IPTC 10692
Khuff Gas Condensate Development
C.H. Whitson, NTNU/PERA, and A. Kuntadi, NTNU
Copyright 2005, International Petroleum Technology Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Doha, Qatar, 21–23 November 2005.
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
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
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 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 for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology 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 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.
Summary
This paper addresses some key reservoir and production issues
related to gas and condensate recovery from Khuff reservoirs
in the Middle East – namely Ghawar Khuff, North Field and
South Pars. These fields represent somewhere between 1,000
and 2,000 Tcf initial gas in placea, with 30 to 70 billion barrels
of condensate in place. We apply engineering methods and
reservoir simulation to quantify the expected performance of
Khuff gas condensate fields for a realistic range of geologic
description, petrophysical and fluid properties, and production
facilities based on published information.
We review key data for reservoir and production design,
summarizing the impact of geologic zonation, areal and
vertical communication, mean permeability and its variation,
relative permeability, water encroachment, and fluid
composition on field performance. Because most commercial
development projects involving gas sales export are based on
delivery contract quotas (DCQs) of 1-1.5 bcf/D for up to 25
years, well-average plateau length and rate-time is used as a
primary measure of performance.b
We try to describe the interplay of reservoir and
production-facilities performance on overall design of field
deliverability and total well requirements. Other production
issues not considered in our work but with significant impact
on Khuff development strategy include gathering system
design, rate metering, platform vs. onshore processing, and
a condensate reservoir vs a dry gas reservoir is the economic
IGIP numbers from public sources have varied widely since they
first started appearing in the early 1980s. They have continuously
grown in size but without clear justification based on published
petrophysical and geological data. North Field, for example, has
grown from <500 Tcf to >900 Tcf. Without new public data
becoming available, independent assessment of the true Khuff IGIP is
difficult to verify.
b
As discussed in the section Well Requirements, the relationship of
(maximum) average-well rate vs Project cumulative gas production is
the fundamental relationship determining how many wells are needed
to deliver a Project DCQ, and therefore a key measure of
performance.
single-phase vs two-phase pipeline flow. Economics are not
considered in our evaluation.
We estimate deliverability impairment from condensate
blockage using relative permeability models that reflect the
impact of velocity (capillary number improvement and inertial
ef-fect). The velocity effect is particularly important in Khuff
wells because of the high-k, low-h layers with unusually-high
flow velocities and convergent flow.
Layer vertical and areal connectivity can have a profound
effect on water encroachment. When sufficient lateral
continuity exists, even small aquifers can result in rapid water
encroachment through thin, high-permeability zones. This has
been studied and is shown to have a lesser effect in Khuff
reservoirs.
Introduction
Ongoing development of Khuff gas condensate fields in the
Middle East represents the beginning of a paradigm shift in
fossil fuel supply. Gas is becoming an international player
together with oil, side-by-side, and no longer the “little
brother”. Gas is competing for many of the same markets that
previously were dominated by oil alone. Gas is an
environmentally-cleaner fuel than oil. The value of gas on an
energy equivalent basis is rapidly approaching that of oil. The
North Field (Qatar) – South Pars (Iran) field is considered the
largest single source of gas supply in the world, and it is
rapidly being made available to the world market through
innovative use of LNG tankers and GTL (gas-to-liquid)
conversion. The condensate reserves in Khuff gas fields are
staggering, with probable depletion recovery factors higher
than many oil fields developed with EOR methods.
The main differences between gas condensate and dry gas
reservoirs are (1) added value to project economy from
condensate sales (~15-25% of net income for Khuff
reservoirs), and (2) gas deliverability loss due to condensate
blockage, thereby requiring more wells to deliver a field
delivery contract quota, DCQ (~2–4 times the number of wells
for Khuff reservoirs). The net added value of producing a gas
balance of these two differences.
The open literature currently provides a sadly-deficient
knowledge and data base for Khuff reservoirs. The Ghawar
field in Saudi Arabia has been studied and published in
technical forums several fold more than either North Field or
South Pars. The results presented in this paper suffer mostly
from the lack of reliable quantitative information. Still, we
have made an effort to extract data from all existing public
sources to provide what we believe is a realistic and
2 IPTC 10692
quantitatively-valid description of the three main Khuff gas
condensate fields – North Field, South Pars, and Ghawar.
Our main effort is to show quantitatively what issues drive
the development of Khuff gas condensate fields. This includes
the prediction of gas and condensate rates, recoveries, and the
number of wells required to provide a DCQ. All simulations of
well and field performance are available to the public and can
be run with commercially-available software. We hope this
provides the public and private sector with a better starting
point in evaluating the development of these giant resources.
Khuff Formation
The Permian Khuff formation containing gas condensate is
wide-spread in the Middle East, with major deposits in Qatar,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi. North Field (NF)
in Qatar and South Pars (SP) in Iran are a common source of
supply (NF-SP) at approximately 9,000 ft subsea, with initial
reservoir pressure about ~5,300 psia and temperature of 220oF.
Ghawar Khuff (GK) is deeper at about 11,500 ft subsea with
higher initial reservoir pressures of 7,000 psia and temperature
275oF.
The Khuff Formation is described as a fine-to-coarse
crystalline dolomite with some interbeds of limestone and
anhydrite1. There are four major non-communicating Khuff
geological Units, generally numbered from top to bottom K1,
K2, K3 and K4. A layer of anhydrite caps K2, a layer of
mudstone and anhydrite separates K2 and K3, and a layer of
anhydrite separates K3 and K42.
Important geological features reported from numerous
sources1-5 are high-permeability, low-thickness layers
consisting of vugs and fractures, located in some or all Khuff
Units. These zones apparently have significant areal extent,
and contribute the majority of production in any given well.
They are nature’s “in-situ stimulation,” providing 2-20 times
higher Khuff reservoir deliverability (effective kh) than would
be available if the high-k, low-h (HKLH) zones did not exist.
Reservoir Models
Two reservoir models have been developed for simulating
performance of the Khuff formation. A Cartesian coarse grid
model represents a typical block concession (“Project”)6 in the
North Field, covering an area of 100 km2 and having an IGIP
of 37.6 Tcf. Twenty production wells are used in this model
and completed in all grid blocks. A single-well radial model is
developed to capture the effect of condensate blockage near
well when the bottomhole flowing pressure (BHFP) drops
below initial dew point pressure. The radial model is a
representation of one well’s drainage volume in the Project
coarse model, covering an area of five km2 with a well IGIP of
1.88 Tcf.
Al-Mutairi et al.2 states that Khuff formation has relatively
low permeability (0.01–10 md) and tends to have “significant”
porosity; Al-Shiddiqi and Dawe3 give a porosity range from
4–20%. In our model we assume K1/K4 have uniform
porosity at 10% and K2/K3 are set at 15%. Sealing layers are
used between the main geological units to eliminate vertical
communication. Table 1 gives a detail description of the
developed reservoir models.
Radial Model. An r-z radial model with cell radii
ri+1/ri=constant is used, with 25 grids. This model has a well
radius rw=0.583 ft (7-in wellbore) and outer-boundary radius,
re=4140 ft. Uniform numerical layer thickness of 10 ft are
used for all geological units. Detail gridding and layering are
presented in Table 2.
Project Coarse Grid Model. A Cartesian model was
developed for a 10 km x 10 km square Project area with
uniform ∆x and ∆y of 1,930 ft (588 m). Each geological unit is
divided into five numerical layers with a 10-ft high-
permeability layer in the middle. The 20 production wells are
configured in rectangular patterns 5x4 with each drainage area
being uniform. Detail gridding and layering are presented in
Table 2.
PVT Issues
The Khuff gas condensate reservoir fluids are typically
described by a low-to-medium CGR ranging from 30-100
STB/MMscfa, higher in Ghawar than North Field-South Pars.
Methane content ranges from 65-85 mol-%, with C6+ ranging
from 1.5 to 4.5 mol-%. Non-hydrocarbon content includes
minor amounts of N2 and CO2, with spatial variation of H2S
from <1 to 6 mol-%. Ghawar compositional variations are
described and correlated in detail in an important reference by
Temeng et al,7 where they suggest possible reasons for the
observed field compositional variations – including an unusual
decreasing CGR with depth. Reservoir temperature ranges
from 210-222oF in North Field-South Pars and 250-300oF in
the deeper Ghawar Khuff reservoir. Reported dewpoint
pressures are 4,000-6,000 psia, compared with initial NF-SP
pressures of ~5,300 psia and Ghawar initial pressure of ~7,000
psia. An underlying oil zone has not been reported in the
literature. Given the proximity of reported North Field K4
dewpoint8 to initial reservoir pressure, finding an equilibrium
oil downdip is possible.
EOS Model. A “base-case” set of Khuff gas condensate fluid
properties and their variation have been used in our modeling
work.7,8 An equation-of-state (EOS) model was developed
using PhazeComp9, based on published data from North Field
K4 Unit. That paper presents CVD laboratory data, without
reporting the initial gas composition but including the
composition of the first-depletion-stage gas (at 4,774 psia). To
generate an estimate of the initial gas composition, we added
the EOS-calculated incipient oil from the dewpoint calculation
of the first-stage-depletion gas until the new mixture resulted
in the reported initial gas dewpoint of 5,135 psia at 220oF.
This resulting mixture was then used to simulate the lab CVD
test. All reported lab CVD data were used to tune the EOS
model: gas Z-factors, oil relative volumes, produced gas
amounts and C7+ molecular weights, and gas composition at
the 2nd depletion stage of 3,259 psia. Some results of the tuned
