SPE 103255

Optimizing the Productivity of Gas/Condensate Wells

C. Shi, R.N. Horne, and K. Li, Stanford U.
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A., 2427 September 2006.

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
Gas-condensate reservoirs exhibit complex phase and flow
behaviors due to the appearance of condensate banking in the
near-well region. A good understanding of how the condensate
accumulation influences the productivity and the composition
configuration in the liquid phase is very important to optimize
the producing strategy, to reduce the impact of condensate
banking, and to improve the ultimate gas recovery.

This study addressed several issues related to the behavior of
the composition variation, condensate saturation build-up and
condensate recovery during the gas-condensate producing
process. A key factor that controls the gas-condensate well
deliverability is the relative permeability, which is influenced
directly by the condensate accumulation. The accumulated
condensate bank not only reduces both the gas and liquid
relative permeability, but also changes the phase composition
of the reservoir fluid, hence reshapes the phase diagram of
reservoir fluid and varies the fluid properties. Different
producing strategies may impact the composition
configuration for both flowing and static phases and the
amount of the liquid trapped in the reservoir, which in turn
may influence the well productivity and hence the ultimate gas
and liquid recovery from the reservoir. Changing the manner
in which the well is brought into flowing condition can affect
the liquid dropout composition and can therefore change the
degree of productivity loss.

In this study, compositional simulations of multicomponent
gas-condensate fluids were conducted at field scale to
investigate the composition and condensate saturation
variations. Different producing strategies have been compared,
and the optimum producing sequences are suggested for
maximum gas recovery. A core flooding experiment with two-
component synthetic gas-condensate was designed and
constructed to model gas-condensate production behavior
from pressure above the dew-point to below. Experimental
observations of gas-condensate production confirm the
dramatic changes in the liquid composition seen in the
simulations.

Introduction
Liquid forms in a gas-condensate reservoir when the bottom-
hole pressure drops below the dew-point pressure. The
accumulated condensate in the vicinity of the well bore causes
a blockage effect and reduces the effective permeability
appreciably, and also causes the loss of heavy components at
surface. These effects depend on a number of reservoir and
well parameters.

The productivity loss caused by the condensate buildup is
striking. In some cases, the decline can be as high as a factor
of two to four, according to the case studies of Afidick et al.
1

and Barnum et al.
2
. Even in very lean gas-condensate
reservoirs with a maximum liquid drop out of only 1%, the
productivity may be reduced by a factor of about two as the
pressure drops below the dew-point pressure
1
. In order to
predict well deliverability and calculate gas and liquid
recovery, it is necessary to have a detailed knowledge of liquid
banking in gas-condensate fields.

Fevang and Whitson
3
addressed the well deliverability
problem in their gas-condensate modeling, where they
observed that well deliverability impairment resulting from
near well-bore condensate blockage depends on PVT,
absolute and relative permeabilities, and how the well is being
produced.

The relative permeability effect has been reported in field
observations. Variations of reservoir fluid PVT properties at
discovered condition have been observed and discussed for
many reservoirs around the world (for example reference 4 for
mid-eastern reservoirs and reference 5 for North Sea
reservoirs). Lee
6
also presented an example to show the
variation of composition and saturation of the gas-condensate
system due to the influences of capillary and gravitational
forces.

Roussennac
7
illustrated the phase change during the depletion
in his numerical simulation. According to Roussennac, during
the drawdown period, with the liquid building up in the well
grid cell, the overall mixture in that cell becomes richer in
heavy components, and the fluid behavior changes from the
initial gas-condensate reservoir to that of a volatile/black oil
reservoir.
2 SPE 103255
The well producing scheme may impose significant impacts
on PVT properties. However, the manner by which the
producing scheme influences the PVT properties has not yet
been sufficiently addressed. This study aims to investigate the
producing strategy and its influences on productivity and
composition.

Compositional simulations of a multicomponent gas-
condensate system and a binary-component gas-condensate
system were conducted here. To confirm the compositional
variations resulting from producing strategy, a core flood
experiment has also been designed and constructed to
investigate the gas-condensate flow behavior in porous media.
The simulation models, the experimental apparatus and the
procedures are described here. Following that, the simulation
results and the experimental results are presented. Finally,
some conclusions are drawn.

