SPE 90290 A New Method for the Determination of Gas Condensate Well Production Performance

J.J. Xiao, SPE, and Ahmad J. Al-Muraikhi, SPE, Exploration & Petroleum Engineering Technology, Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 26-29 September 2004. 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 The determination of gas condensate well production performance when a wells flowing bottomhole pressure is below the original gas dew point requires condensate banking to be taken into account. This can be accomplished with reservoir simulation models with fine grids near the well. The calculation can be significantly speeded up with relatively coarse grid models by applying the two-phase pseudopressure technique. The two-phase pseudopressure technique, however, cannot be applied independently for well performance evaluation since it requires the well production gas-oil ratio as an input. Simplified methods have been published recently to calculate gas condensate well production deliverability without the use of reservoir simulators. This paper presents a new calculation method. The new method models condensate banking by considering the combinational effects of condensate dropout (PVT effect) and condensate accumulation (relative permeability behavior). This new approach gives a better understanding of the mechanisms involved. The proposed method is verified with simulation data presented in the literature. The new method gives results that are in good agreement with published data for vertical, fractured and also horizontal wells. High gas velocity impact near the wellbore (non-Darcy flow and high capillary number effect) can be incorporated into the method. As with other simplified methods, the new technique allows quick well performance evaluation as well as full field modeling involving multiple wells and surface facilities without reservoir simulations. Introduction The production performance of a gas condensate well is the same as a dry gas well so long as the well flowing bottomhole

pressure (FBHP) is above the initial reservoir fluid dew point. Once the wells FBHP drops below the dew point, the well performance starts to deviate from that of a dry gas well. Condensate begins to drop out first near the wellbore. Immobile initially, liquid condensate accumulates until the critical condensate saturation (the minimum mobile condensate saturation) is reached. This rich liquid bank/zone grows outward deeper into the reservoir as depletion continues. Liquid accumulation, or condensate banking, causes a reduction in the gas relative permeability, and acts as a partial blockage to gas production. Because condensate is left behind in the reservoir, condensate banking manifests itself as a rise in the wells production gas-oil ratio (GOR) or inversely, a decline in the well condensate yield. Condensate banking can lead to remarkable reductions in well productivity and well rate for low permeability formations1-4. The loss of productivity can also be expected to occur in high permeability wells although it may not lead to an immediate rate decline if the well has extra capacities and is choked back due to factors such as formation sand control, wellbore or surface facility constraints. In predicting gas condensate well performance with reservoir simulators, local grid refinement is needed around the well in order to capture the impact of condensate banking. For example, Ahmed et al.5 use simulation models with fine local grids surrounding a well to study the production impairment due to near-wellbore condensate dropout and to assess the advantage of applying hydraulic fracturing to improve well deliverability. A fundamental understanding of gas condensate well deliverability was made by Fevang and Whitson6. They develop an accurate yet simple method using two-phase pseudopressure and a three-region model to calculate gas condensate well production performance. The three regions considered in their model are: the inner region (Region 1) where both gas and liquid condensate are flowing, the intermediate region where both phases are present but only the gas phase flows, and the outer region where only the gas phase is present (together with connate water). Fevang & Whitson show that gas condensate well rate can be easily calculated using the instantaneous producing GOR (generated from simulators), together with fluid PVT and gas-oil relative permeabilities. The greatest use of this method is in reservoir simulation. With their approach, local grid refinement near wells is not necessary, leading to potentially significant

