Integrating PVT Properties for the

Description of Well Responses in

Gas Condensate Reservoirs

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Master of Applied Science in Petroleum Systems

Engineering

University of Regina

by

Jiawei Li

Regina, Saskatchewan

June 2015

Copyright 2015: Jiawei Li

 UNIVERSITY OF REGINA

FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH

SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE

Jiawei Li, candidate for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Petroleum Systems
Engineering, has presented a thesis titled, Integrating PVT Properties for the
Description of Well Responses in Gas Condensate Reservoirs, in an oral examination
held on May 1, 2015. The following committee members have found the thesis acceptable
in form and content, and that the candidate demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the
subject material.

External Examiner: Dr. Chun-Hua Guo, Department of Mathematics & Statistics

Supervisor: Dr. Gang Zhao, Petroleum Systems Engineering

Committee Member: Dr. Daoyong Yang, Petroleum Systems Engineering

Committee Member: *Dr. Yee-Chung Jin, Environmental Systems Engineering

Chair of Defense: Dr. Paul Laforge, Electronic Systems Engineering

*Not present at defense

 ABSTRACT

A gas condensate reservoir exhibits complex behaviors when the bottomhole pressure

falls below the dew point pressure at a given reservoir temperature. When the condensate

oil begins to drop out from the gas, a two-phase fluid system develops and a bank of

condensate oil builds up, inducing severe productivity losses. While the production rate is

constant, different mobility zones are formed around the wellbore corresponding

respectively to the original-gas-in-place (OGIP) away from the well, the condensate bank

with only gas flow, and two-phase gas and oil flow near the wellbore. Thus, the behaviors

of gas condensate systems are complex and difficult to interpret.

In this thesis, a single well model is built to evaluate the dynamic performance of an

infinite and homogeneous gas condensate reservoir. Firstly, apparent compressibility is

defined by integrating PVT properties. The application of modified pseudo-pressure and

pseudo-time linearizes the partial differential equations with the non-linearity caused by

gas properties. Secondly, a three-region method accounts for the composition changes in

the reservoir. Fluid flow towards the well during depletion can be divided into three

concentric main flow regions, from the wellbore to the reservoir. An analytical model

could have been built directly from the three-region method. Thirdly, on the basis of the

three-region method, the semi-analytical model is developed by dividing the whole

reservoir into multiple sub-radial regions. In the modeling process, the discretized sub-

radial regions are hydraulically coupled with nearby sub-radial regions so that an ultimate

linearized system is generated to obtain bottomhole pressure responses. Finally, a moving

boundary is also taken into consideration to investigate the difference between a

I
consistent boundary model and a moving boundary model. All models have been

validated and can be successfully used to analyze pressure and production data of gas

condensate production wells.

This thesis has contributed to production from gas condensate reservoirs with detailed

studies on the inherent PVT properties, condensate banks, and the interference of

adjacent regions. The modeling results provide reliable perspectives of transient pressure

analysis in gas condensate reservoirs and help characterize and estimate the drainage

areas of the three regions mentioned above, which is critical in gas condensate reservoir

development. Furthermore, this model builds a consolidated foundation for further

investigation of reservoir heterogeneity in the development of unconventional reservoirs.

II
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the opportunity offered by Dr. Gang (Gary) Zhao for

me to do my graduate studies at the University of Regina. This work, which summarizes

two years of research, is conducted under the direction of Dr. Gary Zhao. I am deeply

appreciative of Dr. Zhaos advice, guidance and encouragement throughout our friendly

collaboration.

I would also like to give thanks to my group members: Mr. Lei Xiao, Mr. Chang Su,

Mrs. Jianli Li, Mr. Shuai Chen, Mr. Wanju Yuan, Ms. Yue Zhu, and Mr. Ning Ju. I am

also grateful to my friends here: Mr. Deyue Zhou, Ms. Xiaoyan Meng, Mr. Yu Shi, Mr.

Sixu Zheng, Mr. Zhongwei Du, Mr. Yanbin Gong, Mr. Longyu Han, Mr. Hao Yang, Mr.

Hongyang Wang, Mr. Tuo Huang, Mr. Yulong Zhao, Mr. Jinkai Liu, Mr. Zhaoqi Fan,

Mrs. Xiaoli Li, Mrs. Yu Xie. Thank you very much for your care and friendship to me

during my stay in Regina.

III
 DEDICATION

I wish to show my respect to my parents, Mr. Ronghua Li and Mrs. Yuxin Si. Many

thanks and many appreciations are extended to them for their love, support,

encouragement and understanding throughout my life.

This thesis is dedicated to my grandfather who left me and my family in 2013.

IV
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................... III

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................. IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................V

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ IX

NOMENCLATURE..................................................................................................... XIII

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1

1.1 Gas Condensate Reservoir ................................................................................ 1

1.2 Pressure Transient Analysis .............................................................................. 1

1.3 Objectives of This Thesis ................................................................................... 2

1.4 Outline of the Thesis .......................................................................................... 3

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 4

2.1 Gas Condensate Flow Behavior ........................................................................ 4

2.1.1 Gas condensate characterization ................................................................... 4

2.1.2 Flow behavior ............................................................................................... 7
2.2 Pseudo-pressure................................................................................................ 10

2.2.1 Single-phase ................................................................................................ 10

2.2.2 Steady-state ................................................................................................. 12
2.2.3 Three-Region .............................................................................................. 17

V
 2.3 Pseudo-time ....................................................................................................... 23

2.4 Mathematical Formulation of Well Test Analysis ........................................ 25

2.5 PVT Measurement ........................................................................................... 26

2.5.1 Constant composition expansion (CCE) experiment .................................. 26

2.5.2 Constant volume depletion (CVD) experiment .......................................... 28
2.6 Field Cases ........................................................................................................ 30

CHAPTER 3 PVT INTEGRAL ............................................................................... 32

3.1 PVT Properties ................................................................................................. 32

3.2 Total Compressibility....................................................................................... 43

CHAPTER 4 THREE-REGION MODEL ............................................................. 48

4.1 Model Description ............................................................................................ 49

4.2 Model Demonstration ...................................................................................... 51

4.3 Relative Permeability Model ........................................................................... 54

4.4 Analytical Solution ........................................................................................... 57

CHAPTER 5 SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODELING ............................................... 60

5.1 Mathematical Formulations of Semi-analytical Model ................................ 60

5.2 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................... 64

5.2.1 Model validation ......................................................................................... 65

5.2.2 Effect of boundary ...................................................................................... 70
5.2.3 Effect of transmissibility ratio .................................................................... 76
5.2.4 Effect of storability ratio ............................................................................. 83
5.2.5 Effect of sub-segment number .................................................................... 91
5.2.6 Flow rate profile .......................................................................................... 97
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 100

VI
 6.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 100

6.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................... 101

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 102

VII
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Typical Composition and Characteristics of Three Fluid Types (Wall,

1982) .................................................................................................................... 6

Table 3.1 Well stream: Measured and Calculated (Suwono et al., 2012) ........... 33

Table 3.2 Heptane properties: Measured and Calculated (Suwono et al., 2012) 33

Table 3.3 Four Different Compositions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs ............ 34

VIII
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Ternary Visualization of Hydrocarbon Classification (Whitson and

Brule, 2000) ....................................................................................... 5

Figure 2.2 Phase diagram of a gas-condensate system (Li et al., 2005) .............. 9

Figure 2.3 Single-phase pseudo-pressure as a function of pressure (Al-Hussainy

et al., 1965) ...................................................................................... 11

Figure 2.4 Pressure-saturation relationship estimated by the steady-state model

(Al-Ismail, 2010)............................................................................... 14

Figure 2.5 Two-phase steady-state pseudo-pressure as a function of real

pressure (Boe et al., 1989) .............................................................. 16

Figure 2.6 Gas-condensate three-flow regions (Penuela and Civan, 2000) ....... 18

Figure 2.7 Pressure-saturation relationships estimated by the three-region model

(Al-Ismail, 2010)............................................................................... 21

Figure 2.8 Three-region pseudo-pressure as a function of pressure (Fevang and

Whitson, 1996)................................................................................. 22

Figure 2.9 The relationship between real time and pseudo-time (Agarwal, 1979)

......................................................................................................... 24

Figure 2.10 Schematic of a CCE experiment for an oil and a gas condensate

(Whitson and Brule, 2000) ............................................................... 27

Figure 2.11 Schematic of CVD Experiment (Whitson and Brule, 2000) .............. 29

Figure 3.1 Liquid volume as a function of pressure for Composition 1 ............... 38

Figure 3.2 Liquid volume for different compositions ........................................... 39

IX
Figure 3.3 Gas compressibility factor as a function of pressure for different

compositions .................................................................................... 41

Figure 3.4 Gas viscosity as a function of pressure for different compositions .... 42

Figure 3.5 Total compressibility as a function of pressure for Composition 1 ..... 46

Figure 3.6 Total compressibility for different compositions ................................. 47

Figure 4.1 Schematic of radial three-region composite model (Gringarten et al.,

2000) ............................................................................................... 50

Figure 4.2 Gas & Oil relative permeability curves ( ) ............................... 55

Figure 5.1 Schematic of a radial semi-analytical model...................................... 63

Figure 5.2 Comparison of dimensionless pseudo-pressure and dimensionless

pseudo-pressure derivative from semi-analytical model and Kappa 67

Figure 5.3 Comparison of dimensionless pseudo-pressure and dimensionless

pseudo-pressure derivative from semi-analytical model and Kappa 68

Figure 5.4 Comparison of pressure from pseudo-pressure between semi-

analytical model and Kappa ............................................................. 69

Figure 5.5 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves for different radii of boundary

between Regions 1 and 2 ................................................................ 71

Figure 5.6 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative curves for different radii of

boundary between Regions 1 and 2 ................................................ 72

Figure 5.7 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves for different radii of boundary

between Regions 2 and 3 ................................................................ 74

Figure 5.8 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative curves for different radii of

boundary between Regions 2 and 3 ................................................ 75

X
Figure 5.9 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different

transmissibility ratios ........................................................................ 78

Figure 5.10 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative responses for different

transmissibility ratios ........................................................................ 79

Figure 5.11 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different

transmissibility ratios ........................................................................ 81

Figure 5.12 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative responses for different

transmissibility ratios ........................................................................ 82

Figure 5.13 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different storability

ratios ................................................................................................ 85

Figure 5.14 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative responses for different

storability ratios ................................................................................ 86

Figure 5.15 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different storability

ratios ................................................................................................ 89

Figure 5.16 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative responses for different rD2

for the same value of storability ratios ............................................. 90

Figure 5.17 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different sub-segment

numbers ........................................................................................... 93

Figure 5.18 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivatives responses for different

sub-segment numbers ..................................................................... 94

Figure 5.19 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different sub-segment

numbers ........................................................................................... 95

XI
Figure 5.20 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivatives responses for different

sub-segment numbers ..................................................................... 96

Figure 5.21 Dimensionless flow rate profile for the drawdown test at different

dimensionless times ........................................................................ 98

Figure 5.22 Dimensionless flow rate profile for different mobility ratios .............. 99

