Performance Predictions for

Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Dyung T. Yo, SPE, U. of Tulsa; .Jack R .Jones, SPE, Amoco Production Co.; and
Rajagopal Raghavan, * SPE, U. of Tulsa

Summary. This paper considers some reservoir engineering aspects of the performance of gas-condensate reservoirs that are important
for commercial exploitation: calculation of producible fluids, material-balance computations, well deliverability predictions, estimates
of the size of the two-phase zone, and saturation changes during the buildup period. Two production modes (constant pressure and constant
rate) are considered. Both transient and boundary-dominated periods are examined. Extrapolation of results derived from data above
the dewpoint pressure to conditions below the dewpoint pressure is discussed.
Introduction
In this paper, we apply the results of Refs. 1 and 2 to examine gascondensate-reservoir behavior above and below the dewpoint
pressure. We examine the applicability of using the conventional
material-balance equation to predict reserves. A practical procedure
to compute the appropriate two-phase compressibility factor is
presented. The importance of these results is that we establish that
data above the dewpoint pressure can be used to predict reservoir
performance below the dewpoint pressure. The second part ofthis
work examines methods to compute well deliverability in condensate
reservoirs. We show that the average reservoir pressure and total
skin factor computed with the single-phase gas analog 3 can be used
to predict well deliverability. The steady-state l,4 analog is inadequate for predictil1g well deliverability primarily because skin-factor
estimates from this analog deteriorate with producing time during
the boundary-dominated flow period.
Jones and Raghavan 1 showed that condensate well performance
can be correlated with liquid-flow solutions in terms of the reservoir
integral. Using this observation as a basis, we correlate the radius
of the two-phase region as a function of time in terms of the
Aronofsky-Jenkins 5 drainage-radius concept. We then show that
the radius of the two-phase zone can be estimated from pressurebuildup data.
In the last part of this paper, we examine changes in saturation
and composition that take place during a buildup test. 6,7 In the vicinity of the wellbore, the liquid-phase saturation increases after
the well is shut in; i.e., the liquid phase does not vaporize during
the shut-in period in the near-well region. As suggested by
Aanonsen,7 on the basis of iJ-model simulations, the phase behavior of condensate systems in the vicinity of the well is similar
to that of solution-gas-drive reservoirs. An explanation for this behavior is presented.

Definitions
For purposes of generality, all results in this paper are presented
in dimensionless form. Because condensate reservoir solutions are
compared with the liquid solutions, appropriate definitions for a
liquid-flow system are stated first. The dimensionless pressure,
PD(rD,tD), dimensionless time, tD' and dimensionless distance,
rD, are defined by the following equations:

Mathematical Model and Assumptions

All results presented here were generated with a ID compositional
model l that is similar to the model presented by Coats.8 The
Redlich-Kwong equation of state (EOS) as modified by Zudkevitch
and Joffe 9 is used to simulate phase behavior. Details and
procedures used to verify the accuracy of solutions are discussed
in Ref. 1. We consider well responses for constant-molar-rate and
constant-pressure production and for infinite-acting and boundarydominated flow periods. Except for the existence of a skin zone,
the reservoir is assumed to be a uniform porous medium of constant thickness with negligible gravitational effects, and the well
is assumed to penetrate the formation fully. The skin region is
modeled after suggestions by Hawkins. \0
The basic data used in this study are identical to those used in
Ref. 1, including two sets of relative permeability data (Sets 1 and
3) and three mixtures of methane/n-butane/decane gas systems
(Mixtures 1,2, and 4). Fig. 1 shows the relative permeability data,
Table 1 documents the initial composition of the mixtures considered, and Fig. 2 gives the constant-composition-expansion (CCE)
data for the mixtures.

Here, C l =0.006328 ft3fD [0.000179 m 3 /d]. If the existence of

the liquid phase is ignored, then the conventional definition 3 for
pseudopressure given by

'Now at Texas A&M U.

Copyright 1989 Society of Petroleum Engineers

576

PD(rD,tD) = (khI141.2qB/l,)(Pi -Pwj), ................. (1)

tD =0.0002637ktlcPctW~, ........................... (2)

and rD =rlr w'

..................................

(3)

For pressure-buildup responses, the dimensionless pressure rise,

is given by

PsD,

PSD =(kh114 1. 2qBf.l)(pws -Pwj,s) ..................... (4)

and dimensionless shut-in time, i1tD' is given by

i1tD =0.OOO2637ki1tlcPctW~.

. ....................... (5)

The skin factor, s, is modeled as a thick skin \0 region with

s=[(klks) -l]ln(r/rw)=(kh/141.2qBf.l)i1ps' ............ (6)

We follow AI-Hussainy et al. 3 for the flow of condensates, and

define dimensionless time'based on the'viscosity-compressibility
product at Pi' Modifications to the definition of dimensionless shutin time will be made and discussed as needed. We now consider
the definitions of the pseudopressures used in this study.
The dimensionless pseudopressure at the wellbore is given by
PpwD(tD) = (7rkhC 1IqtTR)[pp(Pi) -pp(Pwj)] ............ (7)

and the dimensionless pseudopressure rise is given by

PpsD(i1tD) = (7rkhC l IqtTR)[pp(Pws) -pp(Pwj,s)]'

p p (p)=2J
Pb

P'

--dp'
(pZ)g

........ (8)

............................. (9)

is used in Eqs. 7 and 8. To incorporate the influence of multiphase

flow, the pseudopressure must account not only for variations in
fluid properties with pressure but also for the influence of saturation gradients. To incorporate both of these influences, the pseudopressure function was defined I as
pp(p) =2

[(krolf.loZo) + (kr/f.lgZg)]p'dp'.

. .......... (10)

Pb

The pseudopressure function defined in Eq. 10 should reflect the

reservoir integral designated by Eq. 9 of Ref. 1. From a practical
viewpoint, it will be difficult to compute the reservoir integral because no method is available to predict the exact changes (pressure,
saturation, and mole fraction) that occur during the drawdown or
the buildup period. It is shown that the steady-state 1,4,6, II theory
may be used to obtain the saturation and molar distribution and also
to compute the pseudopressure that reflects the reservoir integral
for two cases of interest: (1) boundary-dominated flow when the
SPE Fonnation Evaluation. December 1989

1.0
0.9
0'

0.8

e0.7

.;

....

0.6

CI

-l

iii
c(
L&.I

cL

0.5

~3000
:;:)
en
en
L&.I
a:
Q.

:E

a:
L&.I
Q.

0.4

L&.I

>

fi-l

0.3

L&.I

2000

a: 0.2
0.1
1.0

Fig. 2-CCE data.

