SPE 64662
Condensate Banking Dynamics in Gas Condensate Fields:
Changes in Produced Condensate to Gas Ratios
*
H.R. Zhang, SPE Member, and R.J. Wheaton, BG International, Reading, Berkshire RG6 1PT, England, UK
Copyright 2000, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition in China held in Beijing, China, 7–10 November 2000.
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, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A general theoretical treatment of condensate banking
dynamics was developed previously by Wheaton and Zhang1
to show how the compositions of heavy components of a gas
condensate change with time around production wells during
depletion. This current paper presents further analytical
development of condensate banking dynamics on the behavior
of produced condensate to gas ratios.
In this paper, a general theoretical treatment is attempted to
show how the produced condensate to gas ratio varies with
time during pressure depletion. Numerical simulations are
pursued to confirm and supplement the theoretical analysis.
Numerical welltest results and in particular liquid gas ratios
are interpreted with the developed analytical model. The
effects of low permeability and reservoir heterogeneity on
condensate banking are discussed in terms of condensate to
gas ratios.
Results have shown that no natural steady state exists with
regard to condensate to gas ratio. Well tests to obtain data
relating to the initial condition of the reservoir are not reliable
once bottom hole pressure falls below dewpoint. The level of
heterogeneity has a significant impact on the way a
condensate bank develops. Only if pressure rises within
condensate banking region following a period of depletion,
will condensate to gas ratio increase and be greater than the
initial condensate to gas ratio value. The condensate to gas
ratio is very sensitive to the heterogeneity level in the
reservoir and it is in itself an important indicator of reservoir
heterogeneity.
In summary, the objectives of this paper together with our
previous study of compositional changes are to introduce
______________________________________
* Now with BP Exploration at Sunbury, UK
novel theoretical treatments to form a foundation for increased
understanding of the condensate banking processes and of the
well deliverability impairment.
Introduction
An increasing number of gas condensate fields have been
discovered worldwide as exploration drilling encounters
greater depth, high pressure and high temperature conditions.
Condensate banking around production wells due to
retrograde condensation presents specific problems in the
development of such reservoirs which depends on both gas
and condensate production profiles.
Three things are essential in a successful development of
gas condensate fields: (i) in the original well testing of the
field, accurate values of the condensate to gas ratio (CGR) are
determined for the evaluation of initial ‘in place’ reserves and
for formation evaluation and reservoir characterisation; (ii)
the CGR behaviour of the production wells is understood so
that history matching to early data can be accurate; (iii) the
general long term behaviour of the reservoir and the liquid
recovery factors expected in any planned gas cycling process
are realistic. Essential to all these issues is an understanding
of the dynamic processes involved in the build-up of
condensate bank around the production wells.1,2
Transient pressure data, production data and well
performance analysis of gas condensate wells have been topics
of abundant research in the oil industry and academia. Many
efforts have been made to address the interpretation of well
testing results and the forecast of the well performance.
However, modelling of gas condensate well flows is still an
outstanding issue. The difficulty arises mainly from the
resulting complex multiphase flow due to bottom hole flowing
pressure below dewpoint. Unlike in the black oil system
where the physical properties such as solubility and viscosity
are commonly assumed to vary with pressure only, condensate
saturation around a producing well does not simply depend on
pressure since the total concentration of heavy components
varies with time close to the wellbore. The gas condensate
flow behaviour depends on a number of factors which include
mainly the fluid pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) and
vapour-liquid-equilibrium (VLE) properties, absolute and
relative permeability and the well operating conditions.3-4 The
relative permeabilities, however, are strongly dependent of the
2 H.R. ZHANG & R.J. WHEATON
balance of viscous, capillary and gravity forces.5-7 Non-Darcy
flow effects also play a role in the overall flow behaviour of
gas condensate particularly in near wellbore region when the
production rate is high.8-9 Condensate impairment to well
deliverability of the gas cannot be overcome by productivity
improvement measures. Both the condensate impairment and
rate dependent skin change through the life of a gas
condensate well.
The methods of gas condensate well performance analysis
that have been adopted in the oil industry, can be broadly
grouped into two categories: (i) the analytical method,10-12 and
(ii) the numerical simulation method.8,13,14 The main
limitation of the analytical methods is in the treatment of the
fluid phase behaviour. Usually only one set of PVT data is
permitted with no compositional simulation involved. It is
unknown whether or not these PVT data represent the fluid
behaviour in situ. The non-Darcy effects and capillary
number/bond number dependent relative permeability cannot
be taken into account. Numerical simulation methods can
overcome these limitations. However, welltest design,
analysis of testing data and reservoir performance prediction
all require a demonstrated understanding of the condensate
banking behaviour. This is essential to generating confidence
to proceed with chosen models of well testing analysis or
direct numerical reservoir simulations.
We approach the subject of the condensate bank dynamics
by developing theoretical treatments of the problem to address
two questions: (i) how the compositions of the fluid mixtures
will change around the wellbore region, and (ii) how will the
produced CGR vary with time during pressure depletion?
In a previous paper (Reference 1), how the fluid mixture
composition will change with time has been studied in the
near wellbore region during condensate dropout or potential
‘re-vaporisation’. A general relative component mobility term
χi, which is called ‘Chi’ function, was defined as:
m i ∑α x iα σ α k rα / µ α
χi = = α α α
(1)
m ∑α σ k r / µ
where is viscosity and kr is the relative permeability. α is a
phase indicator representing either gas or oil. σα is the total
molar density and xiα is the mole fraction of component i in
phase α. The ‘Chi’ function, χi, is equal to mi/m in which m =
∑mi. mi is the total mobility of the ith component through all
phases which takes the form of:
mi = k ∑ σ iα k rα / µ α (2)
α group of light components (e.g. C1 – C4) and component 2
In terms of cylindrical co-ordinates, a general equation was
obtained for the compositional change of ith component. The
dependence of the compositional change on the mobility terms
and the way of how it varies with relative permeability and
fluid PVT/VLE properties were examined in some detail for a
SPE 64662
series of simple rich and lean gas condensate mixtures at a
fixed temperature.
This present paper builds upon the above work by
extending the analytical analysis to the changes in the
produced CGR during condensate banking. The primary
objective is to develop a general theoretical treatment to show
how the produced molar condensate to gas ratio varies with
time during pressure depletion. Numerical simulations are
pursued to confirm and supplement the theoretical analysis.
Numerical welltest results and in particular liquid gas ratios
are interpreted with the developed analytical model. The
effects of low permeability and reservoir heterogeneity on
condensate banking are discussed in terms of condensate to
gas ratios.
Theoretical Model
Model Development. Consider a condensate bank domain at
some time t around a well flowing with bottom hole flowing
pressure pwf below the dewpoint pressure pd. Let V(t) be the
volume within which condensate banking occurs and hence pwf
< p <pd. As illustrated in Fig. 1, V(t) is variable with time and
is assumed to be enclosed by a surface of changing area S(t),
where:
S(t) = S1 + S2(t) (3)
S1 is the surface around the wellbore which can be taken to be
constant, and S2 is the outer surface of the banking volume
which changes with time. The shape of S2 must depend on the
heterogeneity structure of the reservoir. The pressure p at the
boundary surfaces is therefore:
p = p wf ; S ∈ S1 (4)
p = pd ; S ∈ S2 (5)
By ignoring dispersive mass transfer, the molar mass balance
within volume V(t) (i.e. within the condensate bank) for any
component i can be expressed in the general form of:
∂
∂t V ∫(t )
γ i dV + ∫ J i ⋅ dS + ∫ J i ⋅ dS = 0 (6)
1 s s (t )
2
where Ji is the molar flux of the ith component and i is the
molar density of i/unit volume of the reservoir.
It is quite adequate here to treat the fluids as consisting of
two pseudo components where component 1 represents a
represents all other heavier components.
Let Rcgr denote the surface molar CGR, then in this
theoretical study the CGR can be approximately expressed as:
SPE 6466 CONDENSATE BANKING DYNAMICS IN GAS CONDENSATE FIELDS: CHANGES IN PRODUCED CONDENSATE TO GAS RATIOS 3

