-condensate reservoirs have attracted much interest as they enhance revenue generation and yield
profits that make gas projects attractive. Takeda et al., (1997) showed that rich gas reservoirs achieve considerably higher liquid
saturations than lean gas reservoirs and therefore suffer much higher productivity losses. They also indicated that bottomhole
pressure decreases more rapidly and condensate drop-out is higher around the well in a low permeability reservoir than a high
permeability reservoir for the same production schedule. The latter point had been stressed previously by Eilerts et al., (1965) who
showed that the higher the formation permeability, the lower the reduction of gas recovery. Barnum et al., (1995) suggested that
the reduction of gas production is more pronounced in reservoirs with kh less than 1000 mD.ft. Clearly, low-permeability,
medium-rich to rich gas-condensate reservoirs present a production challenge because of higher drawdowns creating significant
liquid drop-out in the reservoir and lower achievable gas rates.

Phase Behaviour in Gas-condensate Reservoirs

Reservoir fluids are characterized as dry gas, wet gas, gas-condensate, near-critical fluid, volatile oil or black oil. In near critical
fluids, characterised by a reservoir temperature close to the critical temperature, it is difficult to differentiate between gas and
liquid phases since the corresponding physical properties such as density and viscosity are similar near the critical point.
Gas-condensate fluids are divided into lean, medium-rich and rich depending on the range of their condensate to gas ratio
(CGR), respectively; 10-50; 50-125; and 125-250 STB/MMscf (Yisheng et al., 1998). At the time of discovery, gas-condensate
2 SPE 134452

fluids exist partially or entirely as a vapour phase in the reservoir. As the pressure decreases during production, the phase boundary
is crossed, liquid drops out from the reservoir fluid, and two phases become present in the reservoir. As production continues,
condensate saturation reaches a maximum before decreasing due to vaporization as the reservoir is depleted further, allowing the
condensate to be recovered. The change in composition results in a shift of the phase envelope towards lower pressures and higher
temperatures as shown in Fig. 1. Wheaton and Zhang (2000) showed that the rate of change in heavy component composition is
greater for a rich gas-condensate system than for a lean gas-condensate system.

Well Test Analysis in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs

Gas condensate wells produce gas only when the pressure is above the dew point pressure. When the flowing bottom-hole pressure
reaches the dew point pressure, accumulation of condensate occurs, and three regions are created in the reservoir with different
liquid saturations, corresponding to different gas mobilities. Away from the well, where the pressure is still above the dew point
pressure, there is single phase gas. Closer to the well, the pressure is below the dew point pressure, and there is a rapid increase in
liquid saturation, with a corresponding decrease in gas mobility. The condensate in this region is immobile and the flowing phase
is gas. Closer to the well, the liquid saturation reaches a critical value, and both oil and gas phases are mobile. The moving liquid
phase reduces the relative permeability to gas, which causes loss in well deliverability.
Gondouin et al., (1967) identified a fourth region in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore where liquid saturation decreases
and gas relative permeability increases due to low interfacial tensions (IFT) at high gas rates. This region is characterized by high
capillary numbers (Nc), defined as the ratio of viscous to capillary forces (Moore et al., 1955):
νμ
Nc = (1)
σ
where ν is the velocity (ft/s), μ is the viscosity (lbfsec/ft2), and σ is interfacial tension between the gas and liquid phases (lbf/ft).
Above a threshold value, capillary numbers change the relative permeability curves from immiscible to miscible (straight-lines),
thus reducing the residual condensate saturations and increasing the gas relative mobilities (velocity stripping). This was
confirmed from core experiments by Henderson et al., (1996) and from actual well test data by Gringarten et al., (2001).

Jones and Raghavan (1988) showed that when the bottom-hole pressure is below the dew point pressure, permeability-
thickness and reservoir pressure could be determined by using Al-Hussainy et al.’s single-phase gas pseudo-pressure (1966) or
Fussel’s two-phase pseudo-pressure (1973). Al-Hussainy et al. (1966) single-phase real gas pseudo-pressure is defined as:
p
⎛ ρg ⎞
m( p ) = 2 ∫ ⎜⎜⎝ μ ( p)Z ( p) ⎟⎟⎠ dp
pref '
(2)
where ρ is the molar density, μ is the viscosity, Z is the real gas compressibility factor and pref is a reference pressure to start the
integration (usually the atmospheric pressure). This approach, which amounts to considering gas as the dominant fluid and
condensate as a fluid heterogeneity, yields a fluid-induced two-region or three-region composite behaviour in a well test (Fig. 2).
Well test analysis provides two skins, a wellbore skin from the condensate bank mobility, and a total skin which is the sum of the
wellbore skin and a skin due to the condensate bank. Two-phase pseudo-pressure, on the other hand, converts the two-phase fluid
in the two-phase region into a single fluid equivalent:
p
⎛ k ro k rg ⎞
m2ϕ ( p ) = ∫ ⎜⎜ μ B
pref ⎝ o o
+
μ g Bg
⎟dp
⎟
⎠ (3)
This yields a well test homogeneous behaviour, with the skin effect obtained from the analysis representing the wellbore skin. Eq.
3 requires that the mole fractions of the liquid and gas phases satisfy the flash calculations. Jones and Raghavan (1988)
recommended using O’Dell and Miller (1973) and Fussel (1973) steady state theory to calculate the saturation as a function of
pressure:

k ro Lρ g μ o
=
k rg Vρ o μ g
(4)
where L and V represent the equilibrium mole fraction of liquid and vapour, respectively, and are obtained from the CCE
experiment. This method is well suited for conditions where a two-phase bank with a small transition zone develops around the
wellbore, which is usually the case for large differences between the initial and dew point pressures.
SPE 134452 3

Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten (2004) reported that for lean gas, the near-wellbore fluid saturation below the dew point pressure
in a build up is similar to that at the end of the preceding drawdown and that the leaner the gas and the lower the production time,
production rate and critical saturation, the smaller the saturation profile difference. As a result, drawdowns and build ups yield
similar derivatives in lean gas reservoir well tests. These derivatives exhibit 3-region composite behaviour initially and 2-region
composite behaviours after some time of production. Aluko and Gringarten (2009), on the other hand, showed that build up
behaviours in high permeability rich gas-condensate reservoirs were mirror images of the preceding drawdowns because
condensate re-vaporizes completely during build up when the shut-in pressure increases above the dew point pressure. Re-
vaporization occurs because oil and gas properties are similar in the two-phase region, which favours miscibility. Build up
derivatives in rich gas-condensate reservoirs below the dew point pressure tend to exhibit two-region radial composite behaviours
instead of three-region radial composite behaviours as with lean gas, because capillary number effects are usually only visible for
rates too high to be obtained in practice.

Although much has been learned on the well test behaviours in gas-condensate reservoirs in recent years (Gringarten et al.,
2006), little specific information is available on medium-rich to rich gas-condensate reservoirs, and particularly in low-
permeability environments. This is addressed in the present paper. Compositional simulation is used to investigate and characterise
reservoir fluid dynamics and well test behaviours in such reservoirs, and compare them with results in lean gas condensate
reservoirs. The understanding of pressure behaviour in low permeability, medium-rich gas condensate reservoirs developed in this
paper was applied to actual well test data from a South Coast Gas field located offshore South Africa and helped optimize well
performance and reservoir management strategies in that field.

