Presented at the IBC Technical Services Conference on Optimisation of Gas Condensate Fields, Aberdeen,

26-27 June 1997

CALCULATING WELL PRODUCTIVITY

IN GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIRS

Robert Mott

AEA Technology plc

Winfrith, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 8DH

1. Introduction
Well productivity is a critical issue in the development of many gas condensate reservoirs.
Liquid build-up around the well can cause a significant reduction in productivity, even in
reservoirs where the fluid is very lean. This paper reviews recent developments in the
understanding of near-well behaviour in condensate reservoirs, and in estimating well
productivity through numerical simulation.

2. Mechanism of Liquid Build-Up

Figures 1 and 2 shows the pressure and liquid saturation around a producing well, as a function
of the distance from the well, in a lean gas condensate reservoir below its dew point. Away
from the well, only the gas phase will be mobile. As gas flows towards the well and its pressure
falls, the capacity of the gas to vaporise oil will reduce, so that liquid will condense from the
flowing gas phase. This liquid condensate will initially be immobile and will accumulate in the
near-well region. As the flow rate of gas is greater near the well, liquid will accumulate faster in
the region near to the well.

Liquid condensate will continue to accumulate until its saturation exceeds the critical value,
when liquid will start to flow. Eventually a semi steady state will be reached where the
combined flowing fluid composition (in both liquid and vapour phases) is constant in the region
around the well.

In the region within about 10 feet of the well, the semi steady state will be reached quite
quickly, because of the small volume of this region compared with the throughput of gas. The
liquid saturation in this region must be large enough for the liquid to be mobile, so that a liquid
saturation of 20% or more can be achieved even if the liquid saturation in the deep reservoir is
only 1 or 2 %.

The loss in productivity due to liquid build-up is determined by the value of krg near to the well,
compared with the value of krg in the deep reservoir. The loss in productivity is more sensitive
to the relative permeability curves than to fluid PVT properties.

1
To demonstrate this point, 1D single well compositional simulations were carried out for 5
different fluids ranging from lean to near-critical, with oil-gas ratios ranging from 50 to
280 stb/MMscf. Figure 3 shows the liquid saturations for these fluids in constant composition
expansion tests. The simulations were initialised at a pressure just above the dew point. To
assess the effect of liquid build-up, we use the ‘normalised productivity index’ which is a ratio of
the actual well productivity to the well productivity if no liquid build-up occurs. Figure 4
shows the normalised productivity index versus time, and indicates a similar effect for the five
fluids, confirming that it is the relative permeabilities which are most important in determining
productivity loss.

3. Field Examples
3.1 NORTH SEA LEAN GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR

We have analysed well test results in a lean North Sea gas condensate reservoir where the
maximum liquid drop out is 2%. This is Fluid A in Figure 3. Single well radial simulations
were used to calculate well head pressures at different gas flow rates, which were compared with
field measurements after about 1 year of production.

Simulations with the measured gas-oil relative permeability curves gave well head pressures
which were much lower than the field measurements (see Figure 5), suggesting that the
simulations were underestimating well productivity. In order to match the field data, the oil
relative permeability curve was modified as shown in Figure 6. This gave a much better match
to the measured well head pressures. Figure 7 shows the normalised productivity indices for the
two simulation runs with the original and modified relative permeabilities.

This result shows how simulations with measured relative permeability curves can overestimate
the loss in well productivity due to liquid blockage. In this case the calculated productivity was
about 50% of the value indicated by well test results. The relative permeability data for this
reservoir were measured in a steady state experiment using mineral oil, brine and nitrogen at
low pressure. It would appear that data from this type of experiment may not be appropriate for
reservoir conditions where the liquid phase is produced by retrograde condensation.

2
3.2 OTHER EXAMPLES

Mobil’s results for the Arun field [1] in Indonesia are similar to those for the North Sea
reservoir. Arun is a large gas condensate field with maximum liquid drop out of 1%. Well
productivity fell by about 50% as the reservoir pressure dropped below the dew point. Single
well simulations were used to model well tests, and the measured relative permeability curves
had to be increased before the simulation results fitted field data. In this case the gas curve was
adjusted as shown in Figure 8.

A recent paper on the Britannia gas condensate field [2] also reports that measured relative
permeability curves needed to be increased to match well test performance. In this case a
variation of relative permeability with capillary number was used in the simulations.

