Single-Well Performance Predictions for
Gas Condensate Reservoirs
D. D. Fussell, SPE-AIME, Amoco Production Co.
Introduction
Production data for some gas condensate producing
wells have shown that the productivity is severely
curtailed when the flowing bottom-hole pressure is
less than the saturation pressure of the in-place fluid.
It is generally accepted that this reduction is due to
accumulation of condensed liquid near the well bore
and, for low producing rates, accumulation of con-
densate within the tubing string or the annulus, or
both, depending on the type of well completion.
Liquid condensate accumulation, hereafter referred
to as condensate accumulation, is defined as the con-
densed hydrocarbon liquid saturation within the for-
mation in excess of the saturation given by the
experimental volumetric depletion data.
Kniazeff and Naville 1 and Eilerts et aU each de-
veloped models for predicting the saturations and
pressures in the vicinity of a gas condensate pro-
ducing well. The method used by Eilerts et aT.
requires data for the fluid system obtained from lab-
oratory flow experiments in the porous media of
interest. Both studies predicted high condensate satu-
rations in the region of the well.
O'Dell and Miller 3 presented a simple method
based on steady-state flow concepts that can be used
to estimate quickly the deliverability from the well.
Results obtained using this method indicate that pre-
dictions of producing rates will be pessimistic if the
average reservoir pressure is below the saturation
pressure of the in-place fluid.
Roebuck et aT.4-6 developed the first models that
consider the flow of individual components and
Gas condensate wells, producing with a flowing bottom-hole pressure below the
saturation pressure, suffer a more rapid decline in productivity than that predicted by
the theory for dry gas wells. A compositional radial reservoir model has been developed
and used to predict the productivity loss of three gas condensate wells.
860
account for component mass transfer between phases
as dictated by phase equilibria data. One of these
models 5 was used to predict the performance of a
producing well in a reservoir containing a rich gas
condensate. The duration of the prediction was very
short (0.25 day), so no definite conclusions could be
inferred from the study. The results did show that
condensate accumulated very rapidly adjacent to the
well as soon as the flowing bottom-hole pressure fell
below the saturation pressure.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the use
of a modified version of the one-dimensional (1-D)
radial model developed by Roebuck et aT. to study
long-term single-well performance in three gas con-
densate reservoirs. This work was done to (1) show
the effect of condensate accumulation on well pro-
ductivity, (2) evaluate the applicability of a steady-
state method similar to that presented by O'Dell and
Miller, and (3) evaluate the effect of phase equilibria
data and relative permeability characteristics on pre-
dicted performance.
Description of Model
Roebuck et aT.4-6 give detailed descriptions of I-D
linear, I-D radial, and 2-D compositional models.
Briefly, the models predict the flow of each hydro-
carbon component* and the water phase as a func-
tion of time and space. The components are allowed
*A hydrocarbon component or component as used herein in
eludes the nonhydrocarbon components nitrogen, carbon di
oxide, and hydrogen sulfide.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
to distribute themselves between the hydrocarbon
phases as dictated by the K-values for the fluid sys-
tem. The phase equilibria data (K - values, phase
densities, and viscosities) used by the models are
dependent upon pressure and composition.
The I-D radial compositional model used in this
study was a modified version of the model' described
by Roebuck et ai. It was found that large material-
balance errors occurred with their model when using
unequal cell spacings to predict single-well perform-
ance. The finite-difference approximations to the
partial-differential equations that describe individual
component flow as proposed by Roebuck et aT. were
modified to be applicable to unequal cell spacings.
The modified finite-difference equations are derived
in Appendix A.
A schematic of the radial geometry is shown in
Fig. 1. The derivation of the difference approxima-
tions uses pressures, phase saturations, fluid compo-
sitions, and fluid properties evaluated midway be-
tween cell boundaries. Eq. A-5 of Appendix A shows
that the flow of each component (and water) is de-
pendent upon the radius terms ri+16 and ri-",' These
radius terms account for the variable cross-sectional
area with increasing distance from the well and are
evaluated at the cell boundaries. These difference
approximations are consistent with the derivation of
the partial-differential equations that describe flow
within a radial system.
The finite-difference approximations for the bound-
ary conditions (Appendix A) are also consistent with
the finite-difference approximations of the partial-
differential equations.
Three criteria were used to evaluate the applica-
bility of this model for performance predictions of
a single gas condensate well. First, experience with
compositional models has shown that their perform-
ance is sensitive to the individual component material
balance error. This model independently calculates
the original mass, current mass, produced mass, and
injected mass of each component. Using the differ-
ence approximations derived in Appendix A, the
material balance errors were much less than 1 percent.
