Chapter 39

Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Phillip L. Moses, Core Laboratories ~nc.*
Charles W. Donohoe. Core Laboratories I~C
Introduction
The importance of gas-condensate reservoirs has grown
continuously since the late 1930s. Development and op-
eration of these reservoirs for maximum recovery require
engineering and operating methods significantly differ-
ent from crude-oil or dry-gas reservoirs. The single most
striking factor about gas-condensate systems (fluids) is
that they exist either wholly or preponderantly as vapor
phase in the reservoir at the time of discovery (the criti-
cal temperature of the system is lower than the reservoir
temperature). This key fact nearly always governs the de-
velopment and operating programs for recovery of
hydrocarbons from such reservoirs; the properties of the
fluids determine the best program in each case. A
thorough understanding of fluid properties together with
a good understanding of the special economics involved
is therefore required for optimum engineering of gas-
condensate reservoirs. Other important aspects include
geologic conditions. rock properties, well deliverability,
well costs and spacing, well-pattern geometry, and plant
costs.
Engineers have a wealth of literature on gas-condensate
reservoirs available for reference. From this mass of ma-
terial, Refs. 1 through 5 are especially recommended for
fundamental background, and Refs. 6 through 8 are rec-
ommended for information on properties of pure com-
pounds and their simple mixtures related to gas-condensate
systems. For information regarding reservoir engineer-
ing processes and data, Refs. 5 and 9 through 16 are rec-
ommended.
The best single bibliography on gas-condensate reser-
voirs is that of Katz and Rzasa ; however, later perti-
nent literature listings will be found in Refs. 6 through
14. The collection of references in Refs. 11 and 12 is par-
ticularly recommended for case histories of various gas-
condensate operations. Petroleum production papers pub-
lished by SPE (AIME) s and API have been indexed
separately through the years 1985 and 19.53, respectively.
The practicing field engineers should have the follow-
ing minimum library on gas-condensate systems availa-
ble for their use: either Ref. 1, 2, or 3; Refs. 5, 9, 13,
and 15; and selected volumes of Refs. 11 and 12.
Properties and Behavior of
Gas-Condensate Fluids
Sloan* described the general occurrence of petroleum
in the earth: . think of all the hydrocarbons, begin-
ning with the lightest, methane, to the heaviest asphaltic
substances as a series of compounds of the same family,
consisting of carbon and hydrogen in a limitless number
of proportions. A hydrocarbon reservoir then. is a porous
section of the sedimentary crust of the earth containing
a group of hydrocarbons, which is probably unique and
whose overall properties such as reservoir phase, gas/oil
ratio, gasoline content, viscosity. etc., is the direct result
of this composition, together with the temperature and
pressure that happen to exist in this particular spot in the
porous sediment.
It is now easy to conceive of any possible combina-
tion of these hydrocarbons in a given reservoir, and it is
also easy to visualize a reservoir fluid whose physical state
may range from a completely dry gas in the reservoir,
shading gradually through the wet gas, the condensate,
the critical mixture, the highly compressible volatile liq-
uid, the more stable light crude oil whose color is begin-
ning to darken, the heavier crudes with decreasing solution
gas, and ending with the semisolid asphalts and waxes
with no measurable solution gas.
The condensate reservoir that is the topic under dis-
cussion is therefore first a hydrocarbon reservoir. Due
to the composition and proportion of the individual
hydrocarbons in the mixtures, the content is gas phase
at the temperature and pressure of the reservoir.
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
ANALYSES AND PROPERTIES OF EXAMPLE CRUDE OILS AND GAS CONDENSATES
Mole Fraction
Crude Oil Crude Oil Condensate Condensate Condensate
A 8 843 944 1143
39-2
TABLE 39.1~-HYDROCARBON
Component
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Butanes
Pentanes
Hexanes
Heptanes and heavier
Molecular weight C, plus
Specific gravity C, plus, 60/6OF
Viscosity C, plus, Saybolt universal
seconds at lOOoF
Tank-oil gravity, OAPI at 60/600F
Producing gas/oil ratio, cu ft/bbl
-see Ref 12, D 327
-
-
0.4404
0 0432
0.0405
0.0284
0.0174
0.0290
0.4011
287 247
0.9071 0.8811
loo+ 42
27.4 34.5
525 1,078
0.5345
0.0636
0.0466
0.0379
0.0274
0.0341
0.2559
0.00794
0.01375 0.00075
0.76432 0.89498
0.07923 0.04555
0.04301 0.01909
0.03060 0.00958
0.01718 0.00475
0.01405 0.00365
0.02992 0.02015
120 144
0.7397 0.7884
73 53.2 61.1
18,000+ 43,000 f 69,000 a
0.00130 0.00695
0.01480
0.89045
0.04691
0.01393
0.00795
0.00424
0.00379
0.01098
143
0.7593
See Ref. 2, Vbl I, Table 8 8, pp. 402-W
Viscosity 01 residual 011 left in apparatus, approwmal~ng Ihe hexanes-plus material
Composition Ranges of Gas-Condensate Systems
Approximate composition indices for gas-condensate sys-
tems are the gas/liquid ratio of produced fluids (some-
times called the GOR) or its reciprocal, the liquid/gas
ratio, and the gravity of the tank liquid separated out un-
der various surface conditions. These two indices vary
widely; they do not necessarily prove whether a hydrocar-
bon system is in the vapor phase in the reservoir.
Eilerts et al. (Vol. 1, Chaps. 1 and 8) show in a sur-
vey that the liquid/gas ratios of gas-condensate systems
can vary from more than 500 (very rich) to less than
10 bbl/MMscf; tank condensate produced from the wells
varied from less than 30 to more than 80API, and more
than 85% was within the range of 45 to 65API. Eilerts
et al. (Vol. 1) also quote a rule of thumb that a gas-
condensate system exists when the gas/liquid ratio exceeds
5,000 cu ftibbl (200 bbl/MMscf and less) and the liquid
is lighter than 5OAPI. This appears to be on the conser-
vative side because there is evidence that systems exist
as single-phase vapor in the reservoir when the surface
gas/liquid ratio is less than 4,000 cu ft/bbl (more than 250
bbl/MMscf) and the API gravity of the liquid in the stock
tanks is lower than 40API.
A more accurate representation of the composition of
gas-condensate fluids is provided by fractional analyses
of the well streams coming from the reservoirs. The con-
trast of the fluid composition with the total stream com-
ing from crude-oil reservoirs is fairly large for the relative
amounts of the lighter vs. heavier ends of the paraffin-
hydrocarbon series. For example. Eilerts et ul. (Vol.
1, Table 8.8) report a methane content from about 75 to
90 mol% for several gas-condensate systems, whereas
Dodson and Standing report 44 and 53 mol%, respec-
tively, for two crude-oil systems (see Table 39.1). The
table, however, shows much lower heptanes-and-heavier
content for the gas-condensate systems than for the crude
oil. These are the two outstanding composition features
of gas-condensate systems.
Pressure and Temperature Ranges of
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Gas-condensate reservoirs may occur at pressures below
2.000 psi and temperatures below l00F20 and proba-
bly can occur at any higher fluid pressures and tempera-
tures within reach of the drill. Most known retrograde
gas-condensate reservoirs are in the range of 3,000 to
8,000 psi and 200 to 400F. These pressure and temper-
ature ranges, together with wide composition ranges, pro-
vide a great variety of conditions for the physical behavior
of gas-condensate deposits. This emphasizes the need for
very meticulous engineering studies of each gas-
condensate reservoir to arrive at the best mode of devel-
opment and operation.
Phase and Equilibrium Behavior
An understanding of the behavior of pure paraffin
hydrocarbons and simple two-component or three-
component systems (involving such compounds as
methane, pentane, and decane) is of considerable benefit
to the engineer working with gas-condensate reservoir
problems. Excellent coverage is given this subject by Sage
and Lacey and a more condensed discussion by Bur-
cik. Occasional review of such material will assist the
engineer concerned with more complex hydrocarbon
mixtures.
Chap. 23 describes the phase and equilibrium behavior
of complex (multicomponent) hydrocarbon mixtures (see
Fig. 23.14 and the accompanying discussion). Note that
the critical state (critical point) is that state or condition
at which the composition and all other intensive proper-
ties of the gas phase and the liquid phase become
identical-i.e., the phases are indistinguishable. In gas-
condensate reservoirs, the portion of the phase diagram
to the left of and above the critical point will not be in-
volved.
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS
39-3
i
O50
1T
I00 150 200 250 300
TEMPERATURE.F
Fig. 39.1-Phase diagram of Eilerts Fluid 843.
The term retrograde condensation (discussed in
Chap. 23) is used more loosely than implied by its
rigorous definition, In field practice, the term may im-
ply any process where the amount of condensing liquid
phase passes through a maximum, whether the process
is isothermal or not.
While Fig. 23.14 provides a simplified picture of the
phase diagram, reservoir engineers will find that very few
quantitative phase diagrams on naturally occurring gas-
condensate mixtures have been published. Figs. 39.1
through 39.3 come from extensive work and represent
quantitative measurements on the flow streams from wells
in the Chapel Hill, Carthage, and Seeligson fields in
Texas. The critical points are not shown because they are
at temperatures below those of interest to field operations.
This emphasizes that the compositions of gas-condensate
systems vary widely and strongly affect the form of the
phase diagrams encountered in actual gas-condensate
reservoirs. These three phase diagrams represent a
reasonable spread in the properties of gas-condensate sys-
tems. from a gas/liquid ratio of about 18,000 to 69,000
cu ftibbl (56 to 14.5 bbl/MMscf). This does not mean,
however, that all other gas-condensate systems would fall
inside the limits of the properties suggested by these three
phase diagrams.
The three cases in Figs. 39.1 through 39.3 imply that
the dewpoint boundary approaches zero pressure at a rela-
tively high temperature. Other condensate systems are be-
lieved to approximate the qualitative picture shown in Fig.
23.14 more closely. Note that all three systems exhibit
both cricondentherm and cricondenbar points (maximum
temperature and pressure, respectively, beyond which
there is no liquid present in the vapor); the critical tem-
peratures all fall to the left of each diagram at lower tem-
peratures and pressures than the maxima for the dewpoint
boundaries.
Liquid-content lines on phase diagrams can be repre-
sented by a number of different units. Figs. 39.1 through
39.3 use gallons per thousand cubic feet of separator gas.
Fig. 39.2-Phase diagram of Eilerts Fluid 1143.
The approximate behavior of condensate fluids while
being produced from the reservoir into surface vessels can
be represented advantageously on phase diagrams. In Fig.
39.2, for example, Line FT shows a flow path for fluids
that starts at formation conditions (outside the dewpoint
boundary, indicating that the formation fluids were all in
vapor phase); proceeds to sandface pressure, Point S i ,
at the well; declines as the fluid rises from the bottom
of the hole to the wellhead, Point WH; passes through
the choke to separator conditions, Point S2 ; and reaches
Point T, representing tank conditions. The phase diagram
is thus helpful to the engineer in visualizing what hap-
pens to gas-condensate fluids as they flow from the for-
mation to the wellbore and from there to surface
equipment.
4,5OOf7777777
TEMPERATURE, *F
Fig. 39.3-Phase diagram of Eilerts Fluid 944
39-4
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Methods have been proposed by Organick and Eilerts
et al. * for predicting the critical temperatures and pres-
sures of hydrocarbon mixtures and for computing the
phase diagrams (including dewpoint curves) of gas-
condensate fluids. The dependability of these methods for
a wide range of gas-condensate compositions has not yet
been established. For reservoir engineering work, direct
laboratory measurements of phase diagrams or of
pressure-depletion behavior are necessary because of the
large recoveries at stake. Laboratory work may not be
required for other problems.
Gas/Liquid Ratios and Liquid
Gas-Condensate Systems
Contents of
As discussed earlier, it is difficult to specify whether a
hydrocarbon system is in the vapor phase in the reser-
voir from measurements of field gas/liquid ratio and tank-
oil gravity. Fluid production with tank-oil gravities as low
as 30API and gas/liquid ratios as low as 3,000 cu ft/bbl
may be from true gas-condensate systems; this possibili-
ty should always be checked by laboratory measurements
of phase behavior for these and intermediate values.
Liquid content and gas/liquid ratio can be direct
reciprocals, depending on the type of problem considered.
The terms must be carefully defined in each case because
gas-condensate systems in the field frequently undergo
different types of separating procedures that involve sever-
al stages before the final liquid phase (liquid means
hydrocarbon liquid unless otherwise specified) reaches the
tanks at atmospheric pressure. To study the properties of
gas-condensate fluids at reservoir conditions, it is con-
venient to define gas/liquid ratios and liquid contents on
the basis of the gas and liquid outputs of the first-stage
separator through which the fluids pass. These two out-
put streams then represent the total composition of the
gas-condensate fluid in the reservoir if sampling, produc-
ing, and measuring conditions have been properly set and
maintained. Other gas/liquid ratios may be reported, how-
ever, including the total gas output of all stages of sepa-
ration divided by the tank-liquid volumes corresponding
to the gas output: note that the total gas output would in-
clude a measurement of tank vapors as well as separator
gas to represent the full composition of the wellstream.
The gas/liquid ratio at stock-tank conditions may be
roughly approximated when field facilities are not avail-
able for measurements. The gas and liquid flow rates from
the high-stage separator are observed and a liquid sam-
ple collected from the separator in a stainless-steel cylin-
der of known volume. If all the cylinder contents are bled
into a calibrated graduate at atmospheric pressure and the
volume of the resultant liquid phase is compared with the
original liquid volume, an approximate value of the liquid-
phase shrinkage may be determined. From this, the high-
stage gas/liquid ratio may be converted to stock-tank con-
ditions. This procedure ignores the volume of gas liber-
ated between high-stage separator and stock-tank
conditions. This volume can be approximated by using
a calibrated glass separator with gas meter attached in
place of the graduate. Ignoring this gas volume adds fur-
ther errors to those resulting from not simulating the ex-
isting field stage separation conditions. The higher the
first-stage separation pressure, the greater the error in total
gas volume of the gas/liquid ratio. This is only an approx-
imate method that may be used when there are no inter-
mediate separator stages and stock tanks for individual
well measurements and when the atmospheric tempera-
ture and pressure do not vary appreciably from stock-tank
conditions.
Gas/liquid ratios usually are reported in cubic feet per
barrel of liquid (or thousands of cubic feet per barrel) and
liquid contents or liquid/gas ratios in barrels of liquid per
million standard cubic feet of gas. The separator streams
used in the ratio must be specified.
Properties of Separated Phases
The properties of both liquid and gas phases separated
from gas-condensate streams can vary considerably. One
of the dominant properties of the gas is high methane con-
tent. Eilerts et al. 2 (Vol. I, Chap. 8) list the composi-
tions of the gas and liquid phases of eight gas-condensate
systems. Methane contents of the gas phases (simulated
from field separators) varied from about 0.83 to 0.92 mole
fraction; the hexanes and heavier (hexanes plus) var-
ied from 0.004 to about 0.008 mole fraction. The liquid
phases varied from about 0.1 to nearly 0.3 mole fraction
methane; hexanes plus varied from about 0.4 to 0.7 mole
fraction.
,
In the absence of measured data, properties of the sepa-
rated phases of gas-condensate systems (including volu-
metric and density behavior) can be approximated by
methods described in Chaps. 20 through 23, especially
Chaps. 20 and 22 (see also Refs. 9 and 14).
Viscosities of Gas-Condensate Systems
The viscosity of a gas-condensate system is of interest in
various reservoir calculations, particularly with respect
to cycling operations and the representation of such reser-
voirs in computer models. Whenever possible, viscosity
of the vapor phase at reservoir conditions should be meas-
ured directly. Carr et al. 23 presented a method to esti-
mate the viscosities of gas systems from a knowledge of
compositions or specific gravities (see also Chap. 20 and
Ref. 14).
Viscosities of separate gas and liquid phases at the sur-
face conditions usually encountered can be obtained by
direct measurement or by the use of the correlations for
gas previously mentioned and the correlation of Chew and
Connally24 for liquid (see also Chap. 22). Viscosity in-
formation on separated materials is needed mainly for
separator or plant residue gases to be injected during cy-
cling and for some types of reservoir calculations.
Gas-Condensate Well Tests and Sampling
Proper testing of gas-condensate wells is essential to as-
certain the state of the hydrocarbon system at reservoir
conditions and to plan the best production and recovery
program for the reservoir. Without proper well tests and
samples, it would be impossible to determine the phase
conditions of the reservoir contents at reservoir tempera-
ture and pressure accurately and to estimate the amount
of hydrocarbon materials in place accurately.