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90290

reduction in computational efforts in full-field reservoir simulations. The two-phase pseudopressure approach by Fevang and Whitson cannot be used without running reservoir simulators because it requires the well producing GOR as an input. Mott7 proposes a novel and simpler technique to calculate gas condensate well production performance, using a material balance model for reservoir depletion and Fevang & Whitsons two-phase pseduopressure for well inflow performance. More importantly, Motts method generates a wells production GOR by modeling the growth of the condensate banking (Region 1) without a reservoir simulator. This technique is particularly useful for quick assessment of production performances for wells of different types. Guehria8 presents another simplified way of predicting gas condensate well performance. A wells producing GOR is calculated with an expression derived from the continuity equations of gas and condensate in Region 1. In this paper, the approach of Mott7 is adopted. A modified method is presented to calculate the growth of Region 1. The new method provides a better understanding of the buildup process of the rich liquid condensate zone. Theoretical Background An extended black-oil model is used to model the flow in a gas condensate well. The two components are stock tank condition gas and condensate. At in-situ conditions, the gas can be present in the gas phase as well as in the liquid phase (Solution gas-oil ratio Rs in Mscf/Stb is used to measure the amount gas dissolved in the oil phase), and similarly, the condensate can be present in the liquid phase as well as in the gas phase (Solution condensate-gas ratio Rv in Stb/Mscf is used to measure the amount condensate vaporized into the gas phase). With this PVT model, the gas production rate of a gas condensate well is given in terms of the two-phase pseudopressure, as shown by Fevang and Whitson6

In this region, the two phases, gas and liquid condensate, are both flowing. This region can accurately be modeled as steady-state flow, meaning that what comes into Region 1 through its outer boundary from Region 2 will flow out and be produced to the surface with no net accumulation of fluids. Since in Region 2 only the gas phase is flowing, this implies that the wells production gas-oil ratio R p is equal to the reciprocal of the solution condensate-gas ratio Rv evaluated at the outer boundary pressure, P . Hence, if R p is known,
*

Rv ( P * ) can be calculated as 1 / R p and P * can be located

from the PVT table. In addition, for Region 1, the relative permeabilities K ro and K rg can be expressed as a function of the ratio K rg / K ro , which can be evaluated as a function of pressure,

k rg k ro

( P) =

R P Rs g B g ................................ (3) 1 Rv R p o Bo
*

Therefore, when the production gas-oil ratio R p is known, for any pressure between Pwf to P , all the physical properties can be calculated and the ratio K rg / K ro can be determined from Eq. 3. With K rg / K ro , relative permeabilities

K ro and

K rg can be obtained and the two-phase pseudopressure for

Region 1 can be evaluated. Region 2: The pressure limits for this region is from

P * to Pdew . Pdew is the initial reservoir dew point. In Region

2, both gas and liquid phases are present, but only the gas phase is flowing. Net liquid condensate accumulation occurs in Region 2. Since liquid condensate is immobile, K ro = 0 . The gas phase relative permeability K rg is calculated as a function of the oil phase saturation S o ( P ) , which is estimated from the fluid PVT properties assuming constant volume depletion (CVD). With gas PVT properties and K rg , the pseudopressure can be calculated for Region 2. Region 3: The pressure limits for this region is from Pdew to PR . There is no liquid condensate in this region. Gas phase exists together with the connate water. The gas phase relative permeability is constant and is equal to K rg ( S wi ) . Again with gas PVT properties, the pseudopressure can be integrated. The two-phase pseudopressure approach and the three flow region concept form an elegant model. At a given depletion stage PR , specifying the flowing bottomhole pressure Pwf , one can calculate the well gas rate Qg , and for a given target rate

Qg = m(PR ) m(Pwf ) ..................................... (1)

where is the productivity index calculated according to the well type (see references 6 & 7), and m( P ) is the two-phase pseudopressure, defined by 6

k rg k R m( P ) = + ro s dP ...................... (2) g Bg o Bo Pref

The calculation of m( P ) requires relative permeabilities

K ro and K rg together with fluid PVT properties. The

calculation is done by breaking the pseudopressure integral into three parts according to the three flow regions, and tackling them separately. Region 1: This is the inner region with pressure limits from Pwf to P . Knowing the outer boundary pressure of this region P is critical to the calculation.
* *

