SPE 127234

Numerical Investigation of Condensate Banking in the North Kuwait Jurassic

Gas Condensate Reservoirs
Tan Leong Hooi and Kassem Ghorayeb, SPE, Schlumberger, Rafi M. Aziz and Ealian H. Al-Anzi, SPE, Kuwait Oil
Company

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 Kuwait International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition held in Kuwait City, Kuwait, 1416 December 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been reviewed
by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or
members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Condensate banking is a much studied phenomenon in gas condensate reservoirs. An excessive drop in flow rate occurs when the
bottom hole flowing pressure of a producing well falls below the dew-point pressure. Condensate dropped around the well bore
increasingly reduces relative permeability to gas until a critical liquid saturation is reached. As liquid saturation increases above
the critical value, two phase flow of both liquid and gas creates the equilibrium necessary to maintain the reduced, but steady state
flow. The reduced gas permeability is described as a positive skin reducing the well rate PI used in the forecasts. In more severe
cases, the PI may be reduced to cause sub-commercial rates. Even though several equations are available in the literature to
estimate skin damage due to condensate banking, it is well recognized that localized reservoir characteristics, especially in
naturally fractured carbonates must be applied to obtain an accurate value.

In this paper, numerical inverstigations of the impact of condensate banking on well productivity in the North Kuwait Jurassic
Complex (NKJC) gas-codensate reservoirs are performed. A representative reservoir from Sabriyah field in the Najmah Sargelu
formation was selected for the purpose. A general equation thus developed for rich condensate gas in naturally fractured
carbonates was applied to the complex of reservoirs existing in the NKJC to study the impact condensate banking of full field
performance.

Introduction
North Kuwait Jurassic is a challenging exploration and development environment that consists of highly complex compartments
and heterogeneous reservoirs where natural fractures contribute significantly to the well productivity. Parts of the Jurassic
reservoirs consist of very tight matrix with a high density of connected fractures while in other areas fractures are sparse and have
limited connectivity. Compositions vary across the complex. Fluid samples from some reservoirs exhibit a dew point pressure
behavior (near-critical gas-condensate) while other reservoirs exhibit a bubble point pressure behavior (near-critical volatile oil)
(Ghorayeb et al., 2008, 2009).

The formation of the condensate in gas codensate reservoirs reduces the liquids content of produced gas. The liquids thus dropped
cannot be recovered due to critical saturation limits. The phenomenon therefore, results in a reduction in a loss of oil recovery
factor. But, the near well choking or the so called condensate blockage while the overall reservoir pressure is still higher than the
dew point will restrict the gas flow hence reducing the producitivity of the well. If the condensate banking behaviors are not
understood at the beginning of the development, production performance can be overestimated. This might potentially be a serious
problem, since well deliverability of gas codensate reservoirs is critical to meet the long term gas targets in the NKJC.

This paper reviews the behavior of condensate formation near the wellbore that results in condensate blockage. We constructed a
conceptual single well simulation model with logarithmic grid to investigate grid effect on condensate banking. The investigation
aims at selecting an aproach to adjust a coarse grid model to match the results of the fine grid model. Different available
approaches were used for the purpose namely: 1) productivity index multiplier, 2) skin factor, 3) velocity dependant flow and 4)
generalized pseudo pressure.
2 SPE 127234

We then selected a representative gas-condensate reservoir from the Sabriyah field in the Najmah/Sargelu formation to investigate
the condensate banking effects on the production performance in the dual porosity reservoir model. Local grid refinement (LGR) is
used for the purpose of investigating grid effect in this case in the process of fine tuning the coarse grid models well performance
observation against the fine grid model.

Condensates Banking: Overview

Reservoir PVT fluid sampling from the Sabriyah field has revealed the properties of the gas are substantially different from dry or
low condensate ratio gas reservoirs. The hydrocarbon composition of the reservoir fluid is predominantly methane (approximately
63%), but with increasing amount of the heavier hydrocarbon components. The average C7+ mole percentage is approximately
14%. The producing gas oil ratio (GOR) is about 3500 SCF/STB.

The reservoir was discovered at the depth of approximately

15,000 ft at a reservoir pressure of 11,000 psia and reservoir Reservoir Temperature

temperature 280 oF. The saturation pressure (dew point Dew Point Pressure

pressure) is 5200 psia. At the original reservoir conditions,

the gas exists as a single phase fluid. As the reservoir
produces, pressure decreases and the largest pressure
drawdown occurs near wellbore. When the pressure drops
below the dew point pressure, heavy-ends rich liquid phase
drops out of solution; hence the gas is slightly stripped of its
heavy ends. As the reservoir pressure decreases continually,
the volume of liquid phase will reach a maximum amount,
before decreases. This is the retrograde fluid behavior that
can be seen in the PVT phase diagram, Figure 1. Figure 1: Phase Diagram of the Sabriyah Najmah
Sargelu Reservoir Gas-Condensate System.

