SPE 105362

The Identification of Condensate Banking With Multiphase FlowmetersA Case Study

B.C. Theuveny, P.D. Maizeret, N.S. Hopman, and S. Perez, Schlumberger Oilfield Services

Copyright 2007, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 15th SPE Middle East Oil & Gas Show and
Conference held in Bahrain International Exhibition Centre, Kingdom of Bahrain, 1114 March
2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
The identification of condensate banking has always been a
challenge. Furthermore, large productivity losses can result
from the absence of early detection of a condensate bank in
the near well bore area of the well. The traditional means of
detecting a condensate bank range from comparison of the
dew point to downhole pressure measurements, identification
of composite radial models and quantification of skin using
pressure transient analysis. One of the methodologies that
have been more theoretical than practical has been the
detection of a leaner stream of effluent at the well head during
production. This type of approach has been quite challenging
in the past, as a high resolution measurement of the
condensate to gas ratio is essential to a successful diagnostics
of condensate banking.
The paper presents a case of analysis of the development of a
condensate bank during a well test. The multiphase flowmeter
identified a gradual reduction of the condensate to gas ratio
with increasing choke sizes. The methodology of diagnostics
is demonstrated, in particular with the discrimination against
liquid loading issues.
The PVT compositional analysis provides a verification of the
analysis, and the observation of the evolution of the phase
diagram leads a further understanding the downhole and near
well bore thermodynamic phenomena.
The degradation of the productivity of the well is also
analyzed, with a significant drop of gas productivity observed
even on smaller choke sizes at the end of the test.
Finally the paper presents a numerical simulation match of the
data and provides a number of recommendations for the
utilization of single well - near well bore compositional

models to help interpreter to obtain better and simpler

matches.
This paper provides a new methodology to make full use of
the benefits of the dual energy gamma Venturi multiphase
flowmeters in the evaluation of gas wells.
Operational issues related to gas well testing with
traditional test separators
The test of gas wells has always been a challenge compared to
testing oil wells. The high level of energy contained in the
stream in the form of compressible fluids, the higher pressure
usually encountered at surface due to the lower hydrostatic
head in the tubing and the potential presence of toxic
components such as H2S in the effluent contribute to increase
the Health and Safety risks inherent in the handling of gas
wells.
On the operational side, the presence of water in the stream
combined with a large temperature drop across restriction or
the choke can lead to severe plugging issues with hydrates.
Erosion can also be a serious risk encountered with the
combination of high fluid velocities (in particular at low
pressure) and a bit of sand. Perforation of the walls of the
surface piping can present very serious risk to the operational
personnel and the facilities.
However, the main difficulty of testing gas wells comes
from the determination of accurate gas, condensate and water
flow rate measurements. The short retention time in traditional
test separators can lead to significant carry over of condensate
in the gas line, resulting in an underestimation of the
condensate rate, and a potentially significant error on the gas
rate. The level of error on the gas rate will depend on the type
of measurement technology used. If traditional orifice plate is
used, the presence of condensate in the gas stream leads
usually to an overestimate of the gas rate. The error on the gas
measurement can also be compounded with the accumulation
of well liquids (water or condensate) in the legs of the DP cell
around an orifice plate which can create large errors (usually
identifiable in the raw data by a near linear trend of drift of the
DP measurement). There can also be significant amount of
liquid trapped at the bottom of the pipe in front of the orifice
plate which also can affect the flow rate measurements. The
field identification of such problem can be straight forward,
but its remediation may be impossible during the course of the
well test operation.

