Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Production data for some gas condensate producing account for component mass transfer between phases
wells have shown that the productivity is severely as dictated by phase equilibria data. One of these
curtailed when the flowing bottom-hole pressure is models 5 was used to predict the performance of a
less than the saturation pressure of the in-place fluid. producing well in a reservoir containing a rich gas
It is generally accepted that this reduction is due to condensate. The duration of the prediction was very
accumulation of condensed liquid near the well bore short (0.25 day), so no definite conclusions could be
and, for low producing rates, accumulation of con- inferred from the study. The results did show that
densate within the tubing string or the annulus, or condensate accumulated very rapidly adjacent to the
both, depending on the type of well completion. well as soon as the flowing bottom-hole pressure fell
Liquid condensate accumulation, hereafter referred below the saturation pressure.
to as condensate accumulation, is defined as the con- The purpose of this paper is to describe the use
densed hydrocarbon liquid saturation within the for- of a modified version of the one-dimensional (1-D)
mation in excess of the saturation given by the radial model developed by Roebuck et aT. to study
experimental volumetric depletion data. long-term single-well performance in three gas con-
Kniazeff and Naville 1 and Eilerts et aU each de- densate reservoirs. This work was done to (1) show
veloped models for predicting the saturations and the effect of condensate accumulation on well pro-
pressures in the vicinity of a gas condensate pro- ductivity, (2) evaluate the applicability of a steady-
ducing well. The method used by Eilerts et aT. state method similar to that presented by O'Dell and
requires data for the fluid system obtained from lab- Miller, and (3) evaluate the effect of phase equilibria
oratory flow experiments in the porous media of data and relative permeability characteristics on pre-
interest. Both studies predicted high condensate satu- dicted performance.
rations in the region of the well.
O'Dell and Miller 3 presented a simple method Description of Model
based on steady-state flow concepts that can be used Roebuck et aT.4-6 give detailed descriptions of I-D
to estimate quickly the deliverability from the well. linear, I-D radial, and 2-D compositional models.
Results obtained using this method indicate that pre- Briefly, the models predict the flow of each hydro-
dictions of producing rates will be pessimistic if the carbon component* and the water phase as a func-
average reservoir pressure is below the saturation tion of time and space. The components are allowed
pressure of the in-place fluid.
Roebuck et aT.4-6 developed the first models that *A hydrocarbon component or component as used herein in
eludes the nonhydrocarbon components nitrogen, carbon di
consider the flow of individual components and oxide, and hydrogen sulfide.
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.
3500
c(
V>
a.. 3100
....i
c::
=>
V>
~
~ 2700
2300
1900
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
-
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
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.
54 percent fICPV. Although the ratio of Va for Pre- (Appendix B) is defined as the productivity ratio,
diction C to Va for Prediction A was 7.2, the ratio
of the percent HCPV occupied by the condensed PR = q/qs , (3)
liquids was only 1.2. This comparison shows that where the evaluation of q and q" must be for given
the condensate accumulation for a lean gas conden- values of Pe and Pw. This productivity ratio will show
sate as required by radial flow effects may be nearly the effect of the condensate accumulation on the well
equal to the condensate accumulation for a rich sys- performance. It is also, of course, an estimate of the
tem. Of course, the cumulative fluid produced before error resulting from the use of ms(p) to account for
the required condensate saturation is achieved will radial flow effects during areal predictions. Second,
be greater for the lean gas condensate system. the steady-state productivity ratio is defined as
For Prediction B, the average reservoir pressure
(3,860 psia) was less than the saturation pressure (4)
of the original in-place gas condensate. The calcula- where qc is the steady-state production rate (Appen-
tions performed to generate the results shown on Fig. dix B). It is implied that the values of Pw and Pe are
10 included constant composition expansion data for the same for evaluation of qc and q .