Tests are made on gas-condensate wells for a number
of specific purposes: to obtain representative samples for
laboratory analysis to identify the composition and prop-
erties of the reservoir fluids; to make field determinations
on gas and liquid properties; and to determine formation
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS
39-5
and well characteristics, including productivity. produ-
cibility, and injectivity. The first consideration for selcct-
ing wells for gas-condensate fluid samples is that they be
far enough from the black-oil ring (if present) to
minimize any chance that the liquid oil phase will enter
the well during the test period. A second and highly im-
portant consideration is the selection of wells with as high
productivities as possible so that minimum pressure draw-
down will be suffered when the reservoir fluid samples
are acquired.
Well Conditioning
Proper well conditioning is essential to obtain represen-
tative samples from the reservoir. The best production
rates before and during the sampling procedure have to
be considered individually for each reservoir and for each
well. Usually the best procedure is to use the lowest rate
that results in smooth well operation and the most depend-
able measurements of surface products. Minimum draw-
down of bottomhole pressure during the conditioning
period is desirable and the produced gas/liquid ratio should
remain constant (within about 2%) for several days; the
less-permeable reservoirs require longer periods. The far-
ther the well deviates from constant produced gas/liquid
ratio. the greater the likelihood that the samples will not
be representative.
Recombined separator samples from gas-condensate
wells are considered more representative of the original
reservoir fluid than subsurface samples.
Accurate measurements of hydrocarbon gas and liquid
production rates during the well-conditioning and well-
sampling tests are necessary because the laboratory tests
will later be based on fluid compositions recombined in
the same ratios as the hydrocarbon streams measured in
the field. The original reservoir fluid cannot be simulat-
ed in the laboratory unless accurate field measurements
of all the separator streams are taken. (Gas/liquid ratios
may be reported and used in several different forms, as
discussed previously.) If the produced gas/condensate
(gas/liquid) ratio from field measurements is in error by
as little as 5 %, the dewpoint pressure determined in the
laboratory may be in error by as much as 100 psi. Water
production rates should be measured separately and pro-
duced water excluded as much as possible from hydrocar-
bon samples sent to the laboratory.
Separator pressure and temperatures should remain as
constant as possible during the well-conditioning period;
this will help maintain constancy of the stream rates and
thus of the observed hydrocarbon gas/liquid ratio. If the
well is being prepared during a period when atmospheric
temperatures vary considerably from night to day.
reasonably consistent average temperatures and pressures
on the several vessels during the conditioning period
should be adequate.
Field Sampling and Test Procedures
After the conditioning period has proceeded long enough
to show that producing conditions are steady. exacting
measurement methods must be used to obtain represen-
tative samples. The mechanics of well sampling is par-
tially covered in Chaps. 12 through 14, 16, and 17. The
help of experienced laboratory personnel is advisable in
acquiring gas and condensate-liquid samples. Certain
minimum items of information in addition to all stream
rates are essential, including regular readings of the pres-
sures and temperatures of all vessels sampled, and of tub-
ing heads and casing heads where available, and a
recorded history of the well conditions before and dur-
ing sampling. along with the actual mechanics of the sam-
pling steps. Other information acquired during the
sampling period that would help to explain reservoir and
well conditions should also be recorded because it is use-
ful in interpreting the results of the tests.
Care must be taken that the compositions of gas and
liquid samples obtained are representative and are prop-
erly preserved for laboratory analyses. API RP 44? out-
lines appropriate sampling methods.
For cases when the liquid-phase sample is obtained at
a low temperature (from low-temperature separation
equipment), triethylene-glycol/water mixtures are con-
venient for collecting the samples. Ten percent or more
of the cylinder volume for liquid-phase samples should
be gas to prevent excessive pressure that could result from
temperature rise during subsequent shipment. This 10%
gas cap can be effected by closing the cylinder sample-
inlet valve when 90% of the glycoliwater mixture has been
displaced and then carefully withdrawing nearly all the
remaining mixture from the bottom of the cylinder without
losing the oil phase.
The volumes of fluids requested for laboratory testing
should be acquired during the sampling period. plus a
reasonable amount (25 % or more) of extra sample mate-
rials in separate containers for emergency use should some
of the main samples be lost by leakage or other adversity
between the field site and the laboratory.
At the end of actual sampling mechanics in the field,
the well should remain on stream for a reasonable period
of time, and its producing rate, gas/liquid ratio, and var-
ious pressures and temperatures should be observed to
confirm that they are consistent with the information de-
veloped before and during the sampling period. Any rad-
ical changes should be analyzed carefully to decide
whether resampling may be necessary to ensure accura-
cy of the samples and well statistics obtained during the
sampling period.
Equipment is available for making some determinations
of gas-condensate properties in the field. Among these
properties are the gas/liquid ratios of several vessels
simulating various separation conditions (numbers of
stages, pressures and temperatures of the stages, and other
conditions) and the gasoline content of the overhead
gas at each stage. If hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide
are present in the production streams, special sampling
procedures should be used and the samples should be taken
in stainless-steel cylinders. These corrosive gases could
react with the sample cylinders during shipment.
Field determinations of the hydrocarbon compositions
of streams from gas-condensate wells can be made with
appropriate fractionation equipment in mobile labora-
tories. Eilerts rt al. described such equipment and the
test procedures for determining the effect of individual
hydrocarbons on liquid/gas ratios at different separation
pressures and temperatures. These tests can assist in de-
termining optimum field separation conditions for given
production objectives. They require special equipment and
experienced personnel.
39-6 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
Measurements of gas-condensate well productivity,
producibility, and injectivity are of considerable impor-
tance for planning overall field operations and size of
plants for either gasoline recovery or condensate-liquids
recovery and cycling, as bases for contracts for delivera-
bility from a reservoir for pipeline purposes, and for var-
ious other needs. This topic is discussed more fully later;
test procedures are described in Chap. 33 and in several
published standards and regulations. 26-29
where
K, = the equilibrium ratio for methane,
y1 = methane in the vapor phase, mol%, and
Xl
= methane in the liquid phase, mol%.
The experimental equilibrium ratio for methane is 7.71
for the temperature and pressure existing in the field sepa-
rator at the time of sampling.
Sample Collection and Evaluation
In taking samples for recombination to evaluate a gas-
condensate reservoir, the samples of gas and samples of
liquid usually are taken from the first stage of separation.
A representative portion of all the hydrocarbons produced
from the well will be contained in these two samples. The
first step in the laboratory study is to evaluate the sam-
ples taken. The first test is to measure the bubblepoint
of the separator liquid. The bubblepoint should correspond
to the separator pressure at separator temperature at the
time the samples were taken.
The equilibrium ratios for each of the hydrocarbons
methane through hexane are calculated in a similar man-
ner. These data can then be compared with equilibrium
ratios, such as those published in Ref. 16. If the equilib-
rium ratios compare favorably, then the samples are in
equilibrium and the study should continue. If they do not
compare well, then new samples should be obtained be-
fore proceeding.
The hydrocarbon composition of the separator samples
should then be determined by chromatography or low-
temperature fractional distillation or a combination of
both. An example of the composition of typical separator
products are shown in Table 39.2. These compositions
may be evaluated by calculation of the equilibrium ratio
for each component (see Chap. 23). The equilibrium ra-
tio for a component is the mole percent of that compo-
nent in the vapor phase divided by the mole percent of
the same component in the liquid phase. As an example,
the equilibrium ratio for methane in Table 39.2 is calcu-
lated by the equation
K, =yl/x, =83.01/10.76=7.71,
Recombination of Separator Samples
The samples are now ready to be recombined in the same
ratio that they were produced. Because we have samples
of first-stage separator gas and first-stage separator liq-
uid, we must have the produced gas/liquid ratio in the
same form. If the producing gas/liquid ratio was meas-
ured in the field in this form, then we can proceed direct-
ly with the recombination. If the ratio was measured in
the field in the form of primary-separator gas per barrel
of second-stage separator liquid or per barrel of stock-
tank liquid, then a laboratory shrinkage test must be run
to simulate field separation conditions. The shrinkage ob-
tained can then be used to convert the field-measured ra-
tio to the form necessary for the recombination. Once the
separator products have been recombined, the composi-
tion can be measured and compared with the calculated
composition. This will check the accuracy of the physi-
cal recombination.
TABLE 39.2-HYDROCARBON ANALYSES OF SEPARATOR PRODUCTS AND CALCULATED WELL STREAM
SeDarator Liauid
Separator Gas
Component (mol %)
Hydrogen sulfide 0.00
C&bon dioxide
Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
iso-Butane
n-Butane
iso-Pentane
n-Pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
Total
0.00
0.01
10.76
6.17
8.81
2.85
7.02
3.47
3.31
8.03
49.57
100.00
mol %
0.00
0.01
0.13
83.01
9.23
4.50
0.74
1.20
0.31
0.25
0.21
0.41
100.00
Properties of heptanes plus
API gravity at 6OF 39.0
Density, g/cm3 at 60aR).8293
Molecular weight 160 103
gal/l ,000 cf gas
2.454
1.231
0.241
0.376
0.113
0.090
0.085
0.185
4.775
-
Well Stream
mol % gal/l,000 cf gas
0.00
0.01
0.11
68.93
8.63 2.295
5.34 1.461
1.15 0.374
2.33 0.730
0.93 0.338
0.85 0.306
1.73 0.702
9.99 6.006
100.00 12.212
0.827
158
Calculated separator gas gravity (air = 1.000)
Calculated gross heating value for separator gas per cubic foot of dry gas at
0.699
14.65 psia and 60F, Btu
Primary-separator-gas/separator-liquid ratio at 60F, scf/bbl*
Primary-separator-liquid/stock-tank-liquid ratio at 60F, bbl
Primary-separator-gas/well-stream ratio, MscWMMscf
Stock-tank-liquid/well-stream ratio, bbl/MMscf
*Primary separator gas and primary separator liquid collected at 440 psig and 87F.
1,230
3,944
1.191
805.19
171.4
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS 39-7
Dewpoint and Pressure/Volume Relations
The laboratory personnel will next measure the pres-
sure/volume relations of the reservoir fluid at reservoir
temperature with a visual cell. This is a constant-compo-
sition expansion and furnishes the dewpoint of the reser-
voir fluid at reservoir temperature and the total volume
of the reservoir fluid as a function of pressure. The volume
of liquid at pressures below the dewpoint as a percent of
TABLE 39.3-PRESSURE/VOLUME RELATIONS
OF RESERVOIR FLUID AT 256OF
the total volume may also be measured. Phase diagrams
(Constant-Composition Expansion)
can be developed dy measuring the liquid volumes at
several other temperatures. Table 39.3 is an example of
the dewpoint determination and pressure/volume relations
of a gas-condensate reservoir fluid.
Simulated Pressure Depletion
Pressure depletion of gas-condensate reservoirs may be
simulated in the laboratory by use of high-pressure visual
cells. In these depletion studies made in the laboratory,
the assumption is that the retrograde liquid that condenses
in the reservoir rock will not achieve a sufficiently high
saturation to become mobile. This assumption appears to
be valid except for very rich gas-condensate reservoirs.
For very rich gas-condensate reservoirs where the retro-
grade liquid may achieve a high enough saturation to mi-
grate to producing wells, the gas/liquid relative
permeability data should be measured for the reservoir
rock system. These data can then be used to ad,just the
predicted recovery from the reservoir.
Table 39.4 is an example of a depletion study on a gas-
condensate reservoir fluid. Note from Table 39.4 that the
dewpoint pressure of this reservoir fluid is 6,010 psig.
The composition listed in the 6,010-psig-pressure column
in Table 39.4 is the composition of the reservoir fluid at
the dewpoint and exists in the reservoir in the gaseous
state
Pressure
(PSW
7,500
7,000 *
6,500
6,300
6,200
6,100
6,010+
5.950
5,900
5,800
5,600
5,300
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,100
1,860
1,683
1,460
1,290
1,160
1,050
Relative Deviation Factor,
Volume z
0.9341 1.328
0.9523 1.264 *
0.9727 1.19s
0.9834 1.175
0.9891 1.163
0.9942 1 150
1 .oooo 1.140f
1.0034
1.0076
1.0138
1.0267
1.0481
1.0749
1.1268
1.2024
1.3096
1.4689
1.7169
2.0191
2.2747
2.5150
2.9087
3.3173
3.7153
4.1342
Reservoir preSSre
;Gas ev~ans~on factor = 1 545 Mscllbbl
oewpolnl pressure
Gas expansion factor = 1 47, Mscfibb,
TABLE 39.4--DEPLETION STUDY AT 256F
6,010 5,000
Reservoir Pressure, psig
4,000 3,000 2,100 1,200 700 700*
Hydrocarbon Analysis of Produced Well Stream, mol %
Component
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
iso-Butane
n-Butane
iso-Pentane
n-Pentane
Hexanes
Heptanes plus
Molecular weight of heptanes plus 158 146 134 123 115
Density of heptanes plus 0.827 0.817 0.805 0.794 0.784
Deviation factor, z
Equilibrium gas
Two-phase
Well stream produced, cumulative
% of initial
1.140 1.015 0.897 0.853 0.865 0.902 0.938
1.140 1.016 0.921 0.851 0.799 0.722 0.612
0.000 6.624 17.478 32.927 49.901 68.146 77.902
0.01
0.11
68.93
8.63
5.34
1 .I5
2.33
0.93
0.85
1.73
9.99
100.00
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.12 0.12 0.13
70.69 73.60 76.60
8.67 8.72 8.82
5.26 5.20 5.16
1.10 1.05 1.01
2.21 2.09 1.99
0.86 0.78 0.73
0.76 0.70 0.65
1.48 1.25 1.08
8.84 6.48 3.82
100.00 100.00 100.00
0.01
0.13
77.77
8.96
5.16
1 .Ol
1.98
0.72
0.63
1 .Ol
2.62
100.00
0.01
0.12
77.04
9.37
5.44
1.10
2.15
0.77
0.68
1.07
2.25
100.00
110
0.779
0.01
0.11
75.13
9.82
5.90
1.26
2.45
0.87
0.78
1.25
2.42
Trace
0.01
11.95
4.10
4.80
1.57
3.75
100.00
2.15
2.15
6.50
63.02
100.00
109 174
0.778 0.837
39-8 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
1.6
15
1.4
I 3
12
i I
10
09
08
07
0.6
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Pressure. osi
Fig. 39.4-Deviation factor, z, of well stream during depletion
at 256OF.
The depletion study is performed by expanding the
reservoir fluid in the cell by withdrawing mercury from
the cell until the first depletion pressure is reached; this
is 5,000 psig in the example. The fluid in the cell is
brought to equilibrium and the volume of retrograde liq-
uid is measured. The mercury is then reinjected into the
cell and, at the same time, gas is removed from the top
of the cell so that a constant pressure is maintained. Mer-
cury is injected into the cell until the hydrocarbon or reser-
voir volume of the cell is the same as the volume when
the test was begun at the dewpoint pressure. The gas
volume removed from the cell is measured at the deple-
tion pressure and reservoir temperature. The gas removed
is charged to analytical equipment where its composition
is determined and its volume is measured at atmospheric
pressure and temperature. The composition determined
is that listed in Table 39.4 under the heading 5,000 psig.
The volume of gas produced in this manner is then divid-
ed by the standard volume of gas in the cell at the dew-
point pressure. The produced volume is presented in Table
39.4 as cumulative well stream produced.
As mentioned earlier, as the gas is removed from the
top of the cell, its volume is measured at the depletion
pressure and reservoir temperature. From this volume,
the ideal volume of this displaced volume may be cal-
culated with the ideal-gas law. When the ideal volume
is divided by the actual volume of the gas produced at
standard conditions, we get the deviation factor, z, for
the produced gas. This is listed in Table 39.4 under
50 50
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 0 1000 1000 2000 2000 3000 3000 4000 4000 5000 5000 6000 6000 7000 7000 8000 8000
Pressure. psi Pressure. psi
Fig. 39.5--Retrograde condensation during depletion. Fig. 39.5--Retrograde condensation during depletion.
Deviation Factor z, equilibrium gas and plotted in Fig.
39.4. The actual volume of gas remaining in the cell at
this point is the gas originally in the cell at the dewpoint
pressure minus the gas produced at the first depletion lev-
el. If we divide the actual volume remaining in the cell
into the calculated ideal volume remaining in the cell at
this first depletion pressure, we obtain the two-phase devi-
ation factor shown in Table 39.4. We call this value a
two-phase deviation factor because the material remain-
ing in the cell after the first depletion level is actually gas
and retrograde liquid and the actual gas volume we cal-
culated above is the gas volume plus the vapor equiva-
lent of the retrograde liquid. The two-phase z factor is
significant in that it is the z factor of all the hydrocarbon
material remaining in the reservoir. It is the two-phase
z factor that should be used when a plz-vs.-cumulative-
production plot is made in evaluating gas-condensate pro-
duction.
This series of expansions and constant-pressure dis-
placements is repeated at each depletion pressure until an
arbitrary abandonment pressure is reached. The abandon-
ment pressure is considered arbitrary because no engi-
neering or economic calculations have been made to
determine this pressure for the purpose of the reservoir-
fluid study.
