PETROLEUM SOCIETY PAPER 2004-113

CANADIAN INSTITUTE OF MINING, METALLURGY & PETROLEUM

Well Deliverability Loss Analysis

in the Gas Condensate Reservoir
Y. DU*
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

L. GUAN**
Texas A&M University

B. BAI
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

* Now with ChevronTexaco Overseas Petroleum, ** Now with ChevronTexaco Energy Technology Company

This paper is to be presented at the Petroleum Societys 5th Canadian International Petroleum Conference (55th Annual Technical
Meeting), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, June 8 10, 2004. Discussion of this paper is invited and may be presented at the meeting if
filed in writing with the technical program chairman prior to the conclusion of the meeting. This paper and any discussion filed will
be considered for publication in Petroleum Society journals. Publication rights are reserved. This is a pre-print and subject to
correction.

Abstract We also found that both fluids PVT and absolute

Due to condensate blocking near well-bore, well
deliverability in the gas condensate reservoir often decreases
from initial value. This deliverability loss has been
investigated by conducting a series of compositional
simulations with an actual reservoir data. The well gas
productivity index (PI) at initial reservoir pressure of 4750
psia for a single-phase gas flow was found to drop rapidly
approximately 10% to 35% due to single phase transient
effects. As the reservoir pressure drops below the dew point
pressure, this PI drop slows down but continually losses for
20% till movable oil saturation reaches in reservoir. Then
another further rapid loss of about 20% of the initial gas PI
occurs due to the oil flow and later a continued loss come in PI
as reservoir pressure declines. The gas PI at a reservoir
pressure of 2000 psia is only 10-20% of the initial value (at
reservoir pressure 4750 psia).
permeability of the reservoir have significant influences on the
well productivity.
Introduction
In gas condensate reservoirs, when the flowing bottom-
hole pressure falls below the dew point pressure of the
reservoir fluid, condensate liquid starts to drop out from gas
and a relatively high liquid saturation builds up near the well-
bore will occur. This liquid saturation build-up leads to a
reduction in gas relative permeabilities and thus a loss in gas
well productivity. This effect is referred to as condensate
blocking in the literature (1, 2, 3). Due to this condensate
blocking near well-bore, well deliverability in the gas
condensate reservoir often decreases from initial value. This
deliverability loss has been investigated by conducting a series

1
of compositional simulations with an actual reservoir data in
this paper.
Gas Condensate Flow Behavior
A model that describes the subsurface gas condensate flow
recognizes the existence of three regions, as presented in
Figure 1. Whitson (3) divided the flow in the condensate
reservoir into following three regions.
Region 1: An inner near-wellbore region where both gas
and oil flow simultaneously at different velocities. This region
has a constant flowing Gas-Oil ratio (GOR) equal to the
producing GOR. The size of region 1 increases with time and
stabilizes when the single phase gas entering this region has
sufficient mobility for it to flow without any net accumulation.
Region 2: This region defines the net accumulation of
condensate in sections of the reservoir where the pressure is
below the gas dew point pressure. There is only gas flow (no
liquid) in this region as the condensate is immobile. This is a
region of liquid saturation build-up.
Region 3: This region consists of single phase gas as the
pressure in this region is above the dew point pressure. There
is no hydrocarbon liquid in this region.
Model Description
In order to investigate factors contributing to gas-flow
impairment due to condensate buildup, single-well radial
compositional reservoir simulation models were extracted from
the earth model with an out boundary of 3000ft. These models
consist of 15 x 1 x 89 grid cells. In order to capture the flow
performance near wellbore, the grid block in the center (near
well-bore) is the finest and the cell size increases with a
logarithmic relationship (4,5). The cells are shown in Figure 2.
Initial model pressure is 4750 psia, which is almost equal to
the dew point pressure of the reservoir fluid. Permeability
distribution of these models is drawn from geological model.
The average permeability of these models is 1400 mD with a
minimum permeability of 0.01 mD and a maximum of 5000
mD. The average porosity is 0.2 with a minimum of 0.03 and
maximum of 0.27. Cases were designed with different
maximum permeabilities, liquid yields, gas production rates,
skins, and completion intervals. The maximum sand
permeability is correspondingly assigned to 200, 500 and 5000
mD in these models. Liquid yield of the gas fluid is assigned to
47, 64, and 92 bbl/MMSCF respectively. At the same time, we
define the range of gas rate, skin and well completion interval
to obtain different drawdown near well-bore. In order to obtain
as much as information with less runs as possible,
Experimental Design technique was applied to define the
combination of input parameters. Table 1 lists the combination
2
of input parameters for each case. Total 25 cases were needed.
In addition, both capillary-number-dependent relative
permeability and non-Darcy flow effects were incorporated in
all the models. All these 25 cases were simulated.
Methodology
Compositional simulations were conducted using each
combination of inputs. The well productivity index of gas
(PI(g)) and that of oil (PI(o)) at different reservoir pressures
were calculated by using simulation results with:
PI(g)=Qg/(Pr-Pwf) (1)
PI(o)=Qo/(Pr-Pwf) (2)
Then we normalized the PI(g) and PI(o) to corresponding
relative PI. The relative PIs are defined by:
Rela_PI_Gas= PI(g)@Pr/ PI(g)@Pi (3)
Rela_PI_Oil= PI(o)@Pr/ PI(o)@Pi (4)
After that, we calculated the difference between
Rela_PI_Gas and Rela_PI_Oil by:
D (Rela_PI_Gas_Oil)= Rela_PI_Gas - Rela_PI_Oil (5)
At last, we analyzed the PI reduction of oil and gas, and
their difference in order to find some trend for condensate gas
well productivity in this gas condensate reservoir.
Results and Discussions
Figure 3 shows the relative gas PI variation with reservoir
pressure. The thin curves are the results from different cases.
The dark black curve is the average of all the cases. Although
the curves distributed in a relative wide range, they share a
similar shape. Based on this shape, relative gas PI deduction
can be divided into four parts. The first part, a sharp drop with
a drop from 10% to 35%, is caused by single phase transient
flow effects. The second part is a slow drop. This part is
caused by the oil accumulation in the reservoir (especially near
the well-bore). In this part, PI losses about 20%. The third part
shows that oil saturation in the reservoir has reached movable
oil saturation. This is indicated by another PI loss slope which
is different from that of the second part. The last part is the PI
loss due to very low reservoir pressure which can not push the
hydrocarbon into well-bore.
Figure 4 describes the relative oil PI variation with
reservoir pressure. The oil PI declines all the way mainly
because of condensate banking.
Figure 5 describes the difference between relative gas PI
and relative oil PI. If all dropped-out liquid is able to move to
wellbore and then be produced to the surface, the well will
produce at a similar GOR. That means the oil PI and gas PI
will decrease at a similar degree (due to relative permeability).
In other words, the difference between relative gas PI and NOMENCLATURE
relative oil PI will be zero or very small. This phenomena will
m(P) = pseudo pressure in Whitsons method
occur when the Pwf > Pd. When the Pwf < Pd, the value of this (psi/cp);
difference first increases and then decreases. In the increasing PI(g) = gas productivity of well (MMSCF/psi/D);
stage, oil starts to accumulate in the reservoir which in turn PI(g)@Pr = gas productivity of well at reservoir
results in the oil PI decreasing faster than that of gas PI. In the pressure Pr (MMSCF/psi/D);
PI(g)@Pi = gas productivity of well at initial reservoir
decreasing stage, the oil saturation in the reservoir is greater
pressure Pi (MMSCF/psi/D);
than residual oil and the oil starts to move. The oil PI drop PI(o) = oil productivity of well (BBL/psi/D);
slows down. Although in this stage, both gas and oil PI decline PI(o)@Pr = oil productivity of well at reservoir
with time as a result of saturation change in reservoir, because pressure Pr (BBL/psi/D);
gas is the dominant phase and its mobility ratio is greater than PI(o)@Pr = oil productivity of well at initial reservoir
pressure Pi (BBL/psi/D);
that of oil, gas PI declines slower than that of oil. This is
Pd = dew point pressure (psia);
indicated by the difference of gas relative PI and that of oil are Pr = reservoir pressure (psia);
larger than zero in both stages in Figure 5. Pwf = flowing wellbore pressure (psia);
Qg = gas rate of well (MMSCF/D);
Figure 6 shows that the higher the liquid yield, the larger Qo = oil rate of well (bbl/D);
Rela_PI_Gas = relative gas productivity of well;
the condensate banking effects. Figure 7 shows that both high-
Rela_PI_Oil = relative oil productivity of well;
and low-permeability reservoirs are susceptible to condensate D(Rela_PI_Gas_Oil)= difference between relative gas
banking. Figure 8 shows the effects of pressure draw down productivity and relative oil productivity.
near the well-bore. The higher the pressure draw down, the
significant the impairment. REFERENCES
1. Fevang, O., Whitson C.H., Modeling Gas Condensate
Well Deliverability; Paper SPE 30714, presented at the
Conclusion SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
The well gas productivity index at reservoir pressure of Dallas, TX (October 22-25, 1995).
4750 psia was found to drop rapidly approximately 10% to 2. Henderson, G.D., Danesh A., Tehrani, D.H., and Al-
35% due to single phase transient effects. As the reservoir Kharusi, B., The Relative Significance of Positive
pressure down to the dew point pressure, this PI drop slows Coupling and Inertial Effects on Gas Condensate
down and continually losses for another 20% till movable oil Relative Permeabilities at High Velocity; Paper SPE
saturation reached in reservoir. Then another further loss of 62933, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
about 20% of the initial PI due to the oil flow and later a Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX (October 1-4,
continued loss in PI as the reservoir pressure declines. The gas 2000).
PI at a reservoir pressure of 2000 psia is only 10-20% of the 3. Whitson C.H., Fevang, O., and Saevareid A., Gas
initial value (reservoir pressure 4750 psia). Condensate Relative Permeability for Well
Calculations; Paper SPE 56476, presented at the SPE
All the fluids PVT (liquid yield), permeability and Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
production pressure drawdown near well-bore of the producer TX (October 3-6, 1999).
have significant influence on the gas well productivity. 4. Coats, K.H., Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir
Performance; Journal of Petroleum Technology,
October, 1985, (1870-1886)
Acknowledgement 5. Mott, R., Engineering Calculations of Gas Condensate
Well Productivity; presented at the SPE Annual
The authors wish to acknowledge those who contribute to Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
the discussions of this topic when preparing for this paper. Texas, September 29 October 2, 2002.

3
Case KZ Yield Qg Skin Completion
No. bbl/M MMSCF/
mD MSCF D %
1 200 47 40 0 0.3
2 200 47 40 70 0.1
3 200 47 80 0 0.1
4 200 47 80 5 0.2
5 200 47 80 70 0.3
6 200 64 40 70 0.3
7 200 64 60 0 0.1
8 200 92 40 0 0.1
9 200 92 40 5 0.3
10 200 92 60 70 0.3
11 200 92 80 0 0.3
12 200 92 80 70 0.1
13 500 47 60 5 0.3
14 500 64 80 5 0.3
15 500 92 40 70 0.2
16 500 92 60 0 0.2
17 5000 47 40 0 0.1
18 5000 47 40 70 0.3
19 5000 47 80 0 0.3
20 5000 47 80 70 0.1
21 5000 64 60 5 0.2
22 5000 92 40 0 0.3
23 5000 92 40 70 0.1
24 5000 92 80 0 0.1
25 5000 92 80 70 0.3

Table 1: Case description: Input parameters combination

4
 Rela_PI_Gas~ Pr

1.0
1
2
0.9 3
4
5
0.8
6
7

0.7 8
9
10
0.6 11

Rela_PI_Gas
12
13
0.5
14
15
0.4 16
17
18
0.3 19
20
21
0.2
22

3 23
0.1
4 24
25
All
0.0
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
Pr (Psi)

Figure 3: Relative gas PI ~ Pr (Four stages, 1-- Single

Figure 1: Three regions in gas condensate reservoirs phase transient effects; 2-- Liquid builds up in reservoir;
(after Whitson et al.) 1 in reservoir; and 4-- Reservoir pressure
3-- Liquid flows
is too low. )

OKUBIE 5, EKITI-7 No. of Columns Rela_PI_Oil~ Pr

1
2
RADIAL MODEL x-dimension 3
15 1.0
4
5
0.9 2 6
7
0.8
8
9
0.7
10
11
0.6
No. of Layers 12

z-dimension R ela_ PI_O il

13
0.5
14
332 15
(each 1 ft thick) 0.4
16
17
0.3
18
19
0.2
20
21
0.1
22
23
0.0
No. of Slices, y-dimension = 1 (360 degrees) 24
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
25
Pr (Psi)
ALL

Figure 2: Reservoir simulation model

Figure 4: Relative oil PI~ Pr (Relative oil PI decrease
from the beginning to the end, which means that oil
production capability, will decrease since Pwf < Pd)

5
 D(Rela_PI_GAS_OIL)~ Pr
1
D(Rela_PI_GAS_OIL)~ Pr 2 0.35
3
0.35 4
5 0.30
6
0.30
7
8 0.25

Rela_PI (gas) - Rela_PI(oil)

0.25
9
Figure
5000 mD
R ela_ P I ( g a s ) - R e la _P I( o il)

10
11
0.20
500 mD
0.20 12
All
13
14
0.15 200 mD
0.15 15
16 0.10
17
0.10
18
19 0.05

0.05
Oil starts to move 20
21
22 0.00
23 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
0.00
24 Pr (Psi)
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
Pr (Psi) 25
All

Figure 7: D(rela_PI_Gas_Oil)~Pr for different

permeability reservoirs (both high permeability and
Figure 5: Difference between relative gas PI and that of low perm has some influences on PI).
oil~ Pr (The difference first increases, then
decreases and in both stages the difference >0)

D(Rela_PI_GAS_OIL)~ Pr
D(Rela_PI_GAS_OIL)~ Pr
0.35
0.35

0.30
0.30
92
0.25
Large
Rela_PI (gas) - Rela_PI(oil)

0.25 64
Rela_PI (gas) - Rela_PI(oil)

0.20
Mid
47
0.20
Small
All
All 0.15
0.15

0.10
0.10

0.05
0.05

0.00
0.00 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 Pr (Psi)

Pr (Psi)
Figure 8: D(rela_PI_Gas_Oil)~Pr for different
Figure 6: D(rela_PI_Gas_Oil)~Pr for different liquid drawdowns near wellbore (Large pressure draw
yields (High liquid yield results in large difference). down results in large difference).