Second, the permeability-height, kh, product used
Fig. I-Radial geometry.
JULY, 1973
by the model was compared with the analytically de-
termined kh producF based on predicted flowing
bottom-hole pressures vs time. These comparisons
were made for a single well within a homogeneous
dry - gas reservoir during pressure drawdown and
pressure buildup and for a two-rate test. The actual
kh products and the analytically determined kh prod-
ucts were in excellent agreement. The section entitled
"Predicted Performance Results" will present com-
parisons of actual and analytical kh products for gas
condensate systems.
Third, the transformation presented by Bruce et
ai.8 was used to convert the radial flow equations for
a gas condensate fluid to equations of linear form.
The performance of a single gas condensate pro-
ducing well was predicted with a I-D linear9 and
the I-D radial compositional models. The predicted
performances were in excellent agreement, which
indicates a negligible truncation error for the differ-
ence equations presented in Appendix A.
Other results presented will also assist in estab-
lishing the validity of this model for predicting single-
well performance within a gas condensate reservoir.
Description of Predicted Performances
The 1- D radial compositional model was used to
predict the single-well performance in three different
gas condensate reservoirs. These predictions, referred
to as A, B, and C, were all for the depletion process
and, as discussed previously, did no~ consider the
effect of flow within the producing string or the
annulus. All predictions assumed that the reservoir
formation properties were homogeneous, that gravity
and capillary pressure effects were negligible, and
that the composition of the original in-place fluid
was constant.
The three predictions each used two production
schedules. Initially, the mass rate of fluid production
was held constant until the flowing bottom-hole pres-
sure (Pwi in Table 1) reached a predetermined value.
At that time, the model predicted the production rate
as a function of time while holding the flowing
bottom-hole pressure constant. The production rate
declines with time as a result of the depletion process.
The rate of change of the production rate with time
in all three predictions approached a stabilized value
and the saturations near the well stabilized. These
conditions were assumed to define a pseudosteady-
state process. The predictions were stopped shortly
TABLE I - RESERVOIR PROPERTIES FOR
PREDICTED PERFORMANCES
Prediction
Property A B C
r w (ft) 2.1 5. 5.54
fe (ft) 600. 1,364. 1,960.
h (ft) 13.221 5. 13.4
kh (mdft) 194.58 200. 797.
S.,c (percent) 24.5 11.0 27.
p, (psia) 2,300.0 4,070. 4,600.
A (cell spacing) * 1.75 1.443
NN 12 10 16
pwf (psia) 2,208. 2,010. 2,700.
Cell spacing for this run was chosen arbitrarily.
861
thereafter. Steady state throughout the reservoir TABLE 2 - PROPERTIES OF GAS CONDENSATE FLUIDS
cannot exist since the predictions were for a deple- Component Composition, Mol Percent
Fluid Component
tion process. A B C
N, 33.43
Formation Properties
C, 76.77 78.146 30.95
The formation properties for the three predictions CO, 0.35 3.17
are presented in Table 1. The kh products are nearly C, 8.77 6.73
equal for Predictions A and B. The kh product for H,S 16.4
Prediction C is much larger. The well radii reflect the C, 4.995 5.51
effect of fracture stimulation, which is a common C:s 2.473 5.04
occurrence for these tight formations. The constant C,'s 3.7 1.246 3.83
C. 2.78 0.885 2.62
"A" was used to specify the cell spacing according
BP1* 1.00 2.637
to the formula BP2 0.771 1.355
ri+% = Airw i = 1, NN , (1) BP3 0.516 1.225
BP4 0.560 1.133
where i is the cell number (NN in number) and i + Ih BP5 0.254 1.035
is the radius to the outer boundary of the ith cell. BP6 0.384 1.335
Prediction A used an arbitrary cell spacing. The num- Maximum volume
Percent liquid
ber of cells into which the reservoirs were discretized (depletion) 6.0 6.0 21.16
was variable, with a minimum of 10 cells for Band Saturation
a maximum of 16 for C. No indications were observed pressure, psia 2,270. 4,070. 4,320.
nor were special tests conducted that would indicate Reservoir
temperature, OF 100. 178. 272.
the predictions used too few or too many cells. The
BPi represent fluid components as boiling point fraction.
model automatically seeks the largest possible time
step; therefore, the effect of time-step size on pre-
dicted performance was not studied. widely different phase behavior characteristics. Their
The relative permeability ratio data for this im- properties are summarized in Table 2, and the con-
bibition process are presented in Fig. 2 for each of stant composition expansion (flash) data are shown
the three predictions. These data have been normal- in Fig. 3. Fluid A, a simple five-component system,
ized by removing the water saturation. They are was used during the initial testing of the model with
presented as a function of the volume percent gas a gas condensate fluid. The maximum volume per-
in the hydrocarbon pore space. Two of the predic- cent condensate during the fiash process is approxi-
tions (A and C) used data that are nearly identical. mately 5 percent.
The third used data that are more efficient with re- Fluid B also yields a maximum volume percent
spect to oil dispiacement. The differences of these data condensate during the fiash process of approximately
will be used to demonstrate the dependence of well
performance on relative permeability characteristics.
Fluid System Properties 4300
The three fluid systems were all gas condensates with
3900