In addition to the composition of the produced well
stream at the final depletion pressure, the composition of
the retrograde liquid was also measured. These data are
included as a control composition in the event the study
is used for compositional material-balance purposes.
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS 39-9
The volume of retrograde liquid measured during the
course of the depletion study is shown in Fig. 39.5 and
Table 39.5. The data are shown as a percent of hydrocar-
bon pore space. These are the data that should be used
in conjunction with relative permeability data and water
saturation data to determine the extent of retrograde liq-
uid mobility. As mentioned earlier, this is a significant
factor only with extremely rich gas-condensate reservoirs.
Also obtained from the reservoir fluid study is Table
39.6. This table was calculated with the results of the lab-
oratory depletion study described previously applied to
a unit-volume reservoir. The unit volume chosen was
1,000 Mscf in place at the dewpoint pressure (note the
1,000 Mscf in Table 39.6 in the first column of numbers).
Equilibrium ratios were then used to calculate the amount
of stock-tank liquid, primary-separator gas, second-stage
gas, and stock-tank gas contained in the unit-volume reser-
voir. The equilibrium ratios used were for the separator
conditions listed at the bottom of Table 39.6. The sepa-
rator conditions used for these calculations should be the
conditions in use in the field or those conditions antici-
pated for the field. The relative amounts of gas and liq-
uid produced will be a function of the surface separation
conditions, among other things. These calculations may
be made at a variety of conditions to determine optimum
separator pressures and temperatures. For the purpose of
this table, production was begun at the dewpoint pressure.
The amount of total well effluent (well stream) produced
from this unit-volume reservoir as a function of pressure
is listed in the table. The amount of stock-tank liquid pro-
duced as a function of pressure is also listed. The primary-
separator gas, second-stage gas, and stock-tank gas are
presented in a similar manner. Various other factors as-
sociated with the production of the gas and condensate
from this reservoir are also presented in the table.
TABLE 39.5--RETROGRADE CONDENSATION
DURING GAS DEPLETION AT 256F
Retrograde Liquid Volume
Pressure (% hydrocarbon
W9)
pore space)
6,010 0.0
5,950 Trace
5,900 0.1
5,800 0.2
5,600 0.5
5,300 2.0
5,000 * 7.8
4,000 21.3
3,000 25.0
2,100 24.4
1,200 22.5
700 21.0
0 17.6
Dewpmt pressure
First depletion level.
Table 39.6 shows the initial stock-tank liquid in place
to be 181.74 bbl for this unit-volume reservoir. After pro-
duction to 700 psig, 51.91 bbl had been produced. The
difference between these two numbers (18 1.74 - 5 1.9 1),
129.83 bbl, is the amount of retrograde loss or liquid still
unproduced at 700 psig expressed in terms of stock-tank
barrels. The value of 181.74 bbl may be considered the
recovery by pressure maintenance, assuming 100% con-
formance and 100% displacement efficiency.
Table 39.7 furnishes the gravity of the stock-tank liq-
uid that may be expected to be produced as a function
of reservoir pressure. Also reported are the instantane-
ous gas/liquid ratios as a function of reservoir pressure.
TABLE 39.6-CALCULATED CUMULATIVE RECOVERY DURING DEPLETION PER MMscf OF ORIGINAL FLUID
Well stream, Mscf
Normal temperature separation
Stock-tank liquid, bbl
Primary separator gas, Mscf
Second-stage gas, Mscf
Stock-tank gas, Mscf
Total plant products in primary separator gas, gal
Ethane
Propane
Butanes (total)
Pentanes plus
Total plant products in second-stage gas, gal
Ethane
Propane
Butanes (total)
Pentanes plus
Total plant products in well stream, gal
Ethane
Propane
Butanes (total)
Pentanes plus
Initial
in Place
1 .OOo 0 66.24
181.74
777.15
38.52
38.45
1,841
835
368
179
204
121
53
23
2,295
1,461
1,104
7,352
Reservoir Pressure
(wig)
6.010 5.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.08 21.83 31 .a9 39.76 47.36 51.91
53.18 145.16 283.78 440.02 608.25 696.75
2.26 5.17 8.03 10.51 13.21 14.99
2.29 5.38 8.73 11.85 15.51 18.05
126 344 674 1,050 1,474 1,709
58 163 331 526 749 873
26 73 155 256 374 441
12 35 73 122 177 206
12 27 42
17 27
8 13
3 5
55
36
17
70 80
47 54
23 27
10 11
3
153 404 767 1,171 1,626 1,880
95 250 468 707 979 1,137
70 178 325 486 674 789
408 890 1,322 1,680 2,037 2,249
4,000 3,000 2,100 1,200 700
174.78 329.27 499.01 681.46 779.02
Primary separator at 450 psig and ,!YF, second-stage separator a, 100 ps,g and 75OF, stock tank a, 75DF
39-10 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
These data may be calculated without the benefit of rock
propertles or interstitial water values. The assumption is
that the retrograde liquid does not achieve significant mo-
bility. Because only one phase is flowing, water and
hydrocarbon liquid saturations do not enter into the cal-
culations. The assumption that the retrograde liquid does
not flow in the reservoir except in the drawdown area im-
mediately around the wellbore appears to be good. Only
with very rich reservoirs does movement of retrograde
liquid add significantly to well production.
It was mentioned earlier that the most popular form of
material balance on a gas-condensate reservoir is the p/z-
vs.-cumulative-production curve. It was stated that the z
factor to be used must be the two-phase : factor. The cu-
mulative production must be the total production from the
well. This includes. in most instances, the first-stage sepa-
rator gas, second-stage separator gas, tank vapors. and
the vapor equivalent of the stock-tank liquid. The most
accurate production figures from a gas-condensate field
are usually the sales-gas volumes. This usually includes
the first- and second-stage separator gas. To make the p/z-
vs.-cumulative plot, the tank vapors and the vapor equiva-
lent of the stock liquid must be accounted for. Without
the benefit of laboratory data, the tank vapors must be
estimated and the vapor equivalent of the stock-tank liq-
uid calculated with an average or estimated number.
Table 39.7 furnishes the data to make these calculations.
If sales gas is the primary- and second-stage gas, and the
average reservoir pressure is 5.000 psig, then the total
well-stream volume can be calculated by dividing the sales
volume by 0.83704. This factor accounts for the tank
vapors and the vapor equivalent of the tank liquid. If the
sales gas is only the first-stage gas, then the appropriate
factor would be 0.80285.
Operation by Pressure Depletion
Pressure-depletion gas-condensate reservoir behavior can
be predicted from the laboratory data described previous-
ly, or if necessary, by various correlation and computation
procedures that provide similar information (with less ac-
curacy) on the basis of the composition of the gas-conden-
sate system. Whenever possible, the predictions should
be made with actual laboratory data because the better
accuracy obtained at the reservoir conditions is justified
by the large gas and liquid reserves involved in reservoir
calculations.
Predictions With Laboratory-Derived Data
and Hydrocarbon Analysis
With the assumption that the liquid condensate in the reser-
voir during a pressure-depletion operation stays in place
(does not build up sufficiently to provide liquid-phase per-
meability for flow), reservoir behavior can be predicted
from the laboratory constant-composition depletion study
discussed previously. Pertinent information is shown in
Tables 39.3 through 39.6 and Figs. 39.4 and 39.5.
Liquid-phase change in the reservoir is shown in Fig.
39.5 derived from Table 39.5. Note that the amount of
liquid remaining in the reservoir passes through a maxi-
mum but does not return to zero, indicating that pressure-
depletion operations leave some liquid hydrocarbons be-
hind at abandonment pressure. Economic analyses of
pressure-depletion operations are necessary for estimating
the magnitude of this loss and its effect on development
and operating policy for the reservoir.
The ultimate recoveries by pressure depletion of wet
gas. condensate, and plant products can be calculated for
the reservoir described in Table 39.8 by use of the data
given in Table 39.6.
Gas in place ut original pressure:
(500x 106)(1.545)(178. l)= 137,582 MMscf.
Gas in place at dewpoint pressure:
(500x106)(1.471)(178.1)=130,992 MMscf.
Wet gas produced to dewpoint pressure:
137,582- 130,992=6,590 MMscf.
TABLE 39.7-CALCULATED INSTANTANEOUS RECOVERY DURING DEPLETION
Reservoir Pressure
(asiai
Normal temperature separation
Stock-tank liquid gravity at 6OOF. OAPl
Separator-qaslwell-stream ratio, Mscf/MMscf
6,010 5,000
49.3 51.7
primary-separator gas only
primary and second-stage separator gases
Separator-gas/stock-tank-liquid ratio, scf/STB
primary-separator gas only
pnmary and second-stage separator gases
Recovery from smooth well stream compositions,
Ethane plus
Propane plus
Butanes plus
Pentanes plus
777.15
815.67
802.85
837.04
847.45
874.26
897.28
915.77
920.44
935.04
922.04
936.84
907.14
925.38
gal/min
4,276
4,488
12.212
9.917
8.456
7.352
5,277 7,828 13,774 19,863 22,121 19,475
5.502 8.076 14,058 20.178 22.476 19.867
10.953 9.175 7.509 6.851 6.970 7.574
8.648 6.856 5.164 4.469 4.479 4.963
7.209 5.434 3.752 3.057 2.990 3.349
6.158 4.437 2.800 2.108 1.959 2.171
4.000
55.4
3,000
60.4 64 6 67.5 68.6
2,100 1,200 700
Primary separator at 450 ps~g and 75T second-stage separator at 100 pslg and 75OF. stock tank at 75OF
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS
39-11
Wet gas produced Sfom dewpoint pressure to aban- TABLE 39.8-FORMATION AND FLUID DATA FOR A
donment:
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR
(130,992)(0.77902)= 102,045 MMscf.
Total wet gas produced:
6,590+ 102,045 = 108,635 MMscf.
Condensate produced to dewpoint pressure:
Original reservoir pressure, psig
Dewpoint pressure, psig
Assumed abandonment pressure, psig
Average reservoir temperature, OF
Hydrocarbon pore space (by volumelrics), cu ft
Gas expansion factor (8,) of produced fluid
at original pressure, Mscflbbl
Gas expansion factor (B,) of produced fluid
at dewpoint, Mscf/bbl
7,000
6,010
700
256
500x 10
1.545
1.471
(6,590)(181.74)=1,197,667 bbl.
Condensate producedfiom dewpoint pressure to aban-
donment:
(130,992)(51.91)=6,799,795
Total condensate produced:
1,197,667+6,799,795=7,997,462
Percent recoveries by pressure depletion from dewpoint
pressure to abandonment:
Wet gas=
102,045
~ x 100=77.9%;
130,992
Condensate =
6,799,795
x 100=28.6%.
181.74x 130,992
The total plant products can be calculated in a similar man-
ner, depending on the flow streams to be processed and
the recovery efficiencies anticipated.
Predictions With Vapor/Liquid Equilibrium
Calculation and Correlations
In the absence of direct laboratory data on a specific gas-
condensate system, pressure-depletion behavior can be es-
timated with vapor/liquid equilibrium ratios (i.e., equi-
librium constants, equilibrium factors or K values) to
compute the phase behavior when the composition of the
total gas-condensate system is known. Correlations for
estimating phase volumes must also be available.
When multicomponent hydrocarbon gases and liquids
exist together under pressure, part of the lighter hydrocar-
bons (light ends) are dissolved in the liquid phase, and
part of the heavier hydrocarbons (heavy ends) are vapo-
rized in the gas phase. A convenient concept to describe
the behavior of specific components quantitatively is the
equilibrium ratio. The ratios vary considerably with the
pressure, temperature, and composition of the system in-
volved
The equilibrium ratio is defined as the mole fraction
of a given constituent in the vapor phase divided by the
mole fraction of the same constituent in the liquid phase,
the two phases existing in equilibrium with each other.
The equilibrium ratio is designated as K. The basis for
this definition is discussed in Chap. 23 and by Standing. 9
Fig. 23.21 illustrates the behavior of equilibrium ratios
for a particular system and shows the rather wide variation
possible for a given constituent at different pressures. The
figure shows a tendency of the equilibrium ratios to con-
verge isothermally to a value of K= 1 at a specific pres-
sure. The pressure is roperly called the apparent
convergence pressure.
g
The selection of equilibrium-
ratio values for calculations usually is based on the sys-
tems apparent convergence pressure, which can change
in a pressure-depletion process because of changing sys-
tem composition with pressure decline.
Large inaccuracies can occur in pressure-depletion cal-
culations with equilibrium ratios when the heavier
hydrocarbons (e.g., heptanes and heavier) are not ade-
quately described. To obtain satisfactory results in cal-
culating pressure-depletion behavior of a gas-condensate
system, an extended analysis of the CT+ fraction should
be made. A determination of the the molar distribution
of CT+ through at least C!z=, is recommended. As can be
observed in Table 39.4, the CT+ component of the sub-
ject gas-condensate fluid exhibited a change in molecu-
lar weight from 158 at a pressure of 6,010 psig to 109
at a pressure of 700 psig. The change in density of the
C 7 + component was from 0.827 to 0.778 over the same
pressure range. Table 39.4 also shows that at 700 psig,
the molecular weight of the CT+ in the liquid phase is
174, compared to 109 in the gas phase, and the density
is 0.837 in the liquid phase, compared to 0.778 in the gas
phase. This change in composition of the C7+ fraction
with pressure reduction leads to large errors in the vapor/
liquid split of the CT+ fraction when equilibrium ratios
are used and in the resultant molecular weight and density
of the calculated gas and liquid volumes.
Should such an extended analysis of the CT+ compo-
nent not be available, then a statistical split should be made
that maintains the integrity of the average molecular
weight and density of the CT+ component. Once the CT+
component has been divided into multiple pseudocompo-
nents, the physical properties required to make reservoir
flash calculations must be developed.
Wbitson30 presents a method for determining the molar
distribution of single-carbon-number (SCN) groups that
are defined by their boiling points as a function of each
groups molecular weight. To make the distribution, a
three-parameter gamma probability function is used.
Whitson also presents equations for calculating the re-
quired physical properties with the Watson3 characteri-
zation factor. This method can be easily programmed for
a personal computer and permits rapid development of
molar distribution and physical properties. A statistical
expansion of the C7+ component of the gas-condensate
fluid presented in Table 39.2 has been made with the teeh-
nique Whitson described. The results of this expansion
39-12
are presented in Table 39.9. The ability to calculate ac-
curately the pressure-depletion performance of a gas-
condensate reservoir depends on proper characterization
of the vapor/liquid equilibrium ratios (K values) of the
hydrocarbon system.
Equilibrium ratios for nonhydrocarbon components and
hydrocarbons C, throu h C 10 can be found in the En-
gineering Data Book.
15
Hoffman et al. 32 and Cook et
al. 33 have presented methods for developing K values for
the pseudocomponents. Hoffman et al. s procedure can
be programmed easily for a personal computer for rapid
development of equilibrium ratios. An alternative method
is to plot the methane and normal pentane K values as
a function of their boiling points on a semilog graph for
each depletion pressure to be calculated. An equation can
be determined for a straight line connecting these two
points. The K value for each of the other components and
pseudocomponents can then be calculated for each pres-
sure point with their individual boiling points. This method
of obtaining K values was used in the earlier example cal-
culation. There are some limitations on the accuracy of
the data derived by these methods unless some measured
data on similar hydrocarbon systems are available. How-
ever, the data should be usable for the quick, rough ap-
proximations often needed in the preliminary reservoir
evaluation stage. The C t through Cc composition of the
gas-condensate fluid presented in Table 39.2 was used to
develop a K-value relationship for the extended C7+
compositions. The resultant relationship is presented in
Fig. 39.6.
Chap. 23 describes the general techniques of the use
of vapor/liquid equilibrium ratios to compute the phase
compositions and magnitudes of hydrocarbon gas/liquid
mixtures. Standing also has an excellent presentation of
this usage, including a discussion of the serious errors
that can result in calculating the phase behavior of gas-
condensate systems. When these methods are used to es-
timate the pressure-depletion behavior of a gas-condensate
reservoir, the following procedure is used.
1. Assume that the original (known) composition flashes
from original pressure (and volume) to a lower pressure,
at which the compositions and amounts (in moles) of the
liquid and gas phases are computed with the best K values
available.
2. Estimate the volume of each phase with the methods
discussed below.
3. Assume that enough vapor-phase volume is removed
(produced) at constant pressure to cause the remaining
gas plus all the liquid to conform to the reservoirs original
constant volume.
COUPONENT BOI LI NGPOI NT OR
CO2
275
N HO
w MO
E:
217
I%
, "d,
462
NC4 482
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
BOI LI NG POI NT
CONDENSATE NO7 FLUI D
CT. 869
000,
0 200 400 Kc 803 1000 12M) 1403
BOI LI NG POI NT, ' RANKl NE
Fig. 39.6-K-value correlation for Condensate 7 depletion.
