SPE 77546
Laboratory Measurements of Condensate Blocking and Treatment for Both Low and
High Permeability Rocks
Hamoud A. Al-Anazi, SPE, Saudi Aramco, Gary A. Pope, SPE, Mukul M. Sharma, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin,
and Robert S. Metcalfe, SPE, Amoco (Ret.)
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Coreflood experiments were conducted in Berea sandstone
and Texas Cream limestone cores to quantify the loss in
relative permeability caused by condensate accumulation. The
in-situ condensate saturation was established dynamically by
precise control of core inlet and outlet pressures. It is well
known that retrograde condensate dropout can cause
significant productivity loss in low permeability reservoirs.
This paper shows that such losses can also occur in high
permeability reservoirs. Gas relative permeability reductions
of 91% to 97% were seen in 2-5 md limestone cores and 95%
to 98% in 246-378 md sandstone cores. In light of the new
data presented here, the common perception that condensate
blocking around wells in high-permeability reservoirs is not
significant should be re-examined. Our previous coreflood
experiments showed that methanol treatments increased the
gas relative permeability in low permeability carbonates, but
we had not yet determined the required methanol treatment
volumes as done in this study. Methanol displaces retrograde
condensate and maintains improved gas relative permeability
well into the post-treatment production period. Methanol also
displaces water and this can also contribute to higher gas
relative permeability in those cases when the initial water
saturation is high enough to significantly add to the total liquid
blocking of the gas. These results can be used to help reservoir
engineers evaluate and treat gas-condensate wells with
reduced productivity. Reservoir engineers should be especially
careful to evaluate the damage done in such high-permeability
reservoirs if the well's pressure drawdown is high enough to
result in pressures below the dew point pressure.
Introduction
Gas production from reservoirs having a bottom hole flowing
pressure below the dewpoint pressure results in an
accumulation of a liquid hydrocarbon near the wells. This
condensate accumulation reduces the gas relative
permeability, which is known as condensate blocking, and
thus the well's productivity. Condensate saturations near the
well can reach as high as 50-60% under pseudo steady-state
flow of gas and condensate.1 Even when the gas is very lean
such as in the Arun field with a maximum liquid drop out of
1.1%, condensate blocking can cause a drastic decline in well
productivity.2-4 The Cal Canal Field in California showed a
very poor recovery of 10% of the original gas-in-place
because of the dual effect of condensate banking and high
water saturation.5
Several methods have been proposed to restore gas
production rates after a decline due to condensate and/or water
blocking.6,7 Gas cycling has been used to maintain reservoir
pressure above the dewpoint pressure. Injection of dry gas
into a retrograde gas-condensate reservoir vaporizes
condensate and increases its dewpoint pressure.8 Injection of
propane was experimentally found to decrease the dewpoint
and vaporize condensate more efficiently than carbon
dioxide.9 Hydraulic fracturing has been used to enhance gas
productivity, but is not always feasible or cost-effective.5,10
Inducing hydraulic fractures into the formation can increase
the bottom hole pressure. Hydraulic fracturing successfully
restored the gas productivity of a well that died after the
flowing bottom hole pressure dropped below the dewpoint.11
Recently, a new strategy of using solvents was developed
to increase gas relative permeability reduced by condensate
blocking.7 Methanol was found to be effective to remove
condensate and water and restore gas productivity in low
permeability limestone cores. This study is a continuation of
that research to explore the effect of condensate blocking in
high permeability cores and quantify the volumes of
methanol required.
2 H. AL-ANAZI, G. POPE, M. SHARMA, R. METCALFE
Experimental Studies
Phase Behavior. The synthetic gas-condensate mixture used
in this study consisted of four components: methane, n-butane,
n-heptane, n-decane. The composition of the gas mixture is
given in Table 1. Liquid dropout of this mixture was
measured using a Through-Window PVT Cell (Ruska Model
2329). The volume of the cell is 96.49 mL and its inside
diameter is 3.5682 cm. The PVT cell was pressurized to 3000
psig with distilled water. The gas mixture was transferred into
the PVT cell by drawing the water from the bottom, while