4. Special Phenomena Affecting

Near-well Behaviour
The results for the field cases discussed above suggest that standard simulations can overestimate
the effects of liquid blockage and therefore underpredict well productivity. Similar results are
believed to have been found in other condensate fields. This suggests that there are special
phenomena affecting near well flow, which are not represented in standard simulation models.

Possible effects include

• High capillary number flow
• Non-Darcy flow
• Low IFT flow
• Water vaporisation
• Compositional effects
• Non-equilibrium PVT
We have used generic simulation models to examine the possible impact of some of these effects
on well productivity.

3
4.1 HIGH FLOW RATE EFFECTS

A number of experimental measurements have shown that relative permeability is increased at

high capillary number [3, 4, 5]. The capillary number N c is a dimensionless quantity which
measures the ratio of viscous to capillary forces, and is defined by

( flow rate). (viscosity )

Nc =
IFT

As capillary number is proportional to flow rate, high values can occur in the region close to a
gas well. Experiments show that significant improvements in mobility occur above a threshold
capillary number which appears to be around 10-5 for gas and 10-3 to 10-5 for oil. Capillary
numbers of this magnitude occur within about 10 feet of the well, and the effect is to improve
well productivity.

On the other hand, Non-Darcy or inertial flow effects will reduce well productivity. The
magnitude of this effect will depend on the value of the Non-Darcy flow coefficient β. There
are problems in estimating β , as there is a wide variation between results of the different
published correlations for β as a function of permeability and porosity.

Single well simulation studies have been used to assess the impact of high capillary number and
Non-Darcy flow effects on well productivity. For example, Figure 9 shows the calculated well
bottom hole pressure (BHP) for a 10 mD reservoir containing rich gas condensate. Including
the effects of high capillary number flow leads to a significant increase in BHP, and the well
productivity is increased by up to a factor of 2. The effect of non-Darcy flow is a small
reduction in productivity.

1.2 LOW IFT EFFECTS

A number of experiments have shown that a significant improvement in relative permeability

occurs at very low interfacial tension. The threshold IFT for these changes is below 0.1 mN/m.
Low IFT effects can be important in miscible gas flooding, and can be modelled in most
compositional simulators.

Figure 10 shows the IFT as a function of pressure for a rich gas condensate with dew point
pressure of 6000 psi. The data are taken from the 3 smallest grid cells in a single well

4
simulation, and the overlaps between the curves are caused by compositional changes in the
near-well region. A threshold IFT of 0.1 mN/m is also indicated, and IFT’s below the
threshold only occur at pressures above 5000 psi.

Calculations on other fluids confirm the conclusion that very low gas-oil IFT’s will occur only
for rich condensates when the pressure is within about 1000 psi of the dew point. When a gas
condensate well is pressure limited and productivity is a concern, the reservoir pressure will
usually be too low for very low IFT’s to occur. Changes in near-well mobility are unlikely to
be due to low IFT’s alone, but to a combination of high flow rates and moderate IFT’s leading
to high capillary number.

1.3 WATER VAPORISATION

Water vaporisation may also affect near-well behaviour, although it is not modelled in most
simulation studies. The solubility of water in the gas phase increases as pressure decreases. As
gas flows towards a production well and its pressure falls, it will be able to vaporise additional
water, which may reduce the water saturation around the well, and thereby increase
productivity. This effect is more important in high temperature reservoirs. Some simple
simulations have indicated that all of the water within a few feet of the well could be removed
due to vaporisation, and that the well productivity could be increased by around 30%.

1.4 NON-EQUILIBRIUM EFFECTS

Reservoir simulators assume instantaneous thermodynamic equilibrium between the fluids in a

grid block. In the region near to the well, the very high flow rates may not allow time for
equilibrium to occur. Liquid may be transported in the form of a mist within the gas phase. If
this were the case, the amount of liquid condensed in the near-well region would be lower than
predicted by the simulator, so that simulation results would underestimate well productivity. At
present, these phenomena are not well understood and cannot be modelled with existing
reservoir simulators.

5
1.5 DISCUSSION

The improvement in mobility at high capillary number is the most significant of the special
phenomena affecting near-well flow, and is the most likely explanation for the observation that
productivity losses are less severe than predicted from simulation. Although high capillary
number effects have been demonstrated in a number of experiments, future work is needed to
develop and validate models which can be used in reservoir simulators, and to understand how
the high capillary number effects change between different rock types.

The effects of water vaporisation, non-equilibrium behaviour and mist flow are less well
understood, but could also cause significant improvements in mobility.

