SPE 124441

Interpretation of Well Test Data in Gas Condensate Deformable Formations

A. Shandrygin, SPE, D. Rudenko, SPE, and A. Begar, SPE, Schlumberger

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 47 October 2009.
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 have not been
reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The interpretation of WT data in gas condensate formation with stress sensitive rock is very complex problem due to
simultaneous effect of several phenomena on fluids flow in the near wellbore area such as: formation damage skin, nonDarcy flow effect, condensate bank and permeability changing due to rock deformation. In this case its not possible to
estimate the main reservoir properties and total skin with its components using only standard interpretation technique of the
WT data. This problem can be solved on the basis of special approach of the joint treatment of the steady flow multirate test
and pressure build up test data. The proposed WT data interpretation method allows to get the key formation parameters:
undamaged formation permeability (permeability in area distant from well), permeability vs. formation pressure as
exponential function, non-Darcy flow coefficient, total and condensate bank skins. Suggested approach was evaluated using
synthetic production data for the reservoir model based on the Urengoyskoe field (Western Siberia, Russia) parameters.
Introduction
Gas-condensate reservoirs plays important role as the source of the gas and valuable condensed hydrocarbon components
production. Its very well know that reservoir fluid in the gas-condensate reservoir is gas at the initial reservoir pressure, but
when the pressure decreases below dew point pressure it causes condensation of hydrocarbon liquids - condensate appears in
the formations. Over a long distance from wells, a condensate drops out in conditions similar to constant composition
expansion (CCE) or constant volume depletion (CVD): condensate saturation is insignificant and gas flows in porous media
only. In near wellbore zone condensate accumulates in a different manner: in form of a bank or ring of condensate around
wells with much high condensate saturation. The phenomenon of condensate bank accumulation and condensate blockage of
gas-condensate wells was thoroughly studied and can be explained by abrupt change of thermobaric conditions in narrow
domain around the well (Afidick 1994; Ali 1997; Boom 1995; Fevang 1996; Fussell 1973; Hichman 1955; Shandrygin 2005;
Ter-Sarkisov 1997). Near wellbore zones are very important areas of the formation because these zones are responsible for
well deliverability. So this is not surprising that the problem of condensate bank characterization had always caused a great
interest and WT data interpretation was recognized as one of the few of possible ways for this.
Different approaches and various aspects of transient WT of gas condensate reservoirs have been already covered in the
numerous papers. The existing transient methods of transient gas condensate WT data interpretation allow to determine some
key formation and operation parameters such as: reservoir properties (permeability or conductivity), mechanical skin
(caused by formation damage) and condensate skin (created by condensate bank), size of condensate bank and sometimes
average condensate saturation inside a bank. But in case of a stress sensitive gas-condensate reservoir the WT data couldnt be
interpreted unambiguously. In these formations the rock properties may change significantly with variation of pore pressure
and the stress state (Osorio 2002; Vairogs 1971; Thomas 1972; Warpinski 1992; Morita 1992). The pressure depletion creates
a variation of the stress state and causes rock deformation, overburden compaction axial loads that might lead to formation
damage even away from a well. But, of course, the maximum pore pressure variation takes place at the wellbore and in near
wellbore zone and thus the largest deviations from the initial stress occurs in these zones of the reservoir. This process causes
the serious formation damage and permeability changing. Its necessary to note that against rock properties and stress
condition both elastic and plastic deformation can take place. Formation pressure decreasing in carbonate reservoir produces
permeability decline because of the fracture closing for both types deformation. In clastic formation two opposite effects can
take place by formation pressure dropping against of deformation types: dominate phenomena - permeability decline because
of the pores and throats size decreasing and network tortuosity increasing; and minor phenomena - permeability improvement
over rock crashing and creation of micro fractures.