Qg , one can back-calculate the bottomhole following

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90290

pressure Pwf . The key is to know the Region 1 outer boundary pressure P or the well production gas-oil ratio R p . In order to avoid the use of reservoir simulations in determining R p , Mott7 develops a novel and simpler method to calculate P by modeling the growth of Region 1. This is done by establishing a relationship between a given pressure contour surrounding a well and the size of the reservoir pore volume within this pressure contour. The pressure contour is defined as a fractional pseudopressure drawdown,
* *

through the pore volume d ( PV ) , condensate that can no longer be held by the gas will be dumped off, leading to a buildup of liquid condensate inside d ( PV ) . It is mainly due to this process that even for very lean gas condensate systems (low liquid dropout in a CVD process), condensate banking and significant productivity loss can still occur, as reported by Aflidick, et al.2

m(PR ) m(Pwf )

m(P ) m(Pwf )

P int > P dew

.............................................(4)

Mott7 generates tables of reservoir pore volume as a function of for vertical, fractured and horizontal wells utilizing information on pressure distribution around a well under pseudo-steady state single phase liquid flow. It is assumed that a similar two-phase pseudopressure distribution exists in a gas condensate well. New Calculation Method We propose an improved method to estimate the growth of Region 1, and to calculate P , R p and the production performance of a gas condensate well. Figure 1 can be used to visualize the development process of Region 1. Initially, the reservoir pressure is greater than the gas dew point and the flowing bottomhole pressure is also above the dew point. There is no condensation in the reservoir and Region 1 does not exist. Once the flowing bottomhole pressure drops below the dew point, Region 1 forms. This rich liquid region grows outward deeper into the reservoir as production continues. At an average reservoir pressure of PR , Region 1 has a pore volume of PV . We focus on a small reservoir pore volume d ( PV ) at the outer edge of Region 1 and investigate its historical oil saturation changes as the reservoir is depleted from Pint to PR . Before the current pressure step, this small reservoir pore volume belongs to initially Region 3 and then Region 2. At and after this pressure step during the depletion, the oil saturation in this small reservoir pore volume has accumulated to such a high value that this small pore volume now becomes part of Region 1. Before Region 1 reaches to the location of d ( PV ) , liquid that condenses out in d ( PV ) is not mobile. Note that liquid saturation increases at this location not just because liquid held by the original gas inside this pore volume condenses out (the CVD process), but, more importantly, because the large amount of gas beyond this point (further away in the reservoir) passes through this location during the production process. In a gas condensate system, for practical reservoir pressure ranges, pressure reductions cause the gas to lose its ability to hold more condensate. Because of the pressure distribution inside the reservoir, richer gas further away from the well becomes leaner as it moves towards the well. As gas passes
*

PR

P wf
Region 1

P*

PV

d(PV )

Fig. 1 - Schematic Illustrating the Growth of Region 1

The result of the liquid condensation and accumulation process at the location of d ( PV ) is an increase in oil saturation. This can be expressed mathematically as

1 Rv P dRv Q g ( PV )dt ...... (5) dS o = ( PV ) dP Bo B g where dS o is the change of oil saturation in d ( PV ) during the time interval of dt , P / ( PV ) is the pressure gradient with respect to the reservoir pore volume, dRv / dP is the
derivative of condensate-gas ratio with respect to pressure, and Qg ( PV ) is the gas rate at the location of d ( PV ) . Muskat9 and Fetkovich10 use a similar equation in their studies dealing with condensate blockages for gas condensate wells. Let Bot denote the total or effective oil formation volume factor, and be defined as

1 R 1 = v ................................................. (6) Bot Bo B g

Applying the chain rule for derivatives, the pressure gradient P / ( PV ) can be expressed in terms of the fractional drawdown gradient. Using Eqs. 1, 2 and 4, and realizing K ro = 0 before Region 1 reaches this location (the accumulation process), we have