Carry-over of liquid in the gas line is the curse of gas well

testing with small separators. Low retention time, combined
with very small liquid droplet size can easily lead to the
entrainment of 50% of the liquid through the gas outlet of the
body of the separator. Several attempts to reduce the losses of
condensate have been met with various level of success. These
efforts include among other centrifugal separation at the inlet
of test separator, utilization of mist extractor of very small
sizes. Although undoubtedly contributing to the enhancement
of the quality of the separation, there can be very little
confidence that the remaining amount of liquid carry over is
negligible.
On the positive side, the disposal of the effluents for gas
wells is usually simplified compared to the oil wells. Choke
stabilization are usually better than in oil wells and it is easier
to get gas wells to flow under true critical conditions through
the choke, as the well head pressure tends to be higher.
Finally, the gas well start-up issues are usually less of a
problem than for oil wells.
Overall, those factors have a significant impact on the
logistics of obtaining reliable flow rate information for a gas
well. It is sometimes impossible to obtain an acceptable level
of confidence with traditional test separator on the CGR.

SPE 105362

Dual-Energy Gamma Venturi Multiphase flowmeter

operation in gas environments
The dual-energy gamma Venturi multiphase flowmeter is
well proven in mobile testing environment. Introduced in
1999, the Vx multiphase flowmeter has been deployed in
almost all types of operational arena both on mobile
applications in Exploration, appraisal and clean-ups and
permanent or mobile set-ups for production well testing [2],
[5].
The operation of the meter in gas environment is
essentially similar to its operation in oil environment. A new
algorithm of computation of the flow rates of oil, gas and
water has been developed to ensure a very robust gas rate
measurement, even at 98-100 % Gas Volume Fraction (GVF)
[6], [7].
The mechanical set-up of the multiphase flowmeter is
exactly similar to the one used for oil, with the added
recommendation to install it if possible upstream the choke in
order to perform the measurements at higher pressure. This
enables measurements with lower GVF, leading to higher
resolution and better accuracy of the liquid rates (oil and
water). The GVF at higher pressure for gas wells is not only
lower because of the compression of the gas but also because
of the increase of liquid drop out at such pressure. (Fig. 1)

Circumventing part of the challenge of gas well

testing with a multiphase flow meter

The general benefits of testing with multiphase flowmeters

have been reviewed in a key paper from Mus et al [4] in the
early days of the deployment of the multiphase well testing
technology in mobile testing environment in deep offshore
appraisals.
The utilization of the dual energy gamma Venturi
multiphase flowmeter in gas wells has been documented by
Pinguet et al [1], Hopman et al [3] and Guieze et al [7]. The
HSE benefits combined with the ease of deployment of the
multiphase well testing technology is particularly felt in
testing of gas wells.

300F
250F
200F
180F
160F
60F
Flow Path

0.30
Liquid Deposit (LVF) (100%=

The utilization of an in-line multiphase flowmeter such as

the dual energy gamma Venturi Vx multiphase flowmeter
enables measurements of oil, gas and water rate without prior
separation of the phases. The benefits of this methodology
have been presented before and can be summarized as follows:
No active control on the well path
No separation
High dynamic of measurements
Ability to perform the measurements at high pressure
safely
Ability to test at high rates with no fear of data quality
loss due to low retention times

0.35

0.25

0.20

Upstream choke: (16.3%)

0.15

0.10

Downstream choke: (10.2%)

Downstream Choke: (7.2%)

0.05
Separator: (2.7%)

0.00

Standard conditions: (0.0%)

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Pressure (psia)

Figure 1: Comparison of the Liquid Deposit at various operating

pressure

The figure illustrate the typical variation of the liquid drop

out (1-GVF) for various operating conditions (at surface) for a
given reservoir fluid composition (No condensate banking in
this case). This behavior corresponds to typical fluid
composition from fairly rich condensate environment as
observed in the central part of the North Sea. This plot is
generated assuming a constant fluid composition (CCE at
various temperatures). Various isothermal curves are used to
illustrate the change of temperatures according to the
conditions of measurements (downhole (300 F), upstream
choke (250 F), downstream choke with 3 different back
pressures (200 F, 2000 psia), (180F, 1500 psia) and (160 F,
750 psia). As can be seen on the plot, the changes of liquid
drop out are very large with a typical separator operating
conditions leading to a GVF of 97.8 % and an upstream high

