IPTC 10243

Gas/Condensate Well Deliverability: Integrated Laboratory-Simulation-Field Study

N. Silpngarmlers, SPE, P. Ayyalasomayajula, SPE, and J. Kamath, SPE, Chevron Energy Technology Co.

Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference

Several authors7-10 have designed experiments to measure
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology the critical condensate saturation before condensate can flow,
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November 2005.
and have reported high values ranging from 20-80%.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
Kalaydjian et al.8 found similar behavior using model and
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference reservoir fluids; however, Nagarajan et al.11 have recently
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or noted differences in relative permeability behavior. Many
members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
investigators12-16 have observed improved relative
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology permeabilities with reduced interfacial tension, typically
Conference 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 important in near-critical gas condensate systems. Henderson
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
et al.17-18 have also shown that high velocities near the
wellbore can improve the gas relative permeability. Pope et
Abstract al.19-20 have shown a significant improvement in well
It is well known that the deliverability of gas condensate wells productivity when capillary number effects are included in
can be impaired by the formation of a condensate bank once simulations. Blom and Hagoort21 have compared various
the bottomhole pressure drops below the dew-point. There capillary number options available in the literature for gas
have been many excellent laboratory studies on gas- condensate systems.
condensate relative permeability that describe this Fevang and Whitson22 have elucidated the physics of
phenomenon, but there are few integrated laboratory- condensate banking, and have presented an analytical well
simulation-field studies that compare systematic predictions to deliverability model building on the concepts developed by
field performance. Muskat23, O’Dell and Miller24, and Jones et al.25. They have
We present extensive experimental relative permeability also demonstrated that krg = f(krg/kro, Nc) is the underlying
data sets on some sandstone reservoirs. These data span the relative permeability relationship determining well
krg/kro and capillary number parameter space. We discuss the deliverability of gas condensate reservoirs. They performed
experimental procedures, and the design of fluid systems that rate-time studies of a gas condensate reservoir using two
mimic reservoir fluids, but at lower temperatures. Next we different sets of relative permeabilities with completely
demonstrate various steps involved in our approach by different krg(Sg) and kro(Sg) curves, but with an identical krg =
modeling a gas condensate well with field production history. f(krg/kro) relationship. Both sets of relative permeabilities
Here we first measured relative permeability data on core yielded identical well performance. Mott26 has further
samples from the reservoir and fit them to capillary number developed the analytical model by accounting for the growth
dependent relative permeability models. Then, we performed of the two phase flow region. Steady state methods that
detailed single well compositional modeling with realistic measure the key relation defining pseudo-steady state flow in
geology and boundary conditions. Finally, we compared the gas condensate wells, and do not need measurement of
predictions to actual production data, and found that the match saturation, have also been reported27-30.
was quite good. The productivity reduction was found to be in In this paper, we present data from steady state relative
the range of 80%, the majority of which occurred in the initial permeability experiments for three different reservoirs. The
phases of production. Our ability to reasonably predict the three fields are deep sandstone reservoirs located at
well performance has given us confidence that our approach, approximate depth of 12000 feet, with temperature of about
including measuring only the relevant portion of the relative 280 °F. The porosity of these reservoirs are around 15%, and
permeability curves and using synthetic fluids, may be the permeability range from 10 – 15 mD. The fluids have
sufficient. similar dew-point pressure; however, the liquid yield varies
from 45 STB/MMSCF to 150 STB/MMSCF. We fitted these
Introduction experimental data sets to the capillary number dependent
Gas condensate reservoirs typically consist of single phase gas relative permeability model. We also present simulation
at initial reservoir conditions. When the flowing bottomhole results from one of the detailed single well sector models and
pressure falls below the dew-point of the reservoir fluid, liquid compare them to the field production data.
condensate builds up (“condensate banking”) near the
wellbore. Condensate banking leads to reduction in gas Design of Fluids
relative permeability and loss in well productivity, and this is Three different synthetic gas condensate fluids were
well documented in several field1-4 and theoretical studies5-6. developed for the laboratory corefloods. Fevang and
2 IPTC 10243