3500

c(
V>
a.. 3100
....i
c::
=>
V>
~
~ 2700

2300

1900

.1L-__L -__~__LL__- L_ _~_ _~

30 60 90 20
Vg VOLUME PERCENT VAPOR, PERCENT HCPV
Va, VOLUME PERCENT LIQUID, PERCENT HCPV
Fig. 2-Normalized relative permeability ratio data. Fig. 3-Constant composition expansion data.

862 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

5 percent. This fluid, being a naturally occurring gas
condensate, is characterized by 12 components, 6 of
which are heavy fractions. The latter are denoted by
boiling-point fractions in Table 2. The saturation
pressure of Fluid B, 4,070 psia, is much greater than
that of Fluid A, 2,270 psia.
Fluid C is a much richer gas condensate fluid than
Fluids A and B. The saturation pressure of Fluid C,
4,320 psia, is slightly greater than that of B. This
fluid, also a naturally occurring gas condensate, is
characterized by 14 components, 6 of which are
heavy fractions.
Two predictions of the reservoir performance with
Fluid A were made. One version of this model has
merged with it the Amoco Redlich-Kwong equation
of state. 9,10 This version was used for the first pre-
diction to include the effects of composition on
K-values and, hence, on phase equilibria during the
prediction. The use of the equation of state is advan-
tageous for this type of study since the predicted
phase equilibria data as a function of pressure and
composition are internally consistent. The second
prediction with Fluid A and Predictions Band C
were made with the standard version of the model
that involves using data from tables and interpolation
techniques for arriving at K-values and phase densi-
ties. The equation of state was merged with a pro-
gram that simulated the flash process for each
fluid. Calculated K -values and phase densities are
used by the model. These data are independent of
composition.
Predicted Performance Results
The predicted performance of a single gas-condensate
producing well using the 1-D radial compositional
model gives information on pressures, phase satura-
tions, fluid compositions, and other phase properties
as a function of time and space. In addition, the
model predicts the composition and rate of produced
fluid as a function of time. The pressures, produc-
tion rate, and phase saturations predicted by the
model are of considerable interest.
The predicted flowing bottom-hole pressures as a
function of time during the initial drawdown periods
were used with pressure transient analyses 7 to deter-
mine the kh products for each prediction. These
products should agree with the actual kh products
used by the model, provided the pressure transient
moves through the reservoir much faster than the
condensate saturation develops. Condensate was ac-
cumulating around the producing well for a portion
of the drawdown period in all three predictions. Fluid
B was initially saturated, so the condensate satura-
tion in the cell adjacent to the producing well was
increasing continuously during the drawdown.
The analytical and actual kh products for the three
predictions are given in Table 3. The two values for
each prediction are in excellent agreement. This
proves that the accuracy of the finite-difference ap-
proximations is not affected by changing relative
permeability to the gas phase due to condensate
accumulation. The agreement of the two kh products
and the negligible material balance errors lend sup-
port to the accuracy of the predicted performances.
JULY, 1973
TABLE 3 - SUMMARY OF RESULTS TO TEST FINITE
DIFFERENCE APPROXIMATIONS
Property Prediction A Prediction 8 Prediction C
kh. (mdft)* 195. 200. 797.
kh p (mdft)** 194. 201. 790.
"Actual. kh used by the simulator
"kh based on predicted pressuretime data
The predicted condensate saturations are most im-
portant in fulfilling two objectives of this study;
namely, the effect of condensate accumulation on the
predicted productivity of the well and the evaluation
of the steady-state method. Figs. 4 through 6 present
the "predicted" total liquid (water plus condensate)
saturations as a function of radius at the end of the
three performance predictions; i.e., when pseudo-
steady-state conditions exist within the reservoir. The
connate water saturations are shown by dashed lines
in these figures.
Also shown on Figs. 4 through 6 are the depletion
and the steady-state saturation profiles. This work
compares the predicted single-well performance with
the "standard" well performance calculated by a
depletion method to determine the productivity loss
due to condensate accumulation; i.e., the difference
in the predicted and depletion saturations in Figs. 4
through 6. The predicted single-well performance is
also compared with a steady-state method to evaluate
the validity of that method.
Appendix B describes the depletion and the steady-
state methods and presents the necessary equations
for calculating single-well performance. Both meth-
ods use a pseudopressure function similar in form to
the pseudopressure function for a dry gas. 11, 12 Figs. 7
through 9 present these functions vs pressure for the
three gas condensate fluids given in Table 2. Note
that the magnitude of the ordinate scale for m 8 (p)
differs from that for mc(p).
Prediction A
Jacoby and Yarborough"3 have shown that composi-
tion has a negligible effect on K-values during the
depletion of most gas condensates. Their work is
applicable to the depletion saturations shown on Figs.
4 through 6. The development of the steady-state
method 3 assumes that the phase equilibria data within
the steady-state region (in the vicinity of the well) are
those of the constant composition expansion process.
Hence, the K-values are dependent only upon pres-
sure. The unusually high liquid saturations resulting
from condensate buildup around the wellbore could
conceivably make the composition dependence of
K-values an important variable.
Two simulations of single-well performance were
made with this fluid system to determine whether
the compositional dependence of K-values affected
predicted well performance. The first used the Amoco
Redlich-Kwong equation of state merged with the
model. The predicted saturations as a function of
radius, referred to as R-K Predicted-K j = f(p, Zj),
are shown in Fig. 4.
The single-well performance was then predicted
using K-values that are independent of composition.
The predicted saturations are the lower of the two
863
 1.80
70
o STEADY STATE
1.60

60 1.40

'Z 50
Of'
-
<:>

Ci.
x 1.20

""'
U
-VI

E1.00
0::
""'
c.. ...
0
...,
-
<:>

Ci.
x
.80

.60
mc(p)
-u
E
.40

.20

01500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300

10~~--~10~---2~0~~~30~--~~
RESERVOI R PRESSURE, PSI A
RADIUS, FEET Fig. 7--Gas condensate pseudopressure functions,
Fig, 4-Saturation profiles for Prediction A. Fluid A.
6
o STEADY STATE Of'
S
o PREDICTION x
(> DEPLETION c. 4
40 1-0 _ -VI
E
1- 0 _ 0
-0_
0
...
0
o~ ~D-O_O_O_o ......,
!Z I

-
0...... -0_
~
0::
30 I '0 <:> 2
UJ x
a.. C.
II
~201.
" 0

"
-u
E
~ 1-6 __
6
0 0
I -6--6_6_6~ 2200 3000 3400 3800 4200
~ L 0 - - 0 _ _ 0_
~ 10 I - -------r---------- RESERVOI R PRESSURE, PSI A
Fig. 8--Gas condensate pseudopressure functions,
o : rw = 5.0 FEET Swc re = 1350. Fluid B.
g OLL__-L__________L - L -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~~~
:::; 5 10 100 1000 10

RADI US, FEET

9
Fig. 5-Saturation profiles for Prediction B.
8
70 o STEADY STATE
I ,
-
00
PREDICTION

i -.........,. 7
1-0-0 0 <:>

x
60 DEPlllON c..
-VI 6
E
50 ....
~
I-
z 0 5
....,
-
UJ
U I
0::
UJ I __ 6--........ 0" <:>
40
6~~'
c..
x 4
z 1'6
I " c..

r--------r"----- .-.
0
~
I " -u
30 I ' ..... E 3
0::
=>
I-
2
VI 20
0
I
=>
0
10 I
.....J
I rw = 5.54
I
~~--~----~~~--~----~~--~
o 5.54 10 15 20 25 30
PRESSURE, PSIA
RAD I US, FEET
Fig. 9--Gas condensate pseudopres,sure functions,
Fig. 6--Saturation profiles for Prediction C. Fluid C.