a
Separator conditions have a pronounced impact on CGR value, and
moreso for leaner gas condensates. We refer to CGRs in this study
for a 3-stage separator process with conditions given in the Black Oil
Model section. Other literature-reported CGRs may refer to single-
stage or other multi-stage processes; the CGR may be significantly
lower (10-15 STB/MMscf) for a single-stage separation.
IPTC 10692
EOS model are shown in Figs. 1-3, and a complete EOS
description is given in Tables 3 and 4.
Viscosities used in compositional simulation were
calculated by the LBC correlation. This correlation is
notorious for poor liquid viscosity predictions. C7+ component
critical Z-factors were therefore modified to match an EOS-
calculated equilibrium oil at 2,500 psia, with viscosity
estimate10 of 0.34 cp. This oil should be representative of the
condensate flowing in the blockage region near the well – the
only place in the reservoir where oil flows.
Black Oil Model. The Sensor11 reservoir simulator can
generate black-oil tables automatically from an input EOS
model using the method of Whitson and Torp12. We used a 3-
stage separator process with psp1=1,000 psia, Tsp1=80oF,
psp2=350 psia, Tsp2=70oF, psp3=psc=14.7 psia, and
Tsp3=Tsc=60oF. Figs. 4-6 show black-oil properties for the
reference Khuff fluid.
Black-oil PVT formulation give an excellent description of
phase and volumetric behavior compared with detailed
compositional modeling. Gas and oil recoveries and well
deliverabilities are predicted accurately using a black-oil
model, as compared with an EOS-based compositional model.
Fevang and Whitson16 discuss the need to treat condensate
viscosities with care to guarantee consistency between black-
oil and composition models (particularly in the near-well
condensate blockage region). This is shown in Fig. 7 where
the slight difference in rate-time performance is due to black-
oil table condensate viscosities being somewhat too high
because they are generated from a CVD test, whereas near-
well flow is actually a CCE process of the depleted reservoir
gas (entering Region 1).
Compositional Variation. Ref. 7 gives a comprehensive
discussion of the compositional variations observed in the
Ghawar Khuff, emphasizing the significance of variation in
CGR (C6+ amount) and H2S. They correlate C7+ variation with
depth, showing a reasonable trend where upstructure gas is
generally richer than downdip fluids. Furthermore, they show
that the variation of methane content is strongly correlated
with H2S variation, where C1 decreases with increasing H2S.
Scattered information about North Field and South Pars
indicate a variation of H2S content and CGR similar to
Ghawar, though CGRs are generally lower in NF-SP.
Compositional variations in H2S and CGR will clearly
have significant impact on field development and economics.
The removal of H2S is expensive and requires proper design of
process facilities to handle an expected and limited range of
H2S content. Variation of methane and CGR (C6+) has impact
on heating value and condensate value to project economics.
Figs. 8-9 and Table 7 give calculated compositional
variation with depth for our reference NF Khuff 4 sample. A
similar calculation was made with a richer reference fluid
using initial reservoir conditions in Ghawar Khuff (though we
acknowledge that reported compositional variations in Ghawar
do not follow the isothermal chemical/gravity behavior shown
in Figs. 8-9).
Sampling. For a number of reasons we expect that collecting
valid in-situ representative samples has been difficult.
3
Namely, (1) the Khuff gas is near saturated, and particularly in
NF-SP, (2) potentially large drawdowns exist in exploration
wells tested/sampled with damage or no stimulation, and (3)
tendency of H2S to absorb to metal sample containers. Other
typical problems in sampling lean gas condensate fluids
include improperly-designed sampling conditions such as (1)
higher-than-necessary rates with resultant separator liquid
carryover and excessive liquid dropout around the well, (2)
sampling after a shut-in or rate reduction, typically leading to
overly-rich samples with too-high dewpoints, and (3) long
transient times to re-establish steady-state flow conditions
after rate changes, including shut-ins.
With widely-varying compositions in Khuff gas
condensate reservoirs, and the potential impact of such
variations on field development, we would recommend the use
of openhole formation tester sampling to better quantify
compositional variations. These variations are expected to
map differently for each of the four main Khuff Units, and
possibly within non-communicating layers within a given
zone.
Reservoir Issues
In this section we study the impact of key reservoir parameters
on production performance. Because the different Khuff gas
condensate fields have different reservoir properties, we chose
to consider a “base case” system, comparing its performance
with that resulting from changes in geologic layer description,
mean permeability and its variation, vertical communication
within a given Khuff Unit, different aquifer sizes, different
drainage volumes, skin factor, and relative permeability
related to condensate blockage. The range of properties
considered should provide results that will be useful to most of
the Middle Eastern Khuff gas condensate fields.
The base system considers a total Project IGIP of 37.6 Tcf
with initial pressure (NF-SP) of 5,315 psia and temperature of
220oF. Twenty wells are used to drain the total volume, giving
a well IGIP of 1.88 Tcf. Total kh is 5,000 md-ft for the four
non-communicating Khuff Units (1, 2, 3, and 4), with the kh
distribution summarized in Table 6.
Layering and Permeability. Numerous publications have
stated that significant production comes from very limited
intervals of high-permeability (fractured and/or vuggy)
sections through which most of the gas enters the wellbore.
We include this general characteristic using a single 10-ft
layer in the middle of each major Khuff geologic unit.
Properties above and below are uniform “low” permeability
sub-zones with full vertical communication to the high-
permeability 10-foot zone.
Sensitivities were run to compare the base-case layering
model with (1) a uniform-k description, and (2) a randomly-
distributed permeability distribution of the low-k layers using
a log-normal probability density function (PDF) with Dystra-
Parsons coefficient V=0.9.
Fig. 10 shows the random distribution model has almost
the same plateau length as the high-k, low-h model base-case
model. The uniform-k model gives about two years longer
plateau. Both random-k and base-case models have a 10-ft
high-k layer.
4 IPTC 10692
Our base case has kh=5,000 md-ft. Two sensitivities were
run, one with low kh=1,000 md-ft another with high kh=
25,000 md-ft. Fig. 11 shows that only the high-kh case is able
to produce with plateau of 25 years with 20 wells at 75
MMscf/D/well.
Vertical Connectivity. We always assume the four main
Khuff geologic units are non-communicating. Within a given
Khuff unit, the base case assumes complete vertical
communication with kv/kh=0.1. We tested the sensitivity of
production performance to kv/kh but did not find any case
where kv/kh>0.1 had a significant impact (including studies of
aquifer performance).
One sensitivity uses a single vertical barrier to separate a
Khuff geologic unit into one sub-zone that includes the high-k
10-ft layer, and another sub-zone that has no high-k layer.
Two cases are considered – one where all four main Khuff
geologic units are separated into two sub-units, and one case
where only K4 is separated into two sub-units.
The base case has a plateau of 11 years as shown in Fig.
12. The existence of vertical barriers within Khuff Units has a
negative impact on performance. The sub-unit without the
HKLH layer depletes much slower than the other subunit,
resulting in significant differential depletion and shorter
plateau (Fig. 13). With one seal in K4, plateau is reduced by
two years, while seals in all four Khuff Units has a plateau
four years shorter than the base case without seals. The net
effect of seals is to raise the number of wells required to
deliver a 25-year plateau from 72 for the base case, to 100
with one seal, and to 300 with seals in all Khuff units.
Aquifer. We found little discussion in the open literature
about aquifer size for the major Khuff fields. Our base model
assumes no aquifer.
Our approach to modeling an aquifer is to study a single
“edge” well which is defined as a well facing the aquifer on
one side, with no-flow boundaries towards its three neighbors
above, below, and away from the aquifer. Logically the
development strategy along the gas-water contact (GWC)
would be to locate the edge wells an optimal distance from the
GWC to delay water breakthrough.
We use our “Project” layering scheme for each major
geologic unit described by a single 10-ft high-k middle layer
surrounded by 2 top and 2 bottom low-k layers. x-y gridding is
11x11 for the single-well drainage area (∆x=∆y=667 ft). The
high-k layer has approximately 80% of the total kh and about
2% of the HCPV for each geologic unit. For some cases we
include an additional gas volume to the well model,
representing a “buffer” gas region of length Lb between the
edge well and GWC; x-y gridding uses ∆x=667 ft and varying
∆y<667 ft, depending on the size of the buffer zone.
The edge-well aquifer volume, VAQew, is specified with x-y
gridding coarser than used in the gas region. We define the
edge-well aquifer-volume ratio RAQew=VAQew/Vew where Vew is
the original well HCPV – not including the extra buffer gas
volume. Similarly we define the field aquifer-volume ratio as
RAQF=VAQF/VF where VAQF is the total field aquifer volume
and VF is the field HCPV. It can be shown that
RAQew≈(NFw/New)RAQF where NFw is the total wells in the field
and New is the total number of edge wells. For North Field we
estimate (NFw/New)~5, and probably similar for South Pars and
Ghawar.
Simulations show that even for Rew>20, water
breakthrough does not result in a shorter plateau than the case
with no aquifer. Slow water encroachment is mainly attributed
to limited water expansion in the low-k aquifer. Increasing
aquifer size has little impact on performance.
The only way to accelerate water encroachment to the
point where it has an adverse effect on plateau length is (1)
add no-flow barriers within a geologic unit, thereby reducing
the gas volume connected with the high-k layer, (2) increase
aquifer permeability significantly, and/or (3) reduce the
volume of the high-k layer (e.g. from 10 ft to 1 ft). Neither of
the latter two adjustements seem justified in the Khuff
geological descriptions found in the open literature.
Adding a no-flow barrier within all K units or in K4 only,
results in water breakthrough after only 7-8 years of
production. Fig. 14 shows the water rates vs time for both
cases. Predicted well water rates (350-800 STB/D) are 5-10
times larger (5-10 STB/MMscf) than solution water rates
(rsw=1 STB/MMscf at 4,000 psia and 220oF).
The impact of an aquifer on plateau production period is
summarized in Fig. 15. This figure shows plateau length vs