SPE 124441

It is significant that in many cases a gas condensate reservoir is usually associated with deep high pressure, high
temperature (HPHT) deposits and stress sensitive formations. Some field examples around the world clear demonstrate this
fact (Ryuzhov 2005; Pathak 2004; Pathak 2007). With a reservoir production the permeability can dramatically change around
the well exactly in the zone of highest condensate bank accumulation. Therefore additional skin caused by deformation cant
be separated from other skins: mechanical and condensate skin. Moreover rock deformation can produce additional
condensate bank accumulation because of the pressure redistribution around the well due to the permeability decline. So it is
necessary to develop the special methods of well test (WT) design and interpretation need to be developed to determine the
values of different skins, permeability vs. pressure and condensate bank characterization.
All existing methods of transient gas condensate WT data interpretation can be divided into two categories: analytical and
semi-analytical methods; numerical simulation methods.
Methods of the first group are based on pseudopressure function approach: single dry gas or two (three) phases, and twoor three- zone radial composite models (Fussell 1973; Jones 1989; Economides 1987; Raghavan 1995; Thompson 1993;
Fevang 1996; a Jokhio 2002; b Jokhio 2002; Jatmiko 1997; a Shaosong 1999; b Shaosong 1999; Penuela 2000; Barrios
2003; Bozorgzadeh 2004). These methods are easy to use, account for various effects in the near wellbore zones (stripping
effects, non-Darcy flow, and hysteresis phenomenon) but of course they do have some serious limitations. As it was
demonstrated in (Saleh 1992; Shandrygin 2005; Bertram 1997) the existing analytical and semi-analytical methods of WT
interpretation typically describe the fluid properties as functions of pressure only, using PVT data for initial reservoir fluid.
This assumption does not provide good approximation for evaluation of the fluid parameters in gas-condensate bank, hence the
composition of reservoir fluid in near wellbore region could be significantly different from the initial reservoir fluid
composition.
This leads to the problems with flow equations linearization by application of pseudopressure, which is used in analytical
approaches. Also, this approach requires an identification of the stabilized flow regimes on the pseudopressure plots, but
evolution of the condensate bank over time can complicate the stabilized-regimes identification.
Numerical solution of the flow equations without phase transition simulation has the same problem in the fluid properties
evaluation like the analytical ones. Nevertheless, the numerical solution has advantages over analytical and semi-analytical
solutions because it allows to avoid the application of pseudopressure for equations linearization and do not require an
identification of the stabilized flow regimes. Interpretation can be done by the simple matching of calculated pressure
dependence with WT data. The quality of condensate bank parameters estimation with use of numerical model can be
improved only if the peculiarities of phase transition in near wellbore zone are taken into account but this approach requires
the full compositional simulation.
Numerical modeling is really powerful tool for WT simulation, because it rigorously accounts for all complex physics
accompanying the gas-condensate flow, such as retrograde condensate drop out and condensate bank growing, non-Darcy
flow, relative-phase dependence on pressure and velocity effects, formation heterogeneity and moreover complex well
trajectory, for example, horizontal wells (Hashemi 2004; Harisch 2001). One essential disadvantage of numerical methods is
the substantial time and computation resources tend to became unimportant due to essential growth of the computational
power of modern computers, nevertheless some simplified semi-analytical models can be of interest as auxiliary tool providing
almost simultaneous parameters evaluation.
Problem statement
The main complexity of WT in deformable gas condensate formation is related to the necessity to simultaneously determine
several interconnected parameters: formation permeability that depends on the production regime, mechanical and
condensate components of skin, non-Darcy effect contribution to so-called flow resistance. All these parameters couldnt
be estimated on the basis on transient flow test (build up (BU) pressure or draw down (DD) tests). The steady state multi-rate
test (set of rate vs. pressure draw down) is the best method to determine the non-Darcy coefficient. Because, permeability
depends on formation pressure change we can assume that this method can be used also for estimation of permeability change
as the function of the pressure drop. With the known pressure dependent part of the skin constant part of the skin mechanical skin can be also obtained form the PI-curve interpretation. Initial permeability (or permeability in the formation
far from the well) and condensate skin parameters can be determine based on the transient flow test (pressure BU for
example). In this case a joint interpretation of the steady state multi-rate test and build up pressure test allows to get all
information required for production characterization.
Let us consider the problem of gas-condensate production from the single vertical well completed in a single porosity
deformable formation. Rock deformation due to the depressurization of the reservoir is assumed to affect formation
permeability as

K = K 0 exp{a(P P0 )}

(1)

where K and K0 - formation permeability for current and initial formation pressure P and P0 respectively, a constant coefficient. This kind of permeability function can be taken according to results of many studies (Thomas 1972;
Dobrynin 1970; Gorbunov 1981; Vairogs 1971; Lei 2007).

SPE 124441

For the most of the cases production from the gas condensate reservoirs could not be described by Darcy law. For calculation
of the flows in the reservoir the Forchheimer law for flowing phases should be used instead:

Kk rp
Pp =
+ p p up

p

u p ,

(2)

here subscript p denotes phase, up - local phase velocity, p - phase density, p - phase viscosity, p - non-Darcy coefficient
krp - relative phase permeability.
Non Darcy coefficient in its turn is a function of permeability and in this sense it is also the function of pressure. The
dependence of on permeability according to (Belhaj 2003) can be written as:

0
K

(3)

The above analysis leads to the conclusion that in addition to the constant mechanical skin s there is also production regime
dependent part of the skin caused by the formation compaction that is function of at least 3 parameters: a,0,. Due to the
complexity of the problem and sufficient nonlinearity, even in the case of the dry gas production, this problem should be
solved numerically. Numerical evaluation based on fitting of the simulated series of the pressure BU and the DD can be pretty
inefficient because it requires simulation for the transient problem for the partial derivative equations (PDE). At the same time
the interpretation of the PI curve has as advantage that it requires the solution of the series of the steady state problems and
hence, instead of the simulation of the transient PDE the problem can be reduced to the solution of the series of ordinary
differential equations (ODE). Nevertheless it is not possible to exclude completely analysis of the pressure transients from the
consideration - initial formation permeability K0 is calculated using the traditional analysis of the late time part of the BU
curve.
Solution for Dry Gas production
For Dry Gas production problem of the PI calculation can be reduced to the solution of the ODE (see Appendix for more
details):

(Q )st (Q )st
(P ) 1
dP
=
(P ) +
,

2H (P ) 2H
K (P )
d
where

= r 1 , (Q )st

(4)