864 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY

saturation profiles referred to as Predicted-K j = f(p)
in Fig. 4. They agree exactly with the saturations
that were dependent upon composition. The predicted
pressures as a function of radius, the composition
of the produced fluid, and the cumulative produced
fluid (gas and condensate) were also in agreement.
The results of these two predictions led to developing
K-values and phase densities as a function only of
pressure for the other two predictions. Omitting com-
positional dependence reduces the cost of a predic-
tion since the laboratory experiments required to
generate data on compositional dependent phase
equilibriaI3 are not necessary. In addition, the num-
ber of unknown variables during the prediction is
reduced, which reduces the cost of simulation.
The second simulation for Prediction A was
allowed to continue beyond the first to establish a
pseudosteady-state condition. The predicted satura-
tion profile is the upper of the two predicted curves
for Prediction A in Fig. 4. These saturations are in
good agreement with the steady-state saturations
near the producing well. The predicted and steady-
state saturations then deviate considerably, with the
steady-state method giving high condensate satura-
tions out to a radius of approximately 37 ft. This
difference can be explained by the following analyses.
The steady-state method predicts the volume of liquid
that should exist within the reservoir for a given
pressure differential. It does not, however, give any
information to insure that sufficient liquid has been
condensed to occupy this volume. A simple calcu-
lation, described below, was performed to determine
the maximum volume of liquid that could exist within
the reservoir at the completion of the prediction.
If a reservoir cubic foot of Fluid A passes through
a pressure drop from P2 to PI, the volumetric deple-
tion data show how much of this original volume
will be condensed. Based on the assumptions that
(1) P2 was the initial reservoir pressure, (2) PI was
the final bottom-hole flowing pressure, and (3) no
condensate flow occurred in the reservoir matrix
during the prediction periods, an estimate of the
maximum volume of condensate within the reservoir
could be obtained. It was further assumed that the
condensate saturation, So, was uniform and equal to
an average steady-state saturation of 0.33 (33 per-
cent, Fig. 4) throughout the region where condensate
was present. The objective was to determine the
radius of this condensate bank. The cumulative vol-
ume (scf units) of fluid produced as well as the ap-
propriate phase equilibria data at the completion of
the prediction were known. Consequently, the radius,
r, of this region of high saturation can be estimated
by the equation
c ~o (Zg) [Cum Prod (scf)]
r2 = _ _--"-9_ _ _---=,--_____ + r1V 2
(2)
7rcphSo
Appropriate values were used in Eq. 2, from which
the value of r was found to be 14 ft. Considering the
assumptions of Eq. 2, this radius is in closer agree-
ment with the radius of the predicted saturation pro-
file than with the radius of the steady-state profile.
JULY, 1973
One could propose that the difference between the
lengths of the predicted and steady-state saturation
banks is due to the prediction time's being insuffi-
cient to establish a steady-state condition. To estab-
lish a condensate saturation equivalent to that pre-
dicted by the steady-state method, the quantity of
fluid that must be produced would cause the reservoir
pressure at the exterior boundary to be less than the
saturation pressure. At this time, the steady-state
condensate saturations of approximately 30 percent
would exist throughout the reservoir (see Prediction
B as an example). A conclusion then is that the
region of high condensate saturation is not neces-
sarily the length specified by the steady-state method.
This demonstrates one limitation of the steady-state
method.
Prediction B
The initial reservoir pressure (4,070 psia) for Pre-
diction B corresponds to the saturation pressure of
the in-place fluid, Fluid B. The steady-state method
predicts that the condensate saturation for Fluid B
in the steady-state region will be approximately 38
percent (Fig. 5). Our knowledge of phase equilibria
and fluid flow within gas condensate reservoirs has
shown that the condensate saturations in the exterior
region of the reservoir should, as a function of pres-
sure, equal saturations determined from constant vol-
ume depletion experiments.
The predicted saturation profile is shown in Fig.
5. A region in the vicinity of the producing well has
been affected by condensate accumulation and can
be considered to have steady-state characteristics.
The steady-state method, on the other hand, shows
that high condensate saturations exist throughout the
reservoir because the pressure in the exterior cell is
less than the saturation pressure of Fluid B. The
depletion saturation profile merges with the predicted
saturations at a radius of approximately 200 ft. Be-
tween the steady-state and depletion regions exists a
"transition region".
The predicted saturations agree with the depletion
saturations in the outer region of the reservoir but
are less than the saturations calculated by the steady-
state method around the producing well. The dis-
agreement of the pre~icted and steady-state satura-
tions near the well is due to the change, with time,
of the fluid composition entering this region. The
steady-state method assumes that a fluid of constant
composition, Zj, is entering the steady-state region.
This was true for Prediction A where the steady-state
and predicted saturations did agree near the well
since the reservoir pressure was greater than the
saturation pressure of Fluid A.
The depletion process in the exterior region of
the reservoir during Prediction B will cause the com-
position of the fluid (principally vapor) entering the
steady-state region to vary with time. The process
within the region adjacent to the producing well is
now, at best, a pseudosteady-state process; we shall
continue to refer to it as a steady-state region.
It was assumed that the fluid entering the steady-
state region had the composition of the vapor in
equilibrium with the condensate as given by the
865
volumetric depletion data. Three pressures (4,000,
3,500, and 3,000 psia) were selected, and constant
composition expansion (flash) data were determined
for each vapor composition using the Amoco Redlich-
Kwong equation of state. These flash data and the
relative permeability characteristics were used to cal-
culate the saturations as a function of pressure
according to the steady-state method. These satura-
tions along with the saturations for the original fluid
are shown in Fig. 10.
The comparison of the data shown in Fig. 10
demonstrates that as the vapor phase becomes leaner
(depleted), the saturation at a given pressure de-
creases. This partly explains why the predicted satu-
rations (Fig. 5) lie below the steady-state saturations.
