Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 24–27 April
2017.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part o f this paper without the written consent of the Society
of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract
must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.
Abstract
Geopressured gas reservoirs materialize as a result of a variety of factors, some of which include the rapid compaction of sand/shale
sequences and the uplift of sediment layers by a salt intrusion. These gas reservoirs are commonly characterized by a significant drop
in formation compressibility owing to the collapse of the rock matrix, and are notorious in the drilling and production industries for
the various problems they cause. This paper reviews the retrograde gas condensate production data presented in SPE-2938 (Duggan,
1972) with modern analysis tools to show that gas condensate banking can cause classic material balance analysis to mimic the shape
of a geopressured gas reservoir.
The condensation of liquid hydrocarbons below the dew-point in a gas reservoir, and the onset of water influx from a leaky fault can
complicate the material balance analysis of these reservoirs and may lead to engineers mistakenly classifying them for what they are
not. Failure to properly classify a gas reservoir may lead to an incorrect estimation of original gas in place (OGIP). Accurate
determination of initial gas in place is of utmost importance in the process of estimating gas reserves. A lower estimation of OGIP or
not accounting for condensate banking in low permeability zones may lead to early abandonment of a gas well or significant loss of
reserves for an operating company.
Results show that proper consideration of the two-phase Z-factor in the material balance calculations calculated via the constant
volume depletion test (CVD) leads to a more accurate determination of gas reserves, in addition, the change in formation
compressibility is shown to be consolidated sandstone as opposed to geopressured rock matrix.
This paper aims to demonstrate a simplified procedure for the flow-after-flow well test of determining the effect of condensate drop-
out within the vicinity of the wellbore as the flowing bottom-hole pressure (BHP) drops below the dew-point pressure. Two-phase
pseudo pressure was calculated from a constant composition expansion (CCE) using Whitson’s Method (Whitson, 1983) for
condensate banking and measured gas composition. The classical Anderson “L” gas reservoir of the Mobil-David field in South Texas
(Duggan, 1972) was chosen as a case study.
Implementation of the proposed procedure will serve as an aid to gas reservoir engineers in properly classifying potential gas
condensate reservoirs.
Introduction
SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972) describes the Anderson “L” consolidated sandstone as being geopressured. The Anderson “L” sand is Frio
in age and its reservoir properties include a porosity of 24%, permeability ranging from 0.7 to 791 mD, an initial gas saturation of
65% and a net gas pay thickness of 75 ft. Moreover, recorded initial BHP was approximately 9,507 psia with a bottom-hole
temperature of 266°F. Table 1 summarizes the remaining reservoir data. Sidewall cores are available from Well-A and Well-B in the
fault block. The cores were taken between a depth of 11,255-11,346 ft from Well-A, and between 11,118-11,166 ft in Well-B. Table#6
(reproduced as Table 2 here) of SPE-2938 summarizes the sidewall core analysis (Duggan, 1972).
The geopressured reservoirs in Texas tend to have a pressure gradient that is far greater than 0.45 psi/ft to prevent normal
compaction processes. We investigated to find evidence of reservoir compaction or surface subsidence, and found no evidence that
the Frio sands were indeed geopressured. There was no evidence of subsidence from compaction of the Frio sands 50 years later (first
production in 1960’s) during the life of the wells in the fault block or the surrounding fault blocks. Looking at the gas production
1 Department of Petroleum Engineering, College of Petroleum Engineering & Geosciences, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals.
2 Corresponding Author (fraim@kfupm.edu.sa).
SPE-187995-MS 2
from surrounding wells shows no production of friable sand from the perforated intervals and many drilling logs show the Frio
formation to be quite strong and competent. The same Frio sand extends all the way to Louisiana, and there exists no evidence of
well subsidence over there as well. The entire 400 km2 of the old seashore did not demonstrate reservoir compaction, which would
translate to surface subsidence. Therefore, we investigated other factors that would give a p/Z curve shape similar to abnormally
pressured reservoirs.
We examined the possibility of mistakenly classifying a reservoir as a geopressured reservoir if the source of the pressure support is
not properly understood. In case of a gas condensate reservoir, several errors compiled into the formation compressibility would
lead to the shape of the p/Z curve to resemble a geopressured reservoir. One of the main errors outlined in this paper is performing
material balance calculations using a single-phase Z-factor correlation below the dew-point of the reservoir when the measured C6+
gas composition is decreasing with time. Using a single-phase Z-factor correlation would not consider the C6+ rich liquid that is
condensing from the gaseous phase as the flowing BHP drops below the dew-point pressure of the gas condensate as highlighted in
SPE-2938’s gas composition versus average reservoir pressure. Gas condensate reservoirs are common in a large part of the world
today. With shale “gas” and shale “volatile oil” production today, it is becoming more of a necessity to understand how to properly
record composition, rate and pressure data for retrograde gas condensate reservoirs.
From numerical simulation results, the following three factors could give a p/Z curve shape similar to an abnormally pressured
reservoir:
Liquid drop-out within the vicinity of the wellbore (also known as condensate banking).
Well interference from other production wells in the fault block.
Liquid level and crossflow between layers during shut-in of well.
The gas compressibility correction factor, more commonly known as the Z-factor, is essential for estimating the initial gas reserves
using the p/Z plots. The utilization of the two-phase Z-factor is important to account for the energy loss by the liquid drop-out that
occurs in the reservoir. Two-phase Z-factor provides a more accurate estimation of initial gas in place for analyzing cumulative gas
production below the dew-point from a gas condensate reservoir. The two-phase Z-factor is normally determined from a CVD test
performed in the laboratory. However, to account for layering and build-up test conditions, a compositional simulator package is
used to history match the complete rate, composition, and pressure data. Compositional simulation was not available to Duggan at
the time of writing SPE-2938.
The difficulty in dealing with gas condensate reservoirs occurs when the liquid that has dropped out of the gaseous phase forms a
condensate bank around the wellbore. This phenomenon influences the relative permeability of the gas phases and leads to a
reduction of gas relative permeability in the condensate bank. Furthermore, the liquid condensate (water and hydrocarbon) will
increase the hydrostatic gradient and friction pressure gradient and reduce gas flow rate over time. In fact, continual reduction of
the pressure will lead to condensate accumulating in the bottom portion of the production tubing. This phenomenon, called liquid
hold-up, will lead to the gas well logging-off if excessive condensate accumulates. Eventually, at some average reservoir pressure,
the gas flow rate will drop below the minimum lift velocity, causing permanent abandonment of a gas well.
