SPE 100529
Improving the Gas and Condensate Relative Permeability Using Chemical Treatments
V. Kumar, SPE, G.A. Pope, SPE, and M.M. Sharma, SPE, U. of Texas at Austin
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Gas Technology Symposium held
in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 15–17 May 2006.
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
Production from gas-condensate reservoirs having a bottom
hole flowing pressure below the dewpoint pressure results in
an accumulation of condensate near the wells causing a large
decrease in both the gas and condensate relative permeability.
Several methods such as hydraulic fracturing and solvents
have been proposed to restore production rates but all of these
methods have limitations or they are only effective for short
periods of time. We have evaluated new surfactants using a
methanol-water mixture as the solvent to treat cores under
reservoir conditions. The surfactants have been tested under
reservoir conditions using a variety of cores and found to be
promising since they significantly increased the steady state
relative permeability. Experiments were performed to evaluate
the effectiveness of these surfactants at high temperature and
high gas flow rates over a range of capillary numbers on the
order of those near production wells. The productivity index
for sandstone cores was improved by a factor of 2 to 3 for
temperatures over the temperature range of 145 to 275 °F for
the Novec FC 4430 polymeric surfactant in the methanol-
water mixture. These treatments have the potential to greatly
increase production at low cost since only the near well region
of the reservoir blocked by the condensate needs to be treated.
Introduction
Gas-condensate reservoirs show a decline in productivity
when the bottom hole flowing pressure drops below the
dewpoint pressure of the fluid. Liquid condensate builds up
near the well restricting the flow of gas. Capillary forces trap
some of the condensate phase in the pores, which causes a
reduction in the relative permeability of both the gas and
condensate. The degree of condensate blocking depends
indirectly on a combination of factors including fluid
properties, formation characteristics, flow rate and pressure. A
well-established example of condensate blocking and a
reduction in productivity of more than a factor of two occurred
in the Arun field.1,2
When the pressure near the production wells falls below
the dew point pressure, condensate blockage occurs near the
production wells even before the average reservoir pressure
drops below the dewpoint pressure of the fluid. Even for lean
gas (1% liquid dropout), significant liquid saturations can
build up near the wells. Liquid saturations near the wells can
reach 50 to 60% under pseudo steady-state flow of gas and
condensate.3-6 Productivity reductions of 40-80% have been
reported for some fields.5 Reductions in relative permeability
of greater than 95% in laboratory cores at low capillary
number have been reported for both low and high permeability
rocks.7-10 Significant reduction in productivity index has also
been reported.11-13
Since the reduction in well productivity is primarily
associated with the reduction in gas relative permeability, a
great deal of effort has gone into measuring and modeling the
relative permeability of gas condensate fluids. Several recent
studies have been made using the pseudo pressure method for
measuring relative permeability.5-9,12-16 In this method, a gas
mixture above its dew point pressure is flashed into the core at
a reservoir pressure less than the dew point pressure and
flowed until steady state is reached. This process is similar to
what happens around the wells, is easy to control with the
backpressure on the core, and is very efficient since
saturations do not have to be measured.
A model for predicting gas relative permeability as a
function of trapping number (a generalization of the capillary
and Bond numbers) was developed by Pope et al.17 This
model includes the dependence of gas relative permeability on
interfacial tension, pressure gradient and buoyancy forces. In
general, regions of high trapping numbers such as high
permeability layers with high flow rates show lower
condensate saturations and thus higher gas and condensate
relative permeabilities.
Non-Darcy flow can be significant in high rate gas wells.
Narayanaswamy et al.2 showed that reservoir heterogeneity
plays an important role in determining the effective β (non-
Darcy flow coefficient) for gas inflow into high rate gas wells.
The additional pressure drop caused by non-Darcy flow is
closely coupled with the pressure profile near the well and
thus the phase behavior.
Many strategies have been proposed for stimulating wells
that show condensate blockage effects. A common stimulation
method is hydraulic fracturing.18 It is possible to increase the
bottom hole pressure by increasing the flowing area by
inducing a fracture. This allows the production at higher
bottom hole pressure, both delaying the condensate bank
formation and mitigating its impact. However, it is sometimes
2 SPE 100529
not feasible or prudent to induce a fracture due to presence of
a water zone or because of economic or other considerations
including cost. Horizontal and inclined wells can also be used
to delay and mitigate the effect of condensate blockage.
Du et al.7, Walker et al.19 and Al-Anazi et al.9 found that
methanol was effective in removing both water and
condensate and thereby restoring the gas productivity for a
short period of time in both low permeability limestone cores
and high permeability sandstone cores. Methanol provides an
enhanced flow period by delaying the condensate bank
formation. A successful methanol stimulation treatment was
done in the Hatter’s Pond field.9 A significant increase in
production occurred for several months, which is longer than
expected based upon the laboratory tests.
Li and Firoozabadi20 were the first to study the alteration
of rock wettability with the idea this would increase the