buffer length Lb for RAQew=5 for cases with and without no-
flow barriers within geologic units. Most of the increased
plateau length resulting from the buffer zone is a direct result
of having more gas in place for the producing well, and not
related to “staying away from” the aquifer.
No-flow barriers clearly have two negative impacts on
production profile, the first one due to differential depletion
(slow depletion from the reservoir not connected with a high-k
layer) and, second, an acceleration of water breakthrough in
the more-depleted zone with high-k layer.
Our results can not necessarily be applied directly to a
specific Khuff field, but they should give “ball park” impact of
aquifer volume, buffer-zone distance, and no-flow barrier on
production performance and plateau length.
A final note about water production in Khuff fields. With
possible water rates up to 5,000 STB/D for a 20-well project, a
potential problem may result during Project shut-down where
water in the pipeline segregates to low spots and may result in
startup problems.
For a well experiencing water breakthrough, the high-
pressure zones will continue to produce gas into the wellbore
during a shut-in, displacing all water and condensate into the
(lower-pressure) high-k layer(s). Upon startup the HKLH
layers(s) may produce a “slug” of water-condensate mixture
for a period until these layers “clean up”. Liquid-rock
interactions (fines migration, emulsions, etc.) in HKLH layers
following water breakthrough may eventually cause
significant and lasting damage.
Drainage Volume. The drainage volume per well for Khuff
Field and Project development is dictated by the total HCPV
and well deliverabilities given by kh, skin, and tubing size.
Each well will drain approximately in proportion to it’s
wellhead deliverability20 constant Cw,
qgw = Cw ( pc2 − pw2 ) nw ..................................................(1)
IPTC 10692
where pc is the average reservoir pressure expressed at surface
datum, pw is the flowing BHP expressed at surface datum, and
nw is the effective backpressure exponent 0.5<nw<1 taking into
account the relative contributions of total pressure drop from
flow in the reservoir and tubing; nw~0.5 implies most pressure
drop exists in the tubing and/or Forchheimer non-Darcy flow
in the reservoir, while nw~1 implies most pressure drop is
Darcy flow in the reservoir.
The deliverability constant Cw includes the kh, skin, and
tubing geometry (diameter and length). The total kh is
determined by completion (whether one or all Khuff
formations are completed) and the total effective kh product
which is a composite of high-k, low-h zones and low-k, high-h
zones, where the estimated kh in high-k zones 50-90% of the
total kh while containing only a small percentage of the total
HCPV.
Skin is controlled by drilling conditions, flow cleanup,
stimulation, and wellbore geometry (e.g. incline angle). It also
may be affected by wellbore crossflow or “backflow” of
condensate and water during shutins.
Original Khuff producers used 5-1/2-in outer-diameter
tubing, but more recent completions use 7-in tubing. The
larger tubing allows higher rates per well, reducing the total
number of wells to produce a Project DCQ, or a higher DCQ
for a fixed number of wells.
Drainage is not controlled by map-drawn Project drainage
areas. Because all of the Khuff reservoirs in North Field and
South Pars are not currently developed, and because they
share a common source of supply, off-Project drainage will
continue to occur, as it already has for some time. It is readily
shown that within a year after start of production, an area of
some 20-150 mi2 is being draining under pseudosteady-state
conditions (assuming typical Khuff reservoir properties).
We study the impact of drainage volume on plateau length
using a single-well model. The justification for this approach
is that each well will drain a volume (area) according to its
production rate relative to the total (Project) production rate. If
all wells produce at the same rate in a given Project, all wells
will effectively have the same drainage area (assuming
areally-homogeneous rock properties). The drainage shapes
for each well can be highly irregular, as would be expected
even for the simplest development strategy, but it is readily
shown that large-scale drainage shape plays only a minor role
on gas well deliverability. It is the total drainage volume, and
not its shape, that influences how long a well can produce at a
given rate before reaching a minimum pressure constraint and
going on decline.
Sensitivities were made with the radial model to predict
how much additional drainage volume is needed to extend the
plateau period to 25 years. Figs. 16-18 show that one well
needs an IGIP of 5.1 Tcf for our base case. With a seal in K4,
5.53 Tcf IGIP/well is required, while seals in all four Khuff
Units requires 7.92 Tcf/well. These well IGIPs should be
compared with the base model volume of 1.8 Tcf/well,
indicating that significant (and unrealistic) off-Project
drainage would be required to guarantee the Project DCQ with
20 wells.
Well Skin Factor (Stimulation). To enhance gas production
from Khuff formation some well stimulation treatments have
5
been used: matrix stimulation, perforation acid washing,
hydraulic and acid fracturing13. Acid fracturing is mostly used
in Ghawar Khuff, as discussed in several recent papers2,13,14,15.
The main factor contributing to improved production in
fracture stimulation are the etched fracture conductivity and
acid penetration distance.
We study the impact of stimulation on plateau period using
a simple permeability improvement near the well, in all
layers.a We consider permeability improvement only up to
distances of 85 ft, with varying permeability enhancement,
representing skins from -2 to -5.
Fig. 19 shows the improvement of the plateau for the (no-
seal) base case. A skin factor of -5 is needed to achieve a 25-
year plateau. Figs. 20 and 21 show results when seals are
introduced to the Khuff Units, showing that even s=-5 is not
sufficient to reach a 25-year plateau.
Relative Permeability & Condensate Blockage. Condensate
blockage near the well may cause a significant loss in well
deliverability for low-to-moderate permeability reservoirs.
Many Khuff reservoirs fall into this category. When BHFP
drops below the dewpoint, an additional pressure drop occurs
in the near-well region where gas mobility (krg) decreases
significantly, usually by a factor of 3 to 30. This phenomenon
is referred to as “condensate blockage”.
A steady-state gas-oil flow region develops from 10 to
several hundred feet away from the wellbore. Flow
equilibrium exists in this region (“Region 1”16). The liquid
that condenses out of incoming gas reaches a liquid mobility
that balances condensate dropout, thereby stopping further
liquid accumulation. The composition (CGR) of fluid flowing
through this region becomes constant after a relatively short
liquid buildup period (hours to days).
An important consequence of the flow equilibrium
described above is that the relative permeability ratio krg/kro in
Region 1 is known uniquely as a function of pressure from the
flowing (produced wellstream) composition (CGR) and PVT,
−1
k rg / k ro = (Vro − 1)( µ g / µo ) .........................................(2)
Where Vro=Vo/(Vo+Vg). The function krg/kro(p) can be
calculated from PVT data or an EOS model16. Fig. 22 shows
the simulated liquid relative volume of CVD and CCE
experiments from our Khuff EOS model. The CCE tests are
conducted on released gas from each pressure in the CVD
experiment – these gases representing approximate
wellstreams at a given reservoir pressure. The correlation
between krg/kro and pressure for a typical Khuff fluid model is
shown in Fig. 23.
The relevant range of krg/kro for Khuff is >1, even for the
richest Ghawar mixtures. For NF-SP the relevant range is
krg/kro >3-5. A lower flowing CGR has a higher krg/kro and krg
in the near-well region, all else being the same. Fig. 24 shows
the impact of CGR on condensate blockage. We use two
Khuff mixtures, one with CGR of 33 and another with CGR of
a
The actual stimulation of low-k rock may be difficult if high-k, low-
h layers are included in the interval being treated. It may even be
difficult to avoid the stimulation of HKLH layer(s) when they are not
in the perforated interval.
6 IPTC 10692
50 STB/MMscf. To make a fair comparison of blockage effect
on deliverability we account for the difference in dewpoints of
the two gases (about 865 psi). We initialized a radial model
with pressure pi-pd=180 psi above each fluid dewpoint, and we
impose a constant pi-pwfmin= 2815 psi for both fluids. In Fig.
24, the richer fluid clearly has a more severe blockage
problem.In Khuff wells we expect very high near-well gas
velocities in high-k, low-h layers. High velocity flow (HVF)
has a positive and a negative effect on gas relative
permeability.16-19 High capillary numbers (Nc=vµ/σ) improve
krg as viscous forces dominate over capillary forces. Non-
Darcy or inertial HVF, quantified by the factor β, reduces krg.
The net effect of these two phenomena is usually an improved
krg compared with traditional Darcy (low-velocity steady-state
gas-oil) flow.
The magnitude of krg improvement at high velocity is
difficult if not impossible to predict without laboratory
measurements. Some correlations exist, but they are only
useful in preliminary studies. If condensate blockage is
important to well deliverability, as in the Khuff reservoirs,
steady-state gas-oil flow measurements must be made. These
measurements should use gas-oil mixtures which mimic the
actual reservoir fluids (in viscosity and IFT), but much more
important is that they (a) use mixtures covering the relevant
range of krg/kro (3-50 for Khuff), (b) flow at relevant high
velocities expected in the high-k, low-h zones, and (c) use
core material representative of the high-k rock.
For this study we evaluate the impact of relative
permeability on well deliverability using a range of models
that provide a physically-realistic relationship for
krg=f(krg/kro), accounting semi-quantitatively for Nc and β
effects. This was achieved by varying the saturation
exponent in the Sensor analytical relative permeability
correlation, but keeping end-point saturations fixed. This
results in an “effective” saturation exponent ne that should not
be given any physical meaning but is useful as a simplistic
approach to including, semi-quantitatively, velocity effects on
relative permeability.a Fig. 25 shows the correlations used in
our sensitivity studies. For krg/kro =5, the range in krg is from
0.1 (ne=3) to 0.3 (ne=1). For reference we also run one
unrealistic (Nc=∞, β=0) case with straight-line kr curves and
zero end-points, resulting in much higher krg values (e.g.
krg=0.84 at krg/kro=5).
Fig. 26 shows the significant impact of relative
permeability on plateau period for our base case Khuff radial
model with kh=5,000 md-ft. Rock curves (ne=3) result in a 7
year plateau, while significant velocity-improved curves
(ne=1) result in a 16 year plateau. The important conclusion
from this study is that relevant relative permeability