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90290

g Bg Qg P ................................(7) = ( PV ) K rg ( PV )
where K rg is obtained with an oil saturation estimated as the liquid fraction from a CVD experiment, and K rg can be treated as a unique function of pressure. The fractional drawdown gradient / ( PV ) is obtained from the relationship
7

is slower and so as the growth of the condensate bank size. dRv / dP is a gas PVT property and a measure of the fluid condensation tendency. Figure 3 shows dRv / dP vs. pressure for a rich gas (175 STB/MMSCF) and a lean gas (45 STB/MMSCF) used by Fevang and Whitson6. As can be seen, the value of dRv / dP for a rich gas is higher than that of a lean gas. At pressures around 5000 psia, the difference in dRv / dP is about one order of magnitude in this example. Consequently, the increase in oil saturation will be more rapid for a rich gas reservoir, translating into a quicker condensate buildup and an earlier productivity loss.
DRv/DP, ST B/M M SCF/Psi 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 0 -0.02 Pressure, psia
Fig. 3

of PV vs. established by Mott . Figure 2 gives example relationships between PV vs. and / ( PV ) vs. for

the wellbore, 0 , the fractional drawdown gradient / ( PV ) approaches the maximum value.

thickness h = 200 ft and porosity = 0.3 . As expected, near

a vertical well in a reservoir with a radius re = 3000 ft,

Rich Gas Lean Gas

1.0E+09 1.0E+08 Pore Volume, RB 1.0E+07 1.0E+06 1.0E+05 1.0E+04 1.0E+03 1.0E+02 1.0E+01 1.0E+00 d(alpha)/d(PV) PV

1.0E+00 1.0E-01 1.0E-02 1.0E-04 1.0E-05 1.0E-06 1.0E-07 1.0E-08 1.0E-09 1.0E-10 d(alpha)/d(PV) 1.0E-03

2000

4000

6000

8000

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Fractional Drawdown, alpha

dRv / dP for a Rich Gas and a Lean Gas

Fig. 2 Pore Volume and Fractional Drawdown Gradient for a Vertical Well

In order to determine the oil saturation at the edge of Region 1 at the pressure stage PR , Eq. 9 needs to be integrated over the production history. Noting that at t = 0 , S o = 0 , from Eq. 9 we obtain
t g B g 2 dRv 1 PV S o = 1 Qg dt (10) Bot PVt 0 K rg ( PV ) dP
7

The gas rate at the d ( PV ) location Qg ( PV ) can be estimated from the gas rate at the well, as suggested by Mott

PV Qg (PV ) = Qg 1 .....................................(8) PVt where PVt is the total reservoir pore volume. From Eqs. 6-8,
we can rewrite Eq. 5 as
2 PV g Bg Qg dRv dS o = 1 dt ..(9) Bot K rg ( PV ) dP PVt Note that, in Eq. 9, K rg and physical properties of Bot , g

and B g are all functions of the pressure at location d ( PV ) . The change of oil saturation is directly proportional to Qg and inversely proportional to productivity index
2

The integration of Eq. 10 will be done numerically over each of the depletion steps, as indicated in Fig. 1. It is important to note that Region 1 pore volume PV appears in Eq. 10. Therefore, the integration needs the location of Region 1 as input. In fact, the evaluation of / ( PV ) in Eq. 10 also needs the information about the size of Region 1 at the pressure stage PR and, to obtain the values of K rg , Bot ,

g , Bg

and dRv / dP the pressure at this location for each

and K rg .

the pressure gradient. Since near the well / ( PV ) is the highest, fast increase in oil saturation is expected and rapid condensate bank expansion can be experienced. Further away from the well, / ( PV ) is reduced (note that the scale of the y-axis in Fig. 2 is exponential), the change in oil saturation

Other parameters in Eq. 9 warranting some discussions are / ( PV ) and dRv / dP . / ( PV ) is a measure of

of the pressure depletion steps is also needed. The purpose of calculating oil saturation is to determine the size of Region 1. However, to calculate oil saturation, the size of Region 1 is needed as an input. We can make an assumption about the location of Region 1, calculate the oil saturation at the outer edge of the assumed Region 1 and then check the validity of that assumption. The validation process involves the use of Eq. 3. The flow characteristics of Region 1 mandate that a relationship described by Eq. 3 exists for this region. This