Compositional Simulation Model

This section presents compositional simulations of lean, medium-rich and rich gas-condensate reservoirs below the dew point
pressure, with and without capillary number effects (NC). The effects of fluid richness, production rate and time, reservoir
permeability and capillary number on pressure transient tests and near-wellbore condensate drop-out are discussed.

Model Set-up
A 1-D radial model was constructed with a single vertical well located at the centre. The single layer reservoir of infinite extent is
100ft thick, with a porosity of 10%. Other reservoir parameters are given in Table 1. The grid sizes are increased logarithmically
in the radial direction to capture near-wellbore effects (Fig. 3). The innermost grid size is 0.25ft, while the outer grid size is
19000ft. Gravity and wellbore storage effects are not included in the model.

PVT Data
Three gas-condensate fluids with varying fluid richness were investigated. The fluids studied were classified as lean, medium-rich
and rich with CGR of 18, 110 and 141 bbl/MMscf, respectively. The maximum liquid drop-out in CVD experiments is 0.6-17%.
The PVTi package from Schlumberger was used to simulate the PVT experiments and develop a representative equation-of-state
(EOS) model, using the modified three-parameter Peng-Robinson EOS. The EOS parameters were adjusted by regressing on the
critical properties of the C7+ components and the acentric factor of light components, by varying binary interaction coefficients
between light and heavy components to match the laboratory observed saturation pressure and experiments. The matched dew
point pressures are within 2% of the measured dew point pressures as summarized in Table 2. The liquid saturation CVD matches
are shown in Figs. 4 to 6: good matches are obtained between observed and EOS calculated parameters for all the fluid models.

Relative Permeability Model

The gas/oil relative permeability data are calculated using Corey Equations (Ali et al., 1987). The base model used a critical
condensate saturation of 10%, and an exponent of 3.9. Fig. 7 shows the relative permeability curves with a crossover point of 12%.
The velocity-dependent relative permeability model in Schlumberger Eclipse 300 (Henderson et al., 1996) was used to account for
capillary number effects. These straighten the relative permeability curves and decrease the residual saturation of the condensate in
near wellbore grid blocks. The capillary model parameters are listed in Table 3.

Compositional Simulation Results

Effect of production time on composite fluid behaviour

The model was initialized at 200 psia above the dew point pressure. The permeability thickness was set at 1000 mD.ft and gas
rates were held constant at 10MMscf/day for all drawdowns. All build ups end above the dew point pressure. The synthetic well
test data generated by the compositional model are shown in Fig. 8. Runs were made with and without capillary number effects, to
illustrate the impact of Nc (Nc must be included to simulate actual well test behaviours in gas condensate reservoirs).
Condensate Saturation: Fig. 9 shows the condensate saturation distribution for Fluid A (rich) at different production times during
the drawdown (DD2) preceding the second build up (BU2). As the bottom-hole pressure is below the dew point pressure, a
4 SPE 134452

condensate bank forms in the reservoir. When the critical condensate saturation is reached, the condensate becomes mobile and the
mobile condensate reduces the gas mobility. The condensate saturation continues to increase as pressure declines and production
time increases, and the gas relative permeability continues to decline accordingly. The condensate saturation is maximum near the
well and reaches 43% without Nc, and 23% with Nc after 200 days of production. The corresponding condensate bank radius,
defined as the distance from the well where the condensate saturation is equal to the critical saturation, decreases from 18ft without
Nc to 7ft with Nc, approximately.
Fig. 10 shows the condensate saturation profile for Fluid B. Fluid B is slightly leaner than Fluid A and is classified as medium-
rich, with a CGR of 110 bbl/MMscf. Condensate saturation builds up as in the case of Fluid A, to a maximum of 42% and a radius
of 90ft after 200 days of production when NC is not included. When NC is included, the condensate saturation profile for Fluid B is
different from that from Fluid A: condensate saturation reaches a maximum of 32% in the bank then decreases to around 25% near
the well after 200 days of production. The bank radius, 100ft approximatively, does not change.
The condensate saturation profile for the lean gas-condensate fluid Fluid C is shown in Fig. 11. The saturation profile is the
same as that for Fluids A and B when NC is not included, with a maximum of 35% after 200 days. It is similar to that for Fluid B
when Nc is included, with a maximum condensate saturation of 28% in the bank, decreasing to 14% near the well. As with Fluid B,
the corresponding bank radius does not change and is approximately 5ft, with or without Nc.
Surprisingly, the bank radius for Fluid A is smaller than that for Fluid B, whereas a larger radius should be expected. This is
due to the low gas rate (10 MMscf/D), which does not allow a high enough pressure drop in the case of rich gas. As shown in the
next section (Figs. 28 and 29), the bank radius for Fluid A is larger than that for Fluid B at higher rates (30 MMscf/D).

Gas Relative Permeability: Well deliverability loss in gas-condensate reservoirs is controlled by the ratio of gas to oil relative
permeabilities near the well. Fig. 12 shows the gas relative permeability profile for Fluid A at the end of DD2, which is consistent
with the condensate saturation profile. The mobility of the gas is reduced significantly by the condensate bank, decreasing from
100% to 5% close to the well when NC is not included in the simulation. The gas mobility reduction is actually much less, because
less condensate accumulates in the reservoir when NC is included. The gas relative permeability decreases with production time as
more condensate drops-out in the reservoir (60% after 200 days of production).
For medium-rich fluid (Fluid B), the gas relative permeability decreases with increasing production time with and without NC
(Fig. 13). The high reduction in gas relative permeability corresponds to the high condensate saturations near the wellbore. When
NC is included, a zone of improved gas mobility is clearly seen close to the well after 10 days of production, which correlates with
the reduced condensate saturation due to velocity stripping in Fig. 10. The extent of the improved gas mobility zone increases with
production time.
The gas relative permeability for Fluid C is shown in Fig. 14, with and without NC, for different durations of DD2. The
reduction in the gas relative permeability is 30% at the end of DD2, much lower than for Fluids A (40%) and B (48%).

Gas and Oil Viscosities: The overall composition of the hydrocarbon mixture changes as pressure declines, and this modifies the
densities and viscosities of the flowing gas and oil phases. Fig. 15 represents the oil viscosity and condensate saturation profiles
with NC for Fluid A. The increase in oil viscosity near the well is due to an increase of heavier components in the oil phase as
liquid drops-out in the reservoir, while the gas phase becomes leaner and its viscosity decreases due to the lost of these heavy
components (Fig. 16). This is illustrated in Fig. 17 and 18, which show the amounts of the C1 and C4 components in cell 1 (close to
the well) increasing and decreasing in the vapour phase, respectively, as time increases.
The oil viscosity and the condensate saturation profiles for Fluid B (Fig. 19), the gas viscosity profile (Fig. 20) and the amount
of C1 in the vapour phase in cell 1 (Fig. 21) show behaviours similar to those for Fluid A. The oil viscosity is about five times as
high as the gas viscosity at the end of DD2, whereas the oil viscosity is twice the gas viscosity for Fluid A.
Fig. 22 represents the oil viscosity profile for lean gas fluid (Fluid C). The oil viscosity and the condensate saturation do not
change much with increasing production time near the wellbore. Oil viscosity is about ten times the gas viscosity, which is
significantly more than the difference in viscosities for rich and medium-rich gas-condensate fluids. Gas viscosity (Fig. 23)
decreases with increasing production rate and the rate of decrease is much smaller than for Fluids A and B.

