See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254533584

Unconventional Shale Oil and Gas-Condensate Reservoir Production, Impact of

Rock, Fluid, and Hydraulic Fractures

Article · January 2011

DOI: 10.2118/140536-MS

CITATIONS READS

93 3,913

4 authors, including:

Narayana Nagarajan
Hess Corporation
52 PUBLICATIONS   2,270 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Nano Pore Fluid Flow View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Narayana Nagarajan on 12 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE 140536-PP

Unconventional Shale Oil and Gas-Condensate Reservoir Production,

Impact of Rock, Fluid, and Hydraulic Fractures
A. Orangi, SPE, N. R. Nagarajan, SPE, M. M. Honarpour, SPE, and J. Rosenzweig, SPE
Hess Corporation, Houston, Texas

Copyright 2011, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 24–26 January 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of th e paper have not
been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited.
Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE
copyright.

Abstract
Development of unconventional oil and gas reservoirs, particularly the shale gas, gas-condensate, and shale oil,
has gained tremendous momentum in recent years. Energy companies aggressively are adding unconventional
hydrocarbon resources to their portfolios. The unconventional resources usually refer to ultra low permeability
reservoirs that cannot be produced at economic rates or volumes without stimulation of near well-bore regions.
New technologies of horizontal well coupled with staged hydraulic fracturing have made the development of
these reservoirs an economic reality. But often, the initial attractive production rates decline fast and thus
making them economically marginal and sometimes operationally unattractive. In order to efficiently produce
these reservoirs, it is important to understand the flow mechanism and the controlling rock and fluid parameters
that significantly impact the long term production performance of these resources.

We have conducted detailed reservoir simulation studies to investigate the impact of rock and fluid properties
and the drainage area of hydraulically fractured wells in a standard development pattern. The simulation of
horizontal wells with 14-stage hydraulic fractures was conducted in a shale reservoir containing a wide spectrum
of rock and fluid types, dry gas to gas-condensate, and oil. An extensive compositional reservoir simulation was
conducted using both radial grid and sector model. Short term production data from several horizontal wells and
long term production data from one vertical well were used for history matching and model calibration. A number
of cases have been run with a wide range of fracture, matrix and fluid properties considering condensate
banking, fracture patterns, pore volume compressibility, and relative permeability. The results showed
 Cumulative oil production is sensitive to fluid properties, particularly to the GOR
 Severe drop in productivity is observed due to matrix and fracture compaction and condensate
banking
 The drainage area and the contact area of the fractures with the reservoir are often limited in
spite of extensive hydraulic fractures
 Performance is also found to be sensitive to fracture permeability and matrix relative
permeability
 Fracture interference is limited and may occur in the late life of the reservoir

Introduction and Background

Over the past decade, developing unconventional oil, gas, and gas-condensate reservoirs has gained
tremendous momentum, particularly for natural gas because of its lower environmental impact and ease of
transportation to the distribution centers through pipelines. These unconventional reservoirs largely contain a
mixture of shale, clay, and lime formations with ultra low permeability making the production from these
(1-2)
reservoirs economically challenging. But recent technology developments in horizontal well and multi-stage
fracturing have made it possible to create larger contact area between wells and the formation, thus making the
production economically feasible. Another possible factor that contributes to improved productivity from these
reservoirs is the presence of natural fractures that are possibly connected through the horizontal wells and the
hydraulic fractures.

Typical shale formation is made up of clastic-dominated sedimentary rocks such as quartz and lime with grain
sizes below 60 microns and pore throat size from micrometers to nano meters with high total organic contents
(TOC) that provide a prime source of unconventional hydrocarbon resources. Detailed petrographic and core
(3,4)
analyses of the shale formations are essential to evaluate these reservoirs for in-place volume calculations
and producibility. In addition, these data help to identify sweet spots in the reservoir and provide critical input for
fracture design and completion strategy. Some of these shale reservoirs, in particular the Eagle Ford Shale,
contain a wide spectrum of hydrocarbon fluids ranging from low GOR black oils to volatile oils and rich and lean
gas-condensates. Thus, it makes it necessary to characterize the fluids accurately to study their impact on the
production from these shaly formations.