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90290

relationship allows one to establish an oil saturation profile in Region 1. An example is shown in Figures 4 & 5.
1.0 0.9 Relative Permeability, Krg & Kro 0.8 0.7 0.6 1.E+01 0.5 1.E+00 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Gas Saturation 1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03 1.E-04 Krg Kro Krg/Kro 1.E+05 1.E+04 1.E+03 1.E+02 Krg/Kro

different approach. We can do linear extrapolation using the saturation profile such as the one shown in Figure 5. Or with sufficient accuracy, we can use the oil saturation just inside the outer edge of Region 1 as an approximation. This is done by using P = 95% P in Eq. 3. We make an assumption about the size of Region 1 and then calculate the oil saturation at the outer edge of Region 1 using Eq. 10. If this assumption is correct, the calculated oil saturation ought to be agreeable with the value calculated from the process using Eq. 3. If the value from Eq. 10 is smaller than the value calculated using Eq. 3, the guessed Region 1 size is too large, and this part of the reservoir is still in either Region 2 or Region 3. On the other hand, if the value from Eq. 10 is higher than the value calculated using Eq. 3, the guessed Region 1 size is too small, indicating that Region 1 has expanded beyond this point. The inherent assumption of Eq. 10 is that liquid that condenses out is not mobile yet. If Eq. 10 is applied to a location beyond which Region 1 has already grown, too much liquid condensate would have accumulated there. We use a bi-sectional scheme to speed up the search for the correct Region 1 size. Combining Eq. 10 and Eq. 3 gives us a method to estimate the size of Region 1, and to calculate the outer boundary pressure of Region 1, the well production gas-oil ratio and the production rate. With the use of material balance, a wells production profile, rate vs. time, can be generated. Well performance calculation starts with the initial reservoir pressure. At this initial step, the well gas production
*

Fig. 4 Relative Permeability Curves

14 12 10 0.39 Krg/Kro 8 0.38 6 0.37 4 2 0 1500 0.36 Oil Saturation Krg/Kro So 0.41

0.40

rate is determined with

P * = Pdew . The size of Region 1 is

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

0.35 4500

Pressure in Region 1

Fig. 5 Oil Saturation Profile in Region 1

assumed to be zero. This is a special and an acceptable approximate treatment since the flow at the initial reservoir pressure is transient, and hence the pseudo-state method is not applicable in theory. For each subsequent pressure step, the calculation procedure can briefly be summarized as follows: 1. Assume a value for

Figure 4 shows that relative permeability curves of K rg vs. S g and K ro vs. S g can be used to establish a unique one-to-one relationship between K rg / K ro vs. S g for

P * (this is equivalent to making a * guess on the size of Region 1). P should be bounded between Pwf and min(Pdew , PR ) .
*

Region 1 where both phases are flowing, i.e., both K rg and

K ro are non-zero. With this relationship and knowing Pwf

and P , an oil saturation profile within Region 1 can be generated for each pressure step. Shown in Figure 5 is an example case where the reservoir has been depleted to PR = 4750 psia, the well flowing bottomhole pressure is
*

2. Obtain RP from PVT tables with P . 3. Calculate the two-phase pseudopressure (Eq. 2) and well production rate (Eq. 1). 4. Calculate an average well rate between this pressure step and the previous pressure step. With material balance results, calculate the production time for the current step. 5. Calculate the fractional drawdown at the outer edge of

Pwf = 1500 psia and the pressure at the outer edge of Region
1 is P = 4450 psia. For Pwf P < P , Eq. 3 can be used
* *

to calculate K rg / K ro , and then the K rg / K ro vs. S g curve in Figure 4 can be used to obtain the oil saturation. For the outer edge of Region 1, since 1 Rv R p = 0 , the value of

m( Pwf ) in Eq. 4. Obtain Region 1 size using the relationship of PV vs. . 7. Apply the calculated and m( p R ) and m( Pwf ) of
Region 1 and each previous pressure step in Eq. 4 to determine the m( p) at each previous step pseudopressure corresponding the location of the outer edge of Region 1.