Well Test Behaviours: Fig. 24 shows a rate normalized log-log plot with and without NC for Fluid A. Derivatives exhibit a two-
region radial composite behaviour, with two distinct radial flow stabilizations. The last stabilization corresponds to the gas
mobility in the portion of the reservoir still above the dew point pressure. The second stabilization, higher than the first one,
corresponds to the lower gas relative mobility in the condensate bank. The condensate bank stabilization is lowered when NC is
included and the gas relative permeability increases from 1mD without NC to 10 with NC. These correspond to krg reductions of
90% and 70% respectively. The pressure curve is lower with NC, indicating a decrease of the skin effect due to lower condensate
saturation in the condensate bank.
The derivative for Fluid B in Fig. 25 shows two stabilizations when NC is not included and three stabilizations with NC. The
earlier stabilization indicates an increase in gas mobility in the near-wellbore due to velocity stripping.
SPE 134452 5

The well test behaviour of lean gas-condensate fluid with and without NC is shown in Fig. 26. A three-region radial composite
behaviour is only observed when NC is included if the gas rate is high enough for ‘velocity stripping’ to develop (Qg=30MMscf/d
instead of 10MMscf/d).

Effect of production rate on composite fluid behaviour

Capillary numbers depend on velocity and interfacial tension and both velocity and interfacial tension depend on production rate
(Henderson et al., 1996). Runs were made with Nc at gas rates increasing from 5 MMscf/d to 30 MMscf/d. The model was
initialized at 200 psia above the dew point pressure in all cases. All build ups end above the dew point pressure. Fig. 27 shows the
corresponding pressure and rate histories.

Condensate Saturation: Fig. 28 shows the condensate saturation distribution for Fluid A with increasing production rates and
time. During the drawdown periods, the near-wellbore condensate saturation increases with increasing production rates until the
production rate reaches 25MMscf/d. For a production rate of 30MMscf/d, however, there is a slight decrease in the condensate
saturation from the well to about 10ft in the reservoir. This is due, not to velocity stripping (velocity stripping effects are not seen
even at maximum attainable gas rate of 30 MMscf/d), but to revaporization: the pressure has declined to 2500 psia, which
corresponds to the maximum liquid drop-out beyond which the condensate starts to re-vaporize as observed on the CVD
experiment.
The condensate saturation profile for Fluid B is shown in Fig. 29. As gas rate increases, the maximum condensate saturation at
the well increases up to 35%, then decreases when liquid re-vaporizes as for Fluid A. Velocity stripping effects are seen once the
gas rate reaches 10 MMScf/d.
Fluid C saturation profile, on the other hand, shows evidence of a zone of improved mobility (velocity stripping) once gas
production reaches 20MMscf/d (Fig. 30). The near-well condensate saturations are very similar at different production rates,
whereas they change significantly with medium-rich and rich fluids. The size of the condensate bank reaches a maximum of 60ft,
which is much smaller than with Fluids A (700ft) and B (250ft).

Build up behaviour: Raghavan et al., (1999), Barrios et al., (2003) and Gringarten and Bozorgzadeh (2004) showed that liquid
saturation in rich gas-condensate fluids increases in the build up following a drawdown at high production rate. This is illustrated
in Fig. 31 which shows the condensate saturation for Fluid A at the end of the drawdown period DD6 and in the subsequent shut-in
BU6. During the drawdown, the fluid phase changes from rich gas to near critical fluid. After shut-in, the condensate saturation
initially increases in the near-wellbore region. At pressures close to the dew point pressure, the difference between oil and gas
properties is very small and a small increase in pressure above the dew point pressure triggers re-vaporization. As the wellbore
pressure builds up above the dew point pressure, miscibility occurs and a single-phase gas is formed. Figs. 32 and 33 show the gas
and oil viscosities during the pressure build up. They increase and decrease, respectively, with increasing pressure. At the end of
the build up, the oil viscosity is zero because only a single-phase gas remains.
The condensate saturation profile for Fluid B during build up BU6 is shown in Fig. 34. As with Fluid A, the condensate
saturation increases then decreases at the well as pressure increases. At the end of the build up, total re-vaporization only occurs
between the well and approximately 30ft away, whereas it occurs in the entire reservoir in Fluid A. The fluid in the near-wellbore
region becomes near-critical, whereas it remains as gas condensate away from the well.
By contrast, the condensate saturation profiles at the end of drawdown DD6 and in the subsequent build up BU6 for Fluid C
are very similar (Fig. 35). Oil and gas viscosities during shut-in are very different (Figs. 36 and 37) due to high surface tension,
and this prevents miscibility.
The differences in behaviours between lean (C), medium (B) and rich (A) gas condensate fluids is emphasised in Fig. 38. Fig.
38 shows condensate saturation profiles at the end of build ups BU2 and BU5, which follow drawdowns at low and high rates,
respectively. In the case of lean gas, the condensate does not revaporize during the build ups at either rate, as the fluid remains a
gas condensate fluid with a critical pressure significantly lower than the reservoir pressure. Revaporization does occurs in the case
of the medium-rich gas condensate fluid, but at high rates only, because large pressure drops are then created which significantly
change the oil and gas properties in a way which favours miscibility. The fluid becomes near-critical and the critical pressure
becomes very close to the reservoir pressure, particularly near the wellbore. For rich gas condensate fluid, revaporization occurs at
both low and high rates.

Effect of reservoir permeability on composite fluid behaviours

The impact of reservoir permeability-thickness on condensate saturation has been investigated in this study for kh=700 mD.ft
(low), 1000 mD.ft (medium) and 2000 mD.ft (high) for the production schedule of Fig. 27.
Results are shown in Fig. 39 for Fluid A at the end of DD4 and at the end of BU4. During the drawdown, the condensate
saturation near and away from the well is higher for low kh because of the higher pressure drops (Fig. 40). Contrary to Barnum et
al’s (1995) suggestion, a condensate bank is created even for high kh. The condensate re-vaporizes during the build up in all cases
studied.
6 SPE 134452

The condensate saturation profiles for Fluid B at the end of DD4 and BU4 are shown in Fig. 41. At low kh, there is a sharp
drop in near-wellbore condensate saturation during the drawdown due to revaporization as pressure drops below a threshold
pressure (already observed in Fig. 29). During the build up, the condensate saturation increases at the edge of the condensate bank
but re-vaporizes near the well as pressure increases above the dew point pressure. At medium kh, the condensate saturation in the
build up increases with increasing build up pressure, whereas it does not change much between the end of drawdown and the end
of the build up at high kh. In both cases, the condensate does not re-vaporize. The high kh saturation behaviour is similar to that
observed with lean gas condensate fluid (Fluid C, Fig. 42) and relates to the small induced pressure drops, which generate slow
changes in heavy component composition.
Fig. 43 summarizes the condensate saturation profile build up behaviour for lean, medium, rich gas condensate fluids for
different reservoir permeability-thickness values. The time at which re-vaporization occurs is a function of the near-well pressure
drop: the larger the pressure drop, the faster the transition from gas condensate to near-critical fluid, and the more likely the re-
vaporization during a build up.