Simulation models

Multicomponent simulation model
The primary objective of the simulation was to understand the
impact of producing scheme on the condensate banking and
compositional variations. A hypothetic cylindrical reservoir
model, with radius of 5200 ft and permeability-thickness of 20
md50 ft has been chosen, and a simulator E300 (2005a,
Eclipse) with fully implicit (FULLIMP) method was used to
simulate the performance under different producing strategies.

The multicomponent fluid properties are shown in Table 1.
Additional laboratory liquid dropout data were used to
correlate with equation of state (EOS) phase-behavior
calculation. The PVT program used in this study was PVTi by
Geoquest. The Modified Peng-Robinson EOS was used to
perform the fluid characterization. Figure 1 shows the liquid
dropout calculation from a tuned EOS, which matches well
with the measured data. Figure 2 shows the phase envelope for
this multicomponent gas-condensate system. The EOS
predictions were then used as the input to the simulator.

Table 1: Fluid composition of gas-condensate
Component
N
2
CO
2
C
1
C
2
C
3
iC
4
nC
4
iC
5
nC
5
C
6
C
7
C
8
C
9
C
10+
C
10+
MW
C
10+
density (g/cm3)
Fluid (mol%)
0.0085
0.0065
0.8358
0.0595
0.0291
0.0045
0.0111
0.0036
0.0048
0.0060
0.0080
0.0076
0.0047
0.0103
183
0.8120

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
x 10
7
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Pressure (MPa)
L
i
q
u
i
d

d
r
o
p
o
u
t
liquid dropout (simulated)
liquid dropout (experimental)

Figure 1: Liquid dropout from constant volume depletion (CVD)
experiment.


Figure 2: Phase diagram of a multicomponent condensate
system.

In the simulations, small radii around the well-bore were
chosen to allow for accurate pressure drop calculation in the
near well-bore region.

In porous media, PVT properties are controlled by the in-situ
reservoir temperature, pressure and the porous media
properties. In this study, no temperature change has been
considered. Hence, the PVT properties are determined by the
in-situ reservoir pressure and the way the heavy components
accumulate. In order to investigate how the producing strategy
influences the condensate blockage and hence, the final gas
recovery, two sets of simulations were conducted, one with
fixed bottom-hole pressure (BHP) strategy with different BHP
settings and the other with varying BHP as a function of time,.

Binary-component simulation model
To investigate the composition and saturation change resulting
from the producing scheme, a binary-component gas-
condensate system was selected to conduct the core flooding
experiment. Figure 3 shows the phase diagram of the C
1
/C
4

(85%/15%) synthetic gas-condensate system. This system has
low critical temperature (T
c
= -13.2 C) and critical pressure
(p
c
= 1760 psi), which makes the experiment easy to perform
under room temperature and within relatively low pressure
SPE 103255 3
range, and at the same time considerable condensate dropout
is expected to form during the experiment.

To simulate the core flooding experiment under constant
pressure drop, one gas injector and one producer were used in
a simulation model. Both wells are controlled by bottom-hole
pressure, such that the fluid from the injection well is always
in gas phase with reservoir pressure higher than the dew-point
pressure, while fluid around the producing well is always in
two-phase with BHP set below the dew-point pressure.

The same simulator (E300) and FULLIMP method were used
for this simulation.

Blow-down
Batch 1
Batch 2
Batch 3
Batch 4
Blow-down
Batch 1
Batch 2
Batch 3
Batch 4
Blow-down
Batch 1
Batch 2
Batch 3
Batch 4

Figure 3: Phase diagram for a two-component methane-propane
gas-condensate system.

Experimental Apparatus and Procedures

Experimental Apparatus
The gas-condensate experiment consists of four major parts
(see Figure 4): the gas supply and exhaust part, the core flow
system part, the gas sampling part, and the data acquisition
part.

One of the unusual aspects of the experiment was the ability to
measure in-place composition, as well as the usual pressure,
temperature and flow.