4. Subtract the number of moles of each component in
the vapor represented by this gas removal from the origi-
nal system composition.
5. With the new total composition from Step 4, consider
the system flashed to the next lower pressure step and
repeat the procedure. Removal of vapor phase alone is
required by the assumption that fluid flowing into the wells
will not be accompanied by any liquid phase at any step
of the process.
As indicated previously, the calculations require knowl-
edge of the volume occupied by each phase at each pres-
sure step. Methods to estimate these volumes are described
in Chaps. 20 and 22 and also by Standing. 9 To estimate
phase volumes, smoothed values should be used from
curves drawn through the points computed from properties
of the phase at each known composition.
TABLE 39.9-STATISTICAL EXPANSION OF C,, COMPONENT, CONDENSATE 7
C 7+ Mole fraction 0.0999
Molecular weight 158.0
Density, g/cm 0.827
Density Boiling Point
Component Mole Fraction Mole Weight (g/cm3)
(W
C7 0.01685 100.9 0.7486 658
2 0.01535 0.01235 113.6 126.9 0.7648 0.7813 702
40 0.00941 139.5 0.7960 748 791
C 0.04594 ,I+ 205.1 0.8641 1,020
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS
39-13
These calculations are intended to approximate the
experimental procedure used in the PVT cell during a
laboratory pressure-depletion study. The number of pres-
sure steps used in making such calculations is arbitrary
but probably should conform to about SOO-psi intervals,
with points usually closer together at the start and at the
end of the calculations. The calculated depletion perform-
ance of Condensate 7 is presented in Table 39.10. The
dewpoint pressure of 5,277 psig was calculated with an
empirical relationship Nemeth and Kennedy j4 present-
ed. The best method to determine the dewpoint pressure
is by direct measurement, as in the laboratory PVT anal-
ysis. If these data are not available, then one must resort
to estimation by empirical methods. such as that used in
this example, or by gas/liquid production performance.
In the latter choice, one must deplete the reservoir to a
pressure below the dewpoint. In Table 39.10 a compari-
son of wet gas and condensate recoveries is made between
the laboratory-measured and calculated depletion perform-
ance. As can be seen from the comparison, large errors
are possible in the calculated data resulting from estima-
tion of the dewpoint pressure and the physical properties
of the reservoir fluid.
Hydrocarbon/Liquid Condensation; Effect on
Gas-Condensate Behavior
For some gas-condensate systems, large amounts of liq-
uid can be condensed during pressure depletion, resulting
in high liquid saturations in the formation pores. When
this probability is indicated by either laboratory tests or
calculations, the possibility of hydrocarbon/liquid flow
through and out of the reservoir must be examined. Rela-
tive permeability information (usually curves showing
k,/k, vs. liquid saturation in the formation) should be
combined with viscosity data (pO/pR) to estimate the
volumetric proportion of liquid in the flowing stream (thus
removed from the reservoir), thereby affecting the remain-
ing reservoir phase compositions at each of the depletion
steps. The best k,gpu,/k,p., data to use are those deter-
mined in the laboratory with actual samples of the reser-
voir rock and hydrocarbon system in question. In the
absence of such information, k,/k, can be estimated by
the methods explained in Chap. 28; viscosity approxima-
tions may be made by the methods described by Carr et
al. 23 After the amount of gas and liquid removed at each
step has been estimated, the calculation procedures can
be adjusted to obtain the desired behavior predictions.
Pressure Drawdown at Wells; Effect on Well
Productivity and Recovery
The previous discussion has taken liquid condensation in
the formation into account as though it occurred uniformly
throughout the reservoir (uniform pressure at any instant
of time). In low-permeability formations, however, there
can be appreciable pressure drawdown at the producing
wells because the pressures near the wellbores are much
lower than in the main part of the reservoir. This tends
to increase the early condensation of liquids around the
wells considerably, thus decreasing the gas permeability
and affecting the phase behavior of the system near the
wells. This is important from at least two standpoints:
(1) composition history of fluids produced from the reser-
voir may diverge from that predicted by assuming uni-
form pressure in the reservoir at any instant of time and
(2) adverse effects on the ability of the wells to produce
may occur, potentially affecting the optimum well spacing
and the rate of gas-condensate recovery from the zone
as pressures decline.
The effects of well-pressure drawdown on the compo-
sition history (and ultimate liquid recoveries) of gas-
condensate reservoir production have had little discussion
in the literature. The general expectation would be that
in lower-pressure areas around the wells, liquid hydrocar-
bons are precipitated earlier and in greater amounts than
in the main volume of the reservoir. The main factors in-
volved in this phenomenon are the richness of the gas
condensate, the retrograde characteristics of the reservoir
fluid, and the permeability of the reservoir rock. Normal-
ly, the area around the wellbore that is affected will be
small and the condition will stabilize. Normal operating
practices to restrict the pressure drawdown to reasonable
values will alleviate the problem. In those reservoirs that
exhibit extremely low permeability and contain fluids ex-
hibiting condensable liquids of more than 200 bbl/MMscf,
the problem can be severe. When separator samples are
taken for the laboratory, the analysis procedure discussed
previously should be followed to minimize the drawdown
effect on the gas and liquid compositions.
The effects on well productivity of precipitated liquid
in the vicinity of the wellbore theoretically can be ap-
preciable. Normally, estimates of future well productivity
ignore the drawdown effects of production on liquid-
phase distribution in the reservoir. The greater liquid ac-
cumulations and lower gas permeabilities near the wells
thus are ignored in theoretical predictions of well produc-
tivity (or extrapolations from early tests); these predic-
tions then tend to show minimum decline rates. The
operating engineer should be alert to this possibility
whenever calculated well or reservoir rates approach un-
desirably close to the minimum necessary for the operating
objectives of the project. Well productivity is discussed
later.
Relative Merits of Measured vs. Calculated
Pressure-Depletion Behavior
This chapter has emphasized that for purposes of reservoir
analysis and prediction, measured properties and observed
behavior of gas-condensate systems are much superior to
the use of correlations or approximations. This applies
in particular to the use of equilibrium ratios for simulat-
ing or predicting the pressure-depletion behavior of a
reservoir. The problem is discussed and illustrated by
Standing 9 in his Vapor Liquid Equilibria and Gas-
Condensate Systems chapters. In particular, Standings
Fig. 36 shows that serious errors (in excess of 40%) can
be incurred in the computation of the liquid volume of
a gas-condensate system from errors of less than 10% in
the equilibrium ratios for heptanes-plus and methane.
The literature contains reports on the use of equilibri-
um ratios for calculating the reservoir behavior of gas-
condensate systems. Allen and Roe3 computed the
pressure-depletion behavior of a gas-condensate reservoir
and observed certain discrepancies with the actual be-
havior. These authors did not report laboratory-measured
equilibrium ratios for the specific fluids involved, how-
ever; consequently, there were no means to compare com-
puted fluid behavior with actual fluid behavior. All the
observed discrepancies were assigned arbitrarily by Allen
39-14 PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
TABLE 39.10-CALCULATED COMPOSITION OF PRODUCED STREAM, mol%
Reservoir pressure (psig)
Carbon dioxide
Nitrogen
Methane
Ethane
Propane
Iso-butane
n-butane
Iso-pentane
n-pentane
Hexanes
Fraction C,
Fraction C,
Fraction C,
Fraction C ,0
Fraction C , , +
Heptanes-plus
mol%
molecular weight
density
Deviation factor, z
equilibrium gas
two-phase
Gas FVF, Mscf/scf
Retrograde liquid volume,
% hydrocarbon pore space
Well stream, Mscf
Normal temperature
separation *
Stock-tank liquid, bbl
Primary separator gas, Mscf
Second-stage gas, Mscf
Stock-tank gas, Mscf
Total separator gas, Mscf
5,277 5,000
0.01 0.01
Cl.11 0.11
68.93 70.74
8.63 8.67
5.34 5.28
1.15 1.12
2.33 2.26
0.93 0.89
0.85 0.81
1.73 1.62
1.685 1.55
1.535 1.38
1.235 1.09
0.941 0.81
4.594 3.66
100.000 100.00
9.990 8.49
156 155
0.825 0.822
1.021 0.987 0.901 0.861 0.863 0.899 0.930
1.021 1.009 0.922 0.845 0.782 0.695 0.595
0.2561 0.2511 0.2201 0.1730 0.1211 0.0668 0.0380
0.000 15.3 26.96 27.89 26.43 23.85 21.95
4,000
0.01
0.13
74.77
a.77
5.13
1.06
2.10
0.79
0.71
1.35
1.21
1 .Ol
0.73
0.49
1.74
100.00
5.18
146
0.812
3.000
0.01 0.01
0.13 0.13
77.09 78.05
8.88 9.04
5.05 5.10
1 .Ol 1.01
1.99 1.96
0.73 0.69
0.64 0.61
1.15 1.03
0.97 0.82
0.75 0.59
0.49 0.35
0.30 0.19
0.81 0.42
100.00 100.00
3.32 2.37
137 129
0.802 0.793
2,100 1,200
0.01 0.01 Trace
0.12 0.12 0.01
77.55 75.53 12.29
9.37 9.76 4.22
5.41 5.95 5.02
1.08 1.22 1.62
2.09 2.41 3.80
0.73 0.86 2.14
0.64 0.75 2.16
1.04 1.23 5.97
0.78 0.90 7.33
0.52 0.59 7.92
0.28 0.31 7.34
0.14 0.15 6.14
0.24 0.21 34.04
100.00 100.00 100.00
1.96 2.16 62.77
124 121 166
0.784 0.780 0.832
700
Cumulative recovery per MMScf of original flurd
Initial
in place
1 .ooo
5.277 5,000
0.00 40.73
Reservoir pressure (psig)
4,000 3,000 2,100
160.03 311.34 478.33
1,200 700
662.91 768.03
183.13 0.00 6.91 21.98 34.00 42.98 50.71 55.05
776.98 0.00 32.46 138.96 280.26 437.60 610.03 707.57
37.01 0.00 1.42 4.76 7.74 10.21 12.58 14.08
38.31 0.00 1.50 5.26 8.92 12.19 15.60 17.93
852.30 0.00 35.38 148.98 296.92 460.00 638.21 739.58
Comparison of Recovery Calculations
Laboratory
Depletion
Gas in place at original pressure, MMscf 137,582
Gas in place at dewpoint pressure, MMscf 130,992
Wet gas produced to dewpornt pressure, MMscf 6,590
Wet gas produced from dewpoint to abandonment, MMscf 102,045
Total wet gas produced, MMscf 108,635
Condensate produced to dewpoint pressure, bbl 1,197,667
Condensate produced from dewpoint to abandonment, bbl 5,297,156
Total condensate produced, bbl 6,494,823
Calculated
Depletion
137,582
128,050
9,532
98,346
107,878
1,745,595
5,413,947
7,159,542
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS
39-15
and Roe to factors other than the possible inaccuracies
of equilibrium ratios from correlations compared with ac-
tual measured ratios for the particular system composition
and reservoir conditions involved. Some of these dis-
crepancies were probably attributable to the equilibrium
ratios used.
Berrymanj6 compared calculated gas-condensate fluid
performance with that actually obtained in the laboratory;
however, he made observations on actual vapor/liquid
equrlibrium in the laboratory cell and adjusted the litera-
ture equilibrium ratios to conform to this actual behavior.
With the adjusted vapor/liquid equilibrium ratios, the cal-
culated performance was found to match actual reservoir
performance during early life satisfactorily.
Rodgers ef ul. j7 provided detailed laboratory data,
vapor/liquid equilibrium calculations, and actual reservoir
performance for a small gas-condensate reservoir in Utah.
The pressure range involved was moderate compared with
most cases. Even at these moderate pressures, however,
the literature-derived equilibrium ratios for heptanes-plus
did not agree favorably with measured values for the sys-
tem. The authors commented that the appearance of the
data. clearly shows the need for improved techniques
in establishing proper equilibrium data.
On the basis of this experience and for the reasons
Standing stated, it would appear desirable to use measured
values of phase and volumetric behavior for a gas-conden-
sate system in predicting the pressure-depletion behavior
of a gas-condensate reservoir. As more data are obtained
and better correlating methods developed, it is possible
that equilibrium ratios may achieve suitable accuracy for
reservoir-type calculations in the future. Numerous
equation-of-state (EOS) calculation techniques have been
developed that produce phase equilibrium data that can
be used to perform depletion calculations for gas-
condensate reservoirs. Many are discussed in Refs. 38
through 40. The use of EOS methods, while more flexible
and in many cases more accurate, requires sophisticated
computer programs that may or may not be available or
warranted. Continued improvement in techniques using
EOSs may enhance the accuracy of calculated pressure-
depletion performance.
Operation by Pressure Maintenance
or Cycling
Pressure maintenance of a gas-condensate reservoir can
exist by virtue of (1) an active water drive after moderate
reduction of pressure from early production, (2) pressure
maintenance through water injection operations, (3) in-
jection of gas, or (4) combinations of all of these. From
time to time, certain reservoirs may be encountered that
have fluids near their critical points and that thereby may
be candidates for special recovery methods, such as the
injection of specially tailored gas compositions to provide
miscibility and phase-change processes that could improve
recovery efficiency. These usually are not regarded as gas-
condensate cases.
Water Drive and Water Injection
Pressure Maintenance
Very few cases of gas-condensate reservoirs operated un-
der natural water drive have been reported in the litera-
ture. To be attractive economically. a water drive would
have to be sufficiently strong to maintain pressure high
enough to minimize condensed hydrocarbon losses in the
formation. Under these conditions, expenditures for cy-
cling or other pressure-maintenance operations might not
be justified: a careful engineering and economic analysis
should be made if this possibility seems imminent. The
analysis should include a geologic review of conditions
surrounding the reservoir to estimate whether any indi-
cated early water drive is apt to last for the life of the
operation. There are also other considerations to be
studied carefully. including the expenses of dewatering
or working over invaded producing wells, the displace-
ment efficiency of water moving gas. and the potential
bypassing and loss of condensate fluids when wells be-
come watered-out prematurely through permeable
stringers [invasion efficiency (see Pages 39- 17 and 39- 18)
of the natural flood]. Should this last possibility exist, use
of a natural water drive would be of doubtful value if the
amount of hydrocarbons in place is large. In any case,
predictions of recovery by natural water drive should take
into account the factors for water injection discussed
below.
The injection of water into a gas-condensate reservoir
to maintain pressure is sometimes considered. A number
of factors must be weighed carefully before a decision
is reached. The mobility ratio (mobility of driving fluid
over mobility of the driven fluid, water/gas) in this case
is favorably low because of the very high mobility of the
gas, thus tending to provide high areal sweep and pattern
(@S-weighted) efficiencies. There is strong evidence,
however. that displacement efficiency by the water is not
high. While Buckley et al. 4 indicated that the displace-
ment efficiency of water driving out gas can be as high
as 80 to 85%, experiments and field observations by
Geffen et al. indicate that it may be as low as 50%.
This is offset to some extent by the improved area1 sweep
efficiency enjoyed at a low mobility ratio. All things con-
sidered, the recovery of gas condensate in the vapor phase
by water injection is likely to be appreciably lower than
by cycling, and any consideration of water injection for
gas-condensate recovery should be accompanied by de-
tailed experimental work on cores from the specific reser-
voir involved. This will help to determine whether the
water can, in fact, accomplish a high enough displace-
ment efficiency to justify its use.
Should water injection be decided on, gas and liquid
recovery predictions for the reservoir can be made by
combining the pattern (h&Gweighted). invasion, and dis-
placement efficiencies with a knowledge of the conden-
sable-liquids content of the gas-condensate system at the
pressure chosen for pressure maintenance. As an example,
an area1 sweep efficiency of 90% (based on an extremely
low mobility ratio for water displacing gas) might be ap-
plied to the case cited on Page 39-24. Taking into account
the thickness variations of the reservoir, this might pro-
vide a pattern (h&S-weighted) efficiency of about 95 %
With an assumed invasion efficiency of 65 % within the
invaded volume, water injection for this case would have
swept out about 55% (product of the above three efhcien-
ties) of the vapor phase in place at the start of injection.
This compares with the actual recovery of more than 86%
of the wet vapor by cycling operations. as discussed on
Page 39-22.
39-I 6
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
These estimates of possible gas recoveries by either a
natural water drive or water injection can be affected
materially by the permeability distribution in the reservoir.