injecting the gas mixture from the top at a constant pressure of
3000 psig using an ISCO Syringe-Pump. The liquid dropout
measurements of the gas mixture were performed at 145°F
using a constant composition expansion (CCE) method.
Coreflood Apparatus. Fig. 1 shows a schematic diagram of
the core flow apparatus. A Ruska pump was used to inject
fluid at a constant rate. Multiple pressure ports were used to
measure pressure drop across four sections (2 in. in length
each) through the core. Two back-pressure regulators were
used to control the flowing pressure upstream (BPR-1) and
downstream (BPR-2) of the core. A Temco PVT visual cell
was installed in-line to observe fluid phases. The flow is
downward to eliminate gravity segregation effects. The core
holder, back-pressure regulators, fluid accumulators, and flow
lines are inside a temperature-controlled, forced-air circulation
oven at 145°F. The oven temperature is measured with a
metal thermocouple and displayed on a digital indicator with
an accuracy of ±1°C.
Coreflood Procedure. A core with a diameter of 0.972 in.
and a length of 8.01 in. was cut from a source rock block.
Two types of cores were used: Texas Cream Limestone and
Berea Sandstone. Experimental core properties are listed in
Table 2. The core was dried in an oven at 95°C for more than
2 weeks. The core was wrapped with an aluminum foil and a
heat-shrink Teflon. The wrapped core was placed into a core
holder inside the oven at 145°F. After 4 hours, an axial
pressure was applied by screwing the end pieces of the core
holder. Then, an overburden pressure of 3400 psig was
applied. The initial core permeability (at Sg=100%) was
measured using methane at a flowing pressure of 3000 psig.
Water was introduced into the core using a vacuum push-
pull technique. The outlet end of the core holder was
connected to a vacuum pump and a full vacuum was applied
for 5 hours. The inlet end was closed. A predetermined
amount of brine was injected from the inlet of the core holder
using a burette while a vacuum was pulled from the outlet end
of the core holder. The core holder was placed inside the oven
at 145°F and opened to atmospheric pressure. The core holder
was allowed to reach an equilibrium temperature. Then, a
series of push-pull cycles were applied using a Ruska hand
pump through the outlet of the core holder. Between each
push and pull cycle, a break of 15 minutes was taken to allow
water vapor to distribute through the core. The water
saturation procedure was completed after 32 push-pull cycles.
SPE 77546
Gas relative permeability was first measured using
methane at initial water saturation. The single-phase gas
mixture was flowed through the core at a pressure (3000 psig)
greater than its dewpoint pressure until steady state was
reached. Before the start of the two-phase flow phase of the
coreflood experiment, the inlet and outlet valves of the core
holder were closed. The pressure of the downstream back
pressure regulator controlling the core pressure was slowly
decreased to 1200 psig, while the pressure in the upstream
back-pressure regulator controlling the pressure of the gas
feed was kept at 3000 psig. Flow was started while the bypass
was open until the pressure in the lines stabilized. Then, the
bypass valve was closed and the inlet and outlet valves of the
core holder were opened simultaneously. This procedure
allowed the condensate to dynamically accumulate in the core
in a way that is similar to condensate accumulation near a well
producing below the dew point pressure of a retrograde gas-
condensate reservoir. Both Du et al.7 and Whitson et al.12
have measured relative permeabilities using this dynamic
condensate accumulation procedure as a function of pressure
rather than establishing steady state by constant rate injection
of both gas and condensate separately. The resulting relative
permeabilities can be considered a function of pressure rather
than saturation. The single-phase gas mixture is injected at a
constant pump rate until the pressure drop reaches steady
state. The gas and condensate relative permeabilities are then
calculated directly from Darcy's law. Next, the end-point gas
relative permeability was measured using the equilibrium gas
at 1200 psig. During the second stage of the experiment,
methanol was injected to remove the condensate followed by a
repeat of the first stage. The viscosity of each gas phase was
measured experimentally (Table 3) using a capillary
viscometer with a diameter of 0.005 in., calibrated with
methane at 3000 psig.
Results and Discussion
Phase Behavior. Figure 2 shows a liquid dropout data for the