When the reservoir pressure drops below the dew point

pressure; an oil saturation forms in the reservoir. The
condensate liquid is immobile due to the capillary forces
acting on the fluids. It is a microscopic liquid drop-out, once
formed, will tend to be trapped in the small pore throats. Due
to the low condensate mobility, virtually zero, away from the
wellbore, will be lost to production. Nearer to the wellbore,
the production creates a pressure sink below the dew point
pressure. After a brief transient period, the liquid drop-out
accumulates within the vicinity of the wellbore, its saturation
reaches the critical fraction and starts to flow out of the
pores along with the gas. The liquid saturation profile near
the wellbore can be demonstrated by measurements in the
constant composition expansion experiment (Figure 2). Figure 2: Retrograde Liquid Drop Saturation Profile
When the retrograde liquid saturation accumulates above the from Constant Composition Expansion (CCE)
critical liquid saturation, both liquid and gas phases compete Experiment.
for flow path. Consequently, reduces the gas productivity of
the well. Condensate blockage is the result of the decreased
gas mobility at the wellbore vicinity below the saturation
pressure.

Fevang and Whitson, 1996, published a method for the modeling of gas condensate well deliverability. Conceptually, they
describe the gas condensate well undergoing depletion consists of three regions (Figure 3). Region 1 is an inner near wellbore
region where both gas and oil flow simultaneously at different velocities. Region 2 is the region of condensate buildup where only
gas is flowing with oil saturation below the critical saturation. Region 3 is the region which contains single phase original reservoir
gas flow. The two regions closest to the wellbore exist only when the well bottom hole pressure falls below the dew point pressure
with the liquid saturation accumulation greater than the critical saturation (region 1) and lesser than the critical saturation (region
2). The third region away from the wellbore, closest to the drainage boundary, exists only when the reservoir pressure is above the
dew point pressure.
SPE 127234 3

Figure 3: Three Regions of Flow Behavior in a Gas Condensate Well. Figure adopted from Fan et al., 2005. PBH and PD, So,
krg, and kro are the bottom hole pressure, the dew point pressure, the condensate saturation, the gas relative permeability
and the condensate relative permeability, respectively.

Region 3 will always and only exist in an undersaturated gas condensate reservoir where only one single phase, gas, is present and
flowing. The hydrocarbon composition in this region is constant, which is equal to the initial reservoir gas composition. The inner
boundary of Region 3 occurs when the reservoir pressure equals the dew point pressure. Region 3's inner boundary is not
stationary; it moves outward towards the reservoir or drainage boundary as the hydrocarbons are produced from the well. The
outward-movement of the inner Region 3 boundary can be described as the middle time regime (MTR), infinite acting condition
until the reservoir drainage boundary pressure falls below the dew point pressure. At this point of time, region 3 disappears
eventually. The disappearance of inner boundary of Region 3 also signifies the beginning of boundary dominated or pseudo steady
state flow (Late Time Regime LTR) depending on well operating condition.

The phenomenon described above can be simulated and The Reservoir Flow Regimes
Well Bottom Hole Pressure
Gas Oil Ratio
observed with the fine grid simulation model as depicted in 6000 5

Figure 4. The producing gas oil ratio will remain constant, in 5500
4.5

4
the middle time regime infinite acting flow. The producing

Gas Oil Ratio (MSCF/STB)

3.5
gas oil ratio will only increase when the entire reservoir 5000
WBHP (PSIA)

3
pressure falls below the dew point pressure at the late time 4500 2.5
Late Time Regime
regime boundary dominated flow. Nevertheless, the 2
4000
producing gas oil ratio profile is also a factor of critical oil 1.5

saturation. Given the scenario of high critical oil saturation, 3500

1

0.5
the gas composition from region 2 entering region 1 could
3000 0
not make up the heavy-ends-stripped gas composition in 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500
Time (Days)
region 1, the producing gas oil ratio will increase during the
middle time regime. Figure 4: The Producing Gas Oil Ratio Profile with
respect to Flow Regimes.