- mass production rate calculated at the surface conditions,

(P) , (P )

- gas density and

viscosity respectively that can be determined as the functions of the pressure based on the PVT analysis of the reservoir fluid.
K (P) , (P) are functions of pressure given by (2),(3).
The problem is solved for the interval

1
= [Rout
; rs1 ] . Here rs = rW e s

- wellbore equivalent radius that is calculated

the from wellbore radius rW to take into account mechanical skin s, Rout is drainage radius. Initial condition is

1
P = Rout
= P0 .

ODE (4) is not stiff so the solution of the ODE takes negligible time and the problem of the s,a,0, estimation can be
formulated as the problem fit of calculated PI curve to the measured one using some of the large arsenal of the nonlinear
optimization methods, for example Nedler-Mead method (Himmelblau 1972). Using solution of the (4) and expression (1)
component of the skin caused by the formation compaction can be calculated directly:
Rout

s comp =

K0

dr
.
r

K (P(r )) 1

rW

(5)

This approach was evaluated using synthetic data generated by commercial reservoir simulator for the model of the
homogeneous reservoir sector model with single vertical well. Model parameters are given in Tab.1. The reservoir fluid model
was based on the gas condensate mixture similar to the Achimov gas condensate mixture of Urengoyskoe field (Western
Siberia, Russia) that is above the dew point at the reservoir conditions. (Tabs.2,3, Fig.1). In order to keep the fluid in the
reservoir in the single phase production regimes with pressure drop less than 200bar with respect to the initial reservoir
pressure P0 =600bar were chosen, so the bottomhole pressure was kept above dew point of the reservoir fluid Pdew. The
comparison of the synthetic PI curves and calculated from (4) using fitted s,a,0, is given on Figs.2-4. The results of the
calculation of the parameters s,a,0, based on analysis of the synthetic PI curves are given in Tab.4. Formation permeability
in far well zone was estimated from pressure Build-Up (BU) by standard technique.

SPE 124441

Solution for Gas Condensate production

For the gas condensate production below the dew point the problem of s,a,0, determination of and finally of the skin
calculation is more complicated because it is affected by the condensate accumulation around the wellbore and dynamic
changes in composition and properties of the phases flowing in the near wellbore zone. Simulation of the pressure transients in
this case can take sufficient time even in case of single vertical well production. Nevertheless, based on the approach for the
simulation of the steady-state gas condensate production described in (Dinariev 2006), it is possible to formulate procedure for
the PI curves interpretation similar to the procedure described in the previous section. The main advantage of this approach for
the gas condensate production evaluation below dew point is that it allows to calculate all properties of phases as the function
of the initial composition of the reservoir fluid and local pressure. Thus, the phase properties can be calculated beforehand
based PVT simulation of the Constant Composition Expansion (CCE) experiment and then used as know function of pressure.
This provides dramatic speed-up in the simulation if compared with compositional simulation of the pressure transients.
According to the mentioned approach the equation (3) should be rewritten as:

(Qg g + Qcon con )st W (P ) (Qg g + Qcon con )st

g (P )
dP
W (P ) g (P ) +
=
1 ,

d
2H g (P )
2H
K (P )k g (S )

where

(Q
g

+ Qcon con )st

g ( P) , g ( P) , g ( P)

is total mass flow rate,

(6)

W (P ) is the gas mass fraction in flowing fluid,

are properties of the gas phase. Gas phase relative permeability k g ( S ) is a known function of the

gas saturation S. Under assumption that capillary pressure is negligibly small for gas and condensate mixture, gas saturation,
according to (Dinariev 2006) can be calculated as function of local pressure P from the condition that pressure gradients that
can be calculated from (1) are equal for gas and condensate:

A[1 W (P )]
g (P )

c (P )
AW (P )
1 =
1 , (7)
AW (P ) g (P ) +
A[1 W (P )] c (P ) +
g (P )
c (P )
K (P )k g (S )
K (P )k c (S )
here A is the total mass flow rate per unit thickness and 1 radian:

A=

(Q

g + Qcon con )st

2H

The equation (7) can be treated as implicit expression for S as function of P. Hence, all coefficients in (6) are the functions
of P and gas condensate PI curve interpretation can be done similarly to the dry gas case. The initial formation permeability K0
can be determined from traditional analysis of the late time part of pressure BU curve and gas condensate part of the skin can
be calculated directly from the gas saturation distribution obtained from the solution of (6) and (7)
Rout

s cond =

dr
(k (S (P )) 1) r ,
1
g

(8)

rW

or condensate skin can be determined from pressure build up curve as it is described in papers (Bozorgzadeh 2004;
Bozorgzadeh 2007).
Evaluation of the suggested approach was done for the same reservoir model (Tab.1) and the same reservoir fluid model,
for the production regimes with the bottomhole pressure below dew point. Relative phase permeabilities used for the
generation of the synthetic PI curves are presented on Fig.5.
Comparison of the synthetic PI curves and calculated from (6) using fitted s,a,0, is given on Figs.6-8. The results of the
calculation of the s,a,0, from the synthetic PI curves are given in Tabs.5,6. Comparison compaction skin (5) and
condensate skin (8) calculated from the synthetic data and based on solution of equation (6) using fitted s,a,0, is given on
Figs.9-11
Results discussion
Analysis of the results presented in the Figs.2-4, Figs.6-11 and Tabs.4,5,6 demonstrates the applicability of suggested
approach for the estimation of the parameters of the deformable formation from the combined analysis of PI curve and
pressure BU and hence for the evaluation of additional formation damage caused by the formation compaction and condensate
accumulation. Good correspondence between results obtained using this approach and synthetic data shows that this simplified
approach can be reasonable alternative to the full compositional simulators for the evaluation of the gas condensate wells
productivity producing from deformable formation. The analysis of the reconstruction error of the skin, beta factor and