The presence of large differences in permeability will re-
sult in premature water breakthrough. Flowing gas wells
tend to load up when producing water and, depending
on the vertical flow velocity and bottomhole flowing pres-
sure, may cease to flow. This inability to flow results from
sufficient water dropping out in the tubing to form a
hydrostatic water column that exerts a pressure equal to
the bottomhole pressure. It is difficult to obtain econom-
ical flow rates by artificial lift. This loss of productivity
may result in premature abandonment of the project. The
problems would be particularly serious for deeper reser-
voirs where the cost of removing water would be a signifi-
cant factor. Yuster4 discusses possible remedial methods
for drowned gas wells. Bennett and AuvenshineM discuss
dewatering gas wells. Dunning and Eakin4 describe an
inexpensive method to remove water from drowned gas
wells with foaming agents.
Generally, the use of water injection for maintaining
pressure in a gas-condensate reservoir is unlikely to be
attractive where a wide range of permeabilities exists in
a layered reservoir and selective breakthrough of water
into producing wells might be expected before an ap-
preciable fraction of the gas condensate in place could be
recovered.
Reservoir Cycling, Gas Injection
Dry-Gas Injection. Comparative economics determines
whether a gas-condensate reservoir should be produced
by pressure depletion or by pressure maintenance.
The objective of using dry-gas injection in gas-
condensate reservoirs is to maintain the reservoir pressure
high enough (usually above or near the dewpoint) to
minimize the amount of retrograde liquid condensation.
Dry field gases are miscible with nearly all reservoir gas-
condensate systems: methane normally is the primary con-
stituent of dry field gas. Dry-gas cycling of gas-condensate
reservoirs is a special case of miscible-phase displacement
of hydrocarbon fluids for improving recovery. Experi-
mentation has shown that the displacement of one fluid
by another that is miscible with it is highly efficient on
a microscopic scale; usually the efficiency is considered
100% or very nearly so. This is one of the factors that
explain the effectiveness and attractiveness of cycling.
Another advantage of cycling is that it provides a means
to obtain liquid recoveries from reservoirs at economical
rates while at the same time avoiding waste of the pro-
duced gas when a market for that gas is not available;
the operation provides at its termination a reservoir of dry
gas with a potentially greater economic value.
Inert-Gas Injection. The demand for dry gas as a market-
able commodity varies, and the economic aspects of re-
taining dry cycled gas in reservoirs for future use have
a changing significance. Most conservation laws in the
U.S. still provide for minimizing waste of condensable
liquids that would result if gas-condensate reservoirs were
depleted through the retrograde range in a manner that
left large liquid volumes unrecoverable.
The use of inert gas to replace voidage during cycling
of gas-condensate reservoirs can be an economical altema-
tive to dry natural gas. One of the first successful inert-
gas injection projects was in 1949 at Elk Basin, WY,46
where stack gas from steam boilers was used for injection.
In 1959, the first successful use of internal combustion
engine exhaust was seen in a Louisiana oil field.47 The
first use of pure cryogenic produced nitrogen to prevent
the retrograde loss of liquids from a gas-condensate fluid
was in the Wilcox 5 sand in the Fordoche field located
in Pointe Coupee Parish, LA.48 In the Fordoche field,
the nitrogen was used as makeup gas. The nitrogen
amounted to about 30% of the natural-gas/nitrogen mix-
ture injected.
Moses and Wilsons49 studies confirmed that the mix-
ing of nitrogen with a gas-condensate fluid elevated the
dewpoint pressure. Moses and Wilson also presented data
to show that the mixing of a lean gas with a rich-gas con-
densate would also result in a fluid with a higher dew-
point pressure. The increase in dewpoint pressure was
greater with nitrogen than with the lean gas. In the same
study, results are presented from slim-tube displacement
tests of the same gas-condensate fluid both by pure nitro-
gen and by a lean gas. In both displacements, more than
98% recovery of reservoir liquid was achieved. These test
results were also observed by Peterson, 5o who used gas-
cap gas material from the Painter field located in southwest
Wyoming. The authors concluded that the observed results
were obtained because of multiple-contact miscibility.
Cryogenic-produced nitrogen possesses many desirable
physical properties. 5 Those that make nitrogen most
useful for a cycling fluid are that it is totally inert (non-
corrosive) and that it has a higher compressibility factor
than lean gas (requires less volume). The latter advan-
tage is partially offset by increased compression require-
ments when compared with lean gas.
Until the mid 1970s, most inert-gas injection consisted
of injection of combustion or boiler gas into oil zones.
The need for an alternative source of gas for gas-con-
densate-cycling projects emerged because of the high cost
of hydrocarbon gas needed to replace reservoir voidage.
The combustion and boiler gas that had been used to dis-
place oil miscibly contains byproducts (CO. 02, HzO,
and NO, +) that are highly corrosive5* and decrease cost
effectiveness.
Economic parameters used to evaluate any process are
by their nature representative only under the general ec-
onomic conditions during which they are prepared. There-
fore, there will be no attempt here to present representa-
tive economic data. However, one should be cognizant
of and take into account those variables peculiar to a par-
ticular process when applying current economic parame-
ters to compare different processes.
Many factors affect the economics of a gas-cycling proj-
ect. The major factors are product prices, makeup gas
costs, liquid content of reservoir gas, and degree of reser-
voir heterogeneity. When inert-gas injection is considered,
some important additional factors should also be consid-
ered. Donohoe and Buchanan and Wilson have dis-
cussed these factors.
The use of inert gas as a cycling fluid offers both ad-
vantages and disadvantages. The major advantages are that
it permits early sale of residue gas and liquids, resulting
in greater discounted net income and that a higher recov-
ery of total hydrocarbons is achieved because the reservoir
contains large volumes of nitrogen rather than hydrocar-
bon gas at abandonment.
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS 39-17
Offsetting these advantages are some disadvantages:
production problems and increased operating costs caused
by corrosion if combustion or flue gas is used as cycling
fluid; possible additional capital investments to remove
the inert gas from the sales gas, to pretreat before com-
pression, and/or to fund reinjection facilities; and early
breakthrough of inert gas caused by high degrees of het-
erogeneity in the reservoir, resulting in excessive oper-
ating costs to obtain marketable sales gas.
All these factors should be evaluated properly when the
depletion method is selected.
Calculation of Cycling Performance. Methods of cal-
culating reservoir performance under gas-cycling opera-
tions generally fall into one of two categories: feasibility
and/or sensitivity analysis or detailed design and evalua-
tion. The calculation method selected usually is deter-
mined after consideration of the quality and quantity of
data available and the ultimate use of the engineering
study.
When the potential of a gas-condensate reservoir for
cycling is first considered, it is generally desirable to make
calculations that require the use of some reasonably sim-
plifying assumptions. In this manner, relatively rapid and
inexpensive results can be obtained that define the approx-
imate cycling rate, cycling life, ultimate recovery, and
profitability. If, at the conclusion of these studies, it ap-
pears that gas cycling is feasible, more detailed and ex-
acting studies can be made with mathematical simulators
to evaluate the earlier results and to design the most advan-
tageous distribution of injection and producing wells.
Efficiency and Effectiveness of Cycling. The principal
factors determining reservoir cycling efficiency have been
used with interchangeable labels and definitions in the
literature. It is therefore necessary to define the various
efficiencies clearly. The engineer should define and ex-
plain terms carefully when reporting estimates on gas-
condensate reservoir behavior.
Reservoir Cycling Efficiency. ER is defined as the
reservoir wet hydrocarbons recovered during cycling
divided by the reservoir wet hydrocarbons in place in the
productive volume of the reservoir at the start of cycling.
Both figures must be computed at the same pressure and
temperature; e.g., at reservoir conditions or at standard
conditions. The reservoir cycling efficiency can be visual-
ized as the product of three other efficiencies: pattern
(h@S-weighted), invasion, and displacement. A fourth ef-
ficiency factor, area1 sweep, can be evaluated for various
injection patterns using analog or mathematical models.
All efficiency terms used (except displacement efficien-
cy) must be identified as to time-i.e., time of dry-gas
breakthrough into first producing well, time of break-
through into last well, end of cycling, or other suitable
designation.
Area1 Sweep Efficiency. EA is the area enclosed by the
leading edge of the dry-gas front (outer limit of injected
gas) divided by the total area of reservoir that was produc-
tive at the start of cycling. (Black oil, if present, is usually
excluded from these areas.) Area of sweep can be esti-
mated closely from analog or mathematical model studies
(discussed later) or by observing the locations of wells
developing dry-gas content during actual operations. The
area1 sweep efficiency depends primarily on the injection
and production well patterns and rates and the lateral
homogeneity of the formations from a permeability and
porosity standpoint. Lesser factors affecting areal sweep
efficiency include variations in water content of the pores;
time of operation of the compression plant in relation to
the input capacities of the wells and their locations in the
reservoir; the activity, if any, of a natural water drive;
and the presence and handling of black-oil wells if an oil
ring exists in the reservoir. Mathematical model tech-
niques (Chap. 48) provide a useful means for predicting
the areal sweep efficiencies of gas-condensate reservoirs
and, simultaneously, the rate of frontal advance of the in-
jected dry gas. For such studies, a reasonable amount of
subsurface data is needed on sand characteristics, reservoir
fluid properties, properties of injected fluid, and geologic
description.
Pattern (hcpS- Weighted) Efficiency. E,, is the
hydrocarbon pore space enclosed by the projection
(through full reservoir thickness) of the leading edge of
the dry-gas front divided by the total productive hydrocar-
bon pore space of the reservoir at start of cycling. (Black
oil, if present, is usually excluded from these volumes.)
The hydrocarbon volume contained within the dry-gas-
front projection can be determined by outlining the
farthest-advanced position of the front (from model studies
or field observations) on a hydrocarbon isovol map (isovol
maps are developed from data on sand thickness, porosi-
ty, and interstitial water content), determining the
hydrocarbon volume enclosed by this line, and comparing
the volume with total reservoir productive hydrocarbon
pore space. Note that the definition specifies projection
of the leading edge and avoids stating whether either
the entire gross or entire microscopic PVs are invaded
or displaced by the injected gas. For the special cases in
which productive thickness, porosity, interstitial water
content, and effective permeability are each uniform, the
pattern (h&S-weighted) and areal sweep efficiencies are
the same. The pattern (&S-weighted) efficiency in general
depends on the same factors discussed for areal sweep
efficiency. Expected pattern (&S-weighted) efficiencies
of nearly 95 % have been predicted under favorable con-
ditions.
Invasion Efficiency. El is the hydrocarbon pore space
invaded (contacted or affected) by the injected gas divided
by the hydrocarbon pore space enclosed by the projection
(through full reservoir thickness) of the leading edge of
the dry-gas front. (Sometimes volumetric sweep efficien-
cy, E,, =E, X El, is used.) The definition says nothing
about the effectiveness of the invading fluid in forcing
original fluid out of the pores contacted. The term ver-
tical sweep efficiency has sometimes been used in the
sense of invasion efficiency. This is misleading in that
it uses a one-dimensional term (vertical) when dealing
with a three-dimensional problem. Invasion efficiencies
can be as high as 90% under favorable conditions.
However, invasion is affected significantly by large var-
iations in reservoir flow properties, These might be strictly
lateral variations in horizontal permeability (and to a lesser
extent in porosity and interstitial water content) of a single-
bed reservoir that does not have any variations vertically
at any location; strictly layering effects by which the reser-
voir may comprise several strata, each relatively uniform
in properties but differing appreciably in permeability
from all the others; or combinations of these extreme
cases. Performance of cycling operations can vary ap-
39-18
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
TABLE 39.11 -EFFICIENCY TERMS USED IN RESERVOIR CYCLING OPERATIONS
Areai Sweep Pattern IhoS-weIghted)
Efhoency Eil~ciency lnvas~on Elflcency Displacement Efflclency Reservar Cycling Efflcencv
Area enclosed by Hydrocarbon pore space Hydrocarbon pore space Wet hydrocarbon volume Reservmr we, hydrocarbons
leadtng edge 01 enclosed by Ihe invaded by (contacted Or swepl out of lndlvldual recovered drlg Cycling
~n,ected-gas (dryugas, pro,ectlo jrhrough full affected by) dry gas dlwded pores or Small groups 01 dwded by resewo~r we,
lronl dlwded by total resewxr Ihlckness) of by hydrocarbon pore S!XXX pores dwded bv hvdrocarbons I place at starI
area of re*erYoll leadmg edge of drygas enclosed by Itw pro,ecmn ai cycl,ng (calculated at same
r,rodctlve at 51111 01 front diwded bv total (Ihrouqh full leservolr temperature and pressure)
sweep efllciency
IReI 5 pages 657
77, and 777 Ret
51 Pages 246 and
247 and Rel 13
Pages 308-09)
sweep elficlency iReI Elf,c~ency caused by
5. Pages 755 763 and permeab!My stral!flcatlon
770 and Ret 13 IRet 13. pages 408-09)
pages 40s09).
Displacement etficlency
(Rel 56. Pages 130 and
136 and Ret 13 Pages
408-09)
Flood efiumcy (Rel 59
Pages 358 and 374)
Flood coverage IRel
59 pages 358 and
374,
Conformance laclot lRel 56 Pages 130 and 136)
Sweeping elhclency Conformance factor (Ref
(&I 57) 571
Pattern elilclency (M Flushing elf,cencv (Ref
60 pages 63 64. 98 4 1, Pages 246 and 247)
and 99 and Rel 54
Page 77)
D6placement l&f 61
Page 110)
sweep ehxncy IRet 5
pages 612 771. and 7881
preciably according to what combination of the two ex-
tremes may exist for a given reservoir. Mathematical
models can handle reservoir heterogeneities, both horizon-
tally and vertically, if the data are available. Maximum
use of core analysis data, pressure buildup and drawdown
analysis, and detailed analysis of downhole logs is re-
quired to ensure an accurate evaluation of a reservoirs
potential as a cycling project.
Displacement Efficiency. ED is the volume of wet
hydrocarbons swept out of individual pores or small
groups of pores divided by the volume of hydrocarbons
in the same pores at the start of cycling; note that both
volumes must be calculated at the same conditions of pres-
sure and temperature. This term is used here because it
has received wide acceptance in the literature (on immis-
cible as well as miscible processes) for the microscopic
displacement of fluids. Displacement efficiency is con-
trolled mainly by the miscibility of the driving and driven
fluids and their mobilities. For a cycling operation in
which the pressure is being maintained at or above the
dewpoint, the displacement efficiency resulting from ac-
tion of the dry gas against the wet-gas phase in the in-
dividual pores will be virtually 100% because of near-
complete miscibility and the near-identical mobility ratios
of the two fluids. If the pressure is well below the dew-
point, the displacement efficiency will be less than 100%
because of the immobility of the condensed liquid and in-
completeness of revaporization of the dry gas. Evaluation
of a case of this type requires trial calculations of
vapor/liquid equilibrium to estimate the extent to which
dry gas coming into contact with the condensed liquid
would revaporize some of the components and carry them
toward the producing wells.
Thus the reservoir cycling efficiency is the product of
the pattern (&S-weighted), invasion, and displacement
efficiencies, as summarized in Table 39.11, along with
the previous discussion, and usage of terms appearing in
some of the literature.
Permeability Distribution. Permeability variation, both
laterally and vertically, can have a strong influence on
recoveries by cycling. Vertical stratification of horizontal
permeability is probably the primary factor controlling
invasion efficiency. In reservoirs containing layers or
regions of contrasting permeabilities, the leading edge of
the dry-gas front (used in calculating invasion efficiency)
is at a different position for each layer. Field observations
usually establish the front on the basis of breakthrough
in the most-permeable layer, whereas mathematical model
studies may have been based on an average permeability
of layers or a discrete number of layers. thus predicting
later breakthrough. This possibility should be understood
when model predictions of breakthrough time are com-
pared with field observations. Detailed reservoir analysis
is required in developing a mathematical model to ensure
that the model used adequately reflects the properties of
the reservoir.
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS 39-19
TABLE 39.12-CALCULATIONS ILLUSTRATING THE DILUTION CAUSED BY WEIGHTED-AVERAGE PERMEABILITY
PROFILE-BASED ON 16 WELLS (COTTON VALLEY BODCAW GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIR)
1866 14 64
, 860 37 20
1855 74 20
1825 36 50
I 8 10 18100
3 14
6 16
1195
14 78
25 83
28 53
33 82
36 40
43 76
48 55
50 88
55 40
57 41
66 84
70 49
77 54
79 24
84 15
87 29
90 31
91 76
94 40
98 17
99 30
99 74
10000
1 23
1 36
1 19
77 4
78 9
80 4
84 3
86 2
76 3
77 4 15
39
19
20
78 4
80 9
81 9
83 0
84 0
88 3
90 8
91 9
88 2 22 89 30
90 4 96 95 20
1000 57 10280
105 7 35 10740
33 11090
1, 430
118 10
122 20
126 70
131 60
37
38
45
22 46
20 76
15 85
12 71
92 9
93 7
94 5
96 2 45
52
106
67
9 69
8 24
5 60
1 88
0 70
0 26
0 00
96 8
139 60
148 30
159 20
275 30
503 50
0 89
0 38
0 27
96 3
97 2
97 6 150
2173
239 0
1 52
0 62
97 8
99 4
1000
There can be several sources of comparative permea-
bility information for reservoir layers, including direct
measurements of permeabilities on cores removed from
wells, formation tests during drilling and completion,
comparative transmissibilities from carefully run injection
profiles, and flow, drawdown, and buildup tests on wells
completed in different layers. If different kinds of infor-
mation are to be used together, they should all be adjusted
to the same units for calculating the effects of permeability
variation on gas-condensate reservoir performance.