Region 2 is defined as a region of net accumulation of

condensate (Fevang and Whitson, 1996). In this region, the
liquid drops out from solution, but remain immobile.
Effectively, only single gas phase is flowing in this region
because the oil mobility is zero or very small. The liquid
saturation increases, and the gas phase becomes leaner as
gas flow towards the producer. The higher the critical liquid
saturation or the residual oil saturation, the leaner the gas
that flows into region 1. The size of region 2 is at its largest
when the boundary pressure is equal to dew point pressure
(disappearance of region 3). The inner boundary of the
region 2 occurs at the interface with region 1 where oil
saturation is equal to critical oil saturation (Socr). The
condensate saturation in region 2 is closely approximated by Figure 5: Retrograde Liquid Drop Saturation Profile
the liquid drop-out curve from the constant volume depletion from Constant Volume Depletion (CVD) Experiment.
(CVD) experiment (Figure 5).
The retrograde liquid drop-out saturation measured from the CVD experiment is lower than the liquid saturation measured from
constant composition expansion (CCE) experiment. This is because the equivalent volume of removed gas at the constant pressure
condition carries the heavy-ends composition during the experiment. The CVD experiment process is equivalent to the flow from
region 2 into region 1.

Region 1 is the main source of deliverability loss in a gas condensate well, due to the impairment of the gas relative flow. The gas
relative permeability is reduced owing to condensate build-up. The condensate saturation in this region is greater than the critical
oil saturation. This region ranges in size from tens of feet for lean gas condensates to hundreds of feet for rich condensates. Its size
is proportional to the volume of gas drained and the percentage of liquid drop-out. It extends farther from the well for layers with
higher permeability than average since a larger volume of gas has flowed through these layers. The flowing gas oil ratio for this
region is essentially constant, and the PVT condition is considered a constant composition expansion region (Figure 2).

Condensate Banking in Naturally Fractured Reservoir

The study of the naturally fractured reservoirs depletion performance has gained industry-wide interest and attention in the last few
decades and poses the challenges for the reservoir modeler. The presence of the retrograde gas condensate fluid in this type of
reservoir adds additional layers of complexities to the performance modeling of this class of reservoirs. The typical condensate
formation behavior observed in the conventional porous medium is disrupted in the reservoir with naturally fractured porous
medium because of the 2 media present in the reservoir; the porous matrix and highly permeable fractures where the main flow
path comes from the fractures while the source of the hydrocarbon comes from the matrix storage.

Figure 6: Pressure Comparison on Condensate Banking Simulation in Single Porosity (Right) and Dual Porosity (Left)
Models.

The selected reservoir from Sabriyah field reservoir is identified as a naturally fractured reservoir with very tight matrix. Fractures
are the main contributors for both flow and a significant part of storativity. The hydrocarbon withdrawal from the fractures system
reduces the fracture pressure significantly while the matrix pressure remains relatively high as observed in Figure 6.

When the fracture system pressure drops below the dew point pressure, condensate starts forming. The magnitude of pressure drop
in the fracture system is dependent on the fracture aperture associated storage and permeability. Also, the capillarity dependent
relative permeability does affect on the fracture pressure system due to its impact on the condensate mobility. In this specific
study, there is no capillarity dependant relative permeability measurement from the laboratory, subsequently the segregated
relative permeability with zero residual saturation was incorporated into the simulation model. The condensate mobility in the
fractures is, therefore, greater than that in the matrix. The well deliverability in gas condensate reservoir with naturally fractured
formation is less affected by the condensate accumulation around the wellbore than in porous reservoir since there are fractures
SPE 127234 5

that act as high permeability flow paths (Rudenko et al., 2008).

Figure 7: Oil Saturation Comparison on Condensate Banking Simulation in Single Porosity (Right) and Dual Porosity
(Left) Models.

The larger scale of oil and gas recovery reduction in the naturally fractured reservoir is owing to the immobile condensate
formation at tight matrix rather than permeable fractures. The first sign of the condensate formation will be observed at the edge of
the matrix block where it comes in close contact with the low fracture pressure system (below dew point pressure). The appearance
of the condensate at the edge of matrix hinders the flow of hydrocarbon from the inner portions of the matrix blocks and severely
obstructs their recovery (Figure 7). This phenomenon is simulated with sugar cube single porosity model where the pressure
transient behavior inside the matrix blocks could be accounted for (Figure 6 - right). Figure 7 (left) shows that the dual porosity
model is obviously unable to reproduce spatial condensate distribution in the near wellbore zone as well as at the larger scale
reservoir body. This is because of the inability of the dual porosity model to simulate the transient behavior in the matrix cells. The
pressure in the matrix cells condition is steady state. Matrix blocks contain larger amount of hydrocarbon in comparison to the
fractures. Therefore, the main concern is the hydrocarbon extraction from the matrix blocks and not the fractures. This suggests
that proper modeling of the condensate behavior is critical to understanding the lost of oil and gas recovery in this type of
reservoir. Rudenko et al., 2008, showed that proper tuning of dual porosity model with skin factor allows the simulation of the
well production profile in naturally fractured reservoir and as reflection of the flow picture in the near wellbore zone in general.