SPE 124441

compaction parameters that it lays within ~5% lead to the conclusion that this approach to the parameters reconstruction has a
unique solution and can be applied for the analysis of the real data after proper conditioning.
Conclusions
In the gas condensate reservoirs with the stress sensitive formation rock deformation in near well-bore zone along with the
condensate banking is one of the main factor influences on the well derivability. So the knowledge about both these
phenomena contribution to well PI decreasing is very important for field development decision making.
Effective method for identification of key formation parameters and different skins for wells producing gas condensate from
such formation was developed. It based on the joint treatment of the steady flow multirate test and pressure build up test data
and allow to determine the follow parameters: undamaged formation permeability, non-Darcy flow parameters,
mechanical skin of the well and components of the skin caused by the formation compaction and the condensate
accumulation around the wellbore.
This proposed approach was successfully tested using synthetic production data generated using commercial compositional
simulator for various formation flow properties and gas condensate mixture compositions, particularly for the reservoir model
based on the Urengoyskoe field (Western Siberia, Russia) parameters. Success in the evaluation of the developed model with
the synthetic production data allow to expect the success at the next step of the model development evaluation of the model
using real production data.
Acknowledgments
Authors would like to thank Schlumberger Company for permission to publish this work.
Nomenclature
Latin:
a coefficient in exponent law dependence of formation permeability on formation pressure
H formation thickness
K formation permeability
K0 initial formation permeability
P pressure
PW sandface pressure
P0 initial reservoir pressure
Q volumetric production rate
r distance from the well
rW wellbore radius
Rout drainage radius
s mechanical skin
scomp skin caused by formation compaction
scond skin caused by condensate deposition
Tres reservoir temperature
u flow velocity
W gas phase mass fraction in fluid flow
xi mass fraction of i-th component in liquid phase of fluid flow
yi mass fraction of i-th component in gas phase of fluid flow
zi0 mass fraction of i-th component in reservoir fluid at initial conditions
Greek:

exponent in dependence of non-Darcy coefficient on formation permeability

non-Darcy coefficient
0 reference value of non-Darcy coefficient at formation permeability K=1mD
viscosity
density
inverse distance from the well
Subscripts:
p phase p
References
Afidick D. et all. Production Performance of Retrograde Condensate Reservoir: A Case Study of Arun Field. Paper SPE
28749. SPE Asia Pacific Oil&Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 7-10 November 1994.