∫ J 2 ⋅ dS The partial derivatives with respect to time of the integrals

in equation (10) are seen to be simply the rates of
s1
Rcgr = (7) accumulation for components 1 and 2 within the condensate
∫ J 1 ⋅ dS bank. Using Reynolds transport theorem with respect to V or
s1
Leibnit rule of taking the derivative of an integral with respect
to time in this case, these derivatives may be rewritten in the
so that forms of:2

∫ J 2 ⋅ dS + ∂
∂t ∫ γ 2 dV ∂ ∂σ 2
Rcgr =
s2 (t ) V (t ) ∫ σ 2 dV = ∫
∂t V (t ) ∂t
dV + ∫ σ 2 u ⋅ dS (11)
∫ J 1 ⋅ dS + ∂
∫ γ 1dV
V (t ) S m
∂t
s2 (t ) V (t )

∂ ∂σ 1
∫ σ 1 dV = ∫ dV + ∫ σ 1u ⋅ dS
∫ ∑( ) ⋅ dS + φ
(12)
σ 2α U α ∂t V (t ) ∂t
∂
∂t ∫ σ 2 dV V (t ) S m
s2 ( t ) V (t )
=
∫ ∑( )⋅ dS + φ (8)
σ 1α U α ∂
∂t ∫ σ 1dV where Sm is the total area of the interface of the condensate
s2 (t ) V (t ) within the bank and the gas phase. u is the velocity vector at
which the Sm surface is displaced. In other words, the rates of
where φ is the porosity. σiα are the molar density of ith accumulation for components 1 and 2 within the condensate
component in phase α and Uα signals the Darcy velocity bank can be represented as the sum of two contributions by
the growth in the size of the bank volume and the change in
vector for the α phase.
pressure within the bank.
From a physical point of view, equation (8) simply relates
If a simple one-dimensional homogeneous cylindrical
the CGR at any time t to the rates of flow of C1-C4 and C5+
reservoir of constant height (h) is considered, integrating
into banking volume V(t) and the net rates of accumulation of
equations (11) and (12) yields:
these components within this volume.
When the condensate bank expands and grows, it is
R
obvious that only the single gas phase is present at the surface ∂ ∂σ 2 ∂R
S2. Therefore, equation (8) reduces to: ∂t ∫
V (t )
σ 2 dV = ∫
rw
∂t
⋅ 2πrhdr − 2πhRσ 2
∂t
(13)

∫σ ⋅ dS + φ ∂
∫σ
gas gas
2 U ∂t 2 dV
s2 ( t ) V (t )
Rcgr = (9) ∂
R
∂σ 1 ∂R
∫
s2 (t )
σ 1gas U gas ⋅ dS + φ ∂
∂t ∫
V (t )
σ 1 dV
∂t ∫
V (t )
σ 1 dV = ∫
rw
∂t
⋅ 2πrhdr − 2πhRσ 1
∂t
(14)

Note that the cosine of the angle between the outward normal where R is the radius of the bank and (∂R/∂t) is the rate of
unit vector on any point of S2 and the local gas velocity advance of the pressure front p = pd or of the condensate bank
direction is always negative, integrating gives: front. rw is the wellbore radius. It should be noted that both R
and (∂R/∂t) are functions of time t.
σ 2gas ( pd )Q gas ( p d ) − φ ∂∂t ∫ σ 2 dV From equations (10), (13) and (14), it follows that:
V (t )
Rcgr =
σ 1gas ( p d )Q gas ( p d ) − φ ∂∂t ∫ σ 1dV { }
R

∫
∂σ 2
V (t ) z 2σ gas
( p d ) Q gas ( p d ) + 2πhφR( ∂∂Rt ) − 2πhφ r ∂t
dr
rw
Rcgr =
{ }− 2πhφ ∫ r
R
∂σ 1
z1σ gas gas
( p d ) + 2πhφR( ∂∂Rt )
∫ σ 2 dV
z 2σ gas ( p d )Q gas ( p d ) − φ ∂ ( pd ) Q ∂t
dr
∂t
V (t ) rw
= (10)
z1σ gas ( p d )Q gas ( p d ) − φ ∂
∂t ∫ σ 1dV (15)
V (t )
Rewriting equation (15) leads to:
where zi is the total molar fraction of the ith component and
Qgas(pd) is the total gas flow rate at S2.
4 H.R. ZHANG & R.J. WHEATON SPE 64662