Critical Shale Rock Properties and Characterization

A large number of cores are taken by several operators in Eagle Ford shale using water-based and oil-based
mud showing high angle vertical filled fractures. The Eagle Ford formation mineralogy consists of a high
percentage of calcite, >50%, moderate amounts of quarts, clays, and kerogen. Clays are mainly illite/smectite
but some illite, montmorlinite, kaolinite and chlorite are also observed. Petrographic and petrophysical properties
(5)
are often characterized on crushed samples by GRI method . Porosity and permeability are measured also on
crushed samples in the absence of reservoir net confining stress. The permeability data, therefore, must be
validated with steady-state measurements under representative reservoir confining stress. Permeability in the
range of micro-Darcy to nano-Darcy is reported but the effects of gas-slippage, Klinkenberg effect and stress
are not quantified.

Water saturation of 20-40% is observed but salinity of this water is highly variable, thus making it difficult to
estimate water saturation from resistivity log calculations. There are also concerns about the measurements of
effective porosity and the associated clay-bound water that are conducted on crushed samples. Pore volume
and grain volume compressibility and their hysteresis indicate that the Eagle Ford has inelastic high pore
volume compressibility leading to irreversible compaction and potential proppant embedment in fractures. The
sorption studies show that the amount of adsorbed gas correlates with total organic content but quantification of
total adsorbed gas is uncertain because of significant amounts of lost gas during core recovery. The following
rock properties are required for reservoir, completion, and production engineering applications:
- Matrix permeability and interconnected porosity
- Adsorbed gas and Total Organic Content (TOC)
- Mechanical properties including static and dynamic Poisson’s ratios and the Young’s Modulus of
Elasticity
- Matrix and natural fracture absolute and effective permeability
- Wettability, capillary pressure/ initial water saturation
- Relative permeability

Several laboratory methods are used to measure matrix gas permeability of shale samples. However,
representative permeability measurement can only be obtained from steady-state test on native core plugs at
reservoir net confining stress. Knowledge of matrix absolute and effective permeability are very important in
computer simulation modeling of long term performance prediction and is a key to understanding the
(6,7,8)
characteristics of the natural fracture network present in the reservoir .
(6,7,8)
Gas-condensate and gas-oil relative permeability models were used to study the impact of matrix and
fractures properties on the performance prediction through simulations. Very few relative permeability
measurements are available for use in reservoir simulation; however, imbibition condensate-gas and drainage
gas-oil relative permeability models were developed based on the data on lowest quality carbonate rocks. The
Corey exponents, residual oil saturation, critical gas saturation, critical condensate saturations and end-point
(6,7,8)
relative permeability are listed in Table 1 for both the matrix and the fracture system .

Critical Shale Fluid Properties, Variability and Characterization

The Eagle Ford formation is sandwiched between the Buda formation (Washita) below and the Austi n chalk
above. It is considered to be the source rock of Austin Chalk and is believed to contain a wide range of fluid
types from low GOR black oils to high GOR volatile oils, rich and lean condensates, and dry gas. Because of the
limited drilling and sampling activity in Eagle Ford, availability of fluid PVT data is scarce. A few operators have
collected fluid samples and conducted limited PVT studies on them. However, these samples may have been
 collected during transient flow conditions as the wells in shale formations are known to be producing at a constantly
decline rate over long periods of time. Thus, the collected samples may not be representative of in- situ fluids. Only the
stock tank API gravity and gas-oil or condensate-gas ratio (GOR/CGR) ranges were available, in addition to the
reservoir temperature and pressure for this study.

Table1. Relative Permeability Models for Fractures and Matrix

Fracture
Drainage Imbibitions
Parameter Value Range Parameter Value Range
No 2 1.0-2.5 Nc 1.5 1.0-2.5
Ng 1.5 1.0-2.0 Ng 1.5 1.0-2.0
Swi 5% 0.0-10.0% Swi 5% 0.0-10.0%
Sorg 5% 0.0-10.0% Sgt 5% 0.0-10.0
Sgc 0% 5.00% Scc 2% 2.0-6.0%
Krg at Sorg 0.95 0.7-1.0 Krc at Sgt 0.6 0.4-0.8