This paper aims to demonstrate a simplified procedure of accounting for the effect of the condensate bank within the vicinity of the
wellbore as the flowing BHP drops below the dew-point pressure. The Computer Modelling Group (CMG)’s WinProp module was
utilized to simulate a CVD as well as a CCE. Two-phase pseudo pressure was calculated using Whitson’s Method (Whitson, 1983)
for condensate banking and gas compositions available in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972).
Methodology
A CVD was simulated by use of the CMG-WinProp module. The liquid drop-out curve was then extracted and plotted and maximum
liquid drop-out noted. The static and flowing BHPs were calculated by use of the average temperature and Z-factor method, outlined
in the Gas Reservoir Engineering textbook (Lee & Wattenbarger, 1996), modified according to the static and flowing temperature
profiles presented in Figure 5. The material balance p/Z analysis was conducted using three different methods for calculating the Z-
factor. Next, the gas pseudo pressure function proposed by Al-Hussainy et al. (Al-Hussainy, Ramey, & Crawford, 1966) was
evaluated and used to re-plot the flow-after-flow curves presented in SPE-2938. The reservoir was re-constructed by use of the CMG-
Builder module and forecasted to abandonment in 1977. Lastly, the drawdown and build-up well tests were replicated with
numerical simulation to determine what Duggan would have done to estimate average reservoir pressure. Build-up tests were
analyzed and the middle time region extrapolated to average reservoir pressure and compared to the average reservoir pressure
obtained from the model. The results confirmed that the extrapolated average reservoir pressure does indeed curve down, below the
dew-point pressure.
Since this paper was very old, our first approximation was to look at modern offset production gas analysis in the area, but we found
SPE-187995-MS 3
gas compositions after production below dew-point because we noticed the API gravity of the condensate had already started to
increase with time. We at least estimated a Whitson’s characterization factor of 11.8 from the produced API gravity and molecular
weight of the C7+ fraction. The next approximation was to match the trend of the C6+ in the produced gas composition versus average
reservoir pressure for the CVD test. Then, to improve the match we looked at a three-layer radial model to better approximate the
two pseudo components to represent the C7+ fraction. The analogy used was based on Whitson’s method on characterization factor,
Kw, of C7+ fractions (Whitson, 1983). The Whitson characterization factor used was approximately 11.5 for C7+ to match the liquid
drop-out in the field production. The final two pseudo components were C10 and C14 with approximately one paraffin ring to match
the API trend of the produced condensate, the dew-point and the maximum liquid drop-out volume ratio.
The CVD results were validated by using the initial composition from the paper to run the CVD test. The dew-point and liquid drop-
out volume ratio were matched as well by altering the hydrocarbon-hydrocarbon (HC-HC) interaction coefficient from the heavier
pseudo components that were utilized until the methane component CH4. The molecular weights of these components helped to
match the parameters within reasonable tolerance. Finally, the pressure stops that were used were obtained from SPE-2938, then a
normal CVD test (500 psia increments) was conducted from the final recorded pressure of 3247 psia to 500 psia. The pressure stops
were used to check the data and ensure everything was running smoothly. Table 4 outlines the results of the CVD test. Moreover,
Figure 2 shows a comparison of the CVD results against the wellstream analysis data presented in Table 3. The initial scatter in well
stream composition is due to taking samples from Well-A (down-dip) and Well-B (up-dip) in the reservoir and the scatter later in the
well life is due to flow from layers with different depletion levels as determined from the numerical simulation of the reservoir.
Note, for hot deep wells the produced water vapor (1-4%) in the natural gas is generated from the near wellbore volume. Therefore,
as the water saturation is reduced near wellbore, the liquid condensate replaces the liquid volume for flowing pressures below dew-
point. As shown in Figure 4, the gas/liquid relative permeability ratio is not affected by the loss of initial brine saturation during the
core experiment for both Knopp (Knopp, 1965) data set and our data set. From numerical simulation runs, we determined that the
relevant range of the curve was for gas saturations greater than 50%. As time progresses, the heavy components in the liquid will be
attracted to the pore surface and there will be shift in wettability towards oil-wet, which in turn, reduces gas relative permeability.
Numerical simulation showed that the CVD liquid drop-out volumetric ratio follows the krgµo/kroµg ratio and saturation beyond
average reservoir pressure to pressure at the boundary. Therefore, the CVD results were used in the material balance analysis and
are discussed below. We also found the CCE liquid drop-out volumetric ratio follows the krgµo/kroµg ratio and saturation between
wellbore pressure and the average reservoir pressure. This is an important point, because it allows estimation of the condensate bank
areal extent around the wellbore.
The calculation of static BHP was adopted from Lee and Wattenbarger’s SPE Gas Reservoir Engineering textbook (Lee &
Wattenbarger, 1996). The average temperature and Z-factor method for BHFP calculations assumes that the Z-factor and the
temperature can be represented with an average value calculated at the average of surface temperature and BHT and surface pressure
and BHP. With this assumption, Eq. 4.25 in the textbook is rearranged to yield:
2
53.34 𝑇𝑍 6.67 × 10−4 𝑓 𝑇𝑍 2
𝑑𝑝 = − [cos 𝜃 + ( ) (𝑞𝑔 ) ] 𝑑𝐿 (1)
𝛾𝑔 𝑝 𝑑5 𝑝
Further, if we multiply the numerator and denominator on the left side by p2 and apply the limits of integration, we have:
𝑝𝑡𝑓 𝐿
𝑝𝑑𝑝 𝛾𝑔
∫ =− ∫ cos 𝜃 𝑑𝐿
2 2
6.67 × 10−4 𝑓𝑇 𝑍 𝑞𝑔2 53.34𝑇𝑍 (2)
𝑝𝑤𝑓 0
[𝑝2 + ]
𝑑5 cos 𝜃
Numerical studies of the right hand side of Eq. (2) showed that assuming average value for average 𝑇𝑍 product was equivalent to
SPE-187995-MS 4
assuming linear change between the integration limits. Numerical studies of the left hand side Eq. (2) showed that assuming linear
2 2
change 𝑇 𝑍 product versus p2 is equivalent to integrating the chord slope between integration points. The integration error ranges
by ±1.5% for the entire well interval, but usually approaches 0 for multi-step integration intervals (3 steps).