SPE 124441

Ali J.C., McGauley, Wilson C.J. Experimental Studies and Modeling of Gas Condensate Flow Near the Wellbore. Paper
SPE 39053. Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 30 August-3
September 1997.
Barrios K., Stewart G., Davies D. A Novel Methodology for the Analysis of WT Responses in Gas Condensate Reservoirs.
Paper SPE 81039-MS. SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Port of Spain, Trinidad, 2730 April 2003.
Belhaj H.A., Agha K.R., Nouri A.M., Butt S.D., Vaziri H.F., Islam M.R. Numerical Simulation of Non-Darcy Flow Utilizing
the New Forchheimer's Diffusivity Equation. Paper SPE 81499-MS. Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 9-12 June 2003.
Bertram D.A., van de Leemput L.E.C., McDevitt B.S., Al Harthy N.M.A. Petroleum Development Oman Experiences in Gascondensate WT Analysis Using Compositional Simulation. Paper SPE 37994-MS. SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium,
Dallas, Texas, 8-11 June 1997. P. 157.
Boom W., Wit K., Schulte A.M., Oedai S., Zeelenberg J.P.W., Maas J.G. Experimental Evidence for Improved Condensate
mobility at Near-Wellbore Flow Conditions. Paper SPE 30766-MS. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, USA, 22-25 October 1995.
Bozorgzadeh M., Gringarten A.C. New Estimation for the Radius of a Condensate Bank from WT Data Using Dry Gas
Pseudo-Pressure. Paper SPE 89904-MS. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 26-29
September 2004.
Bozorgzadeh M., Gringarten A.C. Estimating Productivity-Controlling Parameters in Gas/Condensate Wells From Transient
Pressure Data. SPE Reservoir Evaluation & Engineering. 2007. V. 10. N 2. P. 100-111. (Paper SPE 94018).
Dinariev O., Shandrygin A., Rudenko D., Tertychnyi V., Evseev N., Klemin D. New Approach to Simulating
Multicomponent Fluids Flow to Hydraulic Fractured Well. Paper SPE 102111. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 2427 September 2006.
Dobrynin V.M. Deformation and change of physical properties of oil and gas formation. M.: Nedra Pub. Russia. 1970. In
Russian.
Economides M.J., Dehghani K., Ogbe D.O., Osterman R.D. Hysteresis Effects for Gas Condensate Wells Undergoing
Buildup Test below the Dew Point Pressure. Paper SPE 16748-MS. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, Texas, 27-30 September 1987.
Fevang O., Whitson C.H. Modeling Gas Condensate Well Deliverability. SPE Reservoir Engineering. 1996. V. 11. N 4. P.
221-230. (Paper SPE 30714). SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October 1995.
Fussell D.D. Single-Well Performance Prediction for Gas Condensate Reservoir. JPT. 1973. V. 25. N 7. P. 860-870. (Paper
SPE 4072).
Gorbunov A.T. Development of abnormal oil field. M.: Nedra Pub. Russia. 1981. In Russian.
Harisch R.A., Bachman R.C., Puchyr P.J., Strashok G.W. Evaluation of a Horizontal Gas-Condensate Well Using Numerical
Pressure Transient Analysis. Paper SPE 71588-MS. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, 30 September-3 October 2001.
Hashemi A., Nicolas L.M., Gringarten A.C. WT Analysis of Horizontal Wells in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. Paper SPE
89905-MS. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 26-29 September 2004.
Hichman S.B., Barree R.D. Productivity Loss in Gas Condensate Reservoir. Paper SPE 14203. SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Las-Vegas, Nevada, USA, 22-25 September 1955.
Himmelblau D.M. Applied nonlinear programming. N-Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 1972. 416 p.
Jatmiko W., Daltaban T.S., Archer J.S. Multiphase Transient WTing for Gas Condensate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 38646-MS.
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, 5-6 October 1997.
a Jokhio S.A., Tiab D. Establishing Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for Gas Condensate Wells. Paper SPE 75503MS. SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 30 April-2 May 2002.
b Jokhio S.A., Tiab D. Pressure Drawdown and Buildup Analysis in Gas Condensate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 76780-MS. SPE
Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 20-22 May 2002.
Jones J.R., Vo D.T., Raghavan R. Interpretation of Pressure Buildup Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells. SPE Formation
Evaluation. 1989. V. 4. N 1. P. 93-104. (Paper SPE 15535-PA).
Lei Q., Xiong W., Yuan J., Cui Y., Wu Y.-S. Analysis of Stress Sensitivity and Its Influence on Oil Production From Tight
Reservoirs. Paper SPE 111148-MS. Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky USA, 17-19 October 2007.
Morita N., Gray K.E., Sroujl Fariz A.A., Jogi, P.N. Rock-Property Changes During Reservoir Compaction. SPE Formation
Evaluation. 1992. V. 7. N 3. P. 197-205. (Paper SPE 13099-PA).
Osorio J.G., Wills A., Alcalde O.R. A Numerical Model to Study the Formation Damage by Rock Deformation from WT
Analysis. Paper SPE 73742-MS. International Symposium and Exhibition on Formation Damage Control, Lafayette,
Louisiana, 20-21 February 2002.
Pathak P., Fidra Y., Avida H., Kahar Z., Agnew M., Hidayat D. The Arun Gas Field in Indonesia: Resource Management of a
Mature Field. Paper SPE 87042-MS. SPE Asia Pacific Conference on Integrated Modeling for Asset Management, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 29-30 March 2004.
Pathak P., Wirya S.I., Catanzano M., Prickett H.D., Mangunsong D.T.M. Impact of Rock Compaction on NSO Gas Field
Performance. Paper SPE 11238-MS. International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, U.A.E., 4-6 December 2007.

