IPTC 10243

Gas/Condensate Well Deliverability: Integrated Laboratory-Simulation-Field Study

N. Silpngarmlers, SPE, P. Ayyalasomayajula, SPE, and J. Kamath, SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Co.

Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 2123 November 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
It is well known that the deliverability of gas condensate wells
can be impaired by the formation of a condensate bank once
the bottomhole pressure drops below the dew-point. There
have been many excellent laboratory studies on gascondensate relative permeability that describe this
phenomenon, but there are few integrated laboratorysimulation-field studies that compare systematic predictions to
field performance.
We present extensive experimental relative permeability
data sets on some sandstone reservoirs. These data span the
krg/kro and capillary number parameter space. We discuss the
experimental procedures, and the design of fluid systems that
mimic reservoir fluids, but at lower temperatures. Next we
demonstrate various steps involved in our approach by
modeling a gas condensate well with field production history.
Here we first measured relative permeability data on core
samples from the reservoir and fit them to capillary number
dependent relative permeability models. Then, we performed
detailed single well compositional modeling with realistic
geology and boundary conditions. Finally, we compared the
predictions to actual production data, and found that the match
was quite good. The productivity reduction was found to be in
the range of 80%, the majority of which occurred in the initial
phases of production. Our ability to reasonably predict the
well performance has given us confidence that our approach,
including measuring only the relevant portion of the relative
permeability curves and using synthetic fluids, may be
sufficient.
Introduction
Gas condensate reservoirs typically consist of single phase gas
at initial reservoir conditions. When the flowing bottomhole
pressure falls below the dew-point of the reservoir fluid, liquid
condensate builds up (condensate banking) near the
wellbore. Condensate banking leads to reduction in gas
relative permeability and loss in well productivity, and this is
well documented in several field1-4 and theoretical studies5-6.

Several authors7-10 have designed experiments to measure

the critical condensate saturation before condensate can flow,
and have reported high values ranging from 20-80%.
Kalaydjian et al.8 found similar behavior using model and
reservoir fluids; however, Nagarajan et al.11 have recently
noted differences in relative permeability behavior. Many
investigators12-16
have
observed
improved
relative
permeabilities with reduced interfacial tension, typically
important in near-critical gas condensate systems. Henderson
et al.17-18 have also shown that high velocities near the
wellbore can improve the gas relative permeability. Pope et
al.19-20 have shown a significant improvement in well
productivity when capillary number effects are included in
simulations. Blom and Hagoort21 have compared various
capillary number options available in the literature for gas
condensate systems.
Fevang and Whitson22 have elucidated the physics of
condensate banking, and have presented an analytical well
deliverability model building on the concepts developed by
Muskat23, ODell and Miller24, and Jones et al.25. They have
also demonstrated that krg = f(krg/kro, Nc) is the underlying
relative permeability relationship determining well
deliverability of gas condensate reservoirs. They performed
rate-time studies of a gas condensate reservoir using two
different sets of relative permeabilities with completely
different krg(Sg) and kro(Sg) curves, but with an identical krg =
f(krg/kro) relationship. Both sets of relative permeabilities
yielded identical well performance. Mott26 has further
developed the analytical model by accounting for the growth
of the two phase flow region. Steady state methods that
measure the key relation defining pseudo-steady state flow in
gas condensate wells, and do not need measurement of
saturation, have also been reported27-30.
In this paper, we present data from steady state relative
permeability experiments for three different reservoirs. The
three fields are deep sandstone reservoirs located at
approximate depth of 12000 feet, with temperature of about
280 F. The porosity of these reservoirs are around 15%, and
the permeability range from 10 15 mD. The fluids have
similar dew-point pressure; however, the liquid yield varies
from 45 STB/MMSCF to 150 STB/MMSCF. We fitted these
experimental data sets to the capillary number dependent
relative permeability model. We also present simulation
results from one of the detailed single well sector models and
compare them to the field production data.
Design of Fluids
Three different synthetic gas condensate fluids were
developed for the laboratory corefloods. Fevang and