Figure 5 below shows the temperature profile that was used in the calculation of the static and flowing BHPs. For a single perforated
interval, static or flowing temperature profile, the following approximate equations were used:
For big deep gas wells, the above methods have less than 3-5% error from surface to bottom hole. For multiple perforated zones, we
assumed temperature profile starts from the top zone. Actual measured temperatures from production logging tool is preferred but
not always available for all production rates and for very low flow rates, it would be better to interpolate between known curves.
Reynolds number (NRe) and the gas production rate were set to zero for calculating the pressure at static conditions. Otherwise, b is
assumed to be 1.1 for first guess of the iteration at each temperature step. The flow equations are acceptable for flow lines unless
there is a low spot for condensate liquid hold-up. Then, a drift flux model can be used on the large diameter pipeline in up-hill
segments.
The shut-in surface tubing pressures tabulated in the paper were used to calculate the static BHP as shown in Figure 6. The shut-in
tubing pressure is usually measured at the wellhead. Therefore, it is assumed accurate. The inside tubing diameter was calculated to
be 2.441 inches, since “2-inch diameter tubing” could not flow the gas to the surface with actual production rates and measured
average reservoir pressure as stated in SPE-2938. The rest of the data is available in Table 1. We feel the initial pressure of 9,507 psia
is from up-dip Well-B as defined in SPE-2938. The calculated pressure of 9,555 psia is for down-dip Well-A in the middle of the zone.
Note, from Table 7 the error in calculated shut-in pressure exceeds 1% when the flowing BHP falls below dew-point pressure. We
could not verify if the author reported both Well-A and B in the test data table. The average gas rate would not be representative if
the well rate had been increased to meet peak demand in summer or winter, which would temporarily drop the BHP below dew-
point.
Both surface and flowing BHPs were not presented in the paper. The flowing BHP can be used to match history or forecast future
production. Moreover, the flowing BHP equation can also be used to determine when the well will log-off due to excessive liquid
hold-up. We estimated that during the shut-in, approximately 200 ft of liquid condensate would collect in the bottom of the well.
The drop of liquid can temporarily increase BHP until the liquid bleeds off into the formation.
The well drawdown pressure above dew-point was assumed to be 20% as stated in SPE-2938, subsequent runs matched the
production. 1,000 psi surface line pressure was assumed below the dew-point as stated in SPE-2938. After 1970, surface line pressure
was reduced to 700 psi according to SPE-2938 (compression was installed to prevent the gas wells from logging off).
SPE-187995-MS 5
The gas production rate for Well-A was calculated by taking 2/5th of the delta cumulative gas production divided by the time step
size, since Well-A cumulative production was approximately 2/5th of the total field production as stated in SPE-2938.
In order to calculate the Z-factor, we used the HAY-EOS (1973), which is close to the Peng-Robinson (Peng & Robinson, 1976) from
CMG-WinProp. HAY-EOS is recommended in the literature for high pressure high temperature (HPHT) gas condensate reservoirs
(Blasingame and Rushing, 2005). The literature also shows HAY-EOS to be better for estimating the Z-factor for deep gas condensate
with water vapor. The p/Zs were plotted against the cumulative gas production tabulated in SPE-2938.
Figure 7 shows the plot of p/Z vs. Gp with no corrections and the extrapolation is made using the Gp2 estimation technique
(Blasingame & Rushing, 2005). The p/Z curve has the classic shape of an abnormally pressured reservoir with high formation
compressibility. Note that Blasingame’s method is an accurate estimation of original gas in place (OGIP) that brackets our
actual simulation match OGIP of 72,400 MMcf. Assuming initial gas composition for Z factor calculation will generally slightly
over estimate OGIP and assuming variable composition and two-phase Z factors will slightly underestimate the OGIP as
compared to the numerical simulation match. The initial formation compressibility to “straighten” the p/Z curve is
approximately five times the core compressibility in Yale et al.’s data set.
Figure 8 shows the plot of p/Z with the Ramagost correction vs. Gp using Eq. (7). All Z factor calculation methods under
estimate the OGIP as compared to the numerical simulation match.
𝑝 𝑝 (𝑆𝑤𝑖 𝑐𝑤 + 𝑐𝑓 )(Δ𝑝)
= ( )
𝑍 𝑍 1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑖 (7)
Figure 9 shows the p/Z plot constructed with the modified Ramagost correction [Eq. (8)] vs. Gp. This method considers the
change in formation compressibility using the chord slope method that has been outlined by Yale et al. (Yale, Nabor, Russell,
Pham, & Yousef, 1993). The formation compressibility function was picked from Yale et al., which is what is quoted in the SPE
Gas Reservoir Engineering textbook (Lee & Wattenbarger, 1996) for the Frio sands. This estimation method provides the best
fit of the data and the two-phase Z factor calculation from the CVD test estimates the OGIP closest to the numerical model
match. Even though a good match of the recorded data in SPE-2938 was generated, we still needed to answer why the initial
formation compressibility factor was twice the core compressibility factor.
𝑑𝑐𝑓
(𝑆𝑤𝑖 𝑐𝑤 + (𝑐𝑓 + Δ𝑝 )) Δ𝑝
𝑝 𝑝 𝑑𝑝
= (8)
𝑍 𝑍 1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑖
( )
The Al-Hussainy, Ramey, Crawford solution technique was used to calculate the real gas pseudo pressure. In their methodology, the
authors tried to linearize the basic flow equation, using the following version of the Kirchhoff integral transformation (Al-Hussainy,
Ramey, & Crawford, 1966):
SPE-187995-MS 6
𝑝
𝑝
𝑀(𝑝) = 2 ∫ 𝑑𝑝 (9)
𝜇𝑍
𝑝𝑜
The limits of integration are between a base pressure, po, and the pressure of interest, p. The value of the base pressure is arbitrary
since in using the transformation only differences in pseudo pressures are considered. Figure 10 shows pseudo pressure plot for the
three different Z factor assumptions (initial composition, variable composition and two-phase Z factor).
Eq. (10) shows the Fevang and Whitson (Fevang & Whitson, 1996) real gas pseudo pressure function. Note, the limits of integration
have changed to flowing BHP, pwf, and average reservoir pressure, 𝑝̅ . The integration becomes a radial or linear composite when the
BHP falls below the dew-point in the wellbore and in the fracture.