SPE 124441

Penuela G., Civan F. Gas-Condensate WT Analysis With and Without Relative Permeability Curves. Paper SPE 63160-MS.
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000.
Raghavan R., Wei-Chue Chu, Jones J.R. Practical Consideration in the Analysis of Gas-Condensate WTs. Paper SPE 30576MS . SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October 1995.
Ryuzhov .., Savchenko N.V., Sheberstov E.V. Peculiarities of gas-condensate reservoir in achimovskii deposits. J.
Gazovaya promyshlennost. 2005. N 1.
Saleh A.M., Stewart G. Interpretation of Gas Condensate WTs with Field Examples. Paper SPE 24719-MS. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Washington, DC, 4-7 October 1992.
Shandrygin A.N., Rudenko D. Condensate Skin Evaluation of Gas-Condensate Wells by Pressure-Transient Analysis. Paper
SPE 97027. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, USA, 9-12 October 2005.
a Shaosong Xu, Lee J. Two-Phase WT Analysis of Gas Condensate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 56483-MS. SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
b Shaosong Xu, Lee J. Gas Condensate WT Analysis Using a Single-Phase Analogy. Paper SPE 55992-MS. SPE Western
Regional Meeting, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, 26-28 May 1999.
Ter-Sarkisov R.M., Gritsenko A.I., Shandrygin A.N. Methods of Increase of Gas-Condensate Well Productivity. Nedra
Publisher, Moscow, Russia. 1997. In Russian.
Thomas R.D., Ward D.C. Effect of Overburden Pressure and Water Saturation on Gas Permeability of Tight Sandstone
Cores. JPT. 1972. V. 24. N 2. P. 120-124. (Paper SPE 3634-PA).
Thompson L.G., Jin-Guo Niu, Reynolds A.C. WTing for Gas Condensate Reservoirs. Paper SPE 25371-MS. SPE Asia
Pacific Oil&Gas Conference&Exhibition, Singapore, 8-10 February 1993.
Vairogs J., Hearn C.L., Dareing D.W., Rhoades V.W. Effect of Rock Stress on Gas Production From Low-Permeability
Reservoirs. JPT. 1971. V. 23. N 9. P. 1161-1167. (Paper SPE 3001-PA).
Warpinski N.R., Teufel L.W. Determination of the Effective-Stress Law for Permeability and Deformation in LowPermeability Rocks. SPE Formation Evaluation. 1992. V. 7. N 2. P. 123-131. (Paper SPE 20572-PA).
Appendix. PI curve calculation
Let us consider the problem of the PI calculation for the vertical well completed in a homogeneous reservoir with permeability
K and thickness H. The well is producing at stabilized flow regime. The well has a wellbore radius rW and a draining area with
external radius Rout so pressure at this distance from the wellbore can be assumed to be equal to the reservoir pressure P0. For
the production above the reservoir dew point the flow in the reservoir is single phase and the flow equations can be written as:

(ru ) = 0 .
r

(A.1)

(A.1) has first integral:

ru =

(Q )st
2H

(A.2)

where (Q )st - mass flow rate.

According to Forchheimer law

P = + u u ,

(A.3)

where , , - are reservoir fluid density, viscosity and non-Darcy coefficient respectively.
u can be expressed from (A.3) as

u=
1
1

+
2 K
2 K

P
.

(A.4)

Substitution of expression for u into (A.2) results in

r2

(Q )st (Q )st
dP
(P )
=
r .
(P ) +

dr 2H (P ) 2H
K (P )

Or using

= r 1

(A.5)

SPE 124441

(Q )st
dP
(Q )st (P ) + (P ) 1
=

d
2H (P )
K (P )
The equation (A.6) is solved on interval

1
= [Rout
; rs1 ]

(A.6)

with initial condition P = Rout = P0 . Where rs = rW e

1

wellbore equivalent radius that is calculated from wellbore radius rW and mechanical skin s. Pressure at sandface that is
corresponding to the stabilized production rate Q is obtained from solution of (A.6) as PW = P (rs )
If

(P) , (P) , (P)

PW

and

K (P) are constants then widely known analytical solution can be obtained:

(Q )st Rout (Q )2st 1

= P0

ln
2H K rW (2H )2 rW

1
Rout

The same logic could be applied for the calculation of Pw of the well producing at stabilized production regime below dew
point. According to (Dinariev 2006), we have N conditions for the conservation of the N components of the reservoir fluid. For
i-th component it can be written as

(r g u g yi + r c u c xi ) = 0 ,
r

(A.7)

here subscripts g and c denotes the properties of the gas and condensate respectively,

y i , xi - mass fraction of the i-th

component in gas and condensate respectively. (A.7) has first integral

r g u g y i + r c u c x i =

(Q )st
2H

z i0 .

Where (Q )st = Q g g + Qcon con

st

(A.8)
is total mass flow rate, and

z i0 - initial mass fraction of the i-th component in the

reservoir fluid. (A.8) is obviously expression for calculation of the local mass content of the i-th component in the fluid with
composition

z i0 at local pressure P. Then mass fraction of the gas in the flowing fluid W(P) can be calculated as function of

the local pressure and initial reservoir fluid composition from the simulation of the Constant Composition Expansion
experiment. Considering W(P) as known function of pressure we can write the equation for pressure gradient as:

W ( P) =

2rH g

(Q )st

g
g

ug =
1 +
2 Kk r g g g
2 Kk r g g g

1 ,
gg

(A.9)

here krg is relative phase permeability. (A.9) can be easily transformed into the equation for calculation of the pressure
distribution in the reservoir for steady-state gas-condensate production that is similar to (A.6):

(Qg g + Qcon con )st W (P ) (Qg g + Qcon con )st

g (P )
dP
W (P ) g (P ) +
=
1 .

d
2H g (P )
2H
K (P )k g (S )

The equation (A.9) is solved on the same interval

Gas phase relative permeability

(A.10)

1
1
) = P0 .
= [Rout
; rs1 ] with the same initial condition P ( = Rout

k g (S ) is known function of the gas saturation S. Under assumption that capillary pressure is

negligibly small for gas the condition that pressure gradients are equal for gas and condensate provides us with a relation for
the calculation of the local gas phase saturation S as function of the pressure:

A(1 W (P ))
g (P )

c (P )
AW (P )
1 =
1 .
AW (P ) g (P ) +
A(1 W (P )) c (P ) +
K (P )k g (S )
K (P )k c (S )
g (P )
c (P )