Whitson22 have shown the relation between krg/kro and fluid to yield the same data at a different krg/kro value. Additional
properties is: experimental details are in reference 30.

krg/kro = (1/Vro -1)*µg/µo………………..(1) Relative Permeability Data and Models

Figures 7 through 10 present krg as a function of capillary
where Vro is the relative oil volume from a Constant number at different krg/kro values for the three reservoirs we
Composition Expansion (CCE) and µg/µo is the ratio of the measured. Literature data is also displayed for reference. As
gas and oil viscosity of the steady state flowing phases in the expected, the gas relative permeability increases with capillary
near wellbore region. number and with increasing values of krg/kro . The data do not
The synthetic gas condensates were designed with the show any trend with rock quality.
primary objective of matching the liquid dropout (Vro), The experimental data is of the form krg = f(krg/kro, Nc). We
viscosity ratio (µg/µo), and interfacial tension of the reservoir fitted it to various capillary number models31 by adjusting the
gas condensates, while operating the corefloods at a much base immiscible and capillary number dependent parameters.
lower temperature than reservoir temperature. Table 1 lists Figure 11 shows example of the data fit. The fit is reasonable
the composition of the synthetic fluids. Figure 1 through but it was difficult to fit the entire krg/kro range.
Figure 3 show that the synthetic fluids mimic the relevant
reservoir fluid properties. Single Well Simulation Studies
Figure 4 shows the expected range of krg/kro in the near We conducted compositional simulations to predict individual
wellbore region for a reservoir fluid of an example reservoir as well performance and compared the results with historical
calculated using Equation (1). Figure 5 shows a production data. An example of one vertical well is presented
corresponding plot for the synthetic fluid. As expected, the in this paper. The effect of condensate banking was captured
krg/kro behavior of the reservoir fluid and synthetic fluid are by using very fine grids (foot scale) near the well. The single
similar. It can be seen that the values to be expected near the well model was constructed by extracting petrophysical
well range from around 1 to 20 for a typical bottomhole properties from the full field model (FFM). The FFM also
pressure of 1500 psia. The relative permeability experiments provided the appropriate external boundary conditions and the
are designed to cover the krg/kro values in this range. producing rules for the well.
Figure 12 shows the pressure map of the neighboring grid
Experimental Procedure blocks near the well for a particular layer at a given time.
The core samples used in the experiments are representative of These pressure data were provided as external boundary
the productive regions of the well. The properties of these conditions for the single well model. The boundary conditions
samples are tabulated in Table 2. The samples were miscibly were specified by introducing wells (injectors/producers) at
cleaned, brine saturated, and spun in a centrifuge to the desired the edge of the model to mimic the full field pressure
Swi. depletion as shown in Figure 13. The non-Darcy flow is
The experiments have been designed so as to capture the included in the well productivity index calculations by using
key aspects of the flow near the well. The two most important high velocity flow coefficient (β) from Forcheimer's equation.
aspects of the experiments are: 1) They define the krg = The single well model used the laboratory measured
f(krg/kro) for the range of krg/kro values that would be expected relative permeability data taking into account the capillary
in a well. 2). They allow for measurements at a range of rates number effects in the near wellbore region. The objective of
so as to quantify the capillary number effects. including all the relevant physics of the near wellbore gas
A high pressure core flow apparatus shown in Figure 6 condensate flow in the model is to be able to conduct
was built to conduct steady-state relative permeabilities predictive simulations without adjusting any parameters. This
measurement of gas condensates. A storage cylinder (II) is unlike a typical history matching effort where several
contains the equilibrium synthetic gas that has been designed parameters need to be adjusted to obtain a match to the
as discussed in the previous section. The pump (I) supplies historical data.
this gas from the cylinder to the inlet of the core (IV) by
flashing it across the upstream back pressure regulator (III). Single Well Model Results. The radial well model properties
The upstream back pressure regulator is held at the reservoir are given in Table 3. The variation of boundary pressure with
pressure and the downstream backpressure regulator (V) is set time for different layers of the well is plotted in Figure 14.
to the bottomhole pressure thus resulting in a two-phase The simulations were performed using rates obtained from
condensate flow across the core. The mixture flowing from smoothing the production rates shown in Figure 15.
this system can be varied from a rich (initial) fluid to leaner However, the measured bottomhole pressures (Figure 16)
fluid by varying the pressure of the cylinder. The pressure fluctuate representing shut-in and flowing periods, and
drop and the flow rate are noted after steady state conditions comparisons of predictions to historical data should be done
are achieved, typically after about 10 to 15 pore volumes. The taking this into account.
pump rate is then changed and the test is now repeated at a The measured bottomhole pressure data for this well is
different capillary number. This results in the krg variation available for a period of one year since the well has been put
with capillary number (Nc) at a fixed krg/kro. The gas in the on production. Figure 16 shows the comparison of the
cylinder is then bled off until the pressure in the tank drops to predicted bottomhole pressure and the measured field data for
a lower reservoir pressure and the above procedure is repeated the well. A reasonable match of the bottomhole pressure is
obtained. The well PI was also calculated and compared with
IPTC 10243 3