XII
 NOMENCLATURE

Notations

a = attraction parameter

= gas formation volume factor, RB/scf

= oil formation volume factor, RB/STB

b = van der Waals covolume

= gas compressibility, 1/psi

= formation compressibility, 1/psi

= oil compressibility, 1/psi

= total system compressibility, 1/psi

= water compressibility, 1/psi

CR = diffusivity ratio

CS = storability ratio

CT = transmissibility ratio

= non-Darcy factor

= immiscibility factor

= thickness of reservoir, ft

= modified Bessel function of zero order

= modified Bessel function of zero order

XIII
 = gas relative permeability, mD

= maximum relative permeability for gas, mD

= immiscible gas relative permeability, mD

= miscible gas relative permeability, mD

= oil relative permeability, mD

= maximum relative permeability for oil, mD

= permeability, mD

L = molar fraction of liquid

= the value of pseudo-pressure

= reference pseudo-pressure

= pseudo-pressure

= dimensionless pseudo-pressure

= number of sub-segments

= exponent ranging from 1 to 6

= exponent ranging from 1 to 6

= dew point pressure, psi

= reservoir external boundary pressure, psi

= initial reservoir pressure, psi

= boundary pressure between Region 1 and Region 2, psi

= wellbore flowing pressure, psi

XIV
 = dimensionless flow rate in region i

= standard gas flow rate, mscf/d

= producing gas/oil ratio, scf/STB

= solution gas/oil ratio, scf/STB

= radius, ft

= dimensionless radius

= solution oil/gas ratio, STB/scf

= gas saturation

= gas critical saturation

= oil saturation

= oil residual saturation

= initial water saturation

= water critical saturation

t = time, hr

= pseudo-time

= dimensionless pseudo-time

= velocity of gas phase, ft/s

V = molar fraction of vapor

= molar volume

z = compressibility factor

XV
Greek Letters

= Forchheimer constant

= effective Forchheimer constant

= density of gas at standard conditions,

= density of gas in gas phase,

= gas density,

= density of solution gas in oil phase,

= oil viscosity, cP

= gas viscosity, cP

= porosity, fraction

Subscripts

D = dimensionless variable

g = gas phase

i = initial condition, or, sub-segment

o = oil phase

1,2,3 = Region 1,2,3

XVI
 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Gas Condensate Reservoir

With further exploration of oil and gas resources, gas condensate reservoirs are

becoming more and more important and are scattered all over the world. Large gas

condensate reservoirs are distributed in the Shearwater field in the North Sea,

Shtokmanovskoye Russia, the Arun and Senoro fields in Indonesia, the Dina field in

China, the Karachaganak field in Kazakhstan, the offshore North field in Qatar, the South

Pars field in Iran and the Cupiagua field in Colombia (Li et al., 2005).

Gas condensate reservoirs are different from conventional oil and gas reservoirs in that

complex behaviors will be exhibited when wells are produced below the dew point

pressure. When the bottom-hole pressure falls below the dew point pressure, condensate

oil begins to drop out and accumulates. As a result, a condensate bank is created, which

has a serious effect on production performance.

1.2 Pressure Transient Analysis

Due to the complex behaviors and the two-phase flow, it is difficult to evaluate well

performance of production wells in gas condensate reservoirs. Many efforts have been

made in order to solve such problems. In 1949, Muskat found that a condensate bank

builds up around the producing well once the bottomhole pressure falls below the dew

point pressure. Kniazeff et al. (1965) identified that two more regions other than the

condensate bank exist in the reservoir from the numerical simulations. The radial model

1
that considers the flow of individual components and accounts for component mass

transfer between phases was used to predict the performance of a producing well in a

reservoir containing a rich gas condensate reservoir (Roebuck et al., 1969). Fussell (1973)

modified the radial model developed by Roebuck et al. (1969) to study long-term single

well performance in three condensate reservoirs. ODell and Miller (1965) presented a

simple method based on steady state flow concepts that can be used to estimate quickly

the well deliverability. A unique relationship between pressure and saturation was

developed by Boe et al. (1989). Jones and Raghavan (1988) used a fully implicit model

to simulate the well responses in a gas condensate system by modifying the steady-state

theory. Thompson et al. (1993) presented an analytical solution for well testing in gas

condensate reservoirs. Fevang and Whitson (1996) proposed the three-region model to

model the well deliverability in a gas condensate reservoir. Whitson et al. (1999) showed

that the relative permeability in gas condensate systems should include three parts by

considering the capillary number effect and the non-Darcy flow effect. Gringarten et al.

(2000) showed that three regions exist with different liquid saturations when pressure

falls below the dew point pressure. A method to characterize condensate bank was

proposed by Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten (2006).

1.3 Objectives of This Thesis

To measure the PVT properties of gas condensate systems and use the PVT

properties for the calculation of pseudo-variables;

To propose a new definition of total compressibility by integrating PVT

properties;

2
 To provide proper definitions of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time in order to

linearize the diffusivity equations in the mathematical model; and

To develop mathematical models (analytical and semi-analytical) to investigate

the performance of an integrating gas condensate reservoir system.

1.4 Outline of the Thesis

The thesis is composed of six chapters. Chapter 1 briefly introduces the gas

condensate reservoirs and major relevant research objectives. Chapter 2 provides a

literature review that includes the flow behavior of gas condensate reservoirs,

development of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time and mathematical foundations for well

testing. Chapter 3 presents the PVT measurement for gas condensate flow: Constant

composition expansion and constant volume depletion; PVT properties simulation for a

gas condensate system and the definition of total compressibility by integrating PVT

properties. Chapter 4 shows the development of a three-region model and relative

permeability for gas condensate reservoirs. Chapter 5 proposes a semi-analytical model

on the basis of the three-region model. Chapter 6 summarizes major conclusions of this

thesis and provides recommendations for further study.

3
 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Gas Condensate Flow Behavior

2.1.1 Gas condensate characterization

For gas condensate reservoirs, single-phase gas exists in the reservoir at the beginning

of production, but yields small amounts of oil on the ground. The gas condensate system

has a composition consisting largely of methane and small fractions of intermediate and

heavy ends (typically, approximately : 87%, : 9% and : 4%) (Kamath, 2007).

Different hydrocarbons systems are classified by their colors, densities and gas-oil ratios

(Gravier et al., 1986). The composition of a gas condensate system compared with other

hydrocarbon systems is shown in Figure 2.1. Table 2.1 gives typical compositions and

characteristics of different hydrocarbon systems.

Most known gas condensate reservoirs are discovered in the ranges of 5000 ft to

10000 ft deep, 3000 psi to 8000 psi and 200 to 400 (Roussennac, 2001). At the

temperature between critical temperature and cricondentherm temperature, condensation

drops out from gas when the pressure falls below the dew point pressure. The reservoir

fluids will separate into: gas phase and oil phase. With pressure continuing to decrease,

more condensate oil drops out and will reach a maximum volume. Gas condensate fluids

can be divided into lean, medium-rich, or rich, depending on the range of their

condensate to gas ratio (Kgogo and Gringarten, 2010). A lean system may yield

approximately 10 STB/MMscf (2% maximum condensate), and a rich system could yield

as much as 20% condensate, i.e. 300 STB/MMscf (Kamath, 2007).

4
Figure 2.1 Ternary Visualization of Hydrocarbon Classification (Whitson and Brule,

2000)

5
 Table 2.1 Typical Composition and Characteristics of Three Fluid Types (Wall,

1982)

Component Black Oil Volatile Oil Condensate Gas

Methane 48.83 64.36 87.07 95.85

Ethane 2.75 7.52 4.39 2.67

Propane 1.93 4.74 2.29 0.34

Butane 1.60 4.12 1.74 0.52

Pentane 1.15 2.97 0.83 0.08

Hexanes 1.59 1.38 0.60 0.12

C7+ 42.15 14.91 3.80 0.42

Molecular wt C7+ 225 181 112 157

Gas-Oil Ratio 625 2000 182000 105000

SCF/Bbl

Liquid-Gas Ratio 1600 500 55 9.5

Bbl/MMSCF

Tank Oil Gravity API 34.3 50.1 60.8 54.7

Color Green/Black Pale Straw White

Red/Brown

6
2.1.2 Flow behavior

The flow behaviors of a gas condensate reservoir are characterized by the phase

envelope of the fluids and the condition of the reservoir. Figure 2.2 shows a typical

envelope: the pressure temperature (P T) diagram. The phase envelope is affected by

the composition and condition of the reservoir. A bubble point line and a dew point line

meeting at the critical point are shown in this phase envelope. In the process of

isothermal expansion, the first bubble of gas will vaporize from the liquid phase on the

bubble point line. In contrast, the first droplet of liquid will condense from the gas phase

on the dew point line. When pressure is above the cricondenbar or temperature is above

the cricondentherm, only one phase (liquid or gas) can exist. At the critical point, the

liquid and gas phase cannot be distinguished because the composition and all other

intensive properties of the two phases become identical (Al-Ismail, 2010). Gas reservoirs

and gas condensate reservoirs are determined by their initial reservoir conditions.

For gas reservoirs, if the reservoir temperature is above the cricondentherm, path

is an example for the reservoir during the isothermal expansion and will not enter the

two-phase region. Therefore, gas flow remains consistent in the reservoir and the

reservoir fluid composition remains during the depletion process.

For gas condensate reservoirs, if the reservoir temperature is between the critical

temperature and cricondentherm, path is an example for the reservoir during the

isothermal expansion. During the isothermal expansion, when path reaches at the

dew point line, retrograde condensation will occur in the reservoir, leading to the changes

of the reservoir fluid compositions. At the beginning, the condensate saturation is low

and the mobility of condensate is almost zero; only gas flows in the reservoir and the

7
condensate accumulates due to heavy components of gas dropping out from the gas flow.

After the condensate saturation reaches the critical condensate saturation, the condensate

will start to move in the reservoir and as a result, gas and oil both flow. Condensate will

redissolve in the gas phase and the condensate volume will decrease if the depletion is

further continued.

8
Figure 2.2 Phase diagram of a gas-condensate system (Li et al., 2005)

9
2.2 Pseudo-pressure

2.2.1 Single-phase

In gas well test analysis, the non-linear partial differential equations describing gas

flows are transformed into a linear form by the use of pseudo-pressure, which is similar

to the liquid flow equations. Therefore, the analytical solutions for liquid flow equations

can be used for gas flow equations. Al-Hussainy et al. (1965) and Al-Hussainy and

Ramey (1966) proposed the definition of pseudo-pressure as:

(2-1)

where is the reference pressure, is the viscosity and z is the compressibility factor.

The following assumptions are made in the derivation of the equations:

1) The medium is homogenous.

2) The flow is laminar and isothermal.

3) The flowing gas has a constant composition.

The single-phase pseudo-pressure is applied to the dry gas. For the gas condensate

system, the assumption is that the liquids (condensate and water) are immobile and the

variation in the relative permeability for the gas phase is negligible, so the single-phase

pseudo-pressure can be used (Raghavan et al., 1995).

In a gas condensate reservoir, the gas compressibility factor and gas viscosity can be

considered as a function of pressure, so the integral can be calculated. The single-phase

pseudo-pressure as a function of pressure is plotted in Figure 2.3.

10
 1.60E+09

1.40E+09

1.20E+09

1.00E+09
m(p), psi2/cp

8.00E+08

6.00E+08

4.00E+08

2.00E+08

0.00E+00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Pressure, psi

Figure 2.3 Single-phase pseudo-pressure as a function of pressure (Al-Hussainy et

al., 1965)

11
2.2.2 Steady-state

In gas condensate reservoirs, two phases will exist when the bottomhole pressure

drops below the dew point pressure. The two-phase steady-state theory to predict the

performance of a single well in a gas condensate reservoir was first proposed by ODell

and Miller (1967). However, the productivity predicted by the ODell-Miller theory is not

accurate on the basis of examination by Fussell (1973) because the ODell-Miller theory

cannot provide an accurate prediction for the saturation profile in the two-phase region.