each vapor composition. These data were used to The two productivity ratios will be useful for com-
estimate that Va was 3 percent at 2,270 psia for the paring the predicted performance with the steady-
vapor composition entering the steady-state region. state performance. The predicted flow rates and
The predicted saturation from Fig. 5 is equivalent to pressures at the conclusion of the three predictions
29 percent HCPV. Prediction A, on the other hand, have been used to calculate the productivity ratios
occupied 44 percent HCPV, with the value of Va given by Eqs. 3 and 4. The results are given in
being 2.5 percent. The relative permeability charac- Table 4.
teristics (Fig. 2) for Prediction B are more efficient The magnitude of the productivity.ratios for these
in terms of liquid displacement by gas and, hence, predictions indicates the severe loss of productivity
require a smaller saturation before a flowing con- due to liquid accumulation. Prediction A indicates
densate phase is established. This results in a lower a production rate of one-half that of the standard
retained condensate saturation. well. The other two predictions that are for real fluid
Predictions using one gas condensate and two dif- systems show that the wells will produce only about
ferent sets of relative permeability characteristics (see one-third the fluid produced by the standard well.
Predictions A and B on Fig. 2) have not been made, Had the standard well been a dry-gas well, the loss
but the previous results indicate that the condensate of productivity would appear to be more severe.
saturations in the steady-state region will differ sig- The saturation profile for Predictions A and B did
nificantly. The steady-state method, Appendix B, can not agree with the steady-state profile. The compari-
be used to show that the well deliverability using the son of PR and PR ss for these predictions shows that
relative permeability characteristics for Prediction unrealistically low production rates are calculated by
B will be greater than the deliverability calculated the steady-state method. These low rates are caused
using the relative permeability characteristics for by the excessive lengths of the region of high con-
Prediction A. densate saturations. Prediction C showed excellent
agreement between the predicted and the steady-state
Effect of Accumulated Liquid on Productivity saturations. The productivity ratios are also in excel-
The accumulated condensate in the vicinity of the lent agreement. They demonstrate the advantages of
well should affect the productivity of the well. The the I-D radial compositional model over the steady-
productivity ratio,14 defined as the ratio of the pro- state method. In addition, the model can accurately
ductivity index of the actual well to the productivity predict performance when, for example, the forma-
index of the standard well, can be used to estimate tion properties are inhomogeneous, or the initial
the productivity loss. In this study, the standard well in-place fluid composition is variable, or when there
(defined in Appendix B) for each prediction has fluid are gravitational and capillary pressure effects. The
and formation characteristics identical with those of predicted performances could be used during the
the actual well. The only difference is that the phe- areal simulations to account accurately for radial
nomenon of condensate accumulation due to radial flow effects.
flow effects is ignored. Instead, condensate satura-
tions as a function of pressure are the saturations Pressure Buildup
calculated from the volumetric depletion data for The reservoir engineer is constantly searching for a
the fluid; i.e., the depletion saturations given in Figs. method of correcting phenomena that reduce the
4 through 6. productivity of a producing well. One might expect
The ratio of the productivity predicted by the that the accumulated condensate would revaporize if
I-D radial model to the standard well productivity the well were shut in and the pressure allowed to
JULY, 1973 867
build up. In other words, parametric pUlsing would formation significantly affect the magnitude of the
increase the net production from the reservoir. This condensate saturations in the steady-state region.
appears to be most economical for the conditions in Predicted performances using the model were com-
Predictions A and C, but pressure buildup should pared with performances calculated by a steady-state
also have merit for the conditions of Prediction B. method. The comparison revealed that the steady-
The well in Prediction A was "mathematically" state method may not accurately predict the distance
shut in at the completion of the depletion perform- within the reservoir in which high condensate satu-
ance. The shut-in condition was predicted until the rations exist. Two predictions obtained with the
pressure throughout the reservoir was, in essence, model were used to demonstrate the incorrectly pre-
constant. These particular depletion and subsequent dicted lengths. In both cases, low production rates
buildup predictions were obtained with the model were calculated by the steady-state method.