Matrix
Drainage Imbibitions
Uncertainty
No 5 4.0-8.0 Nc 8 4.0-10
Ng 2 1.5-3.0 Ng 5 1.5-6.0
Swi 40% 20-50% Swi 40% 0.0-10.0%
Sorg 25% 20-35% Sgt 35% 0.0-10.0%
Sgc 5% 2-10% Scc 10% 5-15%
Krg at Sorg 0.6 0.3-0.7 Krc at Sgt 0.4 0.7-1.0

Using this basic information and identifying some analog fluids, typical stock tank oil and gas compositions were generated
and were recombined to provide a set of synthetic Eagle Ford fluids with varying GORs and stock tank API gravities.
A set of black oil PVT properties of these fluids were generated for use reservoir simulation studies. Table 2 provides a
list of eight different synthetic fluids generated and their estimated basic PVT properties for simulation studies for
scoping evaluation of the Eagle Ford reservoir.

In addition, two different compositional models based on Peng-Robinson equation of state (EOS) were developed,
one for the oils and one for the gas-condensate fluids. The compositions of the oils were adjusted to provide fluids with
GORs of 500, 1000, and 2000 scf/stb and stock oil gravities of approximately 40 °API. The gas-condensate
compositions were adjusted to provide CGRs of 30, 100, 150, and 200 stb/MMscf and API gravity approximately 50
°. Tables A-1 and A-2 in the appendix provide the EOS parameters for these two sets of fluids along with the
corresponding fluid compositions. These models were used to study the impact of PVT properties including condensate
blockage on the performance prediction through simulations.

The P-T diagrams for all the synthetic Eagle Ford fluids are displayed in Figure la and 1 b. As seen from these figures,
the P-T diagram extends over a wide range of pressures and temperatures as expected. The oil formation volume
factor (Bo) as a function of pressure is shown for the oils in Figure 2. The Bo ranges over 1.35 to more than 2.22. The
liquid dropout curves for the gas condensate fluids are shown in Figure 3 displaying the retrograde behavior with
maximum liquid dropout as high as 45% for the richest gas-condensate fluid. The widely varying PVT properties
indicate the significant challenges involved in characterizing the PVT behavior of a variety of fluids present in the Eagle
Ford reservoir.
4 SPE 140536-PP

Table 2. Simulated Eagle Ford Fluids Ranging from Low GOR Black Oils to High GOR Volatile Oils,
Gas Condensates and Dry Gas
Gas Initial Sat.
Gas Boi Bgi Viscos
No. Fluid Type GOR CGR API Density Pressure Temp (F) Pressure
Gravity (rb/stb) (rb/Mscf) cP
(lb/ft3) (psi) (psi)
1 Oil 500 41 0.06906 0.905 6,300 237 2,053 1.3534 0.58
2 Oil 1000 41 0.06587 0.863 7,350 266 3,446 1.6500 0.31
3 Oil 2000 41 0.06349 0.832 8,050 285 5,063 2.2152 0.17
4 Rich Cond. 210 52 0.06066 0.795 8,804 303 4,198 0.75 0.07
5 Rich Cond. 140 52 0.06053 0.793 9,088 310 3,988 0.69 0.06
6 Rich Cond. 100 51 0.06033 0.791 9,372 318 3,764 0.65 0.05
7 Lean Cond. 30 50 0.05989 0.785 10,138 295 2,700 0.56 0.04
8 Dry Gas 0 X 0.0485 0.636 11,400 352 X 0.53 0.03

Figure 1a. P-T Diagrams for Eagle Ford Oils

6000
500 GOR CP-500 GOR 1000 GOR
CP-1000 GOR 2000 GOR CP-2000 GOR
5000

Critical Points
Pressure (psia)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Temperature (deg F)

Figure 1b. P-T Diagram for Eagle Ford Gas

Condensates
5000

4000
Pressure (psia)

3000

2000

1000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Temperature (deg F)
30 CGR 100 CGR 150 CGR
CP-150 CGR 250 CGR CP-250 CGR
SPE 140536-PP 5

Figure 2. Pressure vs. Oil Formation Volume

Factor - Eagle Ford Oils
2.4

2.2

2.0
Oil FVF (rb/stb)
1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Pressure (psia)

500 GOR 1000 GOR 2000 GOR

Figure 3. Pressure vs. Retrograde Liquid Dropout

Eagle Ford Gas-Condensates
50

40
Liquid Volume%

30

20

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure (psia)
30 CGR 100 CGR 150 CGR 250 CGR