Much discussion has been published regarding the ef-
fects of permeability variation on the recoveries of
hydrocarbons from reservoirs. Discussions with particular
reference to as-condensate reservoirs have been provided
by Muskat,
B
+I Standing et al., 65 Miller and Lents, 66
and others. 67-70 Generally, the proposals to account for
the effect of permeability variations on gas-condensate
reservoir performance use two different methods of well-
to-well averaging of horizontal permeabilities. The first
method averages all high permeabilities from all wells
together (irrespective of vertical positions of the high-
permeability samples in the section) and all low permea-
bilities from all wells in another group, with intermedi-
ate permeabilities classified into one or more subgroups.
Each of the average permeabilities is regarded as a sin-
gle stratum continuous throughout the reservoir. This type
of averaging would appear to give maximum probability
of computed early breakthroughs of dry gas to producing
wells. In the second method, permeabilities are averaged
from well to well according to vertical position in the sec-
tion. For example, permeabilities in the top 10% of each
wells productive section might all be averaged together,
the next 10% together, and so on to the bottom. This
procedure maintains layers in their relative vertical posi-
tions in the reservoir, and thus, by averaging laterally,
the effects of any individual high-permeability samples
tend to be damped out unless high-permeability streaks
are actually persistent in one or more layers of the section.
Either of these methods can be used in solutions present-
ed by Muskat, 5XA who used the stratification ratio to
develop mathematical means of evaluating the effects of
vertical variation of permeability on cycling. Stratifi-
cation ratio is the ratio of the permeability of the most-
permeable recognizable layer in the section to that of the
least-permeable layer in the same section (these permea-
bilities are the layer average in each case, determined by
whatever means, rather than individual high or low per-
meabilities from single plugs or cores from the layer).
The Muskat development also assumes simple parallel su-
perposition of layers of different horizontal permeabili-
ties with no crossflow between. The resultant correlations
are presented graphically in the references.
Miller and Lents66 used the second type of lateral per-
meability averaging in their analysis of the Cotton Valley
Bodcaw reservoir. Their work should be reviewed for an
understanding of the detailed procedure used. The table
of permeabilities they developed (rearranged in descend-
ing order of magnitude) for illustrating the calculation of
dilution behavior of the subject reservoir with time is
shown here as Table 39.12. The calculation assumes no
39-20
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
sweep is sufficiently great in length. Few reservoirs
conform to a parallel deposition of lens, each of
different uniform permeability, unless one wishes to
subscribe to the worst possible consequences for cy-
cling, which can condemn the application of such a
program in a rich gas-condensate field.
Such unpublished information as has come to our at-
tention tends to substantiate the belief that most reservoirs
are not composed of continuous layers of contrasting pcr-
meabilities (with no crossflow) that would tend to produce
quick breakthrough during injection operations. Hursts
viewpoint should therefore be considered seriously by the
engineer predicting the behavior of cycling projects, be-
cause overemphasis on the permeability variation within
a reservoir could produce too pessimistic a view of pos-
sible recoveries and thereby condemn cycling in gas-
condensate reservoirs that might, in fact, yield profitable
cycling performance.
The second method for lateral averaging of permeabil-
ities is recommended, whether the Miller and Lents66
analysis or other techniques are applied to the handling
of permeability variation in gas-condensate reservoirs.
Proper consideration for pattern (&S-weighted) efficiency
must be given in each case.
Fig. 39.7~-Boundary of invaded area predicted by early poten-
tiometric model studies.
crossflow, and the reservoir is treated as though it were
composed of alternating layers of variable porosity and
permeability. It is also assumed that parallel flow occurs
simultaneously in the various layers with the same poten-
tial distribution throughout the layers. The injection wells
are treated as a line source, and the producing wells as
a line sink. Hence, the calculations in the table predict
the percentage of original reservoir hydrocarbon volume
at constant pressure produced at the instant each layer has
been displaced and the percentage of dry gas (and wet
gas) in the producing stream as more and more layers are
displaced (breakthrough). The recovery to any stage of
dilution in the produced gas can then be predicted; the
recovery Miller and Lents calculated (supported by later
production history, as shown by Brinkleyss5 Fig. 7) is
in good agreement with predictions from Muskats corre-
lations.
Very little has been published comparing the actual be-
havior and final recoveries of gas-condensate reservoirs
with those predicted with the different methods of account-
ing for permeability variation. Stelzer63 reports on the
performance of the Paluxy gas-condensate reservoir of
the Chapel Hill field, TX, the cycling behavior of which
had been predicted earlier by Marshall and Oliver. 58 This
analysis is discussed further later. In a discussion of Stel-
zers paper, Hurst takes the position that permeability var-
iation or stratification in a reservoir can be of minor
significance in controlling the ultimate recovery by
cycling:
The lithological nature of a reservoir is such that with
the interspersion of shale throughout, it can virtually
reproduce the configuration of a uniform sand if the
Prediction of Cycling Operations with Model Studies-
Analog Techniques. The steady-state flow of fluids
through porous media, when governed by Darcys law,
is analogous to the flow of current through an electrical
conductor governed by Ohms law. Thus steady-state
electrical-model studies have been used quite successfully
in the prediction of gas-condensate cycling operations.
The fundamental analogy between an electrical model
of a gas-condensate reservoir and the flow system of the
reservoir depends on the equivalence of electrical charge
to reservoir fluid, current flow to fluid flow, specific con-
ductivity to fluid mobility, and potential (voltage) distri-
bution in the model to a function ap, (not to pressure
distribution in the reservoir, as in an oil/water system)
defined by Muskat as
where
pg
= gas density,
px
= gas viscosity, and
p = pressure.
This analogy holds, provided the sources, sinks, and
boundary conditions are made equivalent in shape and dis-
tribution.
Steady-state models can be divided into two general
classes: electronic and electrolytic. The former depends
on the movement of electrons through resistive solids,
such as metal sheets, carbon paper, and graphite-
impregnated cloth or rubber sheeting. Electrons are in-
troduced at one boundary and move into the model to dis-
place free electrons throughout the entire body of the
model. The electrons moving out of the model at the other
boundary produce a current that causes a potential drop
in the solid resistive medium in accordance with Ohms
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS
law. As a result, the movement of the equivalent fluid
interface can be traced. In the case of a graphite-
impregnated cloth model, the reservoir is represented by
layers of cloth, the number of layers of which are some
function of the permeability/net-thickness product (kh) of
the producing strata. The shape of each layer of cloth con-
forms to the shape of the kh range it represents. Copper
electrodes are fixed in the cloth model at positions corre-
sponding to the wells in the reservoir and direct currents
are passed through these electrodes in proportion to the
well flow rates. The electrodes are not usually scaled to
the actual well diameters.
Electrolytic models depend on the mobility of the ions
in the medium. Because the velocity of an ion in an elec-
trolyte system is proportional to the potential gradient,
just as the velocity of a liquid particle in a porous medium
is proportional to the pressure gradient, an electrolytic
model can be set up that provides a good analogy to single-
phase flow in a porous system. The ions are moved into
the model across one or more boundaries and displace
ions throughout the entire medium, causing ions to leave
through other boundaries. The flowing current and poten-
tial drop are established in exactly the same way as in
the electronic models.
Electrolytic models can be divided into three major
types: gel, blotter, and liquid. Although the first two types
can be used to determine the area1 sweep patterns in two-
dimensional uniform media, the potentiometric model that
uses a liquid electrolyte is the most flexible and accurate.
In this type, the fluid conductivity of the porous medium
is usually represented by an open container that has its
bottom shaped to produce electrolyte depths proportional
to the kh of the producing strata and its sides shaped to
conform to the productive limits of the strata. This con-
struction implies that there is no vertical variation in per-
meability and no bedding at any location in the reservoir,
as represented by the model. Copper electrodes (not scaled
to well diameter) are fixed in the model at positions cor-
responding to the locations of the wells in the reservoir,
and alternating currents of proper phase are passed
through these electrodes. The magnitudes of these currents
are made proportional to the production and injection rates
to be used in the reservoir. The direction of current flow
at every point in the model is considered analogous to the
direction taken by the flowing fluid in the reservoir.
The general assumptions applicable to steady-state an-
alog techniques are that (1) a vertical and discrete inter-
face exists between the displacing and the displaced
phases; (2) because the history of advance of only one
front can be traced at any one time, if two interfaces or
fronts are present (such as gas/gas and gas/water), one
is considered a stationary boundary; (3) average reser-
voir pressure is constant regardless of the injection or pro-
duction schedule (this avoids compressibility effects in the
model study); and (4) gravitational effects are neglected.
In addition, if the mobility ratio of the system is not (near)
unity or infinity, the necessary procedures become tedi-
ous and costly.
An example case history by Marshall and Oliver5*
reported results of a potentiometric model study of the
Paluxy sand reservoir of the Chapel Hill field. Smith
County, TX. This gas-condensate reservoir is bounded
on the north by a gas/water contact, on the west by a fault,
and on the south and east by a pinchout. It was assumed
A - I, WALTON #I (INJ)
B - I. WALTON #Z (INJ)
C - W. WALTON 8 #I
D-W WALTON #I
E - S. WALTON # I
F - H CAMPBELL #I
G - B MOSLEY #I
H- M WARREN #l-A
I -C. G FINCH #I
PHASE I
---
PHASF II
- - - - PHASE I I I
Fig. 39.8-Boundaries of invaded areas predicted by later poten-
liometric model studies.
that the gas/water contact was a fixed impermeable bound-
ary; that the permeability, porosity, and interstitial water
content were each uniform throughout the producing zone;
that the reservoir volume rate of dry-gas injection was
equal to the corresponding rate of gas-condensate produc-
tion; and that gravity effects were negligible. Fig. 39.7
shows the final dry-gas/wet-gas interface position at time
of breakthrough into Well 1 (determined after several
trials of well arrangement and production- and injection-
rate schedules) that yielded an optimum pattern (h&T-
weighted) efficiency prediction of 83 %. Injection was into
Wells 1 and A with production from Wells 2 through 4
and B as indicated in Fig. 39.7. This program provided
a sustained capacity of 35 MMscf/D for the life of the
operation.
Stelzer63 reported a comparison of model study pre-
dictions with actual performance for this reservoir. Ac-
tual gas injection was begun in accordance with the north/
south sweep indicated by the model study. During the in-
itial period (first 15 months after cycling began) the
production- and injection-rate program predicted by the
initial model study was followed quite closely. New struc-
tural data revealed in the drilling of additional wells, how-
ever, required some changes in the isopach map of the
Paluxy sand. The results from a second model study,
which incorporated these changes plus injection into only
Wells A and B, are shown in Fig. 39.8. Three interface
boundaries (dry-gas fronts) are shown for three
39-22
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
IO
ND OF PHASE l (ADUSTED TO
- SAME INJECTION RATES AS, .
I
PHASES II AND III1
I
0 1
0 IO 20 30 40 50 60 70
ACTUAL RESERVOIR OPERATING TIME-
MONTHS AFTER START OF CYCLING
Fig. 39.9-Comparison of predicted with actual times of first dry-
gas breakthrough, Paluxy gas-condensate reservoir,
Chapel Hill field. TX.
production- and injection-rate schedules. The first sched-
ule was maintained for the first 15 months of cycling; the
second was continued until breakthrough of dry gas into
Well E; the final schedule was maintained until first break-
through at Well 1. There was close agreement between
the model rates used and actual reservoir rates.
The second model study indicated a pattern (h&G
weighted) efficiency of 88 % , a 5 % increase over that ob-
tained by the initial study. Stelzer estimated the amount
of reservoir gas in place at start of cycling to be 78.4 Bscf.
The new model study thus implies an additional 4 Bscf
of predicted recoverable gas as a result of better reservoir
definition and better operating schedules.
The data in Fig. 39.9 compare model (predicted) break-
through times with the actual times to dry-gas appearance
in corresponding field wells. (Phases 1, 2, and 3 of actual
behavior correspond to Schedules 1, 2, and 3 of the model
study.) Field data on breakthrough were taken from breaks
in content curves of isobutanes-plus; the dashed line shows
the cumulative well-by-well breakthrough behavior of the
dry-gas flood. Because predicted and actual injection and
production rates were nearly equal and constant during
the period shown (except for Phase 1, which was adjusted
to the same average rates), times on the plot are directly
proportional to cumulative reservoir volumes of gas.
Therefore, the lower light line represents a hypothetical
invasion efficiency of 100% that would prevail if actual
breakthrough times coincided with those predicted by the
model [and the area1 and pattern @@S-weighted) sweeps
were identical with model predictions]. The upper light
line represents an arbitrary invasion efficiency of 80%
[assuming that predicted and actual pattern (h&-weighted)
efficiencies are identical]. The straight heavy line from
the origin through the last well to experience breakthrough
indicates an invasion efficiency a little greater than 90%
and implies that more complete invasion of low-
permeability regions behind the dry-gas front was accom-
plished during the later stages of cycling. The agreement
of predicted breakthrough times within 10% of actual
breakthrough times illustrates the great utility of potentio-
metric models in planning cycling operations. Small fur-
ther improvement in the pattern (k&S-weighted) and
invasion efficiencies was to be expected before abandon-
ment of the reservoir in this case.
Stelzers63 figures (at the start of cycling) of 78.4 Bscf
of gas in place and 74 bbl of condensable liquids in the
vapor phase of the reservoir per 1 MMscf of gas indicate
that 5,800,OOO bbl of condensable liquids is in the reser-
voir vapor phase at the start of cycling. Using the model-
derived pattern (/#-weighted) efficiency of 88% (end
of Schedule 3), 5,100,OOO bbl of liquids was subject to
removal by dry-gas invasion. Stelzers Fig. 5 shows that
about 4,640,OOO bbl of liquid products were recovered
between the start of cycling and the breakthrough of gas
at Well 1. This provides an invasion efficiency of 91%
at that time, based on 100% displacement efficiency. Thus
the product of the pattern (k&Y-weighted) and invasion
efficiencies represents a reservoir cycling efficiency of
80% at the time of breakthrough into Well 1. In addition,
later operations increased the cumulative recovery during
cycling to more than 5 million bbl of condensable liquids,
thus bringing final reservoir cycling efficiency to more
than 86 % This is considered very good.
Prediction of Cycling Operations With Mathematical
Reservoir Simulators. The use of mathematical reservoir
simulators to calculate reservoir performance during gas-
cycling operations yields results superior to those obtained
by the more simplified calculation procedures. Use of
these simulators removes the necessity of making the as-
sumptions required in an analog model. Some assumptions
are required, however, which should be understood to per-
form a reservoir simulation study properly. The theory
of reservoir simulation is presented in Chap. 48. Coats7
presents a good discussion of reservoir simulation studies
of gas-condensate reservoirs. One must keep in mind that
the results from a mathematical reservoir simulator
depend on the quality of the data used to prepare the reser-
voir model. If good data are not available, one should
consider whether the expense and time required to per-
form a mathematical reservoir simulation are justified.
Data Requirements for Gas-Condensate Cycling Study.
To evaluate properly the potential of cycling a gas-con-
densate reservoir, the following data are required.
1. Geologic data-maps and cross sections showing net
effective sand thickness, structural contours on the top
and base of the productive formation, location of gas/
water interface originally and at the date the model study
begins, and location of dry-gas/wet-gas interface at the
start of study-and general information on lithology and
lenticularity of the productive strata, such as extent of fis-
sures, fractures, caverns, and other special conditions.
If a black-oil ring is present, its size and extent should
be shown.
2. Physical properties of the reservoir rock-isoporosity
map (or average porosity), effective or specific isoperme-
ability map (or average values), and interstitial water
content.
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS 39-23
3. Fluid characteristics (produced, and injected where
applicable)-fluid composition. retrograde dewpoint pres-
sure of reservoir fluids, gas FVF or specific volume vs.
pressure, deviation factor, condensate content of reservoir
fluid. viscosity, and densities of liquid and gas phases,
all from original reservoir pressure through the range of
interest (usually to abandonment conditions).
4. Amount of original fluids in place (derivable from
data in Points I through 3).
5. Reservoir pressure history (volumetrically weighted)
from discovery to present. If this is not available, isobaric
contour maps at the various pressure survey dates should
be supplied.
6. Condensate. gas, and water production data, from
the date of discovery.
7. Proposed future production rates.
8. Gas- and/or water-injection data, past and future
projections.