gas mixture at 145°F. The measured dewpoint pressure for
this mixture is 2795 psig. The Peng-Robinson equation-of-
state (PREOS) with zero binary interaction coefficients
showed good agreement with these data. The phase envelope
computed from the PREOS (Fig. 3) shows that the coreflood
conditions (1200 psig and 145°F) are in the retrograde region.
Condensate Blocking. Coreflood experiments were
conducted using both Texas Cream limestone and Berea
sandstone cores with water saturations between 0 and 54%
established using the vacuum push-pull method except for the
highest value of 54%, which was achieved by a displacement
of water with methane. The initial gas permeability (ki) was
measured with methane in all experiments. The gas relative
permeability (krg) in this paper is defined as the gas
permeability divided by the gas permeability at 100% gas.
The measured gas relative permeabilities are shown in Fig. 4.
A Productivity Index (PI) is defined as the ratio of total
flow rate to pressure drop during condensate accumulation.
 LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF CONDENSATE BLOCKING AND TREATMENT
SPE 77546 FOR BOTH LOW AND HIGH PERMEABILITY ROCKS
For the sake of comparison, the PI was normalized to the
initial productivity index (PIo). A single phase enters the
back-pressure regulator at 3000 psig and flashes downstream
into gas and condensate (oil) phases at 1200 psig. From a
mass balance across the back-pressure regulator, the gas (qg)
and oil (qo) rates can be calculated from the pump rate (q)
as follows:
fg q ρ
qg = ………………………………… (1)
f oρo + f g ρg
fo q ρ
qo = ………………………………… (2)
f oρo + f gρg
where the properties of gas and oil phases were evaluated at a
pressure of 1200 psig, while those for a single phase were at
3000 psig.
Low Permeability Cores. The flow of gas mixture at 1200
psig yields two-phase flow since the pressure is below the
dewpoint value. Fig. 5 shows the pressure drop across
different sections of a Texas Cream Limestone core during
condensate accumulation at 1200 psig. The condensate bank
propagates through each section until it reaches a steady state.
The pressure drop in each section took 4 PV to reach a
stabilized value. Fig. 6 shows the pressure drop across Texas
Cream Limestone cores during two-phase flow at different
rates and water saturations. Table 4 gives the gas and oil
relative permeability values during two-phase flow at 1200
psig. The gas relative permeability at steady state decreased
by 95%. Initially, the condensate phase started to fill-up the
pores while the gas phase is flowing. When the pressure drop
reached a steady state, both gas and condensate reached
steady state fractional flow values. The steady state relative
permeability values for the gas and condensate shown in Table
4 show that as the water saturation increased krg decreased
from 0.09 to 0.05 and kro decreased from 0.36 to 0.13. More
pore volumes were needed for the pressure drop to reach a
steady state value as the flow rate increased. This was an
unexpected result and indicates there was insufficient time for
local equilibrium to be achieved in at least the higher flow rate
corefloods. The effect of non-equilibrium flow on condensate
accumulation is currently under investigation by conducting
new corefloods at lower flow rates. However, the steady state
relative permeabilities reported in this paper should still be
valid. We report capillary numbers for all corefloods since
relative permeabilities are a function of capillary number
above some critical value.4
High Permeability Cores. This is the first time we have used
the dynamic condensate accumulation procedure to measure
gas and oil relative permeabilities for high-permeability
sandstone. The common assumption is that condensate
blocking is more of a problem in low permeability formations
than in high permeability formations, but little if any
experimental coreflood data are in the literature to support this
key assumption. Fig. 7 depicts the pressure drop across Berea
3
cores during two-phase flow at 1200 psig. These pressure
buildup data show the same trend as observed for low
permeability corefloods. The gas relative permeability
decreased to 0.02 and 0.05 for the two Berea corefloods
summarized in Table 5. At 38% water saturation, the gas
relative permeability is lower than with 0% water saturation,
which is likely due to the combined effects of condensate and
water blocking. Although these Berea cores had a permeability
80-fold higher than Texas Cream Limestone, condensate
blocking showed the same extent of reduction in gas
productivity (95%).
Fig. 8 illustrates the decline in productivity index during