IPTC 10243

Whitson22 have shown the relation between krg/kro and fluid

properties is:

to yield the same data at a different krg/kro value. Additional

experimental details are in reference 30.

krg/kro = (1/Vro -1)*g/o..(1)

Relative Permeability Data and Models

Figures 7 through 10 present krg as a function of capillary
number at different krg/kro values for the three reservoirs we
measured. Literature data is also displayed for reference. As
expected, the gas relative permeability increases with capillary
number and with increasing values of krg/kro . The data do not
show any trend with rock quality.
The experimental data is of the form krg = f(krg/kro, Nc). We
fitted it to various capillary number models31 by adjusting the
base immiscible and capillary number dependent parameters.
Figure 11 shows example of the data fit. The fit is reasonable
but it was difficult to fit the entire krg/kro range.

where Vro is the relative oil volume from a Constant

Composition Expansion (CCE) and g/o is the ratio of the
gas and oil viscosity of the steady state flowing phases in the
near wellbore region.
The synthetic gas condensates were designed with the
primary objective of matching the liquid dropout (Vro),
viscosity ratio (g/o), and interfacial tension of the reservoir
gas condensates, while operating the corefloods at a much
lower temperature than reservoir temperature. Table 1 lists
the composition of the synthetic fluids. Figure 1 through
Figure 3 show that the synthetic fluids mimic the relevant
reservoir fluid properties.
Figure 4 shows the expected range of krg/kro in the near
wellbore region for a reservoir fluid of an example reservoir as
calculated using Equation (1). Figure 5 shows a
corresponding plot for the synthetic fluid. As expected, the
krg/kro behavior of the reservoir fluid and synthetic fluid are
similar. It can be seen that the values to be expected near the
well range from around 1 to 20 for a typical bottomhole
pressure of 1500 psia. The relative permeability experiments
are designed to cover the krg/kro values in this range.
Experimental Procedure
The core samples used in the experiments are representative of
the productive regions of the well. The properties of these
samples are tabulated in Table 2. The samples were miscibly
cleaned, brine saturated, and spun in a centrifuge to the desired
Swi.
The experiments have been designed so as to capture the
key aspects of the flow near the well. The two most important
aspects of the experiments are: 1) They define the krg =
f(krg/kro) for the range of krg/kro values that would be expected
in a well. 2). They allow for measurements at a range of rates
so as to quantify the capillary number effects.
A high pressure core flow apparatus shown in Figure 6
was built to conduct steady-state relative permeabilities
measurement of gas condensates. A storage cylinder (II)
contains the equilibrium synthetic gas that has been designed
as discussed in the previous section. The pump (I) supplies
this gas from the cylinder to the inlet of the core (IV) by
flashing it across the upstream back pressure regulator (III).
The upstream back pressure regulator is held at the reservoir
pressure and the downstream backpressure regulator (V) is set
to the bottomhole pressure thus resulting in a two-phase
condensate flow across the core. The mixture flowing from
this system can be varied from a rich (initial) fluid to leaner
fluid by varying the pressure of the cylinder. The pressure
drop and the flow rate are noted after steady state conditions
are achieved, typically after about 10 to 15 pore volumes. The
pump rate is then changed and the test is now repeated at a
different capillary number. This results in the krg variation
with capillary number (Nc) at a fixed krg/kro. The gas in the
cylinder is then bled off until the pressure in the tank drops to
a lower reservoir pressure and the above procedure is repeated