9. Productivity, injectivity, and backpressure test data
on wells.
Ultimate Recovery of Gas and Condensate Liquids by
Cycling. The same reservoir for which pressure-depletion
calculations were made previously can be used to illustrate
the effectiveness of a cycling operation. Table 39.8 lists
the basic data for predicting the ultimate recoveries of wet
gas, condensate, and plant products during cycling at
original reservoir pressure (to avoid serious drawdown
effects) followed by pressure depletion to abandonment
pressure. Productive thickness, porosity. and interstitial
water content are each assumed uniform. Consequently,
the 79.0% areal sweep efficiency obtained by a potentio-
metric model study is also the pattern (@S-weighted) ef-
ficiency. The invasion efficiency is assumed to be 90%
because permeability variations are moderate. Because a
dry-gas/wet-gas cycling operation is a miscible flood, the
displacement efticiency is essentially 100%. Therefore,
the reservoir cycling efficiency would be 7 1.1%. To sim-
plify the example. it is assumed that after cycling, the un-
swept pore space both inside and outside the dry-gas front
will pressure deplete in the same manner as predicted
previously for the noncycling case: it will also be assumed
economical to recover the butanes-plus from the gas
produced.
Reservoir Mvt gas produced during cycling period
(original reservoir comnposition):
130.992x0.711=93.135 MMscf.
Reser\vir wet gas produced by pressure depletim uf-
ter cycling (changing cornposition, as shown in pressure-
depletion example):
102,045x(1,000-0.711)=29,491 MMscf
Resertjoir tvet gas produced at ahundomnentpressure,
700 p.sig.
93.135+29,491= 122.626 MMscf.
Total separator gas produced (see Table 39.6):
During cycling,
777.15+38.52+38.45
x93,135
l,ooO
=0.85412x93,135=79,548 MMscf.
During depletion,
696.75+ 14.99+18.05
1,000
x29,491
=0,72979x29,491 =21,522 MMscf.
Total :
79,548+21,522= 101,070 MMscf.
Total condensate produced:
During cycling,
181.74x93,135=16,926,355 bbl.
During depletion,
51.91 x29,491 = 1,530,878 bbl
Total:
16,926,355 + 1,530,878 = 18,457,233 bbl
These figures represent a significant improvement over
the recoveries previously estimated for pressure-depletion
alone.
Noninjection-Gas Requirements in Cycling Operations.
The noninjection-gas requirements for cycling can affect
the amount of gas available for injection. The amount of
gas to be cycled is determined by the optimum pressure
level to be maintained and the efficiency of reservoir fluid
recovery to be achieved; the amount of gas readily avail-
able, including sources and costs; and the design and oper-
ating programs for surface facilities. The amount of gas
that is economical to cycle through a gas-condensate reser-
voir varies with many factors, including richness of the
vapor at reservoir cycling pressure, size and cost of the
plant, and the price of the field products and of dry gas.
Miller and Lents% expected to cycle the equivalent of
about 115 % of the gas in place to recover some 85 % of
the wet-gas reserve of the Cotton Valley Bodcaw reser-
voir. While Brinkley 55 indicated cycling-gas volumes of
as much as 130% of original wet gas in place for various
reservoirs, no general correlation has been prebented on
the amount of gas that is economically sound to cycle;
this should be the subject of a detailed engineering analysis
in each case. The makeup gas needed for constant-pres-
sure cycling is mainly the volume required to replace
shrinkage by liquid recovery and the amount consumed
39-24
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
for various fuel needs. For some composition, tempera-
ture, and pressure ranges, the removal of high-molecular-
weight constituents from the produced wet gas may re-
sult in a higher compressibility factor for the injected dry
gas; hence, the greater volume per mole injected may re-
quire little or no makeup gas for constant-pressure cycling.
The amount of gas not available for injection because
of consumption for operating needs should be taken into
account in determining makeup gas requirements if pres-
sure is to be maintained. The amount of fuel for compres-
sion and treatment plants depends mainly on the total
amount of gas to be returned to the reservoir and the dis-
charge pressure for the plant. Discharge pressure, in turn,
depends on the total rate of injection demanded and the
number of injection wells and their intake capacities
throughout the life of the operation. Other factors affect-
ing the amount of gas required for overall operations are
type of plant, type of liquid-recovery system used, and
auxiliary field requirements (such as for drilling. com-
pletion, and well testing; camp fuel and power for main-
tenance shops, general service facilities, employee
housing; and other factors that vary from one case to
another).
Moores4 reports that gas fuel consumption for the com-
pression plant alone varies from 7 to 12 cu ft/bhp-hr; this
is probably for gases with heat values of about 1,000
Btu/cu ft. Horsepower requirements per million standard
cubic feet of gas compressed per day are correlated in
Ref. 16 (Compressor section).
An example based on Refs. 16 and 52 shows that, with
8 cu ft/bhp-hr, a compression ratio of 15.0 (compressing
from, say, 461 to 7,000 psia) requiring three stages of
compression with a ratio per stage of 2.47, and a specific-
heat ratio of 1.25, the cubic feet of compressor fuel used
per million cubic feet of gas compressed can be calculated
as follows.
For a gas of 0.65 specific gravity and a stage compres-
sion ratio of 2.5. the chart in Ref. 16 reads 22 bhp. The
allowance factor for interstage pressure drop (three com-
pression stages) is 1.1.
Fuel used per million cubic feet of gas compressed = bhp
x cu ft of fuel/bhp-hr x ratio/stage x number of stages x al-
lowance factor. Or compressor fuel consumption is
m,.=22x8x24x2.47x3x1.1=34.4 MscfiMMscf.
This compares favorably with the factor presented in
Moores54 Fig. 8. For an example reservoir originally
containing 130,992 MMscf of wet gas, which might be
cycled the equivalent of 1 l/4 times, the approximate com-
pressor fuel consumption would be
130.992x 1.25x34.4=5.633 MMscf.
This is approximately 3 % of the gas handled through the
plant.
Treatment plant fuel and other plant needs added to
compressor fuel bring the range of consumption inside
the plant fence to 3 to 7 % of the gas handled by a cycling
plant. In addition to these needs and others mentioned
earlier, possible gas losses can occur in a cycling opera-
tion: gas used in blowing down wells, should this be
necessary for cleaning or treating purposes; small gas
leaks at compressor plants and in field lines; and gas leaks
resulting from imperfect seals or corrosion in well tubings,
casings, and cement jobs. Remedial workover operations
should be planned immediately when there is evidence
of appreciable loss of gas between the compression plant
and the reservoir sandface or between the outflow-well
sandface and the plant intake.
Combination Recovery Procedures
Partial water drive-conditions of natural water influx at
rates too low to maintain pressure completely at the
desired production rates-can exist for gas-condensate
reservoirs. In such cases, operation may be by partial
water drive and depletion, supplemental water injection,
or partial water drive and cycling.
Prediction of reservoir behavior and recovery under
these conditions requires knowledge or assumptions about
the aquifer and the water drive it supplies. This informa-
tion can be deduced from a study of geologic conditions
and early producing history of the reservoir; sometimes
the deductions are accurate, sometimes not. Projections
of water drive magnitude into the future at selected reser-
voir pressure levels can be made by methods developed
in Refs. 72 and 73. If sufficient early producing history
of a reservoir is available, it can usually be matched (simu-
lated) by a mathematical reservoir simulation study. The
future behavior of the reservoir can then be predicted
under the following producing methods: (1) producing
history and ultimate recovery of gas and liquids under par-
tial water drive and pressure depletion at the selected pro-
duction rate; (2) amount of supplemental water injection
required to maintain reservoir pressure fully at the selected
pressure level and production rate; and (3) size of cycling
plant required to maintain pressure at the selected pressure
level and production rate.
General Operating Problems: Well
Characteristics and Requirements
As with any complex operation, gas-condensate recov-
ery projects have many operating problems. Those
pertaining to the plant, lines, and other surface facilities
are best left to experienced plant and maintenance per-
sonnel, except as they affect reservoir operation (e.g.,
compressor-oil or corrosion-products carry-over into
wells). Operating difficulties occurring at and below the
wellhead are often concerns of the reservoir engineer and
have an important bearing on the effectiveness of reser-
voir operation, whether by pressure depletion or by pres-
sure maintenance. Among these are the maintenance of
injection and production wells in good mechanical con-
dition, the protection of wells against excessive corrosion,
the general maintenance of well injectivity and well
productivity (which are often interrelated), and the for-
mation of hydrates that can interfere with the general in-
jection and/or production operation.
Well Productivity and Testing
It is essential to maintain the producing capacities of gas-
condensate wells above minimum levels for good econom-
ic performance. Much has been written about the produc-
tivities of gas and gas-condensate wells, their general
producing characteristics, and the optimum methods for
testing and reporting their productivities. Loss of produc-
tivity of gas-condensate wells can occur from reservoir
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS 39-25
pressure decline (including possible effects from conden-
sation of liquids in the reservoir and consequent reduction
of effective gas permeability), from the invasion of water
into producing wells, from solid precipitates in the pore
space, from formation damage during well killing or
workover operations, and from mechanical failure of
downhole equipment. The engineer must have indices at
his disposal that show the productivity histories of wells
and whether productivity decline is excessive for prevail-
ing producing conditions.
Productivity Testing. In making productivity tests on
wells, orderly well-conditioning and overall test proce-
dures should be used. as suggested in Chap. 33 or in stan-
dards recommended by Texas, 26 New Mexico,
Kansas, 28 and the Interstate Oil Compact Commission. 2y
It is common to use wellhead pressures in determining
well productivity (or injectivity) characteristics with ar-
bitrary correction procedures for estimating BHPs from
the observed surface pressures. No fully satisfactory
methods have been devised for making accurate estimates
of gas-condensate well BHPs, either static or flowing.
Calculated static pressures can have serious uncertainties
because of unknown amounts of liquid hydrocarbons or
water in the wellbore and tubing and unknown temperature
distribution. Calculated flowing pressures can have un-
certainties because of inaccuracies in the detailed tempera-
ture distribution and the particular friction factor assumed
for each specific case. Lesem er ~1.~ provide helpful
charts for approximating the temperature distribution in
flowing gas wells. Errors and uncertainties of the above
nature become worse as well depths increase. Consequent-
ly, for best results, downhole pressure measurements with
accurate gauges should be used. Where this is not feasi-
ble, BHPs may be estimated from surface pressure read-
ings for gas-condensate wells with better accuracy than
is usually true for oil wells. Chaps. 33 and 34 discuss
methods for making such estimates. For these methods,
measured fluid properties (e.g., density) should be used
whenever available in preference to calculated or corre-
lation values.
For gas and gas-condensate wells, a plot of static and
producing BHPs vs. producing rates (in millions of stan-
dard cubic feet per day) is not a straight line. Smooth
curves with closer approximations to straight lines can
be obtained by plotting squares of the static and producing
well BHPs (absolute) vs. producing rate. A rough analogy
to oilwell behavior is then obtained by plotting the differ-
ences in squares of the static and producing pressures vs.
the corresponding producing rates (usually on log-log
paper). If several pressures are obtained on a well at
different rates, these procedures do not always yield
straight-line relationships (see Chap. 33 and Ref. 75);
however, they provide reasonable indices for limited ex-
trapolation to future well behavior and for comparison
of current with past well behavior. Estimation of future
well productivity can be made by modifying initial well
productivity to account for the changes in reservoir pres-
sure and gas permeability as pressure declines and liquid
is deposited in the pores. For no loss of gas permeabil-
ity, a new productivity line can be drawn on the plot of
pressure squared vs. rate, parallel to the original produc-
tivity line and through the square of the new static pressure
selected: this yields an estimate of flowing rate for any
flowing pressure selected. If the original curve for rate
vs. difference in squares of static and flowing pressures
is used, rates can be estimated for any future flowing pres-
sure by using the proper (future) static pressure; low-
permeability wells would require special adjustment of
earlier isochronal test data obtained (see Chap. 33 and
Ref. 7.5). These methods yield approximations of future
productivity as affected by pressure decline in the absence
of fluid-phase and viscosity changes in the reservoir. If
gas permeability, k,, is likely to be seriously affected by
condensation of liqutds in the pores (and gas viscosity by
pressure decline), then the change in gas mobility k,/p,,
must be approximated and radial-flow calculations made
(see Chap. 35) to estimate the new productivity curve cor-
responding to the static pressure selected for prediction.
Normally, the two aforementioned types of productivity
estimates ignore the drawdown effects of production on
liquid-phase distribution in the reservoir and any conse-
quent additional reduction of gas permeability near the
producing wells; minimum calculated reduction of produc-
tivity should, therefore, result from these two estimating
methods. Large deviations from such estimates, based on
a wells early characteristics, would indicate that the well
should be analyzed for productivity troubles.
Excessive Productivity Loss. If the capacity of a produc-
ing well declines abnormally compared with that predicted
from its original productivity (in the absence of excessive
water production), and if appreciable liquid condensation
around the wellbore within the formation is suspected,
efforts to improve well productivity should be made.
These could include the short-term injection of dry gas
into the well (several days to several weeks) to evaporate
part of the liquid, followed by immediate production to
remove some of the vaporized liquid block.
Loss of well productivity caused by excessive water pro-
duction has been discussed briefly. In some cases, well
workover operations would be justified to reduce or to
shut off water entry.
Other factors that can influence well productivity are
deposits on the sandface or in the pores near the well-
bore, perhaps caused by salts precipitated from reservoir
water: any mechanical damage resulting from killing the
well for pulling equipment or workover: mechanical
failure of downhole equipment; and possible hydrates (see
Chap. 33). In case of well productivity injury for mechan-
ical reasons, conventional methods of well repair should
be undertaken on the basis of the particular difficulty in-
volved.
Various means are available for stimulating low-
productivity wells; see Chaps. 54 and 55 and discussions
by Clinkenbeard et al. 76
Well Injectivity
Maintenance of well injectivity is essential for the eco-
nomic operation of cycling programs. Injectivity decline
can be caused by sandface plugging or by buildup of reser-
voir pressure.
Lnjectivity Testing. The characterization of gas-injection
wells is similar to that for gas-producing wells. In either
case, analysis is made on the basis of plots of rates vs.
the squares of BHPs or rates vs. differences of squares
39-26
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
of pressures. Consequently, after suitable well condition-
ing. as previously described, injectivity testing should con-
sist of a series of injection rates at different pressures to
establish the early injectivity performance of the well
when well conditions are known to be good and the sand-
face is clean. If facilities are not available for obtaining
a range of injection rates and pressures, it is sometimes
acceptable to obtain production rates and pressures for
the injection well through a reasonable range and use the
pressure-squared relationship for extrapolating across the
zero-rate axis into higher injectionpressure ranges to ap-
proximate well characteristics. Plots of production rate
vs. difference in squares of pressure can also be adapted
to estimate later well-injectivity behavior.
agents in the field gas. Sometimes the use of internally
coated or lined pipe is justified. These and other corrosion-
control procedures are best carried out with the help of
a competent corrosion engineer.
As in the case of producing wells, if injectivity declines
with time, analysis of well conditions is required to decide
whether corrective procedures should be used. If a gas-
condensate reservoir is being operated essentially at con-
stant pressure, then the obvious index of injectivity decline
is whether the rate for each injection well remains con-
stant at the injection-well pressure. Injection-rate decline
at constant well pressure or injection-pressure rise at con-
stant irrjection rate shows that injectivity is declining.
Corrosion products that plug the sandface are sometimes
removed by backflowing the injection well to blow the
material off the sand and out of the well. Where this is
feasible, such complete removal of the plugging agents
from the borehole is believed to be the best for the well.
Other remedies may include treating the well with inhibit-
ed hydrochloric acid to dissolve the corrosion products.
Sometimes the acid is pushed back into the formation and
injection is started immediately without backwashing or
backflowing of the well. If repeated periodically, this
procedure is questionable because it is possible to develop
plugging farther away from the well face that could ulti-
mately hinder injection and be difficult to correct.
Number of Wells Required
Injection-Well Plugging. Plugging of the sandface can
occur in injection wells. This may result from liquid carry-
over from the compressors (probably lubricating oil com-
ponents) or from corrosion products from surface lines
or well equipment.
Carry-over of lubricating oils from compressors can be
serious. Usually. the remedy is to install high-efficiency
aftercoolers, scrubbers, and/or mist extractors on the dis-
charge side of the compressors. A particularly elfective
combination for this is the use of drips or collectors,
followed by plate or screen impaction-type mist elitnina-
tors. followed by combination fibrous and wire-mesh filter
elements.
The number of wells used in exploiting gas-condensate
reservoirs has varied from the equivalent of less than I60
acres/well to more than 640 acres/well. Bennett dis-
cussed the general problem and pointed out that the first
wells are drilled to determine the upper and lower limits
of condensate production; to determine the extent of the
pool, the net pay, thickness, porosity. etc.; and to provide
suitable production or injection wells to fit a final pat-
tern, which will not necessarily have a regular geometri-
cal design.