using m( pR ) , m( p * )

K rg / K ro from Eq. 3 will be infinite. To obtain the oil

saturation at the outer edge of Region 1 requires a slightly

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90290

Gas Production Rate (MMSCFD)

25

Rp-fine grid simulation

25

20

20

10. Calculate the oil saturation at the outer edge of Region 1 with the method of using Eq. 3. 11. Compare the two calculated oil saturations. If they do not converge, apply a bi-sectional search scheme to obtain a new guess for P . Repeat 2-11 until convergence. 12. Store all calculation results including the relationship of m( p) vs. P and move on to the next pressure step. Example Applications The proposed calculation method is applied to a number cases presented in the literature to show its performance. Vertical Wells; The first example is a case presented by Fevang and Whitson6: a vertical well in a reservoir with a drainage radius of re = 3000 ft, thickness h = 200 ft and porosity = 0.3 . The reservoir absolute permeability is
*

15

15

10

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (years) 14 16 18 20

Fig. 6 Gas Rate and GOR for a Rich Gas Vertical Well

The proposed method calculates the size of Region 1 in each step of the pressure depletion. Figure 7 shows the predicted Region 1 radius as a function of time. As expected, Region 1 grows very quickly in the beginning of the production and the growth slows down and then flattens out after 10-12 years of production.
300

k = 6 md. The initial reservoir pressure is 6500 psia. The

reservoir contains an undersatuarted rich gas with a dew point of 5900 psia and an initial condensate-gas ratio of 175 STB/MMSCF. All other parameters including relative permeabilities and PVT properties can be found in Ref. 6. Fevang and Whitson6 generate the well performance with a simulation model. Fine grids near the well are used with the most inner cell size of 0.53 ft. The proposed method presented in this study is applied to predict the performance of this well. Gas production rates and well production gas-oil ratios from the simulation model and the new calculation method are compared in Figure 6. Figure 6 shows that in this example, due to condensate banking, the well has difficulty to maintain a plateau rate. Rapid rate decline occurs from the start of the production. The proposed model predicts a gas production profile that matches very well with the results from a fine grid simulation model. The agreement in the predicted production gas-oil ratios from the two methods is also acceptable from an engineering point of view.
Region 1 Radius (ft)

250

200

150

100

50

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time (years)

Fig. 7 Region 1 Size for a Rich Gas Vertical Well

The second vertical well considered is the same as in the first example, except that the initial reservoir pressure is 5500 psia and the reservoir fluid is replaced with as lean gas which has a dew point of 5400 psia and an initial condensate-gas ratio of 45 STB/MMSCF.
45 40 Gas Production Rate (MMSCFD) 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Qg-proposed model Qg-fine grid simulation Rp-proposed model Rp-fine grid simulation 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Production GOR (MSCF/STB)

Time (years)

Fig. 8 Gas Rate and GOR for a Lean Gas Vertical Well

www.petroman.ir

Production GOR (MSCF/STB)

8. Calculate the pressure of each previous step corresponding to the location of the outer edge of Region 1 with the relationship of m( p ) vs. P for each previous step. 9. Calculate the oil saturation at the outer edge of Region 1 by numerically integrating Eq. 10 over all pressure steps from Pint to the current step.

35 Qg-proposed model 30 Qg-fine grid simulation Rp-proposed model

35

30

SPE 90290

Figure 8 compares the predicted gas rate profiles and the production gas-oil ratios from the fine grid simulation models of Fevang and Whitson6 and the proposed calculation method of this study. As shown, condensate banking in a lean gas reservoir is much less severe than in a rich gas reservoir. This well has the ability to sustain a rate at 40 MMSCFD for about 3 years. The predicted rates and production GORs from the two methods matches with each other very well. The growth of Region 1 as predicted by the proposed method is shown in Figure 9. In 10 years of production, Region 1 only expands to about 55 ft in this case, whereas for the rich gas case, Region 1 grows to 200 ft during the same time period. Condensate banking is more severe for rich gas systems.
80 70 60 Region 1 Radius (ft) 50

assess the impact of fracture length on gas condensate well productivity, as illustrated in Figure 11.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 Time (years) 8 10 12 Qg-proposed model fine grid simulation