that had the equation of state merged as an integral Shutting in (for pressure buildup) of a gas-
part - i.e., R-K predicted - K j = !(p, Zi) on Fig. 4. condensate producing well in which condensate
Therefore, the compositional dependence of the K- accumulation has severely restricted the productivity
values was accounted for. The predicted condensate was shown to have a negligible effect on the con-
saturations were for all practical purposes unaf- densate saturation in the vicinity of the producing
fected. Some revaporization was noticed near the well. Consequently, the cumulative production over
outer edge of the two-phase region (r > 30 ft). The a period of time would not be improved by para-
condensate saturations in the cells nearest the well metric pulsing.
increased very slightly. The radial model has the advantage over the
The pressure buildup of Prediction B gave similar simple steady-state predictions for many predictions,
results. Some revaporization occurred in the exterior especially when the average reservoir pressure is less
region of the reservoir (r > 200 ft). The condensate than the saturation pressure of the original in-place
saturations increased very slightly in the vicinity of fluid or when the formation is inhomogeneous. The
the well. model described in this paper is accurate, stable,
The revaporization in the exterior regions of the and simple to use.
reservoir during pressure buildup has been demon-
strated by 1-D linear models. There is sufficient Nomenclature
in-place vapor to hold the vaporized liquid as the A = variable to control cell boundary radius
pressure increases. In the vicinity of the producing in terms of rw , 1
well, the ratio of volume of condensate to volume of C = 14.65 T/520 P in Eq. 2
vapor is considerably larger. The in-place vapor can- C g j = mass fraction of Component j in the gas
not hold any appreciable amount of condensate. The phase, lbi/lb gas
vapor flowing into this region, as required to cause Co. j = mass fraction of Component j in the con-
the increased pressure, is also saturated. These re- densate phase, lbi/lb condensate
sults show that parametric pulsing will not be of any kh = permeability-height product for the for-
value as a method of improving the productivity of mation, md-ft
a gas condensate well. krg = relative permeability of the gas phase, 1
k ro = relative permeability of the condensate
Summary phase, 1
A 1-D radial compositional model has been modified K j = equilibrium ratio (K-value) for compo-
and used to predict the single-well performance in nent j, mol j gas/mol j condensate
three gas condensate reservoirs. The finite-difference tg = flow coefficient for the gas phase,
approximations to the partial-differential equations tg = krgkhpg/ {Ly
describing component flow within a reservoir are to = flow coefficient for the condensate phase,
presented. to = krokhpo/lto
The predicted performances showed that the pro- mc(p) = pseudopressure function for gas conden-
ductivity of the well compared with that of a stand- sate fluid
ard well can be reduced by a factor of three, owing
to condensate accumulation in the region of the pro- mc(p) = 2 .f ~r 1 + Vo
p. {LgZy
Z9]
Vo Zo
AdA
ducing well. The condensate saturations in this region
are much greater than those measured experimentally ms(p) = pseudopressure function for standard well
during the constant volume depletion process for p krq
ms(p) = 2 J _.- 'AdA
the fluid. p. {LgZg
When the average reservoir pressure falls below M j = mass of component j per unit pore volume,
the saturation pressure, the composition of the fluid lbi/unit PV
entering the steady-state region varies with decreas- M j = (PoSoC o. j + pgSgCy , j)
ing pressure. The varying composition affects the NN = number of cells into which the reservoir is
magnitude of the condensate saturations within this discretized
region. The composition dependence of phase equi- p = reservoir pressure, psia
libria data, on the other hand, can be neglected for Pi = initial reservoir pressure, psia
most gas condensate fluid systems during the predic- PR = productivity ratio - production rate of
tion of single-well depletion performance. actual well/production rate of standard
The relative permeability characteristics for the well
868 JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY
PR = steady-state productivity ratio - steady- 9. Fussell, D. D. and Yarborough, Lyman: "The Effect of
state production rate of actual well/ Phase Data on Liquids Recovery During Cycling of a
Gas Condensate Reservoir," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (April,
production rate of standard well 1972) 96-102.