5. Experimental Data Requirements

The most important requirement is for gas-oil relative permeabilites at conditions which are
representative of the near well region. The analysis of Fevang and Whitson [6] shows that the
crucial parameter for productivity loss is krg as a function of the ratio krg / kro, and that the range
of relevant values of krg / kro can be calculated from the fluid PVT data. Fevang and Whitson
have proposed a technique for measuring the required gas-oil relative permeabilites, using
reservoir fluid samples. If possible, relative permeabilities should be measured at a range of flow
rates to understand the effect of high capillary number flow.

PVT data are also required. Liquid viscosity data, which are not usually relevant for the deep
reservoir region, are important for near-well effects. IFT data are also needed to allow capillary
number to be calculated.

6
6. Calculating Productivity in Field
Scale Simulation
Accurate calculation of near-well effects in condensate reservoirs usually requires simulation
with very small grid cells near to the well. A large part of the pressure drawdown occurs within
10 feet of the well, so that radial models are needed with the inner grid cell having dimensions
of about one foot. This presents problems in full field models, where typical grid cell
dimensions are hundreds of feet.

The traditional approach to this problem is to run independent single well simulations to
estimate skin factors due to liquid build-up, and use these skin factors in the full field simulation.
This is not ideal, as the skin factor may vary with pressure and flow rate, and there can be
problems in ensuring consistent conditions between the two models.

An alternative solution is to use Local Grid Refinement (LGR) around the well. A radial grid
can be embedded within a single column of grid cells in the full field model. Local
timestepping can be used to allow short timesteps on the radial grids and longer timesteps on the
global grid. The use of LGR’s results in a much more complex simulation model, can lead to a
significant increase in run time, and may cause numerical problems in linking the solutions on
the local and global grids.

A third alternative is to use the pseudopressure method of Fevang and Whitson [6], which aims
to give accurate simulation of near-well effects without the need for very small grid cells. The
well inflow is calculated from a pseudopressure integral, which is analogous to the standard
pseudopressure function used for dry gas reservoirs, but which also includes the gas relative
permeability to take account of the reduced mobility due to liquid build-up near the well.

The pseudopressure calculation has been implemented in AEA Technology’s in-house

compositional reservoir simulator, and tested on a range of problems. For example, a 3D
compositional simulation model was set up using a rich condensate fluid on a 12x12x5 cartesian
grid. The areal dimensions of each grid cell were 300 feet by 300 feet. A vertical production
well was placed near to the centre of the model, and completed in all 5 layers. The

7
permeability was uniform in the vertical direction, but varied between layers. The well was
produced at a plateau gas production rate of 10 MSCF/day with a limiting bottom hole pressure
of 2000 psi. Three simulation runs were made

1. Regular grid with no local refinement or pseudopressure.

2. Radial local grid refinement (LGR) in the column of blocks where the well was
completed. There were 4 cells in the radial direction, with the inner cell having
dimensions of about 1 foot. Local timestepping was used on the radial grid.
3. Regular grid with pseudopressure.

The results for gas production rate are shown in Figure 11. If we assume that the LGR
calculation gives the most accurate result, the simulation with a regular grid overestimates gas
production significantly. Using pseudopressure in the regular grid gives results which are much
closer to the LGR run, but with the gas rate slightly lower after the end of the plateau
production period.

The computing times for these simulations showed that the pseudopressure calculation
increased the run time by about 10%, whereas the radial LGR increased the run time by 140%.

These results show that the pseudopressure method is a potentially useful tool for calculating
well productivity in full field simulation models. It can also be used in simple spreadsheet
calculations to estimate well productivity outside of a reservoir simulator. Current work is
aimed at extending the method to allow for the changes in relative permeability due to high
capillary number effects.

8
7. Conclusions
1. Liquid build-up in the near well region can cause a significant loss in productivity, even for
very lean condensate fluids.

2. The most important parameters in determining productivity loss are the gas-oil relative
permeability curves, expressed in terms of krg as a function of the ratio krg / kro.

3. Simulations using measured relative permeability curves often overestimate the losses in
productivity due to liquid blockage.

4. Changes in relative permeability at high capillary number can have a significant effect on
well productivity, and simulations should allow for this effect.

5. Relative permeabilities for near-well calculations need to be measured under conditions

which are representative of the near-well region.

6. The pseudopressure technique provides a convenient and accurate way of modelling well
productivity in full field simulation.