the reported PI as shown in Figure 17. It should be noted that 8. Kalaydjian, F. J-M., Bourbiaux, B.J., and Lombard, J-M.:
the initial observed PI is not available as the well was put on “Predicting gas-condensate reservoir performance: How flow
production at a later time. However, in reference to the single parameters are altered when approaching production wells,”
phase PI from the simulations, the productivity loss is in the paper SPE 36715 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Denver, October 6-9.
range of 70-80%. In addition, the absolute PI values from the 9. Li, K., Firoozabadi, A.: “Phenomenological Modeling of Critical
simulations are in good agreement with the actual well PI. Condensate Saturation and Relative Permeabilities in
In our simulations, the major PI loss occurs when the well Gas/Condensate Systems,” SPEJ (June 2000) 138.
drops below the dewpoint and the amount of loss is consistent 10. Lombard, J-M., Longeron, D., Kalaydjian, F.: “Well Productivity
with predictions from condensate banking theory. So, though of Gas-Condensate Fields: Influence of Connate Water and
other factors related to perforations, or other mechanical issues Condensate Saturation on Inertial Effects,” paper SCA 9929.
are possible it is likely that banking is the cause for well 11. Nagarajan, N.R., Honarpour, M.M., Sampath, K., and
deliverability loss. McMichael, D.: “Comparision of gas-condensate relative
permeability using live fluid vs. model fluids,” paper SCA 2004-
09 presented at the 2004 International Symposium of the Society
Conclusions of Core Analysts, Abu Dhabi, October 5-9.
1. Our approach of using simpler steady state laboratory 12. Bardon, C., and Longeron, D.: “Influence of very low interfacial
methods with synthetic fluids appears sufficient to tension on relative permeability,” SPEJ (October 1980) 391.
reasonably predict gas condensate well performance. 13. Asar, H.,: “Influence of Interfacial Tension on Gas-Oil Relative
2. Laboratory measured gas relative permeability increases Permeability in a Gas-condensate system,” paper SPE 11740
with capillary number and with increasing values of presented at the 1983 California Regional Meeting, Ventura,
krg/kro. The data do not show any trend with rock quality. March 23-25.
3. The current relative permeability models fit the laboratory 14. Haniff, M.S., Ali, J.K.,: “Relative Permeability and Low Tension
data reasonably well, but it is difficult to fit the entire Fluid Flow in Gas Condensate Systems,” paper SPE 20917
presneted at the 1990 Europec, The Hague, October 22-24.
krg/kro range. 15. Boom, W., Wit K., Schulte., Oedai, A.M., Zeelenber, J.P.W., and
4. Carefully designed experiments coupled with fine scale Maas, J.G.: “Experimental Evidence of Improved Condensate
compositional simulation showed that condensate banking Mobility at Near-wellbore Flow Conditions,” paper SPE 30766
appears to be the cause of significant loss in well presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
productivity observed in the field. Exhibition, Dallas, October 22-25.
16. Blom, S.M.P., Hagoort, J., Soetekouw, D.P.N.: “Relative
Acknowledgments Permeability at Near-Critical Conditions,” paper SPE 38935
We thank Jack Beroterran for his careful experimental work; presented at the 1997 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Jonathan Sheffield for fluid design and analysis; Eimear Exhibition, San Antonio, October 5-8.
17. Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Al-Shaidi, S., and
Tohill, William Beveridge, Chris Stevens, Stan Franklin, Mel Peden, J.M.: “Measurement and correlation of gas condensate
Croft, and Mel Blevens for their support. relative permeability by the steady state method,” paper SPE
30770 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference
References and Exhibition, Dallas, October 22-25.
1. Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J., and Bette, S.: “Production 18. Henderson, G.D., Danesh A., Tehrani, D.H., and Al-Kharusi, B.:
Performance of a Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case study of “The Relative Significance of Positive Coupling and Inertial
Arun Field,” paper SPE 28749 presented at the 1994 SPE Asia Effects on Gas Condensate Relative Permeabilities at High
Pacific Oil & Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, November Velocity,” paper SPE 62933 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
7-10. Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 1-4.
2. Barnum, R.S., Brinkman, F.P., Richardson, T.W., and Spillette 19. Pope, G.A., Wu W., Narayanaswamy G., Delshad M., Sharma
A.G.: “Gas Condensate Reservoir Behaviour: Productivity and M., and Wang, P.: “Modeling Relative Permeability Effects in
Recovery Reduction Due to Condensation,” paper SPE 30767 Gas-Condensate Reservoirs,” paper SPE 49266 presented at the
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference & 1998 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Exhibiton, Dallas, October 22-25. Orleans, September 27-30.
3. Smits, R.M.M., van der Post, N.: “Accurate Prediction of Well 20. Narayanswamy, G., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Hwang, M.K.,
Requirements in Gas Condensate Fields,” paper SPE 68173 and Vaidya R.N.: “Prediciting Gas Condensate Well
presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil show, Behrain, March Deliverability using Capillary and Non-Darcy effects,” paper SPE
17-20. 51910 presented at the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation
4. Lee, S., Chaverra, M.: “Modeling and Interpretation of Symposium, Houston, February 14-18.
Condensate Banking for the Near Critical Cupiagua Field,” paper 21. Blom, S.M.P., and Hagoort J.: “How to Include the Capillary
SPE 49265 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical Number in Gas Condensate Relative Permeability Functions?,”
Conference & Exhibiton, New Orleans, September 27-30. paper SPE 49268 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
5. Kniazeff, B.J. and Naville S.A.: “Two-Phase Flow of Volatile Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, September 27-30.
Hydrocarbons,” SPEJ (March 1965) 37. 22. Fevang, O., Whitson C.H.: “Modeling Gas Condensate Well
6. Fussell, D.D.: “Single-Well Performance Predictions for Gas Deliverability,” paper SPE 30714 presented at the 1995 SPE
Condensate Reservoirs,” JPT (July 1973) 860. Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 22-
7. Gravier, J.F., Lemouzy, P., Barroux, C., and Abed, A.F.: 25.
“Determination of Gas-Condensate Relative Permeability on 23. Muskat, M.: Physical Principles of Oil Production, McGraw-Hill
Whole Cores Under Reservoir Conditions”. SPEFE (February Book Company, New York City, NY (1949).
1986) 9.
4 IPTC 10243