The upstream gas mixture was stored in a piston cylinder (Hai
An, China, capacity 4,000 ml, pressure range 0-32 MPa),
which was attached to a water pump (HIP, model 62-6-10).
This was to control the gas supply pressure at a level higher
than the gas-condensate dew point pressure. The downstream
gas exhaust was discharged to the fumehood directly for this
experiment since the total volume of the exhaust is small.

The core flow system consists of the titanium core-holder
(Shiyi Science and Technology, model J300-01), which can
support a system pressure as high as 40 MPa, and a Berea
sandstone core plug with length of 25.04 cm and diameter of
5.06 cm.

The gas samples were collected into seven Tedlar gas
sampling bags (SKC west, model 232-02), six along the core-
holder and one at the downstream port for the exhaust gas.
Gas sampling bags were connected to the system in a way that
the bags can be vacuumed before the experiment and the
sampling gas pressure is low enough not to blow off the bags.
An HP 5880A series gas chromatograph was used to analyze
the composition of gas samples. A 30 ft packing column
(Alltech, model 12713) was specified for the TCD detector for
the light component analysis.

Different capacity pressure transducers were used to measure
the absolute pressures and the pressure drops occurring during
the gas flowing process. Two 2,000 psi transducers and a
3,000 psi digital pressure gauge were attached to the core-
holder inlet and the first sampling port to measure the
upstream flowing pressure of the system and the core plug
respectively. Experience showed that the pressure drop
between the core-holder inlet and the first core port is very
small; hence the original mixture entering into the core plug
was ensured to be above the dew-point pressure. Two 1,250
psi transducers were attached to the end of the core-holder and
the last sampling ports. Pressure differences along the
sampling ports were measured by the 320 psi transducers.


Sampling part
HC Detector
PR
P P P P P
Computer
LabView
Water pump
C
1
&
C
4
Exhaust
BPR
Transducer
Transducer Transducer
Transducer
DP DP DP DP DP
Sampling part
S S S S S S
S
Water pump
Vacuum pump
Exhaust
Vacuum
Sampling part
HC Detector
PR
P P P P P
Computer
LabView
Water pump
C
1
&
C
4
Exhaust
BPR
Transducer
Transducer Transducer
Transducer
DP DP DP DP DP
Sampling part
S S S S S S
S
Water pump
Vacuum pump
Exhaust
Vacuum
HC Detector HC Detector
PR
P P P P P P P P P P
Computer
LabView
Computer
LabView
Water pump Water pump
C
1
&
C
4
Exhaust
BPR
Transducer Transducer
Transducer Transducer Transducer Transducer
Transducer Transducer
DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DP DP
Sampling part
SS SS SS SS SS SS
S
Water pump Water pump
Vacuum pump
Exhaust
Vacuum

Figure 4: Schematic diagram of the gas-condensate flow system.

Experimental Procedures
Before the flow test, the core was saturated with pure methane
at a pressure of 1,806 psi. Then 2 pore volumes of gas mixture
of methane and butane were flushed through the core. The
core system pressure after equilibrium was 2,106.8 psi.

Four batches of composition samples along the core were
collected during the experiment.
The first batch was taken before the flow test at
pressure 2,106.8 psi.
The second batch samples were taken during the flow
test, when the final upstream and downstream
pressure reached 1,625.6 psi and 1,200 psi
respectively.
After shutting down the gas supply the upstream
pressure dropped to 663.09 psi. The third batch
samples were then taken.
The upstream pressure was further drawn down to
61.5 psi, and the fourth batch samples (only 2) were
taken at the exit.
4 SPE 103255
These four sampling points are shown in Figure 3. All gas
samples were collected in the sampling bags and sent to the
gas chromatograph for composition analysis.

Results and Discussion

Experiment results
Figure 5 shows the gas chromatograph results for all the gas
samples. Notice that the first batch of gas samples, which were
collected before the flow test, show slightly different
composition for the same component (C
1
or C
4
) at different
sample ports and these compositions also differ slightly from
the initial compositions. The samples taken at the sample port
2 and 6 are the only two samples exactly equal to the initial
compositions. Sample 1, 3 and 4 show higher C
4
percentage
and sample 5 shows lower C
4
percentages compared to the
initial 19% C
4
percentage. This may be due to the fact that the
core was presaturated with pure methane at pressure 1,800 psi.