𝑝̅
𝜌𝑜 𝑘𝑟𝑜 𝜌𝑔 𝑘𝑟𝑔
𝑀(𝑝) = 2 ∫ ( + ) 𝑑𝑝 (10)
𝜇𝑜 𝑍𝑜 𝜇𝑔 𝑍𝑔
𝑝𝑤𝑓
It is advantageous to express all flow equations in terms of these pseudo pressures rather than in the p2 formulation of Russell and
Goodrich (Russell, Goodrich, Perry, & Bruskotter, 1966). However, theoretically it is more difficult and generally engineers feel more
comfortable dealing the p2 rather than an integral transformation.
Flow-After-Flow Plots
Figure 11 shows the original flow-after-flow tests recorded in the paper that we estimated to be Well-A. It is very difficult to
determine skin factor change or trend from pressure squared representation of the flow-after-flow test data. However, it was the best
available method at the time for estimating the total manifold or field deliverability.
As demonstrated in Figure 12, the collapse of the production curve for Well-A is quite remarkable. The initial or early time flow-after-
flow test shows the effect of drilling fluid invasion that cleans up by the next flow-after-flow test. The last flow-after-flow test shows
some form of skin damage. Using normal capillary pressure curves for sandstone, we could not model any form of water block in
the numerical model of the Frio formation as suggested might be the root cause of permanent damage to the low pressure offset gas
wells in the paper. We also checked the case of bottom water migration, which would cause permanent water block in a gas well
even after swabbing.
CMG-GEM will model precipitation reactions and solid precipitation will permanently block the gas production even after swabbing.
Therefore, we believe the chloride ion content increasing the condensate production as reservoir pressure depletes, as cited in SPE-
2938, would increase the iron ion content in the liquid hold-up brine in carbon steel tubing over six months of exposure. As shown
in the model results below, we think the root cause is the iron ion flash precipitating with the dry salts in the near wellbore region
when the well is shut-in for the annual state required build-up test. There is no way to verify this statement since the wells are
plugged and abandoned, but we could look at a modern near depleted Frio sand gas wells in the area.
The Frio sand package was approximated with three layers based on modern offset logs in the area. The average thickness of 100 ft
was a proportion to 5 ft, 60 ft, and 35 ft for layers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For layer 1, the average horizontal permeability was set to
30 mD around Well-A, 200 mD around Well-B and 90 mD around Well-C, to match the average gas production rate and estimated
surface production pressure. The horizontal permeability for layers 2 and 3 were set to 5 mD and 1.4 mD, respectively, to match the
average formation permeability above the dew-point. The vertical permeability was estimated to be 0.01 times the horizontal
permeability based on shale content of offset logs.
The simulation started when Well-A was drilled in 1966 to abandonment of all three wells in 1977. Figure 14 shows top and cross-
sectional views of the formation of the condensate bank around the wellbores in 1973. It should be noted that the condensate bank
that formed around Well-A was much larger than the ones that formed around Well-B and Well-C. This is due to more gas being
produced below the dew-point in Well-A. This can also be attributed to the effect of well interference within the Anderson “L” fault
block. Initially when Well-A came online the other two wells were yet to be drilled, consequently Well-A did not experience well
interference until a later stage when Well-B came online. This effect can be seen in Figure 14 in the bottom right corner of the
condensate bank that formed around Well-A (top view). Well-B displayed a smaller condensate bank due to interference from Well-
A, whereas Well-C displayed the smallest condensate bank due to interference from both Well-A and Well-B and it produced the
least amount of gas above the dew-point.
The right most column of Figure 14 shows the cross-sectional view of the formation of the condensate bank around the wellbores. It
is apparent that the highest permeability layer (30 mD, 200mD, & 90 mD for Well-A, B, and C, respectively) formed the largest
SPE-187995-MS 7
condensate bank, whereas the lowest permeability layer (1.4 mD) formed the smallest one.
Lastly, the last row of Figure 14 illustrates the water saturation around Well-A. It can be concluded from this result, that the formation
water around the wellbore is vaporizing to supply the water vapor for the natural gas flowing to the wellbore. As the water is
removed from the pore space, it is immediately replaced by the condensate that condensed out of the gaseous hydrocarbon phase.
The long-term occupation of the pore space by the condensate causes the rock matrix to become more oil-wet. When the well is shut-
in, the liquid hold-up on the tubing wall falls to the bottom. As the gas pressure builds up in the wellbore, the liquid is pushed into
the highest permeability layer first. If there is a saturated salt ion such as iron in the brine, it will most likely precipitate as the brine
dissolves the additional salt in the pore space around the near wellbore volume.
Duggan states that water influx flowing from shutting-in the gas well causes permanent productivity loss in offset wells when the
chloride content increases in the brine. We could not numerically replicate this event because the brine would simply evaporate near
wellbore and leave the salt. However, examination of current brine production with current Frio gas wells shows a 30+ ppm iron
ion content. There is a distinct possibility that the iron ion will flash precipitate in the near wellbore volume and permanently plug
the formation where no gas would be produced even when the well is swab to remove the liquid level and vented to atmosphere as
stated in SPE-2938. We reason this is the most likely cause of the permanent skin damage when 28,000+ TDS brine is flush into the
reservoir versus the fresh water condensate measured in the early life of the gas well.
The analytical material balance p/Z extrapolation of the individual wells leads to three different OGIP for each respective well. The
OGIP of all three wells along with the sum of all three have been reported in Figure 15. It should be noted that the summation of the
OGIPs from each of the three wells does not add up the actual model OGIP. This is due to well interference, from the other producing
wells within the vicinity, masking the contribution of the low permeability layer (1.4 mD) during the build-up. When one of the wells
is shut-in for a build-up test, the other well’s drainage area would begin to expand in the highest permeability layer and counter the
pressure increase of the shut-in well for the lowest permeability layer. This phenomenon would not allow the build-up to extrapolate
to the correct average reservoir pressure, and hence the material balance p/Z extrapolation would not extrapolate to the correct OGIP
for the entire field. Moreover, we also determined that Well-A’s p/Z curve did change slope when the other wells were put on
production. Therefore, when Duggan added the production from the total field to Well-A, it looks like a change in formation
compressibility as discussed in the previous section.