Boe et al. (1989) suggested techniques to determine sandface saturation with a

relationship between pressure and saturation by applying the Boltzmann transformation.

However, the Boe et al. theory (1989) cannot be applied under certain circumstances

because the saturation cannot always be an expression of a single value of Boltzmann

variables. The steady-state theory was modified by Jones and Raghavan (1988).

Two flow regions are assumed for the steady-state model:

Region 1: An inner region below the dew point pressure where gas and condensate are

present and mobile.

Region 2: An outer region above the dew point pressure where only gas exists and

flows.

The two-phase pseudo-pressure was introduced to provide a better description of the

condensate reservoir integral:

(2-2)

12
where is the reference pressure, is oil viscosity, is gas viscosity, is oil

relative permeability, is gas relative permeability, is the oil formation volume

factor, and is the gas formation volume factor.

Region 1:

In order to solve the Equation (2-3), the correlation between relative permeability and

pressure should be known. In a gas condensate reservoir, the oil/gas relative permeability

ratio can be expressed as:

(2-3)

where L and V refer to the equilibrium molar fraction of liquid and vapor derived from

flash calculations, respectively. The left hand side is a function of saturation and the right

hand side is a function of pressure. This assumption implies that the overall composition

of the flowing mixture at any location in the reservoir is the composition of the original

reservoir fluid and a region where the composition of the flowing mixture is changing

does not exist (Al-Ismail, 2010).

Condensate saturation could be evaluated from the condensate/gas relative

permeability ratio by using the relative permeability curves (Figure 2.4).

13
Figure 2.4 Pressure-saturation relationship estimated by the steady-state model (Al-

Ismail, 2010)

14
 The gas and oil relative permeabilities as functions of saturation are expressed as the

following forms:

(2-4)

(2-5)

The gas compressibility factor and gas viscosity can be derived as a function of

pressure from the flash calculation.

Region 2:

For region 2, the method to calculate the integral is the same as that for the single-

phase pseudo-pressure. The gas compressibility factor and gas viscosity can be also

derived as a function of pressure from the flash calculation.

The results of the two-phase steady-state pseudo-pressure calculation are shown in

Figure 2.5.

15
 8.00E+07

7.00E+07

6.00E+07

5.00E+07
m(p), psi2/cp

4.00E+07

3.00E+07

2.00E+07

1.00E+07

0.00E+00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Pressure, psi

Figure 2.5 Two-phase steady-state pseudo-pressure as a function of real pressure

(Boe et al., 1989)

16
2.2.3 Three-Region

In gas condensate reservoirs, the condensate will drop out from the gas when the wells

are producing under the dew point pressure, leading to compositions changes in the

reservoir. On the basis of many observations of the three flow regions for many gas

condensate systems, Fevang and Whitson (1996) developed a simplified method to

calculate the pseudo-pressure integral. This method has been generally applied in many

cases of gas condensate systems study. Figure 2.6 shows a schematic of three flow

regions in a gas condensate reservoir.

Region 1: Region 1 is the region around the wellbore where both gas and oil flow

simultaneously. The flowing composition (GOR) in Region 1 is considered to be constant,

which means that the gas entering Region 1 has the same composition as the produced

well-stream. Region 1 is the main source of productivity losses in a gas condensate

reservoir.

Region 2: Region 2 is the region where condensate drops out from gas and builds up,

only gas flows and oil is immobile. Condensate saturations in Region 2 are closely

approximated by a liquid-dropout curve from a constant-volume-depletion (CVD)

experiment. The liquid-dropout curve from the CVD experiment is used to approximate

condensate saturations in Region 2. The size of Region 2 is the largest at early times just

after the reservoir pressure drops below the dew point pressure, which decreases with

time as Region 1 expands (Fevang and Whitson, 1996).

Region 3: Region 3 is the region where the pressure is above the dew point pressure

for the gas condensate system. Only gas exists in Region 3. When the pressure drops

below the dew point pressure, Region 2 will appear.

17
Figure 2.6 Gas-condensate three-flow regions (Penuela and Civan, 2000)

18
 On the basis of three flow regions for gas condensate systems, a method to calculate

the pseudo-pressure integral was developed by Fevang and Whitson (1996):

Total

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3 (2-6)

where is the total pseudo-pressure, is the wellbore flowing pressure, is the

boundary pressure between Regions 1 and 2, is the dew point pressure, is the

reservoir boundary pressure, is the initial water saturation, is the oil viscosity,

is the gas viscosity, is the oil relative permeability, is the gas relative permeability,

is the oil formation volume factor, is the gas formation volume factor, and is the

solution gas/oil ratio.

Region 1: The modified Evinger-Muskat approach is used to solve the Region 1

pseudo-pressure (Fevang and Whitson, 1996). At pressure , the PVT properties

can be found directly. For , it is defined where in the PVT table (Fevang

and Whitson, 1996). The equation defining producing GOR is proposed:

(2-7)

and is used to calculate the gas/oil relative permeability ratio as a function of pressure:

19
 (2-8)

where is the solution oil/gas ratio, and is the producing gas/oil ratio.

In Equation (2-8), PVT properties are known as functions of pressure. Equation (2-8)

can be considered to be equivalent to the following equation:

(2-9)

For Region 1, similar to the steady-state method, Equation (2-9) is used to estimate the

condensate-gas relative ratio as a function of pressure. The condensate saturation can be

evaluated from the condensate/gas relative permeability ratio by using the relative

permeability curves.

Region 2:

The Region 2 integral is evaluated by use of , where condensate saturation is

estimated as a function of pressure from CVD relative volume (Fevang and Whitson,

1996). Then, the condensate saturation as a function of pressure is illustrated in Figure

2.7. The gas relative permeability in Region 2 is shown as follows:

(2-10)

Region 3:

Only gas PVT properties are found in the Region 3 integral, where the single-phase

pseudo-pressure function can be found.

The three-region pseudo-pressure as a function of pressure is plotted in Figure 2.8.

20
Figure 2.7 Pressure-saturation relationships estimated by the three-region model

(Al-Ismail, 2010)

21
 8.00E+07

7.00E+07

6.00E+07

5.00E+07
m(p), psi2 /cp

4.00E+07

3.00E+07

2.00E+07

1.00E+07

0.00E+00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Pressure, psi

Figure 2.8 Three-region pseudo-pressure as a function of pressure (Fevang and

Whitson, 1996)

22
2.3 Pseudo-time

Al-Hussainy (1966) developed pseudo-pressure to apply analytical solutions for gas

flow. However, in the governing diffusivity equation, the viscosity and compressibility

corresponds to pressure for gas flows. In addition, the porosity for the formation can also

be considered to change with pressure. As a result, the diffusivity equation for gas flow is

non-linear when expressed in terms of pressure, time variables. In order to linearize the

non-linear equations, Agarwal (1979) defined pseudo-time which integrates the variations

of gas viscosity and compressibility as a function of pressure:

(2-11)

where is viscosity, is total system compressibility.

The first definition of the total system compressibility in multi-phase conditions was

made by Martin (1959), neglecting the rock compressibility. On the basis of Martins

work, Ramey (1964) included the formation compressibility by defining the total system

compressibility, as:

(2-12)

where is formation compressibility, is oil compressibility, is water

compressibility, and is gas compressibility.

The definition of proposed by Ramey (1964) has been generally used for computing

pseudo-time. The relationship between real time and pseudo-time is shown in Figure 2.9.

23
 6.00E+07

5.00E+07

4.00E+07
Pseudo-time, psi/cp

3.00E+07

2.00E+07

1.00E+07

0.00E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Real Time, hour

Figure 2.9 The relationship between real time and pseudo-time (Agarwal, 1979)

24
 In gas condensate reservoirs, the definition of pseudo-time also takes the two phases

into consideration. Heidedari and Shahab (2011) introduced one form of two phase

pseudo-time as:

(2-13)

where is the reference pseudo-pressure, m is is pseudo-pressure, is oil saturation,

is gas saturation, is the oil formation volume factor, is the gas formation volume

factor, and is the solution gas/oil ratio.

Application of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time makes the analytical solutions

available to these non-linear equations, which are generally used to analyze and model

well tests.

2.4 Mathematical Formulation of Well Test Analysis

The diffusion equation for the pressure transient of a well test is written as:

(2-14)

There are assumptions for the derivation of the diffusion equation, which are listed as

follows (Horne, 1995):

1) Darcys Law applies;

2) Single phase flow;

3) Porosity, permeability, viscosity and compressibility are constant;

4) The pressure gradient in the reservoir is small;

25
 5) Fluid compressibility is small; and

6) Gravity and thermal effects are negligible.

2.5 PVT Measurement

In the laboratory, constant composition expansion (CCE) and constant volume

depletion (CVD) experiments can be performed to analyze phase behavior of the gas

condensate fluids.

2.5.1 Constant composition expansion (CCE) experiment

The CCE experiment could be performed for a gas condensate mixture, also for oil

mixtures. Figure 2.10 illustrates the procedure for the CCE experiment. A known mass

of reservoir fluid fills in a closed cell. Temperature is kept constant, often at the reservoir

temperature. The reservoir fluid is brought to the condition above the saturation pressure,

ensuring that the fluid is in single phase.

The experiment starts at a pressure higher than the initial reservoir pressure that is

always considered as the saturation pressure. For a gas condensate mixture, this means

the experiment starts at a pressure above the dew point pressure. The initial volume is

measured and the volume increases step by step. The volume and pressure at every step

should be measured and recorded. In addition, the saturation point should be recognized.

The CCE experiment provides detailed data about the saturation pressure at the

reservoir temperature and about the relative volume of gas and oil during the experiment.

26
Figure 2.10 Schematic of a CCE experiment for an oil and a gas condensate

(Whitson and Brule, 2000)

27
2.5.2 Constant volume depletion (CVD) experiment

The CVD experiment is also an experiment performed for gas condensate and volatile

oil reservoirs producing by pressure depletion. The stepwise procedure of a CVD

experiment is shown schematically in Figure 2.11. Similar to the CCE experiment, a

certain amount of reservoir fluids is filled into a cell that is kept at a constant temperature,

usually at the reservoir temperature. The cell is constructed in the same way as for the

CCE experiment, but something should be done in order to allow the depletion of gas

during the experiment, such as equipping the cell with a valve to control the volume.

The CVD experiment starts at the dew point pressure for a gas condensate mixture. In

the experiment, the pressure and relative volume should be measured and recorded at

every step, which is similar to the CCE experiment. The valve can be used to keep the

total volume constant during pressure depletion.

The CVD experiment provides data that can be used directly, including: 1) a reservoir

material balance that gives average reservoir pressure vs. recovery of total well-stream,

sales gas, condensate, and natural gas liquids; 2) produced well-stream composition and

surface products vs. reservoir pressure; and 3) average oil saturation in the reservoir

(liquid dropout and revaporization) that occurs during pressure depletion (Whitson and

Brule, 2000).

28
Figure 2.11 Schematic of CVD Experiment (Whitson and Brule, 2000)

29
2.6 Field Cases

Many field investigations have been conducted over the last decades to understand the

flow behaviors in gas condensate reservoirs. Behrenbruch and Kozma (1984) interpreted

results from well testing gas condensate reservoirs by comparing theory and field cases.

In the case of high potential gas-condensate wells in good permeability reservoirs, the

following requirements are needed for accurate deliverability forecasting: good

estimation of fluid conditions; estimations of formation properties; and detailed

knowledge of active flow (Initial well deliverability may depend on the depth of the test

zone in the reservoir) (Behrenbruch and Kozma, 1984).