Fig. 1-Relatlve permeability data.

pressure at the outer boundary is held at a pressure greater than

the dewpoint pressure, and (2) constant-pressure production in an
infinite reservoir. I Although the steady-state theory does not
predict the saturation profile accurately in all other cases, Jones
et at. 2 have shown that the steady-state theory may be used to determine the flow capacity, kh, and average reservoir pressure, p,
from pressure-buildup data provided that a significant portion of
the reservoir is above the dewpoint pressure. In this theory, the
following equation is used to obtain saturations as a function of
pressure.
krolkrg = fLpgP-offvPop,g. . ......................... (11)
All data are derived from a CCE or flash experiment. Note that
Eq. 11 is the Fussell 6 modification of the O'Dell-Miller II relation.
When the steady-state theory is used, the dimensionless pseudopressure rise can be calculated from
PpsD(tD)=27rkhC 1IQt

PWS

[Po(krolP,o) +Pg(krgip,g)]ssdp '.

TABLE 1-MIXTURE COMPOSITIONS

Composition at Oewpoint Pressure
Vapor
Mixture
1

T:620oR,
Pdew :3,969.6 psia,
% Lmax :4.6
2
T:740oR,
Pdew :3,106.9 psia,
% Lmax =7.0
4
T:740oR,
Pdew:4,189.7 psia,
% Lmax :12.4