At the completion of Prediction B, the average reser-
voir pressure was 3,860 psia and the flowing bottom-
hole pressure was 2,270. Using the data in Fig. 10,
one would estimate a total liquid saturation in the
first cell of approximately 37.0 percent. This is in
good agreement with the predicted saturation of 36.8
percent (Fig. 5).
Additional calculations were made to investigate
the effect of composition dependence of phase equi-
libria data on the steady-state saturations shown in
Fig. 10. The equation of state, used to calculate
these saturations, accounts for the dependence of
each initial vapor composition on the phase equilibria
data for that vapor. The K-values for the original
in-place fluid were now used to calculate the steady-
state saturations for the three vapor compositions
obtained from the depletion predictions for Fluid B.
These saturations, in essence, duplicated the satura-
tions shown in. Fig. 10. Therefore, the assumption
that composition dependence of phase equilibria data
can be neglected is, at least for this prediction, valid.
The neglect of this variable would most likely result
in larger errors as the average reservoir pressure con-
tinues to decline. Generally, the high-pressure region
FLUID EQUIL. GAS' AT MAX. VOL. % lIQUI D
1 4070 PSIA (ORIGINAL FLUID) 5.25
2 4000 PSIA 4.76
3 3500 PSIA 3.2
4 3000 PSIA .84
GASES IN EQUILIBRIUM WITH CONDENSATE AT PRESSURES
GIVEN DURING NORMAL DEPLETION
~ 40.
LU
U
0::
LU
a...
z prediction in the cell adjacent to the well.
o
~ 30.
0::
=>
~ percent. For Prediction C, which used nearly identi-
V'l swc = 11. %
RESERVOIR PRESSURE, PSIA
Fig. l~Effect of compos.ition on
steady state saturations.
866
is of greatest interest since the economics of con-
densate production are highly dependent upon early
performance.
The results of these calculations show that the
steady-state method may have the capability of cor-
rectly predicting the saturations in the vicinity of the
well, provided the volumetric average reservoir pres-
sure can be estimated. However, its use is limited
since the radial extent of the steady-state region and
the composition of the fluid entering this region are
not known. The compositional model, on the other
hand, predicts the length of the highly condensate-
saturated region, the change of the saturations within
this region due to the variation of the incoming fluid
composition, and the depletion saturations in the
exterior region of the reservoir.
Prediction C
The saturation profile for Prediction C is shown in
Fig. 6. It is in excellent agreement with the steady-
state saturation profile. The agreement is evidence
that this prediction met, in essence, all the assump-
tions of the steady-state method. The composition
of the fluid entering the two-phase region was con-
stant during the prediction since it is the original
in-place fluid. The exterior pressure and drainage
radius are large. This results in a two-phase region,
with its inherent liquid accumulation, that extends
for only 30 ft into the reservoir. The use of Eq. 2
with the phase equilibria and formation data and
the cumulative fluid produced predicts the volume
(radius) of the reservoir that would be occupied by
an average condensate saturation of 40 percent. The
radius was determined to be 100 ft. Unlike Prediction
A, sufficient condensate was available to generate
the saturations in the proximity of the producing well
as calculated by the steady-state method.
As mentioned previously, one might expect good
agreement between the predicted and steady -state
profiles. As the depletion process continues, the com-
position of the fluid entering the steady-state region
will vary. This will cause the saturations in the steady-
state region to change with time, much as they do in
Prediction B. The steady-state method would then
fail to predict the well's performance accurately.
Effect of Relative Permeability
Characteristics
The three predictions were used to investigate the
effect of relative permeability characteristics on the
magnitude of the predicted condensate saturations in
the steady-state region. The pressures given below,
unless stated otherwise, are the pressures for each
The volume percent liquid, V 0, obtained from Fig.
3 for Fluid A at 2,220 psia is approximately 2.5
cal normalized relative permeability characteristics,
Fig. 3 shows 18 volume percent liquid at a pressure
of 3,165 psia. The predicted condensate saturations
shown in Figs. 4 and 6 will be converted to percent
of hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV)' For p ..pr'!;c-
tion A, the condensate occupied 44 percent HCPV,
whereas for Prediction C, the condensate occupied
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 TABLE 4 - PRODUCTIVITY RATIOS FOR PREDICTED PERFORMANCES
p. pw q qc
Prediction (psia) (psia) (Mscf/D)
A 2,284. 2,208. 513
8 3,725. 2,010. 5,081
C 4,570. 2,700. 10,092
54 percent fICPV. Although the ratio of Va for Pre-
diction C to Va for Prediction A was 7.2, the ratio
of the percent HCPV occupied by the condensed
liquids was only 1.2. This comparison shows that
the condensate accumulation for a lean gas conden-
sate as required by radial flow effects may be nearly
equal to the condensate accumulation for a rich sys-
tem. Of course, the cumulative fluid produced before
the required condensate saturation is achieved will
be greater for the lean gas condensate system.
For Prediction B, the average reservoir pressure
(3,860 psia) was less than the saturation pressure
of the original in-place gas condensate. The calcula-
tions performed to generate the results shown on Fig.
10 included constant composition expansion data for
each vapor composition. These data were used to
estimate that Va was 3 percent at 2,270 psia for the
vapor composition entering the steady-state region.
The predicted saturation from Fig. 5 is equivalent to
29 percent HCPV. Prediction A, on the other hand,
occupied 44 percent HCPV, with the value of Va
being 2.5 percent. The relative permeability charac-
teristics (Fig. 2) for Prediction B are more efficient
in terms of liquid displacement by gas and, hence,
require a smaller saturation before a flowing con-
densate phase is established. This results in a lower
retained condensate saturation.
Predictions using one gas condensate and two dif-
ferent sets of relative permeability characteristics (see
Predictions A and B on Fig. 2) have not been made,
but the previous results indicate that the condensate
saturations in the steady-state region will differ sig-
nificantly. The steady-state method, Appendix B, can
be used to show that the well deliverability using the
relative permeability characteristics for Prediction
B will be greater than the deliverability calculated
using the relative permeability characteristics for
Prediction A.
Effect of Accumulated Liquid on Productivity
The accumulated condensate in the vicinity of the
well should affect the productivity of the well. The
productivity ratio,14 defined as the ratio of the pro-
ductivity index of the actual well to the productivity
index of the standard well, can be used to estimate