When liquid-blocking of the sand around an injection
wellbore cannot be relieved by backflowing (as mentioned
later), consideration can be given to slugging the well
with suitable volatile solvents. The solvent used should
preferably be miscible with both the normal injection gas
and the liquid that is suspected to be blocking the pores.
While propane is a good solvent for many hydrocarbon
liquids, some lubricating oils have constituents not soluble
or miscible with propane. In these cases, other solvents
(possibly nonhydrocarbons) should be used. Sometimes
solvent injection is followed immediately by resumption
of dry-gas injection. If successful, this dissolves part or
all of the liquid block and spreads out the materials in
the reservoir sufficiently to relieve the problem. In other
cases, the solvent is injected into the formation for short
periods and then produced back out to provide a type of
washing intended to remove the liquid accumulation from
the formation.
The number of wells to be drilled for gas-condensate
operations must be analyzed for each specific case. Im-
portant factors to be considered are (I) contract commit-
ments to deliver gas and products, (2) capacity of plant
to be served, (3) productivities and injectivities of the
wells, (4) maximum practical pattern (&S-weighted) ef-
ficiencies, controlled by number and location of wells
(reservoir geometry is an important consideration),
(5) amount of recoverable hydrocarbons and their value,
and (6) project costs, including well-development costs.
Items 3 through 5 must be balanced against Items 1. 2,
and 6 to ensure that the economic objectives and contract
commitments of the project are met. If wells are low in
capacity, extra wells may be needed to meet production
requirements during periods of well repair or workover.
Economics of Gas-Condensate
Reservoir Operation
Corrosion products from steel lines between compressor
discharge and the sandface can also provide serious well
plugging. All well piping and casing and all surface lines
should be cleaned thoroughly before they are installed to
avert as much as possible the transportation of fine cor-
rosion products to the sandface when injection starts. For
continued protection during the life of injection equip-
ment, liquid carry-over and mist-elimination measures
should be combined with adequate control of corrosive
Arthur and Boatright and Dixon79 published discus-
sions on the economics of cycling gas-condensate reser-
voirs. Arthur concluded that the most profitable method
of operation depends on many factors. and the answer can-
not be generalized. The following factors adapted from
Arthurs list are considered important.
1. Reservoir formation and fluid characteristics, includ-
ing occurrence or absence of black oil, size of reserves
of products, properties and composition of reservoir
hydrocarbons, productivities and injectivities of wells,
permeability variation (controls the degree of bypassing
of injected gas), and degree of natural water drive existing.
2. Reservoir development and operating costs.
3. Plant installation and operating costs.
4. Market demand for gas and liquid petroleum
proaucts.
GAS-CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS
5. Future relative value of the products.
6. Existence or absence of competitive producing con-
ditions between operators in the same reservoir.
7. Severance, ad valorem, and income taxes.
8. Special hazards or risks (limited concession or lease
life, political climate, and others).
9. Overall economic analysis.
In choosing between pressure depletion and pressure
maintenance as operating methods for a gas-condensate
reservoir, detailed analyses must be made for predicting
optimum economics. Cycling and gas processing proce-
dures require sizable plant expenditures. Possible proc-
essing methods, whether reservoir fluids are cycled or not,
include stabilization. compression, absorption, and frac-
tionation. The last two recover appreciably more condens-
ables from wet gas than do the first two. If the removal
of ethane from a gas stream is desirable for economic or
other reasons, fractionation should be used.
When reservoir characteristics appear favorable for
recovery of condensable hydrocarbons, it must be con-
sidered whether cycling would be economical. The
primary comparison is between value of the estimated ad-
ditional recovery of liquid products by cycling and the
actual cycling costs, taking into account deferment of gas
income and other factors. Economic analyses of cycling
and noncycling are required and must be carried out in
detail for maximum dependability with information fac-
tors and assumptions pertinent to each particular case.
General information on valuation of oil and gas proper-
ties is given in Chap. 41.
Economic comparisons are of no value unless reasona-
bly accurate predictions of physical reservoir behavior can
be made. Consequently. in the gas-condensate reservoir
case. the information given previously would have to be
expanded to include schedules of annual production and
injection volumes derived from the physical characteristics
of the reservoir and from the external factors that would
affect production rates. Schedules of investment, antici-
pated prices of products. operating costs, and taxes would
also be required to complete the detailed information need-
ed to make comparative economic analyses.
Nomenclature
8, =
E, =
ED =
E, =
E,, =
ER =
El/ =
h=
k=
k,, =
k,, =
K=
P=
S=
gas expansion factor (gas FVF)
area1 sweep efficiency
displacement efficiency
invasion efficiency
pattern (h4.5weighted) efficiency
reservoir cycling efficiency
volumetric sweep efficiency
net pay thickness, ft
permeability. md
relative permeability to gas, fraction
relative permeability to oil, fraction
equilibrium ratio
pressure, psi
hydrocarbon fluid saturation of the pore
space, %
layer number
deviation factor (compressibility factor)
gas viscosity, cp
oil viscosity, cp
39-27
0s
= gas density. g/cm3
4 = porosity, X
+,s = flow potential, psi
References
13.
I?.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29
30.
71.
D~,qirzerrirlg Daicr Book. ninth edItion. Gas Processors Suppliers
Astn. and Natural Gas Assn. of America. Tulsa. OK (1981).
Katz. D .L. and Rzaaa. M .J. : B&liogrtrphJ .fiw Phwicd Ba/w\?or
of Hw/mcarbons Under Prr.wurr md Rrlorrrl Phr~romv~~r. J W.
Edwards Publisher Inc.. Ann Arbor (1946).
Genercrl Inde.~ to Pmolrum Puhlrcrrtiom of SPE-AIME. SPE,
RIchardson, TX (1921-85) 1-5.
fnrfe.r c~Di~~isiori ofProducrion Prqwrs. 192 7- 1953. API. New York
City (1954).
Sloan. J.P.: Phase Behavior of Natural Gas and Condenaate
Systems. Pet. Eq. (Feb. 1950) 22. No. 2. B-54-8-64.
Dodson, C.R. and Standing. M.B.: Prediction of Volumetric and
Phase Behavior of Naturally Occurrq Hydrocarbon Systems.
Drill. trnd Pmcl. Pruc~.. API (194 I) 326-40.
Organick. E.L.: Prediction of Critical Temperatures and Critical
Pressures of Complex Hydrocarbon Mixtures. Clirw. &q. Prqq.
(1953) 49, No. 6, 81-97.
Carr. N.L.. Kobayashi, R.. and Burrows. D.B.: Vlscnsity of
Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure. J. Per. Tdz. (Oct. 1954)
47-55: Tiww.. AIME. 201.
Chew, J.N. and Connally, C.A. Jr.: A Viscosity Correlatmn for
Gas-Saturated Crude Oils. Trcrn.s.. AIME (19.59) 216. 23-25.
API Recommended Practice for Sampling Petroleum Reservoir
Fluids. API RP 44. first edttion. Dallas (Jan. 1966)
Bock-Prc~ssurz Tesr for IV&~& Co.\ l+c,l/\ Texas Railroad
Commission. Austin (1985).
Mutzual for Back Pwssuw Tcsr,fi~r Nuruml Grrs We//.\, New Mexico
Oil Conservation Commission. Santa Fe (1966).
Munuul ofBud Pressurc~ Tcdna rf Gav W~,i/s. Kansas State Corp.
Commission, Topeka (1959).
A Su,qp~fed Mumud for Standurtl Buck- Pw wuc Tc.viqq Mmml.~
Interstate Oil Compact Commission. Oklahoma City (1986).
Whitson. C.H.: Characterizing Hydrocarbon Plus Fraction\.
paper EUR I83 presented at the 1980 SPE European Offshore Pc-
troleum Conference and Exhibition. London. Oct. 2 I-24.
Watson, K.M.. Nelson. E.F.. and Murphy. G.B.: Characterization
nf Petroleum Fractions. fncl. ,%K. Chrw. 11935) 27. 1460-64.
39-28
PETROLEUM ENGINEERING HANDBOOK
32. Hoffman, A.E.. Grump, J.S.. and Hocott. CR.: Equilibrnnn Con-
stants for a Gas-Condensate System, Trans., AIME (1953) 198.
l-10.
33. Cook, A.B., Walker, C.J., and Spencer, G.B.: Realistic K Values
OfC,, Hydrocarbons for Calculating Oil Vaporization During Gas
34.
35
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Cycling at High Pressures, .I te;r. Tech:(July 1969) 9Oi-15;
Tram.. AIME. 246.
Nemeth. L.K. and Kennedy. H.T.: A Correlation of Dcwpoint
Pressure With Fluid Composition and Temperature. Sot. Per. Enx.
I. (June 1967) 99-104.
Allen. F.H. and Roe, R.P.: Performance Characteristics of a
Volumetric Condensate Reservoir, Trans., AIME (1950) 189,
83-90.
Berryman, J.E.: Predicted Performance of a Gas-Condensate
System. Washington Field, Louisiana, J. Per. Tech. (April 1957)
102-07: 7-runs.. AIME, 210.
Rodgers, J.K., Harrison. N.H.. and Regier, S.: Comparison Be-
~ween the Predicted and Actual Production History of a Condensate
Reservoir.J. Per. Tech. (June 1958) 127-31: Trans., AIME. 213.
Redlich, 0. and Kwong, J.N.S.: On the Thermodynamics of
Solutions V. an Equation of State Fuaacities of Gaseous Solutions.
Chem. Review (1949) 44. 233. -
Peng. D.Y. and Robinson, D.B.: A New Two-Constant Equation
of State. Ind. Eng. Chum Fundamentals (1976) 15. 15-59.
Martin, J.J.: Cubic Equations of State-Which? Ind. GI,~. Chrm.
Fundamentals (May 1979) 18, 81,
Petroleum Conservafion, S.E. Buckley ef al. (eds.), AIME, New
York City (1951).
Geffen. T.M. @al.: Efticiency of Gas Displacement From Porous
Media by Liquid Flooding. Trans., AIME (1952) 195, 29-38.
Yuster, S.T.: The Rehabilitation of Drowned Gas Wells, Drill.
and Prod. Prac.. API ( 1946) 209- 16.
Bennett. E.N. and Auvcnshine. W.L.: Dewatering of Gas Wells,
Drill. and Prod. Prac.. API (1956) 224-30.
Dunning, H.N. and Eakin, J.L.: Foaming Agents arc Low-Cost
Treatment for Tired Gassers. Oil and GasJ. (Feb. 2. 1959) 57.
No. 6, 108-10.
Bates, G.O., Kilmer, J.W., and Shirley, H.T.: Eight Years of
Experience with Inert Gas Equipment. paper 57-PET-34 presented
at the 1957 ASME Petroleum Mechanical Engineermg Conference.
Sept.
Barstow, W.F.: Fourteen Years of Progress tn Catalytic Treating
of Exhaust Gas. paper SPE 457 presented at the 1973 SPE Annual
Meeting. Las Vegas, Sept. 30-Oct. 3.
Eckies. W.W. and Holden, W.W.: Unique Enhanced Oil and Gas
Recovery Project for Very High Pressure Wilcox Sands Uses
Cryogenic Nitrogen and Methane Mixture, paper SPE 9415
presented at the 1980 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas. Sept. 21-24.
Moses, P.L. and Wilson, K.: Phase Equilibrium Considerations
in Utilizing Nitrogen for Improved Recovery From Retrograde
Condensate Reservoirs, paper SPE 7493 presented at the 1978
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston. Oct.
l-4.
Peterson, A.V.: Optimal Recovery Experiments with Nz and
co, \. Pet. Enx. Inrl. (Nov. 1978) 40-50.
Physical Prop&es of Nitrogen for Use in Petroleum Reservoirs,
Eu[/. 1 Air Products and Chemical Inc.. Allentown. PA (1977).
Wilson, K.: Enhanced-Recovery Inert Gas Processes Compared,
011 and Gas J. (July 31, 1978) 162-72.
Donohoe. C.W. and Buchanan, R.D.: Economic Evaluation of
Cycling Gas-Condensate Reservotrs With Nitrogen. paper SPE
7494 presented at the 1978 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 1-4.
75. Tek. M.R. 1 Grove, M.L., and Pocttmann. F.H.: Method for Pre-
dicting the Back-Pressure Behavior of Low Permeability Natural
Gas Wells, J. Pet. Tech. (Nov. 1957) 302-09: Truns.. AIME, 210.
76. Clinkenbeard. P., Bozeman, J.F., and Davidson. R.D.: Gas Well
Stimulation Increases Production and Profits, J. Per. Tech. (Nov.
1958) 21-24.
77. Bennett. E.O.: Factors Influencing Spacing in Condensate Fields.
Pet. Eq. (1944) 15, No. IO. 158-62.
78. Arthur, M.G.: Economics of Cycling, Drill. and Prod. Pram.,
API (1948) 144-59.
Proc.. Ninth Oil Recovery Conference, Symposium on Natural Gas 79. Boatright. B.B. and Dixon, P.C.: Practical Economics of Cy-
m Texas. College Station, TX (1956). clmg. Drill. and Prod. Pram., API (1941) 221-27.
s.5.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
BrinkIcy, T.W.. Calculation of Rate and Ultimate Recovery from
Gas Condensate Reservoirs. paper 1028-G presented at the 1958
SPE Petroleum Conference on Production and Reservoir Engineer-
ing. Tulsa, OK, March 20-2 I.
Patton, C.E. Jr.: Evaluation of Pressure Matntenance by Internal
Gas Injection in Volumetrically Controlled Rcscrvoirs. Trrr,r.s..
AIME (1947) 170, 112-55.
API Standing Subcommittee on Secondary Recovery Methods, Circ.
D-294. API (March 1949) Appendix B
Marshall, D.L. and Oliver, L.R.: Some Uses and Limitations 01
Model Studies in Cycling, Truns., AIME (1948) 174. 67-87.
Calhoun, J.C. Jr.: Fitndarnenrals r$Rrsrrwir EnKineerrnX, U. of
Oklahoma Press. Norman (1953) 358, 374.
Hock, R.L.: Determination of Cycling Efficiencies in Cotton
Valley Field Gas Reservoir, Oil alrd Gus J. (Nov. 4, 1948) 47.
No. 27, 63-99.
Calhoun. J.C. Jr.: A Resume of the Factors Governing
Interpretation of Waterflood Performance, paper presented at the
1956 SPE-AIME North Texas Section Secondary Recovery
Symposium, Wichita Falls, Nov. 19-20.
Pirson, S.J.: Oil Reservoir Emginrering, McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Inc.. New York City (1958) 406.
Stelzer, R.B.: Model Study vs. Field Performance Cycling the
Paluxy Condensate Reservoir, Drill. und Prod. Prur., API (1956)
336-42.
Muskat, M.: Effect of Permeability Stratification in Cycling Op-
erations, Trans., AIME (1949) 179. 3 13-28.
Standing. M.B., Linblad. E.N.. and Parsons. R.L.: Calculated
Recoveries by Cycling from a Retrograde Reservoir of Variable
Permeability, Trans., AIME (1948) 174, 165-90.
Miller, M.G. and Lents, M.R.: Performance of Bodcaw Reservoir.
Cotton Valley Field Cycling Project, New Methods of Predicting
Gas-Condensate Reservoir Performance Under Cycling Operations
Compared to Field Data. Drill. and Prod. Prac.. API (I 946)
128-49.
Law, J.: A Statistical Approach to the Interatttial Heterogeneity
of Sand Reservoirs, Trans.. AIME (1945) 155, 202-22.
Hurst, W. and van Everdingen. A.F.: Performance of Distillate
Reservoirs in Gas Cycling, Trans., AIME (1946) 16.5, 36-51.
Cardwell. W.T. Jr. and Parsons, R.L.: Average Permcabthttes
of Heterogeneous Oil Sands, Trcr,~s., AIME (1945) 160, 34-42
Sheldon, W.C.: *Calculating Recovery by Cycltng a Retrograde
Condensate Reservoir, .I. Pel. Tech. (Jan 19.59) 29-34.
Coats, K.H.: Simulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir Perform-
ance. paper SPE 10512 presented at the 1982 SPE Reservoir
Simulation Symposium. New Orleans. Jan. 3 I-Feb. 3.
Hurst, W.: Water Influx into a Reservoir and Its Application to
the Equation of Volumetric Balance, Trcrris.. AIME (1943) 151.
57-72.
73. van Everdingen, A.F. and Hurst, W.: Application of Laplace
Transformation to Flow Patterns in Reservoirs. Tram\. . AIME
(1949) 186, 305-24.
74. Lesem, L.B. et ai. : A Method of Calculating the Distribution of
Temperature in Flowing Gas Wells, J. Per. Tech. (June 1957)
169-76; Trans., AIME, 210.