Liquid

~~~~
0.01800 0.02590 0.03618 0.24854

0.11305 0.04752 0.16350 0.24294

0.02998 0.07374 0.03906 0.21429

Pwj,s

.................................... (12)

Here the subscript ss implies that the properties of the integrand

are evaluated from the steady-state theory. If the single-phase analog
is used to analyze pressure-buildup data, then the dimensionless
pressure rise, PpsD' defined by Eq. 8 reduces to
ppsD(LJ.tD) = 7rkhC 1 IQtRTJ Pws

~dpl

...... (13)

Pwj,s (pZ)g

Results
In the following, we assume that p can be determined from the
Homer 12 buildup analysis, using the single-phase gas analog, and
we will use this to explore reservoir engineering aspects of producing
gas-condensate reservoirs. 2 Methods to estimate the radius of the
two-phase zone from both drawdown and buildup tests are also presented, and saturation changes during a buildup test are discussed.

Estimating Initial In-Place Fluids-Material-Balance Computations. For single-phase gas reservoirs, a plot of average reservoir
pressure,p, divided by the gas deviation factor at average pressure
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989

Z(p), vs. Gp is a standard tool for computing initial gas in place.

Craft and Hawkins 13 suggest that a similar plot can be used for
gas-condensate reservoirs if p is divided by an appropriate twophase deviation factor, Z(p), and plotted vs. cumulative fluids produced. The procedure they recommend is to calculate the performance of the gas-condensate system by the volumetric-depletion
method. They suggest that this method can be duplicated by
laboratory-derived differential-liberation data. This yields values
for fraction of moles of fluid (gas + condensate) produced per unit
of cell volume as a function of pressures. From these data, the performance of the gas-condensate reservoirs can be predicted with
Z, computed from

Z(p) =pVpl(Gj -Gp)RT. . ......................... (14)

The calculation outlined above I!.as the disadvantage that both Vp
and G j must be known to obt~.in Z as a function of pressure. The
major purpose of a plot ofplZ vs. cumulative production in field
applications is to determine G j ; thus, Eq. 14 is not a practical approach.
577

1.00
MIX 2,SET 3

r.D~ 1600, 5:

a ql : 10,000 Ibm mollD

o Pwf= 3200 psia (1'50days)

= 1900psio (I >50days)

IN

rL
~

>

----- --

:::; 0.88
iii

Vi
(J")

00 00

w
a::
~

0.84
0,0

u
0.80
0

Pj : 4500psia

-------/

....
<[

0-

o CONSTANT RATE
0 CONSTANT PRESSURE
PRODUCTION
Pi: 31 10psia
CONSTANT PRESSURE
PRODUCTION

Pd.w: 3106.9psia, Pi =4500psia

MIX 2, SET 3

iii.
IN

.....

Ie.

00

2500

SIMULATOR, EO. 14
FLASH, EO. 20

0.1
FRACTION OF INITIAL FLUID PRODUCED, Gp/G i

-SfMULATOR
0.7

To derive an alternative method, we defme the average density,

by

15000'----OL.I--0.L.2--0-'-.3--0--'.4--0--'.-5--0--'.LS---'0.7
FRACTION OF INITIAL FLUID PRODUCED, Gp/Gj

Fig. 3-Two-phase compressibility factor-comparison with

CCE.

p,

p=m,lVp . ...................................... (15)

Because Vp=Vo+Vg'

.............................. (16)

we can write Eq. 16 as

Vp = Vo + Vg =mtlp=(molp o) + (mgiP g) . .............. (17)

Defining the three deviation Z factors through the engineering EOS
as

Z=plpRT, Zo=plPoRT, Zg=plpgRT ................ (18)

and defining h =molm, and/v=mgimp we can write Eq. 17 as

Z(p) =h (p)Zo (p) +/v(p)Zg(p) . ..................... (19)

Eq. 19 clearly holds at any pressure in the reservoir and, hence,
we may apply it at p = p to obtain

Z(p) =h (jj)Zo (p) +/v(p)Zg<p). . .................. (20)

Eq. 20 is of no more practical use than Eq. 14 unless some simple
way for calculating the quantities on the right side can be found.
Previous computational experience with gas-condensate performance
led us to believe that useful values for these variables could be obtained directly from CCE or flash data. It should be emphasized,
however, that Eq. 20 is exact only if the properties are representative of in-place values. Properties obtained from either CCE or
differential-liberation data cannot be shown to be a proper choice
without numerical experiments.

Fig. 4-Material balance,plZ{p} vs. cumulative production.

To test the validity ofEq. 20 when CCE data are used to evaluate
the needed factors on the right, we used the results of compositional simulations to compute appropriate values for the two-phase
deviation factor from Eqs. 14 and 20. Values of Z(p) for two uch
simulations are plotted in Fig. 3. This is a Cartesian plot of Z(p)
vs. GpiGi. The circular data points are values computed from Eq.
14 with simulator results for a constant-molar-rate case, while the
square data points are those computed for a50nstant-pressure case.
The unbroken line represents the values of Z computed from Eq. 20
with CCE data. The dashed curve that overlies the unbroken line
for GplGi <0.22 is the response of the single-phase gas deviation
factor calculated with the equilibrium gas compositions obtained
from CCE data. Both simulations were performed with Mixture
2 and Set 3 relative permeability data with Pi =4,500 psia [31
MPa). For the constant-pressure production example, the well
flowed with PWj=3,200 psia. [22.1 MPa) untilp was 3,309 psia
[22.8 MPa) (about 50 days). After this, Pwj was lowered to 1,900
psia [13.1 MPa], and the simulation was continued until 60% of
the fluid in place was produced. Such production schemes were
considered to ensure that the conclusion we propose is not affected
by the mode of production or well bore pressure level (above or
below the dewpoint pressure).
_
From Fig. 3 we see that the values of Z(jj) form a unique curve
independent of production mode or pressure level (jj=Pdew for
GpiGi ""'0.22). The values of Z calculated from Eq. 20 agree with
those computed from Eq. 14 within 2 % for the range of cumul~tive
production shown. The advantage of Eq. 20 is that values of Z can
be obtained when only the initial composition of the gas in place
is known. Although the results in Fig. 3 clearly establish that the

0.7r---r--r-r"TTTTTr--;-;-rrrrm--r-r-rrnTrr-'
MIX 2, SET 3
O.S
ql = 10,000 Ibm mollO
o

en

Z
o

0.5,----,,_

s:0

~ 04~------',---"'-.:---=~0?=-_
0::

~ 0.3

en 0.2

..J

t[a

MIX2, SET3
Pwf : 2500 psio
0

0 .8

Pi: 4500 psi a , reo: ISOO

0.6

OL-~~~llL~LLLU~~~bQ~~~
I
10
102
10 3
DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD

Fig. 5-Saturation profiles for constant-rate production.

f===-=-_

0::

::>

~ 0.4~:;;;~==~~~~

(/)

0.1

s: 0

(/)

FLOWING TIME,
t,days

..J

0.2

oL-~~wL-L~UW~~~~~~~
I
10
10 2
103
104

DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rO

Fig. 6-Saturatlon profiles for constant-pressure production.

578

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989

two-phase gas deviation factor can be computed from a CCE experiment, it does not necessarily follow that the compositions at p
are unchanged. The success of Eq. 20 depends primarily on our
ability to compute h(p) and fv(p) accurately. To test this
hypothesis, we simulated the performance of a system with