Reservoir Simulation Input

Reservoir Model: A homogenous sector model was built for the simulation study to investigate the effect of rock
(SCAL) and fluid (PVT) properties, the fracture characteristics, and the completion parameters. The dimensions
and properties of this model have been selected based on limited available information on the Eagle Ford
reservoir. Figure 4 shows a schematic of the sector model that is one mile long, half a mile wide, and 290 ft thick. An
efficient reservoir development plan for this shale reservoir requires drilling a horizontal well implemented with multi-
stage hydraulic fractures. In this sector model, equally spaced 14-stage hydraulic fractures were used perpendicular
to the well orientation running the full width of the reservoir.

The model contains a total of 33,187 grid cells that represent both the matrix and the hydraulic fractures with
logarithmic local grid refinement implemented for fractures. The logarithmic local grid refinement facilitates the
capture of pressure and saturation changes in the hydraulic fractures and the adjacent cells. The coarse grid
dimensions are 32'x66'x41' .The grid cell representing the fracture is 0.6" wide and next two grids are 0.72" and 9" wide.
6 SPE 140536-PP

Figure 4. The Sector Model Used in the Simulation Study

Matrix and Fracture Properties: The initial matrix and the fracture porosity used is 9%. Higher porosity values for
fracture network showed very little impact on performance. A range of permeability from 25 to 500 nano Darcies was
used for the matrix and 25,000 to 250 milli Darcies for the fractures. Relative permeability has a major impact on the
reservoir production performance. Table 1 shows the Corey parameters for both drainage and imbibition processes in
fractures and the matrix. The relative permeability input also included hysteresis effects to capture expected reservoir
flow processes.

During reservoir depletion, rock compaction impacts both the matrix and fracture flow characteristics. The
consequence of reservoir rock compaction leads to

 the degradation of the fracture permeability

 increasing water saturation in the matrix because of reduced pore volume
 condensate-banking effects in both the matrix and fracture systems

The rock compaction is generally accounted for in the simulator using transmissibility multipliers for fracture cells.
The required transmissibility multiplier input was generated based on empirical data from a similar field. Figure 5
shows the effect of pressure drop on the transmissibility multiplier used in this study. As shown in this figure, with
even small pressure drops, the fracture transmissibility changes by an order of magnitude. Rock compressibility is
one of the main drivers for oil and gas production in tight reservoirs. The rock compressibility used in this study
ranged from 20 to 100 microsips

Figure 5. Transmissibility Multiplier Changes with Reservoir Pressure

Hydrocarbon PVT: Eight different fluids ranging from black oil to high GOR volatile oils, rich and lean gas-
condensates and dry gas were used in the simulation study. The list of fluids is shown in Table 2. Both black oil
SPE 140536-PP 7

and compositional simulations were performed and the results are discussed in the next section.

Simulation Results and Discussion

A large number of simulation runs were made consisting of both base case and sensitivity cases. The results of
these runs are discussed below:

Base Case Result s

In this section, we investigated the changes in pressure and fluid saturation distribution with time during reservoir
depletion. Figure 6 and 7 show the pressure distribution in the base case model. The results indicate that the
pressure and the fluid saturation do not change significantly away from the fracture grid cells even after thirty years
of depletion. Even though the near-fracture pressure changed by half its original value after thirty years of depletion,
the matrix pressure away from the fracture changed only by a few hundred psi. This may indicate that the fracture
interference is limited and may occur only in the late life of the reservoir.

Figure 6. 3D Reservoir Pressure vs. Time for Gas Condensate Model

Figure 7. Block Pressure and Average Reservoir Pressure vs. Time

8 SPE 140536-PP

Figures 8 and 9 show the gas saturation changes in the base case model as a function of time. Figure 8 displays
the gas saturation for the fracture cell and a cell adjacent to the fracture in the matrix as a function of time. The
trend of the gas saturation changes in these two cells is similar although the fracture reaches the dew point
pressure before the matrix as seen from the delayed drop in gas saturation in the adjacent matrix cell. Figure 9
shows the gas saturation changes for a number of cells including the fracture cell and cells away from the
fracture. As in the case of pressure distribution, the gas saturation changes very little in the cells away from the
fracture while the fracture experiences significant changes due to condensate dropout below the dew point
pressure.