the productivity loss. In this study, the standard well
(defined in Appendix B) for each prediction has fluid
and formation characteristics identical with those of
the actual well. The only difference is that the phe-
nomenon of condensate accumulation due to radial
flow effects is ignored. Instead, condensate satura-
tions as a function of pressure are the saturations
calculated from the volumetric depletion data for
the fluid; i.e., the depletion saturations given in Figs.
4 through 6.
The ratio of the productivity predicted by the
I-D radial model to the standard well productivity
JULY, 1973
q,
(Mscf/D) (Mscf/D) PR PR"
261 966 0.53 0.27
1,960 17,096 0.30 0.12
11,291 32,850 0.31 0.34
(Appendix B) is defined as the productivity ratio,
PR = q/qs , (3)
where the evaluation of q and q" must be for given
values of Pe and Pw. This productivity ratio will show
the effect of the condensate accumulation on the well
performance. It is also, of course, an estimate of the
error resulting from the use of ms(p) to account for
radial flow effects during areal predictions. Second,
the steady-state productivity ratio is defined as
(4)
where qc is the steady-state production rate (Appen-
dix B). It is implied that the values of Pw and Pe are
the same for evaluation of qc and q .
The two productivity ratios will be useful for com-
paring the predicted performance with the steady-
state performance. The predicted flow rates and
pressures at the conclusion of the three predictions
have been used to calculate the productivity ratios
given by Eqs. 3 and 4. The results are given in
Table 4.
The magnitude of the productivity.ratios for these
predictions indicates the severe loss of productivity
due to liquid accumulation. Prediction A indicates
a production rate of one-half that of the standard
well. The other two predictions that are for real fluid
systems show that the wells will produce only about
one-third the fluid produced by the standard well.
Had the standard well been a dry-gas well, the loss
of productivity would appear to be more severe.
The saturation profile for Predictions A and B did
not agree with the steady-state profile. The compari-
son of PR and PR ss for these predictions shows that
unrealistically low production rates are calculated by
the steady-state method. These low rates are caused
by the excessive lengths of the region of high con-
densate saturations. Prediction C showed excellent
agreement between the predicted and the steady-state
saturations. The productivity ratios are also in excel-
lent agreement. They demonstrate the advantages of
the I-D radial compositional model over the steady-
state method. In addition, the model can accurately
predict performance when, for example, the forma-
tion properties are inhomogeneous, or the initial
in-place fluid composition is variable, or when there
are gravitational and capillary pressure effects. The
predicted performances could be used during the
areal simulations to account accurately for radial
flow effects.
Pressure Buildup
The reservoir engineer is constantly searching for a
method of correcting phenomena that reduce the
productivity of a producing well. One might expect
that the accumulated condensate would revaporize if
the well were shut in and the pressure allowed to
867
build up. In other words, parametric pUlsing would
increase the net production from the reservoir. This
appears to be most economical for the conditions in
Predictions A and C, but pressure buildup should
also have merit for the conditions of Prediction B.
The well in Prediction A was "mathematically"
shut in at the completion of the depletion perform-
ance. The shut-in condition was predicted until the
pressure throughout the reservoir was, in essence,
constant. These particular depletion and subsequent
buildup predictions were obtained with the model
that had the equation of state merged as an integral
part - i.e., R-K predicted - K j = !(p, Zi) on Fig. 4.
Therefore, the compositional dependence of the K-
values was accounted for. The predicted condensate
saturations were for all practical purposes unaf-
fected. Some revaporization was noticed near the
outer edge of the two-phase region (r > 30 ft). The
condensate saturations in the cells nearest the well
increased very slightly.
The pressure buildup of Prediction B gave similar
results. Some revaporization occurred in the exterior
region of the reservoir (r > 200 ft). The condensate
saturations increased very slightly in the vicinity of
the well.
The revaporization in the exterior regions of the
reservoir during pressure buildup has been demon-
strated by 1-D linear models. There is sufficient
in-place vapor to hold the vaporized liquid as the
pressure increases. In the vicinity of the producing
well, the ratio of volume of condensate to volume of
vapor is considerably larger. The in-place vapor can-
not hold any appreciable amount of condensate. The
vapor flowing into this region, as required to cause
the increased pressure, is also saturated. These re-
sults show that parametric pulsing will not be of any
value as a method of improving the productivity of
a gas condensate well.
Summary
A 1-D radial compositional model has been modified
and used to predict the single-well performance in
three gas condensate reservoirs. The finite-difference
approximations to the partial-differential equations
describing component flow within a reservoir are
presented.
The predicted performances showed that the pro-
ductivity of the well compared with that of a stand-
ard well can be reduced by a factor of three, owing
to condensate accumulation in the region of the pro-
ducing well. The condensate saturations in this region
are much greater than those measured experimentally
during the constant volume depletion process for
the fluid.
When the average reservoir pressure falls below
the saturation pressure, the composition of the fluid
entering the steady-state region varies with decreas-
ing pressure. The varying composition affects the
magnitude of the condensate saturations within this
region. The composition dependence of phase equi-
libria data, on the other hand, can be neglected for
most gas condensate fluid systems during the predic-
tion of single-well depletion performance.
The relative permeability characteristics for the
868
formation significantly affect the magnitude of the
condensate saturations in the steady-state region.
Predicted performances using the model were com-
pared with performances calculated by a steady-state
method. The comparison revealed that the steady-
state method may not accurately predict the distance
within the reservoir in which high condensate satu-
rations exist. Two predictions obtained with the
model were used to demonstrate the incorrectly pre-
dicted lengths. In both cases, low production rates
were calculated by the steady-state method.
Shutting in (for pressure buildup) of a gas-
condensate producing well in which condensate
accumulation has severely restricted the productivity
was shown to have a negligible effect on the con-