Single Well Simulation Studies

We conducted compositional simulations to predict individual
well performance and compared the results with historical
production data. An example of one vertical well is presented
in this paper. The effect of condensate banking was captured
by using very fine grids (foot scale) near the well. The single
well model was constructed by extracting petrophysical
properties from the full field model (FFM). The FFM also
provided the appropriate external boundary conditions and the
producing rules for the well.
Figure 12 shows the pressure map of the neighboring grid
blocks near the well for a particular layer at a given time.
These pressure data were provided as external boundary
conditions for the single well model. The boundary conditions
were specified by introducing wells (injectors/producers) at
the edge of the model to mimic the full field pressure
depletion as shown in Figure 13. The non-Darcy flow is
included in the well productivity index calculations by using
high velocity flow coefficient () from Forcheimer's equation.
The single well model used the laboratory measured
relative permeability data taking into account the capillary
number effects in the near wellbore region. The objective of
including all the relevant physics of the near wellbore gas
condensate flow in the model is to be able to conduct
predictive simulations without adjusting any parameters. This
is unlike a typical history matching effort where several
parameters need to be adjusted to obtain a match to the
historical data.
Single Well Model Results. The radial well model properties
are given in Table 3. The variation of boundary pressure with
time for different layers of the well is plotted in Figure 14.
The simulations were performed using rates obtained from
smoothing the production rates shown in Figure 15.
However, the measured bottomhole pressures (Figure 16)
fluctuate representing shut-in and flowing periods, and
comparisons of predictions to historical data should be done
taking this into account.
The measured bottomhole pressure data for this well is
available for a period of one year since the well has been put
on production. Figure 16 shows the comparison of the
predicted bottomhole pressure and the measured field data for
the well. A reasonable match of the bottomhole pressure is
obtained. The well PI was also calculated and compared with

IPTC 10243

the reported PI as shown in Figure 17. It should be noted that

the initial observed PI is not available as the well was put on
production at a later time. However, in reference to the single
phase PI from the simulations, the productivity loss is in the
range of 70-80%. In addition, the absolute PI values from the
simulations are in good agreement with the actual well PI.
In our simulations, the major PI loss occurs when the well
drops below the dewpoint and the amount of loss is consistent
with predictions from condensate banking theory. So, though
other factors related to perforations, or other mechanical issues
are possible it is likely that banking is the cause for well
deliverability loss.
Conclusions
1. Our approach of using simpler steady state laboratory
methods with synthetic fluids appears sufficient to
reasonably predict gas condensate well performance.
2. Laboratory measured gas relative permeability increases
with capillary number and with increasing values of
krg/kro. The data do not show any trend with rock quality.
3. The current relative permeability models fit the laboratory
data reasonably well, but it is difficult to fit the entire
krg/kro range.
4. Carefully designed experiments coupled with fine scale
compositional simulation showed that condensate banking
appears to be the cause of significant loss in well
productivity observed in the field.
Acknowledgments
We thank Jack Beroterran for his careful experimental work;
Jonathan Sheffield for fluid design and analysis; Eimear
Tohill, William Beveridge, Chris Stevens, Stan Franklin, Mel
Croft, and Mel Blevens for their support.
References
1. Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J., and Bette, S.: Production
Performance of a Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case study of
Arun Field, paper SPE 28749 presented at the 1994 SPE Asia
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, November
7-10.
2. Barnum, R.S., Brinkman, F.P., Richardson, T.W., and Spillette
A.G.: Gas Condensate Reservoir Behaviour: Productivity and
Recovery Reduction Due to Condensation, paper SPE 30767
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibiton, Dallas, October 22-25.
3. Smits, R.M.M., van der Post, N.: Accurate Prediction of Well
Requirements in Gas Condensate Fields, paper SPE 68173
presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil show, Behrain, March
17-20.
4. Lee, S., Chaverra, M.: Modeling and Interpretation of
Condensate Banking for the Near Critical Cupiagua Field, paper
SPE 49265 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibiton, New Orleans, September 27-30.
5. Kniazeff, B.J. and Naville S.A.: Two-Phase Flow of Volatile
Hydrocarbons, SPEJ (March 1965) 37.
6. Fussell, D.D.: Single-Well Performance Predictions for Gas
Condensate Reservoirs, JPT (July 1973) 860.
7. Gravier, J.F., Lemouzy, P., Barroux, C., and Abed, A.F.:
Determination of Gas-Condensate Relative Permeability on
Whole Cores Under Reservoir Conditions. SPEFE (February
1986) 9.