The grid cell reached

The dew point pressure

Figure 8. Gas Saturation vs. Time in the Fracture Grid Cell and Adjacent to the Fracture

Figure 9. Gas Saturation vs. Time for Adjacent Grid Cell to the Fracture with more Distance

Sensitivity Runs
Hydrocarbon PVT: Simulation sensitivities for a range of PVT types are summarized in Figures 10 and 11. Figure
10 provides cumulative recoveries for the oil (or condensate) and the gas phases for different fluid types (varying
CGRs) while Figure 11 forecasts the initial well rates for varying CGRs. Figure 10 indicates that maximum
recovery of liquids is achieved in the CGR range of 200-300 stb/MMscf (rich gas condensate). For these rich
condensates, the viscosity is sufficiently low thus facilitating fairly high well rates. Figures 10 and 11 can also
assist in decline curve analyses; i.e., for a given CGR value, cumulative recovery and initial well rates can be
inferred and used as input for decline curve forecasts.
SPE 140536-PP 9

Figure 10. Liquid Yield vs. Cumulative Oil and Gas Production

Figure 11. Liquid Yield vs. Oil Rate

Rock Compressibility: All the following sensitivity studies were conducted using a gas -condensate fluid with
a CGR of 100 stb/MMscf. The cumulative gas and oil production decrease as expected with rock increasing
rock compressibility, as shown in Figures 12 and 13.

Relative permeability: Relative permeability changes were evaluated by changing the Corey exponent and the
end point saturations. A wide range of Corey exponents were used for gas and condensate curves ranging
between 2 to 6 for Ng and between 4 and 10 for Nc (matrix). Figure 14 shows the cumulative oil production for
these cases. It was found that with increasing Corey exponents for gas and condensate, both oil and gas
production decreases significantly.
10 SPE 140536-PP

Figure 12. Rock Compressibility vs. Cumulative Gas Production

Figure 13. Rock Compressibility vs. Cumulative Oil Production

Figure 14. Corey Exponent vs. Cumulative Oil Production

SPE 140536-PP 11

Trapped gas saturation: In tight reservoirs, the trapped gas saturations can be as high as 45%. The trapped gas
saturation was varied between 25 to 45% in this sensitivity study. The results show that the higher the trapped
gas saturation the lower is the cumulative oil and gas production. Figure 15 displays the cumulative oil production
as a function of trapped gas saturation.

Critical condensate saturation: The critical condensate saturation in tight reservoirs also can be very high and can
severely impact gas production. The critical condensate saturations were varied from 5% to 20% in this study to
investigate its effect on gas production. Figure 16 shows that at the higher critical condensate saturation of 20%,
the cumulative gas production drops more than half its value at the lower critical condensate saturation of 5%.

Figure 15. Trapped gas Saturation vs. Cumulative Oil Production

Figure 16. Critical Condensate Saturation vs. Cumulative Gas Production

Surface contact area between fracture and matrix: Another key parameter used in the sensitivity study was the
hydraulically placed fracture characteristics and properties as the surface area of contact (SAC) between the
matrix and the wellbore changes because of different fracture dimensions and placement locations. The
simulation results show that in very tight reservoirs SAC is the main driver for increased production. In the base
case simulation, SAC of the 14-stage fracture network was 10.7 MM sq ft. To investigate the effect of SAC, four
additional runs were conducted as follows:
12 SPE 140536-PP

 Two cases were run with the SAC of 8 MM sq ft but with different combinations of fracture length and
height
 Other two cases with two different SACs of 7.6 and 5.3 MM sq ft by varying the length and height

Figure 17 shows the cumulative oil production for all these five cases including the base case which had the
highest SAC. As seen from the Figure, with the same area of contact the cumulative oil production does not show
any appreciable variation while the two lower SAC runs show that the cumulative production does decrease with
decreasing SAC.