condensate accumulation for both rocks at different water
saturations. Fig. 9 compares the normalized PI of Texas
Cream Limestone with Berea sandstone during two-phase
flow. This result shows that condensate blocking reduces gas
productivity in both low and high permeability cores to the
same extent.
Effect of Methanol Treatment. Coreflood data reported by
Du et al.7 clearly show increases in gas relative permeability
after methanol injection following condensate accumulation in
Texas Cream Limestone. However, they did not determine
how the increase in gas relative permeability varied with the
volume of the methanol treatment. The methanol volume was
varied in these new corefloods for this purpose in both Texas
Cream Limestone and Berea sandstone cores. Fig. 10 defines
the three steady state flow periods observed in these
corefloods: (1) after accumulation of condensate (2) an
enhanced flow period (lower pressure drop) following the
methanol injection and (3) after condensate accumulates
following the methanol and the pressure drop increases to
about its pre-treatment level once the methanol loses
its effectiveness.
Methanol Treatments in Low Permeability Cores. Fig. 11
shows pressure drop across the core during dynamic
condensate accumulation before and after methanol
treatments. In this experiment, two methanol treatments with
a volume of 20 PV each were performed after each condensate
accumulation flood. Before methanol treatment, condensate
decreased the relative permeability of gas to 0.04 and of oil to
0.17. After the first methanol treatment (20 PV), there is an
enhanced flow period. The pressure drop reaches a minimum
value at about 36 PV. The enhanced flow period indicates a
delay in the condensate accumulation. This delay in
condensate blocking is due to the presence of a methanol-rich
phase that is miscible with both water and condensate at the
coreflood temperature and pressure and sufficiently high
methanol concentrations. As the liquid methanol is stripped
out by mass transfer into the flowing gas phase, the
condensate starts to accumulate and eventually the pressure
drop increases to about the same level as before treatment.
The gas and oil relative permeability values during the post-
treatment accumulation reached 0.04 and 0.19, which are close
to those during the pre-treatment accumulation period.
4 H. AL-ANAZI, G. POPE, M. SHARMA, R. METCALFE
The second methanol treatment extended the enhanced
flow period by a factor of 2 indicating an insufficient volume
of methanol was injected the first time. The effect of
methanol treatment on PI during condensate accumulation is
shown in Fig. 12. Initially, the PI decreased from 23 to 0.76
cc/hr/psi due to condensate blocking. During the enhanced
flow period after each methanol treatment, the PI increased by
a factor on the order of 10. Table 6 summarizes the gas
relative permeability during the enhanced flow period in
Texas Cream Limestone. All the results indicate an
enhancement in gas productivity after methanol treatment.
The gas productivity improvement is much higher in cores
with high initial water saturation. For example, krg increased
by an order of magnitude in cores with water saturation in the
range of 20 to 54%.
Figure 13 shows the effect of methanol on the duration of
enhanced flow period in Texas Cream Limestone cores. The
duration shown on Fig. 13 is defined based upon the minimum
in the pressure drop. The duration of the enhanced flow period
increases with the volume of the methanol treatment. A two-
stage methanol treatment (20 PV each) doubled the duration of
the enhanced flow period. However, the third stage of
methanol increased the enhanced flow period by only 17%
relative to the second treatment. More delay was observed at
higher water saturation with the same volume of methanol
used. Sufficient volumes of methanol can apparently displace
both the condensate and water for the core and enhance the
gas relative permeability.
Table 7 gives the gas end-point relative permeabilities
before and after methanol treatment. The first methanol
treatment increased the gas end-point relative permeability by
more than 25, 35, and 54% at initial water saturations of 0, 20,
and 54%, respectively. The effect of methanol on gas end-
point relative permeability is illustrated in Fig. 14. This ratio
is defined as korg after methanol treatment to korg before
methanol treatment (korg damage). This figure shows that
methanol treatments were effective in increasing korg and the
increase was more at high initial water saturations.
Methanol Treatments in High Permeability Cores. Methanol
treatments performed in high permeability cores showed the