Condensate Banking: Single Porosity Conceptual

Model
The study investigated the grid cell size effect on modeling
of condensate banking in a conceptual single porosity model.
A 2kmx2km sector model is considered for the purpose. A
representative PVT model from Sabriyah Najmah/Sargelu
selected for the investigation. The study considered the grid
cell length from 3ft to 50ft, 100ft, 200ft, 300ft, 400ft and
600ft. The 600 feet grid cell is the representation of the
current full field simulation grid cell dimension. A
logarithmic grid size distribution is used for the purpose as
illustrated in Figure 8 for the 3 ft near well bore grid size Figure 8: Grid used for the 2kmx2km single porosity
case. conceptual model. A zoom on the near wellbore is also
shown (Right)
It was observed that in the coarser grid model, the grid block
pressure is higher (Figure 9). The high grid block pressure
results in the delay of dew point pressure arrival timing near
the wellbore even though the coarse grid model produces
more hydrocarbon volumes. Hence the condensate banking
effect in the coarse grid model will be felt later. Due to the
late arrival of dew point pressure near the wellbore in the
coarse grid model, the well productivity for the coarse grid
model remains higher than fine grid model. This is because
the reduced gas relatively permeability happens much later
than the fine grid model. Gas remains as single phase in the Figure 9: Well Grid Block Pressure with different Grid
coarse grid model longer, therefore recovering more Cell Length.
hydrocarbons (both gas and oil). (see Figure 10 and Figure
11).

Figure 10: Additional Gas Recovery in Coarse Grid Figure 11: Additional Oil Recovery in Coarse Grid
Model. Model.

It was also noticed that the boundary dominated flow (Late

Time Regime LTR) in the coarse grid model takes place
earlier than the fine grid model. This is because the
numerical pressure propagation calculation reaches the
reservoir boundary through the grid block center points
much faster than fine grid model. The transition time from
middle time regime (MTR) to late time regime (LTR) is
shorter than fine grid model. As a consequence, the
producing GOR increases much earlier. The GOR profile for
coarse grid model is generally higher than the fine grid
model. It could be explained that the total average reservoir
pressure for the coarse grid model is lower (Figure 12.0).
Hence, more liquid drops out inside the reservoir Figure 12: Field Wide Average Pressure.
contributing to the rapid oil rate decline as seen in Figure
11.0 after the dew point pressure is reached.

Adjustment of the Coarse Grid Model to Match the Fine Grid Model
The condensate banking induced wellbore impairment needs to be properly captured in the coarse grid simulation model to allow
an accurate production forecast for both oil and gas profiles. Several methodologies were investigated for the purpose.

Well Productivity Index (PI) Multiplier

This is the common approach utilized by the industry to model the near wellbore condensate behavior. The productivity index
multiplier generally multiplies the connection transmissibility factors of the selected well connections by a specified value. The
multiplier is constant throughout the simulation run, which may not properly capture the dynamic behavior of the condensate
effects. This method may be deemed not applicable (if other methods are available) for Sabriyah Jurassic reservoir for the fact that
the initial reservoir pressure is approximately 6000 psia above the dew point pressure of 5200 psia. The PI multiplier application in
the simulation run will completely knock down the well productivity from the beginning before the dew point pressure is reached
(Figure 13). The other disadvantage of PI multiplier is the specific multiplier value for existing and forecast wells. An association
is needed between the PI multiplier and the well characteristics.
SPE 127234 7

Figure 13: Single Porosity Conceptual Model - Productivity Index Multiplier.

Figure 14: Single Porosity Conceptual Model - Skin Factor.

Figure 15: Single Porosity Modeling - Interblock Velocity Flow (VDFLOW).

Figure 16: Single Porosity Conceptual Model - Generalized Pseudo Pressure (GPP).
8 SPE 127234

Skin Factor (S)

This method is of no any difference to the PI multiplier as described above. This approach neglects some dynamic aspects of the
condensate drop-out, for instance it applies the same skin for all times and all grid block pressures and is especially dangerous
when production control, workover, or any completion strategy changes. The results of skin factor application are similar to well
productivity index multiplier as demonstrated in Figure 14.