Pi'" P dew' If Pi'" P dew' then we expect that the changes in overall
compositions at the location of p in the reservoir will occur earlier
in the life of the well. Thus, this initial condition represents a severe
test of the applicability of Eq. 20 to yield reliable values of Z.
We simulated the performance of such a system using Mixture
2 and Set 3 data with the reservoir initially at 3,110 psia [21.44
MPa], which is about 3 psi [21 kPa] above the system dewpoint
pressure of 3,106.9 psia [21.42 MPa]. The well was assumed to
be damaged in this case with a skin factor of seven corresponding
to a skin-zone radius of 1.5 ft [0.46 m] (rsD =6.03). The well was
produced at constant wellbore pressure of 2,500 psia [17.2 MPa]
for nearly 1,000 days, and subsequently flowed at 2,200 psia [15.2
MPa] for an additional 5,000 days. At this time, the well had drained
about 27% of the initial moles of the fluid in place.
For this case, our computations indicate that the values of Zcomputed from Eq. 20 agree with those obtained from Eq. 14 within
0.5% for the range of cumulative production indicated. The overall
compositions of the fluid in place corresponding to the average
pressure at the end of this simulation are z2 =0.11443 and
Z3 =0.05307 (initial values of Z2 and Z3 were 0.11306 and 0.04752,
respectively). The vapor saturation corresponding to p was 0.937.
This simulation confirms that, even in the case when overall compositions at average pressure have changed from their initial values,
Eq. 20 still can be used to correlate well performance for a
reasonably long production period.
Fig. 4 is a Cartesian plot ofpIZ(p) vs. G/Gi for the data shown
in Fig. 3 and for the case discussed abov~ where Pi "'Pdew' The
intent of Fig. 4 is to show that values of Z from Eq. 20 and CCE
data can be combined with cumulative production and average
pressure data to predict initial gas in place, Gi , accurately. The
circular, square, and triangular data points were computed from
Eq. 20 using CCE data, while the unbroken line represents the
values from Eq. 14 using simulator results. The circles (constantrate case) and the square (constant-pressure case) data points are
for the simulations discussed in Fig. 3 (initial pressure of 4,500
psi a [31 MPa)). The triangular data points denote the responses
from the constant-pressure production case with initial pressure of
3,110 psia [21.44 MPa). Note that well-defined straight lines can
be drawn in the data from above, through, and below the dewpoint
pressure for all cases. The arrows denote the value of GplGi at
which p = Pdew' An extrapolation of lines constructed through these
data points to p =0 yields GplGi values within 2 % ofthe expected
value of unity.
These results lead us to conclude that, with a limited set of cumulative production data recorded during the eady stages of
depletion of a gas-condensate well, the conventional procedure may
be used to determine initial fluid in place provided that Zis computed
as sugge~ted by Eq. 20. (Although for the examples we have discussed, Z was computed for the entire production period, it is not
necessary in practice to compute Zduring the entire depletion period
to obtain an estimate of initial fluids in place.) Eq. 20 works best
for the data obtained during the period when condensation (from
CCE) occurs. This suggests that our proposed procedure works best
for the period when P~PLmax (Fig. 2). We believe this will give
a conservative estimate of the range over which Eq. 20 applies.
Our derivation of Eq. 20 implies that saturation corresponding to
average reservoir pressure may be approximated from CCE data. A
detailed justification for this observation is provided in the Appendix.
The standard methods 13 for predicting the depletion performance of a gas-condensate reservoir are based on the assumptions
that the liquid dropped in the reservoir remains immobile. We l 2
have shown that this is generally not true. Figs. 5 and 6 present
the saturation profiles for the constant-rate and constant-pressure
production cases considered earlier. We see from these two figures
that liquid is mobile for 1:5 rD:5 100 over some time period
(Soc =0.38 for Set 3). The liquid phase in the mobile bank near
the well is then vaporized after a certain time and, subsequently,
the liquid phase becomes immobile throughout the reservoir. Much
SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989

TABLE 2-ERRORS IN STABILIZED INFLOW EQUATION

BASIC DATA: MIXTURE 2, SET 3; p,=3,250 psis
Producing
Time

Skin
Factor

tAD

Rates, qt
(Ibm mol/D)
Simulator
By Eq. 24

% Difference

Constant-Rate Production
.-._._.... _ ..... _0.0501
0
7,500.00
7,451.74
0.64
0.1018
7,500.81
0.01
0.5021
7,432.85
0.04
0.0524
10,000.0
9,900.74
0.99
0
0.0631
9,950.73
0.49
0.1019
10,008.1
0.08
0.1551
10,004.9
0.05
0.0517
7,500.00
7,445.12
0.73
5
0.1055
7,462.50
0.50
1.2389
7,491.41
0.12
0.1030
-1
10,000.0
9,518.4
4.82
1.4660
9,707.58
2.92
Constant-Pressure Production, P wI = 2,500 psia
0.0520
0
9,725.60
9,669.70
0.58
0.1085
9,075.93
9,031.16
0.49
0.0518
5
5,051.30
4,990.91
1.20
0.1047
4,872.53
4,875.19
0.06
0.5099
4,352.02
4,345.54
0.15
0.1660
-1
11,869.9
11,291.1
4.88
0.5265
9,326.48
8,858.40
5.02

of the depletion phase of such a reservoir occurs beyond the time

the liquid phase becomes immobile, which may be the reason for
the success of depletion performance calculations based on the assumption that liquid is immobile. Figs. 5 and 6 indicate, however,
that liquid recoveries will be underestimated by such calculations.
For the specific cases shown in Figs. 5 and 6, our simulations indicate that liquid-flow rates are small during the period when liquid
is mobile. Thus, the error in predicted liquid recovery for the
standard performance calculations would be small in these cases.
Well Deliverability. As mentioned earlier, Jones et at. 2 noted that
good estimates of p and St (the sum of the mechanical skin factor
and the skin factor from two-phase flow) can be obtained from pressure-buildup tests in gas-condensate systems if the test is analyzed
with a Horner plot of pp(p) (from Eq. 13) vs. tH,given by
tH=(tp +ilt)/(f.l.gCg)J!:!.t~

In Eq. 21,

.M is

........................... (21)

Scott's 14 normalized time computed from

A.t=ilt1f.l.g(Pws)cg(pws),

........................... (22)

with the composition of the equilibrium gas phase atpws(ilt). Such

a plot can be used to obtain accurate values for p whether it is above
or below Pdew'
Jones and Raghavan 1 have shown that the following deliverability equation holds during boundary-dominated flow for either
constant-molar-rate or constant-pressure production.

27rkhC1

qr-

(In

reD-0.5+s)

r reD[(Po-+P
kro -krg) -op-

J
1

f.l.o

f.l. g

orb

l '

drD'

tD

.................................... (23)
Here, S is the skin factor caused by mechanical damage only. This
equation has theoretical significance but cannot be used in practical
computations.
To develop a practical deliverability equation, we chose to test