productivity of gas condensate wells. They measured the
effect of chemical treatment of Berea sandstone on the
imbibition of water and oil at room temperature. Tang and
Firoozabadi21, 22 measured the effect of chemical treatment on
the water and oil relative permeability of Berea sandstone.
Both of these studies used polymeric surfactants in water as
the treatment solution. They did not use gas-condensate fluids
at reservoir conditions. Fahes and Firoozabadi23 measured a
strong reversal of wetting in a gas-water-rock system at
284 °F, but the treatment was less successful in a gas-oil-
reservoir-rock system. All of these studies were done at low
pressure and none of them used gas-condensate fluids.
In this study, we report steady state gas-condensate relative
permeability data before and after treatment with several
fluorinated polymeric surfactants in methanol-water mixtures.
We present for the first time experimental data that show a
significant improvement in gas and condensate relative
permeability after chemical treatment at reservoir conditions
in reservoir rocks with gas-condensate fluids. The fluorinated
polymeric surfactant with the best performance (Novec
FC4430) has a different chemistry than any of those
previously tested.
Experimental
Core Flood Setup. Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of
the core flood apparatus. Positive displacement pumps were
used to inject fluid at constant rate. Multiple pressure ports on
the core holder were used to measure pressure drop across
four sections (2 inches in length each) of the core. Two back-
pressure regulators were used to control the flowing pressure
upstream (BPR-1) and downstream (BPR-2) of the core. A
DBR PVT visual cell was used to measure liquid drop out.
The flow is through a vertical core to avoid gravity
segregation of the gas. A Phoenix high-pressure core holder,
the Temco back-pressure regulators, fluid accumulators and
tubing are placed inside a temperature-controlled oven. The
apparatus is rated for temperatures up to 400 °F and pressures
up to 10,000 psig. The maximum flow rate that can be attained
is in the range of 7,000 cc/hr. More details about the
experimental apparatus and procedures can be found in
Kumar.10
Gas Mixtures. Table 1 shows the composition of the three
different synthetic gas-condensate fluids that were used to
perform experiments at 145 °F, 250 °F and 275 °F. Fluid III
was used to perform experiments in reservoir rock. The
composition of the synthetic fluid was selected to match the
reservoir fluid properties. The PVT properties were initially
computed using the Peng-Robinson equation-of-state
(PREOS) for different compositions until a good match was
obtained. Liquid dropout data for each gas mixture used in a
core flood were measured with a windowed PVT cell using a
constant composition expansion process. Table 2 shows the
fluid mixture properties at the experimental conditions. Figure
2 shows the phase envelope for the gas mixtures calculated
using the PREOS. The calculated liquid dropout curves for the
three gas mixtures are shown in Fig. 3. The gas and
condensate viscosities were measured using a capillary tube
viscometer. The capillary tube is placed in parallel with the
core. The pressure drop across the capillary tube was
measured and Poiseuille's law was used to calculate viscosity.
Rocks. Berea sandstone and reservoir sandstone core plugs
from a gas-condensate well in the North Sea were used in the
core flood experiments. Table 3 lists the core plug properties.
The cores were dried for 24 hours in the oven and then were
wrapped in aluminum foil and Teflon heat shrink tubing was
applied to eliminate the diffusion of gases and possible
interaction of fluids with the Viton sleeve. The wrapped core
is placed in the core holder and confining pressure is applied.
Chemical Treatment. Several different fluorinated
surfactants were used to treat the cores in the initial screening
study. Fluorolink S10 from Solvey-Solexis, Fluorosyl from
Cytonix, FSO Zonyl from DuPont, and Novec FC4430 and
FC4432 from 3M were evaluated. Table 4 lists the chemical
properties. All chemicals have a fluorochemical group to
provide water and oil repellency and either a silanol or alkoxy
group to provide bonding onto the rock surface. The cores
were treated with 2% surfactant in either methanol or a blend
of water-methanol solvent. The treatment step consists of
flowing approximately 20 pore volumes of the surfactant
solution at reservoir conditions and pressure and allowing 24
hours of shut-in time for interaction with the rock.
Solubility Measurements. The solubility of each surfactant
was measured in methanol, water, and blends of methanol and
water (Table 5).
Core Flooding Procedure. The pseudo pressure method was
used for performing coreflood experiments at different
reservoir conditions to obtain the steady state gas and
condensate relative permeabilities after condensate
accumulation in the cores. The single-phase gas permeability
was first measured by flowing methane through the core at
different constant flow rates using a Ruska pump until a
steady state was reached. The synthetic mixture was then
injected in the core at different flow rates to study the effect of
capillary number on gas and condensate relative
permeabilities. The upstream back-pressure regulator 1 was
set at a pressure above the dew point pressure of the fluid and
the downstream back-pressure regulator 2 was set at a pressure
below the dew point pressure corresponding to the bottom
hole flowing well pressure. This was done so that the high-
SPE 100529
pressure gas mixture would flash into a two-phase mixture of
gas and condensate as it flowed into the core. This procedure
mimics the dynamic accumulation of condensate around the
wellbore as the bottom hole pressure drops below the dew
point. The condensate injected into the core accumulates with
time and reduces the relative permeability to gas. The gas and
condensate reach a steady state fractional flow that depends on