Velocity Dependent Flow (VDFLOW)

This is an academic study of simulating the non-darcy flow in the inter-block flow. This method was utilized in an attempt to bring
down the simulated well grid block pressure so as to match the fine well grid block pressure (Figure 9.0). The Forchheimer
coefficient will increase the pressure drop near the wellbore as well as outer reservoir. This method yields satisfactory simulation
results matching the fine grid simulation model (Figure 15). Phasal rates, phasal cumulative production, producing gas oil ratio and
well bottom hole pressure are well matched.

Generalized Pseudo Pressure (GPP)

The generalized pseudo pressure method is intended for use by gas condensate producers. The method corrects the well block
pressure profile calculated by the coarse grid simulation without having the need to use fine grid simulation. The solution is to use
the coarse grid simulation, but to replace the pressure profile calculated by the simulator in the well grid block by adopting the
Whitson and Fevang mobility integral concept. It provides a mean of taking into account the condensate drop-out as well as
compressibility. This method was found suitable in single porosity modeling, matching the dynamic production profile and well
bottom-hole pressure before and after the dew point pressure is reached (Figure 16). The advantage of this method is its
applicability to all type of well characteristics without the need of multiplier association. It could also capture the dynamic
condensate behavior with respect to time and pressure.

Dual Porosity Single Permeability (DPSP) Wellbore Parameter Adjustment

The single porosity conceptual modeling investigation was extended into the actual single well dual porosity modeling for the
Sabriyah Najmah Sargelu formation. The actual dynamic simulation model with its representative reservoir properties was utilized
in the study. The radial local grid refinement was introduced on each well with inner radius refinement (INRAD) of approximately
0.625 feet to capture the near wellbore condensate banking behavior.

The productivity index multiplier and skin factor modifier in the dual porosity modeling work just as good as the single porosity
modeling (Figure 17 and Figure 18). The knocked down production rates which are noted in the single porosity modeling are not
observed in the dual porosity modeling. This is due to the high productive capacity of the well being constrained by the initial
rates. The removal of the rate constraint on high capacity well will certainly invalidate the rate matching using the productivity
index multiplier and skin factor modifier. One should note that the lifespan of the well in the coarse grid model is significant
longer than the fine grid model. The rate matching may look acceptable but the total cumulative production / ultimate recovery of
the well is not comparable. The gas oil ratio and well bottom hole pressure profiles are very well matched.

The application of the interblock velocity flow (VDFLOW) to increase the pressure drop from one grid block to the other works
equally good in the dual porosity and single porosity modeling. The idea behind this approach is to modify the the coarse well grid
block (Pgrid) pressure so as close to the fine well grid block pressure as possible (Figure 9.0).The production rates and well bottom
hole pressure matching is very good (Figure 20). However, the rates profile is a little bumpy due to turbulence flow. This causes
the producing gas oil ratio profile not comparable.

Although the generalized pseudo pressure (GPP) option works very well in the single porosity modeling, it does not yield
significant production rates and well bottom hole pressure matching improvement (Figure 19) in the dual porosity modeling. Both
the Eclipse 100 and Eclipse 300 GPP codes are tested in the simulation, but result shows similar observation.

Application of Near Wellbore Parameter Adjustment in Full Scale Coarse Grid Model
The full field simulation model on Sabriyah field utilizing the local grid refinement around the well location discloses that the
coarse grid simulation model significantly overestimates the oil and gas recovery by approximately +5% and +9% respectively
(Table 1). It can therefore be understood that in a full field simulation model, where the grid cell size is 200 m x 200 m, the
condensate banking effects (near wellbore) and behavior (within reservoir drainage) could not be properly simulated. Accurate
condensate banking simulation needs the grid cells size to be tenth of feet or less. Fine grid simulation model or local grid
refinement is not an option for this study in view of the simulation time consumption.
SPE 127234 9

Figure 17: Dual Porosity Modeling Productivity Index Multiplier to match Fine Grid Production Profiles.

Figure 18: Dual Porosity Modeling Skin Factor Adjustment to match Fine Grid Production Profiles.

Figure 19: Dual Porosity Modeling Generalized Pseudo Pressure (GPP) to match Fine Grid Production Profiles.

Figure 20: Porosity Modeling Interblock Velocity Flow (VDFLOW) to match Fine Grid Production Profiles.
10 SPE 127234

Table 1: Field Wide Simulation Total Hydrocarbon Recovery at Economic Rate.

Every near wellbore parameter adjustment method as described above has its advantages and disadvantages. The usage of the
method hence relies on the specific reservoir and project conditions. All the described methods are incorporated into the Sabriyah
Najmah Sargelu formation full scale simulation model to assess the results and performance of each individual method.