measurements are needed to reduce this large uncertainty.
Condensate Blockage and Grid Sensitivity. We studied the
impact of Cartesian gridding on modeling condensate
a blockage skin in coarse-grid models. It would also allow
Based on our experience with many gas condensate reservoirs,
interpretation of many steady-state gas-oil core flow tests, and
modeling relative permeabilities in fine-grid simulators, we believe
that ne values ranging from 3 to 1 define a realistic range of plausible
relative permeabilities that include both velocity effects (Nc and β)
and variability in base “rock” relative permeabilities.
blockage. A finely-gridded radial model captures near-well
blockage effects accurately. We compare results from such a
radial model with a single-well Cartesian model using
different areal grid sizes: 1x1 (∆x=∆y=7,336 ft), 3x3
(∆x=∆y=2,445 ft), 9x9 (∆x=∆y=815 ft) and 15x15
(∆x=∆y=489 ft).
Fig. 27 shows the sensitivity of gridding size. The
difference in plateau period between the radial model and the
1x1 model is almost 13 years; even the 15x15 model has six
years longer plateau than the radial model. Little change in
results are found refining from 9x9 to 15x15. This is because
neither gridding handles the near-well Region 1 condensate
blockage issue. The differences between 1x1, 3x3, and (9x9 or
15x15) relates to the treatment of Region 2 flow as defined by
Fevang and Whitson16. The Region 2 defines the region where
condensate is accumulating (p<pd) but where condensate has
not yet built up a sufficient saturation to become part of the
steady-state flow Region 1.
A pseudopressure well calculation16 is needed to treat the
near-well condensate blockage properly in a Cartesian model.
This method is currently implemented in some commercial
simulators, though (unfortunately) with varying limitations
and success.b With either the 9x9 or 15x15 grid in our
example, a well-connection pseudopressure method should
accurately predict the same plateau period as the radial fine-
grid model.
20-Well Project Model. A 20-well typical North Field Project
area was modeled with 20 layers, including one HKLH zone
in each geologic unit, a 17x17 areal grid with effective ~4x4
single-well gridding. Off-Project drainage and edge aquifer
were not included in this model. The main reason for running
this model was to estimate the equivalent condensate blockage
skin required to reproduce single-well radial well
deliverability. Fig. 28 shows results which indicate a large
over-estimation of plateau period using the coarse-grid Project
model, about 9 years. Including a constant steady-state skin of
13-14 in the well PI calculation results in a plateau from the
coarse-grid Project model that is consistent with single-well
performance using a radial model.
We should note that if the coarse-grid Project model was
refined to, for example, an equivalent 9x9 single-well
drainage, the number of grid cells would increase by a factor
5-6, which for our layering would require about 32,000 instead
of 5,780 cells. Based on the grid-sensitivity study discussed
previously, condensate blockage would still not be treated
accurately and a “blockage skin” would need be included in
the coarse-grid Project model; its value would be less than 13
for the refined coarse-grid model with equivalent 9x9 single-
well drainage. Using a “condensate blockage skin” in coarse-
grid Project models is not a good, general solution because it
depends on many factors, including grid size.
A properly-implemented pseudopressure well calculation
treatment16 would eliminate the need for a condensate
b
ECL100 and ECL300/black-oil pseudopressure options (GPP) do
not include velocity effect (Nc and β) on relative permeability, for
some inexplicable reason. ECL300 does allow this treatment, but all
indications suggest a bug in its current implementation.
IPTC 10692
proper inclusion of velocity dependence of relative
permeabilities, inertial HVF (β), and well geometry (vertical,
inclined, or vertically fractured) in black-oil and
compositional models.
The only requirement for the Fevang-Whitson
pseudopressure to accurately describe Region 1 near-well
blockage is an accurate producing CGR (or composition) in
each well-grid connection. To guarantee an accurate
connection CGR requires proper treatment of Region 2 by the
numerical model. Region 2 description may require
somewhat-refined coarse grids, say 50-200 ft in x-y direction,
but this is readily achieved by “light” LGR (local grid
refinement).
Fig. 29 shows that gas and condensate recoveries are
accurately predicted by any model, fine-gridded radial, fine-or
coarse-gridded Cartesian, and even a 1x1 model (equivalent to
a laboratory CVD test). Producing CGRs may differ however,
as shown in Fig. 30. The pseudopressure model is very
sensitive to errors in CGR. The over-prediction of CGR in the
coarsest 1x1 model (Fig. 30) would result in seriously-
overpredicted blockage effect using pseudopressure. The
gridding required to properly treat Region 2 is linked with the
producing CGR, requiring smaller gridding for leaner
condensates.
Full-Field Model Gridding Requirements. Drainage
between North Field and South Pars, as well as inter-Project
drainage issues may be important in the future, as well as
modeling edge water drive. Likewise, a single full-field model
for Ghawar would be useful for field development planning
and history matching.
A Khuff full-field model would need to have at least the
single-well treatment of our Project model (~4x4 Nx-Ny), and
possibly 9x9 – with pseudopressure well treatment in either
case. Using twenty numerical layers with proper treatment of
HKLH zones is adequate. Areal and layer heterogeneities
(permeability, porosity, and fluid properties) are readily
handled with such a numerical gridding refinement because
pressure depletion is only affected by barriers and large-
contrasting permeability such as the HKLH zones.
Full-Field Model CPU and Memory Requirements. Table 8
shows a summary of cpu requirements for a Sensor model
running on a Pentium M 1.7 GHz laptop with 512 MB RAM,
IMPES formulation using default stable-step (CFL=1.5) time
step control. The cpu scaling of single-well grid Cartesian
refinement includes both the effect of grid cell number and
stable time stepping used in an IMPES model, resulting in
quadratic dependence on number of cells. Scaling up the
number of wells from one to NF wells in a field is ~ linear –
e.g., a factor of ~900 for North Field / South Pars
(NF~900=1,500 Tcf/1.8 Tcf/well = 45 Project models).
A full-field description of NF-SP with ~4x4 effective
single well gridding requires 260,000 total cells and would
take about 60 min cpu with the 24-component EOS model; an
equivalent black-oil run would require about 30 min(!). Using
a 9x9 single-well gridding scheme requires ~1,500,000 total
cells and would take about 16 hr cpu with the 24-component
EOS model; an equivalent black-oil run would require about
half that cpu.
7
Memory limitations precluded us from running a full-field
NF-SP model. The 24-component EOS run with our Project
model used 120 MB RAM, while a NF-SP full-field model
would required about 5.5 GB RAM. The black-oil Project
model required 32 MB RAM, or an equivalent NF-SP full-
field model memory requirement of 1.5 GB RAM.
Production Issues
The main production issues in Khuff development include
pressure constraints, tubing design, pipeline design, rate
metering, and process-facility location. We consider only
pressure constraints and tubing design. Clearly, however, the
pressure constraint is related to pipeline and gathering
solution.
DCQ and Plateau Length. Daily contract quota (DCQ) and
the period during which DCQ is promised are the fundamental
design criteria by which the number and types of wells are
selected in gas development projects. The number of wells
needed to guarantee DCQ for the contractual period is
determined by the remaining average reservoir pressure at end
of plateau (pc), the minimum pressure constraint (ptmin), and
average-well deliverability constant Cw, based on Eq. 1. pc is
mainly determined by IGIP, cumulative production at end of
plateau, differential depletion, and pressure support by aquifer.
ptmin is effectively determined by 1st-stage separator pressure,
be it onshore or offshore, where pipeline pressure drops
impact ptmin for onshore processing.
The DCQ of most NF-SP development Projects is in the
range of 1-1.5 bcf/D with a plateau up to 25 years. In the base
case we set a well gas production rate at 75 MMscf/D
corresponding to a Project gas production rate of 1.5 bcf/D for
20 wells. Our estimates indicate that NF-SP gas recovery
factors for 25 years of production at 1.5 bcf/D range from 36-
37 % corresponding to average reservoir pressure of 3,000-
3,100 psia with minimum flowing bottomhole pressure of
2,500 psia.
Well Requirements. An important design consideration is
how many wells are required to deliver a Project DCQ. The
most accurate approach to well-number design is running a
reservoir simulator that includes the drainage volume of a
project (including off-Project volumes) and aquifer, with a
well drilling program – i.e. the location and order of drilling
wells. This approach is not usually used.
It is straight-forward to use a single base-case simulation
run with a fixed number of wells.a This generates a production
profile for the total field. From this run it is possible to create
an average-well profile vs Project cumulatiave production.
Alternatively, a single “average-well” simulation can be
made with field-average properties. With this approach it is
possible to accurately describe near-well effects such as
a
In this study we run simulations with a constant-rate constraint and
fixed number of wells. Alternatively and a more general approach,
runs the model with maximum rate against constant minimum
flowing pressure constraint. The resulting rate represents maximum
deliverability at a given stage of depletion, and the number of wells
calculated from this rate represents the minimum requirement for
wells, with all producing at capacity.
8 IPTC 10692
condensate blockage with proper grid refinement, but it
assumes all wells are identical.
The “average-well” rate-time profile, however calculated,
is converted to well rate vs cumulative production Gp. The
number of wells at a given time is calculated by taking the
ratio of DCQ to average-well rate at current Gp. Issues like
swing production and on-time factors can also be taken into
account when calculating required wells vs time. This
approximation is usually excellent because changing drainage
area per well has relatively little impact on the well-rate-Gp
relationship.a
Fig. 31 shows an example of how rate-time profiles in Fig.
19 are converted to the required number of wells to deliver a
25-year plateau for a project DCQ of 1.5 bcf/D. This example
illustrates the impact of stimulation on required number of
wells.
Tubing Design. In the early development of North Field, 5-
1/2-in OD tubing was used, while 7-in tubing is now being
used. In this section we review the effect of tubing size and
pressure constraints on production performance.
The tubing pressure drop equation20 for gas wells is