same behavior as that observed in low permeability ones. Fig.
15 shows the effect of methanol treatments on condensate
accumulation in a Berea core at Swi=38%. Condensate
blocking decreased the relative permeability to the gas and oil
phases to 0.02 and 0.1, respectively. This is the same behavior
as that observed with the low permeability cores. Methanol
treatments produced an enhanced flow period where the gas
productivity reached a maximum as shown by the high values
of PI (Fig. 16). The first methanol treatment increased the PI
by 10-fold, while the second treatment increased it by a factor
of 15. Since this core had a high water saturation (38%), the
first methanol treatment was probably effective in removing
most of the water from the core since water and methanol are
miscible in all proportions. The second methanol treatment
may have been needed to remove all of the condensate.
SPE 77546
Figure 17 shows the effect of methanol on PI during
condensate accumulation in a dry Berea core (Swi=0). The PI
after the second treatment showed the same trend as that after
the first one, except it declined later. With no water present in
the core, methanol filled the same pore volume during each
treatment. Table 8 gives the gas relative permeability during
the enhanced flow period in Berea cores. The enhancement in
gas productivity in a water-saturated core is higher than that in
a dry core. The first methanol treatment (20 PV) increased the
gas relative permeability during the enhanced flow period at
Swi of 38% by a factor of 10.5 and the second treatment
increased it to a factor of 15. Methanol is more effective at
increasing krg in the presence of high water saturation. Fig. 18
shows the effect of methanol on the duration of the enhanced
flow period in Berea cores. Larger cumulative volumes of
methanol resulted in a longer enhanced flow period.
Table 9 gives the gas end-point relative permeability in
Berea cores before and after methanol treatment. Before
methanol treatment, high water saturation contributed to
severe damage in korg. At Swi of 38%, korg is about 42% of that
in dry cores. The impact of water saturation together with
condensate blocking in high permeability cores resulted in a
severe reduction in gas relative permeability. The
improvement in the gas end-point relative permeability after
methanol treatment is greater than that in low permeability
cores, especially in the presence of a high water saturation.
After the first methanol treatment, korg increased by a factor of
2.5 in a Berea core with Swi = 38%, while korg increased by a
factor of 1.5 in the Texas Cream Limestone core with the
highest water saturation (Swi=54%).
Conclusions
1. Gas relative permeability during two-phase steady state
corefloods decreased 91 to 98% due to condensate and
water blocking.
2. Gas relative permeability decreased about the same
percentage in high permeability cores (Berea) as in low
permeability cores (Texas Cream limestone).
3. A more severe reduction in gas relative permeability
during two-phase flow of gas and oil occurred at high
water saturation than at low water saturation.
4. After methanol treatment, an enhanced flow period is
observed in both low and high permeability cores.
Condensate accumulation is delayed for a certain time.
During this time, the productivity index can be increased
by an order of magnitude in both low and high
permeability cores. The duration of enhanced flow period
is controlled by the volume of methanol injected and its
rate of mass transfer into the flowing gas phase after
treatment. Methanol treatments remove both water and
condensate by a multi-contact miscible displacement if
sufficient methanol is injected.
Methanol treatments resulted in a significant but temporary
enhancement in productivity for both low and high
permeability cores. The removal of water-blocks would be
expected to have a long lasting impact on a well’s PI. The
 LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF CONDENSATE BLOCKING AND TREATMENT
SPE 77546 FOR BOTH LOW AND HIGH PERMEABILITY ROCKS
condensate phase will reform and cause the PI to decrease
again if the bottom hole pressure is the same following the
treatment. However, in some cases the temporary removal of
the condensate and/or water block may allow gas production
at significantly lower pressure drawdown resulting in less
condensate accumulation, perhaps even allowing the well to
be produced at a bottom hole pressure above the dew point for
a longer period of time than would otherwise be economic. In
other cases due to operations such as lean gas injection in
other wells some time in the past, the gas flowing to a given