the relative permeability characteristics of the core at the given
connate water saturation.
Figure 4 illustrates the typical pressure drop data observed
across different sections and the total length of the core as the
process of condensate accumulation occurs. The condensate
builds from inlet end to outlet end as shown by pressure drop
increase in different sections as the bank progresses along the
lentgth of the core. The relative permeability of the gas and
condensate was then calculated from the steady state pressure
drop. Next the treatment solution was injected into the core.
Approximately 20 pore volumes of the solution were injected
and 24 hours of shut-in time was allowed for the interaction of
chemical with the rock. The condensate accumulation step was
then repeated at the same conditions and the steady state gas
and condensate relative permeabilities were again measured.
To investigate the durability of the chemical treatment, a large
number of pore volumes of gas mixture were injected.
Results and Discussion
Table 2 shows estimated fluid properties for the three different
synthetic fluid mixtures used in this study. Table 5 shows the
solubility of chemicals in water and methanol at different
temperatures. All the chemicals are highly soluble in
methanol. The solubility test was performed up to 20 weight
percent of the chemical. The solubility in water was low
(< 1 weight percent).
Condensate Blocking. Coreflood experiments were
conducted in both Berea sandstone and reservoir sandstone
cores at reservoir temperatures and pressures. Initial gas
permeability was measured using methane gas. Table 6 shows
the gas permeability at 100% gas saturation. The fluid flashes
in the core giving gas flow rate (qg) and oil flow rate (qo) at the
core pressure set by BPR-2. Applying the conservation of
mass equation across BPR-1, the gas and oil rates in the core
can be calculated from the pump flow rate (q) and density at
the single-phase pressure set by BPR-1:
fg qρ
qg = (1)
fg ρ g +fo ρ o
fo qρ
qo = (2)
fg ρ g +fo ρ o
The condensate is labeled as oil in these equations. The
densities are calculated from the PREOS at the pump pressure
for flow in the pump and the core pressure for flow in core.
The fractional flows are calculated from the CCE and
viscosity data10,15,24 at the core pressure. At steady state, the
fractional flows of gas and oil have been measured and found
to agree within experimental uncertainty with the values
computed from the PVT data.16
3
Figure 5 shows the pressure drop in Berea sandstone cores
during dynamic condensate accumulation at 1,500 psig and
250 °F at different flow rates ranging from 330 cc/hr to 3811
cc/hr (Experiments 14 and 15). The gas relative permeability
decreases by 90% of the initial value during condensate
accumulation corresponding to a condensate bank. Figure 4
shows the overall pressure drop and sectional pressure drops
across the Berea sandstone core during dynamic condensate
accumulation at 1,500 psig and 250 °F at a flow rate of 302
cc/hr. The pressure drop reaches a steady-state value in the
core after injection of 20 pore volumes of the gas-condensate
mixture. The gas relative permeability decreased 90%
compared to its original value.
Figure 6 shows the pressure drop across the reservoir core
during dynamic condensate accumulation at 1,500 psig and
275 °F at different flow rates ranging from 330 cc/hr to 3811
cc/hr. The gas relative permeability decreased 90% compared
to its original value.
Figure 7 shows the steady state values of relative
permeability as a function of capillary number (Nc) for
different experiments at 145 °F and 250 °F without initial
water saturation. The experiments clearly show an increase in
gas relative permeability as the capillary number increases. In
this work, the capillary number is defined as
k g ΔP
Nc = (3)
σL
The pressure gradient increases as the flow rate increases, so
high flow rates correspond to high capillary numbers. The
gas/oil interfacial tension was approximately 4 dynes/cm in
these experiments.
Chemical Treatment. Coreflood experiments were
performed after the chemical treatment to investigate the
improvement in gas and condensate relative permeability.
Parameters affecting the improvement such as temperature,
water concentration in the solvent, rock type, treatment flow
rate, and gas injection rate were evaluated.
Figure 8 shows the pressure drop in a Berea sandstone core
during dynamic condensate accumulation at 1,500 psig and
250 °F before and after chemical treatment at 330 cc/hr. The
reduction in pressure drop after treatment shows an
improvement in the gas relative permeability and suggests less
blocking due to condensate dropout. In this and all other
experiments, the steady state condensate relative permeability
increases by the same factor as the gas relative permeability
since the ratio of the gas to condensate relative permeability is
fixed by the PVT ratio Vgμg/Voμo at a given core pressure.10,
15,24
Table 6 shows the effect of temperature on improvement in
gas relative permeability by chemical treatment with different
chemicals. The surfactants with silanol chemistry did not give
an improvement in the gas relative permeability at 250 °F.
Fluorolink S10 did show an improvement at 145 °F. The
silanol chemistry is reactive in nature and is extremely
sensitive to temperature and water. The silanol surfactants
reacted at high temperature leaving behind a solid yellow
precipitate in the accumulator while they were being injected.
4 SPE 100529
Novec FC4430 gave an improvement at all temperatures
tested. Novec FC4432 performed well at l45 °F but did not
improve the relative permeabilities at 250 °F. The Dupont
FSO surfactant did not give an improvement at 250 °F. The
Fluorosyl chemical plugged the core at 145 °F. It is inferred
from the experiments that the chemistry most stable towards
temperature is that of FC4430, which is a non-ionic surfactant
that does not depend on chemical reactions with the rock.
Figure 9 shows the effect of water concentration in the