qg = CT ( pw2 − pt2 )0.5 .....................................................(3)
where qg is in scf/D, pw represents the flowing BHFP pwf
represented at a surface datum; pw=pwfexp(-S/2), where S is a
constant reflecting TVD and gas specific gravity describing
the static gas column pressure gradient. pt is flowing tubing
pressure, and CT reflects mainly the tubing length and
diameter, where CT1≈CT2(dT1/dT2)2.6. This equation is equally
valid for gas condensates, though the CT constant may be
slightly lower than predicted for dry gas, the equation form
still remains valid. We have even found that Eq. 3 applies, in
form, for very rich gas condensates with CGRs, though CT
may increase with CGR (approaching dry-gas values for low
CGRs).
For NF-SP with average reservoir TVD of 9600 ft we have
“dry-gas” estimates of CT5.5=60,000 scf/D/psia and
CT7=120,000 scf/D/psia for 5-1/2-in and 7-in OD (5-in and
6.5-in ID), respectively; S=0.50 for NF-SP. For Ghawar with
average reservoir TVD of 11,500 ft we have CT5.5=50,000
scf/D/psia and CT7=100,000 scf/D/psia for 5-1/2-in and 7-in
OD, respectively; S=0.61 for Ghawar.
For a BHFP of 2,500 psia used in most of our simulations,
the flowing tubing pressure at 75 MMscf/D is 1,850 psia for 7-
in tubing, and 1,450 psia for 5-1/2” for NF-SP. For 5-1/2-in
tubing with pt=1,500 psia in the Ghawar field, pwf=2,840 psia
at a rate of 75 MMscf/D.
The BHFP reached when wells go on decline is determined
by the rate at end of plateau and minimum flowing tubing
pressure constraint ptmin. Compression is required to prolong
production at the desired rate when pt reaches ptmin, effectively
lowering the minimum BHFP.
a processing facilities that require multiphase pipelines to shore.
Changing the drainage radius from 4140 ft to 3380 ft, corresponds
to adding 50% more wells in a Project. This “improves” the reservoir
PI by [ln(4140/rw)+s]/ [ln(3380/rw)+s]; for s=0, PI improves 2.5%,
and for s=-2, PI improves by 3.3%.
Sensitivities to minimum BHFP (pwfmin) were made to
quantify the impact on plateau period. Results are shown in
Fig. 32 using the radial fine-grid base-case model. With
pwfmin=500 psia, the plateau period is extended from 11 to 25
years, compared with pwfmin=2,500 psia. Realistically it would
only be possible to lower ptmin to 500 psia, which for 7-in
tubing gives pwfmin =1,000 psia, extending the plateau period
from 11 to 22 years.
Fig. 33 shows the base case radial well simulation using
tubing pressure constraint with vertical lift curves given by
Eq. 3, with ptmin=1,700 psia. The impact of increasing tubing
size from 5-1/2-in to 7-in is about 3.5 years (8 vs 11.5 yr
plateau). For our base case of kh=5,000 md-ft, 9-in tubing
only provides one additional year of plateau compared with 7-
in tubing. For lower-kh Khuff wells <2,000 md-ft, 5-1/2-in
tubing is recommended. For higher-kh Khuff wells >25,000
md-ft, 9-in tubing might be considered.
Several gas field developments in Europe and Australia
use 9-in OD tubing, something that could be considered in
high-kh Khuff wells. The problem with such large tubing size,
other than added drilling and completion costs, is that the
improvement in plateau length is greatest for high-kh wells. A
highly-variable kh in Khuff wells would require all wells to be
drilled with the possibility of running 9-in tubing, while only a
few of the wells might have high enough kh to justify the
larger tubing.
The impact of minimum pressure constraint was also
studied for the cases where (a) K4 has a sealing barrier and (b)
all K units have sealing barriers; a sealing barrier separates
half of the geologic unit volume from the HKLH zone. Results
are shown in Figs. 34 and 35. Comparing plateau periods for
pwfmin=1000 psia (corresponding to ptmin=500 psia for 7-in
tubing and 75 MMscf/D), we see that the sealing barrier in K4
reduces the plateau by about 3 years (from 22 to 19), while
sealing barriers in all K units reduce the plateau by about 7
years (from 22 to 15).
Gathering System and Processing Unit. The gathering
system for North Field and South Pars differ fundamentally
from Ghawar for several reasons. First, NF-SP is an offshore
development and Ghawar is onshore. Second, Ghawar is
developed with a single-ownership “unitized” strategy,
whereas NF and SP are being developed stagewise with many
independent Projects having differing ownerships, production
strategies, transportation systems, and process facilities – e.g.
pipeline sales, LNG and GTL conversion. Most NF-SP
Projects consist of a 20-25 year constant-rate period with 16-
24 wells per Project and well producing rates from 50-75
MMscf/D. It should be noted that considerable remaining
reserves will exist after termination of these initial 20-25 year
NF-SP Projects, and a more-unified field development
strategy may result due to a more “marginal” value and longer
life of the remaining reserves.
Early NF development used offshore processing and dual
pipelines to shore – one for dry processed gas and another for
condensate. Recent NF-SP development implements onshore
A major concern is what impact produced water may have on
multiphase pipeline transportation – and particularly during
startups after a Project shutin.
IPTC 10692
Perhaps the main consideration for processing Khuff gas
condensate streams is the variable H2S content, from <0.5 to
>5 mol-%. Process facility costs associated with H2S are
significant. Using separate process facilities for each Project
results in lost flexibility to mix streams for maintaining a
lower H2S content in any given process facility. Condensate-
gas ratios also vary considerably, from <30 to >80
STB/MMscf. A well-defined spatial distribution of H2S and
CGR has not been published in NF-SP. Apparently K2 and K3
have, in general, higher H2S content than K1 and K4.
Gas Recycling
Little discussion of gas cycling has been published for Khuff
gas condensate reservoirs, and nothing quantitative. With
probable initial condensate in place of 30–70 billion barrels,
the target for gas cycling is huge. Ultimate depletion recovery
at reservoir pressure of 2000 psia is 60% for gas and 40% for
condensate for our base case fluid; for Ghawar, gas and
condensate recoveries would be somewhat higher at the same
abandonment pressure because of higher initial pressure,
richer condensate, and higher dewpoint pressure.
Gas cycling success is primarily a function of vertical
sweep efficiency, with layer permeabilities being the most
important factor. The Khuff HKLH zones could potentially
result in very low cycling recoveries because injected gas
would only sweep the HKLH zones. The only way to
successfully cycle such a reservoir would be to have two or
more areally-continuous HKLH zones in a given geologic
unit, injecting into only one of the high-k zones and producing
from the other(s). Sweep between the two high-k zones would
potentially be high, resulting in significant cycling reserves.
For North Field and South Pars, the field would need to be
unitized to initiate an equitable gas cycling project. This is a
great impediment to gas cycling, even if the geologic layering
and sweep efficiency proved attractive.
For Ghawar, the layering issue is a potential impediment to
initiating a gas cycling project, in addition to delayed gas
availability.
Conclusions
The conclusions presented here assume (a) each geologic
Khuff Unit (K1, K2, K3, K4) is non-communicating and has at
least one high-permeability, low-thickness (HKLH) layer
accounting for the majority of flow into the well; (b) the
HKLH layer(s) have significant areal extent; (c) a very large
part (>98%) of HCPV is found in low-permeability (<1 md)
rock that is communicating partly or completely with at least
one HKLH layer; and (d) gas condensate is low-to-medium
CGR with 20-100 STB/MMscf and slightly undersaturated at
reservoir temperatures ranging from 200-250oF.
We use well rate-time performance and the duration of
plateau production as a gauge for production performance; this
translates into number of wells required to deliver a specified
Project DCQ (daily contract quota). We provide quantitative
assessment of how performance is affected by several key
parameters for a “base case” (hypothetical) North Field-South
Pars Project development.
1. The key parameters determining production performance
include (a) well kh, (b) well IGIP, (c) stimulation skin, (d)
minimum (tubing) pressure constraint, (e) magnitude of
9
condensate blockage, and (f) sealing barriers within a
geologic Unit that isolate a significant fraction of low-k,
high-h rock from HKLH layers.
2. Parameters that do not have a significant impact on
production performance include (a) aquifer size, (b)
vertical-to-horizontal permeability ratio kv/kh, (c)
heterogeneity (permeability distribution) of low-k rock,
and (d) PVT formulation (black-oil vs EOS compositional)
used in modeling.
3. Well kh ranging from 1,000-25,000 md-ft was studied,
showing that ~4 years of additional plateau period is
achieved for each 5,000 md-ft of total well kh (when
kh>5,000 md-ft).
4. IGIP per well from 1.88 to >5 Tcf was studied, showing
that ~4-5 years of additional plateau period is achieved for
each additional Tcf in-place (for IGIP>1.5 Tcf).
5. Stimulation skin factor from 0 to -5 was studied, showing
that ~3 years of additional plateau period is achieved for
each additional negative-skin unit.
6. Minimum (bottomhole) flowing pressure constraint from
2500 to 500 psia was studied, showing that ~3.5 years of
additional plateau period is achieved for each 500 psi
lowered pressure constraint.
7. The vertical-to-horizontal permeability ratio kv/kh has
negligible effect on depletion performance with or without
edge-water aquifer support, for kv/kh range 0.1-1.
8. The aquifer size does not affect production performance
adversely by premature water breakthrough unless vertical
barriers isolate a HKLH layer, and even then the produced
water rates are not excessive and seem to stabilize.
9. Gas-oil steady state relative permeability measurements
should be conducted on high-k cores using (a) a
representative hydrocarbon fluid system (synthetic or
reservoir), (b) gas-oil flow mixtures with krg/kro ratio from
1-50 (most importantly 3-30), and (c) a range of lab flow
rates from low (1-10 cc/min) to velocities expected in
HKLH layers (50-200 cc/min). The resulting data should
be fit with a model that properly honors measured
krg=f(krg/kro,v) behavior, properly treating Nc and β
velocity effects.
10. The decision about tubing size should balance extra well
cost with added well deliverability. As a rule of thumb we
recommend 5-1/2-in OD tubing for lower-kh (<5,000 md-
ft) wells, 7-in OD tubing for kh=5,000-25,000 md-ft, and
9-in tubing for “monster” wells with kh>25,000 md-ft.
Nomenclature
AF = acentric factor
Bg = gas formation volume factor
BHFP = bottom hole flowing pressure, psia
BIP = binary interaction parameter
Bo = oil formation volume factor
CCE = Constant Composition Expansion
CGR = condensate gas ratio, STB/MMscf
CT = tubing rate equation constant
CVD = Constant Volume Depletion
CW = well deliverability constant
DCQ = delivery contract quota
dT = tubing diameter
EOS = equation of state
10 IPTC 10692