R
∂σ 2 1  ∂ In χ i 
z 2 − 2πchφ r ∫
rw
∂t
dr Gi ( p,{z i }) =
φ
mχ i 
 ∂p


(24)

Rcgr = R
(16)
∂σ 1
∫
Equation (20) represents the produced molar CGR in terms
z1 − 2πchφ r dr
∂t of one-dimensional cylindrical coordinate. It is generally
rw
applicable to all production operating conditions. In the
equation, Ai and Bi are rather complex integrals dependent on
where the PVT/VLE properties, mobility, and virtually on the rate of
change of pressure with time (∂p/∂t) and with distance from
1 the wellbore (∂p/∂r) within the condensate banking region.
c= (17)
σ gas
( p d )[Q gas
( p d ) + 2πhφR ∂∂Rt ] The integrands of Ai and Bi are orgnasied in two parts, one
being the pressure derivative. The time derivative of pressure
(∂p/∂t) appears in the term Ai and the pressure gradient (∂p/∂r)
Since1,2
appears in Bi. Separating the pressure derivatives from the
functions Fi and Gi facilitates the later analysis of the CGR
∂σ i mi ∂σ mi ∂  mi  ∂p behaviour because the general pressure behaviour in the
= + In 
φ ∂r  m
(18)
∂t m ∂t  ∂r depletion is relatively well known. In general, the pressure
gradient in either constant production rate or constant bottom
(where i = 1 or 2) and σ and χ are the function of pressure hole flowing pressure conditions is large within ~10 metres in
only at a fixed temperature, thus: the near wellbore region of a reservoir.1,15,16 The pressure
depletion rate would be relatively larger than the pressure
gradient in the far-field away from the wellbore.
R
∂σ i R
m ∂σ R
m ∂  mi  ∂p
∫r ∂t
dr = ∫ i
m ∂t
rdr + ∫ i In  rdr
φ ∂r  m  ∂r
Evaluation of the functions Fi(p, {zi}) and Gi(p, {zi}) in
conjunction with the investigation of the behavior of pressure
rw rw rw
profiles makes it possible to examine analytically the general
behavior of Ai and Bi hence the behaviour of Rcgr.
2
R
 ∂ In σ  ∂p  1R  ∂ In χ i  ∂p 
= ∫ σχ i   rdr + ∫ mχ i    rdr The Implications of Terms Ai, Bi and c. The derivation of
rw  ∂p  ∂t  φr
w
 ∂p  ∂r  equations (20)-(24) for calculating the produced CGR
involved a series of mathematical manipulations. Here, it is
(19)
intended to address the physical meanings and implications of
the terms in the equations, in particular, the integrals Ai and Bi.
Applying equation (19) to light and heavy components and
Assuming the well producing by pressure depletion (either
substituting give:
at constant bottom hole pressure or at constant production
rate) in a homogeneous reservoir, the portion of the ith
z 2 − c( A2 + B 2 )
Rcgr = (20) component in the well stream at any given instant is
z1 − c( A1 + B1 ) understood to be determined by the following four factors:
(a) the composition of the original reservoir mixture and
where Ai and Bi are integrals as follows: the initial reservoir conditions (z1, z2, pd etc.);
(b) the rate of the single phase gas flowing into the bank;
R (t ) (c) the rate of accumulation of the components within the
 ∂p 
Ai = 2πhφ ∫
rw
Fi ( p, {z i }) rdr
 ∂t 
(21) condensate bank due to the growth of the bank size;
(d) the rate of accumulation of the component within the
bank due to the change in pressure.
The CGR equation (20) should retain all the effects of these
R (t ) 2
 ∂p  factors.
Bi = 2πhφ ∫ Gi ( p, {z i })  rdr
 ∂r 
(22) Integrals Ai and Bi. These two integrals account for the
rw accumulation rate of component i within the bank as pressure
changes at time t. Below is a detailed discussion of the
where implications of the Ai and Bi terms.
During the pressure depletion, the pressure profile within
 ∂ In σ  the condensate bank changes with time. At any point in the
Fi ( p, {z i }) = σχ i   (23) bank for a homogeneous reservoir, the pressure decreases.
 ∂p  The pressure gradient will also change continuously but exist
everywhere in the bank. As such, the liquid saturation within
SPE 6466 CONDENSATE BANKING DYNAMICS IN GAS CONDENSATE FIELDS: CHANGES IN PRODUCED CONDENSATE TO GAS RATIOS
the bank is non-uniform. Virtually, during the pressure
depletion within the bank the following two important
processes take place simultaneously at time t:
(i) a constant-volume-depletion (CVD) process occurs
locally everywhere in the bank;
(ii) condensate accumulates locally resulting from spatial
variation of phase mobilities.
It is important to distinguish between the above CVD and the
conventional laboratory CVD processes. In the latter case, the
liquid condensate does not flow.
In the reservoir CVD process, the rate of the individual
components to be removed from the local CVD ‘cell’ is
determined by the rate of the change in the total molar density
and the component mobility within the cell. For
compositional flow, the component mobility is represented by
the ‘Chi’ function for individual components. The rate of the
compositional change in a unit cell is equal to: φχi(∂σ/∂t) =
φχiσ (∂lnσ/∂t). Integrating this term over the whole bank
gives Ai. Therefore, Ai is the total accumulation rate of the ith
component in the whole bank resulting from local CVD
processes.
Since the pressure gradient exists everywhere in the
condensate bank and varies with time during depletion, the
component mobility is both location and time dependent. The
mobility variation causes local accumulation of the ith
component. At a given point r, the rate of the mobility change
for component i is: (∂χi/∂t). The accumulating rate due to the
mobility change is therefore: vt*(∂χi/∂t) = m/φ*(∂p/∂r)(∂χi/∂t),
where vt is the total molar flow rate at that point. Integration
of the above term over the whole bank volume gives Bi. Bi is
therefore the total rate of the accumulation of the ith
component in the whole bank due to the variation in phase
mobilities.
Given above, the sum of Ai and Bi, (Ai + Bi), represents the
rate of net accumulation of the ith component in the whole
condensate bank at time t due to pressure change. Ai
represents the contribution by the CVD process and Bi
represents the contribution due to the mobility variations.
Term c: It is relatively more apparent from equation (17)
that the term c accounts for the effects of the gas flow rate at
the outer boundary of the condensate bank and the growth rate
of the bank. In general, after an extensive period of depletion
the condensate bank size becomes large and the reservoir
pressure becomes low. Then the growth of the bank size is
slow and the rate of the gas flowing into the bank also
becomes low. Therefore c will be increasingly large with the
time.
An increasing c also means a decrease in the pressure
gradient in the outer boundary of the bank. In certain cases, c
can be sufficiently large so that Rcgr will be reduced to A2/A1.
Overall, the process in the bank is then much like a pure CVD