PV = cell pore volume, 10. Zudkevitch, D. and Joffe, J.: "Correlation and Predic-
PV = 71"<ph(r2i+'h - r2i_Ji,), cu ft tion of Vapor-Liquid Equilibria with the Redlich-Kwong
Equation of State," AIChE J. (1970) 16, No.1, 112.
q = production rate in surface units unless 11. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., Jr., and Crawford, P. B.:
otherwise defined, Mscf/D "The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media," J.
r ::;: radius, ft Pet. Tech. (May, 1966) 624-636; Trans., AIME, 237.
So = condensate saturation, percent of pore 12. Al-Hussainy, R. and Ramey, H. J., Jr.: "Application of
Real Gas Flow Theory to Well Testing and Deliverability
volume Forecasting," J. Pet. Tech. (May, 1966) 637-642; Trans.,
Swc = connate water saturation, percent of pore AIME, 237.
volume 13. Jacoby, R. H. and Yarborough, Lyman: "PVT Measure-
t = time, days ments on Petroleum Reservoir Fluids and Their Uses,"
Ind. and Eng. Chern. (Oct., 1967) 59,48.
T = temperature, OR 14. Craft, B. C. and Hawkins, M. F., Jr.: Applied Petroleum
V = volume percent of HCPV occupied by the Reservoir Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
gas or condensate phase Cliffs, N. J. (1959).
Z = compressibility factor for the gas or con- APPENDIX A
densate phase, 1 Development of Difference Equations
Zj = composition of the fluid mixture, mole
The logic of the I-D simulator used in this study is
fraction
similar to that described by Roebuck et al.,,5 The
A = variable of integration
p. = phase viscosity, cp
finite-difference approximations of the nonlinear
<ph = porosity-height product, ft
partial- differential equations (PDE) that describe
fJ = angular dimension in radial geometry,
individual component and water-phase flows within
radians the reservoir are different. Our difference approxi-
mations for a component are derived below. The
SUbscripts difference approximations for the water-phase PDE
c = refers to steady-state conditions and total and the pressure equations 4 are obvious variations of
condensate production the equations presented below.
e = exterior boundary of reservoir The PDE describing the I-D radial flow of the jth
g = gas phase
hydrocarbon component within the reservoir is
i = cell location
o = condensate phase
oM
<ph---at -
j _ oP] .
r1 ar0 [ r(loCo,j + 19C9,j) ar (A-I)
s = standard well
w = well location The solution of this equation for each component at
wi = refers to final pressure at the well 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.,
Superscript
21T r oM 21T
n = time level J
o r
l
w
<phA~"_i dAdfJ =
vt
J
0
References
1. Kniazeff, V. J. and Naville, S. A.: "Two-Phase Flow of
Volatile Hydrocarbons," Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (March, 1965)
[A(loC. j + luCg, j) ~~ ] dAdfJ (A-2)
37-44; Trans., AIME, 234.
2. Eilerts, C. K., Sumner, E. F. and Potts, N. L.: "Integra- In Fig. 1, the reservoir is divided into NN cells, with
tion of Partial Differential Equation for Transient Radial the cell centers denoted by i and the cell boundaries
Flow of Gas-Condensate Fluids in Porous Structures,"
Soc. Pet. Eng. J. (June, 1965) 141-152; Trans., AIME, denoted by i - l/Z and i + 1h. An integral equation
231. similar to Eq. A-2 is written for each of the NN cells.
3. O'Dell, H. G. and MiIIer, R. N.: "Successfully Cycling
a Low Permeability, High-Yield Gas Condensate Res- Choosing the ith cell, one can write
ervoir," J. Pet. Tech. (Jan., 1967) 41-44.
21T
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.
J
o
(March, 1969) 115-130; Trans., AIME, 246.