24. O’Dell, H.G., Miller, R.N.: “Successfully Cycling a Low

Permeability, High Yield Gas Condensate Reservoir,” JPT
(January 1967) 41.
25. Jones J.R., Vo, D.T., and Raghavan R.: “Interpretation of
Pressure-Buildup Responses in Gas-Condensate Wells,” paper
SPE 15535 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, October 5-8.
26. Mott, R.: “Engineering Calculations of Gas Condensate Well
Productivity,” SPEREE (October 2003) 298.
27. Whitson C.H., Fevang, O., and Saevareid A.: “Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability for Well Calculations,” paper SPE 56476
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Dallas, October 3-6.
28. Mott, R., Cable A., and Spearing M.: “Measurement and
Simulation of Inertial and High Capillary Number Flow
Phenomena in Gas-Condensate Relative Permeability,” paper
SPE 62933 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, October 1-4.
29. Al-Anazi, H.A., Pope, G.A., and Sharma, M.M.: “Laboratory
measurements of condensate blocking and treatment for both low
and high permeability rocks,” paper SPE 77546 presented at the
2002 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, September 29 – October 2.
30. Ayyalasomayajula, P., Silpngarmlers, N., Berroteran, J.,
Sheffield, J., and Kamath J.: “Measurement of Relevant Gas
Condensate Relative Permeability Data for Well Deliverability
Predictions for a Deep Marine Sandstone Reservoir,” paper SCA
2003-33.
31. Ayyalasomayajula, P., Silpngarmlers, N., and Kamath J.: “Well
Deliverability Predictions For A Low Permeability Gas
Condensate Reservoir,” paper SPE 95529 to be presented at the
2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas,
October 9-12.
32. Saevareid, A., Whitson, C.H., and Fevang, O.: “An Engineering
Approach to Measuring and Modeling Gas Condensate Relative
Permeabilities,” paper SCA 9930.
33. Cable, A., Mott, R., and Spearing M.: “Experimental Techniques
for the Measurement of Relative Permeability and Insitu
Saturation in Gas Condensate Near Well Bore and Drainage
Studies,” paper SCA 9928.
IPTC 10243 5

Table 1: Composition of synthetic fluids

Mole %
Reservoir 1 Reservoir 2 Reservoir 3
CH4 98.7 97.8 94.0
n-C10 0.98 2.1 5.95
n-C20 0.32 0.1 0.05

Table 2: Properties of core samples

porosity permeability Swi

Sample
(%) (mD) (%)

1 10.1 51 9

Reservoir 1 2 13 15 12

3 9.5 3 20

1 17.8 3.6 32.5

Reservoir 2 2 16.9 61.9 26.4

3 17.7 35 23.9

1 13.78 22.9 19.62

Reservoir 3
2 16.27 4.9 21.92

Table 3: Properties of the single well radial model

Permeability Thickness
Porosity
Layer No. (mD) (ft)
1 6.4 0.139 21.5
2 1.4 0.081 1.7
3 5.1 0.143 20.3
4 0.1 0.186 10.5
5 13.9 0.153 16.1
6 2.4 0.039 30.0
7 18.8 0.119 41.5
8 6.9 0.120 26.7
9 2.6 0.068 74.1
10 3.7 0.061 141.08
11 6.3 0.031 68.3
12 3.6 0.066 7.6
6 IPTC 10243

30 0.25
6
Reservoir Fluid @275 F
Reservoir Fluid @ 290 F Synthetic Fluid @ 113 F

5 Synthetic Fluid @120 F 25

Retrograde Liq., % of Dew Pt Volume

0.2

Viscosity Ratio, mg/ml

4 20

0.15

IFT, mN/m
3 15

0.1
2
10

1 0.05
5

0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 0
Pressure, psia 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pressure (Psia)

Figure 1a: Liquid volume fraction curves for synthetic Figure 2b: IFT and viscosity ratios for synthetic and
and reservoir fluids – Reservoir 1 reservoir fluids – Reservoir 2

25 0.30 25
Reservoir Fluid @ 290 F Reservoir Fluid @ 290 F
Synthetic Fluid @120 F Synthetic Fluid @145 F
0.25

Retrograde Liq., % of Dew Pt Volume

20 20

0.20
Viscosity Ratio, µg/µl

15 15
IFT, mN/m

0.15

10 10
0.10

5 5
0.05

0 0.00 0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
Pressure, psia Pressure, psia

Figure 1b: IFT and viscosity ratios for synthetic Figure 3a: Liquid volume fraction curves for synthetic
and reservoir fluids – Reservoir 1 and reservoir fluids – Reservoir 3