process and the bank acts like a big CVD tank.
5
Behaviour of Terms Fi and Gi for Light and Heavy
Components
Based on the above developed CGR models and the
discussions of the physical implications of the relevant terms
involved in the CGR equation, from this section an analysis of
the produced CGR behaviour is attempted. To evaluate terms
Ai, Bi and hence Rcgr, it is first worthwhile to examine the
behaviours of the Fi and Gi functions in equations (21) and
(22).
To facilitate the analysis, as in Reference 1 where the
compositional change was discussed, the problem is simplified
by considering a two-component fluid mixture consisting of
methane and pentane (C1 and C5) only which is thought to be
representative of general cases.1 The temperature is fixed at
75 oC as the reservoir temperature can be considered
approximately as constant during depletion of a reservoir.
Here four mixtures of different compositions of heavy
component C5 are considered representing a range of lean,
intermediate rich, very rich and volatile oil mixtures: z2 =
0.13, 0.20, 0.25 and 0.32. Fig. 2 shows the molar density of
the mixtures at different pressures. The other PVT/VLE
modelling results and the ‘Chi’ function behaviour of heavy
component can be referred to the previous paper of Wheaton
and Zhang.1
Based on the PVT and the first relative permeability model
presented in Reference 1, the Fi and Gi terms are examined for
both C1 and C5. The reservoir porosity and absolute
permeability are taken as 0.15 and 10-13 m2 (i.e. 100 mD).
Figs. 3 and 4 show the dependence of term Fi on pressure for
the four mixtures. Fig. 3 is for the light component and Fig. 4
is for the heavy component. Figs. 5 and 6 show the
corresponding variation of Gi with pressure for the light and
heavy components respectively. It can be derived from
equations (1) and (24) that χ1 = 1 - χ2 and G1 = - G2 as is
reflected in these two figures, where subscript 2 refers to C5.
The results are not plotted for the pressures below 80 bar as
they are of little importance - since it is unlikely that the
bottom hole flowing pressures in a reservoir is lower than 80
bar for these mixtures. For a given pressure, the composition
of heavy component will change with time during condensate
banking. To represent this process, Figs. 7 to 9 show the
results as a function of the total mole fraction of heavy
component at different pressures. G1 is not given because it is
simply the mirror curve of G2 with respect to the horizontal
axis.
The following two general observations can be made from
the results shown in these figures:
(i) the function Fi for the light component is larger than
that of the heavy component at any given pressure for
any concentration of the heavy component in the two-
phase region;
(ii) Fi is approximately two orders of magnitude smaller
than term Gi for both light and heavy components.
The shapes of the Fi curves are determined by the
component molar fraction which is pressure dependent and by
the balance of the gas and oil terms in equation (1) which are
6 H.R. ZHANG & R.J. WHEATON
dependent of the relative permeability model.
Equation (24) yields:
1  ∂ In χ 2  m2  ∂ ln χ 2
G 2 ( p, {z 2 }) = mχ 2   = 
φ  ∂p  φ  ∂p
Thus, G2 = σ*TB2 where TB2 is a function in the
compositional equation developed in Reference 1. Therefore,
the reasons of the shapes of the Gi curves are essentially the
same as for the TB2 curves which were discussed previously.1
Behaviour of Condensate to Gas Ratio
General Analysis. Since the molar density of a gas
condensate fluid mixture always increases with pressure as
shown in Fig. 2, (∂σ/∂p) and hence (∂lnσ/∂p) is positive
during depletion. Previous study has indicated that the total
concentration of heavy component of the fluid mixture
changes with time in the condensate banking domain and
locally the fluid becomes richer.1,2 For a given pressure below
dewpoint, however, the results of ‘the Chi’ function presented
in Reference 1 indicate that χ2 will be always smaller than z2
for all the gas condensate mixtures. Therefore, χ1 (χ1 = 1 - χ2)
will be greater than both χ2 and z1. For homogeneous
reservoirs, (∂p/∂t) is negative during depletion. It is then
straightforward to have: A1 < A2 < 0.
During the production, pressure gradient exists everywhere
in the condensate banking region. Also, χ2 increases
monotonically with pressure at a range of pressures below
dewpoint for gas condensate mixtures.1,2 Based on these, it is
obtained that B1 < 0 < B2 = - B1. Therefore, the following
relationships hold: A1 + B1 < 0 and A1 + B1 < A2 + B2
To study the general behaviour of Rcgr, equation (20) may
be rewritten as:
Rcgr z1 − z 2 = Rcgr * c( A1 + B1 ) − c( A2 + B 2 )
As A1 + B1 < 0, now the problem to some extent reduces to the
examination of the sign of the sum (A2 + B2). For this
purpose, the following four different cases are considered.
Cases 1 to 3 concern three different stages of a depletion in
homogeneous reservoirs, and case 4 is for heterogeneous
reservoir.
Case 1 - Early Transient Time. In the very early transient
time of depletion, the condensate bank is small. As have
already been discussed, the pressure gradient in this small
bank near wellbore is large. Also, Gi is greater than Fi.
Hence, the CVD term Ai is generally insignificant compared
with Bi. Since B1 < 0 < B2, Rcgr z1 − z 2 ≈ c( R cgr B1 − B 2 ) will
be negative or below zero. This leads to: Rcgr < z2/z1 = Ro.
Case 2 - Late Transient and Subsequent Semi-steady Flow.
At some point during the transient flow or in the subsequent
period of ‘semi-steady state’ flow, due to the expansion and
SPE 64662
Rewriting growth of the condensate bank, the CVD term Ai is no longer
negligible. However, B2 may be still greater than A2 in
absolute value so that A2 + B2 > 0 and hence we still
 have Rcgr z1 − z 2 < 0. Again, Rcgr < z2/z1 = Ro.
 (25)
 To demonstrate this, a simple radial homogeneous
reservoir is considered. The reservoir fluid is the C1-C5
mixture of z2 = 0.2 giving Ro = 0.25. Initially, the reservoir
pressure is above the dewpoint pressure (pd = 163 bar). Table
1 presents the relevant reservoir and fluid properties.
Assuming the well is producing at a constant production
rate of Qsc = 5.9x105 m3/day. Fig. 10 shows the pressure
profile and the condensate bank boundary after six hours of
production. The integrand of A2, F2(∂p/∂t)r, is shown in Fig.
11 as a function of r. The corresponding integrand of B2,
G2(∂p/∂r)2r, is shown in the same figure. It is seen that the
negative integrand of A2 gradually increases with r in value.
The positive integrand of B2 is relatively very large but