Well Test Analysis of Field Data

A number of well test data from lean and rich gas condensate reservoirs have been presented in literature. We present here a
detailed well test interpretation and compositional simulation of drill stem test and production data from a well in a medium-rich to
rich gas condensate field offshore South Africa. The objective of these analyses is to illustrate the application of the theoretical
findings described above to actual well test data.

Reservoir description
The wells of interest are located in the Bredasdorp Basin, offshore South Africa. The Bredasdorp basin is divided into a syn-rift
interval (Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous), and a post-rift or drift interval (Early Cretaceous-Tertiary) which was deposited as the
Falklands block separated from Africa and the Atlantic Ocean opened. The base of the drift sequence is marked by the drift-onset
unconformity (1At1). Widespread tectonically enhanced erosion of the syn-rift succession, including the gas-bearing Upper
Shallow Marine (USM) sands, occurred beneath this unconformity. The sandstones are more channelized with potentially
disconnected sandstone reservoirs, whereas the upper units are more amalgamated channels and sheet-like sandstones.

Well Test Analysis of Well 1

Well 1 is a vertical well drilled to 2990m. The reservoir fluid in well 1 is classified as medium-rich to rich gas condensate fluid.
The CGR range from 70 to 90 bbls/MMscf. The PVT properties are given in Table 4. The well was completed with a 9-5/8” casing
and perforated from 2858 to 2880 mbKB. The average water saturation and porosity are 30% and 10% respectively. The reservoir
properties are given in Table 5. The well was open to flow on May 2007, with an initial test consisting of a clean-up and a build
up. A permanent downhole gauge was located at 2555 mbKB, 350 m above the perforations. The initial pressure recorded at gauge
depth was 3954 psia, slightly above the dew point pressure estimated at 3930 from PVT analysis. The flowing bottomhole pressure
was below the dew point pressure. The well was shut-in after clean-up in order to connect flowlines. The DST consisted of a clean-
up period, a build up, and then the well was shut-in for a period of 4 months before being re-opened in September 2007. The well
was initially opened at maximum choke to clean up then chocked back during sampling in order to obtain representative samples.
Fig. 44 shows the production data from September 2007 to May 2009, corrected to a mid-perforation depth of 2869 mbKB (The
correction was +53 psi using the gas gradient of 0.15 psi/ft). The gas rate declined sharply from 17 MMScf/d to 8 MMscf/d over a
period of 2 months, and continued to decline to 4 MMscf/d.
In order to obtain reservoir parameters and investigate the effects of production time and fluid behaviour on near wellbore
effects, DST and production test data were combined into a single test so that the entire pressure and rate history could be
analyzed. A rate-normalized log-log plot of pressure and derivative data for the main build ups and drawdown periods is shown in
Fig. 45. The derivative plots of the build ups FP9, 167, 171, 245∗ (Fig. 46) show triple composite behaviours. This is consistent
with the theoretical results described in this paper, which predicts 3-region composite behaviours in medium-rich fluids. Liquid re-
injection and phase redistribution effects are evident on the drawdowns in Fig. 46, where they create a derivative discontinuity at
middle times (Fig. 47). A negative half slope can be identified in Fig. 47 at middle times on the derivative of build up BU167,
which could imply limited entry, possibly due to plugging of some perforations. There is evidence of a condensate bank as most
DST and production build ups exhibit a three-region composite behaviour, which is consistent with pressure being below the dew
point pressure. The first derivative stabilization in the three-region composite behaviour corresponds to the improved near-
wellbore mobility due capillary number (Nc) effects. The final radial flow stabilization, clearly seen on the derivatives of FPU9,
167 and 171, corresponds to the effective reservoir permeability. In all subsequent build ups (FP240, 245 and 248), a condensate
bank can be identified by a stabilization at an intermediate level. This condensate bank steadily grows until it extends to the
boundaries of the reservoir, the existence of which can be inferred from the superposition plot of Fig. 48. The growth of the bank
leads to an increase of the total skin factor as can be seen on the pressure curves for FP167, 171and 245.
Fig. 49 shows unit-rate deconvolved derivatives for build ups FP9, 167, 245 and 248, plotted with the conventional derivatives

∗
In this paper, FP refers to a period at constant rate, which may be a drawdown or a build up
SPE 134452 7

for each flow period. Deconvolution (von Schroeter et al. 2001, 2004) was performed with an initial reservoir pressure of 3989
psia at mid-perforations (3940 psia at gauge depth), calculated from the superposition plot of the initial build up (Fig. 48). The
deconvolved derivative of FP9 stabilizes at late times (reservoir of infinite extent), whereas the deconvolved derivatives for the
subsequent build ups (FP167, 245 and 248) indicate the presence of boundaries at late times. The same boundary effects can
actually be seen on the derivatives of FP167 and 248 and suggest a channel (i.e., 2 parallel faults) closed on one side (open
rectangle). This is consistent with the geological description of the reservoir.
A unit-rate pressure drawdown derived from the FP248 deconvolved derivatives was analysed to obtain an interpretation model
(well with wellbore storage and skin, in a reservoir with a 2-region composite behaviour in an open rectangle). The model was
then applied to the actual data using the rates adapted by deconvolution and the analysis parameters were refined to provide a good
match (Fig. 50). Summary of analysis results is given in Table 5. The composite behaviour is due to the condensate bank. The
bank has a radius which increases from 10ft in FP9 to 180ft in FP248. The bank to reservoir storativity ratios used to determine the
bank radii (2.4 and 5.2, respectively) were calculated from:

(1 ) ⎛
ct1 p1 (B ) ⎞ p .( B )
[φct h]1 / 2 = ≈ * ⎜⎜ o dew ⎟⎟ = Ca * 2 o dew (Aluko and Gringarten, 2009) (5)
ct 2 ( 1 ) ⎝ ( Bo )1 ⎠ p1.( Bo )1
p2
Compositional Simulation of Well 1
Conventional analysis provides a snapshot of the state of the well at the time of the analysed flow periods. In gas condensate
reservoirs, it is necessary to verify the existence of the condensate bank with compositional simulation. Such a simulation also
allows predicting the well future behaviour.
A single vertical well simulation model was set-up consisting of 40x40x9 cartesian grid blocks to represent a single layered,
homogeneous, 71ft-thick reservoir with the boundaries determined from well test analysis (open rectangle). Very small grid blocks
around the wellbore and very small time steps were used to accurately capture the evolution of the condensate bank. Reservoir
rock and fluid properties are given in Table 8. Layer porosity was obtained from wireline logs. The PVT data used in the model
were based on representative samples collected from well 1. The matched EOS was used as input for the compositional simulation.
The file included appropriate EOS, critical properties of the fluid components and equilibrium compositions. Gas/oil relative
permeability data were calculated using Corey equations, with a critical condensate saturation of 10%, and an exponent of 3.9. The
model included Nc and non-Darcy flow parameters and was initialized with permeability and initial pressure (3989 psia at mid-
perforations) from well test analysis. The pressure history simulated for the entire well 1 rate history was compared with actual
pressure data. A good match with actual build ups indicates that permeabilities and distances to boundaries are adequate.
Drawdown data were matched by adjusting the capillary number parameters. Good pressure history (Fig. 51) and derivative (Figs.
52 and 53) matches are obtained with Ncb=10-5 and n1g=10 (see Table 3).
The radii of the condensate bank at different production times were determined by plotting condensate saturation profiles. Fig.
54 shows the condensate saturation profiles at different times during clean up. At the end of the drawdown (FP8), the condensate
saturation is lower near the well (25%) than away from the well, due to revaporisation as in Figs. 29 and 41. The radius of the zone
with mobile condensate is 10 ft, which is consistent with the FP9 analysis. During the build up, the condensate saturation increases
at the wellbore as the reservoir fluid becomes heavier (near-critical) and is higher than at the end of preceding drawdown. Similar
condensate saturation profile behaviours are shown in Fig. 55 during production, at the end of the drawdown FP247 and in the
build up FP248. The radius of the zone with mobile oil is 180 ft, ten times as large as in the clean up phase and identical to the
value obtained from well test analysis (Table 5). The dip in condensate saturation at the well is due to Nc effects. During the build
up (FP248), condensate saturation is much higher than at the end of the preceding drawdown (FP247) as the fluid becomes near-
critical near the well. As in the clean up build up, re-vaporization does not occur because the pressure does not increase above the
dew point pressure.

The reservoir management strategy employed in this reservoir was to keep gas rates high enough to avoid liquid loading in the
well but low enough to minimize condensate banking effects identified from well test interpretation and compositional simulation.

Conclusions
This paper compares near-wellbore well test behaviours of vertical wells in lean, medium-rich and rich gas condensate reservoirs.
The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) During drawdown in medium-rich and rich gas condensate reservoirs, a condensate saturation develops around the well when
pressure decreases below the dew point pressure, the size of which increases with production time, rate, fluid richness and
decreasing reservoir permeability. Fluid changes to near-critical near the well. The time at which this transition occurs
depends on the pressure drop, which depends on production rate, time, fluid richness and reservoir permeability. During the
subsequent shut in, if pressure builds up above the saturation pressure, the oil dissolves into the gas and the fluid becomes
single-phase gas around the well. This does not occur in lean gas reservoirs, where the condensate saturations at the end of a
drawdown and in the subsequent build up are very similar.
8 SPE 134452

(2) Lean and medium-rich gas condensate fluids yield three-mobility zone composite behaviours on a derivative plot whereas
only two-mobility zones are created in the case of rich gas condensate fluids (Nc effects are not seen in practice).
(3) Actual well tests showed that dry gas reservoir behaviour may not be seen in production tests in low-permeability, medium-
rich to rich gas condensate reservoirs because condensate banks could extend throughout the entire reservoir.
(4) Phase redistribution and liquid re-injection may dominate the test at early and middle times in drawdowns and build ups in
low-permeability, medium-rich to rich gas condensate reservoirs due to low gas production rates.

Acknowledgements
Portions of this study were conducted at Imperial College London by Thabo Kgogo in partial fulfillment of post-graduate degree
requirements. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this research by the members of the Imperial College
Joint Industry Project (JIP) on Well test Analysis in Gas Condensate and Volatile Oil Reservoirs: the BG Group, ConocoPhillips,
Eni, PetroSA, Petrom, and Total. They are also indebted to software vendors for allowing them access to the software products
required for this work, respectively Paradigm Geotechnology B.V (InterpretTM 2008) and Schlumberger (EclipseTM 300 and
PVTiTM). The authors are particularly grateful to PetroSA and Pioneer Natural Resources, USA, Inc for allowing them to use their
data in this paper.

Nomenclature
BHFP: Bottom Hole Flowing Pressure Krg: Gas Relative Permeability
BU: Build up, the conditions for shutting a well Krog: Oil Relative Permeability in presence of gas
ct: total compressibility M: meter
CCE: Constant Compositional Expansion mD: Millidarcy
CGR: Condensate Gas Ratio MSCF: Thousand Standard Cubic
CVD: Constant Volume Depletion Nc: Capillary number
DD: Drawdown Pdew: Dew Point Pressure
DST: Drill Stem Test PR: Peng-Robinson
EOS: Equation of State PVT: Pressure Volume Temperature
H: Reservoir thickness RFT: Repeat Formation Tester
FP: Flow Period rw: wellbore radius
GWC: Gas Water Contact SCF: Standard Cubic Feet
L: represent the equilibrium mole fraction of liquid V: equilibrium mole fraction of vapour
K: absolute permeability

References
1. Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N. J., and Bette, S.: “Production Performance of a Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of
Arun Field”, SPE 28749, paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, November
7-10, 1994.
2. Agarwal, R.G.: “A New Method to Account for Producing Time Effect when Drawdown Type Curves are Used to Analyze
Pressure Build up and Other Test Data”, SPE9289, paper presented at the 55th Annual Fall Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, September 21-24, 1980.
3. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., and Crawford, P. B.: “The flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media”, J.Pet Tech., Trans.
AIME., pg 624-636, May, 1966.
4. Ali, J. K., McGauley P. J. and Wilson, C. J.: “The Effects of High-Velocity Flow and PVT Changes Near the Wellbore on
Condensate Well Performance", paper SPE 38923 presented at the 1987 SPE ATCE, San Antonio, Texas, 29 Sept. -2 October.
5. Aluko, A.O and Gringarten, A.C.: “Well Test Dynamics of Rich Gas Condensate Reservoirs under Gas Injection” SPE
121848, paper submitted for presentation at the SPE EUROPEC 2009 seminar held in the Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8-11
June, 2009.
6. Barnum, R.S., Brinkman, F.P., Richardson, T.W. and Spillette, A.G.: "Gas Condensate Reservoir Behaviour: Productivity and
Recovery Reduction Due to Condensate", paper SPE 30767 presented at the SPE ATCE, 1.Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October,
1995.
7. Bourdet D., Whittle T.M., Douglas A.A. and Pirard Y.M.:”A new set of type curves simplifies well test analysis”, World Oil
196 (May 1983), pp. 95–106.
8. Bourdet, D.: “Well Test Analysis: The Use of Advanced Interpretation Models” Handbook of Petroleum Exploration and
Production 3, Elsevier Science B.V., ISBN 0- 444-50968-2, pg 180-197, 2002.
9. Bozorgzadeh, M., and Gringarten, A. C., "New Estimate for the Radius of a Condensate Bank from Well Test Data Using Dry
Gas Pseudo-Pressure", paper SPE 89904, presented at the SPE Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas,
U.S.A., 26–29 September 2004.
10. Bozorgzadeh, M.: “Characterisation and Determination of Condensate Dynamics from Pressure Transient Data and Fluid PVT
Properties” PhD Thesis, University of London, March, 2006.
SPE 134452 9