treatment solution on improvement of gas relative
permeability after chemical treatment at different
temperatures. The concentration of water was varied from 0%
to 25%. There was no improvement in the gas relative
permeability when no water was present in the treatment
solution for the experiments done without initial water
saturation. There was improvement with no water in the
treatment solution for experiments done at 40% initial water
saturation. Methanol is miscible with water, so it displaces the
initial water saturation when present, which modestly
increases the gas relative permeability. Therefore, most
experiments were done without initial water saturation so that
the improvement in gas relative permeability could be
attributed entirely to the effect of the treatment on the
condensate blockage. In addition, some experiments were
done without surfactant in the methanol so the results could be
compared.
With both 4% and 10% water in the treatment solution, the
chemical treatment showed an improvement in gas relative
permeability, but the performance decreased when the water
concentration increased to 25%. Although some water in the
treatment solution improves its performance, the water
reduces the solubility of the surfactant in the solvent and
eventually it reaches a cloud point since it is a non-ionic
surfactant. The solubility of the surfactant also decreases as
temperature increases. Thus, we expect there will be an
optimum concentration of water for each application
depending on the surfactant, temperature and the initial water
saturation in the rock.
Figure 10 shows the effect of treatment flow rate on
improvement of gas relative permeability after chemical
treatment at different temperatures. The treatment flow rate
was varied from 32 cc/hr to 1,200 cc/hr. There is no
significant correlation between the improvement and the
treatment flow rate. It can be speculated that after a certain
critical flow rate the improvement will not be affected to a
great extent. The residence time in the core is a key factor in
determining the treatment flow rate. It is preferred to perform
the treatment at low flow rates to give enough time to the
chemical with the porous media.
Figure 11 shows the effect of chemical treatment on
reservoir cores. These experiments were carried out at the
reservoir temperature of 275 °F. Chemical treatment was done
using FC4430 with different water concentrations in the
treatment solution. Gas and condensate relative permeabilities
both increased by a factor of two for water concentrations in
the treatment solution of 4% or 10%. There was no
improvement at 25% water concentration. The cloud point
with 25% water in the solution is close to 275 °F.
The durability of the treatment was evaluated by injecting
almost 4,000 pore volumes of gas mixture at 300 cc/hr
following the treatment of a Berea sandstone core at 250 °F.
The treatment solution was 2 wt% FC4430, 4 wt% water and
94 wt% methanol. The improvement factor of 2.1 did not
change during the entire time the gas mixture was injected.
Following the chemical treatment and then injection of the
gas mixture to measure the post-treatment steady state relative
permeability, methane was injected to displace the condensate
and measure the final (single phase) gas permeability at the
end of the experiment. The final gas permeability was the
same as the original (single phase) gas permeability in each of
the experiments where this procedure was performed. Thus,
no damage has been observed in any of the sandstone cores
due to chemical treatment.
Figures 12 and 13 show all of the gas and condensate
relative permeability data before and after treatment and
compares these data with relative permeability curves
computed using the UT relative permeability model as a
function of capillary number.17 The average value of the
improvement factor is about 2.1. The relative permeability
curves increase sharply at a capillary number on the order of
-4
10 . This value corresponds to the critical capillary number
on a capillary desaturation curve.17 A critical capillary number
on the order of 10-4 is typical of a non-wetting phase in a
homogeneous sandstone.
Summary and Conclusions
Steady state relative permeability data for several gas-
condensate mixtures and both outcrop and reservoir sandstone
cores were measured at reservoir pressures for temperatures
up to 275 °F. The cores were then treated with surfactant
solutions and the same gas mixtures injected to measure the
gas and condensate relative permeabilities after treatment.
Several fluorinated polymeric surfactants were evaluated in
methanol-water solvents. A solution of Novec FC4430 in a
methanol-water solvent gave the best improvement in the
relative permeability of any of the surfactants tested. The use
of both this particular non-ionic surfactant and the methanol-
water solvent is new to this study. The solvent plays an
important role in the treatment process and its optimum
composition is expected to depend on the temperature. This
treatment solution increased the steady state relative
permeability by a factor of 2 to 3 over a temperature range of
145 to 275 °F. Up to 4,000 pore volumes of gas mixture were
injected following the treatment without any change in the
improvement factor. The final methane gas permeability was
the same as the original gas permeability in each of the
experiments indicating the treatment does not damage the
rock. Measurements were made for capillary numbers on the
order of 10-6 to 10-3 corresponding to values near high-rate gas-
condensate wells. Methanol by itself has been shown to
stimulate gas-condensate wells with condensate blocking, but
is a temporary solution. Methanol is both a very good solvent
for all of the fluorinated surfactants tested and is inexpensive.
However, the treatments were not successful when methanol
by itself was used as the solvent. Adding water changes the
solvency in a way that is essential for the success of the
treatment. Since only the near well region needs to be treated