gas-condensate well may be less rich than what caused the
original condensate block. Therefore, further investigation is
needed to evaluate the expected duration of the enhanced flow
period under a variety of field conditions.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Bruce Rouse, Glen Baum, and Bob
Savicki for their help with the experimental apparatus. We
would also like to thank the sponsors of this gas-condensate
research: Aramco, Chevron, Conoco, JNOC, and Texaco.
Nomenclature
fg = Fractional flow of gas phase
fo = Fractional flow of oil phase
ki = Initial core permeability, md
korg = Gas end-point relative permeability
krg = Gas phase relative permeability
kro = Oil phase relative permeability
Nc = Capillary number, dimensionless
PI = Productivity index, cc/hr/psi
PIo = Normalized productivity index, dimensionless
PV = Pore volumes injected, dimensionless
q = Pump flow rate, cc/hr
qg = Gas-phase flow rate, cc/hr
qo = Oil phase flow rate, cc/hr
Swi = Initial water saturation
∆P = Pressure drop, psi
ρ = Molar density of a single phase, lbmole/ft3
ρg = Molar density of gas phase, lbmole/ft3
ρo = Molar density of oil phase, lbmole/ft3
References
1. Mott, R.E., Cable, A.S., and Spearing, M.C.: “Measurements of
Relative Permeabilities for Calculating Gas-Condensate Well
Deliverability,” SEP Res. Eval. & Eng., Vol. 3, No. 6, Dec.
2000, 473-479.
2. Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J., and Bette, S.: “Production
Performance of Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of the
Arun Field,” SPE 28749 presented at the 1994 SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, Nov. 7-10.
3. Narayanaswamy, G., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Hwang, M.K.,
and Vaidya, R.N.: “Predicting Gas Condensate Well
Productivity Using Capillary Number and Non-Darcy Effects,”
SPE 51910 proceedings of the 1999 SPE Reservoir Simulation
Symposium, Houston, TX, February 14-17.
4. Pope, G.A., Wu, W., Narayanaswamy, G., Delshad, M., Sharma,
M.M., and Wang, P.: "Modeling Relative Permeability Effects
5
in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs with a New Trapping Model,"
SPE Res. Eval. & Eng. (April, 2000), 3 (2), 171.
5. Engineer, R.: "Cal Canal Field, California: Case History of a
Tight and Abnormally Pressured Gas Condensate Reservoir,"
SPE 13650 presented at the 1985 SPE California Regional
Meeting, Bakersfield, CA, March 27-29.
6. Kamath, J., and Laroche, C.: “Laboratory Based Evaluation of
Gas Well Deliverability Loss Due to Waterblocking,” SPE
63161 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 1-4.
7. Du, L., Walker, J.G., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., and Wang, P.:
“Use of Solvents to Improve the Productivity of Gas Condensate
Wells,” SPE 62935 proceedings of the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, TX,
October 1-4.
8. Luo, K., Li, S., Zheng, X., Chen, G., Dai, Z., and Liu, N.:
“Experimental Investigation into Revaporization of Retrograde
Condensate by Lean Gas Injection,” SPE 68683 presented at the
2001 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Conference and Exhibition,
Jakarta, Indonesia, April 17-19.
9. Jamaluddin, A.K.M., Thomas, S.Y.J., D’Cruz, D., and
Nighswander, J.: “Experimental and Theoretical Assessment of
Using Propane to Remediate Liquid Buildup on Condensate
Reservoirs,” SPE 71526 presented at the 2001 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, LO,
September 30-October 3.
10. Antoci, J.C., Briggiler, N.J., and Chadwich, J.A.: “Crosslinked
Methanol: Analysis of a Successful Experience in Fracturing
Gas Wells,” SPE 69585 presented at the 2001 SPE Latin
American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference,
Buenos Aires, Argentina, March 25-28.
11. Barnum, R.S., Brinkman, F.P., Richardson, T.W., and Spillette,
A.G.: “Gas Condensate Reservoir Behavior: Productivity and
Recovery Reduction Due to Condensation,” SPE 30767
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition,
Dallas, TX, October 22-25.
12. Whitson, C.H., Fevang, ø., and Saevareid, A.: “Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability for Well Calculations,” SPE 56476
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 3-6.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
cp × 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s
ft × 3.048* E-01 = m
°F (°F-32)/1.8 = °C
gal × 3.785412 E-03 = m3
in. × 2.54* E+00 = cm
mL × 1.0* E+00 = cm3
psi × 6.894757 E+00 = kPa
*
Conversion factor is exact.
Table 1-Composition of gas mixture.
Component Mole Fraction
Methane 0.800
n-Butane 0.150
n-Heptane 0.038
n-Decane 0.012
6 H. AL-ANAZI, G. POPE, M. SHARMA, R. METCALFE SPE 77546