.................... (24)
for accuracy. The pseudopressure in Eq. 24 is taken to be the singlephase gas function defined in Eq. 9. To perform this test, simulated buildup data were analyzed for p and St. These values were
used in Eq. 24 to obtain a predicted rate, (qr)bu' This rate was then
compared with the producing rate before shut-in. Table 2 shows
this comparison for a number of cases generated with Mixture 2
579

-:::0
o

Q.a.

o
....J

<t

0::

(!)

I~

opo(ro"o)
CONSTANT RATE
PRODUCTION

0::

CONSTANT RATE PRODUCTION

q,=7500 Ibm mol/D
roo=4000,.=0
o PO(rO"o)

~
0::

q, =7500 Ibm mol/D

CIl

W
0::

reo

12

=4000, S =5

101~~~~~~10--~~LUIU02~~~~~~~3~~~~104

14~1~~~~~10--~~LUIUO~3~~~~10U4~~~~WI05

DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD

DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD

Fig. 7-Reservolr Integral, drawdown (5=0).

Fig. 8-Reservolr integral, drawdown (5 = 5).

and Set 3 relative permeability data. Simulator rates at shut-in, rates

predicted with Eq. 24, and the percent difference between them
are shown for constant-rate and constant-pressure production cases.
Agreement is within 1% for all except the negative skin cases, where
the rates differ by no more than 5 %. An equation similar to Eq. 24,
but with p replaced by Pe (the pressure at re) and 0.75 replaced
by 0.5, also was tested and found to be equally good. However,
an equation similar to Eq. 24, but withpp(p) replaced by pp(p) 1,4
and St replaced by S (estimated with the steady-state theory),
yielded large relative errors between predicted and simulator rates.
We also tested the relation

ppDtD(rD) vs. rD for various dimensionless producing times based

on tAD' The data were obtained from a constant-rate drawdown

as a deliverability equation during transient flow period and found

it to be accurate for rate prediction to within 5 %.
The drawback of the above equations is that it has been shown 2
that St is a function of producing time. Thus, for producing times
far from a calibrating buildup test, Eqs. 24 and 25 may not predict
rates accurately. The error in the rate generally will be a function
of the relative permeability characteristics of the reservoir and, to
some extent, fluid richness because these are the factors that influence most the values of St. 1,2 For the simulations presented in
Table 2, we also tested rate predictions at long producing times
(tAD >0. 1) using an St obtained from a buildup test conducted at
tAD ""0.05 for the two damaged cases (s=5). Rates predicted by
Eq. 24 were found to be within 2.6% ofthe simulator rates. Again,
the range of this relative error is dictated by the characteristics of
relative permeability data (Set 3) and the fluid mixture used in the
simulations (Mixture 2). The fact that these differences are small
also can be attributed to the revaporization of the near-wellbore
liquid phase and the stabilization of the size of the mobile oil zone
during the boundary-dominated flow period.
Estimating the Size of the Two-Phase Zone. The reservoir
integral 1

21fkhC 1 reD [( k ro
krg) op ]
PpDtD(rD)=------J
Po-+P g ---,
drb
qt
rD
P.o
p.g orD tD

.................................... (26)
has been shown to behave similarly to the single-phase dimensionless
pressure, PD, given by
PD(rD,tD) = khl141.2qBp.[Pe -p(r,t)]. . ............... (27)

Specifically, Jones and Raghavan 1 showed that PpDt (1) and

PwD(tD) follow the same equation during the transient flo{t period
if tD is large enough. We extend this result to show that these two
functions have similar behavior for all rD values. Fig. 7 shows
580

simulation for Mixture 2 with Set 3 relative permeability data. The

skin factor for this simulation is zero. The circular data points reflect
Eq. 27. Agreement between PD(rD) and PpDI (rD) is very good
for all tAD and VD . We note that the resenfoir integral varies
linearly with rD over some range of rD for each tAD' Thus, we
may write, for 1:5 rD < rb,
PpDt (rD) "" In(roDIrD) , ........................... (28)
D
where roD is determined by the intersection of the PpDt (rD) =0

line with the extrapolation of the linear portion of the p~DtD(rD)

curve. The value rb is the upper limit of rD where this linear behavior holds. The positions of these variables are indicated in Fig. 7
for the tAD=4.91 x 10-5 case. Clearly, roD is a function of time.
Although not specifically shown by the figure, for tAD ~ 0.1, the
value of roD remains fixed and the values of ppDID(rD) do not
change with time beyond this value of tAD' This result is the basis
for the deliverability equation (Eq. 23) given earlier.
An equation for the variation of roD with tD can be obtained by
evaluating Eq. 28 at rD = 1 to give
PpDI (1)=lnroD ................................. (29)
D

and noting that for transient flow, 1

PpDt (1)= V2(ln tD +0.80907). . ..................... (30)
D

Equating the right sides of Eqs. 29 and 30 and simplifying, we have

r o(t)=0.0243..Jktlt/>(p. g cg);.

. ...................... (31)

Hence, we see that ro(t) is identical to the transient drainage radius

of Aronofsky and Jenkins, 5 rd(t), for single-phase gas flow during
the transient flow period.
Eq. 31 was derived assuming that S =0. Fig. 8 shows the reservoir
integral profIle for a case where s=5. Note thatppDID(rD) follows
two distinct semilog straight lines in rD, one inside the skin zone,
1:5 rD:5 rsD' and one outside the skin zone, rsD <rD < rb. In particular, we can write
PpD1D (rD) =In(roDlrD)

............................ (32)

for rsD < rD:5 rb and, for the wellbore, we have

p pDID(1)=ln roD+s, .............................. (33)

Eq. 33 may be combined with

PpDI (1)= !h(ln tD +0.80907)+s .................... (34)
D

to yield Eq. 31 again; however, now Eq. 31 applies only for t large
enough to give ro(tr s ' This is not a serious limitation if s~O.
As a practical matter, care should be taken if plots similar to Figs.
7 and 8 are used to determine ro(t). The equality in Eqs. 28 and
32 is valid only if roD ~ reD'
SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989

MIX2 SET3
Pi = 3250 psio
Pdew =3106.922 psio

MIX I SET3
Pi =4250 p.io
Pdew= 3969.699 psio
A~.A-<>-A-"l...q,""'1600

CONSTANT RATE
(q,=5000,7500, 10,000)
Ibm mol/O
05=0
0.=5,-1
Pi =3300 psio
o SET I, (s =0),
q, -10,000 Ibm mol/O

CONSTANT PRESSURE.
Pwf 2500 paio

OS-o

sZ5

104

105
106
DIMENSIONLESS TIME.

10 4

1'

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (35)
where rdew,D is the dimensionless radius of the two-phase zone for
dimensionless time, tD' Eq. 35 can be arranged to give
27rkhC 1 r rdew,D
In rdew,D=ln roD(tD).+--- \
qt
~eD

Jl.g

a~

drb. . .................. (36)

arD tD

For rdew,D!'>rD!'>reD' the integral in Eq. 36 becomes

reD [ (PO kro +P g krg ) : :
rdew,D

Jl.o

Jl.g

1 =r
drb

D tD

Pdew

g
P dp,

...... (37)

Jl.g

and thus, for the transient flow period, Eq. 36 reduces to

In rdew

=ln~(tD)

_ 27rkhC 1

'w

rw

qt

Pdew

Pg dp.

. ............ (38)

Jl. g

Here, ro(tD) would be given by Eq. 31. Note that Eq. 38 implicitly