11. Daungkaew, S.: “New Developments in Well Test Analysis,” PhD Thesis, Imperial College London, 2002.
12. Eilerts, C.K., Sumner, E.F., and Potts, N.L.: “Integration of Partial Differential for Transient Radial Flow of Gas-Condensate
Fluids in Porous Structures” SPEJ, pg 141, June, 1965.
13. Equations for Transient Radial Flow of Gas-Condensate Fluids in Porous Structures” SPEJ, pg 141, June, 1965.
14. Fussel, D.D.: “Single-Well Performance Predictions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs”, Journal of Petroleum Engineering SPE
4072 (July 1973), pp 860-870
15. Geertsma, J.: "Estimating the Coefficient of Inertial Resistance in Fluid Flow through Porous Media", SPEJ, pg 445- 450,
October, 1974.
16. Gringarten, A. C., Ogunrewo O., Uxukbayev G. and Bozorzadeh, M.:”Assessment of Individual Skin Factors in Gas
Condensate and Volatile Oil Wells”, SPE paper No. 134543, to be presented at the 2010 ATCE in Florence, Italy, Sept. 20-
22, 2010.
17. Gringarten, A.C., Al-Lamki, A., Daungkaew, S., Mott, R., Whittle, T.M.: "Well Test Analysis in Gas Condensate Reservoirs",
paper SPE 62920, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October, 2000.
18. Gringarten, A. C.: “ Well Test Analysis,” Unpublished MSc Lecture Notes, 2006.
19. Gringarten, A.C., Bozorgzadeh M., Daungkaew, S., and Hashemi, A.: "Well Test Analysis in Lean Gas Condensate
Reservoirs", paper SPE 100993, presented at the Russian Oil and Gas Technical Conference, Moscow, Russia, 3-6 June, 2006.
20. Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., and Al-Kharusi, B.: "The Relative Significance of Positive Coupling and Inertial
Effects on Gas Condensate Relative Permeabilities at High Velocity", paper SPE 62933, presented at the SPE ATCE, Dallas,
Texas, 1-4 October, 2000.
21. Jones J. R., Vo D. T., and Raghavan R.: “ Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Responses in Gas Condensate Wells”, SPE15535,
paper presented at the 61st Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers held in New
Orleans, LA, October 5-8, 1986.
22. Jones, J.R., and Raghavan, R.: “Interpretation of Flowing Well Response in Gas Condensate Wells”, paper SPE 14204.
SPEFE, September, 1988.
23. Kniazeff, V.J., and Naville, S.A.: “Two-Phase Flow of Volatile Hydrocarbons” SPEJ 37; Trans., AIME, 234, March, 1965.
24. Moore, T.F. and Slobod, R.L.:”Displacement of Oil by Water-Effect of Wettability, Rate, and Viscosity On Recovery,” SPE
paper 502, presented at the 30th Annual Fall Meeting of the Petroleum Branch of the AIME, New Orleans, La., Oct. 2-5, 1955.
25. Mott, R., Cable, A., and Spearing, M.: “A New Method of Measuring Relative Permeabilities for Calculating Gas-Condensate
Well Deliverability”, paper SPE 56484, presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6
October, 1999.
26. Mott, R., Cable, A., Spearing, M.: “Measurements and Simulation of Inertial and High Capillary Number Phenomena in Gas-
Condensate Relative Permeability”, paper SPE 62932, presented at the SPE ATCE, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October, 2000.
27. O'Dell, H. G., and Miller, R. N.: “Successfully Cycling a Low-Permeability, High-Yield Gas Condensate Reservoir”, Journal
of Petroleum Technology (January 1967), pp. 41-47.
28. Raghavan, R.: “Well test Analysis for Multiphase Flow” paper SPE 14098, presented at the SPE International Meeting on
Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, 17-20 March, 1986.
29. Raghavan, R., Chu, W and Jones, J.: “Practical considerations in the Analysis of gas condensate well test”, SPE30576, paper
presented at the 70th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Dallas, Texas,
October 22-25, 1995.
30. Takeda, T., Fujinada, Y., and Fujita, K.: “Fluid Behaviours Around a well in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs”, SPE38062, paper
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 14-16, 1997.
31. von Schroeter, T., Hollaender, F., and Gringarten, A. C., 2001: “Deconvolution ofWell Test Data as a Nonlinear Total Least
Squares Problem,” paper SPE 71574 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 30 September – 3 October; SPEJ (Dec. 2004) pp. 376-390
32. Yisheng, F., Li, B., Hu Y., Sun Z. and Zhu Y.:”Condensate Gas Phase Behaviour and Development”, paper SPE 50925,
presented at SPE International Conference and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, Texas, 2-6 November, 1998.

Parameter Unit Value

Horizontal Permeability mD 10
Reservoir Thickness ft 100
Porosity % 12
Net-to-Gross % 100
Vertical Permeability mD 1
Water Saturation % 30
Critical Condensate Saturation % 10

Table 1: Compositional simulation reservoir parameters

10 SPE 134452

Table 2: Summary of fluid samples

Parameter Value Unit

Parameter Value Gas Compressibility 1.79 E-04 1/psi
o
NCB 1E-06 Reservoir Temperature 248 F
o
Standard Temperature 60 F
mo 80
Standard Pressure 14.7 Psia
mg 24 Gas Gravity 0.79 cP
n1o 24 Gas Viscosity 0.0244 cP
o
Condensate Gravity 55 API
n1g 6
Expansion Factor 224
n2o 0
CO2 Composition 3.79 %
n2g 0 H2S Composition 0 %

Table 3: Capillary number model default parameters Table 4: Well 1 PVT Data

Parameter Unit FP9 FP248

Clean-up Production
(pav)i Psia 3989 3989
Kh mD.ft 540 540
K2 mD 7.6 7.6 Input Parameters Value
C Bbl/psi 0.09200 0.3422
Porosity (%) 10.5
Skin (w) 7.52 18.7
Skin (t) 20.80 62.5 Horizontal Permeability (mD) 7.6
R1 Ft 10 180
Vertical Permeability (mD) 0.76
(pch)1/2 2.43 5.2
(kh/µ)1/2 0.45 0.36 Net to Gross (fraction) 1
D1 Ft 670 650 30
Connate Water Saturation (%)
D2 Ft 2100 2200
D3 Ft 680 660
Wellbore Radius (in) 0.354
Di Ft 530 2329 Initial Reservoir Pressure (psia) 3989
DP (S) psia 947.7 2002

Table 5: Well 1 Well Test Analysis Results Table 6: Well 1 Compositional Simulation Input data
SPE 134452 11

10
Figure 1: Shift in phase envelope with composition change Figure 2: Pressure and derivative 2-3-regions composite
17
behaviours

Figure 3: Compositional simulation model grid configuration Figure 4: Fluid A CVD experimental match

Figure 5: Fluid B CVD experimental match Figure 6: Fluid C CVD experimental match
Pressure History
1

4300 22
0.9
4200 DD1 DD3 DD4 20
Dew Point
Gas Rate (MMscf/D)

0.8
4100 18
Relative Permeability (fraction)

0.7
4000
Pressure (psia)