decreases sharply near to the wellbore and than levels off.
This is because of large pressure gradient near wellbore as
shown in Fig. 12. Fig. 11 shows that, even though A2 in this
case is not negligible, the integral B2 is larger than A2.
Numerical integration confirms that A2 = -19.182 and B2 =
39.813 so that A2 + B2 > 0. Hence Rcgr z1 − z 2 < 0 and Rcgr <
z2/z1 = Ro.
Case 3 - Long Period of Depletion. Fig. 11 in the above
discussion shows that the negative A2 increases with time in
value while B2 decreases with time during the depletion.
Generally speaking, If the well is on production for a longer
time period, term A2 can start to exceed B2 in value so that (A2
+ B2) becomes negative. This is possible only after an
extensive depletion time and the bank is formed in a large area
of the reservoir. At some point, it is possible for the flow to
start to behave more like a constant-volume-depletion process
(26) in vast part of the bank depending on the reservoir radius re.
B2 (and B1) is then negligible leading to:
z 2 − cA2
Rcgr ≈ (27)
z1 − cA1
Re-consider the reservoir fluid system described in case 2,
when the bank approaches to the reservoir boundary,
numerical simulation indicates that the pressure distribution
along the radial distance will take the profile shown in Fig. 13.
Fig. 14 shows the integrands of A2 and B2 as a function of
radial distance r. In this case, it is readily seen from the figure
that A2 is much greater than B2 due to small pressure gradient
in the large outer part of the reservoir as shown in Fig. 15.
Numerical integration gives that the produced CGR is 0.21
which is smaller than Ro (Ro = 0.25).
In the extreme case, in the case of very large reservoir
radius (re), Bi will be insignificant when the bank reaches the
outer boundary of the reservoir. The gas rate (Qgas(pd))
entering the bank and the bank expansion rate (∂R/∂r) will be
SPE 6466 CONDENSATE BANKING DYNAMICS IN GAS CONDENSATE FIELDS: CHANGES IN PRODUCED CONDENSATE TO GAS RATIOS
effectively zero so that ‘c’ will become infinity. Equation (27)
will then reduce to:
A2 χ 2 z different wellhead pressures (WHP) are used, which are
Rcgr = ≈ < 2 = Ro (28)
A1 χ1 z1
In summary, it is not possible for Rcgr greater than Ro when
a well is producing under depletion conditions with
decreasing pressure throughout the reservoir. The produced
CGR must continuously decrease in a homogeneous reservoir.
A pseudosteady state flow may be reached at some stage of
condensate banking in terms of flow rate. However, no
natural ‘steady state’ situation exists with regard to the CGR.
The only exception to this is for near critical reservoirs where
the gas condensate interfacial tension is so low that the effects
of condensate banking are limited or negligible. However, the
very low interfacial tension in the near wellbore region in
actual reservoir situations does not sustain as the pressure is
further below the local dewpoint.
Only if the well is shut in for some time and then brought
back to production during condensate banking, Rcgr > Ro can
occur in homogeneous reservoir due to re-vaporisation
because the pressure in near wellbore increases during shut-in.
Case 4 - Heterogeneous Reservoir. The situation is rather
different in heterogeneous reservoirs. In a very heterogeneous
reservoir, the pressure may actually increase with time within
part of the bank during depletion. This does not exist in
homogeneous reservoirs excepting the well is shut in.
Under the condition of (∂p/∂t) > 0, both A1 and A2 become
positive. In which case, we will have A1 > A2 > 0. (A2 + B2)
will be always positive but the sign of (A1 + B1) will depend
on the balance of the values of A1 and B1. If A1 is significantly
larger than B1 so that
Rcgr z1 − z 2 = Rcgr * c( A1 + B1 ) − c( A2 + B 2 ) > 0, then Rcgr >
Ro occurs. This implies that, if the pressure rises within the
condensate banking region following a period of depletion,
Rcgr increases and can be greater than the initial value Ro.
This situation is to be confirmed in the next section when
the effects of reservoir heterogeneity are discussed in
numerical reservoir simulation.
Numerical Modelling of Well Performance
Well Testing of Homogeneous Reservoirs. To confirm and
support the above analysis, two simulated welltest or
numerical cases are considered for a simple one-dimensional
radial homogeneous reservoir. The fluid is a rich reservoir gas
condensate mixture of eight components, four of which are
grouped pseudo components. The properties of the fluid are
not detailed here because the numerical well testing is
performed only for demonstrative purpose.
In the first case, let the well flow for a period of thirty days
and then shut in for the same duration so that the pressure near
to the well is increased. Numerical compositional simulation
shows that at the end of the shut-in, the reservoir has returned
7
to pressures that are everywhere above the initial dewpoint
pressure (i.e. the dewpoint pressure of the original reservoir
fluid). Then the well is brought back on production. Three
below, equal to and below the production WHP respectively.
Fig. 16 shows the simulated well testing results for the
produced CGR. A few notable observations from this figure
are:
(i) An initially high CGR greater than the initial reservoir
CGR occurs for all the three WHPs: Rcgr > Ro. This is
due to the re-evaporation of part of the liquid bank after
the shut-in;
(ii) The high CGR gradually declines, and the rate of this
decline is dependent only on the wellhead pressure
(WHP) used in the test;
(iii) The produced CGR does not achieve any sort of steady
state condition either at the initial reservoir CGR or at
the producing CGR reached before the well was shut in.
These are exactly what were expected and confirm the
analysis given in the previous section.
The second case is a pressure depletion without
interruption and the well produces at a constant bottom hole
flowing pressure. Fig. 17 shows the simulated gas production
and produced CGR profiles. It is seen that the CGR declines
slowly and continuously from the initial CGR, Ro. As
expected, the CGR Rcgr is always below Ro.
Therefore, the following statement is worth noting: Once a
well is flowed with the flowing bottom hole pressure below the
dewpoint, testing the well to obtain a value for the initial CGR
is difficult and welltest results are not reliable even if the well
is shut in for long enough for the bottom hole pressure to rise
above the initial dewpoint.
Effects of Reservoir Heterogeneity. As discussed in the
previous analytical analysis, only as pressure rises within the