Gas Production Rate (MMSCFD)

Fi g. 10 Rate Profile for a Hydraulically Fractured Vertical Well

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Lf=50 ft Lf=100 ft Lf=200 ft

30 20 10 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Time (years)

Fig. 9 Region 1 Size for a Lean Gas Vertical Well

The proposed method predicts well rate profiles by following pressure steps as given in PVT reports. The size of the pressure step has some effect on the calculation accuracy with smaller pressure steps giving better results. Pressure steps in a PVT table can be made finer with linear interpolation. In this study pressure steps in the range of 120-250 psi have been used. Hydraulically Fractured Vertical Wells: We use a case presented by Mott7 to evaluate how the proposed method works for a hydraulically fractured vertical well. The well is completed in a reservoir with a drainage radius of re = 2820 ft, thickness h = 25 ft, porosity = 0.2 and permeability k = 1 md. The initial reservoir pressure is 6000 psia. The reservoir contains a relatively lean undersatuarted gas with a dew point of 5000 psia and an initial condensategas ratio of 51 STB/MMSCF. Because of the low reservoir permeability, hydraulic fracturing stimulation is studied to evaluate its impact on well productivity. Mott7 simulates the well performance with fine grids for the fracture which has a half length of L f = 100 ft. A rate profile comparison between the proposed method and Motts fine grid simulation model is given in Fig. 10. The proposed method predicts a rate profile that matches reasonably well with that of the fine grid simulation model. The performance of the proposed method and its easy of use allow it to be applied as a quick tool in parametric studies to

Gas Production Rate (MMSCFD)

40

6 Time (years)

10

12

Fig. 11 Fracture Length Effect on Well Production

Horizontal Wells: The proposed method is further evaluated for some horizontal well cases presented by Mott7. In the first example, a horizontal well of 5000 ft long is drilled in a reservoir of 5000 ft by 4000 ft. The reservoir thickness is h = 100 ft, porosity = 0.2 , horizontal permeability

k h = 0.5 md, and vertical anisotropy k v / k h = 0.1 . The

initial reservoir pressure is 9000 psia. The reservoir contains an undersatuarted rich gas with a dew point of 6000 psia and an initial condensate-gas ratio of 207 STB/MMSCF. The wells production profile generated with the proposed method is compared with Motts fine grid simulation results in Figure 12. The accuracy of the proposed method can be noticed. Two more cases from Mott7 are used for further evaluation: one with a well length of 5000 ft and the other 3000 ft. All reservoir and fluid properties remain the same except the horizontal permeability is increased to 1 md. Comparisons are made between fine grid simulation results from Mott7 and results from the proposed method in Figure 13. Again, very good agreements can be observed. The method presented in this study uses the relationships of PV vs. and / ( PV ) vs. when calculating the oil saturation at the outer edge of Region 1. For horizontal wells, the use of different formulas in calculating the pore

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90290

volume inside a given pressure contour (see Mott7) results in some discontinuities, as indicated in Figure 14. These discontinuities can cause the calculated Region 1 size to jump around and prevent the calculation from converging. Smoothing out the discontinuity in / ( PV ) vs. is necessary in order to obtain good results.
25

Gas Production Rate (MMSCFD)

20

proposed method fine grid simulation

15

Conclusions 1. A new method has been presented to predict gas condensate well production performances. The new approach captures the two main contributing factors to condensate banking and productivity loss: liquid condensation and accumulation. 2. The proposed method generates well production profiles and production gas-oil ratios with engineering accuracy for vertical, hydraulically fractured and horizontal wells. 3. The method can be used as a rapid tool to assess various factors affecting gas condensate well productivity such as formation permeability, relative permeability, fluid type, well type and high rate effects.