FVF = formation volume factor v = pore gas velocity

GWC = gas water contact VAQew = edge-well aquifer volume
h = reservoir/layer thickness VAQF = total field aquifer volume
HCPV = hydrocarbon pore volume Vd = dew point volume
HKLH = high-k and low-h Vew = original well HCPV
IGIP = initial gas in place VF = original Field HCPV
k = absolute permeability, md Vo = oil volume
krg = gas relative permeability Vro = CCE oil relative volume, Vo/Vt
krgro = relative permeability of gas at Sw=Swi, Vro = CVD oil relative volume after removal,
So=Sorg Vo/Vd
kro = oil relative permeability Vshift = dimensionless volume translation
krocw = relative permeability of oil at Sw=Swi, Vt = total (oil+gas) volume
Sg=0 Zc = critical Z-factor
krwro = relative permeability of water at Sw=1- ∆x = length of grid blocks respect to x-axis
Sorw, Sg=0 ∆y = length of grid blocks respect to y-axis
kx,ky,kh = horizontal permeability, md ∆z = thickness of grid blocks
kz,kv = vertical permeability, md µo = oil viscosity, cp
Lb = buffer length, ft β = inertial high velocity flow coefficient
LBC = Lohrenz-Bray-Clark ρo = oil density, lb/cuft
md = mili Darcy σ = interfacial tension (IFT)
MMscf = million standard cubic feet
MW = gas molecular weight References
Nc = capillary number 1. Khalaf, A.S.: “Prediction of Flow Units of The Khuff Gas
New = total number of edge-wells in the field Formation,” paper SPE 37739 presented at the SPE 1997 Middle
NFw = total wells in the field East Oil Show held in Bahrain, March 15-18.
nw = effective backpressure exponent 2. Al-Mutairi, S.H., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Al-Muntasheri, G.A., Al-
Driweesh, S.M.: “Corrosion Control During Acid Fracturing of
nw,now,ng,nog = exponents for analytical kr
deep Wells: Lab Studies and Field Cases,” paper SPE 94639
pc = average reservoir pressure expressed at presented at the SPE International Symposium on Oilfield
surface datum Corrosion held in Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 13 May 2005.
Pc = critical pressure, psia 3. Al-Shiddiqi, A., Dawe, R.A.: “Qatar's Oil and Gas Reservoirs,”
Pchor = parachor (2003).
Pdew = dew point pressure, psia 4. Al-Jallal, I.A.: “Diagenetic Effects on Reservoir Properties of the
PDF = probability density function Permian Khuff Formation in Eastern Saudi Arabia,” paper SPE
Psat = saturation pressure, psia 15745 presented at the Fifth SPE Middle East Oil Show held in
pSC = standard condition pressure, 1 atm Manama, Bahrain, March 7-10, 1987.
5. Martin Jr., T.B., McKinnell, D., Labrugere, P., Besson, A.:
pSP = separator pressure, psia
“Optimization of Bit Performance for Qatar's Offshore North
pt = tubing flowing pressure, psia Field,” paper SPE 39253 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC
pw = pwf expressed at surface datum Middle East Drilling Technology Conference held in Bahrain,
pwf = well flowing pressure, psia November 23-25.
qgw, qg = well gas rate, scf/D 6. Qatar Info: “Qatar: General Information on Oil and Gas,”
R = gas constant http://www.qatar-info.com/general/oil&gas.htm
RAQew = edge-well aquifer-volume ratio 7. Temeng, K.O., Al-Sadeg, M.J., Al-Mulhim, W.A:
RAQF = field aquifer-volume ratio “Compositional Grading in the Ghawar Khuff Reservoirs,” paper
re = outer drainage radius, ft SPE 49270 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference held in New Orleans, Louisiana, September 27-30
ri = cell i radius, ft
1998.
Rs = solution GOR, scf/STB 8. Almarry, J.A, and Al-Saadoon, F.T.: “Prediction of Liquid
rs = solution OGR, STB/MMscf Hydrocarbon Recovery from a Gas Condensate Reservoir,” paper
rw = well radius, ft SPE 13715 presented at the SPE 1985 Middle East Oil Technical
s = skin factor Conference and Exhibition held in Bahrain, March 11-14.
SG = specific gravity 9. Zick Technologies, Inc., PhazeComp, www.zicktech.com, 2005.
Sgc = critical gas saturation 10. Chew, J.N. and Connaly, C.A.: “A Viscosity Correlation for Gas-
Soc = critical oil saturation = Sorg Saturated Crude Oils,” Trans, AIME (1959) 216, 23.
Sorg = residual oil saturation to gas 11. Coats Engineering Inc., www.coatsengineering.com, June, 2004.
12. Whitson, C.H., and Torp, S.B.: “Evaluating Constant Volume
Sorw = residual oil saturation to water
Depletion Data,” JPT (March 1983); Trans., AIME, 275.
STB = stock tank barrels 13. Solares, J.R.: “Efficient Technology Application to Optimize
Swi = irreducible water saturation Deep Gas Well Completion in the Khuff and Jauf Formations
Tb = boiling point temperature, R Requiring Hydraulic Fracturing in Saudi Arabia,” paper SPE
Tc = critical temperature, R 68206 presented at the 2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in
TSC = standard condition temperature, 60 F Bahrain, 17-20 March 2001.
TSP = separator temperature, F 14. Bartko, K.M., Nasr-El-Din, H.A., Rahim, Z., Al-Muntasheri,
IPTC 10692 11

G.A.: “Acid Fracturing of a Gas Carbonate Reservoir: The

Impact of Acid Type and Lithology on Fracture Half Length and TABLE 1 – RESERVOIR MODEL DESCRIPTION
Width,” paper SPE 84130 presented at the SPE Annual Technical ROCK AND FLUIDS PROPERTIES
Conference held in Denver, Colorado, U.S.A, 5-8 October 2003. Porosity,% K1/K4 10
15. Rahim, Z., Al-Qahtani, M.Y.: “Selecting Perforation Intervals K2/K3 15
and Stimulation Technique in the Khuff Reservoir for Improved Permeability-Thickness , md-ft 5000
and Economic Gas Recovery,” paper SPE 68216 presented at the ky = kx ; kz = 0.1 kx
2001 SPE Middle East Oil Show held in Bahrain, 17-20 March Rock Compressibility, 1/psi 5.0E-06
2001. Reservoir Temperature, F 220
16. Fevang, Ø., and Whitson, C.H.: “Modeling Gas Condensate Well Water compressibility, 1/psi 2.64E-06
Deliverability,” paper SPE 30714 presented at the SPE Annual Water FVF, RB/STB 1.0375
Technical Conference & Exhibition held in Dallas, U.S.A., 22-25 Water density, lbs/cuft 62.37
October, 1995. Water viscosity, cp 0.65
17. Whitson, C.H., Fevang, Ø., Sævareid, A.: ”Gas Condensate Depth to top of formation, ft 8050
Relative Permeability for Well Calculations,” Transport in INITIAL CONDITION
Porous Media 52: 279–311, 2003. K1/K4 Layer
18. Whitson, C.H. and Fevang, Ø.: “Generalized Pseudopressure Initial Pressure, psia 5315
Reference Depth, ft 9600
Well Treatment in Reservoir Simulation,” in Proc. IBC
Dew point pressure, psia 5135
Conference on Optimization of Gas Condensate Fields, 1997.
K2/K3 Layer
19. Mott, R.: “Engineering Calculations of Gas Condensate Well
Initial Pressure, psia 5195
Productivity,” paper SPE 77551 presented at the SPE Annual Reference Depth, ft 8500
Technical Conference & Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, Dew point pressure, psia 4945
29 September-2 October, 2002. RELATIVE PERMEABILITY ANALYTICAL DATA
20. Fetkovich, M.J.: “Multipoint Testing of Gas Wells,” SPE Mid- Connate water saturation (Swc) 0.2
Continental Section, Continuing Education Course, Well Testing Residual oil saturation to water (Sorw) 0.2
Analysis, March 17, 1975. Residual oil saturation to gas (Sorg) 0.2
21. Martin, B.L., III: “ 7” Monobore Completion Design for Qatar's Critical gas saturation (Sgc) 0.1
Offshore North Field,” paper SPE/IADC 39272 presented at the Water relative permeability at Sw=1-Sorw, Sg=0 (krwro) 0.5
1997 SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference Gas relative permeability at Sw=Swc, So=Sorg (krgro) 0.33
held in Bahrain, November 23-25. Gas relative permeability at Sw=Swc, So=0 (krocw) 0.9
22. Al-Maslamani, M.: “Performance of (UNS 8028) Production Exponent for krw curve (nw) 2.5
Tubing Material in Sour Service Environment of Khuff Gas Exponent for krow curve (now) 2.5
Formation,” paper SPE 29785 presented at the SPE 1995 Middle Exponent for krg curve (ng) 2.5
East Oil Show held in Bahrain, March 11-14. Exponent for krog curve (nog) 2.5
23. Whitson, C.H., and Brule, M.R.: Phase Behavior, SPE
Monograph Volume 20, Henry L. Doherty Series (2000).
24. McKetta, J.J. Jr. and Wehe, A.H.: “Hydrocarbon/Water and
Formation Water Correlations,” Petroleum Production Handbook,
T.C. Frick and R.W. Taylor (eds.), SPE, Richardson, Texas
(1962) II, 22. TABLE 2 – GEOMETRIC MODEL DESCRIPTION
25. Total: “SOUTH PARS: A giant gas field off the Iranian coast,” PROJECT CARTESIAN MODEL
http://www.total.com/portail/webzine/index.php?lang=en&id_zin Surface Area 10 km x 10 km
e=4 Gridding of Cartesian Model 17x 17 x 24
3
26. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department Size of total reservoir, ft 32808 x 32808 x 1721
of Energy: “Qatar: Country Analysis Briefs,” ∆x = ∆y, ft 1930 (588 m)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/qatar.html. RADIAL MODEL
2
27. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department Surface Area, km 5
of Energy: “Saudi Arabia: Country Analysis Briefs,” Gridding Model 25 x 1 x 145
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/saudi.html Well radius (rw), ft 0.583
28. The Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department Outer boundary radius (re), ft 4140
Radial coordinates, ft 0.69 0.99 1.41 2.01 2.86 4.08
of Energy: “Iran: Country Analysis Briefs,”
5.82 8.29 11.83 16.86 24.04
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/iran.html. 34.28 48.87 69.68 99.35
141.65 201.96 287.96 410.56
585.37 834.62 1189.98
1696.65 2419.06 3449.05
Average ∆z, ft 10
12 IPTC 10692