to mitigate condensate blocking, such treatments should be
cost effective if they last more than a few days.
SPE 100529
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Vishal Bang, Glen Baum, Tony
Bermudez, Bruce Rouse, and Bob Savicki for their help with
the experiments. We would also like to thank the sponsors of
the Gas-Condensate JIP in the Center for Petroleum and
Geosystems Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin:
Aramco, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, PDO Oman, Petrobras,
and Shell. We would further like to thank 3M Company for
supplying the chemicals and to Jimmie Baran with 3M for
useful discussions and suggestions.
Nomenclature
BPR-1 = Upstream back pressure regulator
BPR-2 = Downstream back pressure regulator
fg = Fractional flow of gas
fo = Fractional flow of oil
kg = Initial gas permeability, md
krg = Gas relative permeability
kro = Oil relative permeability
L = Core length, inches
k g ΔP
Nc = Capillary number, N c =
σL
PV = Pore Volume of the core
q = Gas flow rate in pump, cc/hr
qg = Gas flow rate in core
qo = Oil flow rate in core
Swi = Initial water saturation
Vg = Volume fraction of gas
Vo = Volume fraction of oil
ΔP = Pressure drop, psi
ρ = Density of gas in pump
ρg = Density of gas in core
ρo = Density of oil in core
μg = Viscosity of gas
μo =Viscosity of oil
σ = Interfacial tension
References
1 Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J. and Bette, S.: "Production
Performance of Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of the
Arun Field," paper SPE 28749 presented at the 1994 SPE Asia
Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Melbourne, Australia, Nov. 7-
10.
2 Narayanswamy, G., Pope, G.A. and Sharma, M.M.: "Predicting
Gas Condensate Well Productivity Using Capillary Number and
Non-Darcy Effects," paper SPE 51910 presented at the 1999
SPE Reservoir Simulation Symposium, Houston, TX, February
14-17.
3 Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. H., Al-Shaidi, S.,
Peden, J.M.: "Measurement and Correlation of Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability by the Steady-State Method" SPE 30770,
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 22-25.
4 Henderson, G. D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. H., Al-Shaidi, S. and
Peden, J. M.: "Measurement and Correlation of Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability by the Steady-State Method", SPEREE
April 1998.
5 Mott, R., Cable, A. and Spearing, M.: "A New Method for
Measuring Relative Permeabilities for Calculating Gas
Condensate Well Deliverability," paper SPE 56484 presented at
5
the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Houston, TX, October 3-6.
6 Cable A., Mott, R. and Spearing, M.: "X-Ray In-Situ Saturation
in Gas Condensate Relative Permeability Studies", SCA 2003.
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," paper SPE 62935 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, October 1-4.
8 Al-Anazi, H. A., Pope, G. A., and Sharma, M. M.: "Laboratory
Measurement of Condensate Blocking and Treatment for Both
Low and High Permeability Rocks", paper SPE 77546,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, TX, 29 September-2 October 2002.
9 Al-Anazi, Hamoud, Walker, Jacob G., Walker, Pope, Gary A.,
Pope, Sharma, Mukul M., Sharma, Hackney, David F. Hackney:
"A Successful Methanol Treatment in a Gas-Condensate
Reservoir: Field Application", SPE 80901, presented at the SPE
Production and Operations Symposium held in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, U.S.A., 22-25 March 2003.
10 Kumar, V: "Chemical Stimulation of Gas Condensate
Reservoirs: An Experimental and Simulation Study", PhD
Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, May 2006.
11 Boom, W., Wit, K., Zeelenberg, J.P.W., Weeda, H.C. and Maas,
J.G.: "On the Use of Model Experiments for Assessing
Improved Gas-Condensate Mobility Under Near-Wellbore Flow
Conditions," paper SPE 36714 presented at the 1996 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver,
Colorado, October 6-9.
12 Ayyalasomayajula P., Silpngarmlers N., Berroteran J., Sheffield
J. and Kamath J.: "Condensate Relative Permeability Data For
Well Deliverability Predictions For A Deep Marine Sandstone
Reservoir," paper SCA 2003-33.
13 Nagarajan, N. R, Honarpour, M. M., Sampath, K., McMichael,
D.: "Comparison of Gas-Condensate Relative Permeability
Using Live Fluid vs. Model Fluids," SCA2004-09.
14 Chen H. L., Wilson S. D. and Monger-McClure: "Determination
of Relative Permeability and Recovery for North Sea Gas
Condensate Reservoir", SPEREE August 1999.
15 Whitson, C.H., Fevang, ø. and Saevareid, A.: "Gas Condensate
Relative Permeability for Well Calculations," paper SPE 56476
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Houston, TX, October 3-6.
16 Al-Anazi, Hamoud: "Experimental Measurements of
Condensate Blocking and Treatments in Low and High
Permeability Cores", Ph.D. dissertation, The University of
Texas At Austin, 2003.
17 Pope, G.A., W. Wu, G. Narayanaswamy, M. Delshad, M.M.
Sharma, P. Wang: Modeling Relative Permeability Effects in
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs With a New Trapping Model, SPE
62497, published in SPEREE, April 2000.
18 Mohan, J: "Modeling of Gas Condensate Wells with and
without Hydraulic Fractures", MS Thesis, The University of
Texas at Austin, August 2005.
19 Walker, J.G.: "Laboratory Evaluation of Alcohols and
Surfactants to Increase Production from Gas-Condensate
Reservoirs," M.S. Thesis, The University of Texas at Austin,
December 2000.
20 Li, K. and Firoozabadi, A., Experimental study of wettability
alteration to preferential gas-wetting in porous media and its
effects, SPE Reservoir Evaluation Engineering, 3(2), 2000.
21 Tang, G.Q. and Firoozabadi, A.: "Relative Permeability
Modification in Gas Liquid Systems Through Wettability
Alteration to Intermediate Gas-Wetting," SPEREE (2002).
22 Tang, Guo-Qing and Firoozabadi, Abbas, “Wettability
Alteration to Intermediate Gas-Wetting in Porous Media at
6 SPE 100529

Elevated Temperatures,” Transport in Porous Media, 52(2), Table 2—Synthetic Gas Mixture Properties at Experimental
August, 2003. Conditions
23 Fahes, M. and Firoozabadi, Abbas, Wettability Alteration to Fluid I Fluid II Fluid III
Intermediate Gas-Wetting in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs at (145 °F) (250 °F) (275 °F)
High Temperatures, Proceedings - SPE Annual Technical
Dewpoint (psig) 2,875 3,850 4,153
Conference and Exhibition, v SIGMA, 2005, Conference:
Proceedings 2005 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Core pressure (psig) 1,200 1,500 1,500
Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct 9-12. Liquid dropout (V/Vt) % 7.1 10.2 3.2
24 Chopra, A.K., Carter, R. D.: "Proof of the Two-Phase Steadt- Gas viscosity (cP) 0.0173 0.0170 0.0165
State Theory for Flow Through Porous Media", paper SPE
14472, published in SPE Formation Evaluation, December Oil viscosity (cP) 0.128 0.167 0.216
1986. Interfacial tension (dynes/cm) 4.2 4.3 5.0

Table 1—Fluid Composition of Synthetic Gas Mixtures Table 3—Core Specification and Properties
Component Mole % Berea Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir
Fluid I at 145 °F Methane 78.5 Sandstone Core A Core B Core C
n-Butane 15 Diameter (inch) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
n-Heptane 5 Length (inch) 8.0 3.65 4.8 3.75
n-Decane 1.5 Pore volume (cc) 20.6 8.4 10.5 8.01
Fluid II at 250 °F Methane 83 Porosity (%) 20.0 17.8 16.9 16.6
n-Butane 4
n-Heptane 7.2
n-Decane 4
n-Dodecane 1.8
Fluid III at 275 °F Methane 93
n-Butane 4
n-Decane 2
n-Pentadecane 1

Table 4—Properties of Fluorochemicals Evaluated

Commercial name Fluorolink S10 Fluorosyl Zonyl FSO Novec FC4430 Novec FC4432
Vendor Solvey-Solexis Cytonix Dupont 3M 3M
Perfluoropolyether Perfluorooctal Ethoxylated Fluoroaliphatic 100% fluoroaliphatic
Scientific name
ethoxysilane trimethoxysilane alkylfluorosurfactant polymeric ester polymeric ester
Chemistry Silanol Silanol Alkoxy Alkoxy Alkoxy
Molecular weight 1,850 2,000 725 ~10,000 ~10,000
Specific gravity 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.14 1.21
Boiling point (°C) N/A 52 N/A 200 212
Viscosity at room
173 1 5 4,000-6,000 4,000-6,000
temperature (cP)

Table 5—Solubility of Fluorochemicals in Water and Methanol (wt %)

Fluorolink S10 Fluorosyl Zonyl FSO Novec FC4430
Solubility in water at 78 °F Insoluble 0.032 2.2 1.0
Solubility in water at 145 °F Insoluble 0.108 2.7 1.0
Solubility in methanol at 78 °F > 20 > 20 > 20 > 20
Solubility in methanol at 145 °F > 20 > 20 > 20 > 20
SPE 100529 7

Table 6—Improvement in Relative Permeability in Berea Sandstone

Exp-3 Exp-4 Exp-5 Exp-14 Exp-17 Exp-15 Exp 18 Exp-23 Exp-24
Gas permeability, md 230.0 230.0 220.0 230.0 216.0 236.0 225.0 512.0 348.0
Initial water saturation 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Temperature (°F) 145 145 145 250 250 250 250 250 250
Water concentration (wt%) 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 25.0 10.0
FC4430 FC4432 FS10 FC4430 FC4430 FS10 FC4432 FC4430 FC4430
Surfactant concentration (wt %)
(2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (0.25) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0) (2.0)
Capillary number 1.38x10-5 1.38x10-5 1.01x10-5 7.76x10-6 6.34x10-5 7.77x10-5 8.35x10-5 5.07x10-5 5.28x10-5
Gas relative permeability before treatment 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.08 0.067 0.062 0.064 0.074 0.062
Gas relative permeability after treatment 0.030 0.042 0.028 0.246 0.181 0.072 0.072 0.108 0.126
Improvement factor 2.73 3.82 2.00 3.08 2.70 1.16 1.13 1.46 2.03

Table 7—Improvement in Relative Permeability in Reservoir

Sandstone Cores 5000
Reservoir Reservoir Reservoir Fluid III 275°F
Core A Core B Core C 4000
Gas permeability, md 55.0 8.3 72.0
Fluid II 250°F
Initial water saturation 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pressure, psig 3000
Temperature (°F) 275 275 275
Water in treatment solution (wt%) 4.0 10.0 4.0 2000 Fluid I 145°F
FC4430 FC4430 FC4430
Surfactant concentration (wt %)
(2.0) (2.0) (2.0)
1000
Capillary number 1.93x10-5 2.40x10-5 1.03x10-5
Gas relative permeability before
0.071 0.162 0.119 0
treatment
0 100 200 300 400 500
Gas relative permeability after
0.10 0.281 0.248 Temperature, °F
treatment
Improvement factor 1.41 1.73 2.08 Fig. 2—Phase envelope of synthetic gas mixtures predicted by
PREOS.

35

30
Fluid II 250°F
Liquid Dropout, %

25

20

15 Fluid I
145°F
10
Fluid III
5 275°F

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Pressure, psig
Fig. 1—Schematic of core flood set-up.
Fig. 3—Synthetic gas mixtures liquid dropout predicted by
PREOS.
8 SPE 100529

30 0.3
Total
25

Gas Relative Permeability

Pressure Drop, psig

20 0.2

15
Bottom-Outlet

10 Top-Middle 0.1

5
Middle-Bottom Inlet-Top
0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
Pore Volumes Injected Capillary Number
Fig. 4—Pressure drop during dynamic condensate accumulation. Fig. 7—Gas relative permeability from experiments.

50 20
q=2637
cc/hr
40
15
Pressure Drop, psig
Pressure Drop, psig

q=1747 cc/hr
q=1210
30
cc/hr
q=819 10 Pre-treatment
cc/hr
20 q=
330.2
cc/hr 5 Post-treatment
10

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150
Pore Volumes Injected Pore Volumes Injected
Fig. 5—Pressure drop during dynamic condensate accumulation Fig. 8—Pressure drop before and after chemical treatment with
at different flow rates in Berea sandstone at 250 °F. FC4430 during dynamic condensate accumulation at 250 °F and
302 cc/hr in Berea sandstone.
400
4
q=3832 cc/hr

300
Pressure Drop, psi

3
Improvement Factor

q=1738
200 cc/hr
2

100 q=1389
cc/hr 1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0
Pore Volumes Injected 0 5 10 15 20 25
Water Concentration, wt %
Fig. 6—Pressure drop during dynamic condensate accumulation
at different flow rates in Reservoir Core B at 275 °F. Fig. 9—Effect of water concentration in treatment solution on
improvement in gas relative permeability.
SPE 100529 9

4 0.4 Pre-Treatment, Measured

Pre-Treatment, UT Rel. Perm. Model
Post-Treatment, Measured
Post-Treatment, UT Rel. Perm. Model

Oil Relative Permeability

3 0.3
Improvement Factor

2 0.2

1 0.1

0 0.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
Treatment Flow Rate, cc/hr Capillary Number
Fig. 10—Effect of treatment flow rate on improvement. Fig. 13—Comparison of pre-treatment and post-treatment oil
relative permeability.
30

25
Pressure Drop, psig

20
Pre-treatment
15

10
Post-treatment

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Pore Volumes Injected
Fig. 11—Pressure drop before and after chemical treatment with
FC4430 during dynamic condensate accumulation at 275 °F and
739 cc/hr in Reservoir Core C.

0.4
Pre-Treatment, Measured
Pre-Treatment, UT Rel. Perm. Model
Gas Relative Permeability

Post-Treatment, Measured
0.3 Post-Treatment, UT Rel. Perm. Model

0.2

0.1

0.0
10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3
Capillary Number

Fig. 12—Comparison of pre-treatment and post-treatment gas

relative permeability.