assumes that two-phase flow begins before the outer boundary is
felt. To extend Eq. 36 into the boundary-dominated period, additional assumptions must be invoked. If we accept that,o(t) should
be identical to the Aronofsky-Jenkins transient drainage radius, rd'
then we can intuitively extend Eq. 38 by replacing 'o(tD) by
rd(tD)=0.472'e and Pi by p. Thus, our final equation for the radius
of the two-phase zone, 'dew, during the boundary-dominated flow
period is
In rdew

=In':d(tD~_~7rkhCl

'w

'w

qt

[ft

Pg dp,

Pdew

Jl. g

'dew,D

--

II

rg

p Pg
Pe Pg
drb= \
-dp+
-dp.
ar'D - tD
"
Pdew Jl.g
P
Jl.g

k,g) ap

g-

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , ....... , ..... (40)

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989

107

to

Fig. 10-Correlation of Aronofsky-Jenkins drainage radius

(Mixture 1).

If the single-phase-flow analogy is valid, then we have

rPe (p/Jl.g)dp=l)i .

.............. , ....... (41)

p
Combining Eqs. 36, 40, and 41 and noting that In roD=ln(O.606'el
rw) during boundary-dominated flow, we obtain Eq. 39 .
We tested Eqs. 38 and 39 by simulating drawdowns with
Pi> Pdew and using simulator results to estimate r dew as a function
of time. These values for r dew' along with a value for the integral
of single-phase gas properties over the range Pdew to Pi or p, were
used in Eqs. 38 and 39, respectively, to obtain values of ro(tD}'
These values were then compared with the published correlation 5
for rd' Recall that we have shown that rd(tD) is identical to ro(tD)
for transient flow. Figs. 9 and 10 compare the results of some of
these simulations with 1n(rdlrw) vs. tD' Data for constant-rate and
constant-pressure drawdowns for skin factor values of 0, 5, and
-1 are shown. Here, we show only data for r dew> rs if s *0. All
data except those indicated by "x" marks have Pi=3,250 psia
[22.1 MPa]. The data denoted by "x" marks are associated with
Pi=3,300 psia [22.75 MPa]. The unbroken lines represent the
Aronofsky !md Jenkins 5 correlation for r d(tD), and the dashed line
of slope 0.5 indicates the extension of the correlation for the transient period. Fig. 9 shows the data generated from Mixture 2 and
Fig. 10 shows the data for Mixture 1. The data for the two plots
were generated with Set 3 relative permeability curves, except for
the square data points in Fig. 10, which were obtained with Set
1 relative permeability data. Similar results were obtained for
Mixture 4.
From these figures, we see that Eqs. 38 and 39 work very well.
A detailed examination of tabulated values shows that the results
typically differ by about 6 % with differences as high as l3 % for
some constant-pressure-production cases during transient flow. For
boundary-dominated flow, we generally find that r dew can be predicted to within 5 % if
27rkhC 1Iqt] p (p/Jl.g)dp 2! 0.50. . .................... (42)
Pdew

............. (39)

where 'itD)=0.472'e' Clearly, this equation implies that the

radius of the two-phase zone can be computed only whenp>Pdew'
Eq. 39 may also be derived if we consider the following. We have
shown that there is a correspondence between ppDtD(rD) and
PD(rD,tD)' For boundary-dominated flow, withP>Pdew, the integral on the right side of Eq. 36 may be written as
kro
I,' reD [(Po-+P
"
It

10 5
106
DIMENSIONLESS TIME.

27rkhC 1lqlj

\,rdew,D[( kro
krg) ap
rdew,D
--Po-+P g -drD=ln---,
qt
~eD
Jl.o
Jl.g arb tD
roD (tD)

Jl. o

=5

107

An expression for the radius of the two-phase zone as a function

of time can now be derived. We can write Eq. 28 as

x [(Po kro +P g krg )

o =0

CONSTANT PRESSURE, Pwf= 2500psio

'" =0
s= 5

to

Fig. 9-Correlatlon of Aronofsky-Jenklns drainage radius (Mixture 2).

27rkhC 1

CONSTANT RATE
(q, =5000,7500,10,000) Ibm mol/O

If we combine Eq. 38 with Eq. 25 or Eq. 39 with Eq. 24, depending

on the flow regime appropriate for the producing time, then an
equation for estimating the radius of the two-phase zone from
buildup data can be derived. The result is
In rdew = 27rkhC 1
rw

qt

JPdew

Pg dp-sl' .................. (43)

Pwf,s

Jl.g

We compared estimates of rdew/'w at .:it=O predicted by the right

side of Eq. 43 using values of SI from buildup simulations
documented in Refs. 2 and 15 with values from simulation runs.
Agreement between the two estimates is good provided that the restriction given by Eq. 42 is satisfied .
581

"8

-0

Q.

0-

...i

0:

2
10-2

IJJ-

I-..?
z0
o~ Co

-.J

(!)

IX:
(!)

>0-

IJJ

0:'

I-

~
0:

wen..? e
w-o

CONSTANT RATE PRODUCTION

q,=.7500 Ibm moltD

>
IX:
IJJ
en

z'a
- 0-

'eo = 4000, S = 5

CONSTANT RATE PRODUCTION

q, =7500 Ibm moltD

12

'eo=4000,s=5
'AD = 1.2389

(!)

'40"1.2389

J:

IJJ
0:

10 2

10

10

IX: -

103

13

DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD

102

10

104

10 3

DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, '0

Fig. 11-Reservoir Integral, buildup (s=5).

Fig. 12-Change In reservoir Integral, buildup (s=5).

Saturation Changes During the Buildup Period. Figs. 7 and 8

show that the reservoir integral defined by Eq. 26 preserves the
radial dependence of the single-phase liquid PD for two-phase
flowing responses. We begin here by demonstrating an analogous
result for pressure-buildup responses.
Fig. 11 shows ppDt.tv(rD) (defined by Eq. 26) vs. rD (computed
with buildup-test data. The variable of interest here is the shut-in
time, dt. The simulation is for constant-rate production (Mixture 2,
Set 3 data) with s=5. As Jones et al. 2 claim, regions of zero pressure gradient, which increase with increasing At, are evident. If
the profiles of PpD!J.tv(rD) in Fig. 11 are subtracted from the profile at shut-in, ppDtv(rD), the profiles plotted in Fig. 12 are obtained. Note that the shapes of these profiles are similar to the
drawdown profIles shown in Fig. 8 for s=5. As in the case of the results shown in Figs. 7 and 8, we expect PpsD!J.tv(rD) = [ppDtv(rD)
-PpD!J.tv(rD)] to be analogous to the liquid-theory function, PsD'
defined by

liquid phase takes place; thus, rdew decreases with increasing At.
The two-phase zone varies from approximately rD =42 at At=O
to about rD =22 at At=7 days. Revaporization at the edge of the
two-phase zone was previously reported by Fusse1l 6 for pressurebuildup tests. However, he reported that changes in So near the
well were minimal. This behavior for the near-well changes in So
has been noted by Aanonsen 7 from ..{3-model" simulations of gascondensate pressure buildup.
Fig. 14 shows mole fractions ofC I and C 4 , for the liquid and
vapor phases, vs. rD' These data are for the same buildup test
documented in Fig. 13, and again, the variable of interest is At.
Here, we see that the revaporization of the liquid phase near r=
r dew causes the liquid-phase mole-fraction profiles to contract as
At increases. More interesting is the behavior of the mole fractions
with time near the well. The data show that the liquid phase is
swelling because the light end (C I ) is moving out of the gas phase