For the case of PI multiplier method, the PI multiplier value association is needed for every individual well. The full field forecast
wells were randomly picked for fine grid simulation to allow the determination of PI multiplier value. It was noticed that the range
of PI multiplier value falls in between 0.25 to 0.5. The lower PI multiplier value was applied globally to all wells. The skin factor
was converted from the PI multiplier value using the following equation:
(1 ) ro
S= ln
rw
The results of all the near wellbore parameter adjustment are presented from Figure 21 to Figure 24. It is observed that the PI
multiplier, skin factor modifier and interblock velocity flow (VDFLOW) could reproduce the fine grid model production profiles
(the plateau and decline rate) very well with exception that the well life span of the coarse grid model is longer. It is noted that the
oil production profile for the interblock velocity flow is distorted due to the incorporation of the effect of turbulent flow. The
generalized pseudo pressure (GPP) method yields no significant improvement. The observation is consistent with the dual porosity
single well modeling study.

Table 1 shows the comparison of total oil and gas production with its estimated ultimate recovery (EUR). The coarse grid model
potentially overestimates the total oil and gas production by 5% and 9% respectively. All the near wellbore adjustment methods
improve the gas ultimate recovery (EUR) less than 0.5%. Similarly, the oil ultimate recovery improvement is insignificant. The oil
ultimate recovery using the interblock velocity flow shows no improvement but turns out to be too optimistic.

The well life span in the coarse grid simulation model is longer than the fine grid model. Even though the production rate profile is
very well matched, the ultimate recovery will not be comparable. Table 2 shows the result comparison taken at the simulation cut
off time at 1500-day. PI multiplier and skin factor modifier appear to be the most suitable methods to match the oil and gas
recovery of the fine grid simulation model. Generalized pseudo pressure method shows no result improvement.

Table 2: Field Wide Simulation Cumulative Hydrocarbon Recovery at 1500 Days.

On should be aware that even though the near wellbore parameter adjustment could help improving the oil and gas recovery by
improving the well bottom hole pressure to capture the near wellbore condensate banking behavior, the overall recovery is still
higher or optimistic due to the inability of the dual porosity modeling approach to simulate the gas flow hindrance from the inner
matrix causing by condensate blockage at the matrix edge.

In summary, there is no single adjustment method that could accurately simulate the complex condensate behavior in the naturally
fractured reservoirs given the limitations of the dual porosity modeling concept.
SPE 127234 11

Rate and Cumulative Gas Production Oil Rate and Cumulative Oil Production
Gas RateGas
and Cumulative Gas Production Oil Rate and Cumulative Oil Production
140000 160 35000 35

M illio n s
M illio n s
120000 140 30000 30

120
100000 25000 FOPR (Fine Grid Model) 25
FGPR (Fine Grid Model)

F O P R ( S T B /D a y )
F G P R (M s c f/D a y )

100 FOPR (Coarse Grid Model)

F G P T (M S C F )

F O P T (S T B )
FGPR (Coarse Grid Model) 20000 20
80000 FOPR (Coarse Grid - PI Mult)
FGPR (Coarse Grid - PI Mult)
80 FOPT (Fine Grid Model)
FGPT (Fine Grid Model)
60000 15000 FOPT (Coarse Grid Model) 15
FGPT (Coarse Grid Model) 60 FOPT (Coarse Grid - PI Mult))
FGPT (Coarse Grid - PI Mult))
40000 10000 10
40

20000 5000 5
20

0 0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time (Days) Time (Days)

Figure 21: The Full Field Simulation Results Comparison for Coarse Grid Model adopting PI Multiplier.

Oil Rate and Cumulative Oil Production

Gas RateGasand
Rate and Cumulative Gas Production
Cumulative Gas Production Oil Rate and Cumulative Oil Production
140000 160 35000 35

M illio n s
M i llio n s

120000 140 30000 30

120
100000 25000 FOPR (Fine Grid Model) 25
FGPR (Fine Grid Model)
F O P R ( S T B /D a y )
F G P R ( M s c f /D a y )

100 FOPR (Coarse Grid Model)

F G P T (M S C F )

F O P T (S T B )
FGPR (Coarse Grid Model) 20000 20
80000 FOPR (Coarse Grid - SKIN)
FGPR (Coarse Grid - SKIN)
80 FOPT (Fine Grid Model)
FGPT (Fine Grid Model)
60000 15000 FOPT (Coarse Grid Model) 15
FGPT (Coarse Grid Model) 60 FOPT (Coarse Grid - SKIN))
FGPT (Coarse Grid - SKIN))
40000 10000 10
40

20000 5000 5
20

0 0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time (Days) Time (Days)

Figure 22: The Full Field Simulation Results Comparison for Coarse Grid Model adopting SKIN Method.