SPE 105362

pressure condition of 83.7%. The operation of the multiphase

flowmeter upstream the choke in such rich environment would
warrant a traditional oil algorithm rather than the gas mode
algorithm, as the GVF is so low.
In leaner fluids the general behavior of the liquid drop out
would be the same, although typical maximum would be much
lower (few percents only) and the gas mode used for all
operating conditions.
The key of success of the operation of the dual energy
gamma meter in gas environment is the accurate determination
of the empty pipe reference count rate for the low and high
energy gammas.
In order to achieve the necessary accuracy of these
reference count rates, one extends the duration of the
determination of these parameters just prior to the beginning
of the acquisition, after the installation of the meter in the
flowline. This guarantees that the nuclear statistic linked to the
physics of the gamma emission is sufficiently low to provide a
high quality reference count rate for low and high energy.
Fluid sensitivities
The second key of success is the accurate determination of
the gas attenuation in the operating conditions. As documented
at length by Atkinson et al [5, 6] and Theuveny et al [2], the
operating triangle of the multiphase flowmeter controls the
computation of the fractions of oil, gas and water in the pipe.
In gas environment high GVF, the operating point is very
close to the apex of the triangle the gas point. An error on
the gas point can result in significant uncertainty on the liquid
rate. The better the determination of the gas properties, the
lower the uncertainty of the condensate and water rates.
Because of the dual energy-gamma Venturi multiphase
flowmeter is based on a physical model, the propagation of
uncertainty of the reference count rates and of the fluid
properties can be estimated. It is recommended that such
procedure is performed during the test design to gauge the
relative importance of the individual set-up parameters in the
multiphase flowmeter (Jayawardane, Theuveny [8]).
Case study
The background of this case study has been already
presented by Hopman et al [3] and Pinguet et al [1]. We will
focus on a specific flow period to illustrate the identification
of the condensate bank around the well bore.
The well was tested in South America in September 2005
with a dual energy gamma Venturi multiphase flowmeter. The
Figure 2 provides an idea of the layout used for this test on the
deck of the platform. A total of 5 sets of tests were performed.
The overall sequence of the acquisition of the flowrates is
summarized in the following table:
Sequence# I: a pre-acid flow was performed in Hidra alone
Sequence# II: a post acid flow period was recorded on Hidra alone
Sequence# III: both zones were tested together
Sequence# IV: a pre-acid flow was performed on Argo alone
Sequence# V: a post acid flow period was recorded on Argo alone
Table 1: Sequence of acquisition of the job

The figure 3 illustrates the series of multirate well test

sequence. We will focus the analysis on the condensate
identification on the sequence III shown on Figure 4.
The rates acquired by the traditional test separator and by
the Vx multiphase flowmeter are presented. The agreement
between the gas rates is quite good, although there is a large
discrepancy between the liquid rate measured by the separator
and the multiphase flowmeter. The consistency of the rate
measured with the multiphase flowmeter is obviously much
better than the one acquired with the test separator. This is
typical of the challenge of the operation of a separator in such
lean environment. The gas rates are large (reaching about 50
MMSCFD) and the retention time in the separator quite small.
Combined with a droplet size that must be rather low, about
50% of the liquid is carried over in the gas line. The positive
displacement meter on the liquid outlet will register only half
of the liquid flow into the separator, as the other half is
diverted with the gas. There is little impact on the gas
measurement, as the mass contribution of the liquid in the gas
line is negligible (a lot of gas, too little liquid) at the fairly
high pressure of operation of the test separator. It is also
possible to note the instabilities of the flow in the test
separator measurement. This is caused by the changes of level
control (either imposed by the operator raising or lowering the
level over the course of the test) or by the challenge of the
automatic controller facing the change of dynamic of the flow.
Figure 5 provides the insight of the analysis of the
condensate banking. As the flowrate of gas increases, the gas
to condensate ratio increases (the CGR decreases) meaning
that the effluent is getting leaner at surface as the downhole
pressure decreases. This means that some liquid components
are not produced to surface any longer. It could not be a
phenomenon of liquid loading, with some liquid stagnating at
the bottom of the completion as the reverse symptoms would
be expected (lower gas to condensate ratio as the rate
increases). As the heavy components (condensate) do not
accumulate in the wellbore, assuming that the composition of
the fluid from the deep part of the reservoir remains the same,
it means that the missing components are accumulating as
condensate drop out in the near well bore area.
A compositional analysis of the fluid presented by
Hopman et al [3] confirms that the downhole pressure
conditions corresponds almost to the dew point of the
reservoir fluid thus confirming that a condensate drop out
would be expected as soon as the downhole pressure in the
wellbore is lowered.
It is clear from figure 5 that it is hopeless to come to this
conclusion with the traditional test separator information.
Despite the carry over in the separator, the lack of resolution
of the liquid rate measurement hinders the ability of
diagnostics. However the dual energy gamma Venturi
multiphase flowmeter provides a resolution of the rates and a
stability of the measurement that enables the interpretability of
the condensate to gas ratio.
Further analysis
An initial history match with a compositional simulator has
demonstrated a good agreement with the data set acquired
with the multiphase flowmeter. It is likely that extra
information can be extracted from this match.