densate saturation in the vicinity of the producing
well. Consequently, the cumulative production over
a period of time would not be improved by para-
metric pulsing.
The radial model has the advantage over the
simple steady-state predictions for many predictions,
especially when the average reservoir pressure is less
than the saturation pressure of the original in-place
fluid or when the formation is inhomogeneous. The
model described in this paper is accurate, stable,
and simple to use.
Nomenclature
A = variable to control cell boundary radius
in terms of rw , 1
C = 14.65 T/520 P in Eq. 2
C g j = mass fraction of Component j in the gas
phase, lbi/lb gas
Co. j = mass fraction of Component j in the con-
densate phase, lbi/lb condensate
kh = permeability-height product for the for-
mation, md-ft
krg = relative permeability of the gas phase, 1
k ro = relative permeability of the condensate
phase, 1
K j = equilibrium ratio (K-value) for compo-
nent j, mol j gas/mol j condensate
tg = flow coefficient for the gas phase,
tg = krgkhpg/ {Ly
to = flow coefficient for the condensate phase,
to = krokhpo/lto
mc(p) = pseudopressure function for gas conden-
sate fluid
mc(p) = 2 .f ~r 1 + Vo
p. {LgZy
Z9]
Vo Zo
AdA
ms(p) = pseudopressure function for standard well
p krq
ms(p) = 2 J _.- 'AdA
p. {LgZg
M j = mass of component j per unit pore volume,
lbi/unit PV
M j = (PoSoC o. j + pgSgCy , j)
NN = number of cells into which the reservoir is
discretized
p = reservoir pressure, psia
Pi = initial reservoir pressure, psia
PR = productivity ratio - production rate of
actual well/production rate of standard
well
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
 PR = steady-state productivity ratio - steady-
state production rate of actual well/
production rate of standard well
PV = cell pore volume,
PV = 71"<ph(r2i+'h - r2i_Ji,), cu ft
q = production rate in surface units unless
otherwise defined, Mscf/D
r ::;: radius, ft
So = condensate saturation, percent of pore
volume
Swc = connate water saturation, percent of pore
volume
t = time, days
T = temperature, OR
V = volume percent of HCPV occupied by the
gas or condensate phase
Z = compressibility factor for the gas or con-
densate phase, 1
Zj = composition of the fluid mixture, mole
fraction
A = variable of integration
p. = phase viscosity, cp
<ph = porosity-height product, ft
fJ = angular dimension in radial geometry,
radians
SUbscripts
c = refers to steady-state conditions and total
condensate production
e = exterior boundary of reservoir
g = gas phase
i = cell location
o = condensate phase
s = standard well
w = well location
wi = refers to final pressure at the well
Superscript
n = time level
References
1. Kniazeff, V. J. and Naville, S. A.: "Two-Phase Flow of
Volatile Hydrocarbons," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March, 1965)
37-44; Trans., AIME, 234.
2. Eilerts, C. K., Sumner, E. F. and Potts, N. L.: "Integra-
tion of Partial Differential Equation for Transient Radial
Flow of Gas-Condensate Fluids in Porous Structures,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June, 1965) 141-152; Trans., AIME,
231.
3. O'Dell, H. G. and MiIIer, R. N.: "Successfully Cycling
a Low Permeability, High-Yield Gas Condensate Res-
ervoir," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan., 1967) 41-44.
4. Roebuck, I. F., Jr., Ford, W. T., Henderson, G. E. and
Douglas, Jim, Jr.: "The Compositional Reservoir Simu-
lator: Case I - The Linear Model," Soc. Pet. Eng. J.
(March, 1969) 115-130; Trans., AIME, 246.
5. Roebuck, I. F., Jr., Ford, W. T., Henderson, G. E. and
Douglas, Jim, Jf.: "The Compositional Reservoir Simu-
lator: Case III - The Radial Geometry," unpublished
paper, available from Core Laboratories, Inc., Dallas, Tex.
6. Roebuck, I. F., Jr., Ford, W. T., Henderson, G. E. and
Douglas, Jim, Jr.: "The Compositional Simulator: Case
II - The Two Dimensional Model," paper SPE 2235
presented at SPE-AIME 43rd Annual Fall Meeting,
Houston, Sept. 29-0ct. 2, 1968.
7. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D. G.: Pressure Buildup
and Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1967) 1.
8. Bruce, G. H., Peaceman, D. W., Rachford, H. H., and
Rice, J. D.: "Calculations of Unsteady-State Gas Flow
Through Porous Media," Trans., AIME (1953) 198,
79-92.
JULY, 1973
9. Fussell, D. D. and Yarborough, Lyman: "The Effect of
Phase Data on Liquids Recovery During Cycling of a
Gas Condensate Reservoir," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (April,
1972) 96-102.
10. Zudkevitch, D. and Joffe, J.: "Correlation and Predic-
tion of Vapor-Liquid Equilibria with the Redlich-Kwong
Equation of State," AIChE J. (1970) 16, No.1, 112.
11. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Crawford, P. B.:
"The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media," J.
Pet. Tech. (May, 1966) 624-636; Trans., AIME, 237.
12. Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Application of
Real Gas Flow Theory to Well Testing and Deliverability
Forecasting," J. Pet. Tech. (May, 1966) 637-642; Trans.,
AIME, 237.
13. Jacoby, R. H. and Yarborough, Lyman: "PVT Measure-
ments on Petroleum Reservoir Fluids and Their Uses,"
Ind. and Eng. Chern. (Oct., 1967) 59,48.
14. Craft, B. C. and Hawkins, M. F., Jr.: Applied Petroleum
Reservoir Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, N. J. (1959).
APPENDIX A
Development of Difference Equations
The logic of the I-D simulator used in this study is
similar to that described by Roebuck et al.,,5 The
finite-difference approximations of the nonlinear
partial- differential equations (PDE) that describe
individual component and water-phase flows within
the reservoir are different. Our difference approxi-
mations for a component are derived below. The
difference approximations for the water-phase PDE
and the pressure equations 4 are obvious variations of
the equations presented below.
The PDE describing the I-D radial flow of the jth
hydrocarbon component within the reservoir is
oM
<ph---at -
j _ oP] .
r1 ar0 [ r(loCo,j + 19C9,j) ar (A-I)
The solution of this equation for each component at
time t can be obtained by integrating Eq. A-lover
the limits 0 :s; fJ :s; 271" and r w :s; r :s; re; i.e.,
21T r oM 21T
J
o r
l
w
<phA~"_i dAdfJ =
vt
J
0
[A(loC. j + luCg, j) ~~ ] dAdfJ (A-2)
In Fig. 1, the reservoir is divided into NN cells, with
the cell centers denoted by i and the cell boundaries
denoted by i - l/Z and i + 1h. An integral equation
similar to Eq. A-2 is written for each of the NN cells.
Choosing the ith cell, one can write
21T
J
o
op]
[ A(loC.j + lyCy,j) ~ dAdfJ . (A-3)
The sum of NN equations of the form Eq. A-3 for
each cell becomes Eq. A-2. The integrands in Eq. A-3
are independent of fJ and the limits of integration are
independent of time. Eq. A-3 may be integrated with
respect to fJ and r. The resulting equation contains
the time derivative of the component mass. Using the
standard difference approximation for this derivative,
the difference approximation of the ith PDE for the
ith cell and the jth component is
869