Figure 17. Surface Contact Between Matrix and Fractures vs. Cumulative Oil Production

Fracture permeability degradation: Often times, the implemented hydraulic fracture may not hold the desired
permeability during the reservoir production life. In addition, fracture width may decrease during reservoir
depletion due to increased overburden stress. The resulting fracture permeability degradation has a major impact
on cumulative production in unconventional reservoirs. In this sensitivity study, the fracture permeability was
varied from 25,000 milli Darcy to as low as 250 milli Darcy. As expected, the lower the fracture permeability the
smaller the cumulative oil production. In fact, the cumulative oil production at the lowest permeability of 250 milli
Darcy is reduced to a third of the production at the highest permeability of 25,000 milli Darcy. Figure 18 displays
cumulative oil production as a function of fracture permeability.

Figure 18. Fracture Permeability vs. Cumulative Oil Production

SPE 140536-PP 13

Summary and Conclusions

Reservoir simulation studies were conducted to evaluate the productivity of typical Eagle Ford shale oil, gas, and
gas-condensate reservoirs. A sector model was built based on limited reservoir data and a horizontal well with
multi-staged hydraulic fracture system to study the production performance of the reservoir. The impact of several rock,
fluid, and fracture properties on the production performance was studied. The following are the results and conclusions
of this study.

 Matrix, fracture permeability, fracture characteristics, PVT properties, and the relative
permeability are critical parameters for unconventional reservoir performance prediction.
Therefore, representative and high quality rock and fluid data are nee ded for realistic
predictions.
 During depletion, although significant changes in both the pressure and saturation
distribution were observed in the fractures, the matrix away from the fractures
experienced only an insignificant change.
 Varying the fluid PVT indicates that the liquid recovery attained maximum only at certain
CGRs in the range of 200-300 stb/MMscf.
 Increasing rock compressibility negatively impacted both the cumulative gas and condensate
production.
 Relative permeability variations to gas and condensate phases by varying the Corey
exponents and the end point saturations (S ot and S„) showed that both the liquid and gas
production were negatively impacted with increased Corey exponents and end point
saturations.
 Severe drop in productivity were observed due to compaction and condensate banking.
 The fracture-matrix surface contact area was the major parameter that affects the
cumulative production. The larger the area of contact the higher was the cumulative
production.
 Fracture conductivity, if lost during pressure depletion, as modeled by decreasing fracture
permeability, impacted the productivity severely due to fracture closure.
 The drainage area was often very limited in spite of extensive hydraulic fractures and as a
result, large part of the reservoir was not drained even after decades of production.
 Fracture interference is limited and may occur only in the late life of the reservoir.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Fred Arasteh for his support during this work. We would also like to acknowledge Hess
Management for their encouragement and support in preparing this manuscript and for the approval to publish
this paper.

References:
1. Arukhe, J., Aguilera, R., and Harding, T. G.,”Solutions for Better Production in Tight Gas Reservoirs
Through Hydraulic Fracturing”, SPE 121357, SPE Western Regional Meeting, San Jose, March 24-26,
2009.
2. Curtis, J. B., “Fractured Shale Gas Systems”, AAPG Bulletin, 86, 1921-38, November, 2002
3. Kale, S. V., Rai, C. S., and Sondergeld, C. H., “Petrophysical Characterization of Barnett Shale”, SPE
131770, SPE Unconventional Gas Conferrence, Pittsburgh, February 23-25, 2010.
4. Sondergeld, C. H., Newsham, K. E., Comisky, J. T., Rice, M. C., and Rai, C. S., “Petrophysical
Considerations in Evaluating and Producing Shale Gas Resources”, SPE 131768, SPE Unconventional
Gas Conference, Pittsburgh, February 23-25, 2010.
5. Luffel, D. L. and Guidry, F. K., "New Core Analysis Methods for Measuring Reservoir Rock Properties of
Devonian Shale", SPE 20571, JPT Page 1184-1190, November 1992.
6. Nagarajan, N. R., Honarpour, M. M., Sampath, K., and McMichael, D., "Comparison of Gas-Condensate
Relative Permeability Using Live Fluid vs. Model Fluids", SCA 2004-09, Paper presented at The
international symposium of SCA, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 5-9 October, 2004.
7. Diomampo, G. P., "Relative Permeability Through Fractures", SGP-TR-170, Stanford Geothermal
Program, Engineering and Earth Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, August 2001.

