You are on page 1of 4

The 8

th
International Chemical Engineering Congress & Exhibition (IChEC 2014)
Kish, Iran, 24-27 February, 2014





Field Scale Analysis of Carbon dioxide, Nitrogen, and Lean gas
Injection Scenarios in Pazanan Gas Condensate Reservoir

H.Rahmanifard, H. Amirzadeh, A. Rasouli, A. H. Amouri
Corresponding Authors Address: Drilling Fluids Engineering and Waste Management Department, Deputy
Managing Director of NIDC Projects, Ahwaz, Iran
Corresponding Authors E-mail: rahmanyfard@gmail.com




Abstract
Upon depletion, falling the reservoir pressure below the dew-point of hydrocarbon mixture results
in liquid condensation around the wellbore. This liquid barrier causes severe reductions in gas
production rates, the permanent loss of a large portion of volatile and valuable condensates, and a
wrong estimation of well deliverability. It is believed that applying the Generalized Pseudo
Pressure (GPP) method leads to more accurate modeling of reservoir performance. Hence, using a
compositional simulator, a sector of Pazanan reservoir (in the southwest of Iran) is modeled with
two different permeabilities: with the average permeability of 42 md (original case) and 0.1 md
(tight case). The results obtained from simulations demonstrate that the GPP method leads to
acceptable results in permeable case while, in tight system, it underestimates the well
deliverability. Furthermore, since gas injection/cycling is the main recovery process in gas
condensate reservoir, using the GPP method, various gas injection scenarios in the reservoir
(original case) at pressures below the dew point (maximum condensate appearance) are
investigated which shows that gas cycling scenario is the optimum solution.

Keywords: Gas condensate; Generalized Pseudo Pressure, Gas injection/cycling


Introduction
In order to calculate the well deliverability in a gas condensate reservoir, the conventional
approach is to build a fine grid compositional model, using either a single-well model with a
fine grid near to the wellbore, or a full-field model with the local grid refinement around the
well. Despite the acceptable performance of these methods (fine grids and LGRs), their
utilizations in a much more complex simulation model, can lead to a significant increase in
run time; and may cause numerical and convergence problems [1]. So based on observations
for many gas condensate systems, a simple method to accurately calculate the pseudopressure
function was proposed by Fevang and Whitson [2]. In their method, the well inflow is
calculated from a pseudopressure integral, which is analogous to the standard pseudopressure
function used for dry gas reservoirs, but it also includes the gas relative permeability to take
account of the reduced mobility due to liquid build-up near the well. Therefore, the
methodological plan of this study is to assess the effect the Generalized Pseudo Pressure
method on the performance of permeable and tight systems.

Analysis of different injection scenarios
Model preparation
The grid model which is representative of a sector of Pazanan reservoir, contains 50 1 2
grid cells with inner grid cell size in the radial direction of 0.2 ft. The grid cell size in the
radial direction varies geometrically with ri/ri-1 =constant. The external radius of the model
is about 6330 ft. The reservoir with the initial pressure of 3400 psia contains rich gas
condensate with the initial solution oil-gas ratio of 175 STB/MMscf and the initial saturation
pressure of 3300 psia. To verify the multi-mechanistic flow and the pseudopressure option in
a gas condensate reservoir, in addition to the permeable case which was representative of
Pazanan reservoir with the average permeability of 42 md, a tight system with the
permeability of 0.1 md was also considered. The permeable and tight cases were simulated
with minimum well BHP constraint of about 1500 psia and maximum gas production rate
constraint of 20 MMSCFD and 10 MMSCFD, respectively. Model porosity, connate water
saturation, and the plateau gas production period are 0.198, 0.245, and a 30 year period for all
cases, respectively. To model PVT behavior and fluid equilibrium, the modified Peng-
Robinson equation of state is utilized [3]. This work uses an eleven component lumped of
Pazanan retrograde gas reservoir. The reservoir relative permeability and capillary pressure
values are also used [4]. Although, the effects of rock and water compressibilities on reservoir
performance are negligible (4e-6 psi
-1
and 2.216e-6 psi
-1
, respectively), they are considered.

The Assessment of GPP Method for Calculation of Well Deliverability
To further investigate the GPP method, the same radial grid model as the fine grid and an
equivalent coarse grid one were used. The corresponding coarse grid model contained 20 1
1 grid cells with the first grid cell size in radial direction of 110 ft. simulations were
performed for two cases: permeable and tight. The simulated performance with fine grid
model and coarse grid models (with and without pseudopressure) for permeable and tight
cases are shown in Figure 1a and b. Although, the gas production rate was over-predicted in
the coarse grid model for both systems, the simulated performance of coarse grid with
pseudopressure option and fine grid was quite similar in the permeable one while, for the tight
system, utilizing the GPP method caused significant under-estimation of gas withdrawal rate.
0 1 6 11 16 21 26 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time (years)
G
a
s

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

(
M
M
s
c
f
/
d
)


coarse grid model (with pseudopressure)
fine grid model
coarse grid model (without pseudopressure)
0 2 4
18
20



a
0 1 6 11 16 21 26 30
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Time (years)
G
a
s

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

(
M
s
c
f
/
d
)
0 5 10
0
50
100
150
200


coarse grid model (with pseudopressure)
fine grid model
coarse grid model (without pseudopressure)

b
Figure 1. Comparison of gas production rate predictions for fine and coarse grid models (with and
without the GPP option) for (a) permeable system and (b) tight system,