When the upstream pressure drops, more gas condensate drops
out into the core, and the accumulated condensate liquid,
which is richer in heavier component, can not flow until the
condensate saturation reaches the threshold saturation on the
relative permeability curve. Hence the flowing phase consists
of lighter component; this is confirmed by the composition
decrement in C
4
component in the second and the third flow
test.

When the core system pressure drops below the pressure
corresponding to the maximum liquid drop-out point, the
condensate starts to revaporize. A higher percentage of heavier
component was expected to be seen at this stage. This is
confirmed by the composition results from the last batch
samples (batch 4), where the sampling pressure was only 61.5
psi and the C
4
composition is as high as 57.5%. At this point
in the experiment, the accumulated heavy component was
revaporized and recovered.


0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Port
C
4

(
%
)
Batch 1
Batch 2
Batch 3
Batch 4
Flow direction
original
composition
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6
Port
C
4

(
%
)
Batch 1
Batch 2
Batch 3
Batch 4
Flow direction
original
composition

Figure 5: Gas sample results for the mole fraction of C
4
in the
flowing phase.

Multicomponent simulation results
In the field scale simulation results, Figure 6 shows the
condensate saturation profiles vs. radius r for different times.
The region of interest here is the two-phase zone. As expected,
as the production proceeds, the pressure-drop expands to
regions further away from the producing well. Once the
pressure drops below the local dew-point pressure, condensate
drops into the reservoir and accumulates until the accumulated
liquid saturation reaches the relative permeability threshold.
From the figure, we can also see that the near well region has
the greatest liquid accumulation resulting from the early liquid
drop-out.

Figure 7 shows mole fractions of C
7
for the liquid phase. The
trend is similar to that of saturation profiles, noticing that the
heavy component (C
7,
in this case) accumulation is more
prominent in the near well region.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radius r (ft)
S
c

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
t = 0.5 day t = 1.5 days t = 102 days t = 206 days t = 345 days
t = 575 days t = 670 days t = 755 days t = 840 days t = 900 days
t = 940 days t = 980 days t = 990 days t = 1000 days
increasing producing time

Figure 6: Saturation profiles at different times.

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radius r (ft)
C
7

i
n

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
h
a
s
e

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
t = 0.5 day t = 1.5 days t = 102 days t = 206 days t = 345 days
t = 575 days t = 670 days t = 755 days t = 840 days t = 900 days
t = 940 days t = 980 days t = 990 days t = 1000 days
increasing producing time

Figure 7: Mole fraction profiles of C
7
in liquid phase.

a) Strategy of fixed BHP
In a PVT cell, the liquid drop-out from the gas-condensate
system can be revaporized if we either lower the BHP or
increase the BHP. However, in a porous medium, the
liquid drop-out is immobile unless the liquid accumulation
reaches the critical condensate saturation value on the
relative permeability curve. The accumulated condensate is
generally made up of heavier components and hence
changes the local phase composition. Whether the
condensate build-up can be revaporized is mainly
determined by the local fluid composition. Figure 8 shows
the saturation profile for different well BHPs. We can see
SPE 103255 5
that the liquid saturation still accumulates as the BHP
drops, and no revaporization appears to happen for this
particular fluid system.

As the BHP drops, more C
7
, one of the heavy components,
drops to the liquid phase (Figure 9). Although the total gas
production (Figure 10) increases as the BHP decreases, the
well productivity (Figure 11) drops dramatically as liquid
saturation builds up.

Figure 12 and Figure 13 show that as the BHP decreases,
the two-phase region expands, and more heavy-
component will be left in the reservoir.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
S
C

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)

BHP = 2000 psi BHP = 500 psi BHP = 1000 psi BHP = 1500 psi
BHP = 2500 psi BHP = 3000 psi BHP = 3500 psi BHP = 4000 psi
decreasing BHP

Figure 8: Condensate saturation profile for different BHP.