8. Honarpour, M. M., Koederitz, L. and Harvey A. H., "Relative Permeability of Petroleum Reservoirs", CRC
Press, Inc., 1986.
 14 SPE 140536-PP

Appendix A:

Table A-1. EOS Parameters for Compositional Models

Synthetic Eagle Ford Oil
Specific Composition (mole Frac)
Comp. Mole. Gravity Acentric Shift Tc Pc Vc Zcrit Omega Omega GOR scf/stb
Wt. Factor Deg R psia cft/lbM A B 500 1000 2000
C1 16.04 0.3500 0.0130 -0.1540 343.3 673.1 1.5658 0.2861 0.4572 0.0778 0.31231 0.44522 0.56447
N2 28.01 0.8080 0.0400 -0.1660 227.2 492.3 1.4256 0.2879 0.4572 0.0778 0.00073 0.00104 0.00132
C2 30.07 0.4800 0.0986 -0.1002 549.8 708.4 2.3556 0.2828 0.4572 0.0778 0.04314 0.05882 0.07288
C3 44.10 0.5077 0.1524 -0.0850 665.8 617.4 3.2294 0.2790 0.4572 0.0778 0.04148 0.04506 0.04827
CO2 44.01 0.8159 0.2250 -0.0620 547.6 1071.3 1.5126 0.2758 0.4572 0.0778 0.01282 0.01821 0.02306
IC4 58.12 0.5631 0.1848 -0.0794 734.6 529.1 4.2127 0.2827 0.4572 0.0778 0.01350 0.01298 0.01251
NC4 58.12 0.5844 0.2010 -0.0641 765.4 550.7 4.1072 0.2754 0.4572 0.0778 0.03382 0.02978 0.02615
IC5 72.15 0.6248 0.2223 -0.0435 828.7 483.5 4.9015 0.2665 0.4572 0.0778 0.01805 0.01507 0.01240
NC5 72.15 0.6312 0.2539 -0.0418 845.6 489.5 5.0232 0.2710 0.4572 0.0778 0.02141 0.01711 0.01325
NC6 86.18 0.6641 0.3007 -0.0148 914.2 439.7 5.9782 0.2679 0.4572 0.0778 0.04623 0.03280 0.02076
C7+ 114.40 0.7563 0.3739 0.0191 1060.5 402.8 7.4093 0.2759 0.4572 0.0778 0.16297 0.11563 0.07316
C11+ 166.60 0.8135 0.5260 0.0919 1223.6 307.7 10.682 0.2670 0.4572 0.0778 0.12004 0.08940 0.05924
C15+ 230.10 0.8526 0.6979 0.1501 1368.4 241.4 14.739 0.2620 0.4572 0.0778 0.10044 0.07127 0.04509
C20+ 409.20 0.9022 1.0456 0.2447 1614.2 151.1 26.745 0.2539 0.4572 0.0778 0.07306 0.04762 0.02745
Peng-Robinson Interaction Coefficients
C1 N2 C2 C3 CO2 IC4 NC4 IC5 NC5 NC6 C7+ C11+ C15+ C20+
C1 0 0.036 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.025 0.049 0.068 0.094
N2 0.036 0 0.05 0.08 -0.02 0.095 0.09 0.095 0.1 0.1 0.151 0.197 0.235 0.288
C2 0 0.05 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.039 0.054 0.075
C3 0 0.08 0 0 0.135 0 0 0 0 0 0.015 0.029 0.041 0.056
CO2 0.1 -0.02 0.13 0.135 0 0.13 0.13 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.11 0.097 0.085 0.07
IC4 0 0.095 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.019 0.027 0.038
NC4 0 0.09 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.019 0.027 0.038
IC5 0 0.095 0 0 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.014 0.019
NC5 0 0.1 0 0 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.014 0.019
NC6 0 0.1 0 0 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C7+ 0.025 0.151 0.02 0.015 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005 0 0 0 0 0
C11+ 0.049 0.197 0.039 0.029 0.097 0.019 0.019 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
C15+ 0.068 0.235 0.054 0.041 0.085 0.027 0.027 0.014 0.014 0 0 0 0 0
C20+ 0.094 0.288 0.075 0.056 0.07 0.038 0.038 0.019 0.019 0 0 0 0 0