condensate banking region following a period of depletion,
will Rcgr increase and be greater than the initial value Ro. It
has been noted that this does not occur during depletion of a
homogeneous reservoir below the dewpoint unless the well is
shut in. The situation is different in the case of a highly
heterogeneous reservoir.
There may be regions of quite high permeability
interspersed by low permeability areas in a reservoir. In the
numerical simulation, the small scale heterogeneity must be
upscaled to the grid size scale so that the detailed flow
dynamics can be captured in the courser grid simulation. Here
a simple one-dimensional upscaled radial model is used with
an inner high permeability region surrounded by a low
permeability ring and further rings with intermediate
permeability representing the rest of the reservoir. Fig. 18
illustrates this radial reservoir model.
If the well is considered flowing at a constant bottom hole
pressure, when this is above the dewpoint, then the pressure at
first drops rapidly in the high permeability region connected to
the well. Flow slows down with depletion of this region then
pressure drops steadily with time at all distances from the
8 H.R. ZHANG & R.J. WHEATON
well. Fig. 19 shows the pressure curve that is obtained from
the numerical simulation of this process for a rich gas
condensate fluid. If the flowing bottom hole pressure falls
below the dewpoint of the reservoir mixture, the numerical
simulation shows that the following occurs:
(i) In the high permeability regions into which the well is
completed, the pressure falls rapidly below the
dewpoint and a substantial amount of condensate drops
out;
(ii) The banking of this condensate with consequent
choking off of the well allows a gradual build up in
pressure in the high permeability region around the well
since gas can now enter this region more rapidly than it
can be produced by the well.
A simulation of this situation is shown in Fig. 20 where it can
be seen that although pressure is decreasing in the region
away from the well, it is actually rising for a time in the region
close to the well.
The well will thus show an initial fall followed by an
increase in the CGR. This behaviour is shown clearly in the
numerical simulation results in Fig. 21. Here a high initial gas
flow rate is seen from the high permeability region around the
well. Due to the limited volume of this region, the pressure
drops rapidly which causes substantial amounts of condensate
to drop out and hence the CGR to start at well below the initial
CGR for the reservoir mixture. Since the reservoir pressure is
now low in the high permeability region and the condensate
near to the well impedes the movement of gas, the
productivity of the well rapidly declines, such that the gas now
flows into the local high permeability region faster than it
flows out through the well. The pressure rise in this region
results in an increasing CGR. It can be seen in Fig. 21 that the
CGR is briefly higher than the base value (Ro) before
gradually declining when the local pressure rise ceases.
These results confirm the analytical discussion made in the
last section and show how sensitive the CGR behavior is to
the level of heterogeneity in the reservoir. It is in fact in itself
an important indicator of reservoir heterogeneity.
Summary and Conclusions
In this paper, a general theoretical treatment of condensate
banking dynamics is developed to show how the produced
CGR changes with time during depletion. This work built
upon the previously-published study on the compositional
changes around production wells. The dependence of
condensate banking behaviour and changes in the produced
CGR on the mobility terms are studied. The effects of
reservoir permeability and heterogeneity on condensate
banking are discussed. The primary objective of this paper is
to conduct a general theoretical study on the CGR behaviour
in the processes of condensate banking. This completes the
condensate banking study on the aspect of the compositional
changes.1 The two papers together present a relatively fuller
theoretical account on the dynamics of condensate banking
processes.
SPE 64662
Significance of Results. The results presented in this paper
and in the previous paper (Reference 1) are important in
understanding the physical processes involved in the
condensate banking. The significance of the work is mainly
on the interpretation of well testing results of gas condensate
wells when the bottom hole flowing pressure is below
dewpoint. It is hoped that this work would help to create a
basis to increased understanding of the flow processes towards
the development of future well test analysis tools for gas
condensate systems.
Conclusions. The conclusions from the work presented in
this paper can be summarised as follows:
(1) The previously-defined ‘Chi’ function representing the
relative mobility of a component is a critical parameter
in the behavior of the condensate bank. The analytical
model offers a useful insight into how the produced
CGR will behave during depletion.
(2) For homogeneous reservoirs, the produced CGR
continuously decreases with time during depletion.
The CGR greater than the initial reservoir CGR can
occurs only during well testing when a well is shut in.
(3) For a well producing at a constant bottom hole flowing
pressure, a pseudosteady state may be reached at some
stage of condensate banking. However, no real
‘steady state’ situation exists with regard to either
compositions or CGRs. Once a well is produced with
flowing bottom hole pressure below the dewpoint,
determination of the initial condensate to gas ratio in
well testing is difficult and well testing results will not
be reliable.
(4) The level of reservoir heterogeneity has a significant
impact on the way a condensate bank develops. In
heterogeneous reservoirs, the produced CGR may
increase with time and is even greater than the initial
reservoir CGR at some stages. This behavior can be
regarded as an important indicator of high levels of
reservoir heterogeneity.
Nomenclature
A integral group term; kmol*day-1*m-1
B integral group term; kmol*day-1*m-1
c grouped parameter; m*day*kmol-1
f fractional flow coefficient
F function, kmol*bar-1*m-3
G function, kmol*bar-2*m-1*day-1
h reservoir height, m or ft
J molar flux vector
k absolute permeability, m2 or mD
kr relative permeability
m mobility term
p pressure, bar
pwf well bottom hole flowing pressure, bar
Q flow rate, m3*day-1or sm3*day-1
r radial distance from wellbore, m
re reservoir radius, m
SPE 6466 CONDENSATE BANKING DYNAMICS IN GAS CONDENSATE FIELDS: CHANGES IN PRODUCED CONDENSATE TO GAS RATIOS 9