The flow-after-flow below dew-point rises above the single-phase flow-after-flow curve due to the extra skin effect of the liquid
saturation. The Whitson approximation cannot account for the transient saturation around the wellbore; therefore, it appears as if
we have an extra skin. The Whitson approximation is designed for stabilized production. The stabilized production curve falls below
the flow-after-flow curve due to using the radial extrapolated average reservoir pressure as well.
The reason for plotting the flow-after-flow model results with the radial extrapolated average reservoir pressure, is because this
information is generally available to the operator for individual well analysis. The average reservoir pressure determined for the
drainage area of the well usually needs to be calculated with numerical reservoir modelling.
We showed two additional curve for production below the dew-point. The steepest slope is formed when the BHP is near the
maximum liquid drop-out pressure, which would generate the maximum liquid saturation around the wellbore. The second curve
is shown for production below the maximum liquid drop-out pressure where some of the liquid would re-vaporize into the gaseous
phase as it approaches the wellbore (refer to Figure 3). This, in turn, reduces the slope of the radial extrapolation line.
For this radial composite case, there is a second middle time region that represents the permeability beyond the condensate bank.
SPE-187995-MS 8
The second line can provide a more accurate extrapolation to the actual reservoir pressure. However, due to boundary effects and
well interference the second radial flow region may not have enough points to provide an accurate radial extrapolation.
A pressure transient analysis (PTA) package can be used to solve this problem. However, this brings us back to numerically
modelling the entire reservoir.
Conclusions
We conclude that the reservoir was not an abnormally pressured reservoir due to the following three reasons:
Model results show pressure interference and layering effects. The model results were history matched using the core
formation compressibility given by Yale et al. (Yale, Nabor, Russell, Pham, & Yousef, 1993).
Condensate bank effects mask the true curve shape for all wells. Moreover, it decreases average reservoir pressure
estimation.
The radial composite flow effectively adds an additional skin to the well.
Duggan was using the best available current technology for analysis and most likely could not perform the numerical modelling
available today. We suspect Duggan did not include the effects of well interference on the p/Z curves or the liquid drop-out as
flowing BHP drops below the dew-point pressure. The calculation may have been too coarse with the slide rule/adding machine at
the time. As a result, all errors were put into the formation compressibility, and thus this lead him to classify the reservoir as an
abnormally pressured reservoir according to the guidelines that were available at the time.
Nomenclature
BHFP: bottom-hole flowing pressure, psia qg: gas flow rate, MMcf/day
BHP: bottom-hole pressure, psia r: radius, ft
BHT: bottom-hole temperature, °F rw: wellbore radius, ft
cf: formation compressibility, psi-1 R2: coefficient of determination, dimensionless
cw: water compressibility, psi-1 s: average temp. and Z-factor method parameter
d: tubing diameter, in. Swi: initial water saturation, fraction
f: Moody friction factor, dimensionless t: time, days
Gp: cumulative gas production, MMcf T: temperature, °F
GPM: gallons per thousand SCF of Gas, gal/1000 SCF 𝑇̅: average temperature, °R
kro: oil relative permeability, fraction Tavg: average temperature, °R
krg: gas relative permeability, fraction Ts: surface temperature, °F
Kw: Whitson characterisation factor, dimensionless Tspf: surface produced fluid temperature, °F
L: segment length, ft Ttf: flowing tubing temperature, °F
M(p): gas pseudo function, psia/cP Tts: static tubing temperature, °F
NRe: Reynolds number, dimensionless Tws: static bottom-hole temperature, °F
OGIP: original gas in place, MMcf Z: gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
p: pressure, psia 𝑍̅: average gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
p2: pressure squared, psia2 γg: gas specific gravity, fraction
𝑝̅ : average pressure, psia θ: well deviation angle, radians
pavg: average Pressure, psia ε: absolute pipe-wall roughness, in.
pd: dew-point pressure, psia µ: gas viscosity, cP
po: base pressure, psia µgavg: average gas viscosity, cP
ptf: flowing tubing pressure, psia ρ: fluid density, lbm/ft3
pwf: flowing bottom-hole pressure, psia
Acknowledgements
The authors thank King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals for their permission to present this paper. Moreover, the authors
would like to sincerely thank the entire Natural Gas Engineering class of the Fall 2016 Semester at KFUPM for contributing to the
completion of this work. Thanks goes to Najmudeen Sibaweihi (Lecturer, KFUPM) for conducting a tutorial on CMG-WinProp for
the students, Khalid L. Al-Samadony for initial help in calculation of the gas pseudo pressure function and construction of
temperature profile, and Ahmed Khaled El-Saed for initial help in calculation of static and flowing BHPs. Thanks also goes to Jaber
A. Al-Sheqiqi for help in construction of the reservoir model, and Ahmed Al-Hajari for initial help in matching of drawdown and
build-up tests via Ecrin. Special thanks is due to Sunil Kokal (Principal Consultant, Saudi Aramco) for his valuable feedback. Lastly,
thanks go to CMG for donating their software to the Department of Petroleum Engineering at KFUPM.
SPE-187995-MS 9
References
Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., & Crawford, P. B. (1966). The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 18(5), 624-636. doi:10.2118/1243-A-PA
Blasingame, T. A., & Rushing, J. A. (2005). SPE Eastern Regional Meeting. SPE Eastern Regional Meeting. Morgantown, West
Virginia: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/98042-MS
Carr, N. L., Burrows, D. B., & Kobayashi, R. (1954). Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
6(10), 47-55. doi:10.2118/297-G
Chen, N. H. (1979). An Explicit Equation for Friction Factor in Pipe. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 18(03), 296-
297.
Collins, G. (1975). Chapter 11. Geopressured Reservoirs. Developments in Petroleum Science, 1, 343-365. doi:10.1016/S0376-
7361(08)70204-8
Duggan, J. O. (1972). The Anderson "L" - An Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoir in South Texas. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
24(02), 132-138. doi:10.2118/2938-PA
Fetkovich, M. J. (1980). Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 32(06), 1065-1077.
doi:10.2118/4629-PA
Fevang, Ø., & Whitson, C. H. (1996). Modeling Gas-Condensate Well Deliverability. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 11(04), 221-230.
doi:10.2118/30714-PA
Hall, K. R., & Yarborough, L. (1973). A New Equation of State for Z-Factor Calculations. Oil & Gas Journal, 71(25).