Table 2-Experimental core properties. Table 7-Effect of methanol treatment on gas end-
Rock Type Texas Cream Limestone Berea Sandstone point relative permeability in Texas Cream
Diameter, in 0.972 0.972 Limestone cores.
Length, in 8.01 8.01 Exp.-4 Exp.-7 Exp.-8 Exp.-10 Exp.-13
Pore Volume, mL ~20 ~20
Porosity, % 20.8 20.5 ki, md 2.72 2.32 4.43 5.10 4.50

ki, md 1-6 220-380 Swi, % 0 0 20 20 53.96

Table 3-Gas viscosity measured with the capillary Nc 1.6×10

-7
1.5×10
-7
1.5×10
-7
2.0×10
-7
2.2×10
-7

viscometer krg
Gas Pressure, psig Viscosity, cp Before 0.384 0.517 0.675 0.690 0.529
Methane 3000 0.01879 MeOH
krg After
Gas Mixture 3000 0.03261 First 0.580 0.647 0.829 0.933 0.819
Equilibrium gas 1200 0.01682 MeOH
krg After
Second - 0.704 0.916 - -
Table 4-Relative permeability values in Texas Cream MeOH
Limestone cores during two-phase flow at 1200 psig.
Exp.-7 Exp.-8 Exp.-10 Exp.-13 Table 8-Gas relative permeability during enhanced
ki, md 2.32 4.43 5.10 4.50 flow period in Berea cores.
Swi, % 0 20 20 54 Exp.-12 Exp.-12a
-7 -7 -7 -7
Nc 1.5×10 1.5×10 2.0×10 2.2×10 ki, md 246 378
krg 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.03 Swi, % 0 38
kro 0.36 0.17 0.17 0.13 Nc 2.4×10
-6
2.2×10
-6

krg Before MeOH 0.05 0.02

Table 5-Relative permeability values in Berea cores krg After First MeOH 0.43 0.21
during two-phase flow at 1200 psig. krg After Second MeOH 0.48 0.30
Exp.-12 Exp.-12a
krg After Fifth MeOH 0.54 -
ki, md 246 378
Swi, % 0 38 Table 9-Effect of methanol treatment on gas end-
-6 -6
Nc 2.4×10 2.2×10 point relative permeability in Berea cores.
krg 0.05 0.02 Exp.-12 Exp.-12a
kro 0.19 0.10 ki, md 246 378
Swi, % 0 38
Table 6-Gas relative permeability during enhanced Nc 2.4×10
-6
2.2×10
-6

flow period in Texas Cream Limestone cores. Before Methanol 0.901 0.386
Exp.-4 Exp.-7 Exp.-8 Exp.-10 Exp.-13 After First Methanol 0.960 0.967
After Second Methanol 0.984 0.807
ki, md 2.72 2.32 4.43 5.10 4.50
After Fifth Methanol 0.946 -
Swi, % 0 0 20 20 53.96

-7 -7 -7 -7 -7
Nc 1.6×10 1.5×10 1.5×10 2.0×10 2.2×10
krg
Before 0.13 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.03
MeOH
krg After
First 0.21 0.11 0.33 0.41 0.36
MeOH
krg After
Second - 0.41 0.46 - -
MeOH
 LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF CONDENSATE BLOCKING AND TREATMENT
SPE 77546 FOR BOTH LOW AND HIGH PERMEABILITY ROCKS 7

Temperature-Controlled Oven
1
BPR-1 Berea Sandstone
Visual Cell 0.9
Texas Cream Limestone

Gas Relative Permeability

0.8
0.7
Pressure Core Capillary
Transducers 0.6
Holder Viscometer

BPR-2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
PVT Cell Ruska
Pump 0.1
0
Effluent to
Fume Hood 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Fig. 1-A schematic diagram of core flow apparatus. Gas Saturation

Fig. 4-Gas-water relative permeability curves.

25
Measured 18
Calculated (PREOS)
20 16
Liquid Dropout, %

14

Pressure Drop, psi

15
12
Total ∆P
10
10
8
Sec.-1
5 6

4
Sec.-2 Sec.-3 Sec.-4
0 2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0
Pressure, psig 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Fig. 2-Gas mixture liquid dropout curve at 145°F. Pore Volumes Injected
Fig. 5-Pressure drop at different sections across a Texas Cream
Limestone core during condensate accumulation at 1200 psig.
3500
145oF
3000 140
Exp.-10, Swi=20%
Exp.-8, Swi=20% q=60 cc/hr
2500 120
Pressure, psia

q=44.8 cc/hr

2000
Pressure Drop, psi

50% 100
Exp.-7, Swi=0%
60%
1500 q=44.8 cc/hr
70% 80
1000 80%
90% 60
100%
500
40
0
-300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 20
o
Temperature, F 0
Fig. 3-Phase envelope of gas mixture predicted by PREOS. 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Pore Volumes Injected
Fig. 6-Pressure drop across Texas Cream Limestone cores during
condensate accumulation at 1200 psig at different rates and water
saturations.
8 H. AL-ANAZI, G. POPE, M. SHARMA, R. METCALFE SPE 77546

Before Methanol After Methanol

40
36
32 Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment
Accumulation
Pressure Drop, psi

28 Accumulation
Exp.-12a, Swi=38%
24 Pressure
20
Drop
Enhanced Gas
Gas Flow Period
16 + +
12
Exp.-12, Swi=0%
Condensate Condensate
Gas +
8 Condensate +
Methanol
4
0 Time
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Fig. 10–Steady state flow periods before and after methanol
Pore Volumes Injected treatment during two-phase flow through the core.
Fig. 7-Pressure drop across Berea cores during condensate
accumulation at 1200 psig and 600 cc/hr.
140

10000
Berea, Swi=0% 120
Berea, Swi-38%
Texas Cream Limestone, Swi=0%

Pressure Drop, psi

Texas Cream Limestone, Swi=20% 100
1000 Before
Methanol
Treatment
80
PI, cc/hr/psi

100
60 After 1st After 2nd
Methanol Methanol
Treatment Treatment
10 40

20
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0 Pore Volumes Injected
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Pore Volumes Injected Fig. 11–Effect of methanol treatment on condensate accumulation
Fig. 8–Effect of condensate blocking on productivity index of in Texas Cream Limestone core at Swi=20%.
Texas Cream Limestone and Berea cores at different water
saturation. 100

After 1st
1.2 Methanol
Berea, Swi=0% Treatment
Berea, Swi=38%
1.0 Texas Cream Limestone, Swi=0% 10 After 2nd
PI, cc/hr/psi

Texas Cream Limestone, Swi=20% Methanol

Treatment
0.8
PI/PIo

0.6 1
Before
Methanol
0.4 Treatment

0.2 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
0.0 Pore Volumes Injected
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Fig. 12–Effect of methanol treatment on PI during condensate
Pore Volumes Injected accumulation in Texas Cream Limestone core at Swi=20%.
Fig. 9–Normalized productivity ratio during condensate
accumulation at different water saturations.
 LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF CONDENSATE BLOCKING AND TREATMENT
SPE 77546 FOR BOTH LOW AND HIGH PERMEABILITY ROCKS 9

90 1000
Exp.-7 (Swi=0%)
80 Exp.-8 (Swi=20%) After 2nd
Condensate Bank Delay, PV

Exp.-13 (Swi=54%) Methanol

70 Treatment
After 1st
60
Methanol

PI, cc/hr/psi
Treatment
50
100
40

30
Before
20 Methanol

10

0 10
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Cumulative Methanol Treatment Volume, PV Pore Volumes Injected
Fig. 16–Effect of methanol treatment on PI during condensate
Fig. 13–Effect of methanol on duration of enhanced flow period in accumulation in Berea core at Swi=38%.
Texas Cream Limestone cores.
10000
2
20PV Methanol
1.9
40PV Methanol After 2nd
1.8 Methanol
1000 Treatment
1.7 PI, cc/hr/psi
korg/korgdamage

1.6 After 1st

Methanol
1.5 Treatment
1.4
100
1.3
1.2 Before
Methanol
1.1
1 10
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Initial Water Saturation Pore Volumes Injected
Fig. 17–Effect of methanol treatment on PI during condensate
Fig. 14–Effect of methanol treatment on gas relative permeability accumulation in Berea core at Swi=0%.
end-point ratio in Texas Cream Limestone cores.

80
Exp.-12 (Swi=0%)
40 Exp.-12a (Swi=38%)
70
Condensate Bank Delay, PV

36
60
32 Before
Methanol
Pressure Drop, psi

28 50
Treatment
24 40
20
30
16 After 1st
Methanol 20
12 Treatment
After 2nd 10
8 Methanol
Treatment 0
4
0 20 40 100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Cumulative Methanol Treatment Volume, PV
Pore Volumes Injected Fig. 18–Effect of methanol on duration of enhanced flow period in
Fig. 15–Effect of methanol treatment on condensate accumulation Berea cores.
in Berea core at Swi=38%.