and into the liquid phase; i.e., gas is preferentially dissolving in
the oil phase. This behavior is typical of a black-oil (solution-gasdrive) system.
We have computed the critical temperatures at shut-in for the
overall fluid as a function of rD from simulator results using Li's
method as given in Ref. 16. This computation is outlined in the
Appendix and the values are shown as the dashed line in Fig. 13.
Comparing these values with the reservoir temperature for this simulation, T=740oR [411 KJ, we see that in the region where "condensation" occurs (So increasing with At), fluid critical temperatures are greater than T, and revaporization occurs where fluid

psD(rD,AtD)=PD(rD,tD)-PD(rD,AtD)'

.............. (44)

We now tum our attention to the behavior of saturation distributions during the pressure-buildup period. Fig. 13 shows So vs. rD
at tAD =0.0042, which corresponds to shutting in the well during
transient flow. The variable of interest here is the shut-in time, At.
From the plot, we see that as pressure builds up in the system, the
liquid saturations near the well increase with At. The change in
So at rD = I from At=O to 7 days is more than 30%. For radii near
the edge of the two-phase zone, some revaporization of the in-place

CONSTANT RATE PRODUCTION

0.8

Q 0.6

~
a:

qt = 7500 Ibm mol/D

5 = 5, reo = 4000
Pi =3250 psio, P=3248.7 psio
'-.-.
T = 740 o R, tAD = 0.0042
O~ ......
~'CONDENSATION "

::::>
~ 0.4

en

"

..J

(3

0.2

OIL SATURATION
--CRITICAL
\,
TEMPERATURE
..........

_------

:l:J

900 ~

(')

l>

r
800

r;l
3:

"0
rrt
:l:J
700 ~
C
:l:J
rrt

600 o-i
o
:l:J

0~~~~~--~~~~~~~~500

10

102

103

r!o

.;;

' IAO "0.0042

IIl,days
f0

yc,

o.el=====:,.;:~=======::r----~I>7

)(

Z
$7
o 0.6b--:::=~~========T-IXCI
i=
1../
.... 0
~

e:

'/
0.4

0.2

..--0

7 ....

-0

7jt

xC4

YC4
I-:

10

104

DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, '0

Fig. 14-Mole fraction profiles during buildup,

DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rD
Fig. 13-Saturatlon and critical temperature profiles.

582

SPE Fonnation Evaluation, December 1989

r~O

Sl

CONSTANT RATE PRODUCTION

900 ~
qt =7500 Ibm mol/O
(;
s = 5, 'eo = 4000
l>
r
Pi =3250 psia
800
;;:l
p = 2907.5 psia
3:
......
T = 740 o R, tAO =1.2389
"0

--"

.....

II:

!:(

0.4

tf)

LIt, days

-I

(5

><

!:i
c

::0

rr1

"........

--------

600 ~
o

- - OIL SATURATION
- - CRITICAL TEMPERATURE

::0

01 _____~______~._--~~==~~500

rn

tAo =1.2389

::0

700

0.2

LIt, days

"'''===;G~l~!===~----------YCI

rr1

:;)

;';;-0.8

OLI~~~~~10-~~~~10~2~~~~1~03'-~~~WI04

DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rO

DIMENSIONLESS DISTANCE, rO

Fig. 15-Saturatlon and critical temperature profiles.

Fig. 16-Mole fraction profiles during buildup.

critical temperature is less than T. Thus, as the mole fraction profiles

indicated, the near-wellbore fluid has undergone enough composition changes to make the overall in-place fluid there into a black
oil rather than a gas condensate. There are not enough composition
changes far from the well to cause this change, and fluid there still
behaves as a gas condensate with the attendant revaporization of
liquid. To the best of our knowledge, no such data have been presented in the literature before, though the idea that the near-well
fluid behaves as a black oil was mentioned 7 as a possible explanation for So increases with Ilt.
Figs. 15 and 16 present similar results for saturation and mole
fraction profiles, respectively, for a drawdown into boundarydominated flow before the well is shut in for a pressure-buildup
test. These saturation profiles correspond to the reservoir integral
profiles plotted in Figs. 11 and 12. The same general conclusions
reached from an examination of Figs. 13 and 14 still hold. Liquid
saturation increases where fluid critical temperature is greater than
T and revaporization occurs where Tc < T. In this case, however,
the revaporization of the liquid phase far from the well is essentially negligible and, thus, the size of the two-phase zone does not
contract.

C 1 = conversion factor, ft 3 /D [m 3 /d].

h = liquid mole fraction
Iv = vapor mole fraction
G j = initial fluid in place, Ibm mol [kmol]
Gp = cumulative fluid produced, Ibm mol [kmol]
h = formation thickness, ft [m]
k = permeability, md
krg = relative permeability to gas
k ro = relative permeability to oil
Lmax = maximum molar fraction of liquid drop-out
mg = number of moles in gas phase, Ibm mol [kmol]
mo = number of moles in liquid phase,
Ibm mol [kmol]
m t = total number of moles, Ibm/mol [kmol]
P = pressure, psia [MPa]
Pb = base pressure, psia [mPa]
Pdew = dewpoint pressure, psia [MPa]
PD = dimensionless pressure, Eq. I
P e = external boundary pressure, psia [MPa]
pj = initial reservoir pressure, psia [MPa]
PLmax = pressure corresponding to Lmax obtained from
CCE, psia [MPa]
Pp = pseudopressure
pp(p) = pseudopressure (single-phase analog), Eq. 9,
psi 2/cp [kPa 2/(Pas)]
pp(p) = pseudopressure function (steady-state analog),
Eq. 10, psi-Ibm moll(cp-ft3)
[kPa . kmoll (Pa . s)m 3]
PpDt (rD) = reservoir integral (drawdown), Eq. 26
PP!frD(l) = reservoir integral associated with wellbore
ppDAtD(rD) = reservoir integral (buildup)
ppDAtD(rD) = change in reservoir integral (buildup)
PpsD = buildup analog (single-phase analog), Eq. 13
PpssD = buildup analog (steady-state analog), Eq. 12
PpwD = pseudopressure drop at wellbore, Eq. 7
PsD = dimensionless pressure rise, Eq. 4
Pwf = flowing wellbore pressure, psia [MPa]
Pwf.s = wellbore pressure at shut-in, psia [MPa]
P ws = shut-in pressure, psia [MPa]
q = rate, STB/D [stock-tank m 3 /d]
qt = total molar rate, Ibm mollD [kmolld]
qt(bu) = total molar rate predicted from buildup data,
Ibm mollD [kmolld]
, = distance in radial coordinates, ft [m]
r d = Aronofsky-Jenkins transient drainage radius, ft [m]
rdew = radius at which P=Pdew
re = external radius, ft [m]
= radial intersection point, Fig. 7, ft [m]
rs = skin zone radius, ft [m]
r w = wellbore radius, ft [m]
R = universal gas constant, 10.73 psi-ft 31
Ibm mol- OR [73.98 kPa m 3Ikmol . K]

Conclusions
Numerical simulation results from the model developed by Jones 17
have been used to examine the performance of gas-condensate
reservoirs. The following conclusions were demonstrated.
1. Two-phase compressibility factors based on flash (CCE) data
can be used to predict reserves from_data measured above or below
the dewpoint pressure. A plot of pIZ(p) vs. Gp yields an excellent
straight line above and below the dewpoint pressure, provided that
compressibility factors are defined appropriately.
2. Well deliverability can be evaluated by computing average reservoir pressure and total skin factor with the single-phase gas analog.
Some care should be taken in extrapolating well performances over
long time spans because the total skin factor will change.
3. It is possible to determine the radius of the two-phase zone
from pressure-buildup data provided that the average reservoir
pressure is above the dewpoint pressure. The size of the two-phase