Limitations
The high dynamics of measurements and excellent
resolution of the multiphase flowmeter open new doors for
innovative test design. One shall be careful not to forget that
the multiphase flowmeter measurement, although performed
45 times per second are making a surface measurement. It is
therefore important to correct the interpretation for the travel
time of the phases of fluid from the sand face to the surface in
order to interpret correctly the changes of fluids. This is
particularly important on smaller chokes, where the transit
time can increase. One shall also ensure that rates are always
kept high enough to avoid liquid loading issues, where slip of
the liquid phase can become so large that some fluids start to
segregate in the well bore, leading to unrepresentative phased
measurement at surface.

Conclusions
The latest technology developments of the dual energy
gamma - Venturi multiphase flowmeter at very high Gas
Volume Fractions enable the detection in specific conditions
of the onset of condensate banking in the near well bore area
during a well test. The high stability of the nuclear
measurement enables a high resolution of the Condensate to
Gas Ratio.
The monitoring of the Condensate to Gas ratio with he
multiphase flowmeter during a multi-rate test starting at low
choke setting low rate with subsequent increase of
flowrates, does pick up the change of richness of the flow
which corresponds to a drop out of some of the condensate in
pores around the well bore.
The onset of the condensate bank can be very rapid and
grow into the formation within hours, if not minutes.
In case of collection of surface samples for the purpose of
recombination, one shall ensure that the initial part of the test
is performed with low shock testing an approach already
well practiced for wireline formation testing and sampling in
gas condensate environment. It is also important in Drill Stem
tests and production tests, as once the onset of the condensate
bank has happened, significant new well bore damage can
modify durably the behavior of the well even on lower choke
settings. Thus it is recommended to ensure minimum
drawdown on the well at the early stage of the sequence of
chokes.
Careful monitoring of the Condensate to Gas Ratio does
enable a determination of the potential for self clean-up of the
bank when flowing on a smaller choke with a gradual recovery
of the original Condensate to Gas Ratio.
It is recommended that the multiphase flowmeter be
deployed upstream the choke to increase the sensitivity of the
measurements of liquid (condensate and water) because of the
lower Gas Volume Fraction at high pressure due not only to
the reduction of the gas volume but also because of the higher
liquid drop out at higher pressure.
Finally, the dynamic interpretation of the surface rate
information shall be performed cautiously, to ensure proper
correction of the change of phases measured by the multiphase
flowmeter, to sync the fraction information to the change of

SPE 105362

downhole pressure, as one shall give time to the fluids to

travel from bottom to surface in order to be metered.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Total
Austral, the analysis of Paul Guieze from the fluid point of
view, of Dr. Bruno Pinguet for the detailed study of the data
set and Claude Aroles for the help in the various phase of this
study.