For a very thick gas condensate reservoir, the vertical variation in compositions can be

estimated by considering: detailed results from recombination fluid samples; and

measurement of gas gradient with a high accuracy pressure gauge (Behrenbruch and

Kozama, 1984). In the very high temperature KAL-5 gas condensate well in the

Moslavacka Gora formation in Yugoslavia, a successful hydraulic simulation was

performed (Economides et al., 1989). In 1991, S gnesand discussed the effect of

retrograde condensate blockage on the long-term well performance of vertically fractured

gas condensate wells and presented a method to correct the effect of condensate blockage

by using the concept of the time-dependent skin factors.

Raghavan et al. (1995) considered practical factors in analysis of gas condensate wells

and summarized two conclusions: It is possible to relate the relative permeability values

to pressure and use the resulting analogue to evaluate pressure-buildup tests in a

quantitative manner; and the saturation profile at shut in governs the shape of the pressure

buildup trace and the success of the two-phase analogue is dependent on the ability to

30
estimate this profile. Diamond et al. (1996) developed a method to estimate probabilistic

well deliverability in the Britannia Gas Condensate Field based on log and core data.

Marhaendrajana and Kaczorowski (1999) proposed a rigorous and coherent approach for

the analysis of well test data from a multi-well reservoir system; all of the available well

test data are collected from the giant Anrun Gas Field (Sumatra, Indonesia). Kool et al.

(2001) outlined the metrology and procedure to obtain a representative formation fluid

sample that may be used for compositional and PVT analysis.

The modified black-oil model was tested against the fully compositional model and

performances of both models were compared by using various production and injection

scenarios for a rich gas condensate reservoir (Izgec et al., 2005). A novel approach was

introduced in the use of two-phase pseudo-pressure for the interpretation of gas

condensate well test data in naturally fractured reservoirs (Mazloom et al., 2005). The

Fetkovich method was chosen to evaluate reservoir productivity and well future

production performance in conjunction with well test analysis based on test draw-down

data (Zheng and Marius, 2006).

31
 CHAPTER 3 PVT INTEGRAL

3.1 PVT Properties

Fluid behavior for gas condensate reservoirs is not only a function of pressure but also

dependent on compositions. The first step of PVT simulation for a gas condensate

reservoir is to determine the compositions comprising the well stream. The compositions

used are a sample from the Senoro field, a major gas condensate field in East Indonesia.

The mole fraction of each component is shown in Table 3.1, in which the lab

experimentally measured data and calculated data give an acceptable match with less than

2% of deviation (Suwono et al., 2012). The mole fraction is generally characterized

by the application of the gamma distribution model (Whitson, 1983). The results are

tabulated in Table 3.2.

In Table 3.3, Composition 1 represents the composition data from the Senoro field,

which is used as the standard. Three simplified compositions are derived from the

composition data from the Senoro field. Different compositions form different gas

condensate systems. The differences of Compositions 2, 3 and 4 are the mole fraction of

and because and are the main sources of condensate liquid during

the production process. The total mole fraction of and is assumed to be

constant in Compositions 2, 3, and 4. In Composition 2, occupies most of the total

mole fractions of and . In Compositions 2 and 3, the most part is and

respectively.

32
 Table 3.1 Well stream: Measured and Calculated (Suwono et al., 2012)

Table 3.2 Heptane properties: Measured and Calculated (Suwono et al., 2012)

33
Table 3.3 Four Different Compositions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs

Composition Composition Composition Composition

1 (Suwono et 2 mol % 3 mol % 4 mol %
al., 2012)
mol %

1.0808 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000

0.9093 1.5000 1.5000 1.5000

84.8293 80.0000 80.0000 80.0000

5.1132 5.0000 5.0000 5.0000

2.9694 3.0000 3.0000 3.0000

0.9332 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000

1.1031 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000

0.5853 2.5000 0.5000 0.5000

0.4767 2.5000 0.5000 0.5000

0.5773 2.0000 6.0000 2.0000

1.4224 1.0000 1.0000 5.0000

34
 The key part of PVT simulation is to use the Peng-Robinson Equation of State (PR

EOS). Because compositions, volumes, and temperatures are known at all times, in

single-phase liquid or vapor regions, the resulting pressure is calculated directly by the

equation of state. In two-phase regions, a flash calculation is required. In a typical EOS

flash calculation, pressure is known and the equation of state calculates phase volumes. A

commercial simulator (CMG WinProp 2011) is used to perform a two-phase calculation

on the basis of the PR EOS. The PR EOS is written as follows (Peng and Robinson,

1976):

(3-1)

where P is pressure, a is the attraction parameter, b is the van der Waals co-volume, R is

the universal gas constant, T is absolute temperature and is the molar volume.

Real gas properties are computed as a function of pressure under isothermal

conditions through the PR EOS in the model. A gas condensate reservoir is divided into

three regions (Figure 2.6). The governing partial differential equations for gas and oil in

Region 1 are written as (Boe et al., 1989):

(3-2)

(3-3)

where is oil saturation, is gas saturation, is oil viscosity, is gas viscosity,

is oil relative permeability, is gas relative permeability, is the oil formation

volume factor, is the gas formation volume factor, is the solution gas/oil ratio, is

35
the solution oil/gas ratio, t is time, is the initial reservoir pressure, is the porosity, k

is the absolute permeability, and r is the radius.

Though both gas and oil exist in the gas condensate reservoir, the effects of the oil

phase are ignored due to its small amount and poor flow ability, and only the gas phase is

considered in this thesis.

Equation (3-2) is nonlinear due to the high compressibility property of gas. In order to

linearize the non-linear diffusivity equation, pseudo-time and pseudo-pressure are applied:

(3-4)

(3-5)

where is pseudo-pressure for Region 1, is pseudo-time for Region 1, and is the

apparent compressibility for Region 1.

With the application of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time, the Equation (3-2) can be

transformed into:

(3-6)

Equation (3-6) is similar to the diffusivity equation for fluids, so the solutions for

fluids with constant compressibility, viscosity and porosity can be used.

During the process of integral of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time, the gas flow

properties can be calculated through the two-phase flash calculation and from empirical

correlations. Liquid volume, the gas compressibility factor and gas viscosity are used for

36
demonstration by applying the compositions of a gas condensate system (Table 3.1 and

Table 3.2).

Figure 3.1 illustrates the liquid (condensate) volume changes as a function of pressure

in a gas condensate system for Composition 1. When pressure falls below the dew point

pressure, the condensate will drop out. In a certain range of pressure, there will be more

and more condensate accumulating. After the accumulation of condensate reaches the

maximum, the volume of condensate decreases due to the fact that some compositions

cannot be kept in liquid phase under that pressure.

In Figure 3.2, the accumulative liquid volume shows obvious differences due to the

change of compositions. More hydrocarbons that have heavier molecular weight mean

more liquid volume dropping out from the gas flow in a gas condensate reservoir. In

addition, the dew point pressure also changes significantly corresponding to the

compositions. There is a tendency that a small change of heavier hydrocarbons can affect

the liquid volume curve much more significantly. With the increase of heavier

hydrocarbons, the dew point pressure of each gas condensate system increases.

37
 0.25

0.2

Liquid Volume, %
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Pressure, psi

Figure 3.1 Liquid volume as a function of pressure for Composition 1

38
 8
Composition 1
7 Composition 2
Composition 3
6
Composition 4
5
Liquid Volume, %

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Pressure, psi

Figure 3.2 Liquid volume for different compositions

39
 As shown in Figure 3.3, the different compositions have direct effects on the curves

of compressibility factor Z because this factor can be calculated directly through the PR

EOS. In addition, the gas compressibility curves also depend on the intermolecular forces

of gases. Starting at a low pressure, there is enough space for attraction forces to be

dominant in gas molecules with the increase of pressure, leading to a smaller gas

compressibility factor. When the space in the gas molecules reduces to a critical value,

the repulsive factor will be dominant. Then, the gas compressibility factor increases

gradually with the increase of pressure.

Figure 3.4 describes the viscosity as a function of pressure. The gas viscosity shows a

small difference because the main compositions of gas flow are similar for each gas

condensate system. In CMG Winprop, the Pederson correlation is expected to give better

liquid viscosity prediction for light and medium oils than the JST model (Suwono et al.,

2012). Therefore, the modified Pederson method (Pederson and Fredenslund, 1987) is

expected to have better estimation for viscosity modeling.

40
 0.92

Composition1
0.9
Composition 2
Composition 3
0.88
Composition 4
Compressibility Factor Z

0.86

0.84

0.82

0.8

0.78
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure, psi

Figure 3.3 Gas compressibility factor as a function of pressure for different

compositions

41
 0.03

0.025

0.02
Viscosity, cp

Composition 1
0.015 Composition 2
Composition 3
0.01 Composition 4

0.005

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Pressure, psi

Figure 3.4 Gas viscosity as a function of pressure for different compositions

42
3.2 Total Compressibility

As shown in Equation (3-4), the definitions of pseudo-time contain the total

compressibility. In general, a reservoir consists of rock and pore space occupied by oil,

gas, and water. The total compressibility is defined as follows (Ramey, 1964):

(3-7)

The computation of pseudo-time using the total compressibility defined in Equation

(3-8) is referred to as conventional pseudo-time (Rahman et al., 2006). Pseudo-time is

intended to unify and take the effects of the following variables with pressure into

consideration: time, gas viscosity, gas compressibility, porosity, and fluid saturation.

Based on the above consideration, a new definition of the total compressibility for gas

flow is given (Rahman et al., 2006). A form of total compressibility for a gas condensate

system is proposed by taking oil saturation changes into consideration (Bozorgzadeh and

Gringarten, 2006). Xiao and Zhao (2013) also provide a definition of the total

compressibility for the foamy oil flow in the reservoir. The following equations illustrate

the derivation of the total compressibility in a gas condensate reservoir. The derivation

includes two phases, gas and oil. If water exists in the reservoir, it is assumed to be

immobile and then water saturation is considered to be consistent, as initial water

saturation.

The partial differential equation (3-2) in Region 1 is used for demonstration. The

right-hand side of Equation (3-2) is written as follows:

(3-8)

43
 On the right-hand side of Equation (3-8), applying the pressure dependent variables,

the following equation is obtained:

(3-9)

The variation of porosity with pressure can be expressed using the formation

compressibility as:

(3-10)

Submitting Equation (3-10) into Equation (3-8) yields:

(3-11)

As shown in Equation (3-11), the definition of is expressed as follows:

(3-12)

Mathematical developments for the total compressibility factor are strictly valid with

the definitions of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time. The total compressibility factor is

also a function of pressure. Applying the compositions of a gas condensate reservoir

mentioned in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, Figure 3.5 shows the the total compressibility as a

function of pressure for Composition 1. The total compressibility increases with the

44
pressure in a very small range, showing an approximate linear relationship. Since the

pressure ranges for condensate liquid dropping out are variant for different compositions,

so the relative pressure range is set here in order to compare the trends of total

compressibility. In Figure 3.6, the total compressibility for Compositions 1 and 2 almost

remains the same with pressure. For Composition 3, it increases gradually with pressure.

The total compressibility increases very rapidly corresponding to pressure for

compositions. Figure 3.6 reflects the great effect of compositions for a gas condensate

system on the total compressibility.