Krg 16
0.6 Kro 3900 DD2 BU2 BU3 BU4 14
0.5 3800 Pressure 12
0.4 3700 10
Crossover Point
0.3
3600 Gas rate 8
3500 6
0.2
3400 4
0.1
3300 2
0
3200 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Gas Saturation (fraction)
Elapsed time (days)

Figure 7: Gas-Oil relative permeability curves Figure 8: Compositional simulation pressure and rate history
12 SPE 134452

0.45
0.50

0.45 With Nc Without Nc 0.1 day

0.40 0.1 day
1 day
1 day
10 day
0.40 10 day 0.35
100 days
100 days

Condensate saturation (frac)

200 days
Condensate saturation (frac)

0.35 200 days

0.30 0.1 day
0.1 day
1 day
1 day
0.30 10 days
10 days 0.25
100 days
100 days
0.25 200 days
200 days
0.20

0.20
Without Nc With Nc
0.15
0.15
0.10
Critical condensate saturation
0.10
Css = 10%
0.05
0.05

0.00
0.00
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft)
Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 9: Effect of Nc on condensate saturation profiles (Fluid A) Figure 10: Effect of Nc on condensate saturation profiles (Fluid B)
0.40
1.00
0.1 day

0.35 1 day
0.90 With Nc Without Nc 0.1 day
10 day
100 days 1 day
0.30 200 days 0.80 10 day
Condensate saturation (frac)

0.1 day 100 days

Gas Relative Permeability (frac)

1 day 0.70 200 days
0.25 10 days 0.1 day
100 days 1 day
0.60
200 days 10 days
0.20
100 days
0.50
200 days
0.15
Css=10% Without Nc With Nc 0.40

0.10
0.30

0.05 0.20

0.10
0.00
0.1 1 10 100
Radial Distance (ft)
0.00
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 11: Effect of Nc on condensate saturation profiles (Fluid C) Figure 12: Effect of Nc on gas relative permeability profiles (Fluid A)

1.00 1.00

0.90 0.1 day 0.90

1 day 0.1 day

0.80 10 day 0.80 1 day
100 days 10 day
Gas Relative Permeability (frac)

0.70 200 days 100 days

0.70
Gas Relative Permeability (frac)

0.1 day 200 days

1 day 0.1 day
0.60 0.60
10 days 1 day
100 days 10 days
0.50 0.50
200 days 100 days
200 days
0.40
0.40

0.30 Without Nc With Nc

0.30 Without Nc With Nc
0.20
0.20

0.10
0.10

0.00
0.00
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Radial Distance (ft)
Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 13: Effect of Nc on gas relative permeability profiles (Fluid B) Figure 14: Effect of Nc on gas relative permeability profiles (Fluid C)

0.06
0.25
Viscosity Saturation
0.0360
0.05

0.20
Condensate Saturation (frac)

0.1 day 0.0350 0.1 day

0.04
1 day 1 day
Gas Viscosity (cP)
Oil Viscosity (cP)

0.15
10 days 0.0340 10 days
0.03
100 days 100 days

0.10
200 days 0.0330 200 days
0.02

0.01
0.05 0.0320

0.00 0.0310
0.00
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 15: Oil viscosity distribution with Nc (Fluid A) Figure 16: Gas viscosity distribution with Nc (Fluid A)
SPE 134452 13

0.65 0.0460

0.1 day
0.1 day

Amount of C4 in vapour phase

0.65
Amount of C1 in vapour phase

0.0450 1 day
1 day

10 days
10 days

100 days
0.64 100 days

200 days
200 days
0.0440

0.64

0.0430
0.63 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Radial Distance (ft)
Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 17: C1 component distribution with Nc (Fluid A) Figure 18: C4 component distribution with Nc (Fluid A)
0.20 0.40

Viscosity Saturation 0.036

0.18
0.35

0.16
0.034

Condensate saturation (frac)

0.30
0.1 day 0.1 day
0.14

Gas Viscosity (cP)

1 day 1 day
0.25
Oil Viscosity (cP)

0.12
0.032
10 days 10 days
0.10 0.20
100 days
100 days
0.08 0.030
0.15 200 days
200 days

0.06
0.10
0.028
0.04

0.05
0.02
0.026
0.00 0.00 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft)
Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 19: Oil viscosity distribution with Nc (Fluid B) Figure 20: Gas viscosity distribution with Nc (Fluid B)

0.30 0.35
0.740

Viscosity Saturation
0.30
0.25
0.1 day
0.735
Amount of C1 in vapour phase

0.1 day
0.25

Condensate saturation (frac)

1 day
0.20
Oil Viscosity (cP)

1 day
10 days
0.20
10 days
100 days
0.730 0.15
100 days
200 days 0.15
200 days
0.10
0.10
0.725

0.05
0.05

0.720 0.00 0.00

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.1 1 10 100
Radial Distance (ft)
Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 21: C1 component distribution with Nc (Fluid B) Figure 22: Oil viscosity distribution with Nc (Fluid C)

0.0240
10000

0.0235
nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

0.0230
0.1 day
Gas Viscosity (cP)

0.0225 1000 Condensate Bank, No Nc

1 day
k = 1 mD
0.0220 10 days

100 days
0.0215
200 days 100 Condensate Bank, Nc
0.0210 k = 3mD
Dry Gas, k = 10mD
0.0205

0.0200 10
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft) Elapsed time (hrs)

Figure 23: Gas viscosity distribution with Nc (Fluid C) Figure 24: Log-log derivative shapes with and without Nc (Fluid A)
 14 SPE 134452

1000 10000
nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

With Nc (Qg = 10 MMScf/d)

Without Nc (Qg = 10MMscf/d)
Condensate Bank k = 1.2 mD, No NC

nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

With Nc (Qg = 30 MMScf/d)

1000

100 Condensate Bank kgas = 2.8mD Condensate bank

100
Capillary number effect
Dry gas kgas = 10mD
Capillary Effects kgas= 3.6mD

Dry Gas kgas= 10mD

10
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 10
0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Elapsed time (hrs)
Elapsed time (hrs)

Figure 25: Log-log derivative shapes with and without Nc (Fluid B) Figure 26: Log-log derivative shapes with and without Nc (Fluid C)

Pressure History
0.45
5000 70
Dew Point Pressure
0.4
4000 60
BU3 DD4 BU4 DD5 BU5 DD6 BU6 Qg = 5MMscf/d
DD1 BU1 DD2
Gas Rate (MMscf/D)
BU2 0.35
DD3 Qg = 10MMScf/d

Condensate saturation (frac)

3000
Pressure (psia)

50 Qg = 15MMscf/d
0.3
Qg = 20MMScf/d
2000 Qg = 25MMScf/d
Pressure 40 0.25 Qg = 30MMScf/d
1000 Gas Rate
0.2
30
0
0.15
20
-1000
0.1

-2000 10 Css=10%
0.05

-3000 0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft)
Elapsed time (days)

Figure 27: Impact of production rate pressure history Figure 28: Condensate saturation distribution with increasing rate (Fluid A)
0.45 0.35

0.4
0.3
Qg = 5MMscf/d Qg = 5MMscf/d
0.35
Qg = 10MMScf/d Qg = 10MMScf/d
Condensate saturation (frac)