rw wellbore radius, m Optimization of Gas Condensate Fields, 25-26 June 1997,

R radius of condensate bank, m Aberdeen.
Rcgrcondensate to gas ratio; kmol/kmol or kg*sm-3 5. Bourbiaux, BJ and Limborg, SG: An integrated experimental
Ro initial condensate to gas ratio; kmol/kmol or kg*sm-3 methodology for a better prediction of gas condensate flow
behavior, SPE paper 28931 presented at SPE Annual Technical
S surface vector of condensate bank volume Conference and Exhibition, 25-28 Sept. 1994, New Orleans,
Sm total area of the interface of the condensate within the USA.
bank and the gas phase; m2 6. Henderson, GD et al.: Measurement and correlation of gas
So condensate (oil) saturation condensate relative permeability by the steady-state method,
S1 surface around wellbore paper SPE 30770, presented at the SPE Annual technical
S2 outer surface of condensate banking volume Conference & Exhibition, 22-25 Oct. 1995, Dallas, USA.
t time, day or hour 7. Chen, HL et al.: Determination of relative permeability and
TB group terms, m2*bar-2*day-1 recovery for North Sea gas condensate reservoirs, paper SPE
U Darcy velocity vector 30769 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, 22-25 Oct., 1995, USA.
vt total molar flow rate at r, kmol*m-2*s-1
8. Bertram, DA et al.: Experiences in gas condensate well test
V condensate bank volume or oil volume in CCE, m3 analysis using compositional simulation, SPE paper 37994
xi molar fraction of ith component in phase presented at SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, 8-11 June
z component molar fraction 1997, Dallas, USA.
φ fractional porosity 9. Kalaydlian, FHM et al.: Predicting gas condensate reservoir
σ molar density, kmol*m-3 performance: how flow parameters are altered when
molar density / unit volume of reservoir; kmol*m-3 approaching production wells, , SPE paper 36715 presented at
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 6-9 Oct.
relative mobility term, ‘Chi’ function
1996, Denver, USA.
µ viscosity, cp (mPa*s) 10. Jones, JR and Raghavan, R.: Interpretation of flowing well
∇ ⋅ divergence operator response in gas condensate wells, paper SPE 14204 presented
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, 22-25 Sept. 1985,
Subscripts Las Angas.
cgr condensate gas ratio 11. Xu, S and Lee, WJ: Gas condensate well test analysis using a
d dewpoint single phase analogy, paper SPE 55992 presented at the SPE
g gas Western Region Meeting, 26-28 May, 1999, Anchorage, USA.
12. O’Dell, HG and Miller, RN: Successfully cycling a low
i component index, or ‘initial’
permeability high yield gas condensate reservoir, JPT (Jan.
sc standard condition 1967) 41-47.
α phase indicator 13. Raghavan, R et al.: Practical considerations in the analysis of
1 index of light component group gas condensate well tests, paper SPE 30770, presented at the
2 index of heavy component group SPE Annual technical Conference & Exhibition, 22-25 Oct.
1995, Dallas, USA.
References 14. Aly, AM et al.: Reservoir evaluation of a gas condensate
1. Wheaton, RJ and Zhang, HR: Condensate banking reservoir using pressure transient analysis, paper presented at
the Annual Technical Meeting of the Canadian Petroleum
dynamics in gas condensate Fields: compositional changes
Society, 8-11 June, 1997, Calgary, Canada.
and condensate accumulation around production wells, SPE
15. Blom, SMP and Hagoort, J: The combined effect of near-
paper 62930 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
critical relative permeability and non-Darcy flow on well
Conference & Exhibition, 1-4 Oct. 2000, Dallas, USA.
impairment by condensate drop-out, paper SPE 39976
2. Zhang, HR: Condensate Banking Dynamics in Gas
presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium, 15-18 Mar.
Condensate Fields, BG Internal Report, Dec. 1999.
1998, Calgary, Canada.
3. Fevang, O and Whitson, CH: Modelling gas condensate well
16. Ali, JK et al.: Experimental Study of High Velocity Gas and
deliverability, SPE paper 30714 presented at the SPE Annual
Condensate Flow in Cores, BG Internal Report, Aug. 1999,
Technical Conference & Exhibition, 22-25 Oct. 1995, Dallas,
Loughborough, UK.
USA.
4. Whitson, CH and Fevang, O: Generalized pseudopressure well
treatment in reservoir simulation, IBC Conference on

Table 1 – Reservoir and fluid properties.

Fluid C1-C5 - Molar fraction: z2 0.20
Porosity: φ 0.15
Permeability: k (mD) 100
Well radius: rw (m) 0.1
Reservoir Temperature: T (oC) 75.0
Reservoir boundary radius: re (m) 300.0
Reservoir thickness: h (m) 10.0
10 H.R. ZHANG & R.J. WHEATON SPE 64662

S2

S1

Production well

Fig. 1 - Illustration of a condensate bank around production well.

9 .6 z2 = 0.13
M o l e d e n s ity ( k m o l/m
)
3

8 .4 z2 = 0.20
z2 = 0.25
7 .2
z2 = 0.32
6 .0

4 .8

3 .6

2 .4
60 90 120 150 180
P ressure (bar)

Fig. 2 – Molar density of the total fluid for the methane-pentane mixture.

0.056
Term F 1 (km o l/bar*m )
3

0.048

0.040

0.032 z 2 = 0.13
z 2 = 0.20
0.024 z 2 = 0.25
z 2 = 0.32
0.016
80 100 120 140 160 180
Pressure (bar)

Fig. 3 – Variation of term F1 with pressure for four C1-C5 mixtures.