45
Figure 3.5 Total compressibility as a function of pressure for Composition 1

46
 1
Composition 1
0.9
Composition 2
0.8 Composition 3
Composition 4
0.7
Ct, 1/psi

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
p , psi

Figure 3.6 Total compressibility for different compositions

47
 CHAPTER 4 THREE-REGION MODEL

In general, reservoirs with different physical properties have been studied by using

analytical or numerical composite reservoir models. The pressure behavior of composite

reservoirs has been analyzed in many cases. All of these cases can be classified in three

large groups: two-region composite reservoir models (Ambastha and Ramey, 1989a;

Ambastha and Ramey, 1989a; Ambastha, 1988; Chu et al., 1993; Xiao and Zhao, 2013),

three-region composite reservoir models (Ambastha and Ramey, 1992; Issaka and

Ambastha., 1997) and multi-region composite reservoir models (Acosta and Ambastha,

1994; Zeng and Zhao, 2008; Zhu et al., 2012).

In 1967, ODell and Miller proposed the pseudo-steady theory to account for two-

phase flow in the gas condensate reservoirs after a certain time of production. In pseudo-

steady theory, a pseudo-steady state flow occurs for different mobility or storativity ratios

between two regions. Then a gas condensate reservoir can be divided into two regions: 1)

Two phases (oil and gas) both flow; and 2) Only gas exists and flows. Based on many

observations of gas condensate systems, Fevang and Whitson (1996) proposed an

accurate simple model of a gas condensate reservoir to account for flow property

differences by dividing the whole reservoir into three regions: 1) an inner near-wellbore

region where both gas and oil flow simultaneously; 2) a region of condensate buildup

where only gas is flowing; and 3) a region containing only single-phase reservoir gas.

Therefore, analytical solutions for a composite model which describes three flow regions

depending on different flow properties are applicable and useful to characterize pressure

responses and production responses for wells in gas condensate reservoirs.

48
4.1 Model Description

A radial single-porosity reservoir whose outer boundary is infinite, and where top and

bottom are considered, is used. A single production well is located in the center of the

reservoir. Figure 4.1 shows a schematic of a production single well in a radial composite

reservoir. The bottomhole pressure is below the dew point pressure. All three regions are

assumed to develop in the reservoir. The region boundary will be considered to be

constant during the short testing time. The pressure responses caused by gas flow are

evaluated because main compositions comprising a gas condensate reservoir are gas

phase. The gas flow includes the gas phase flow and gas components in the oil phase

flow.

49
Figure 4.1 Schematic of radial three-region composite model (Gringarten et al., 2000)

50
4.2 Model Demonstration

Based on Darcys Law and mass conservation, the governing partial differential

equation for the flow of the gas component in a gas condensate reservoir is yielded. There

are some assumptions to derive the diffusivity equations, which are listed as follows:

Thickness of the reservoir is constant;

Gravity is ignored;

Darcys Law is applicable;

Temperature is constant; and

Capillary pressure is ignored.

On the basis of previous model (Boe et al., 1989; Fevang and Whitson, 1996;

Heidedari and Shahab, 2011), the governing partial differential equations are written as:

(4-1)

(4-2)

(4-3)

where

(4-4)

51
 (4-5)

Submitting Equations (4-4) and (4-5) into Equations (4-1), (4-2) and (4-3) to eliminate

from both sides:

(4-6)

(4-7)

(4-8)

The initial and boundary conditions are:

(4-9)

(4-10)

(4-11)

where is oil saturation, is gas saturation, is oil viscosity, is gas viscosity,

is oil relative permeability, is gas relative permeability, is gas relative permeability,

is the oil formation volume factor, is the gas formation volume factor, is the

solution gas/oil ratio, is the molar density of gas at standard conditions, is the

molar density of gas in the gas phase, is molar density of solution gas in the oil phase,

is the wellbore radius, is the radius of the inner region, is the radius of the

condensate bank, t is time, is the initial reservoir pressure, is the porosity, k is

absolute permeability, is the standard gas flow rate, and h is the thickness of the

reservoir.

52
 As shown in Equations (4-6), (4-7) and (4-8), the equations are non-linear due to the

properties of gas. In order to linearize the equations, pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time are

applied here.

(4-12)

(4-13)

(4-14)

(4-15)

(4-16)

(4-17)

where is pseudo-pressure, is pseudo-time, is the total compressibility.

Applying the definitions of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time to Equations (4-6), (4-7),

and (4-8), the partial differential equations can be written as follows:

(4-18)

(4-19)

(4-20)

53
 After transformations of pseudo-time and pseudo-pressure, the partial differential

equations for three flow regions should be considered as a whole in order to obtain the

solutions of the mathematical model. A uniform expression of pseudo-time needs to be

adopted instead of three different pseudo-time expressions. Xiao and Zhao (2013)

demonstrates the detailed process of using a pseudo-time form to represent another one in

a two-region radial composite reservoir model. Acosta and Ambastha (1994) provides

more information about uniform expression for a multi-region reservoir model. Based on

their work, the following forms under the conditions in terms of two-phase pseudo-

variables are obtained:

(4-21)

(4-22)

(4-23)

4.3 Relative Permeability Model

The oil/gas relative permeability , are functions of pressure (Section 2.2.3). The

gas/oil relative permeability data are calculated by the Corey power-law relationship

(Corey, 1954; Brooks and Corey, 1966; Ali et al., 1997). The relative permeability curves

that only contain gas and oil phases are shown in Figure 4.2.

(4-24)

(4-25)

54
Figure 4.2 Gas & Oil relative permeability curves ( )

55
where and are maximum relative permeability for oil and gas, respectively, is

oil residual saturation, is gas critical saturation, is water critical saturation, and

are exponents ranging from 1 to 6.

In near-wellbore regions, there is a phenomenon that oil saturation decreases and gas

relative permeability increases due to low interfacial tensions at high gas flow rates

(Gondouin et al., 1967). This is caused by the high capillary number, and is also called

positive coupling (Boom et al., 1995; Henderson et al., 2000). The definition of

capillary number that is the ratio of viscous to capillary force is given by (Moore and

Slobod, 1955):

(4-26)

The method of which gas relative permeability depends on capillary number is

proposed as (Whitson et al., 1999):

(4-27)

(4-28)

(4-29)

The inertial high velocity gas flow in gas condensate reservoirs is one source of

additional pressure drop. On the basis of the Forchheimer equation, the non-Darcy factor

is shown (Forchheimer, 1901; Whitson et al., 1999):

(4-30)

56
 (4-31)

where is the immiscibility factor, is immiscible gas relative permeability, is

miscible gas relative permeability, is the non-Darcy factor, is the Forchheimer

constant, is the effective Forchheimer constant, is gas mass density, and is the

Darcy velocity of the gas phase.

4.4 Analytical Solution

Through the application of pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time, the non-linear partial

differential equations are transformed into linear ones. Region 1 is used as the reference

region here. The dimensionless equations can be written as:

(4-32)

(4-33)

(4-34)

where is dimensionless pseudo-pressure, is dimensionless pseudo-time, is the

dimensionless radius, is the diffusivity ratio (Zhao and Thompson, 2002).

(4-35)

(4-36)

The diffusivity ratio can be derived from the transmissibility ratio and storability

ratio .

57
 (4-37)

(4-38)

The expression of the transmissibility ratio and storability ratio are shown as

follows:

(4-39)

(4-40)

(4-41)

(4-42)

After the Laplace transformation, the general solutions for each region are given by:

(4-43)

(4-44)

(4-45)

where is the Laplace variable.

For calculating the transmissibility and storability ratios, it is reasonable to find a

pressure that presents a region.

For example, assuming the initial reservoir pressure is 4000 psi and the dew point

pressure is 3500 psi, the area where the pressure is above the dew point pressure in the

reservoir is Region 3. The pressure range of integration for pseudo-pressure is 3500 -

4000. It is easy to find a pressure to represent the whole pressure range. In another

58
method, the integration can be calculated under the same reasonable pressure range for

each region (100 psi).

Based on the flowing equations and boundary conditions, the analytical solution for

the three-region model can be obtained:

(4-46)

When , the bottomhole pressure can be calculated.

59
 CHAPTER 5 SEMI-ANALYTICAL MODELING

5.1 Mathematical Formulations of Semi-analytical Model

Zeng and Zhao (2008) have developed a semi-analytical model to quantify the

transient pressure behavior of vertical wells with non-Darcy flow in the reservoir. This

semi-analytical model is also applied to evaluate the early-period SAGD by interpreting

the temperature falloff data (Zhu et al., 2012). A semi-analytical model is built on the

basis of the three-region model to evaluate the performance of gas condensate reservoirs.

The whole reservoir is divided into many sub-segments (Figure 5.1). The

mathematical model for sub-segment , , can be written as (Zeng and Zhao,

2008):

(5-1)

where is the Laplace variable in sub-segment , and are inner and outer

boundary radii for sub-segment , is the dimensionless pseudo-pressure for sub-

segment and is the dimensionless flow rate in region i.

The analytical solution in the Laplace domain for segment is:

(5-2)

Applying the boundary conditions (5-1) helps generate the coefficients, and .

Then, the dimensionless pseudo-pressure in sub-segment can be written as a linear

60
equation in terms of flow rates on the boundaries of every sub-segment (Zeng and Zhao,

2008):

(5-3)

where and are combinations of the Bessel functions of the local Laplace variable.

Combining all sub-segments generates a linear tri-diagonal system.

(5-4)

A1,1 A1, 2
A A2, 2 A2,3
2,1


A (5-5)


An 1,n 2 An 1,n 1 An 1,n
An ,n 1 An ,n

B1,1
B
1, 2


B (5-6)


B1,n 1
B
1,n

and

61
 C1
C
2


C (5-7)


C n 1
C
n

are functions of time and radius, represent flow rates and is the residual.

62
Figure 5.1 Schematic of a radial semi-analytical model

63
5.2 Results and Discussion

The semi-analytical model for a single well has been programmed. The basic

procedure is to calculate variables in the Laplace Domain, then apply the Stehfest

inversion algorithm to transform the variables into real domains (Stehfest, 1970). The

type curves generated by the semi-analytical model are in dimensionless form responding

to the pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time. The transmissibility and storability ratios, which

are defined in Chapter 4, are used to characterize the differences among the three regions.

In order to match the type curves generated by this model, testing data from the field

need to be transformed into dimensionless pseudo-pressure and dimensionless pseudo-

time. The following analysis aims to examine the effects of the inner boundary between

Regions 1 and 2, the outer boundary between Regions 2 and 3, permeability, total

compressibility, numbers of sub-segments and flow rate distribution in the reservoir.

64
5.2.1 Model validation

No direct validation of the semi-analytical model is available due to the lack of field

data. Here the commercial software Kappa Ecrin 4.12 is used for model validation

because it can provide an accurate analytical solution for a homogeneous model and a

two-region radial composite model. The number of the semi-analytical sub-segments is

80 and the dimensionless radius (rD) of every sub-segment is 10 (This can guarantee the

appearance of radial flow in the known dimensionless time). When ordering the

transmissibility ratio , the diffusivity ratios ( and ) are assumed

to be equivalent to the mobility ratio while the stability ratio . Then the

three-region model will become a homogeneous model. The dimensionless pseudo-

pressure and dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative generated from the semi-

analytical model are compared with those generated from Kappa.

Figure 5.2 shows that both the pressure and pressure derivative curves give a good

match. When , , , , and the diffusivity ratios

and are both equal to 0.5, the pressure and pressure derivative curves are also

identical (Figure 5.3). Figures 5.2 and 5.3 illustrate that the semi-analytical model has

accurate well performance compared with Kappa. For Figure 5.4, the dimensionless

pseudo-pressure and dimensionless pseudo-time are transformed into the values of

pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time. Then, the real pressure and real time are calculated

from the pseudo-pressure and pseudo-time directly. Figure 5.4 shows that the

comparison of real pressure is almost the same, proving that the pseudo-pressure and

pseudo-time in the semi-analytical model are accurate and reasonable. The identical

65
results have validated this semi-analytical model built on the basis of the three-region

model.