SPE 124441

Table.1. Reservoir model parameters

P0, bar

600

Tres, C

90

rw, m

0.1

Rout, m

1500

H, m
K0, mD

10
5;50;500

Table.2. Reservoir fluid composition

Components

Mol %

N2

Mol Weight

0.69

28.013

1.089

44.01

C1

78.64

16.043

C2

8.0949

30.07

C3

3.858

44.097

IC4

0.981

58.124

NC4

1.214

58.124

C5

0.88

72.151

C6

0.559

84

C7

0.554

96

C8

0.905

107

CO2

C9

0.49

121

C10+

1.112

155.99

C15+

0.508

230.22

C21+

0.259

298.26

C26+

0.126

374

C33+

0.0402

430

Table.3. Reservoir fluid properties at Pres,Tres

Mole Weight, g/mol
Z-factor

26.2182
1.3737

Viscosity, cP

0.0561

Density, kg/m3

379.27

Pdew@Tres, bar
GOR@Standardt conditions,
SM3/M3

397.4
3088

SPE 124441

P, Bar

10

700

600

Dew line

500

Reservoir
conditions

400

300

200

100

0
0

100

200

300

T, C

400

Fig.1. Phase plot for the reservoir fluid

Table.4 Evaluation of the s,a,, from PI curves synthetic data. Dry Gas production
K0= 5mD s = 0.5 a = 1.38, = 1.176
0=2.400e+10 m-1
a=
0=
=
s=

0=4.800e+10 m-1

0=7.200e+10 m-1

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

1.35
2.42E+10
1.14
0.47

2.3
0.9
2.9
6.1

1.35
4.78E+10
1.18
0.49

2.5
0.5
0.3
1.7

1.35
7.39E+10
1.16
0.47

1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9

K0= 50mD s = 0.5 a = 1.38, = 1.176

a=
0=
=
s=

0=2.400e+10 m-1

0=4.800e+10 m-1

0=7.200e+10 m-1

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

1.384
2.42E+10
1.19
0.501

0.1
0.9
1.3
0.2

1.384
4.84E+10
1.18
0.49

0.2
0.8
0.7
0.3

1.40
7.26E+10
1.19
0.504

0.7
0.9
0.9
0.8

K0= 500mD s = 0.5 a = 1.38, = 1.176

a=
0=
=
s=

0=2.400e+10 m-1
Calculated
Error,%

0=4.800e+10 m-1
Calculated
Error,%

0=7.200e+10 m-1
Calculated
Error,%

1.40
2.41E+10
1.18
0.505

1.40
4.81E+10
1.18
0.505

1.40
7.22E+10
1.18
0.504

0.9
0.3
0.4
1.0

1.0
0.3
0.3
1.0

0.8
0.2
0.2
0.8

SPE 124441

11

200

dP, bar

K0=5mD

160

120

Sim b0=0.5*b0_ref

80

Model b0=0.5*b0_ref
Sim b0=b0_ref
Model b0=b0_ref

40

Sim b0=1.5*b0_ref
Model b0=1.5*b0_ref
0
0

50

100

150

200

Q, 250
MSM3/D 300

Fig.2. PI curves for dry gas production for different values of non-Darcy parameter. Reservoir model with K0=5 mD, s=0.5
200

dP, bar

K0=50mD

160

120

Sim b0=0.5*b0_ref
80

Model b0=0.5*b0_ref
Sim b0=b0_ref
Model b0=b0_ref

40

Sim b0=1.5*b0_ref
Model b0=1.5*b0_ref

0
0

500

1000

1500

Q,
MSM3/D 2500
2000

Fig.3. PI curves for dry gas production for different values of non-Darcy parameter. Reservoir model with K0=50 mD, s=0.5
200

dP, bar

K0=500mD

160

120

80

Sim b0=0.5*b0_ref
Model b0=0.5*b0_ref
Sim b0=b0_ref
Model b0=b0_ref
Sim b0=1.5*b0_ref
Model b0=1.5*b0_ref

40

0
0

3000

6000

9000

Q, 12000
MSM3/D

15000

Fig.4. PI curves for dry gas production for different values of non-Darcy parameter. Reservoir model with K0=500 mD, s=0.5

12

SPE 124441

0.8

0.6

Kg
0.4

Ko

0.2

Sg
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig.5. Relative phase permeabilities used for simulation of gas condensate production
Table.5. Evaluation of the s,a,, from PI curves synthetic data. Gas Condensate production. s=0.5
K0= 5mD s = 0.5 a = 1.38, = 1.176
0=2.400e+10 m-1
a=
0=
=
s=