0.25 Qg = 15MMscf/d
Qg = 15MMscf/d
Condensate saturation (frac)

0.3 Qg = 20MMScf/d
Qg = 20MMScf/d Qg = 25MMScf/d
Qg = 25MMScf/d Qg = 30MMscf/d
0.25 0.2
Qg = 30MMScf/d

0.2
0.15

0.15
0.1
0.1
Css=10%
0.05 Css=10% 0.05

0
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft) radial Distance (ft)

Figure 29: Condensate saturation distribution with increasing rate (Fluid B) Figure 30: Condensate saturation profile (Fluid C)
0.8 0.14

End DD End DD
0.7 BU6.0E-5 BU6.0E-5
0.12
BU 8.1E-05 BU 8.1E-05
BU 1.3E-04 BU 1.3E-04
0.6 BU 2.2E-03 BU 2.2E-03
Condensate saturation (frac)

BU 3.9E-02 0.1 BU 3.9E-02

BU 5.2E-02 BU 5.2E-02
0.5 BU 9.0E-02 BU 9.0E-02
Oil Viscosity (cP)

End BU End BU
0.08
0.4

0.06
0.3

0.04
0.2

0.1 0.02

0 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 31: Condensate saturation profile during BU6 (Fluid A) Figure 32: Oil viscosity profile during BU6 (Fluid A)
 SPE 134452 15

0.08 0.8

End DD End DD
0.07 BU6.0E-5 0.7
BU6.0E-5
BU 8.1E-05
BU 8.1E-05
BU 1.3E-04
0.06 BU 2.2E-03 0.6 BU 1.3E-04

Condensate saturation (frac)

BU 3.9E-02 BU 2.2E-03
BU 5.2E-02 BU 3.9E-02
Gas Viscosity (cP)

0.05 BU 9.0E-02 0.5

BU 5.2E-02
End BU
BU 9.0E-02
0.04 0.4 End BU

0.03 0.3

0.02 0.2

0.01 0.1

0
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Radial Distance (ft)
Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 33: Gas viscosity profile during BU6 (Fluid A) Figure 34: Condensate saturation profile during BU6 (Fluid B)

0.4 0.3

0.35 End DD
BU6.0E-5 0.25

BU 8.1E-05 End DD
0.3
BU 1.3E-04 BU6.0E-5
Condensate saturation (frac)

0.2 BU 8.1E-05
BU 2.2E-03
BU 1.3E-04

Oil Viscosity (cP)

0.25 BU 3.9E-02 BU 2.2E-02
BU 5.2E-02 BU 3.9E-02
BU 5.2E-02
0.2 BU 9.0E-02 0.15
BU 9.0E-02
End BU End BU

0.15
0.1

0.1

0.05
0.05

0 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 35: Condensate saturation profile during BU6 (Fluid C) Figure 36: Oil viscosity profile during BU6 (Fluid C)

0.8
0.025
Rich Gas - Qg=10MMscf/d

0.024 0.7
Rich Gas - Qg=25MMScf/d

0.023 0.6 Medium Gas - Qg=10MMScf/d

Condensate saturation (frac)

End DD
0.022 0.5 Medium Gas - Qg=25MMscf/d
BU6.0E-5
Gas Viscosity (cP)

BU 8.1E-05
0.021 BU 1.3E-04 Lean Gas - Qg =10MMscf/d
BU 2.2E-02 0.4
BU 3.9E-02
0.02 BU 5.2E-02 Lean Gas - Qg=25MMScf/d
BU 9.0E-02 0.3
End BU
0.019
0.2
0.018

0.1
0.017

0
0.016
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Radial Distance (ft)
radial Distance (ft)

Figure 37: Gas viscosity profile during BU6 (Fluid C) Figure 38: Condensate saturation profiles for Fluids A, B and C at the end of
BU2 and BU6
0.45
kh = 2000mD.ft
0.4 kh = 1000mD.ft
kh = 700 mD.ft
0.35 End BU kh = 2000mD.ft
Condensate saturation (frac)

End BU kh=1000mD.ft
0.3 End BU kh = 700ft

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 39: Impact of reservoir permeability on saturations (Fluid A) Figure 40: Impact of reservoir permeability on pressure (Fluid A)
 16 SPE 134452

0.7 0.4

kh = 2000mD.ft 0.35 kh = 2000mD.ft

0.6
kh = 1000mD.ft
kh = 1000mD.ft
kh = 700 mD.ft
0.3

Condensate saturation (frac)

Condensate saturation (frac)

kh = 700 mD.ft
0.5 End BU kh=2000mD.ft
End BU kh = 1000mD.ft End BU kh = 2000mD.ft
0.25
End BU kh = 700mD.ft End BU kh = 1000mD.ft
0.4
End BU kh = 700md.ft
0.2

0.3
0.15

0.2
0.1

0.1
0.05

0 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft) Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 41: Impact of reservoir permeability on saturations (Fluid B) Figure 42: Impact of reservoir permeability on saturations (Fluid C)

0.7
Rich Gas - Low kh
Medium Gas - Low kh
0.6 Lean Gas - Low kh
Rich Gas - Medium kh
Medium Gas- Medium kh
Lean Gas - Medium kh
0.5 Rich Gas - High k
Condensate saturation (frac)

Medium Gas - High kh

Lean Gas - High kh

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radial Distance (ft)

Figure 43: Impact of reservoir permeability on saturations Figure 44: Pressure and rate history of well 1

FP240
FP248

FP9 FP245
FP167

Condensate bank Radial flow

Capillary number

Figure 45: Log-log plot of normalized pseudo-pressure and derivatives (well1) Figure 46: log-log plot of useable build up derivatives

Log-Log Diagnostic - Flow Period 167

10000
Rate Normalised nm(p) Change and Derivative (psi)

FP9
1000 166DD Horn
er L
Condensate bank FP167 FP240 ine
FP245
100 Capillary number
Slope=-1/2
FP248
Radial flow
10
167BU

0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Elapsed time (days)

Figure 47: Flow Period 166 and 167 log-log plots of well 1 Figure 48: Well 1 superposition plot
SPE 134452 17

Horner Match - Flow Period 248

2000

1800

1600

Normalised Pseudo Pressure (psia)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Superposition Function (MMscf/D)

Figure 49: Deconvolved derivatives of well 1 Figure 50: Log-log, Horner and simulation matches for well 1

Figure 51: Comparison of measured and simulated BHP Figure 52: Log-log plot of simulation and measured data (FP9)
(well 1)

0.5

End of FP8 (DD)

0.45
Saturation (ft) (frac)

Start of FP9 (BU)

t=0.5 days (BU)
0.4
Saturation

0.35

0.3

0.25
Condensate

0.2
Condensate

0.15
Critical Condensate Saturation = 10%
0.1

0.05

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Radial Distance (ft)
Distance (ft)

Figure 53: Log-log plot of simulation and measured data (FP248) for well1 Figure 54: Condensate saturation profile of clean-up data (well 1)

0.8

End of FP247 (DD)

0.7
Start of FP248 (BU)
t=0.5 days (BU)
0.6
Condensaet Saturation (fraction)

t=2 days (BU)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

Critical Condensate Saturation

0.1

0
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Distance (ft)

Figure 55: Condensate saturation profile of production data (well 1)