66
 10
CT21=1, CT31=1

Dimensionless Pseudo-pressure and Deirvative

CS21=1, CS31=1
rD1=100, rD2=400

Semi-analytical mD
Semi-analytical dmD
Kappa mD
Kappa dmD
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Dimensionless Time

Figure 5.2 Comparison of dimensionless pseudo-pressure and dimensionless pseudo-

pressure derivative from semi-analytical model and Kappa

67
 10

CT21=0.5,
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure and derivative CT31=0.5
CS21=1, CS31=1

Semi-analytical mD

Semi-analytical dmD

Kappa mD

Kappa dmD
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.3 Comparison of dimensionless pseudo-pressure and dimensionless pseudo-

pressure derivative from semi-analytical model and Kappa

68
 2000

1900

1800

1700

1600
Pressure, psi

1500

1400

1300
Semi-analytical
1200

Kappa
1100

1000
0.000001 0.0001 0.01 1 100
Time, hour

Figure 5.4 Comparison of pressure from pseudo-pressure between semi-analytical

model and Kappa

69
5.2.2 Effect of boundary

In a gas condensate reservoir, the radius of each region determines the drainage and

has a direct effect on the transient pressure responses of well testing. Figure 5.5 and 5.6

show the dimensionless pseudo-pressures and dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivatives

of different radii of the boundary between Regions 1 and 2 (rD1) while the boundary

between Regions 2 and 3 (rD2) is constant. The number of semi-analytical sub-segments

is 80 and the dimensionless radius (rD) of every sub-segment is 10 (This can guarantee

the appearance of radial flow in the known dimensionless time).The parameters of each

region are assigned to be: , , , , which causes

different deliverability of each region. In Figure 5.5, the dimensionless pseudo-pressure

curves are different from each other due to the change of rD2. Smaller values of rD2 result

in higher dimensionless pseudo-pressure, which means that more pressure drops in the

reservoir. This is because the transmissibility in Region 1 is better than those of Regions

2 and 3, which means fluids flow less easily in Regions 2 and 3. Figure 5.6 demonstrates

that the effects of different values of rD1 on three dimensionless pseudo-pressure

derivative curves are obvious. Significant variances appear after the pressure disturbance

reaches the Region 2 on the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves and three

dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative curves become the same at late time because

the value of rD2 is constant. The value of the boundary between Regions 1 and 2 can

affect the pressure responses.

70
 100

CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
CS21=1, CS31=1
rD2=700
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure

10

rD1=100
rD1=300
rD1=500
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.5 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves for different radii of boundary

between Regions 1 and 2

71
 10

CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
CS21=1, CS31=1
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative

rD2=700

rD1=100

rD1=300

rD1=500
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.6 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative curves for different radii of

boundary between Regions 1 and 2

72
 Figures 5.7 and 5.8 show the dimensionless pseudo-pressures and dimensionless

pseudo-pressure derivatives of different radii of the boundary between Regions 2 and 3

(rD2) while the boundary between Regions 1 and 2 (rD1) is constant. The number of semi-

analytical sub-segments is 80 and the dimensionless radius (rD) of every sub-segment is

10 (This can guarantee the appearance of radial flow in the known dimensionless time).

The parameters of each region are assigned as , , ,

, which causes different deliverability of each region. In Figure 5.7, smaller

values of rD1 result in higher dimensionless pseudo-pressure, which means that more

pressure falls in the reservoir. This is because the transmissibility in Region 1 is better

than those of Regions 2 and 3, indicating fluids flow less easily in Regions 2 and 3.

Figure 5.8 demonstrates that the effects of different values of rD2 on three dimensionless

pseudo-pressure derivative curves are obvious. Significant variances appear after the

pressure disturbance reaches Region 2 on the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves,

while three dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative curves become the same at later

time because the value of rD1 is constant.

On the basis of Figure 5.4 - 5.8, the boundary between Regions 1 and 2 (rD1) and the

boundary between Regions 2 and 3 (rD2) have significant effects on pressure responses.

73
 100

CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
CS21=1, CS31=1
rD1=100
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure

10

rD2=300
rD2=500
rD2=700
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.7 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves for different radii of boundary

between Regions 2 and 3

74
 10

CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
CS21=1, CS31=1
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative

rD1=100

rD2=300
rD2=500
rD2=700
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.8 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative curves for different radii of

boundary between Regions 2 and 3

75
5.2.3 Effect of transmissibility ratio

The differences between each region in a gas condensate reservoir are in terms of

transmissibility ratios and storability ratios. The effects of transmissibility are discussed

here. The transmissibility ratio includes three parameters: permeability ratio, viscosity

ratio and reservoir thickness. Generally, the thickness of a reservoir is considered to be

constant. The permeability ratio is positively correlated to the transmissibility ratio and

the viscosity is negatively correlated to the transmissibility ratio on the basis of the

definitions in Chapter 4.

The number of semi-analytical sub-segments is 80 and the dimensionless radius (rD) of

every sub-segment is 10 (This can guarantee the appearance of radial flow in the known

dimensionless time). The storability ratios are equal to 1 ( , ). The

values of the boundaries between Regions 1 and 2 (rD1) and between Regions 2 and 3 (rD2)

are constant.

In Figure 5.9, the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves vary from each other due to

different values of transmissibility between Regions 1 and 2 (CT21). The larger value of

CT21 leads to a larger pressure drop. This is because the transmissibility in Region 1 is

better than that of Region 2, which means fluids flow less easily in Region 2. Finally, the

slopes of the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves are the same due to the fact the fluid

flow ability in Region 3 is the same as the others. Figure 5.10 shows total differences on

pseudo-pressure derivative curves in the area of Region 2, which are caused by the

transmissibility ratios. A larger distinction between Regions 1 and 2 will result in a larger

variance. When pressure disturbance reaches the boundary between Regions 2 and 3, the

pseudo-pressure derivative curves gradually become the same line with the value of 0.5,

76
which means they reach radial flow. This is because the transmissibility ratios between

Regions 1 and 3 are the same for these cases.

77
 100

CT31=1,CS21=1, CS31=1
rD1=100, rD2=400

10
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure

1
CT21=5
CT21=2
CT21=1
CT21=0.5
CT21=0.2
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimesionless time

Figure 5.9 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different transmissibility

ratios

78
 10
CT21=5
CT31=1, CS21=1, CS31=1 CT21=2
rD1=100 ,rD2=400 CT21=1
CT21=0.5
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative

CT21=0.2

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.10 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative responses for different

transmissibility ratios

79
 For Figures 5.11 and 5.12, the transmissibility between Regions 1 and 2 is kept

constant (CT21=0.5) for three different values of the transmissibility between Regions 1

and 3. Another case is the homogenous reservoir (CT21=1, CT31=1), which is used as the

standard. In Figure 5.11, three different regions can be identified clearly from the

dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves. The first distinction on the dimensionless pseudo-

pressure curves in Figure 5.11 can be used to identify the existence of Region 2. The

second distinction among the three dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves (CT21=0.5) in

Figure 5.11 is caused by the different transmissibility ratios between Regions 1 and 3. As

in Figure 5.11, the larger value of transmissibility between Regions 1 and 3 (CT31) leads

to a larger pressure drop. Figure 5.12 also reflects the differences of each region. When

pressure disturbance reaches the boundary between Regions 1 and 2 (rD1), the standard

case (CT21=1, CT31=1) can be classified from three other cases due to the different

transmissibility ratios. Then, the distinction appears when the pressure disturbance

reaches the boundary between Regions 2 and 3 (rD2) due to different transmissibility

ratios (CT31) in Figure 5.12. Finally, radial flow appears for every pseudo-pressure

derivative curve.

80
 100

CS21=1, CS31=1
rD1=100, rD2=400
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure

10

1
CT21=0.5, CT31=1
CT21=0.5, CT31=0.5
CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
CT21=1, CT31=1
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.11 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different transmissibility

ratios

81
 10

CS21=1, CS31=1
rD1=100, rD2=400
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure

CT21=0.5, CT31=1
CT21=0.5, CT31=0.5
CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
CT21=1, CT31=1
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.12 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative responses for different

transmissibility ratios

82
5.2.4 Effect of storability ratio

The storability ratio is the other part that forms the diffusivity ratio. Based on the

definitions in Chapter 4, the storability ratio includes the initial porosity ratio, the total

compressibility ratio, and the reservoir thickness ratio (Equation 4.41 and 4.42). The

reservoir thickness ratios are generally considered to be constant, which means equal to 1.

The initial porosities in Regions 1, 2 and 3 are different due to the condensate dropping

out from the gas. And the total compressibility of every region is different from the others.

As a result, the storability ratio is positively correlated to the total compressibility ratio

and the initial porosity ratio. As shown in Figure 3.8, different compositions for the gas

condensate system lead to different values of total compressibility corresponding to

pressure. Due to the fact that the storability ratio is negatively correlated to the diffusivity

ratio, the total compressibility has a direct effect on the diffusivity ratio.

For Figures 5.13 and 5.14, the number of semi-analytical sub-segments is 80 and the

dimensionless radius (rD) of every sub-segment is 25 (This can guarantee the appearance

of radial flow in the known dimensionless time). The transmissibility ratios are assumed

to be constant (CT21=1, CT31=1). In addition, the value of storability between Regions 1

and 3 (CS21) is also equal to 1.

In Figure 5.13, the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves show a small difference in

the area of Region 2, which is caused by the different values of storability ratios for

Region 2. Differences on the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves exist only when the

pressure reaches the boundaries between Regions 1 and 2 (rD1) and between Regions 2

and 3 (rD2). Figure 5.14 shows that larger values of storability ratio between Regions 1

and 2 lead to higher humps when the pressure turbulence reaches Regions 2 and 3. Three

83
dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivatives will finally reach the radial flow after certain

humps. This is because the transmissibility ratios between each region are equal to 1. For

Region 2, the radial flow does not appear because the length of Region 2 is short.

84
 10

CT21=1, CT31=1, CS31=1

rD1=250 ,rD2=1000
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure

Cs21=0.1

Cs21=0.2

Cs21=0.4
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000100000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.13 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different storability ratios

85
 0.9

0.8 CT21=1, CT31=1, CS31=1

rD1=250, rD2=1000
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3 Cs21=0.1

Cs21=0.2
0.2
Cs21=0.4
0.1
0.1 10 1000 100000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.14 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative responses for different

storability ratios

86
 The Figure 5.15 will show the existence of radial flow in Region 2. For Figure 5.15,

the number of semi-analytical sub-segments is 200 and the dimensionless radius (rD) of

every sub-segment is 25 (This can guarantee the appearance of radial flow in the known

dimensionless time). The transmissibility ratios are assumed to be constant (CT21=1,

CT31=1). Figure 5.15 is used to prove that storability ratios have a direct effect on the

humps on the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves. The area of Region 2 should be long

enough to ensure the appearance of radial flow. For the case (CS21=0.8, CS31=1), when

pressure reaches the boundary between Regions 1 and 2 (rD1), a hump appears due to the

difference from the storability ratio (CS21) and then the derivative curve reaches to a value

of 0.5 during the period of the radial flow area due to the same transmissibility (CT21=1).