5. Roebuck, I. F., Jr., Ford, W. T., Henderson, G. E. and op]
Douglas, Jim, Jf.: "The Compositional Reservoir Simu-
lator: Case III - The Radial Geometry," unpublished
[ A(loC.j + lyCy,j) ~ dAdfJ . (A-3)
paper, available from Core Laboratories, Inc., Dallas, Tex.
6. Roebuck, I. F., Jr., Ford, W. T., Henderson, G. E. and The sum of NN equations of the form Eq. A-3 for
Douglas, Jim, Jr.: "The Compositional Simulator: Case each cell becomes Eq. A-2. The integrands in Eq. A-3
II - The Two Dimensional Model," paper SPE 2235
presented at SPE-AIME 43rd Annual Fall Meeting, are independent of fJ and the limits of integration are
Houston, Sept. 29-0ct. 2, 1968. independent of time. Eq. A-3 may be integrated with
7. Matthews, C. S. and Russell, D. G.: Pressure Buildup respect to fJ and r. The resulting equation contains
and Flow Tests in Wells, Monograph Series, Society of
Petroleum Engineers of AIME, Dallas (1967) 1. the time derivative of the component mass. Using the
8. Bruce, G. H., Peaceman, D. W., Rachford, H. H., and standard difference approximation for this derivative,
Rice, J. D.: "Calculations of Unsteady-State Gas Flow the difference approximation of the ith PDE for the
Through Porous Media," Trans., AIME (1953) 198,
79-92. ith cell and the jth component is
JULY, 1973 869
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
where the superscript n indicates evaluation of the include the reduction in gas phase permeability due
variable at time t, and n + 1 indicates evaluation at to the condensate saturation. The pseudopressure
time t + !1t. Standard difference approximations for function for the depletion method is defined as
the pressure derivatives are used to arrive at the final
difference approximation to Eq. A-I. m.(p) = 2 J k~
P, fLy 9
AdA . (B-I)
At the outer boundary the flow rate is zero, which which includes a compressibility factor for each
eliminates the first term from the equation. At the phase. The integrand of Eq. B-2 is a function of
inner boundary, either the total fluid mass produc- pressure only. The constant composition expansion
tion rate, q, is constant or the flowing bottom-hole data (Fig. 3) are used to evaluate the integrand as
pressure, p~+1
t-%
, is held constant. During the period a function of pressure. Ref. 3 describes the mechanics
in which the mass rate is constant, the term in the of evaluating the integrand, given the phase equi-
second set of brackets is replaced by the contribu- libria data and the formation relative permeability
tion of this component to that rate (represented by characteristics.
qj,i-Y,)' For the boundary conditions Pi-lf = con-
Well Productivity - Depletion and
stant, the simulator holds the pressure Pi constant
and predicts the mass rate through an iterative pro- Steady-State Methods
cedure. The composition and properties of the pro- The depletion and steady-state pseudopressure func-
duced fluid are based on loCo, j and lyC g , j in the cell tions are used with the equation
adjacent to the well at Time Level.n + 1 for both
702.2 X 1O- 6 kh
production schemes (see Ref. 4). q = T In (re/rw) [m(Pe) - m(pw)]. (B-3)
APPENDIX B to calculate the production rate. The above equation
Depletion and Steady-State Methods requires sand-face and exterior reservoir pressures.
Depletion Method These pressures are used to determine the appropri-
ate pseudopressure function for the depletion and
The loss in productivity sustained by a gas-condensate steady-state methods. The pseudopressure functions
producing well as a result of condensate accumula- are then used in Eq. B-3 to calculate the well pro-
tion can be determined by comparing the actual or ductivity, q. or qc. The production rate qs is the pro-
predicted well performance with the performance of duction rate of the standard well. JFT
a "standard" well. Condensate accumulation is de-
fined as the condensate saturation in excess of the Paper (SPE 4072) was presented at SPEAIME 47th Annual
condensate saturation given by the experimental vol- Fall Meeting, held in San Antonio, Tex., Oct. 811, 1972. Copy
right 1973 American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
umetric depletion data. The "standard" well is then Petroleum Engineers, Inc.