Results
In this part a radial grid model contained 20 1 1 cells with the GPP method was utilized.
Other model properties were the same as before. The investigated reservoir was allowed to
produce under natural depletion mechanism until the time that maximum condensate appeared
(3800 days). At this time, for condensate re-evaporation and partial pressure maintenance,
The 8
th
International Chemical Engineering Congress & Exhibition (IChEC 2014)
Kish, Iran, 24-27 February, 2014
because of the better performance of gas injection among other solutions, different gas
injection scenarios including Carbon dioxide, Nitrogen, and Gas cycling (the lean gas stream
produced from NGL 900 factory) was started. It is essential to mention that for injection
cases, an injection well was placed in the twentieth block with the maximum well BHP
constraint of about 2000 psia and maximum gas injection rate constraint of 10 MMSCFD, 6.5
MMSCFD, and 9 MMSCFD for carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and gas cycling scenarios,
respectively. Furthermore, in order to show the optimum recovery scheme (maximum
hydrocarbon production and minimum liquid dropout), comparisons between injection
scenarios and the case without any injection over some key parameters (condensate saturation
around wellbore, reservoir condensate saturation, gas and condensate production rates, and
cumulative condensate and gas production) are made (as shown in Figure 2a-e).
0 6 11 16 21 26 30
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Time (years)
C
o
n
d
e
n
s
a
t
e

s
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r

(
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
)


CO2 injection case
no-injecetion case
N2 injection case
gas cycling case

a
0 1 6 11 16 21 26 30
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Time (years)
C
o
n
d
e
n
s
a
t
e

s
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

a
r
o
u
n
d

w
e
l
l
b
o
r
e

(
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
l
e
s
s
)


CO2 injection case
no-injection case
N2 injection case
gas cycling case
16 21 26
0.265
0.27
0.275
0.28



b
0 1 6 11 16 21 26 30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Time (years)
G
a
s

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

(
M
M
s
c
f
/
d
)


CO2 injection case
no-injection case
N2 injection case
gas cycling case

c
0 1 6 11 16 21 26 30
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Time (years)
C
o
n
d
e
n
s
a
t
e

p
r
o
d
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e

(
S
T
B
/
d
)


CO2 injection case
no-injection case
N2 injection case
gas cycling case
21 26 30
0
50
100
150
200



d
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
T
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

(
M
M
M
S
c
f
)


2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
T
o
t
a
l

C
o
n
d
e
n
s
a
t
e

r
e
c
o
v
e
r
y

(
M
M
S
T
B
)


Total gas recovery
Total condensate recovery
No-injection CO2 injection N2 injection Gas cycling

e
Figure 2 various gas injection scenarios performance versus simulation time on (a) reservoir
condensate saturation, (b) condensate saturation near wellbore (c) gas production rate, (d)
condensate production rate (the time scale in the enlarged part is in days), and (e) Cumulative
production of gas and condensate
Analysis of different injection scenarios
Conclusions
Despite the acceptable performance of pseudopressure method proposed by Fevang and
Whitson for permeable cases, due to the severe effect of condensate blockage in tight cases
(less than 0.1 md), this method gives pessimistic estimations of reservoir performance.
Therefore, for tight cases the conventional approach (using fine grids or LGRs around
wellbore) is suggested.
Although gas injection in gas condensate reservoirs causes higher condensate saturation
around the wellbore, it leads to partial pressure maintenance, a sharp decrease in reservoir
condensate saturation, and higher hydrocarbon (gas and condensate) production.
Because of more stable displacement front in gas cycling scenario, this case has got the
highest gas and condensate recovery.
Finally, in order to choose the optimum scheme and evaluate its feasibility the detailed
economic analyses are usually recommended. Moreover, capillary number and non-Darcy
flow effects have been ignored in this study, which are areas open for research by future
studies in the area.

References
[1] K. Singh, C.H. Whitson, , Gas Condensate Pseudopressure in Layered Reservoirs.
Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) International Petroleum Exhibition
and Conference, Abu Dhabi; Paper SPE 117930, 2008.
[2] O. Fevang, C.H. Whitson, Modelling Gas Condensate Well Deliverability. Proceedings of
the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas; Paper SPE 30714, 1995.
[3] K. H. Coats, Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance. J . Pet. Technol.
(1985) 1870-1886.
[4] E. Piramun, Pazanan Rock and Fluid Properties. Report number: p-4887, Iranian South Oil
Company, 2010.
[5] H. Rahmanifard, and A. Helalizadeh, Analysis of Transport Mechanisms in Gas
Condensate Reservoirs, presented at 6th International Chemical Engineering Congress, Kish,
Iran, November 2009.
[6] B. Roussennac, Gas Condensate Well Test Analysis. M.Sc. thesis, Department of
Petroleum Engineering, Stanford University, 2001.
[7] P.J . Sanger, and J . Hagoort, Recovery of gas-condensate by nitrogen injection compared
with methane injection. SPEJ ., (1998) 26-33.
[8] C.J . Seto, K. J essen, J r, Orr, Compositional Streamline Simulation of Field Scale
Condensate Vaporization by Gas Injection. Proceedings of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers (SPE) Reservoir Simulation Symposium; Houston, Texas; Paper SPE 79690, 2003.
[9] A. Al-Abri, R. Amin, Phase Behaviour, Fluid Properties and Recovery Efciency of
Immiscible and Miscible Condensate Displacements by SCCO2 Injection: Experimental
Investigation. Transport Porous Med, (2010) DOI: 10.1007/s11242-010-9589-5.
[10] H. Adel, D. Tiab, T. Zhu, Effect of Gas Recycling on the Enhancement of Condensate
Recovery, Case Study: Hassi RMel South Field, Algeria. Proceedings of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE) International Oil Conference and Exhibition; Cancun, Mexico;
Paper SPE 104040, 2006.

You might also like