TABLE 3 – KHUFF SRK EOS24 MODEL TABLE 5 – CALCULATED INITIAL GAS COMPOSITION
Tc Pc Tb
OF NORTH FIELD AND PREDICTED GAS
Comp MW AF Vshift SG ZcVisc Pchor
R psia R
COMPOSITION OF GHAWAR
N2 28.01 227.2 492.8 0.0370
-
139.4 0.2724 0.2918 59.1 K1/K4 K2/K3 Ghawar
0.0009 Component
CO2 44.01 547.4 1069.5 0.2250 0.2175 333.3 0.7510 0.2743 80.0 %mol %mol %mol
H2S 34.08 672.1 1300.0 0.0900 0.1015 382.4 0.8085 0.2829 80.1 N2 3.349 3.349 3.306
-
C1 16.04 343.0 667.0 0.0110
0.0025
201.6 0.1398 0.2862 71.0 CO2 1.755 1.755 1.744
C2 30.07 549.6 706.6 0.0990 0.0589 332.7 0.3101 0.2792 111.0 H2S 0.529 3.029 0.531
C3 44.10 665.7 616.1 0.1520 0.0908 416.2 0.4990 0.2763 151.0 C1 83.265 80.765 82.501
i-C4 58.12 734.1 527.9 0.1860 0.1095 471.1 0.5726 0.2820 188.8
C2 5.158 5.158 5.153
n-C4 58.12 765.2 550.6 0.2000 0.1103 491.1 0.5925 0.2739 191.0
i-C5 72.15 828.7 490.4 0.2290 0.0977 542.4 0.6312 0.2723 227.4
C3 1.907 1.907 1.922
n-C5 72.15 845.5 488.8 0.2520 0.1195 557.0 0.6375 0.2684 231.0 i-C4 0.409 0.409 0.416
C6 82.32 924.2 491.3 0.2373 0.1341 606.2 0.7036 0.2703 232.6 n-C4 0.699 0.699 0.714
C7 95.36 988.3 457.2 0.2714 0.1429 658.7 0.7367 0.2650 263.9 i-C5 0.280 0.280 0.290
C8 108.77 1043.9 422.8 0.3094 0.1522 707.5 0.7594 0.2652 296.1 n-C5 0.280 0.280 0.291
C9 121.90 1094.1 390.0 0.3500 0.1697 754.0 0.7761 0.2654 327.6
C6 0.390 0.390 0.415
C10 134.78 1138.6 361.7 0.3900 0.1862 796.9 0.7896 0.2655 358.5
C11 147.59 1178.9 337.0 0.4295 0.2018 836.8 0.8009 0.2657 389.2
C7 0.486 0.486 0.532
C12 160.30 1215.6 315.3 0.4684 0.2165 874.3 0.8107 0.2658 419.7 C8 0.361 0.361 0.410
C13 172.91 1249.4 296.3 0.5067 0.2302 909.5 0.8193 0.2660 450.0 C9 0.266 0.266 0.317
C14 185.42 1280.6 279.4 0.5444 0.2430 942.7 0.8270 0.2661 480.0 C10 0.201 0.201 0.254
C15 197.82 1309.5 264.5 0.5814 0.2548 973.9 0.8340 0.2662 509.8 C11 0.153 0.153 0.206
C16 210.11 1336.3 251.1 0.6178 0.2657 1003.4 0.8404 0.2664 539.3
C12 0.116 0.116 0.169
C17-
19
233.39 1383.1 229.3 0.6857 0.2843 1055.8 0.8513 0.2666 595.1 C13 0.089 0.089 0.140
C20-
299.51 1493.7 184.6 0.8712 0.3239 1183.8 0.8764 0.2672 753.8 C14 0.068 0.068 0.117
29
C30+ 477.34 1616.9 167.6 1.0411 0.1154 1309.7 0.9215 0.2677 1180.6
C15 0.052 0.052 0.097
C16 0.040 0.040 0.081
C17-19 0.073 0.073 0.171
C20-29 0.063 0.063 0.186
C30+ 0.012 0.012 0.037
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00
C7+ 1.98 1.98 2.72
pd, psia 5135 4945 6000
CGR, STB/MMscf 33.49 34.12 49.83
ρSTO, lbm/ft3 47.82 47.79 48.81
TABLE 4 – KHUFF SRK EOS24 BIP APISTO 53.02 53.17 49.30
BIP, kij * µSTO, cp 1.39 1.36 2.10
Comp
N2 CO2 H2S
N2 0 0 0.12
CO2 0 0 0.12
H2S 0.12 0.12 0 TABLE 6 – BASE CASE MODEL DESCRIPTION
C1 0.02 0.12 0.07
C2 0.06 0.15 0.06
C3 0.08 0.15 0.06 kh, md-ft 5000
i-C4 0.08 0.15 0.06 Minimum pwf, psia 2500
n-C4 0.08 0.15 0.06 Well gas rate, MMscf/D 75
i-C5 0.08 0.15 0.06
IGIP/well, Tscf 1.88
n-C5 0.08 0.15 0.06
C6 0.08 0.15 0.05 Skin factor (s) 0
C7 0.08 0.15 0.03 Permeability (md) and Thickness (ft)
C8 0.08 0.15 0.03 Unit klow khigh kavg z, ft
C9 0.08 0.15 0.03
K1 0.4 30.8 1.9 204
C10 0.08 0.15 0.03
C11 0.08 0.15 0.03 K2 1.2 154.4 6 327
C12 0.08 0.15 0.03 K3 1.1 107.8 5.3 255
C13 0.08 0.15 0.03 K4 0.4 103.7 2 645
C14 0.08 0.15 0.03 Other:
C15 0.08 0.15 0.03
C16 0.08 0.15 0.03 1. The one high-k layer is located at the middle of each Unit.
C17-19 0.08 0.15 0.03 2. The high-k layer in each Unit is fully communicating to the upper
C20-29 0.08 0.15 0.03 and lower layers (no vertical seals exist).
C30+ 0.08 0.15 0.03 3. The low-k layers have uniform permeability as listed above.
* Binary Interaction Parameter (BIP) of C1 - C30+ = 0.06887
IPTC 10692 13

TABLE 7 – CALCULATED GOC FLUIDS 3

COMPOSITION OF NORTH FIELD AND GHAWAR
North Field, %mol Ghawar Field, %mol 2.5 Experiment
Component
Gas Oil Gas Oil Calculated

Liquid relative vol, %

N2 3.321 1.704 2.727 2.711 2
CO2 1.775 1.525 1.781 1.779
H2S 0.538 0.741 0.630 0.632 1.5
C1 82.848 58.093 75.143 74.918
C2 5.215 5.659 5.579 5.584
1
C3 1.952 2.729 2.337 2.344
i-C4 0.423 0.688 0.548 0.550
0.5
n-C4 0.725 1.301 0.974 0.979
i-C5 0.293 0.619 0.429 0.432
n-C5 0.294 0.659 0.441 0.444 0
C6 0.414 1.174 0.699 0.705 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
C7 0.521 1.824 0.990 1.001 Pres, psig
C8 0.391 1.668 0.839 0.850
Fig. 1 – Liquid drop out (oil relative volume), comparison between
C9 0.291 1.508 0.713 0.724
measured and EOS-calculated, CVD test at 220 F.
C10 0.223 1.390 0.627 0.637
C11 0.171 1.276 0.556 0.566
C12 0.132 1.169 0.498 0.507
C13 0.101 1.069 0.449 0.459
C14 0.078 0.976 0.407 0.416 100
C15 0.061 0.889 0.369 0.378
C16 0.047 0.811 0.334 0.343 90
C17-19 0.088 2.055 0.825 0.848 80 Experiment
Relative Moles Removed, %
C20-29 0.080 4.384 1.395 1.444 Calculated
70
C30+ 0.016 6.088 0.709 0.748
TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 60
C7+ 2.20 25.11 8.71 8.92 50
Psat, psia 5359 5359 7774 7774
40
CGR, STB/MMscf 38.11 206.73
30
ρO Surface, lbm/cuft 47.94 51.15
APIO Surface, 52.6 41 20
µO Surface, cp 1.46 4.12 10
North Field :
0
Ref. fluid = K4 Gas (Table 5); Tres=220 F; Ref. Depth =9,600 ft
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Ghawar Field :
Pres, psig
Ref. fluid = Gas (Table 5); Tres=275 F; Ref. Depth =11,500 ft
Fig. 2 – Cumulative moles produced, comparison between measured
and EOS-calculated, CVD test at 220 F.