SPE 64662 CONDENSATE BANKING DYNAMICS IN GAS CONDENSATE FIELDS: CHANGES IN PRODUCED CONDENSATE TO GAS RATIOS 11

0.024
z2 = 0.13

T e r m F 2 (km o l/b a r * m)
0.021

3
z2 = 0.20

0.018 z2 = 0.25
z2 = 0.32
0.015

0.012

0.009

0.006

80 100 120 140 160 180

P ressure (bar)

Fig. 4 - Variation of term F2 with pressure for four C1-C5 mixtures.

6
T e r m G 1 (km o l/b a r* m * d a y )

2
2

-2
z2 = 0.13
-4
z2 = 0.20
-6
z2 = 0.25
-8
z2 = 0.32
-10
80 100 120 140 160 180
P ressure (bar)

Fig. 5 - Variation of term G1 with pressure for four C1-C5 mixtures.

T e r m G 2 (km o l/b a r* m * d a y )

10
z2 = 0.13
8
z2 = 0.20
6
2

z2 = 0.25
4 z2 = 0.32
2

-2

-4

-6
80 100 120 140 160 180
P ressure (bar)

Fig. 6 - Variation of term G2 with pressure for four C1-C5 mixtures.

12 H.R. ZHANG & R.J. WHEATON SPE 64662

0.057
p = 85 bar
0.054

T e r m F 1 (km o l/bar*m)
p = 135 bar

3
0.051 p = 155 bar

0.048

0.045

0.042

0.039

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

T o tal m o l e f r a c t i o n o f h e a v y c o m p o n e n t: z 2

Fig. 7 - Variation of term F1 with total molar fraction at different pressures.

0.024
p = 85 bar
0.021
p = 135 bar
T e r m F 2 (km o l/bar*m)
3

0.018 p = 155 bar

0.015

0.012

0.009

0.006

0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35

T o tal m o le fraction of heavy com p o n e n t: z 2

Fig. 8 - Variation of term F2 with total molar fraction at different pressures.

4 .5
T e r m G 2 (km o l/b a r* m * d a y )

4 .0 p = 85 bar

3 .5 p = 135 bar

3 .0 p = 155 bar
2

2 .5
2 .0
1 .5
1 .0
0 .5
0 .0
0 .10 0 .15 0 .20 0 .25 0 .30 0 .35
T o tal m o l e f r a c t i o n o f h e a v y c o m p o n e n t: z 2

Fig. 9 - Variation of term G2 with total molar fraction at different pressures.

SPE 64662 CONDENSATE BANKING DYNAMICS IN GAS CONDENSATE FIELDS: CHANGES IN PRODUCED CONDENSATE TO GAS RATIOS 13

164
pd
162

Pressure (bar)
160

158

156
Condensate Bank
154
rw 15 30 45 60
Radial distance r ( m )

Fig. 10 – Pressure distribution along radial distance for case 2.

18
16
Condensate Bank
14
Integrand of A 2 and B 2

12 p=pd
(km o l/m *day)

10
3

8
6
4 Integrand of A 2
2 Integrand of B 2
0

0r w 7 14 21 28 35
Radial distance (m )

Fig. 11 – Behaviour of the integrands of A2 and B2 as a

function of radial distance for heavy component for case 2.

8
Pressure Gradient (bar/m )

4
Condensate Bank
3

0
rw 15 30 45 60
R a d ial distance r ( m )

Fig. 12 – Pressure gradient at different radial distances for case 2.

14 H.R. ZHANG & R.J. WHEATON SPE 64662

164

162 p=pd

Pressure (bar)
160

158

156

154

152

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

R a d ial distance r ( m )

Fig. 13 – Pressure distribution along radial distance for case 3.

30

25
Integrand of A 2 and B 2

Condensate Bank
(km o l/m *day)

20

15
3

10

5 Integrand of A 2
Integrand of B 2
0

rw 50 100 150 200 250 300

R a d ial distance (m )

Fig. 14 – Behaviour of the integrands of A2 and B2 as a

function of radial distance for heavy component for case 3.

8
Pressure Gradient (bar/m)

7
Condensate Bank
6

5 p=pd

0
rw 50 100 150 200 250 300
R a d ial distance (m )

Fig. 15 – Pressure gradient at different radial distances for case 3.

SPE 64662 CONDENSATE BANKING DYNAMICS IN GAS CONDENSATE FIELDS: CHANGES IN PRODUCED CONDENSATE TO GAS RATIOS 15

Test WHP > Production W H P

Test WHP = Production W H P
Test WHP < Production W H P

C G R (kg/sm )
3
Initial reservoir CG R
Ro

Producing CGR before shut-in

0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Tim e (days)

Fig. 16 - Well test condensate to gas ratios after production and shut-in.

C o n d e n s a te to gas ratio
G a s flow rate (x10 sm /day)

G a s flow rate
3
C G R (kg/sm )
3

Initial reservoir C G R
6

Ro

0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5
3
Time (x10 days)

Fig. 17 - Condensate banking model for a homogeneous reservoir.

P r o d u c t ion w e ll

H igh permeability region

(a) Cross-section view of the field. (b) Upscaled one-dimensional radial model.

Fig. 18 – The schematic of the heterogeneous reservoir model.

16 H.R. ZHANG & R.J. WHEATON SPE 64662

Initial reservoir pressure p i

pi

Pressure (bar)
t = t0
t = t1
t = t2
B o ttom h o le pressure p w f > p d
pwf
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance from well (m)

Fig. 19 - Reservoir pressure for a heterogeneous reservoir flowing above dewpoint.

Pressure (bar)

pd D e w p o int pressure

t = t0
t = t1
t = t2
pwf

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

D istance from well (m)

Fig. 20 - Reservoir pressure for a heterogeneous reservoir flowing below dewpoint.

sm /day)

Condensate to gas ratio

Gas flow rate
3
CGR (kg/sm )
3

6
Gas flow rate (x10

Initial CGR for reservoir mixture

Ro

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

3
Time (x10 days)

Fig. 21 - Condensate banking model for a heterogeneous reservoir.