0=4.800e+10 m-1

0=7.200e+10 m-1

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

1.37
2.39e+10
1.19
0.505

1.0
0.4
1.6
0.9

1.39
4.77e+10
1.18
0.504

0.1
0. 6
0.3
0.8

1.37
7.22e+10
1.21
0.508

1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1

K0= 50mD s = 0.5 a = 1.38, = 1.176

0=2.400e+10 m-1
a=
0=
=
s=

0=4.800e+10 m-1

0=7.200e+10 m-1

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

1.39
2.42e+10
1.19
0.499

0.5
0. 9
0.9
0.004

1.37
4.82e+10
1.19
0.5007

0.5
0.5
1.2
0.1

1.37
7.22
1.19
0.501

0.6
0.3
0.9
0.06

K0= 500mD s = 0.5 a = 1.38, = 1.176

a=
0=
=
s=

0=2.400e+10 m-1
Calculated
Error,%

0=4.800e+10 m-1
Calculated
Error,%

0=7.200e+10 m-1
Calculated
Error,%

1.37
2.41e+10
1.18
0.496

1.39
4.83e+10
1.185
0.500

1.384
7.25e+10
1.183
0.500

0.8
0.5
0.5
0.7

0.03
0.7
0.7
0.1

0.2
0. 7
0.6
0.2

SPE 124441

13

Table.6. Evaluation of the s,a,, from PI curves synthetic data. Gas Condensate production. s=5.0
K0= 5mD s = 5 a = 1.38, = 1.176
0=2.400e+10 m-1
a=
0=
=
s=

0=4.800e+10 m-1

0=7.200e+10 m-1

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

1.34
2.38E+10
1.19
4.929

3.4
0.7
1.2
1.4

1.366
4.79E+10
1.167
4.897

1.5
0.1
0.7
2.1

1.348
7.08E+10
1.173
4.934

2.7
1.6
0.2
1.3

K0= 50mD s = 5 a = 1.38, = 1.176

0=2.400e+10 m-1
a=
0=
=
s=

0=4.800e+10 m-1

0=7.200e+10 m-1

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

Calculated

Error,%

1.35
2.42E+10
1.24
5.122

2.3
0.8
5.5
2.4

1.348
4.77E+10
1.201
5.003

2.8
0.7
2.1
0.1

1.351
7.16E+10
1.191
4.968

2.6
0.6
1.3
0.6

K0= 500mD s = 5 a = 1.38, = 1.176

a=
0=
=
s=

0=2.400e+10 m-1
Calculated
Error,%

0=4.800e+10 m-1
Calculated
Error,%

0=7.200e+10 m-1
Calculated
Error,%

1.351
2.38E+10
1.174
4.909

1.351
4.77E+10
1.166
4.859

1.345
7.13E+10
1.163
4.848

2.6
0.9
0.1
1.8

2.6
0.6
0.8
2.8

2.9
1.0
1.1
3.0

400

dP, bar

K0=5mD
Sim b0=0.5*b0_ref
Model b0=0.5*b0_ref

300

Sim b0=b0_ref
Model b0=b0_ref
Sim b0=1.5*b0_ref

200

Model b0=1.5*b0_ref

100

0
0

70

140

210

Q, MSM3/D
280

350

Fig.6. PI curves for gas condensate production for different values of non-Darcy parameter. Reservoir model with K0=5 mD , s=0.5

14

SPE 124441

400

dP, bar

K0=50mD

300

200

Sim b0=0.5*b0_ref
Model b0=0.5*b0_ref
Sim b0=b0_ref

100

Model b0=b0_ref
Sim b0=1.5*b0_ref
Model b0=1.5*b0_ref
0
500

1100

1700

2300

Q, MSM3/D
2900

3500

Fig.7. PI curves for gas condensate production for different values of non-Darcy parameter. Reservoir model with K0=50 mD, s=0.5
400

dP, bar

K0=500mD

300

200

Sim b0=0.5*b0_ref
Model b0=0.5*b0_ref
Sim b0=b0_ref
Model b0=b0_ref
Sim b0=1.5*b0_ref
Model b0=1.5*b0_ref

100

0
3000

6000

9000

12000

15000
Q, MSM3/D

18000

Fig.8. PI curves for gas condensate production for different values of non-Darcy parameter. Reservoir model with K0=500 mD, s=0.5
3.5
Sim, b = 0.5b0

k=5mD

Model, b = 0.5b0

Scomp

Sim, b = b0
Model, b = b0

2.5

Sim, b = 1.5b0
2

Model, b = 1.5b0

1.5

Scond
1

0.5

0
0

50

100

150

200

Q, MSM3/D
250
300

Fig.9. Compaction and Condensate skin values for gas condensate production for different values of non-Darcy parameter.
Reservoir model with K0=5 mD, s=0.5

SPE 124441

15

3
Sim, b = 0.5b0

k=50mD

Model, b = 0.5b0
2.5

Sim, b = b0

Scomp

Model, b = b0
Sim, b = 1.5b0

Model, b = 1.5b0
1.5

Scond

0.5

0
0

500

1000

1500

Q, 2000
MSM3/D

2500

Fig.10. Compaction and Condensate skin values for gas condensate production for different values of non-Darcy parameter.
Reservoir model with K0=50 mD, s=0.5
2.0

k=500mD

1.5

Sim, b = 0.5b0

Scomp

Model, b = 0.5b0
Sim, b = b0
Model, b = b0

1.0

Sim, b = 1.5b0
Model, b = 1.5b0
0.5

Scond
0.0
2000

6000

10000

Q,14000
MSM3/D

18000

Fig.11. Compaction and Condensate skin values for gas condensate production for different values of non-Darcy parameter.
Reservoir model with K0=500 mD, s=0.5