When the pressure disturbance reaches the boundary between Regions 2 and 3 (r D2),

another hump appears which is opposite to the first hump. This is also caused by the

difference from the storability ratio (CS21=0.8, CS31=1). Finally, the radial flow period is

reached. The other two cases (CS21=1, CS31=1.25 and CS21=0.8, CS31=0.8) can be taken as

the application of two region composite models and be used to validate the results from

the other case (CS21=0.8, CS31=1).

For Figure 5.16, the number of semi-analytical sub-segments is 80 and the

dimensionless radius (rD) of every sub-segment is 10 (This can guarantee the appearance

of radial flow in the known dimensionless time). The transmissibility ratios are assumed

as constant (CT21=1, CT31=1). The storability ratios are also given the same value

(CS21=0.1, CS31=0.1). Figure 5.16 shows that the dimensionless pseudo-pressure

derivative curves are the same for different values of the boundary between Regions 2

and 3 (rD2). There is a hump existing when the pressure disturbance reaches the boundary

87
between Regions 1 and 2 (rD1). The increase of the boundary between Regions 2 and 3

has no effect and no hump appears at the late period. This is because the storability ratios

for Regions 2 and 3 are the same (CS21=0.1, CS31=0.1). This can be used to validate the

semi-analytical model because the transmissibility ratio and storability ratio between

Regions 2 and 3 are totally the same, not affected by the boundary.

88
 1

CT21=1, CT31=1
rD1=125, rD2=4250
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative

Cs21=1, Cs31=1.25
Cs21=0.8, Cs31=0.8
Cs21=0.8, Cs31=1
0.1
1.00E-01 1.00E+001.00E+011.00E+021.00E+031.00E+041.00E+051.00E+061.00E+071.00E+081.00E+09

Dimensionless time

Figure 5.15 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different storability ratios

89
 1

CT21=1, CT31=1
CS21=0.1,CS31=0.1
rD1=100
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative

rD2=200

rD2=400

rD2=600
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000100000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.16 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative responses for different rD2 for

the same value of storability ratios

90
5.2.5 Effect of sub-segment number

The semi-analytical model is based on dividing the whole reservoir into many sub-

segments. This section discusses the effect of the number of sub-segments (N). The

radius of every sub-segment (rD) is corresponding to the sub-segment number. The

chosen number of sub-segments and the radius of every sub-segment can guarantee the

appearance of radial flow in the known dimensionless time. The transmissibility and

storability ratios are assumed to be constant (CS21=1, CS31=1). And another case is

simulated here to be used as the reference.

For Figure 5.17 and Figure 5.18:

Case 1: N=40, rD=20, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25.

Case 2: N=80, rD=10, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25.

Case 3: N=200, rD=4, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25.

Case 4: N=80, rD=10, CT21=1, CT31=0.25.

In Figure 5.17, the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves for Cases 1, 2 and 3 are

totally the same. However, they are different from Case 4, which is used as the standard.

The values of the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves for Cases 1, 2 and 3 are larger

than that of Case 4 due to different transmissibilities. As shown in Figure 5.18, the

dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative curves for Cases 1, 2 and 3 are also the same.

Case 4 is used to identify the existence of Region 2 here because the transmissibility

ratios between Regions 1 and 3 are the same for all cases (CT31=0.25). Based on the

above statements, the numbers of sub-segments have no effect on the pressure responses

calculated from the semi-analytical model.

91
 For Figure 5.19 and Figure 5.20:

Case 1: N=6, rD=10, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25.

Case 2: N=60, rD=1, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25.

Case 3: N=6, rD=1, CT21=1, CT31=1.

Case 4: N=6, rD=1, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.5.

Figures 5.19 and 5.20 are used to examine the effects of the sub-segment number by

application of a smaller sub-segment number and a smaller radius of every sub-segment.

Similar to Figure 5.17, the dimensionless pseudo-pressure curves for Cases 1 and 2 are

the same in Figure 5.19. Cases 3 and 4 show an obvious distinction from Cases 1 and 2

due to different transmissibility ratios. In Figure 5.20, Case 3 reaches the period of

radial flow first and then does Case 4. Cases 1 and 2 are last to reach the radial flow.

Cases 3 and 4 are used to show the existence of Regions 1 and 2 here. On the basis of the

above statements, smaller values for the sub-segment number and corresponding radius

still have no effect on the pressure responses calculated from the semi-analytical model.

On the basis of Figures 5.17 - 5.20, the numbers of sub-segments have no effect on

the pressure responses.

92
100

CS21=1, CS31=1
rD1=100, rD2=400
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure

10

1
N=40, rD=20, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
N=80, rD=10, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
N=200, rD=4, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
N=80, rD=10, CT21=1, CT31=0.25

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.17 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different sub-segment

numbers

93
 10
N=40, rD=20, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
CS21=1, CS31=1
rD1=100, rD2=400 N=80, rD=10, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
N=200, rD=4, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative

N=80, rD=10, CT21=1, CT31=0.25

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.18 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivatives responses for different sub-

segment numbers

94
 100

CS21=1, CS31=1
rD1=10, rD2=30
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure

10

N=6,rD=10,CT21=0.5,CT31=0.25
1
N=60,rD=1,CT21=0.5,CT31=0.25
N=6,rD=10,CT21=1,CT31=1
N=6,rD=10,CT21=0.5,CT31=0.5

0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000100000000
Dimensionless Time

Figure 5.19 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure responses for different sub-segment

numbers

95
 10

CS21=1, CS31=1
rD1=10, rD2=30
Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivative

N=6, rD=10, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25

N=60, rD=1, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.25
N=6, rD=10, CT21=1, CT31=1
N=6, rD=10, CT21=0.5, CT31=0.5
0.1
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000100000000
Dimensionless time

Figure 5.20 Dimensionless pseudo-pressure derivatives responses for different sub-

segment numbers

96
5.2.6 Flow rate profile

Different points located in the reservoir have different pressure drops. For a single

well model, the pressure is decreased at different radii that are not the same as in the area

of pressure disturbance.

For Figure 5.21, the number of the semi-analytical sub-segments is 80 and the

dimensionless radius (rD) of every sub-segment is changing in order to calculate the

dimensionless flow rate profile at different dimensionless times. The transmissibility and

storability ratios are set as: CT21=1, CT31=1, CS21=1, CS31=1. Figure 5.21 shows the

dimensionless flow rate profile for the drawdown test at different dimensionless times.

When the dimensionless time is longer, the area where the flow forms is larger, which

represents the area of pressure disturbance.

For Figure 5.22, the number of semi-analytical sub-segments is 80 and the

dimensionless radius (rD) of every sub-segment is also changing in order to calculate the

dimensionless flow rate profiles for different transmissibility ratios. Figure 5.22 shows

the flow rate profile for different mobility ratios at the same time, illustrating that the

mobility ratio has a great effect on the pressure disturbance spread.

97
 1.00

tD=10
tD=100
0.80
tD=1000
tD=10000
Dimensionless Flow rate

0.60 tD=100000

0.40 CT21=1, CT31=1

CS21=1, CS31=1

0.20

0.00
1 10 100 1000 10000
Dimensionless Radius

Figure 5.21 Dimensionless flow rate profile for the drawdown test at different

dimensionless times

98
 1.00

0.90 M12=M23=0.2
CT21=5, CT31=25
CT21=1, CT31=1
M12=M23=1
0.80 CT21=0.2, CT31=0.04
M12=M23=5
0.70
Dimensionless Flow Rate

0.60

0.50 CS21=1, CS31=1

tD=1000
0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
1 10 100 1000 10000
Dimensionless Radius

Figure 5.22 Dimensionless flow rate profile for different mobility ratios

99
 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

The compositions of gas condensate reservoirs have direct effects on PVT

properties. Liquid volume, compressibility factor and viscosity are affected by

different compositions and heavier components have more significant effects.

A modified definition of total compressibility is proposed for the first time and
total compressibility for four different compositions of gas condensate systems

are performed , which reflect that a small increase of heavier components still

have obvious effects.

A three region radial composite model has been developed semi-analytically to

investigate dynamic performances of an infinite homogeneous retrograde gas

condensate reservoir based on multiple radial composite regions around the

testing well. Pseudo-variables that integrate the pressure dependent properties

have been applied with corresponding to relevant properties of gas.

The total compressibility is an important factor that affects the well testing type

curves for a gas condensate reservoir.

Transmissibility and storability ratios between different regions are the most
important factors to characterize effects of fluid properties on transient pressure

responses.

100
 Different values of the boundaries between three regions determine the well
testing type curves directly with respect to constant values of transmissibility and

storability ratios.

The range of the region should be large enough to prove the effects of storability
ratios between three regions.

The numbers of sub-segments dont affect the transient pressure responses when
other parameters are the same.

With known PVT properties, this model can provide reliable perspectives of

transient pressure analysis in retrograde condensate reservoirs and helps

characterize and estimate the drainage areas in a gas condensate reservoir.

6.2 Recommendations

1) It is necessary to analyze field testing data by the application of the analytical

model and semi-analytical model proposed in the thesis.

2) More laboratory experiments should be conducted to characterize the PVT

properties and measure the permeability of a gas condensate reservoir in details.

3) The semi-analytical model can be extended to describe liquids rich shale reservoirs

by combining source function.

4) Non-Darcy effect should be examined on more field cases.

101
 REFERENCES

Acosta, L.G. and Ambastha, A.K., 1994. Thermal Well Test Analysis Using an

Analytical Multi-Region Composite Reservoir Model. Paper SPE 28422,

presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,

LA, September 25-28.

Agarwal, R.G., 1979. Real Gas Pseudo-Time A New Function of Pressure Buildup of

MHF Gas Wells. SPE Paper 8279, presented at the SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, September 23-26.

Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H., and Crawford, P., 1966. The Flow of Real Gases through

Porous Media. Journal of Petroleum Technology 18(5): 624636. SPE-1243-A-

PA. DOI:10.2118/1243-A-PA.

Al-Hussainy, R., and Ramey, H., 1966. Application of Real Gas Flow Theory to Well

Testing and Deliverability Forecasting. Journal of Petroleum Technology 18(5):

637642. SPE-1243-B-PA. DOI:10.2118/1243-B-PA.

Ali, J.K., McGauley, P.J., and Wilson, C.J., 1997. The Effects of High-Velocity Flow and

PVT Changes near the Wellbore on Condensate Well Performance. Paper SPE

38923, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San

Antonio, Texas, October 5-7.

Al-Ismail, M.I., 2010. Field Observations of Gas-Condensate Well Testing, M.S. Thesis,

Stanford University.

102
Ambastha, A.K., 1988. Pressure Transient Analysis for Composite Systems, Ph.D.

Dissertation, Stanford University.

Ambastha, A.K., and Ramey Jr.H.J., 1989a. Thermal Recovery Well Test Design and

Interpretation. SPE Formation Evaluation 4(2): 173-180. SPE-16746-PA. DOI:

10.2118/16746-PA.

Ambastha, A.K., and Ramey Jr.H.J., 1989b. Effects of a Thin Skin at the Front of

Composite Reservoir Well Tests. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

29(2): 98-104. PESTSOC-90-02-06. DOI:10.2118/90-02-06.

Ambastha, A.K., and Ramey, Jr. H.J., 1992. Pressure Transient Analysis for a Three-

region Composite Reservoir. Paper SPE 24378, presented at the SPE Rocky

Mountain Regional Meeting, Casper, Wyoming, May 18-21.

Behrenbruch, P., and Kozma, G., 1984. Interpretation of Results from Well Testing Gas-

Condensate Reservoirs: Comparison of Theory and Field Cases. Paper SPE

13185, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,

Houston, Texas, September 16-19.