Nomenclature
Symbols:
GVF
= Gas Volume Fraction is the ratio of the gas rate
divided by the total volumetric rate at line
conditions. Generally expressed in percent.
WLR
= Water Liquid Ratio is the ratio of the water
volumetric rate divided by the total liquid
volumetric rate at line conditions. Generally
expressed in percent.
Water Cut = Water Cut: ratio of the water volumetric rate
divided by the total liquid volumetric rate both at
standard conditions. Generally expressed in
percent.
CGR
= Condensate to Gas Ratio: ratio of the condensate
volumetric rate divided by the gas volumetric rate
at standard conditions. It is highly a function of
the number of steps of depressurization between
the measurement conditions and the standard
conditions.
GCR
= Gas to Condensate Ratio the inverse of the
CGR.
Reference:
1.

Pinguet, B. G. , Roux, G. , Hopman, N. : Field Experience

in Multiphase Gas Well Testing: The Benefit of the
combination of Venturi and Multi Energy Gamma Ray,
Paper SPE 103223 presented at the ATCE 2006, San
Antonio, Texas, Sept. 2006.

2.

Theuveny, B., Pithon, J.F., Sgral, G., Loicq,

O.:Worldwide Field Experience of Mobile Well Testing
Services
with
Multiphase
Flowmeters,
Paper
ETCE2002/PROD-29039 presented at the ASME/ETCE
meeting, Houston, Feb 4-6, 2002.

3.

Hopman, N., Pinguet, B., Perez, S., Guize, P, Vandenberg,

S, Bourgeois, A.M., Field Experience in Gas Well Testing:
The benefit of the Vx Technology from 0 to 100% GVF, 5th
International South East Asia Hydrocarbon Flow
Measurement Workshop, March 2006.

4.

Mus E. A., Toskey E. D., Bascoul S. J. F. and Norris, R.J.:

Added Value of a Multiphase Flow Meter in Exploration
Well Testing, paper OTC 13146 presented at 2001 Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, 30 April3 May
2001.

5.

Atkinson, D.I., Brard, M., Hanssen, B.V. and Sgral, G.:

New
Generation
Multiphase
Flowmeters
from
Schlumberger and Framo Engineering, AS., paper presented

SPE 105362

at the 17th International North Sea Flow Measurement

Workshop, Oslo, Norway, 2528 October 1999.
6.

Atkinson, D.I., Brard, M. and Sgral, G.: Qualification of

a Nonintrusive Multiphase Flow Meter in Viscous Flows,
paper SPE 63118, presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 14
October 2000.

7.

Guieze, P., Pinguet, B., Hopman, N., Birkett, G., Foster, J.

A Multiphase Solution to improve Flow Rate
Measurements, Paper IBP1174_06, presented at the Rio Oil
and Gas Expo and conference, 11-14 September, 2006, Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil.

8.

Jayawardane, S., Theuveny, B., "PVT Sampling with

Multiphase Flowmeters", paper SPE 77405 presented at the
SPE ATCE, 29 sep. - 2 Oct. 2002 in Austin, TX, USA.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp
bar
psi
bbl
B/D
cuft
cfd
lb/ft3

x 1.0*
x 1.013 25*
x 6.894 757
x 1.589 873
x 6.624 471
x 2.831 685
x 1.179 869
x 1.601 846

E-03 = Pas
E+05 = Pa
E+00 = kPa
E01 = m3
E03 = m3/h
E02 = m3
E03 = m3/h
E+01 = kg/m3

*Conversion factor is exact

Figures:

Figure 2: Layout for the clean-up. The separator can be seen on

the right, the surge tank in the middle of the picture. The
PhaseTester Vx multiphase flowmeter is contained in the
stainless steel skid just to the right of the surge tank.

SPE 105362

Figure 3: Different sequence of multi-rate tests

Sequence# I:
Sequence# II:
Sequence# III:
Sequence# IV:
Sequence# V:

a pre-acid flow was performed in Hidra alone

a post acid flow period was recorded on Hidra alone
both zones were tested together
a pre-acid flow was performed on Argo alone
a post acid flow period was recorded on Argo alone

Figure 4: Sequence III. Flowrates

SPE 105362

Figure 5: Sequence III Evolution of the Condensate to Gas ratio