Harville, D. W., & Hawkins Jr., M. F. (1969). Rock Compressibility and Failure as Reservoir Mechanisms in Geopressured Gas
Reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 21(12), 1528-1530. doi:10.2118/2500-PA
Knopp, C. R. (1965). Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Ratio Correlation from Laboratory Data. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 17(09),
1111-1122. doi:10.2118/963-PA
Lee, J., & Wattenbarger, R. A. (1996). Gas Reservoir Engineering. Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers.
Peng, D. Y., & Robinson, D. B. (1976). A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Fundamentels,
15, 59-64. doi:10.1021/i160057a011
Ramagost, B. P., & Farshad, F. F. (1984). P/Z Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
San Antonio, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/10125-MS
Russell, D. G., Goodrich, J. H., Perry, G. E., & Bruskotter, J. F. (1966). Methods for Predicting Gas Well Performance. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 18(01), 99-108. doi:10.2118/1242-PA
Shannak, B. A. (2008). Frictional pressure drop of gas liquid two-phase flow in pipes. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 238, 3277-
3284. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.015
Standing, M. B., & Katz, D. L. (1942). Density of Natural Gases. American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers (pp. 140-149).
New York: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers Inc.
Whitson, C. H. (1983). Characterizing Hydrocarbon Plus Fractions. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 23(04), 683-694.
doi:10.2118/12233-PA
Whitson, C. H., & Kuntadi, A. (2005). Khuff Gas Condensate Development. International Petroleum Technology Conference. Doha,
Qatar: International Petroleum Technology Conference. doi:10.2523/IPTC-10692-MS
Yale, D. P., Nabor, G. W., Russell, J. A., Pham, H. D., & Yousef, M. (1993). Application of Variable Formation Compressibility for
Improved Reservoir Analysis. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (pp. 435-450). Houston, Texas: Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/26647-MS
SPE-187995-MS 10
Figure 1 Anderson “L” sand, Mobil-David field. [Figure#01 in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972)]
Table 1 Reservoir data for Anderson “L” reservoir, Mobil-David field, Nueces County, Tex. [Table#3 in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972)]
Physical Properties
Age Frio
Depth, subsea, ft -11,167
Porosity, percent: 24
Permeability, mD 0.7 to 791
Original gas saturation, percent 65
Structural Features
Gas-water contact Unknown
Net gas pay thickness, ft. 75
Formation dip 10 to 15° to NW
Closure, ft. +466
Characteristics of Fluid Content
Gravity of gas and condensate °API
Initial, 12/65 0.942 54.1
Current, 3/70 0.801 61.7
Salinity of water, ppm NaCl 28,000
Estimated dew-point pressure, psia 6,118
Gas in place, Mcf/acre-ft 2,240
Pressures and Temperatures
Bottom-hoIe pressure, psia
Initial, 12/65 9,507
Current, 3/70 3,247
Pressure Gradient, lb/ft 0.843
Bottom-hole temperature, °F 266
Table 2 Sidewall core data for Well-A and Well-B. [Table#6 in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972)]
Well-A Well-B
Depth (ft) Permeability (mD) Porosity (%) Depth (ft) Permeability (mD) Porosity (%)
11255 12 18.8 11118 83 16.4
11278 14 23.9 11124 223 23.4
11308 13 N.A. 11137 791 24.1
11323 15 25.8 11144 186 22.5
11333 14 22.4 11157 39 23.0
11346 5 24.0 11166 15 20.9
i-Pentane 0.54 0.73 0.71 1165 0.64 0.68 0.64 0.66 0.6 0.44 0.49 0.49
n-Pentane 0.47 0.45 0.42 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.33 0.33 0.34
Hexanes +, or 0.51 0.91 5.51 5.49 0.57 4 .59 4.34 4.23 3.19 2.39 1.97 1.70
Heptanes + 4.74 5.48 4.87
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Gallons per 1000 SCF
Wellstream gravity 0.942 0.969 0.926 0.933 0.926 0.816 0.063 0.655 0.801 0.757 0.755 0.732
Separator gravity 0.665 0.657 0.658 0.670 0.670 0.673 0.675 0.675 0.674 0.682 0.690 0.675
Stock-tank GPM 3.658 3.587 3.216 3.406 3.494 3.321 2.644 2.519 1.795 1.020 0.912 0.801
Condensate, °API 54.1 N.A. 54.7 54.7 54.7 57.1 56.9 60.9 62.7 60.0 60.1 60.0
Propane 0.974 0.921 0.985 0.949 0.951 0.965 0.933 0.941 0.935 0.820 0.894 0.891
i-Butane 0.466 0.433 0.482 0.472 0.486 0.472 0.469 0.495 0.452 0.378 0.437 0.433
n-Butame 0.361 0.349 0.358 0.355 0.367 0.370 0.352 0.364 0.348 0.273 0.327 0.320
i-Pentane 0.233 0.266 0.258 0.240 0.233 0.247 0.233 0.240 0.218 0.160 0.178 0.178
n-Pentane 0.170 0.162 0.151 0.169 0.162 0.169 0.166 0.166 0.158 0.119 0.119 0.122
Hexanes +, or 0.331 0.372 3.152 3.105 0.274 2.528 2.383 2.255 1.646 1.227 1.019 0.885
Heptanes + 2.874 3.113 2.833
Total GPM 5.409 5.616 5.386 5.290 5.309 4.751 4.536 4.461 3.768 2.977 2.974 2.829
BHP, psia 9162 8970 7603 6480 5630 4710 4395 3720 3247 N.A. N.A. N.A.