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
C

7

i
n

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
h
a
s
e

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
BHP = 2000 psi BHP = 500 psi BHP = 1000 psi BHP = 1500 psi
BHP = 2500 psi BHP = 3000 psi BHP = 3500 psi BHP = 4000 psi
decreasing BHP

Figure 9: Mole fraction profiles of C
7
in liquid phase.

0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
45000000
50000000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
W
G
P
T

(
m
s
c
f
)
BHP = 2000 psi BHP = 500 psi BHP = 1000 psi BHP = 1500 psi
BHP = 2500 psi BHP = 3000 psi BHP = 3500 psi BHP = 4000 psi
decreasing BHP

Figure 10: Total gas production profile for different BHP.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
W
P
I
G

(
m
s
c
f
/
d
a
y
-
p
s
i
)
BHP = 2000 psi BHP = 500 psi BHP = 1000 psi BHP = 1500 psi
BHP = 2500 psi BHP = 3000 psi BHP = 3500 psi BHP = 4000 psi
decreasing BHP
single phase
two phases

Figure 11: Well productivity index (WPIG) profiles for different
BHP.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radius r (ft)
S
c

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
BHP = 2000 psi BHP = 500 psi BHP = 1000 psi BHP = 1500 psi
BHP = 2500 psi BHP = 3000 psi BHP = 3500 psi BHP = 4000 psi
decreasing BHP

Figure 12: Comparison of condensate saturation profiles for
different BHP at t = 1000 days.
6 SPE 103255
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radius r (ft)
C
7

i
n

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
h
a
s
e

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
BHP = 2000 psi BHP = 500 psi BHP = 1000 psi BHP = 1500 psi
BHP = 2500 psi BHP = 3000 psi BHP = 3500 psi BHP = 4000 psi
decreasing BHP

Figure 13: Comparison of mole fraction profiles of C
7
in liquid
phase at t = 1000 days.

In this case, we can decrease the BHP to achieve greater
pressure difference; hence temporarily to produce more gas
from the reservoir. However, lowering the BHP will cause the
expansion of the two-phase region, and the accumulation of
more heavy-component in the reservoir. Hence, lowering the
BHP may not be a good strategy for maximizing total fluid
recovery.

b) Strategy of BHP ramping as a function of time.
Instead of setting BHP at a fixed value, we can also control the
BHP such that it ramps as a function of the producing time.
For all simulation tests in this case, the initial reservoir
pressure and the final well bottom-hole pressure control were
the same.

Figure 14 shows the ramping strategies used in this study.
Increasing the ramping time, the gas production rate increases
at the late producing life, although the initial production rate is
low due to the smaller pressure difference (Figure 15). The
well loses some gas production in total when the ramping time
increases (Figure 16). However, the well productivity index
reduction is delayed from the high productivity of single-
phase flow to low productivity of two-phase flow (Figure 17).
The accumulation of condensate saturation (Figure 18) and
heavy component (Figure 19) are also delayed.
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
W
B
H
P

(
p
s
i
)
Increase ramping time

Figure 14: BHP ramps as functions of time.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
W
G
P
R

(
m
s
c
f
/
d
a
y
)
Increase ramping time

Figure 15: Gas production rate profiles for different ramping
strategies.

0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
45000000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
W
G
P
T

(
m
s
c
f
)
Increase ramping time

Figure 16: Total gas production profiles for different ramping
strategies.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
W
P
I
G

(
m
s
c
f
/
d
a
y
-
p
s
i
)
Increase ramping time

Figure 17: Well productivity index profiles for different ramping
strategies.


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
S
c

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
Increase ramping time

Figure 18: Condensate saturation profiles for different ramping
strategies.
SPE 103255 7

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Time (days)
C
7

i
n

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
h
a
s
e

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
Increase ramping time

Figure 19: mole fraction profiles for C
7
in liquid phase at different
ramping strategies.

From Figures 20 and 21, we can see that by increasing the
ramping time, the two-phase region can be effectively shrunk
by a factor as much as 10, and less heavy-component can be
left in the reservoir. This is very meaningful from the point of
the long-term field development since it has been reported
from many field cases that the heavy components are difficult
to recover once they have been left in the reservoir.


0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radius r (ft)
S
c

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
ramp = 0 ramp = 1000 ramp = 100 ramp = 200 ramp = 300 ramp = 400
ramp = 500 ramp = 600 ramp = 700 ramp = 800 ramp = 900
Producer
Increase ramping time

Figure 20: Saturation profiles for different ramping strategies at
t = 1000 days.

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Radius r (ft)
C
7

i
n

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
h
a
s
e

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
ramp = 0 ramp = 1000 ramp = 100 ramp = 200 ramp = 300 ramp = 400
ramp = 500 ramp = 600 ramp = 700 ramp = 800 ramp = 900
Producer
Increase ramping time

Figure 21: Mole fraction profiles of C
7
in liquid phase for different
ramping strategies at t = 1000 days.

Two-component simulation results
Figures 22 to 29 show the simulation results for the binary-
component methane/butane system. These are a representation
of flow in the experiment described earlier. The general
conclusions for the BHP strategy are the same for both
multicomponent and binary-component systems. That is, the
total gas production increases as a result of greater pressure
difference between the reservoir and the well, but at the same
time, lower BHP also brings more heavy-component into the
reservoir and generates a larger two-phase region. For this
particular binary combination of C
1
and C
4
, the saturation
profile (Figure 22) shows decreases after the accumulated
condensate saturation reaches a maximum value. Noticing that
this maximum condensate saturation (S
cam
=0.53) is greater
than the critical condensate saturation (S
ac
=0.25) from the
relative permeability curve. The mole fraction of C
4
in the
liquid phase also drops as the well continues producing. The
reason is that some revaporization of the in-place liquid phase
takes place; thus the two-phase zone varies as the well keeps
producing.

Figure 25 shows that the well gas productivity drops
significantly from single-phase flow to two-phase flow and the
lower the BHP, the greater the drop in gas productivity.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (cm)
S
c
t = 0.005h t = 0.01h t = 0.015h t = 0.02h
t = 0.025h t = 0.035h t = 0.055h t = 20h
flow direction

Figure 22: Saturation vs. distance for binary-component
condensate system at BHP = 75 atm.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (cm)
C
4

i
n

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
h
a
s
e

t = 0.005h t = 0.01h t = 0.015h t = 0.02h
t = 0.025h t = 0.035h t = 0.055h t = 20h
flow direction

Figure 23: Mole fraction of C
4
vs. distance at BHP = 75 atm.

8 SPE 103255
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (hour)
W
G
P
T

(
s
c
c
)
BHP = 75 atm BHP = 25 atm BHP = 35 atm BHP = 45 atm
BHP = 55 atm BHP = 65 atm BHP = 85 atm BHP = 95 atm
BHP = 105 atm BHP = 115 atm
decreasing BHP

Figure 24: Total gas production profiles for different BHP.

0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hour)
W
P
I
G

(
s
c
c
/
h
o
u
r
-
a
t
m
)
BHP = 75 atm BHP = 25 atm BHP = 35 atm BHP = 45 atm
BHP = 55 atm BHP = 65 atm BHP = 85 atm BHP = 95 atm
BHP = 105 atm BHP = 115 atm
increasing BHP
s
i
n
g
l
e

p
h
a
s
e

r
e
g
i
o
n
t
w
o

p
h
a
s
e
s

r
e
g
i
o
n

Figure 25: Well gas productivity profiles for different BHP.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hour)
S
c

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
BHP = 75 atm BHP = 25 atm BHP = 35 atm BHP = 45 atm
BHP = 55 atm BHP = 65 atm BHP = 85 atm BHP = 95 atm
BHP = 105 atm BHP = 115 atm
increasing BHP

Figure 26: Condensate saturation vs. time for different BHP.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Time (hour)
C
4


i
n

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
h
a
s
e
BHP = 75 atm BHP = 25 atm BHP = 35 atm BHP = 45 atm
BHP = 55 atm BHP = 65 atm BHP = 85 atm BHP = 95 atm
BHP = 105 atm BHP = 115 atm
decreasing BHP

Figure 27: Mole fraction of C
4
vs. time for different BHP.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (cm)
S
c
BHP = 75 atm BHP = 25 atm BHP = 45 atm
BHP = 65 atm BHP = 85 atm BHP = 105 atm
flow direction
decreasing BHP

Figure 28: Saturation vs. distance for different BHP at t = 20h.

0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (cm)
C
4

i
n

l
i
q
u
i
d

p
h
a
s
e

(
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
)
BHP = 75 atm BHP = 25 atm BHP = 45 atm
BHP = 65 atm BHP = 85 atm BHP = 105 atm
flow direction
decreasing BHP

Figure 29: Mole fraction of C
4
vs. distance for different BHP at t =
20h.

SPE 103255 9
In summary from the simulation results, we can conclude that
there is no standard way to optimize the producing strategy.
Using low BHP or rapid ramping time for BHP, we can
achieve high total gas production temporarily, however, to
minimize the condensate banking blockage and hence to
enhance the ultimate gas and liquid recovery, higher BHP or
slower ramping time for BHP may be a better strategy. The
optimal approach is likely to be dependent on the original
composition.

Conclusions
1. In gas-condensate flow, local composition changes
due to relative permeability effects.
2. Composition and condensate saturation change
significantly as a function of producing sequence.
The higher the BHP, the less the condensate banking
and a smaller amount of heavy-component is trapped
in the reservoir; increasing ramping time of BHP will
also help to alleviate the condensate banking and
heavy-component trapping.
3. Gas productivity can be maximized with proper
producing strategy. The total gas production can be
achieved by lowering the BHP or dropping the BHP
quickly instead of ramping slowly to a preset BHP
value.
4. Productivity loss can be reduced by optimizing the
producing sequence.
5. The condensate drop-out will hinder the flow
capability, due to relative permeability effects.

Nomenclature
N
2
nitrogen
CO
2
carbon dioxide
C
1
methane
C
2
ethane
C
3
propane
iC
4
i-butane
nC
4
n-butane
iC
5
i-pentane
nC
5
n-pentane
C
6
hexane
C
7
heptane
C
8
octane
C
9
nonane
C
10+
decene
MW molecular weight
CVD constant volume depletion
BHP bottom-hole pressure
S
cc
critical condensate saturation
Sc condensate saturation
WPIG gas productivity index of a well (mscf/day-psi or
scc/hour-atm)
WGPT well total gas production (mscf or scc)
T
c
critical temperature (K or C)
p
c
critical pressure (psi or atm)


Acknowledgements
We would like to express our appreciation to Saudi Aramaco
and the members of SUPRI-D (Research Consortium on
Innovation in Well Testing) for financial support and useful
discussions.

References
1. Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J., and Bette, S., 1994
Production Performance of a Retrograde Gas: A Case Study
of the Arun Field, paper SPE 28749 presented at the SPE
Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference held in Melbourne,
Australia.

2. Barnum, R.S., Brinkman, F.P., Richadson, T.W. and
Spillette, A.G., 1995 Gas Condensate Reservoir Behavior:
Productivity and Recovery Reduction Due to Condensation,
paper SPE 30767 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX.

3. Fevang, O. and Whitson, C.H., 1996 Modeling Gas-
Condensate Well Deliverability, paper SPE Res. Eng., P221-
230.

4. Riemens, W.G. and de Jong, L.N.J.: Birba Field PVT
Variations Along the Hydrocarbon Column and Confirmatory
Field Tests, paper SPE 13719 presented at the SPE 1985
Middle East Oil Technical Conference held in Bahrain, March
11-14, 1985.

5. Schulte, A.M.: Compositional Variation within a
Hydrocarbon Column Due to Gravity, paper SPE 9235
presented at the 55
th
Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas TX September 21-24, 1980.

6. Lee, S.T.: Capillary-Gravity Equilibria for Hydrocarbon
Fluids in Porous Media, paper SPE 19650 presented at the
64
th
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San
Antonio TX October 8-11, 1989.

7. Roussennac, B., 2001 Gas Condensate Well Test
Analysis, MS report, Stanford University.

SI metric conversion Factors
atm 1.013250
*
E+05 = Pa
ft
3
1.589873 E-01 = m
3
F (F-32)/1.8 = C
in.
3
1.638706 E+01 = cm
3
psi 6.894757 E+00 = kPa