8. Kalaydjian, F. J-M., Bourbiaux, B.J., and Lombard, J-M.:

Predicting gas-condensate reservoir performance: How flow
parameters are altered when approaching production wells,
paper SPE 36715 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, October 6-9.
9. Li, K., Firoozabadi, A.: Phenomenological Modeling of Critical
Condensate Saturation and Relative Permeabilities in
Gas/Condensate Systems, SPEJ (June 2000) 138.
10. Lombard, J-M., Longeron, D., Kalaydjian, F.: Well Productivity
of Gas-Condensate Fields: Influence of Connate Water and
Condensate Saturation on Inertial Effects, paper SCA 9929.
11. Nagarajan, N.R., Honarpour, M.M., Sampath, K., and
McMichael, D.: Comparision of gas-condensate relative
permeability using live fluid vs. model fluids, paper SCA 200409 presented at the 2004 International Symposium of the Society
of Core Analysts, Abu Dhabi, October 5-9.
12. Bardon, C., and Longeron, D.: Influence of very low interfacial
tension on relative permeability, SPEJ (October 1980) 391.
13. Asar, H.,: Influence of Interfacial Tension on Gas-Oil Relative
Permeability in a Gas-condensate system, paper SPE 11740
presented at the 1983 California Regional Meeting, Ventura,
March 23-25.
14. Haniff, M.S., Ali, J.K.,: Relative Permeability and Low Tension
Fluid Flow in Gas Condensate Systems, paper SPE 20917
presneted at the 1990 Europec, The Hague, October 22-24.
15. Boom, W., Wit K., Schulte., Oedai, A.M., Zeelenber, J.P.W., and
Maas, J.G.: Experimental Evidence of Improved Condensate
Mobility at Near-wellbore Flow Conditions, paper SPE 30766
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, October 22-25.
16. Blom, S.M.P., Hagoort, J., Soetekouw, D.P.N.: Relative
Permeability at Near-Critical Conditions, paper SPE 38935
presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, October 5-8.
17. Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Al-Shaidi, S., and
Peden, J.M.: Measurement and correlation of gas condensate
relative permeability by the steady state method, paper SPE
30770 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, October 22-25.
18. Henderson, G.D., Danesh A., Tehrani, D.H., and Al-Kharusi, B.:
The Relative Significance of Positive Coupling and Inertial
Effects on Gas Condensate Relative Permeabilities at High
Velocity, paper SPE 62933 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 1-4.
19. Pope, G.A., Wu W., Narayanaswamy G., Delshad M., Sharma
M., and Wang, P.: Modeling Relative Permeability Effects in
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs, paper SPE 49266 presented at the
1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, September 27-30.
20. Narayanswamy, G., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Hwang, M.K.,
and Vaidya R.N.: Prediciting Gas Condensate Well
Deliverability using Capillary and Non-Darcy effects, paper SPE
51910 presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, Houston, February 14-18.
21. Blom, S.M.P., and Hagoort J.: How to Include the Capillary
Number in Gas Condensate Relative Permeability Functions?,
paper SPE 49268 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September 27-30.
22. Fevang, O., Whitson C.H.: Modeling Gas Condensate Well
Deliverability, paper SPE 30714 presented at the 1995 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 2225.
23. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, New York City, NY (1949).