Table A-2. EOS Parameters for Compositional Models

Synthetic Eagle Ford Gas-Condensates
Comp. Mole. Specific Acentric Shift Tc Pc Vc Composition (mole Frac) Zcrit Omega Omega
Wt. Gravity Factor Param CGR stb/MMscf A B
deg. R psia cft/lbM 30 100 150 250
C1 16.04 0.3500 0.0130 -0.1540 343.26 673.08 1.5658 0.7473 0.70752 0.65882 0.63739 0.2861 0.45724 0.0778
N2 28.01 0.8080 0.0400 -0.1660 227.16 492.32 1.4256 0.0018 0.00165 0.00154 0.00149 0.2879 0.45724 0.0778
C2 30.07 0.4800 0.0986 -0.1002 549.774 708.35 2.3556 0.0943 0.08939 0.08337 0.08072 0.2828 0.45724 0.0778
C3 44.10 0.5077 0.1524 -0.0850 665.82 617.38 3.2294 0.0524 0.04981 0.0467 0.04533 0.2790 0.45724 0.0778
CO2 44.01 0.8159 0.2250 -0.0620 547.56 1071.3 1.5126 0.0305 0.02885 0.02686 0.02599 0.2758 0.45724 0.0778
IC4 58.12 0.5631 0.1848 -0.0794 734.58 529.06 4.2127 0.0114 0.011 0.01045 0.01021 0.2827 0.45724 0.0778
NC4 58.12 0.5844 0.2010 -0.0641 765.36 550.66 4.1072 0.0196 0.01897 0.01825 0.01793 0.2754 0.45724 0.0778
IC5 72.15 0.6248 0.2223 -0.0435 828.72 483.5 4.9015 0.0079 0.00805 0.00825 0.00834 0.2665 0.45724 0.0778
NC5 72.15 0.6312 0.2539 -0.0418 845.64 489.52 5.0232 0.0069 0.00733 0.00791 0.00816 0.2710 0.45724 0.0778
NC6 86.18 0.6641 0.3007 -0.0148 914.22 439.7 5.9782 0.0024 0.00671 0.01194 0.01424 0.2679 0.45724 0.0778
C7+ 112.00 0.7527 0.3673 0.0148 1051.39 408.59 7.2610 0.0167 0.04283 0.07627 0.09098 0.2759 0.45724 0.0778
C11+ 175.00 0.8201 0.5491 0.1010 1245.9 296.89 11.2083 0.0081 0.02556 0.04551 0.05429 0.2670 0.45724 0.0778
C15+ 210.00 0.8424 0.6435 0.1340 1327.59 259.01 13.4350 0.0006 0.00156 0.00278 0.00332 0.2620 0.45724 0.0778
C20+ 250.00 0.8612 0.7527 0.1644 1405.81 226.28 16.0488 0.0003 0.00076 0.00135 0.00161 0.2539 0.45724 0.0778
Peng-Robinson Interaction Coefficients
C1 N2 C2 C3 CO2 IC4 NC4 IC5 NC5 NC6 C7+ C11+ C15+ C20+
C1 0 0.036 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.024 0.051 0.062 0.074
N2 0.036 0 0.05 0.08 -0.02 0.095 0.09 0.095 0.1 0.1 0.148 0.202 0.223 0.247
C2 0 0.05 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.019 0.041 0.049 0.059
C3 0 0.08 0 0 0.135 0 0 0 0 0 0.014 0.031 0.037 0.044
CO2 0.1 -0.02 0.13 0.135 0 0.13 0.13 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.111 0.095 0.089 0.082
IC4 0 0.095 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.025 0.029
NC4 0 0.09 0 0 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.025 0.029
IC5 0 0.095 0 0 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.012 0.015
NC5 0 0.1 0 0 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.012 0.015
NC6 0 0.1 0 0 0.125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C7+ 0.024 0.148 0.019 0.014 0.111 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005 0 0 0 0 0
C11+ 0.051 0.202 0.041 0.031 0.095 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
C15+ 0.062 0.223 0.049 0.037 0.089 0.025 0.025 0.012 0.012 0 0 0 0 0
C20+ 0.074 0.247 0.059 0.044 0.082 0.029 0.029 0.015 0.015 0 0 0 0 0

View publication stats