Gas Rate and Cumulative Gas Production Oil Rate and Cumulative Oil Production

140000 160 40000 35

M illio n s
M illio n s

120000 140 35000 30

120 30000
100000 FOPR (Fine Grid Model) 25
FGPR (Fine Grid Model)
F G P R ( M s c f /D a y )

F O P R (S T B /D a y )

25000 FOPR (Coarse Grid Model)

F G P T (M S C F )

100
F O P T (S T B )

FGPR (Coarse Grid Model)

80000 FOPR (Coarse Grid - VDFLOW) 20
FGPR (Coarse Grid - VDFLOW)
80 20000 FOPT (Fine Grid Model)
FGPT (Fine Grid Model)
60000 FOPT (Coarse Grid Model) 15
FGPT (Coarse Grid Model) 60 15000 FOPT (Coarse Grid - VDFLOW))
FGPT (Coarse Grid - VDFLOW))
40000 10
40 10000

20000 20 5000 5

0 0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time (Days) Time (Days)

Figure 23: The Full Field Simulation Results Comparison for Coarse Grid Model adopting VDFLOW Method.
12 SPE 127234

Gas Rate and Cumulative Gas Production Oil Rate and Cumulative Oil Production

140000 160 35000 35

M illio n s

M illio n s
120000 140 30000 30

120
100000 25000 FOPR (Fine Grid Model) 25
FGPR (Fine Grid Model)

F O P R ( S T B /D a y )
F G P R ( M s c f /D a y )

100 FOPR (Coarse Grid Model)

F G P T (M S C F )

F O P T (S T B )
FGPR (Coarse Grid Model)
80000 20000 FOPR (Coarse Grid - GPP100) 20
FGPR (Coarse Grid - GPP100)
80 FOPT (Fine Grid Model)
FGPT (Fine Grid Model)
60000 15000 FOPT (Coarse Grid Model) 15
FGPT (Coarse Grid Model) 60 FOPT (Coarse Grid - GPP100))
FGPT (Coarse Grid - GPP100))
40000 10000 10
40

20000 5000 5
20

0 0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
Time (Days) Time (Days)

Figure 24: The Full Field Simulation Results Comparison for Coarse Grid Model adopting GPP Method.

Condensate Mitigation Applications

The full field fine grid simulation model has revealed a potential reduced oil and gas recovery of approximately 5% and 9.0%
respectively on the effect of condensate drop-out and blockage. Mitigation measures are necessary to ensure optimum hydrocarbon
recovery.

The field development team members have embarked on a series of condensate mitigation program from the short term well
strategy to long term reservoir management. The short term well strategy includes the acid fracturing program and drilling of
horizontal well. The long term reservoir management strategy entails the reservoir pressure maintenance.

The production optimization team is devising an effective set of acid fracturing program to improve the well productivity, reducing
the near wellbore drawdown magnitude so to delay the condensate drop out timing. The team adopted the advanced technologies
that use viscoelastic surfactant based (VES) fluids to help acid placement and control leakoff. This increases the acid contact with
larger portion of the reservoir surface, improving the connectivity between the well and the reservoir rock.

Injecting dry gas into the reservoir keeps the reservoir pressure high above the dew point pressure, while slowly displacing the
valuable heavy ends that are still in solution in the reservoir gas. The development team has started to collect representative
reservoir cores for laboratory study. The core plug extraction was taken from all different type of facies for wettability, relative
permeability and capillary pressure measurements.

Conclusion
In this paper we investigated the condensate banking effect in a representative gas condensate reservoir in the NKJC. Several
methodologies have been investigated to adjust the coarse grid model to match the condensate banking effect observed in the fine
grid model. Below are some conclusions.

1. The constructed conceptual simulation model has confirmed the three distinctive condensate behavior regions as described by
Fevang and Whitson, 2002. Both condensate and gas are flowing on the first region while the condensate in Region 2 is
immobile (Oil saturation below the critical saturation). The third region is the zone below critical oil saturation with single gas
phase flowing. The inner boundary of each distinctive regions moves outwards as the reservoir is depleting. The producing
gas oil ratio will not increase immediately after the well bottom hole pressure drops below the dew point pressure. This is due
to the sufficient rich gas at its original hydrocarbon composition flows from Region 3 into Region 2 and subsequently Region
1. The producing gas oil ratio increases only when the boundary dominated flow condition is reached. This is the time when
the reservoir drainage boundary pressure is below the dew point pressure; it is the disappearance of Region 3. The increase of
oil and gas recovery in the coarse grid model is due to the late arrival of the grid block dew point pressure where the well sits.
Hence the additional oil and gas recovery incremental are contributed by the single phase gas flow at its intrinsic productivity
index.
SPE 127234 13

2. Condensate banking in a naturally fractured reservoir occurs in both the near wellbore and at the edge of the matrix blocks.
The condensate blockage at the edge of matrix hinders the gas flow from inner matrix blocks into the fractures, hence
reducing the hydrocarbon recovery. The dual porosity simulation model is not able to simulate the phenomenon of condensate
blockage at the matrix edge. This is because of the steady-state condition on all the dual porosity matrix blocks.