24. ODell, H.G., Miller, R.N.: Successfully Cycling a Low

Permeability, High Yield Gas Condensate Reservoir, JPT
(January 1967) 41.
25. Jones J.R., Vo, D.T., and Raghavan R.: Interpretation of
Pressure-Buildup Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells, paper
SPE 15535 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, October 5-8.
26. Mott, R.: Engineering Calculations of Gas Condensate Well
Productivity, SPEREE (October 2003) 298.
27. Whitson C.H., Fevang, O., and Saevareid A.: Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability for Well Calculations, paper SPE 56476
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, October 3-6.
28. Mott, R., Cable A., and Spearing M.: Measurement and
Simulation of Inertial and High Capillary Number Flow
Phenomena in Gas-Condensate Relative Permeability, paper
SPE 62933 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 1-4.
29. Al-Anazi, H.A., Pope, G.A., and Sharma, M.M.: Laboratory
measurements of condensate blocking and treatment for both low
and high permeability rocks, paper SPE 77546 presented at the
2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, September 29 October 2.
30. Ayyalasomayajula, P., Silpngarmlers, N., Berroteran, J.,
Sheffield, J., and Kamath J.: Measurement of Relevant Gas
Condensate Relative Permeability Data for Well Deliverability
Predictions for a Deep Marine Sandstone Reservoir, paper SCA
2003-33.
31. Ayyalasomayajula, P., Silpngarmlers, N., and Kamath J.: Well
Deliverability Predictions For A Low Permeability Gas
Condensate Reservoir, paper SPE 95529 to be presented at the
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
October 9-12.
32. Saevareid, A., Whitson, C.H., and Fevang, O.: An Engineering
Approach to Measuring and Modeling Gas Condensate Relative
Permeabilities, paper SCA 9930.
33. Cable, A., Mott, R., and Spearing M.: Experimental Techniques
for the Measurement of Relative Permeability and Insitu
Saturation in Gas Condensate Near Well Bore and Drainage
Studies, paper SCA 9928.

IPTC 10243

IPTC 10243

Table 1: Composition of synthetic fluids

CH4
n-C10
n-C20

Reservoir 1
98.7
0.98
0.32

Mole %
Reservoir 2
97.8
2.1
0.1

Reservoir 3
94.0
5.95
0.05

Table 2: Properties of core samples

Reservoir 1

Reservoir 2

Swi

porosity
(%)

permeability
(mD)

(%)

10.1

51

13

15

12

9.5

20

17.8

3.6

32.5

16.9

61.9

26.4

17.7

35

23.9

13.78

22.9

19.62

16.27

4.9

21.92

Sample

Reservoir 3

Table 3: Properties of the single well radial model

Layer No.
1

Permeability
(mD)
6.4

1.4

0.081

1.7

5.1

0.143

20.3

Porosity
0.139

Thickness
(ft)
21.5

0.1

0.186

10.5

13.9

0.153

16.1
30.0

2.4

0.039

18.8

0.119

41.5

6.9

0.120

26.7

2.6

0.068

74.1

10

3.7

0.061

141.08

11

6.3

0.031

68.3

12

3.6

0.066

7.6

IPTC 10243

30

0.25
Reservoir Fluid @275 F
Synthetic Fluid @ 113 F

25

Synthetic Fluid @120 F

Viscosity Ratio, mg/ml

0.2

20
0.15
IFT, mN/m

Retrograde Liq., % of Dew Pt Volume

Reservoir Fluid @ 290 F

5

15
0.1

2
10

0.05
5

0
1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0
0

Pressure, psia

1000

2000

3000

4000

0
6000

5000

Pressure (Psia)