8. Acknowledgements
The work described in this report was carried out as part of a Joint Industry Project funded by
the UK Department of Trade and Industry, Amoco UK Exploration Company, BP Exploration
Operating Company Ltd, Esso Exploration and Production UK Ltd, Marathon Oil UK Ltd,
Mobil North Sea Ltd, Phillips Petroleum Company UK Ltd, Saga Petroleum a.s and Texaco
Britain Ltd.

9
9. References

1 D. Afidick, N.J.Kaczorowski and S. Bette. ‘Production Performance of a Retrograde Gas

Reservoir: A Case Study of the Arun Field’. SPE 28749, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, November 1994.

2 P.H.Diamond et al. ‘Probabilistic Prediction of Well Performance in a Gas Condensate

Reservoir’. SPE 36894, presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference, Milan, 22-
24 October 1996.

3 G.D.Henderson et al. ‘Measurement and Correlation of Gas Condensate Relative

Permeability by the Steady-State Method’, SPE 30770, presented at the 1995 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22-25 October 1995.

4 H.L.Chen et al. ‘Determination of Relative Permeability and Recovery for North Sea Gas
Condensate Reservoirs’, SPE 30769, presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22-25 October 1995.

5 W.Boom et al. ‘On the Use of Model Experiments for Assessing Improved Gas-Condensate
Mobility under Near-Wellbore Flow Conditions’, SPE 36714, presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 6-9 October 1996.

6 O.Fevang and C.H.Whitson. ‘Modelling Gas Condensate Well Deliverability’, SPE Res
Eng, November 1996.

10
 Figure 1. Pressure in Region near to Gas Condensate Well

3200

3100

3000

2900
Pressure

2800

2700

2600

2500

0 500 1000
Distance from well (feet)

Figure 2. Liquid (oil) Saturation in Region near to Gas Condensate Well

16

critical oil
14
saturation
12
Liquid saturation (%)

10

0
0 500 1000
Distance from well (feet)
 Figure 3. Liquid Saturations in Constant Composition Expansion for 5 Fluids

0.50

0.40
Liquid Fraction (V/Vtotal)

Fluid a
0.30
Fluid b
Fluid c
Fluid d
0.20
Fluid s

0.10

0.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Pressure (psia)

Figure 4. Normalised Productivity Index for 1D Radial Simulations with 5 Fluids

1.2

Fluid A
1
Fluid B
Normalised Productivity Index

0.8 Fluid C

Fluid D

0.6 Fluid S

0.4

0.2

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (days)
 Figure 5. Measured and Calculated Well Head Pressures for North Sea Lean
Condensate Reservoir

2500

2000
Wellhead pressure (psia)

1500

Field data
1000

Simulation (measured rel perms)

500
Simulation (adjusted rel perms)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Gas flow rate (MMSCF/day)

Figure 6. Relative Permeability Curves for North Sea Lean Condensate Reservoir

0.8
Relative permeability

Krg: measured
0.6

Krog: measured

0.4
Krog: adjusted to match
well test data

0.2

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Gas saturation
 Figure 7 Normalised Well Productivity Indices forNorth Sea Lean Condensate
Reservoir

1
Adjusted rel perms
0.8 Measured rel perms
Normalised PI

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Time (days)

Figure 8. Relative Permeabilities used in Arun Reservoir Simulation (from ref 1)

0.9

0.8

0.7 Krg (measured)

0.6
Krg (adjusted to match
0.5 well test data)
0.4 Kro (measured)
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Gas saturation
 Figure 9. Well Bottom Hole Pressures for 1D Radial Simulation
- effect of Capillary Number and non-Darcy Flow

8000
reservoir pressure
7000
BHP - base case

6000 BHP - Krg varies with Nc

pressure (psia)

5000 BHP - non-Darcy flow

4000

3000

2000

1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
time (years)

Figure 10. Gas-Oil Interfacial Tension for Rich Gas Condensate

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4
IFT (mN/m)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4 Threshold IFT for

rel perm changes
0.2

0.0
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
pressure (psia)
 Figure 11. Gas Production Rates Predicted from Different Simulation Models

3D model with rich condensate fluid.

Gas production rate for BHP = 2000 psi.

10000
gas production rate (MSCF/day)

8000

6000
No grid refinement

4000 Radial LGR

2000 Pseudopressure

0
10 15 20 25
cumulative gas production (BSCF)