zone can be predicted from an estimate of the total skin factor, vapor
phase compositions, and dewpoint pressure and wellbore pressure
at shut-in. The radius of the two-phase zone also may be predicted
by invoking the drainage-radius concept. 5 This procedure does not
require knowledge of the two-phase skin factor.
4. Liquid-phase saturations near the wellbore increase when the
well is shut in. Near-well composition changes can be significant
enough for the in-place fluid to behave as if it were a black oil rather
than a gas condensate.

Nomenclature
A = drainage area, ft2 [m 2]
B = FVF
gas-phase compressibility, psi - 1 [kPa - 1]
Ct = total compressibility, psi -I [kPa -I ]

Cg =

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989

'0

583

s = mechanical skin factor

s/ = skin factor obtained from Horner analysis
(single-phase gas analog)
S = saturation
t = time, hours or days
tAD = dimensionless time based on drainage area
tD = dimensionless time
tH = Horner time, Eq. 21
tp = producing time, Eq. 21, hours or days
at = shut-in time, hours or days
ai = Scott's normalized time, Eq. 22
atD = dimensionless shut-in time
T = temperature, OR [K]
Tei = critical temperature of Component i, OR [K]
V= PV
Vci = critical volume of Component i, ft 3 /1bm mol
[m 3 /kmol]

Vp = reservoir PV, ft3 [m 3 ]

Xi = Component i mole fraction in liquid phase
Yi = Component i mole fraction in vapor phase
Zi = overall mole fraction of Component i
Z = deviation factor
= two-phase compressibility factor, Eqs. 14
and 20
J.I- = fluid viscosity, cp [Pa s]
P = molar density, Ibm mollft 3 [kmol/m 3 ]
t/> = porosity
<I> = pseudocomposition, Eq. A-I

Subscripts
c = critical
D = dimensionless
g = gas
i = initial component number
m = oil or gas
a = oil or liquid phase
s = skin
ss = steady-state
Superscripts
= average
= derivative

Acknowledgments
This work constitutes portions of an MS thesis by Vo, who was
supported by a grant from Phillips Petroleum Co. A grant by
Chevron Oil Field Research Co. also was used to finance portions
of this work. Computing time was provided by the U. of Tulsa.
We are grateful to these sources of financial assistance.

References
1. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Flowing Well
Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells," SPEFE (Sept. 1988) 578-94.
2. Jones, J.R., Vo, D.T., and Raghavan, R.: "Interpretation of Pressure
Buildup Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells," SPEFE (March 1989)
93-104.
3. AI-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J. Jr., and Crawford, P.B.: "The Flow
of Real Gases Through Porous Media," JPT (May 1966) 624-36;
Trans., AIME, 237.
4. Chopra, A.K. and Carter, RD.: "Proof of the Two-Phase Steady-State
Theory for Flow Through Porous Media," SPEFE (Dec. 1986) 603-08.
5. Aronofsky. J.S. and Jenkins, R.: "A Simplified Analysis of Unsteady
Radial Gas Flow," Trans., AIME (1954) 201, 149-54.
6. Fussell, D.D.: "Single-Well Performance Predictions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs," JPT (July 1973) 860-70; Trans., AIME, 255.
7. Aanonsen, S.I.: "Nonlinear Effects During Transient Fluid Flow in
Reservoirs as Encountered in Well-Test Analysis," PhD dissertation,
U. of Bergen. Norway (1985).
8. Coats, K.H.: "An Equation of State Compositional Model," SPEJ (Oct.
1980) 363-76.
9. Zudkevitch, D. and Joffe, J.: "Correlation and Prediction of VaporLiquid Equilibria With the Redlich-Kwong Equation of State, " AIChE
J. (Jan. 1970) 112-19.
10. Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: "A Note on the Skin Effect," Trans., AIME(1956)
207, 356-57.
584

11. O'Dell, H.G. and Miller, RN.: "Successfully Cycling a LowPermeability, High-Yield Gas Condensate Reservoir," JPT(Jan. 1967)
41-47.
12. Horner, D.R: "Pressure Build-Up in Wells," Proc. Third World Pet.
Cong., The Hague (1951) n, 503-21.
13. Craft, B.C. and Hawkins, M.F. Jr.: Applied Petroleum Reservoir Engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1959) 80-82.
14. Scott, J.O.: "Application ofa New Method for Determining Flow Characteristics of Fractured Gas Wells in Tight Sands," paper SPE 7931
presented at the 1979 SPE Symposium on Low-Permeability Gas
Reservoirs, Denver, May 20-22.
15. Vo, D.T.: "Single Well Predictions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs,"
MS thesis, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK (1987).
16. Reid, R.C., Prausnitz, J.M., and Sherwood, T.K.: The Propenies of
Gases and Liquids. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York City (1977).
17. Jones, J .R.: "Computation and Analysis of Single Well Responses for
Gas Condensate Systems," PhD dissertation, U. of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK
(1985).

Appendix-Calculation of Critical Temperature

In this work, we estimate the critical temperature of the in-place
fluid using Li's method, as outlined in Ref. 16, where the pseudocomposition of a multicomponent mixture is calculated as
liVcj

<1>;=---- ............................... (A-l)

Nc

I;

liVe;

;=1

The true mixture critical temperature, Te , is then given by

Nc

Tc =

I; <l>iTei' ................................ (A-2)

i=1

Reid et al. 16 report that for multicomponent hydrocarbon

mixtures, Li's procedure yields an average deviation of about 200R
[11 K]. The Li correlation is recommended for the computation
of critical temperatures for mixtures containing hydrocarbons only.
The overall in-place mole fraction, li' of Component i in the
mixture is
li =(PoSoXi +PgSgYi )/(poSo +pgSg ).

. .............. (A-3)

Thus, we can evaluate Zi using the simUlator results and, consequently, the in-place-fluid critical temperature, Te. at any location
in the reservoir may be obtained from Eq. A-2.
Estimate of Average Saturation. Saturation at each location in
the reservoir is defined by
So = VolVp = Vol(Vo + Vg). . ....................... (A-4)

Replacing Vo =molpo and Vg =mgiPg, we can rewrite Eq. A-4 as

So = (molpo)/(molpo +mgiPg). . .................... (A-5)

Substituting mo=hm/ and mg=fvmg into Eq. A-5, we obtain

So =(jLIPo)/(hlpo +fv1pg). . ..................... (A-6)

t,

Eq. A-6 applies to any location in the

Analogous to Eq. 19 for
reservoir to determine saturation, provided that all properties defined on the right side are the in-place values.
Eq. A-6 provides an approximate method to evaluate average saturation in the reservoir as a function of average pressure if we replace
the parameters on the right side of this equation by CCE data. The
range of applicability of Eq. A-6 with CCE data is similar to that
of Eq. 20.

51 Metric Conversion Factors

Ibm mol x 4.535924
psi x 6.894757
OR x 519

E-Ol
E-03

kmol
MPa
K
SPEFE

Original SPE manuscript received for review Sept. 27. 1987. Paper accepted for publication
April 12, 1989. Revised manuscript received Feb. 10. 1989. Paper (SPE 16984) first
presented at the 1987 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas.
Sept. 27-30.

SPE Formation Evaluation, December 1989