20 1.00
8 Reservoir Fluid @ 290 F
18 0.90
Reservoir Fluid @ 275 F Synthetic Fluid @145 F
7
Synthetic Fluid @113 F 16 0.80
Retrograde Liq., % of Dew Pt Volume

6 14 0.70
Viscosity Ratio, µg/µl
12 0.60
IFT, mN/m

5
10 0.50

4 8 0.40

3 6 0.30

4 0.20
2
2 0.10

1 0 0.00
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
0 Pressure, psia
2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Pressure, psia Figure 3b: IFT and viscosity ratios for synthetic and
reservoir fluids – Reservoir 3
Figure 2a: Liquid volume fraction curves for synthetic
and reservoir fluids – Reservoir 2
IPTC 10243 7

1000.0
0.7
6000 psi (Initial)
4200 psi
0.6
3400 psi Reservoir 1
100.0

Gas Relative Permeability

2600 psi Reservoir 2
0.5
Reservoir 3
SPE 83960
0.4 SCA 9930
Krg/Kro

10.0
SPE 31065
0.3 SPE 80551

1.0 0.2

0.1

0.1 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03
Pressure, psia
Capillary Number
Figure 4: krg/kro as a function of bottomhole pressure
for reservoir fluid Figure 7: krg as a function of capillary number for
krg/kro ratio range of 1.7 - 3.6

1000.0
6000 psi (Initial) 0.9
4200 psi
3400 psi 0.8 Reservoir 1
2600 psi Reservoir 2
100.0
0.7
Gas Relative Permeability
SPE 83960
SCA 9928
0.6
SPE 31065
0.5 SPE 80551
krg/kro

10.0

0.4

0.3
1.0
0.2

0.1

0.1 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03
Pressure, psia Capillary Number

Figure 5: krg/kro as a function of bottomhole pressure Figure 8: krg as a function of capillary number for
for synthetic fluid krg/kro ratio range of 4 - 8.5

To Vent
0.4

0.35 Reservoir 1
Reservoir 2
V
Gas Relative Permeability

0.3
II Reservoir 3
SCA 9928
Condensate

0.25
Water

SPE 31065
I
IV 0.2
III
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04
Capillary Number
Figure 6: Schematic diagram of core flow apparatus for gas
condensate systems
Figure 9: krg as a function of capillary number for
krg/kro ratio range of 9.4 - 15
8 IPTC 10243

0.6

Pressure
Reservoir 1
0.5 ft
Reservoir 2 65 6
Gas Relative Permeability

Reservoir 3
0.4 SCA 9930
Time

P ressure
0.3

0.2
Time

P ressure
0.1

0
1.E-10 1.E-09 1.E-08 1.E-07 1.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-04 Well Time
Capillary Number
Boundary Conditions
Figure 10: krg as a function of capillary number for
krg/kro ratio range of 30 – 45 Figure 13: Schematic diagram for a vertical well radial model with
specified external boundary conditions

0.4
4500

Nc = 1E-08 (Low) 4000

Nc = 5E-08
Layer 1
0.3 Nc = 1E-07 Layer 5
3500
Boundary Pressure (psia)

Nc = 1E-06
Nc = 2E-06 Layer 7
Nc =3E-06
Krg

3000 Layer 10
Layer 12
0.2 2500

2000

1500
0.1

1000

500
0
0.1 1 10 100 0
Krg/Kro
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (Years)
Figure 11: Experimental krg vs. krg/kro data fit
Figure 14: Variation of boundary pressure with time
for different layers

60000
Gas Flow Rate (MSCF/D) (MSCF/Day)

3486
50000
3521 3487
40000

3405 3366 30000

20000
3351 3301 3266
10000

0
0 4 8 12
Time (Years)
Figure 12: Pressure distribution in the neighboring blocks
near the well Figure 15: Gas production rate for the well
IPTC 10243 9

3500

BHP Measured
3000
Simulation
Bottom Hole Pressure (Psia)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Time (Years)

Figure 16: Bottomhole pressure comparison

100

Field data
90
Simulation
80

70
PI (MSCF/DAY/PSI)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
Time (Years)

Figure 17: Well productivity index comparison