TABLE 8 - CPU TIME OF SENSOR CARTESIAN

MODELS RUNNING ON LAPTOP PENTIUM M 1.7 GHz
1.10
512 RAM; 40 YEARS SIMULATION; IMPES CFL=1.5
Total CPU time, min Experiment
Simulation Gridding 1.05
Grids Single Well Project (20 wells) Calculated

1x1 20 0.018
1.00
Gas Z-Factor

3x3 180 0.044

EOS 5x5 500 0.14 0.95
9x9 1620 1.09
15x15 4300 7.68 0.90

EOS ~4x4 5780 1.35

0.85
Black Oil ~4x4 5780 0.65

0.80
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Pres, psig
Fig. 3 – Produced gas Z-factor, comparison between measured and
EOS-calculated, CVD test at 220 F.
14 IPTC 10692

100
1.7 1400

80

Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

1.6 1200

1.5 1000 BO EOS

60
Bo, RB/STB

Rs, scf/STB
1.4 800
40
1.3 600

1.2 400 20

1.1 200
0
1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Time, years
Pressure, psia
Fig. 4 – Oil FVF and solution GOR, black-oil tables. Fig. 7 – Well gas rate comparison between EOS and black-oil radial
model simulations.

1800 34 7000
Reference depth
8000
1500 30 North Field

9000
1200 26
rs, stb/MMscf

GOCNF = 10017 ft
1/Bg, rb/scf

10000
Depth, ft

900 22
11000
Ghawar Field
600 18
12000

300 14
13000
GOCGhawar = 13501 ft
0 10 14000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 74 76 78 80 82 84 86
Pressure, psia C1 Content, %-mole
Fig. 5 – Gas FVF and solution oil-gas ratio (CGR), black-oil tables.
Fig. 8 – Isothermal compositional gradient calculation of methane and
o
the calculated GOC for North Field (TR=220 F) and “Ghawar” Khuff
o
(TR=275 F).

1 0.035 7000
Reference depth
8000
0.8 0.030
9000
North Field
Gas Viscosity, cp
Oil Viscosity, cp

0.6 0.025
Depth, ft

10000 GOCNF = 10017 ft

11000
0.4 0.020
12000 Ghawar Field
0.2 0.015
13000 GOCGhawar = 13501 ft

14000
0 0.010
0 2 4 6 8 10
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Pressure, psia C7+ Content, %-mole
Fig. 6 – Oil and gas viscosities, black-oil tables. Fig. 9 – Isothermal compositional gradient calculation of C7+ and the
o
calculated GOC for North Field (TR=220 F) and “Ghawar” Khuff
o
(TR=275 F).
IPTC 10692 15

6500 50
100 1: K4 sub-unit with HKLH layer
2: K4 sub-unit without HKLH layer
5500 40

Average Pressure, psia

80 random 2

Gas Recovery, %
Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

base uniform 4500 30

1
case
60
3500 20
40 1
2500 10

20 2
1500 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
Time, years
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time, years Fig. 13 – Average pressure and gas recovery factor comparison
Fig. 10 – Well gas rate for different permeability distributions; no between two sub-units of K4 when a vertical seal exists.
vertical seals.

900
100
800

Water Production Rate, STB/D

700
80 kh=5000 25000
Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

600
1. One seal in K4 - No Buffer
500 2. One seal in K4 - Lb= 3669 ft
60 3
3. One seal in all Khuff units - No Buffer
400 4. One seal in all Khuff units - Lb= 3669 ft

40 300 1
1000
200
solution water rate 4
20 100
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0
Time, years
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time, years
Fig. 14 – Vertical sealing within Khuff geological Unit(s) and buffer
Fig. 11 – Well gas rate for different kh (md-ft) with pwfmin 2500 psia. length (Lb) effects on water production rate.

35
100
1. No seal 1
30 2. One seal in K4
3. One seal in all Khuff units 2
80
Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

no seal 25 3
Plateau, years

60 four seals 20
one seal 1
15 2
3
40
10

Plateau with Buffer and 5xAquifer cases

20 5 - - - Plateau with No Buffer and No Aquifer cases

0
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Buffer Length (Lb), ft
Time, years
Fig. 15 – Buffer length (Lb) effects on plateau length for different
Fig. 12 – Well gas rate for different vertical sealing within Khuff vertical sealing within Khuff geological Unit(s).
geological Unit(s); pwfmin 2500 psia.
16 IPTC 10692

100 100

80 IGIP=1.88 3.3 5.1 80 s=0 -2 -3.5 -4.9

Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

60
60

40
40

20
20

0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time, years
Time, years
Fig. 16 – Well gas rate for different well drainage volumes (Tcf); no Fig. 19 – Well gas rate for different stimulation skin factors; no vertical
vertical seal case. seal case.

100 100

80 IGIP=1.88 5.1 5.53 80 s=0 -2 -3.5 -4.9

Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D
Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

60 60

40
40

20
20

0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time, years
Time, years
Fig. 17 – Well gas rate for different well drainage volumes (Tcf); one Fig. 20 – Well gas rate for different stimulation skin factors; one
vertical seal (in K4) case. vertical seal (in K4) case.

100 100

80 80 s=0 -3 -3.5 -4.9

Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

IGIP=1.88 5.53 7.92

Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

60 60

40
40

20
20

0
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time, years
Time, years
Fig. 18 – Well gas rate for different well drainage volumes (Tcf); four Fig. 21 – Well gas rate for different stimulation skin factors; four
vertical seals (in K1-K4) case. vertical seals (in K1-K4) case.
IPTC 10692 17

2.4 1
Pd=5135 (CVD) Miscible (straight-line) Nc=∞
0.9
2.0
0.8

Pd=5135 (CCE) 0.7

1.6 Magnitudes of the two velocity
0.6 effects must be measured in

krg
4500 Nc β
Vro, %

1.2 0.5 lab flow tests with high-k core

4000 samples
0.4
0.8 3500 0.3
n=1
3000 0.2 1.5
0.4
2
2500 0.1 2.5
3 Immiscible (rock) Nc=0
0.0 0
Initial Abandonment
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 1 10 100
High CGR Low CGR at 3500 psia
Pressure, psia Blockage Zone krg/kro
Fig. 22 – Liquid relative volumes of Khuff reservoir fluid from CVD Fig. 25 – krg vs. krg/kro for Khuff reservoirs using approximate relative
(Vo/Vd) and CCE (Vo/Vt) experiments. permeability modell that accounts semi-quantitatively for velocity effect.

100
100
2500
3000
3500 4000 80 n=3 2.5 2 1.5 1 miscible

Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

4500 Pd=5135

60
krg/kro

10
Ghawar
Pd=6000
40

20
1
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Pressure, psia 0
Fig. 23 – krg/kro vs. pressure for Khuff reservoir fluids. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time, years

Fig. 26 – Well gas rate for different analytical relative permeability

correlation exponent; no vertical seal case.
100

80
Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

100
CGR=50 CGR=32 STB/MMscf
60

80 1 23 4 5
Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

40

60
20

40 1 : Radial n=2.5
0 2 : Cartesian 15 x 15; n=2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3 : Cartesian 9 x 9; n=2.5
4 : Cartesian 3 x 3; n=2.5
Time, years 20 5 : Cartesian 1 x 1; n=2.5

Fig. 24 – Rate-time profiles showing impact of CGR on condensate

blockage for two Khuff fluids. Both systems have same degree of initial 0
undersaturation (pi-pd)=180 psi and maximum drawdown (pi- 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
pwfmin)=2815 psi. Time, years
Fig. 27 – Well gas rate comparison between radial and Cartesian
model; no vertical seal case.
18 IPTC 10692

100 80
s=0
70
80
Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

60

Well Number
60 50 s=-2
3 4
40
40 s=-3.5
1: Project skin=13 1 2
2: Radial 30
3: Project no skin
20 4: Project dry gas 20 s=-4.9

10
0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Time, years
Time, years
Fig. 28 – Well gas rate comparison between Radial model and Project Fig. 31 – Well number required for different stimulation skin factors; no
models. vertical seal case.

6000 100
Cartesian 1x1 ("CVD")
Cartesian 15x15
5000
pwf=2500 1500 500
Average K4 Unit Pressure, psia

Radial Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D 80

Series1
4000 Series3
Series4
60
3000

40
2000 Gas

1000 20
Condensate
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0
Recovery Factor, % 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time, years
Fig. 29 – Recovery factors vs. average pressure in K4 or different grid Fig. 32 – Well gas rate for different bottom hole flowing pressures
sizes in single well Cartesian models and radial models. (psia); no vertical seal case.

35 100
Cartesian 1x1 ("CVD")
Cartesian 9x9 1 : Pt 1700; OD 5.5"
30 80 1 23 4
Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

Cartesian 15x15 2 : Pwf 2500

CGR, STB/MMscf

Radial 3 : Pt 1700; OD 7"

25 60 4 : Pt 1700; OD 9"

20 40
Difference in CGR
important to pseudo-
pressure treatment
15 of blockage 20

10 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Average K4 Unit Pressure, psia Time, years

Fig. 30 – CGR vs. average pressure in K4 for different grid sizes in Fig. 33 – Well gas rate for different production tubing size (ptmin 1700
single well Cartesian models and radial model. psia) and with BHFP constraint (2500 psia); no vertical seal case.
IPTC 10692 19

100

80 pwf=2500 1500 500 200

Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time, years
Fig. 34 – Well gas rate for different bottom hole flowing pressures
(psia); one vertical seal (in K4) case.

100

80 pwf=2500 1500 700

Well Gas Rate, MMscf/D

60

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time, years
Fig. 35 – Well gas rate for different bottom hole flowing pressures
(psia); four vertical seals (in K1-K4) case.