Figure 2b: IFT and viscosity ratios for synthetic and

reservoir fluids Reservoir 2

Figure 1a: Liquid volume fraction curves for synthetic

and reservoir fluids Reservoir 1

25

25

0.30
Reservoir Fluid @ 290 F

Reservoir Fluid @ 290 F

0.15
10
0.10
5

0.05

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

20

15

10

0
2000

0.00
7000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

Figure 1b: IFT and viscosity ratios for synthetic

and reservoir fluids Reservoir 1

Figure 3a: Liquid volume fraction curves for synthetic

and reservoir fluids Reservoir 3

20

1.00

Reservoir Fluid @ 290 F

18

Synthetic Fluid @113 F

IFT, mN/m

6
5
4
3

0.90

Synthetic Fluid @145 F

Reservoir Fluid @ 275 F

7
Retrograde Liq., % of Dew Pt Volume

6500

Pressure, psia

Pressure, psia

16

0.80

14

0.70

12

0.60

10

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

2
1
0
2000

0
2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

0.00
6500

Pressure, psia

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

Pressure, psia

Figure 2a: Liquid volume fraction curves for synthetic

and reservoir fluids Reservoir 2

Figure 3b: IFT and viscosity ratios for synthetic and

reservoir fluids Reservoir 3

Viscosity Ratio, g/l

IFT, mN/m

0.20
15

Viscosity Ratio, g/l

20

0
1000

Synthetic Fluid @145 F

0.25

Retrograde Liq., % of Dew Pt Volume

Synthetic Fluid @120 F

IPTC 10243

1000.0

0.7
6000 psi (Initial)
4200 psi

0.6

Krg/Kro

Gas Relative Permeability

3400 psi
100.0

2600 psi

10.0

1.0

Reservoir 1
Reservoir 2
Reservoir 3
SPE 83960
SCA 9930
SPE 31065
SPE 80551

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
0.1

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1.E-10

1.E-09

1.E-08

Pressure, psia

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

1.E-03

Capillary Number

Figure 4: krg/kro as a function of bottomhole pressure

for reservoir fluid

Figure 7: krg as a function of capillary number for

krg/kro ratio range of 1.7 - 3.6

1000.0

6000 psi (Initial)

4200 psi
3400 psi
2600 psi

0.8

krg/kro

Gas Relative Permeability

100.0

0.9

10.0

1.0

Reservoir 1
Reservoir 2
SPE 83960
SCA 9928
SPE 31065
SPE 80551

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

0.1

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1.E-07

1.E-06

Figure 5: krg/kro as a function of bottomhole pressure

for synthetic fluid

1.E-04

1.E-03

Figure 8: krg as a function of capillary number for

krg/kro ratio range of 4 - 8.5

To Vent

0.4

Water

Condensate

II
I

III

Gas Relative Permeability

0.35

IV

1.E-05
Capillary Number

Pressure, psia

Reservoir 1
Reservoir 2
Reservoir 3
SCA 9928
SPE 31065

0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

1.E-08

Figure 6: Schematic diagram of core flow apparatus for gas

condensate systems

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

Capillary Number

Figure 9: krg as a function of capillary number for

krg/kro ratio range of 9.4 - 15

1.E-04

IPTC 10243

Reservoir 1
Reservoir 2
Reservoir 3
SCA 9930

ft

Time

P ressure

0.4

65 6

0.3

0.2

Time

P ressure

Gas Relative Permeability

0.5

Pressure

0.6

0.1

1.E-10

1.E-09

1.E-08

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

Well

1.E-04

Time

Capillary Number

Boundary Conditions

Figure 10: krg as a function of capillary number for

krg/kro ratio range of 30 45

Figure 13: Schematic diagram for a vertical well radial model with
specified external boundary conditions

0.4
4500
4000

Krg

Boundary Pressure (psia)

Nc = 1E-08 (Low)
Nc = 5E-08
Nc = 1E-07
Nc = 1E-06
Nc = 2E-06
Nc =3E-06

0.3

0.2

0.1

Layer 1

Layer 5

3500

Layer 7
3000

Layer 10

Layer 12
2500
2000
1500
1000
500

0
0.1

Krg/Kro

10

100

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Time (Years)

Figure 11: Experimental krg vs. krg/kro data fit

Figure 14: Variation of boundary pressure with time

for different layers

3521

3487

3405
3351

3486
3366

3301

3266

Gas Flow Rate (MSCF/D) (MSCF/Day)

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
0

8
Time (Years)

Figure 12: Pressure distribution in the neighboring blocks

near the well

Figure 15: Gas production rate for the well

12

40

IPTC 10243

3500
BHP Measured

3000

Bottom Hole Pressure (Psia)

Simulation

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
3.5

4.5

5.5

Time (Years)

Figure 16: Bottomhole pressure comparison

100

Field data

90

Simulation

PI (MSCF/DAY/PSI)

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3.5

4.5

Time (Years)

Figure 17: Well productivity index comparison

5.5