where the superscript n indicates evaluation of the
variable at time t, and n + 1 indicates evaluation at
time t + !1t. Standard difference approximations for
the pressure derivatives are used to arrive at the final
difference approximation to Eq. A-I.
M n+ 1 = Mn + 271'l:::.t
j,i j,i PV i
~[
ri+16(loCo j + lyCY.j)n+l (p~+1
" '~+~
(ri+1 - ri)
_
ri_,,(loCo
7'2'
J' + lyC ' t -n+1
lh
(pn+1 - p~'+1) 1~
g J')
~ 1.-1
[ (ri - ri-l)
The evaluation of the coefficients (loCo, j + lyCy, j) at
the cell boundary depends on the direction of flow.
In this work, the coefficients are evaluated upstream.
The boundary condition at re is a no-flow bound-
ary. Since the terms within the brackets of Eq. A-5
can be considered as component flow terms, the
equation may be represented in the following form:
At the outer boundary the flow rate is zero, which
eliminates the first term from the equation. At the
inner boundary, either the total fluid mass produc-
tion rate, q, is constant or the flowing bottom-hole
pressure, p~+1
t-%
, is held constant. During the period
in which the mass rate is constant, the term in the
second set of brackets is replaced by the contribu-
tion of this component to that rate (represented by
qj,i-Y,)' For the boundary conditions Pi-lf = con-
stant, the simulator holds the pressure Pi constant
and predicts the mass rate through an iterative pro-
cedure. The composition and properties of the pro-
duced fluid are based on loCo, j and lyC g , j in the cell
adjacent to the well at Time Level.n + 1 for both
production schemes (see Ref. 4).
APPENDIX B
Depletion and Steady-State Methods
Depletion Method
The loss in productivity sustained by a gas-condensate
producing well as a result of condensate accumula-
tion can be determined by comparing the actual or
predicted well performance with the performance of
a "standard" well. Condensate accumulation is de-
fined as the condensate saturation in excess of the
condensate saturation given by the experimental vol-
umetric depletion data. The "standard" well is then
870
chosen as a well with formation and fluid character-
istics identical with those of the actual well. The con-
densate saturations as a function of pressure for the
standard well are the saturations given by the deple-
tion data. The method used to calculate the perform-
ance of the standard well is referred to as the deple-
tion method.
Al Hussainy et al. l l , 12 presented a pseudopressure
(A-4) function for a dry gas. This function is modified to
include the reduction in gas phase permeability due
to the condensate saturation. The pseudopressure
function for the depletion method is defined as
m.(p) = 2 J k~
P, fLy 9
AdA . (B-I)
The function ms(p) assumes that the condensate
phase is immobile. The integrand of Eq. B-I is a
1
- pn+l) function only of pressure, since by definition the con-
1-+1 t
densate saturation is a known function of pressure.
The volumetric depletion data and the formation
relative permeability characteristics allow one to de-
velop ms(p) as a function of pressure over the pres-
sure range of interest.
(A-5) Steady-State Method
The steady-state method is similar to that presented
in Ref. 3. In that derivation, equal condensate and
gas-phase compressibility factors were assumed. The
steady-state equation developed in Ref. 3 for a gas
condensate is similar to the pseudopressure function
for a dry gas. l l Here, the steady-state pseudopressure
function for a gas condensate is defined as
( )- 2fP -kZ (I +-V
mcp -
Pb
Vo -Z
fJ-ll
Zg) AA,.
ry d
9 !J '...JO
(B-2)
which includes a compressibility factor for each
phase. The integrand of Eq. B-2 is a function of
pressure only. The constant composition expansion
data (Fig. 3) are used to evaluate the integrand as
a function of pressure. Ref. 3 describes the mechanics
of evaluating the integrand, given the phase equi-
libria data and the formation relative permeability
characteristics.
Well Productivity - Depletion and
Steady-State Methods
The depletion and steady-state pseudopressure func-
tions are used with the equation
702.2 X 1O- 6 kh
q = T In (re/rw) [m(Pe) - m(pw)]. (B-3)
to calculate the production rate. The above equation
requires sand-face and exterior reservoir pressures.
These pressures are used to determine the appropri-
ate pseudopressure function for the depletion and
steady-state methods. The pseudopressure functions
are then used in Eq. B-3 to calculate the well pro-
ductivity, q. or qc. The production rate qs is the pro-
duction rate of the standard well. JFT
Paper (SPE 4072) was presented at SPEAIME 47th Annual
Fall Meeting, held in San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 811, 1972. Copy
right 1973 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, Inc.
JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY