Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Dyung T. Yo, SPE, U. of Tulsa; .Jack R .Jones, SPE, Amoco Production Co.; and
Rajagopal Raghavan, * SPE, U. of Tulsa
Summary. This paper considers some reservoir engineering aspects of the performance of gas-condensate reservoirs that are important
for commercial exploitation: calculation of producible fluids, material-balance computations, well deliverability predictions, estimates
of the size of the two-phase zone, and saturation changes during the buildup period. Two production modes (constant pressure and constant
rate) are considered. Both transient and boundary-dominated periods are examined. Extrapolation of results derived from data above
the dewpoint pressure to conditions below the dewpoint pressure is discussed.
Introduction Definitions
In this paper, we apply the results of Refs. 1 and 2 to examine gas- For purposes of generality, all results in this paper are presented
condensate-reservoir behavior above and below the dewpoint in dimensionless form. Because condensate reservoir solutions are
pressure. We examine the applicability of using the conventional compared with the liquid solutions, appropriate definitions for a
material-balance equation to predict reserves. A practical procedure liquid-flow system are stated first. The dimensionless pressure,
to compute the appropriate two-phase compressibility factor is PD(rD,tD), dimensionless time, tD' and dimensionless distance,
presented. The importance of these results is that we establish that rD, are defined by the following equations:
data above the dewpoint pressure can be used to predict reservoir
PD(rD,tD) = (khI141.2qB/l,)(Pi -Pwj), ................. (1)
performance below the dewpoint pressure. The second part ofthis
work examines methods to compute well deliverability in condensate tD =0.0002637ktlcPctW~, ........................... (2)
reservoirs. We show that the average reservoir pressure and total
and rD =rlr w' .................................. (3)
skin factor computed with the single-phase gas analog 3 can be used
to predict well deliverability. The steady-state l,4 analog is inade- For pressure-buildup responses, the dimensionless pressure rise,
quate for predictil1g well deliverability primarily because skin-factor PsD, is given by
estimates from this analog deteriorate with producing time during
PSD =(kh114 1. 2qBf.l)(pws -Pwj,s) ..................... (4)
the boundary-dominated flow period.
Jones and Raghavan 1 showed that condensate well performance and dimensionless shut-in time, i1tD' is given by
can be correlated with liquid-flow solutions in terms of the reservoir
i1tD =0.OOO2637ki1tlcPctW~. . ....................... (5)
integral. Using this observation as a basis, we correlate the radius
of the two-phase region as a function of time in terms of the The skin factor, s, is modeled as a thick skin \0 region with
Aronofsky-Jenkins 5 drainage-radius concept. We then show that
s=[(klks) -l]ln(r/rw)=(kh/141.2qBf.l)i1ps' ............ (6)
the radius of the two-phase zone can be estimated from pressure-
buildup data. We follow AI-Hussainy et al. 3 for the flow of condensates, and
In the last part of this paper, we examine changes in saturation define dimensionless time'based on the'viscosity-compressibility
and composition that take place during a buildup test. 6,7 In the vi- product at Pi' Modifications to the definition of dimensionless shut-
cinity of the wellbore, the liquid-phase saturation increases after in time will be made and discussed as needed. We now consider
the well is shut in; i.e., the liquid phase does not vaporize during the definitions of the pseudopressures used in this study.
the shut-in period in the near-well region. As suggested by The dimensionless pseudopressure at the wellbore is given by
Aanonsen,7 on the basis of iJ-model simulations, the phase be-
havior of condensate systems in the vicinity of the well is similar PpwD(tD) = (7rkhC 1IqtTR)[pp(Pi) -pp(Pwj)] ............ (7)
to that of solution-gas-drive reservoirs. An explanation for this be- and the dimensionless pseudopressure rise is given by
havior is presented.
PpsD(i1tD) = (7rkhC l IqtTR)[pp(Pws) -pp(Pwj,s)]' ........ (8)
Mathematical Model and Assumptions Here, C l =0.006328 ft3fD [0.000179 m 3 /d]. If the existence of
All results presented here were generated with a ID compositional the liquid phase is ignored, then the conventional definition 3 for
model l that is similar to the model presented by Coats.8 The pseudopressure given by
Redlich-Kwong equation of state (EOS) as modified by Zudkevitch p P'
and Joffe 9 is used to simulate phase behavior. Details and p p (p)=2J --dp' ............................. (9)
procedures used to verify the accuracy of solutions are discussed Pb (pZ)g
in Ref. 1. We consider well responses for constant-molar-rate and is used in Eqs. 7 and 8. To incorporate the influence of multiphase
constant-pressure production and for infinite-acting and boundary- flow, the pseudopressure must account not only for variations in
dominated flow periods. Except for the existence of a skin zone, fluid properties with pressure but also for the influence of satu-
the reservoir is assumed to be a uniform porous medium of con- ration gradients. To incorporate both of these influences, the pseu-
stant thickness with negligible gravitational effects, and the well dopressure function was defined I as
is assumed to penetrate the formation fully. The skin region is
modeled after suggestions by Hawkins. \0
The basic data used in this study are identical to those used in
pp(p) =2 r
Pb
[(krolf.loZo) + (kr/f.lgZg)]p'dp'. . .......... (10)
0.9
0.8
0'
~
~
~
e0.7
.;
.... 0.6 CI
-l
iii
1
c(
0.5 cL
L&.I
:E
a: ~3000
:;:)
L&.I
Q. 0.4 en
en
L&.I
L&.I
> a:
fi-l 0.3 Q.
L&.I 2000
a: 0.2
0.1
0 1.0
Pi: 31 10psia
t[a
0 CONSTANT PRESSURE
PRODUCTION
CONSTANT PRESSURE
~ PRODUCTION
u = 1900psio (I >50days)
-------/
....
<[
iii. MIX 2, SET 3
>
----- --
~ IN
:::; 0.88 .....
Ie.
iii
Vi 00 00 0
(J") 00
w 2500
a::
0- 0.84
~ 0,0 SIMULATOR, EO. 14
0
u - FLASH, EO. 20 -SfMULATOR
0.80
0 0.1 0.7 15000'----OL.I--0.L.2--0-'-.3--0--'.4--0--'.-5--0--'.LS---'0.7
FRACTION OF INITIAL FLUID PRODUCED, Gp/G i
FRACTION OF INITIAL FLUID PRODUCED, Gp/Gj
To derive an alternative method, we defme the average density, p, To test the validity ofEq. 20 when CCE data are used to evaluate
by the needed factors on the right, we used the results of composi-
tional simulations to compute appropriate values for the two-phase
p=m,lVp . ...................................... (15) deviation factor from Eqs. 14 and 20. Values of Z(p) for two uch
Because Vp=Vo+Vg' .............................. (16) simulations are plotted in Fig. 3. This is a Cartesian plot of Z(p)
vs. GpiGi. The circular data points are values computed from Eq.
we can write Eq. 16 as 14 with simulator results for a constant-molar-rate case, while the
Vp = Vo + Vg =mtlp=(molp o) + (mgiP g) . .............. (17) square data points are those computed for a50nstant-pressure case.
The unbroken line represents the values of Z computed from Eq. 20
Defining the three deviation Z factors through the engineering EOS with CCE data. The dashed curve that overlies the unbroken line
as for GplGi <0.22 is the response of the single-phase gas deviation
Z=plpRT, Zo=plPoRT, Zg=plpgRT ................ (18) factor calculated with the equilibrium gas compositions obtained
from CCE data. Both simulations were performed with Mixture
and defining h =molm, and/v=mgimp we can write Eq. 17 as 2 and Set 3 relative permeability data with Pi =4,500 psia [31
Z(p) =h (p)Zo (p) +/v(p)Zg(p) . ..................... (19) MPa). For the constant-pressure production example, the well
flowed with PWj=3,200 psia. [22.1 MPa) untilp was 3,309 psia
Eq. 19 clearly holds at any pressure in the reservoir and, hence, [22.8 MPa) (about 50 days). After this, Pwj was lowered to 1,900
we may apply it at p = p to obtain psia [13.1 MPa], and the simulation was continued until 60% of
Z(p) =h (jj)Zo (p) +/v(p)Zg<p). . .................. (20) the fluid in place was produced. Such production schemes were
considered to ensure that the conclusion we propose is not affected
Eq. 20 is of no more practical use than Eq. 14 unless some simple by the mode of production or well bore pressure level (above or
way for calculating the quantities on the right side can be found. below the dewpoint pressure). _
Previous computational experience with gas-condensate performance From Fig. 3 we see that the values of Z(jj) form a unique curve
led us to believe that useful values for these variables could be ob- independent of production mode or pressure level (jj=Pdew for
tained directly from CCE or flash data. It should be emphasized, GpiGi ""'0.22). The values of Z calculated from Eq. 20 agree with
however, that Eq. 20 is exact only if the properties are represen- those computed from Eq. 14 within 2 % for the range of cumul~tive
tative of in-place values. Properties obtained from either CCE or production shown. The advantage of Eq. 20 is that values of Z can
differential-liberation data cannot be shown to be a proper choice be obtained when only the initial composition of the gas in place
without numerical experiments. is known. Although the results in Fig. 3 clearly establish that the
0.7r---r--r-r"TTTTTr--;-;-rrrrm--r-r-rrnTrr-'
MIX 2, SET 3 MIX2, SET3
O.S
o ql = 10,000 Ibm mollO Pwf : 2500 psio
en s:0 0 .8
Z 0.5,----,,_ (/)
0 s: 0
o Pi: 4500 psi a , reo: ISOO
~ 04~------',---"'-.:---=~0?=-_ z
o 0.6
~
0::
~ 0.3
f===-=-_
0::
::>
en 0.2
..J ~ 0.4~:;;;~==~~~~ FLOWING TIME,
o 0.1
(/) t,days
..J
OL-~~~llL~LLLU~~~bQ~~~
o 0.2
I 10 102 10 3
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD
oL-~~wL-L~UW~~~~~~~
I 10 10 2 103 104
Fig. 5-Saturation profiles for constant-rate production. DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rO
101~~~~~~10--~~LUIU02~~~~~~~3~~~~104 14~1~~~~~10--~~LUIUO~3~~~~10U4~~~~WI05
Fig. 7-Reservolr Integral, drawdown (5=0). Fig. 8-Reservolr integral, drawdown (5 = 5).
and Set 3 relative permeability data. Simulator rates at shut-in, rates ppDtD(rD) vs. rD for various dimensionless producing times based
predicted with Eq. 24, and the percent difference between them on tAD' The data were obtained from a constant-rate drawdown
are shown for constant-rate and constant-pressure production cases. simulation for Mixture 2 with Set 3 relative permeability data. The
Agreement is within 1% for all except the negative skin cases, where skin factor for this simulation is zero. The circular data points reflect
the rates differ by no more than 5 %. An equation similar to Eq. 24, Eq. 27. Agreement between PD(rD) and PpDI (rD) is very good
but with p replaced by Pe (the pressure at re) and 0.75 replaced for all tAD and VD . We note that the resenfoir integral varies
by 0.5, also was tested and found to be equally good. However, linearly with rD over some range of rD for each tAD' Thus, we
an equation similar to Eq. 24, but withpp(p) replaced by pp(p) 1,4 may write, for 1:5 rD < rb,
and St replaced by S (estimated with the steady-state theory),
yielded large relative errors between predicted and simulator rates. PpDt (rD) "" In(roDIrD) , ........................... (28)
D
We also tested the relation where roD is determined by the intersection of the PpDt (rD) =0
line with the extrapolation of the linear portion of the p~DtD(rD)
curve. The value rb is the upper limit of rD where this linear be-
havior holds. The positions of these variables are indicated in Fig. 7
for the tAD=4.91 x 10-5 case. Clearly, roD is a function of time.
as a deliverability equation during transient flow period and found Although not specifically shown by the figure, for tAD ~ 0.1, the
it to be accurate for rate prediction to within 5 %. value of roD remains fixed and the values of ppDID(rD) do not
The drawback of the above equations is that it has been shown 2 change with time beyond this value of tAD' This result is the basis
that St is a function of producing time. Thus, for producing times for the deliverability equation (Eq. 23) given earlier.
far from a calibrating buildup test, Eqs. 24 and 25 may not predict An equation for the variation of roD with tD can be obtained by
rates accurately. The error in the rate generally will be a function evaluating Eq. 28 at rD = 1 to give
of the relative permeability characteristics of the reservoir and, to PpDI (1)=lnroD ................................. (29)
some extent, fluid richness because these are the factors that in- D
fluence most the values of St. 1,2 For the simulations presented in and noting that for transient flow, 1
Table 2, we also tested rate predictions at long producing times
(tAD >0. 1) using an St obtained from a buildup test conducted at PpDt (1)= V2(ln tD +0.80907). . ..................... (30)
D
tAD ""0.05 for the two damaged cases (s=5). Rates predicted by Equating the right sides of Eqs. 29 and 30 and simplifying, we have
Eq. 24 were found to be within 2.6% ofthe simulator rates. Again,
the range of this relative error is dictated by the characteristics of r o(t)=0.0243..Jktlt/>(p. g cg);. . ...................... (31)
relative permeability data (Set 3) and the fluid mixture used in the
simulations (Mixture 2). The fact that these differences are small Hence, we see that ro(t) is identical to the transient drainage radius
also can be attributed to the revaporization of the near-wellbore of Aronofsky and Jenkins, 5 rd(t), for single-phase gas flow during
liquid phase and the stabilization of the size of the mobile oil zone the transient flow period.
during the boundary-dominated flow period. Eq. 31 was derived assuming that S =0. Fig. 8 shows the reservoir
integral profIle for a case where s=5. Note thatppDID(rD) follows
Estimating the Size of the Two-Phase Zone. The reservoir two distinct semilog straight lines in rD, one inside the skin zone,
integral 1 1:5 rD:5 rsD' and one outside the skin zone, rsD <rD < rb. In par-
ticular, we can write
PpDtD(rD)=------J
r
21fkhC 1 reD [( k ro krg) op ]
Po-+P g - ---, drb PpD1D (rD) =In(roDlrD) ............................ (32)
qt rD P.o p.g orD tD
for rsD < rD:5 rb and, for the wellbore, we have
.................................... (26)
p pDID(1)=ln roD+s, .............................. (33)
has been shown to behave similarly to the single-phase dimensionless Eq. 33 may be combined with
pressure, PD, given by
PpDI (1)= !h(ln tD +0.80907)+s .................... (34)
D
PD(rD,tD) = khl141.2qBp.[Pe -p(r,t)]. . ............... (27)
to yield Eq. 31 again; however, now Eq. 31 applies only for t large
Specifically, Jones and Raghavan 1 showed that PpDt (1) and enough to give ro(tr s ' This is not a serious limitation if s~O.
PwD(tD) follow the same equation during the transient flo{t period As a practical matter, care should be taken if plots similar to Figs.
if tD is large enough. We extend this result to show that these two 7 and 8 are used to determine ro(t). The equality in Eqs. 28 and
functions have similar behavior for all rD values. Fig. 7 shows 32 is valid only if roD ~ reD'
A~.A-<>-A-"l...q,""'1600
CONSTANT RATE
(q,=5000,7500, 10,000) CONSTANT RATE
Ibm mol/O (q, =5000,7500,10,000) Ibm mol/O
05=0 o =0
CONSTANT PRESSURE. 0.=5,-1 =5
Pwf 2500 paio Pi =3300 psio CONSTANT PRESSURE, Pwf= 2500psio
3 OS-o o SET I, (s =0), '" =0
A sZ5 q, -10,000 Ibm mol/O s= 5
Fig. 9-Correlatlon of Aronofsky-Jenklns drainage radius (Mix- Fig. 10-Correlation of Aronofsky-Jenkins drainage radius
ture 2). (Mixture 1).
An expression for the radius of the two-phase zone as a function If the single-phase-flow analogy is valid, then we have
of time can now be derived. We can write Eq. 28 as
rPe (p/Jl.g)dp=l)i .
27rkhC 1
---
\,rdew,D[( kro krg) ap
Po-+P g - --
rdew,D
drD=ln---,
1' 27rkhC 1lqlj
p
.............. , ....... (41)
qt ~eD Jl.o Jl.g arb tD roD (tD) Combining Eqs. 36, 40, and 41 and noting that In roD=ln(O.606'el
rw) during boundary-dominated flow, we obtain Eq. 39 .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (35)
We tested Eqs. 38 and 39 by simulating drawdowns with
where rdew,D is the dimensionless radius of the two-phase zone for Pi> Pdew and using simulator results to estimate r dew as a function
dimensionless time, tD' Eq. 35 can be arranged to give of time. These values for r dew' along with a value for the integral
of single-phase gas properties over the range Pdew to Pi or p, were
27rkhC 1 r rdew,D used in Eqs. 38 and 39, respectively, to obtain values of ro(tD}'
In rdew,D=ln roD(tD).+--- \
These values were then compared with the published correlation 5
qt ~eD for rd' Recall that we have shown that rd(tD) is identical to ro(tD)
In rdew
rw
=ln~(tD)
'w
_ 27rkhC 1
qt
r
Pdew
i
Pg dp.
Jl. g
. ............ (38)
Fig. 10 shows the data for Mixture 1. The data for the two plots
were generated with Set 3 relative permeability curves, except for
the square data points in Fig. 10, which were obtained with Set
1 relative permeability data. Similar results were obtained for
Here, ro(tD) would be given by Eq. 31. Note that Eq. 38 implicitly Mixture 4.
assumes that two-phase flow begins before the outer boundary is From these figures, we see that Eqs. 38 and 39 work very well.
felt. To extend Eq. 36 into the boundary-dominated period, addi- A detailed examination of tabulated values shows that the results
tional assumptions must be invoked. If we accept that,o(t) should typically differ by about 6 % with differences as high as l3 % for
be identical to the Aronofsky-Jenkins transient drainage radius, rd' some constant-pressure-production cases during transient flow. For
then we can intuitively extend Eq. 38 by replacing 'o(tD) by boundary-dominated flow, we generally find that r dew can be pre-
rd(tD)=0.472'e and Pi by p. Thus, our final equation for the radius dicted to within 5 % if
of the two-phase zone, 'dew, during the boundary-dominated flow
period is 27rkhC 1Iqt] p (p/Jl.g)dp 2! 0.50. . .................... (42)
Pdew
In rdew =In':d(tD~_~7rkhCl [ft Pg dp, ............. (39)
If we combine Eq. 38 with Eq. 25 or Eq. 39 with Eq. 24, depending
'w 'w qt Pdew Jl. g on the flow regime appropriate for the producing time, then an
where 'itD)=0.472'e' Clearly, this equation implies that the equation for estimating the radius of the two-phase zone from
radius of the two-phase zone can be computed only whenp>Pdew' buildup data can be derived. The result is
Eq. 39 may also be derived if we consider the following. We have
shown that there is a correspondence between ppDtD(rD) and In rdew = 27rkhC 1 JPdew Pg dp-sl' .................. (43)
PD(rD,tD)' For boundary-dominated flow, withP>Pdew, the in- rw qt Pwf,s Jl.g
tegral on the right side of Eq. 36 may be written as
o~ Co
>0-
a 6
IJJ
I- 0:'
w-
~ CONSTANT RATE PRODUCTION en..? e
0: w-o CONSTANT RATE PRODUCTION
q,=.7500 Ibm moltD IX: -
0 z'a 10 q, =7500 Ibm moltD
>
IX:
'eo = 4000, S = 5 - 0-
W
IJJ (!)
'eo=4000,s=5
en '40"1.2389
z 12 'AD = 1.2389
IJJ
0:
J:
u
10 10 2 103 13
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD I 10 102 10 3 104
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, '0
Fig. 11-Reservoir Integral, buildup (s=5). Fig. 12-Change In reservoir Integral, buildup (s=5).
Saturation Changes During the Buildup Period. Figs. 7 and 8 liquid phase takes place; thus, rdew decreases with increasing At.
show that the reservoir integral defined by Eq. 26 preserves the The two-phase zone varies from approximately rD =42 at At=O
radial dependence of the single-phase liquid PD for two-phase to about rD =22 at At=7 days. Revaporization at the edge of the
flowing responses. We begin here by demonstrating an analogous two-phase zone was previously reported by Fusse1l 6 for pressure-
result for pressure-buildup responses. buildup tests. However, he reported that changes in So near the
Fig. 11 shows ppDt.tv(rD) (defined by Eq. 26) vs. rD (computed well were minimal. This behavior for the near-well changes in So
with buildup-test data. The variable of interest here is the shut-in has been noted by Aanonsen 7 from ..{3-model" simulations of gas-
time, dt. The simulation is for constant-rate production (Mixture 2, condensate pressure buildup.
Set 3 data) with s=5. As Jones et al. 2 claim, regions of zero pres- Fig. 14 shows mole fractions ofC I and C 4 , for the liquid and
sure gradient, which increase with increasing At, are evident. If vapor phases, vs. rD' These data are for the same buildup test
the profiles of PpD!J.tv(rD) in Fig. 11 are subtracted from the pro- documented in Fig. 13, and again, the variable of interest is At.
file at shut-in, ppDtv(rD), the profiles plotted in Fig. 12 are ob- Here, we see that the revaporization of the liquid phase near r=
tained. Note that the shapes of these profiles are similar to the r dew causes the liquid-phase mole-fraction profiles to contract as
drawdown profIles shown in Fig. 8 for s=5. As in the case of the re- At increases. More interesting is the behavior of the mole fractions
sults shown in Figs. 7 and 8, we expect PpsD!J.tv(rD) = [ppDtv(rD) with time near the well. The data show that the liquid phase is
-PpD!J.tv(rD)] to be analogous to the liquid-theory function, PsD' swelling because the light end (C I ) is moving out of the gas phase
defined by and into the liquid phase; i.e., gas is preferentially dissolving in
the oil phase. This behavior is typical of a black-oil (solution-gas-
psD(rD,AtD)=PD(rD,tD)-PD(rD,AtD)' .............. (44)
drive) system.
We now tum our attention to the behavior of saturation distribu- We have computed the critical temperatures at shut-in for the
tions during the pressure-buildup period. Fig. 13 shows So vs. rD overall fluid as a function of rD from simulator results using Li's
at tAD =0.0042, which corresponds to shutting in the well during method as given in Ref. 16. This computation is outlined in the
transient flow. The variable of interest here is the shut-in time, At. Appendix and the values are shown as the dashed line in Fig. 13.
From the plot, we see that as pressure builds up in the system, the Comparing these values with the reservoir temperature for this simu-
liquid saturations near the well increase with At. The change in lation, T=740oR [411 KJ, we see that in the region where "con-
So at rD = I from At=O to 7 days is more than 30%. For radii near densation" occurs (So increasing with At), fluid critical tempera-
the edge of the two-phase zone, some revaporization of the in-place tures are greater than T, and revaporization occurs where fluid
:l:J
0~~~~~--~~~~~~~~500
Fig. 14-Mole fraction profiles during buildup,
1 10 102 103
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD
II:
:;)
!:( 0.4
\ 700
::0
!:i
tf)
LIt, days
\ c
-I \ ::0
rr1
(5 "-
0.2 ........ -------- 600 ~
- - OIL SATURATION o
::0
- - CRITICAL TEMPERATURE
01 _____~______~._--~~==~~500 OLI~~~~~10-~~~~10~2~~~~1~03'-~~~WI04
r rn ~ ~ ~
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rO
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rO
Fig. 15-Saturatlon and critical temperature profiles. Fig. 16-Mole fraction profiles during buildup.
critical temperature is less than T. Thus, as the mole fraction profiles C 1 = conversion factor, ft 3 /D [m 3 /d].
indicated, the near-wellbore fluid has undergone enough compo- h = liquid mole fraction
sition changes to make the overall in-place fluid there into a black Iv = vapor mole fraction
oil rather than a gas condensate. There are not enough composition G j = initial fluid in place, Ibm mol [kmol]
changes far from the well to cause this change, and fluid there still Gp = cumulative fluid produced, Ibm mol [kmol]
behaves as a gas condensate with the attendant revaporization of h = formation thickness, ft [m]
liquid. To the best of our knowledge, no such data have been pre- k = permeability, md
sented in the literature before, though the idea that the near-well krg = relative permeability to gas
fluid behaves as a black oil was mentioned 7 as a possible expla- k ro = relative permeability to oil
nation for So increases with Ilt. Lmax = maximum molar fraction of liquid drop-out
Figs. 15 and 16 present similar results for saturation and mole
mg = number of moles in gas phase, Ibm mol [kmol]
fraction profiles, respectively, for a drawdown into boundary-
mo = number of moles in liquid phase,
dominated flow before the well is shut in for a pressure-buildup
Ibm mol [kmol]
test. These saturation profiles correspond to the reservoir integral
profiles plotted in Figs. 11 and 12. The same general conclusions m t = total number of moles, Ibm/mol [kmol]
reached from an examination of Figs. 13 and 14 still hold. Liquid P = pressure, psia [MPa]
saturation increases where fluid critical temperature is greater than Pb = base pressure, psia [mPa]
T and revaporization occurs where Tc < T. In this case, however, Pdew = dewpoint pressure, psia [MPa]
the revaporization of the liquid phase far from the well is essen- PD = dimensionless pressure, Eq. I
tially negligible and, thus, the size of the two-phase zone does not P e = external boundary pressure, psia [MPa]
contract. pj = initial reservoir pressure, psia [MPa]
PLmax = pressure corresponding to Lmax obtained from
Conclusions CCE, psia [MPa]
Pp = pseudopressure
Numerical simulation results from the model developed by Jones 17
pp(p) = pseudopressure (single-phase analog), Eq. 9,
have been used to examine the performance of gas-condensate
psi 2/cp [kPa 2/(Pas)]
reservoirs. The following conclusions were demonstrated.
pp(p) = pseudopressure function (steady-state analog),
1. Two-phase compressibility factors based on flash (CCE) data
can be used to predict reserves from_data measured above or below Eq. 10, psi-Ibm moll(cp-ft3)
the dewpoint pressure. A plot of pIZ(p) vs. Gp yields an excellent [kPa . kmoll (Pa . s)m 3]
straight line above and below the dewpoint pressure, provided that PpDt (rD) = reservoir integral (drawdown), Eq. 26
compressibility factors are defined appropriately. PP!frD(l) = reservoir integral associated with wellbore
2. Well deliverability can be evaluated by computing average res- ppDAtD(rD) = reservoir integral (buildup)
ervoir pressure and total skin factor with the single-phase gas analog. ppDAtD(rD) = change in reservoir integral (buildup)
Some care should be taken in extrapolating well performances over PpsD = buildup analog (single-phase analog), Eq. 13
long time spans because the total skin factor will change. PpssD = buildup analog (steady-state analog), Eq. 12
3. It is possible to determine the radius of the two-phase zone PpwD = pseudopressure drop at wellbore, Eq. 7
from pressure-buildup data provided that the average reservoir PsD = dimensionless pressure rise, Eq. 4
pressure is above the dewpoint pressure. The size of the two-phase Pwf = flowing wellbore pressure, psia [MPa]
zone can be predicted from an estimate of the total skin factor, vapor Pwf.s = wellbore pressure at shut-in, psia [MPa]
phase compositions, and dewpoint pressure and wellbore pressure P ws = shut-in pressure, psia [MPa]
at shut-in. The radius of the two-phase zone also may be predicted q = rate, STB/D [stock-tank m 3 /d]
by invoking the drainage-radius concept. 5 This procedure does not qt = total molar rate, Ibm mollD [kmolld]
require knowledge of the two-phase skin factor. qt(bu) = total molar rate predicted from buildup data,
4. Liquid-phase saturations near the wellbore increase when the Ibm mollD [kmolld]
well is shut in. Near-well composition changes can be significant
, = distance in radial coordinates, ft [m]
enough for the in-place fluid to behave as if it were a black oil rather
r d = Aronofsky-Jenkins transient drainage radius, ft [m]
than a gas condensate.
rdew = radius at which P=Pdew
re = external radius, ft [m]
Nomenclature '0
= radial intersection point, Fig. 7, ft [m]
A = drainage area, ft2 [m 2] rs = skin zone radius, ft [m]
B = FVF r w = wellbore radius, ft [m]
Cg = gas-phase compressibility, psi - 1 [kPa - 1] R = universal gas constant, 10.73 psi-ft 31
Ct = total compressibility, psi -I [kPa -I ] Ibm mol- OR [73.98 kPa m 3Ikmol . K]
Superscripts Thus, we can evaluate Zi using the simUlator results and, conse-
= average quently, the in-place-fluid critical temperature, Te. at any location
= derivative in the reservoir may be obtained from Eq. A-2.