10
WellStreamAnalysis (N2)
WellStreamAnalysis (CO2)
WellStreamAnalysis (C2H6)
WellStreamAnalysis (C3H8)
WellStreamAnalysis (IC4)
WellStreamAnalysis (NC4)
WellStreamAnalysis (IC5)
Mol %
1
WellStreamAnalysis (NC5)
CVD (N2)
CVD (CO2)
CVD (C2H6)
CVD (C3H8)
CVD (IC4)
CVD (NC4)
Pressure (psia) 9507 9292 9162 8970 8595 8332 8009 7603 7406 7002 6721 6535 6480 6125.6
Component
N2 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
CO2 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63
CH4 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72
C2H6 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67
C3H8 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55
IC4 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43
NC4 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
IC5 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64
NC5 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47
FC6 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
FC10 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
FC14 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44
Single-Phase Z-factor 1.4654 1.444 1.4311 1.412 1.3747 1.3486 1.3166 1.2764 1.2569 1.2172 1.1897 1.1715 1.1662 1.1319
Two-Phase Z-factor 1.4654 1.444 1.4311 1.412 1.3747 1.3486 1.3166 1.2764 1.2569 1.2172 1.1897 1.1715 1.1662 1.1319
Liquid Drop-Out % HCPV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pressure (psia) 6118 5764 5630 4766 4710 4295 3750 3720 3247 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
Component Dew Point
N2 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.19
CO2 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67
CH4 79.74 80.58 80.85 82.2 82.27 82.74 83.25 83.27 83.61 83.75 83.97 84.07 83.99 83.61 82.48
C2H6 6.67 6.68 6.69 6.72 6.72 6.74 6.76 6.76 6.79 6.8 6.84 6.88 6.95 7.05 7.19
C3H8 3.55 3.53 3.52 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.49 3.5 3.54 3.6 3.72 3.96
IC4 1.43 1.41 1.41 1.38 1.38 1.37 1.36 1.36 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.37 1.39 1.46 1.62
NC4 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.1 1.1 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.1 1.16 1.31
IC5 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.6 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.61 0.72
NC5 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.4 0.4 0.41 0.43 0.52
FC6 0.81 0.78 0.77 0.72 0.72 0.7 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.62 0.66 0.83
FC10 1.3 1.17 1.13 0.91 0.9 0.8 0.69 0.68 0.59 0.55 0.46 0.39 0.33 0.31 0.37
FC14 3.42 2.8 2.6 1.62 1.57 1.23 0.89 0.87 0.64 0.54 0.37 0.26 0.18 0.13 0.12
Single-Phase Z-factor 1.1313 1.0936 1.0807 1.0107 1.0069 0.9806 0.9525 0.9511 0.933 0.9258 0.9166 0.915 0.9216 0.9369 0.9613
Two-Phase Z-factor 1.1313 1.1031 1.0927 1.0301 1.0263 0.999 0.9661 0.9644 0.9389 0.9266 0.9035 0.8814 0.8559 0.8141 0.7068
Liquid Drop-Out % HCPV 0.15 5.41 6.72 11.59 11.75 12.67 13.32 13.33 13.5 13.47 13.28 12.93 12.44 11.84 11.12
SPE-187995-MS 13
14
12
Liquid Drop-out (%HCPV)
10
8
Light Oil Retrograde Condensate
6
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Bottom-Hole Pressure (psia)
k rg/kro vs. S g
100000
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Ratio, krg/kro (fraction)
10000
1000
Minimum Gas Saturation
100 in Model = 50%
10
Relevant Range
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Gas Saturation, Sg (fraction)
2000
4000
Depth (ft)
6000
8000
10000
Total Vertical Depth (TVD) = 11,167 ft
12000
Figure 5 Tempertature profile for static and flowing scenarios for Well-A.
Table 5 Production Data. (*) The flowing BHP is below the estimated dew-point pressure of 6,118 psia. [Table#5 in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972)]
Table 6 Prediction of static and flowing BHP for Well-A (Surface temperature used was 80°F).
Shut-in
Tubing qg Δt Gp pwf Surface
pws (psia) Date 𝑝̅
Pressure (MMcf/D) (Days) (MMcf) (psia) pwf (psia)
(psia)
9555 7599 1965-12-22 0 9507
9344 7399 1966-03-01 5.688 69 392.5 6461 9403 4899
9049 7121 1966-06-22 5.529 113 1642.2 6351 9078 4803
8648 6744 1966-09-29 6.398 99 3225.8 6113 8677 4567
8391 6503 1966-11-17 8.445 49 4260.3 5899 8422 4307
8069 6202 1966-12-30 11.565 43 5503.5 5725 8122 4006
7593 5827 1967-03-23 9.805 83 7538.1 5450 7650 3849
7378 5650 1967-05-15 9.140 53 8749.2 5181 7379 3745
7077 5284 1967-07-31 9.143 77 10509.3 4948 7000 3542
6574 5027 1967-09-14 11.108 45 11758.9 4780 6741 3301
6364 4837 1967-10-19 11.775 35 12789.2 4624 6534 3127
5516 4132 1968-03-05 12.966 138 17262.5 4442 5700 2934
4719 3490 1968-09-04 12.302 183 22890.8 3675 4794 2316
4128 3001 1969-03-19 13.403 196 28144.6 3086 4078 1701
3548 2584 1969-09-29 10.030 194 32566.7 2503 3556 1460
3025 2208 1970-03-31 9.252 183 36799.4 2048 3112 1101
2692 1972 1970-09-16 8.500 169 40390.7 1629 2769 700
SPE-187995-MS 15
9000
8000
7000
BHP [SPE-2938] (psia)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00 6000.00 7000.00 8000.00 9000.00 10000.00
Calculated BHP (psia)
p/Z vs. Gp
7000.00
6000.00
5000.00
p/Z (psia)
4000.00
3000.00
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
THOUSANDS
Table 10 Summary calculations for p/Z corrected by the Ramagost correction factor.
6000.00
5000.00
p/Z (psia)
4000.00
3000.00
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
THOUSANDS
Table 12 Summary calculations for p/Z corrected with the modified Ramagost correction factor.
6000.00
5000.00
p/Z (psia)
4000.00
3000.00
2000.00
1000.00
0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0
THOUSANDS
Table 14 Summary calculations for gas pseudo function using a Z-factor that assumes initial gas composition as the pressure is depleted to 500
psia.