3. There are several adjustment methods adopted in the industry to simulate the condensate behavior using the coarse grid full
field simulation model. They are PI multiplier, skin factor, interblock velocity flow and generalized pseudo pressure. The
investigation into all these methods reveals that none of the method could accurately simulate the condensate behavior for the
naturally fractured reservoirs. Generalized pseudo pressure method works well in the single porosity modeling but shows no
significant improvement in the dual porosity modeling.

4. The interblock block velocity method could improve the well grid block pressure (Pgrid) matching to capture the near
wellbore condensate banking phenomenon, but the oil production profile is distorted. This yields higher than expected oil
recovery.

5. For the specific Sabriyah field, the coarse grid dual porosity model overestimates the oil recovery by 4% and gas recovery by
8.5%. The near wellbore parameter adjustment method yields no significant improvement on the estimated ultimate recovery
due to the longer well life span in the coarse grid model. The recovery factor comparison at the simulation cut off time at
1500-day shows that PI multiplier and skin factor modifier are the most suitable method to model the near wellbore
condensate phenomenon.

6. The condensate mitigation applications are current ongoing within the field development group to ensure optimum
hydrocarbon recovery in the future.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Kuwait Oil Company for permission to publish this paper. The North Kuwait Jurassic Projects
team members are gratefully acknowledged for contributing to the paper.

Nomenclature
EUR = Estimated Ultimate Recovery, %
FOPR = Field Oil Production Rate, L3/t, STB/D
FOPT = Field Total Oil Production Rate, L3, STB
FGPR = Field Gas Production Rate, L3/t, Mscf/D
FGPT = Field Total Gas Production Rate, L3, Mscf
FWPR = Field Water Production Rate, L3/t, STB/D
FWPT = Field Total Water Production Rate, L3, STB
FGOR = Field Gas Oil Ratio, L3/L3, Mscf/STB
CCE = Constant Composition Expansion
CVD = Constant Volume Depletion
GOR = Gas Oil Ratio, L3/L3, Mscf/STB
GPP = Generalized Pseudo Pressure
LTR = Late Time Regime
MTR = Middle Time Regime
PI = Productivity Index, L4t/m, Mscf/D/PSI
r0 = Pressure Equivalent Radius, L, ft
rw = Wellbore Radius, L, ft
S = Skin factor, dimensionless
VDFLOW = Interblock Velocity Dependent Flow
VES = Viscoelastic Surfactant based Fluids
WBHP = Well Bottom Hole Pressure, m/Lt2, PSIA
WBP = Well Grid Block Pressure, m/Lt2, PSIA
= Productivity Index Multiplier, dimensionless
14 SPE 127234

References
Ghorayeb K., Limsukhon M., Dashti Q., and Aziz R. M. 2008. Multiple Reservoir Simulations Integration: An Alternative to Full Field
Simulation in the North Kuwait Jurassic Complex, paper SPE 115881 presented at the 2008 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 2124 September.

Ghorayeb K., Limsukhon M., Dashti Q., and Aziz R. M. 2009. Black Oil Delumping: Running Black Oil Reservoir Simulations and Getting
Compositional Wellstreams in the North Kuwait Jurassic Complex, paper SPE 118850 presented at the 2009 SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, The Woodlands, Texas, 24 February 2009.

Fevang, O. and Whitson, C. H. 1996. Modeling Gas Condensate Well Deliverability, SPE REE 11 (4): 221-230.

Rudenko, D. et al.: Why Dual Porosity Models are not Applicable for Simulation of the Near-Wellbore Zone of Gas Condensate Well for
Naturally Fracutred Reservoirs, Paper SPE 117370 presented at the 2008 SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Moscow, Russia, 2008, October 28 October 2008.

Fan L., Harris B., Jamaluddin A., Kamath J., Mott R., Pope G., Shandrygin A., and Whitson C. Winter 2005/06. Understanding Gas Condensate
Reservoirs, Oilfield Review 17 (4), 14-27.