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Time (years)

Fig. 12 Rate Profile for a 5000-ft Long Horizontal Well

25 proposed method - 5000 ft well fine grid simulation - 5000 ft well Gas Production Rate (MMSCFD) 20 proposed method - 3000 ft well fine grid simulation - 3000 ft well 15

10

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Time (years)

Fig. 13 Well Length Effect on Horizontal Well Performances

1.E+08 1.E+07 Pore Volume, RB 1.E+06

d(alpha)/d(PV)

1.E+00 1.E-01 1.E-02 1.E-03

discontinuity

Nomenclature Bg = gas formation volume factor, RB/MSCF Bo = oil formation volume factor, RB/STB Bot = total oil formation volume factor, RB/STB dSo = oil saturation change dt = time interval, days h = net thickness, ft k = permeability, md kr = relative permeability Lf = fracture half length, ft m(P) = pseudopressure, psi MSCF RB-1 cp-1 P = pressure, psi Pint = initial reservoir pressure, psia Pref = reference pressure for, psia PR = average reservoir pressure, psia Pwf = well flowing bottom hole pressure, psia P* = pressure at outer boundary of Region 1, psia PV = pore volume, RB PVt = total pore volume, RB Qg = gas flow rate, MSCF/D re = external radius of well drainage area, ft Rp = production gas-oil ratio, MSCF/STB = gas-oil ratio, MSCF/STB Rs Rv = condensate-gas ratio, STB/MSCF So = oil saturation = connate water saturation Swi t = time, days

1.E+05 1.E+04 1.E+03 1.E+02

PV

1.E-04 1.E-05 1.E-06 1.E-07

d(alpha)/d(PV)

= = = =

fractional drawdown well productivity index viscosity, cp porosity

1.E+01
smoothed

1.E-08 1.E-09

1.E+00 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 Fractional Dradwon, alpha

Fig. 14 Pore Volume and Fractional Drawdown Gradient Discontinuities for Horizontal Wells

Although not shown, the proposed method can incorporate and be used to address near wellbore high velocity effects (nonDarcy flow and mobility improvement due to high capillary number) on well productivity.

Subscripts g = gas phase h = horizontal int = initial min = minimum value o = oil phase v = vertical

www.petroman.ir

SPE 90290

Acknowledgement. We thank the management of Saudi Aramco for permission to publish this work. References
1. Engineer. R: Cal Canal Field, California: Case History of a Tight and Abnormally Pressured Gas Condensate Reservoir, Paper SPE 13650 presented at California Regional Meeting, March 1985. 2. Aflidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J., and Bette, S.: Production Performance of a Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of the Arun Field. Paper SPE 28749 presented at Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Australia, November 1994. 3. Barnum, R.S., et al.: Gas Condensate Reservoir Behavior: Productivity and Recovery Reduction Due to Condensation, Paper SPE 30767 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 1995. 4. Rahim, Z., et al: Impact of Reservoir Characteristics on Fracturing Efficiency and Production in the Gas Condensate Fields in Sandstones and Carbonate Reservoirs, Ghawar Field, Saudi Arabia, Paper SPE 75705 presented at SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, May 2002. 5. Ahmed, M., Al-Qahtani, M.Y., and Zillur, R.: Quantifying Production Impairment Due to Near-Wellbore Condensate Dropout and Non-Darcy Flow Effects in Carbonate and Sandstone Reservoirs with and without Hydraulic Fractures in the Ghawar Field, Saudi Arabia, Paper SPE 77552 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, October 2002. 6. Fevang, O. and Whitson, C.H.: Modeling Gas Condensate Well Deliverability, Paper SPE 30714 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 1995. 7. Mott, R.: Engineering Calculation of Gas Condensate Well Productivity, Paper SPE 77551 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, October 2002. 8. Guehria, F.W.: Inflow Performance Relationship for Gas Condensates, Paper SPE 63158 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 2000. 9. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1949. 10. Fetkovich, M.J.: The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells, Paper SPE 4529 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Las Vegas, September 30-Oct.3.

www.petroman.ir