BHP (psia) Gas Viscosity (cP) Z-factor [Initial Composition] 2p/μZ [Initial Composition] M(p) [Initial Composition]
0 0.00E+00
500 0.0143 0.946 73868 1.85E+07
1000 0.0157 0.900 141836 7.24E+07
1500 0.0169 0.866 204681 1.59E+08
2000 0.0182 0.847 258977 2.75E+08
2500 0.0196 0.846 301150 4.15E+08
3000 0.0211 0.861 329614 5.73E+08
3247 0.0220 0.873 338859 6.55E+08
3720 0.0237 0.902 348705 8.18E+08
3750 0.0238 0.904 348986 8.28E+08
4295 0.0260 0.946 349264 1.02E+09
4710 0.0279 0.981 343536 1.16E+09
4766 0.0282 0.986 342468 1.18E+09
5630 0.0332 1.066 317903 1.47E+09
5764 0.0341 1.079 312889 1.51E+09
6118 0.0368 1.114 298189 1.62E+09
6125.6 0.0369 1.114 297834 1.62E+09
6480 0.0386 1.149 291991 1.72E+09
6535 0.0389 1.155 291068 1.74E+09
6721 0.0398 1.173 287922 1.79E+09
7002 0.0412 1.201 283109 1.87E+09
7406 0.0432 1.242 276096 1.99E+09
7603 0.0442 1.262 272645 2.04E+09
SPE-187995-MS 19
Table 15 Summary calculations for gas pseudo function using composition that changes as the pressure is depleted to 500 psia.
0 0.00E+00
500 0.0143 0.961 72687 1.82E+07
1000 0.0157 0.937 136237 7.04E+07
1500 0.0169 0.922 192293 1.53E+08
2000 0.0182 0.915 239846 2.61E+08
2500 0.0196 0.917 278036 3.90E+08
3000 0.0211 0.926 306449 5.36E+08
3247 0.0220 0.933 316918 6.13E+08
3720 0.0237 0.951 330647 7.66E+08
3750 0.0238 0.953 331195 7.76E+08
4295 0.0260 0.981 336838 9.58E+08
4710 0.0279 1.007 334744 1.10E+09
4766 0.0282 1.011 334127 1.12E+09
5630 0.0332 1.081 313650 1.40E+09
5764 0.0341 1.094 308751 1.44E+09
6118 0.0368 1.131 293522 1.54E+09
6125.6 0.0369 1.132 293214 1.55E+09
6480 0.0386 1.166 287760 1.65E+09
6535 0.0389 1.172 286908 1.67E+09
6721 0.0398 1.190 283945 1.72E+09
7002 0.0412 1.217 279424 1.80E+09
7406 0.0432 1.257 272812 1.91E+09
7603 0.0442 1.276 269529 1.96E+09
8009 0.0463 1.317 262703 2.07E+09
8332 0.0480 1.349 257208 2.15E+09
8595 0.0495 1.375 252682 2.22E+09
8970 0.0516 1.412 246135 2.32E+09
9162 0.0527 1.431 242744 2.36E+09
9292 0.0535 1.444 240436 2.39E+09
9507 0.0548 1.465 236576 2.44E+09
Table 16 Summary calculations of gas pseudo function using two-phase Z-factor as the pressure is depleted to 500 psia.
BHP (psia) Gas Viscosity (cP) Z-factor [2-phase] 2p/μZ [2-phase] M(p) [2-phase]
0 0.00E+00
500 0.0143 0.707 98860 2.47E+07
1000 0.0157 0.814 156787 8.86E+07
1500 0.0169 0.856 207054 1.80E+08
2000 0.0182 0.881 248989 2.94E+08
2500 0.0196 0.904 282067 4.26E+08
3000 0.0211 0.927 306184 5.73E+08
3247 0.0220 0.939 314927 6.50E+08
3720 0.0237 0.964 326087 8.02E+08
3750 0.0238 0.966 326532 8.12E+08
4295 0.0260 0.999 330634 9.91E+08
4710 0.0279 1.026 328416 1.13E+09
4766 0.0282 1.030 327834 1.15E+09
5630 0.0332 1.093 310205 1.42E+09
5764 0.0341 1.103 306092 1.46E+09
6118 0.0368 1.131 293522 1.57E+09
6125.6 0.0369 1.132 293214 1.57E+09
6480 0.0386 1.166 287760 1.67E+09
6535 0.0389 1.172 286908 1.69E+09
6721 0.0398 1.190 283945 1.74E+09
7002 0.0412 1.217 279424 1.82E+09
7406 0.0432 1.257 272812 1.93E+09
7603 0.0442 1.276 269529 1.99E+09
8009 0.0463 1.317 262703 2.10E+09
8332 0.0480 1.349 257208 2.18E+09
8595 0.0495 1.375 252682 2.25E+09
8970 0.0516 1.412 246135 2.34E+09
9162 0.0527 1.431 242744 2.39E+09
9292 0.0535 1.444 240436 2.42E+09
9507 0.0548 1.465 236576 2.47E+09
SPE-187995-MS 20
2.50E+09
2.00E+09
1.50E+09
1.00E+09
5.00E+08
0.00E+00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Bottom-Hole Pressure (psia)
Table 17 Digitized data points of the flow-after-flow graphs presented in Figure#04 of SPE-2938 A (Duggan, 1972).
p 2 vs. q g (Flow-After-Flow)
100.00
p2 * 10-6 (psia2)
Initial Test
10.00
Figure 11 p2 vs. Gas Production Rate (It seems Duggan may have used a ruler and extrapolated to maximum open rate on a graph paper).
Condensate Bank
Initial Test
Single-Phase
1.E+8
Figure 13 Anderson "L" sand constructed by use of CMG-Builder (Injection well at the top is for future studies).
SPE-187995-MS 23
Figure 14 From top to bottom, left to right: Top view of Well-A oil saturation profile; cross-sectional view of Well-A oil saturation profile. Top
view of Well-B oil saturation profile; cross-sectional view of Well-B oil saturation profile. Top view of Well-C oil saturation profile; cross-sectional
view of Well-C oil saturation profile. Top view of Well-A water saturation profile; cross-sectional view of Well-A water saturation profile.
SPE-187995-MS 24
p/Z vs. Gp
7000
OGIP (MMcf)
6000 Well-A 33100.0
Well-B 25300.0
5000 Well-C 9180.0
Total 67600.0
p/Z (psia)
3000
2000
1000
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
THOUSANDS
1E+09
100000000
10000000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Gas Production Rate, qg (MMSCF/D)
Single-Phase Flow-After-Flow
Multi-Phase Flow-After-Flow (Maximum Liquid Drop-Out)
Stabilized Single-Phase
Stablized Multi-Phase
14
12
10
ΔM(p)/qg (psia/cP/MMSCF/D)
0
1 10 100 1000
Horner Time Ratio
Initial Build-Up Before Well-B Inteference
Inteference from Well-B and Well-C BHP below Maximum Liquid Drop-Out
Maximum Liquid Drop-Out