Boe, A., Skjaeveland, S.M., and Whitson, C.H., 1989. Two-phase Pressure Test Analysis.

SPE Formation Evaluation 4(4):604-610. SPE-10224-PA. DOI:10.2118/10224-

PA.

Boom, K., Wit, K., Schulte, A.M., Oedai, S., Zeelenzerg, J.P.W., and Maas, J.G., 1995.

Experimental Evidence for Improved Condensate Mobility at Near-Wellbore

Flow Conditions. Paper SPE 30766, presented at the SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 22-25.

103
Bozorgzadeh, M., and Gringarten, A.C., 2006. Condensate-Bank Characterization from

West Test Data and Fluid PVT. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 9(5):

596-611. SPE-89904-PA. DOI:10.2118/89904-PA.

Brooks, R.H., and Corey, A.T., 1966. Properties of Porous Media Affecting Fluid Flow.

Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proc of ASCE, 92, (IR2), 61-88.

Chu, W.C., and Shank, G.D., 1993. A New Model for a Fractured Well in a Radial,

Composite Reservoir. SPE Formation Evaluation 8(3): 225-232. SPE-20579-PA.

DOI: 10.2118/20579-PA.

Corey, A.T., 1954. The Interrelation between Gas and Oil Relative Permeability.

Producer Monthly 19(11):38-41.

Diamond, P.H., Pressney, R.A., Snyder, D.E. and Seligman, P.R., 1996. Probabilistic

Prediction of Well Performance in a Gas Condensate Reservoir. SPE Paper

36894, presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy,

October 22-24, 1996.

Economides, Michael J., Cikes, M., Pforter, H., Udick, T.H., and Uroda, P., 1989. The

Stimulation of a Tight, Very-High-Temperature Gas-Condensate Well. SPE

Formation Evaluation 4(1): 63-72. SPE-15239-PA. DOI: 10.2118/15239-PA.

Fevang, ., and Whitson, C.H., 1996. Modeling Gas-Condensate Well Deliverability.

SPE Reservoir Engineering 11(4): 221-230. SPE-30714-PA.

DOI:10.2118/30714-PA.

Forchheimer, P.F., 1901. Wasserbewegung durch Boden. Zeitschrift des Vereines

deutscher Ingenieure 45 (5): 1781-1788.

104
Fussel, D.D., 1973. Single Well Performance for Gas-condensate Reservoirs, Journal of

Petroleum Technology 25(7): 860870.DOI:10.2118/4072-PA.

Gondouin, M., Iffly, R., and Husson, J., 1967. An Attempt to Predict the Time

Dependence of Well Deliverability in Gas Condensate Fields. Society of

Petroleum Engineers Journal 7(2):113-124. SPE-1478-PA. DOI: 10.2118/1478-

PA.

Gravier, J.F., Lemouzy, P., Barroux, C., and Abed, A.F., 1986. Determinations of Gas-

Condensate Relative Permeability on the Whole Cores under Reservoir

Conditions. SPE Formation Evaluation 1(1): 9-15. SPE-11493-PA. DOI:

10.2118/11493-PA.

Gringarten, A.C., Al-Lamki, A., Daungkaew, S., Mott, R., and Whittle, T.M., 2000. Well

Test Analysis in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 62920, presented at the

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 1-4.

Heidari, S.M., Shahab, G., 2011. A New Model for Modern Production-Decline Analysis

of Gas/Condensate Reservoirs. Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology

50(7-8). SPE-149709-PA. DOI: 10.2118/149709-PA.

Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., and Al-Kharusi, B., 2000. The relative

significance of Positive Coupling and Inertial Effects on Gas Condensate

Relative Permeabilities at High Velocity. Paper SPE 62933, presented at the

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 1-4.

Horne, R. N., 1995. Modern Well Test Analysis. Petroway, Inc, Palo Alto, CA.

105
Issaka, M.B., and Ambastha, A.K., 1997. An Improved Three-region Composite Model

for Thermal Recovery Well Test Analysis. Paper PETSOC-97-55, presented at

the CIM Annual Technical Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, June 8-11.

Izgec, B., and Barrufet, M.A., 2005. Performance Analysis of Compositional and

Modified Black-Oil Models for a Rich Gas Condensate Reservoir. Paper SPE

93374, presented at SPE Western Regional Meeting, Irvine, CA, March 30

April 1.

Jones, J.R., and Raghavan, R., 1988. Interpretation of Flowing Well Responses in Gas

Condensate Wells. SPE Formation Evaluation 3(3): 578-594. SPE-14204-PA.

DOI: 10.2118/14204-PA.

Kamath, J., 2007. Deliverability of Gas-Condensate Reservoirs Field Experience and

Prediction Techniques. Journal of Petroleum Technology 59(4): 94-99. SPE-

103433-JPT. DOI: 10.2118/103433-JPT.

Kgogo, T.C., and Gringarten, A.C., 2010. Comparative Well-Test Behaviors in Low-

permeability Lean, Medium-rich and Rich Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. Paper

SPE 134452, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,

Florence, Italy, September 19-22.

Kniazeff, V.J., and Naville, S.A., 1965. Two-phase Flow for Volatile Hydrocarbons.

Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal, 5(1): 37-44. SPE-962-PA. DOI:

10.2118/962-PA.

Kool, H., Azari, M., Soliman, M.Y., Proett, M.A., Irani, C.A., and Dybdahl, B., 2001.

Testing of Gas Condensate Reservoirs Sampling, Test Design and Analysis.

106
 Paper SPE 68668, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and

Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia, April 17-19.

Li, F., Billy, W.H., Jamaluddin, A., Kamath, J., Mott, R., Pope, G., Shandrygin, A., and

Whitson, C.H., 2005. Understanding Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. Oilfield

Review 17(4), 12/01/2005.

Marhaendrajana, T., and Kaczorowski, N.J., 1999. Analysis and Interpretation of Well

Test Performance at Arun Field, Indonesia. Paper SPE 56487, presented at the

SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, October 3-6.

Martin, J.C., 1959. Simplified Equations of Flow in Gas Drive Reservoirs and the

Theoretical Foundation of Multiphase Pressure Buildup Analysis. Tran. AIME,

Vol. 216, pp. 309-311.

Mazloom, J., Kelly, R.T., and Mahani, H., 2005. A New Two Phase Pseudo Pressure

Approach for the Interpretation of Gas Condensate Well Test in the Naturally

Fracture Reservoir. Paper SPE 94189, presented at the SPE Europec/EAGE

Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain, June 13-16.

Moore, T.F., and Slobod, R.L., 1955. Displacement of Oil by Water-Effect of Wettability,

Rate, and Viscosity on Recovery. Paper 502 for Fall Meeting of the Petroleum

Branch of AIME, New Orleans, October 2-5.

Muskat, M., 1949. Physical Principle of Oil Production. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc.,

New York.

107
ODell, H.G. and Miller, R.N., 1967. Successfully Cycling a Low-Permeability High

Yield Gas-Condensate Reservoir. Journal of Petroleum Technology 19(1): 4147.

SPE-1495-PA. DOI: 10.2118/1495-PA.

Pedersen, K.S., and Fredenslund, A., 1987. An Improved Corresponding States Model for

the Prediction of Oil and Gas Viscosities and Thermal Conductivities. Chemical

Engineering Science 42(1): 182-186.

Peng, D.Y., and Robinson, D.B., 1976. A New Two-Constant Equation of

State. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Fundamentals 15 (1): 5964.

Penula, G., and Civan, F., 2000. Gas-Condensate Well Test Analysis With and Without

Relative Permeability Curves. Paper SPE 63160, presented at the Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 1-4.

Raghavan, R., Chu, W., and Jones, J., 1995. Practical considerations in the Analysis of

gas condensate well test. SPE Paper 30576, presented at the Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, October 22-25.

Rahman, N.M.A., Kok, L., and Zoaral, K., 2006. A New Method for Computing Pseuo-

Time for Real Gas Flow Using the Material Balance Equation. Journal of

Canada Petroleum Technology 45(10). PETSOC-06-10-03. DOI:10.2118/06-10-

03.

Ramey, Jr.H.J., 1964. Rapid Methods for Estimating Reservoir Compressibilities.

Journal of Petroleum Technology 16(4): 447-454. SPE-772-PA.

DOI:10.2118/772-PA.

108
Roebuck, Jr.I.F., Ford, W.T., Henderson, G.E. and Douglas, J., Jr., 1969. The

Compositional Reservoir Simulator: Case III - The Radial Geometry. SPE Paper

2486.

Roussennac, B., 2001. Gas Condensate Well Test Analysis, M.S. Thesis, Stanford

Universirty.

Stehfest, H., 1970. Numerical Inversion of Laplace Transforms. Communications of the

ACM 13(1): 47-49.

S gnesand, S., 1991. Long-Term Testing of Vertically Fractured Gas Condensate Wells.

SPE Paper 21704, presented at the Production Operations Symposium,

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, April 7-9.

Suwono, S.B., Taufan, M., Bagus, N., Hudya, F.D., and Hendraningrat, L., 2012.

Multiple EOS Fluid Characterization for Modeling Gas Condensate Reservoir

with Different Hydrodynamic System: A Case Study of Senoro Field. SPE Paper

150822, presented at the SPE North Africa Technical Conference and Exhibition,

Cario, Egypt, February 20-22.

Thompson, L.G., Niu, J.G., and Reynolds, A.C., 1993. Well Testing for Gas Condensate

Reservoirs. Paper SPE 25371, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas

Conference and Exhibition, Singapore, February 8-10.

Wall, C.G., 1982. Characterization of Gas-Condensate Reservoirs and Traditional

Production Methods, North Sea Gas-condensate Reservoirs and their

Development, Oyez scientific and technical service, pp. 1-12.

109
Whitson, C.H., 1984. Effect of C7+ Properties on Equation-of State Predictions. Society

of Petroleum Engineers Journal 24(6): 685-696. SPE-11200-PA. DOI:

10.2118/11200-PA.

Whitson, C.H., and Brule, M. R., 2000. Phase Behavior, Chapter 6. Henry L. Doherty

Monograph Series, Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Whitson, C.H., Fevang, P. ., and Savareid, A., 1999. Gas Condensate Relative

Permeability for Well Calculations. Paper SPE 56476, presented at the Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, October 3-6.

Xiao, L., and Zhao, G., Integrated Study of Foamy Oil and Wormhole Structure in

CHOPS through Transient Pressure Analysis. Paper SPE 165538, presented at

the SPE Heavy Oil Conference, Calgary, Canada, June 11-13.

Zeng, F., Zhao, G., 2008. Semi-analytical Model for Reservoirs with Forchheimers

Non-Darcy Flow. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering, 11(2): 280-291.

SPE-100540-PA. DOI:10.2118/100540-PA.

Zhao, G., and Thompson, L.G., 2002. Semianalytical Modeling for Complex Geometry

Reservoirs. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering 5(6): 437-446. SPE-

80409-PA. DOI:10.2118/80409-PA.

Zheng S.Y.., and Marius, N., 2006. A Gas/Condensate Reservoir Productivity Evaluation

and Forecast through Numerical Well Testing. Paper SPE 100345, presented at

the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Vienna, Austria,

June 12-15.

110
Zhu, L., F., Zeng, F., Zhao, G., 2012. A Condensation Temperature Model for Evaluating

Early-period SAGD Performance. Paper SPE 157800, presented at the SPE

Heavy Oil Conference, Calgary, Alberta, June 12-14.

111