SPE-172372-MS

Influence of Aquifer Support on Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance

Nkemakolam Chinedu Izuwa, and Chimezie Nnanedum Nwosu, Federal University of Technology, Owerri

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 05– 07 August 2014.

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 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
Reservoir gas can condense to liquid when reservoir pressure declines below dew point pressure. This
liquid will remain in the formation and then reduce productivity and deliverability of wells due to
blockage problem. A method of improving the recovery is allowing for aquifer water influx/water
injection and gas injection to maintain reservoir pressure and prevent it from falling rapidly.
This paper investigates the influence of aquifer support on gas-condensate reservoir. A zero-
dimensional (material balance) approach was used for the reservoir model and prediction. Optimal
hydrocarbon production and effect of aquifer influx were studied using different aquifer sizes. Results of
gas volumes, condensate and total fluid recovery in percentage were analyzed for the case study reservoir
without aquifer influx as the first scenario and with aquifer influx as the second scenario. The results show
that aquifer influx reduces condensate accumulation in the reservoir by driving them to the surface.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Gas condensate reservoirs are characterized by production of both surface gas and varying quantities of
stock tank oil. The stock tank oil is commonly referred to as “Condensate”. The added economic value
of produced condensate, in addition to gas production, makes the recovery of condensate a key
consideration in developing gas condensate reservoirs (Fan et’al., 2006).
At reservoir conditions, a gas condensate reservoir contains single phase gas. During the flow of gas
through the reservoir, production tubing, and finally to the surface separator, liquid condenses from the
gas. Isothermal condensation of liquids in the reservoirs, as the pressure drops below the dew point
pressure is known as Retrograde condensation. Liquids condensed in the reservoir are for the most part,
lost or unrecoverable (Ahmed et’al., 1998). When the flowing bottom hole pressure (FBHP) falls below
the dew point pressure, a relatively high liquid saturation results in reduced gas relative permeability and
lowered well deliverability (Taufan and Adrain, 2007) The effect of reduced gas relative permeability
close to the wellbore is often called “condensate blockage”. Fitting an aquifer support to the reservoir to
see its influence in preventing flowing bottomhole pressure dropping below the dewpoint pressure so as
to avoid high liquid saturation that leads to reduced gas relative permeability and its associated
effect-condensate blockage, become the focus of this paper.
2 SPE-172372-MS

Figure 1—Typical phase diagram of gas-condensate

Source: Ahmed T. (2006)

1.1 BACKGROUND
Gas condensate reservoirs have been considered the most complex types of reservoir when compared to
the other types of Petroleum reservoirs. Their complexities arise from the unusual phase behaviours of
reservoir fluids which is the condensing and vaporizing mechanisms.
1.1.1 Gas-condensate phase behaviour
The phase diagram of a gas condensate reservoir is smaller to that of oil. The critical point is further down
the left side of the envelope. The phase diagram and pressure path of the gas condensate reservoir is shown
in Figure 1.
The initial condition of this gas condensate reservoir is represented by point A in figure 1. In gas
condensate reservoirs where the reservoir pressure is above the dew point pressure, the fluid system
therefore exists in the vapour phase in the reservoir. During production, the reservoir pressure declines
from the initial pressure to point 1 the dew-point pressure.. The attraction between the molecules of the
light and heavy components reduces. These molecules move farther away from each other as a result. As
this phenomenon occurs, the attraction between the heavy component molecules become more effective
and thus liquid begins to form. The liquid which continues to drop out remains immobile until the
condensate critical saturation is exceeded. This condensation process continues with decreasing pressure
until the liquid dropout reaches its maximum. This condensation result to condensate bank with restriction
to flow of gas near the well bore (Ameed et’al., 1998). Further reduction in pressure causes the heavier
molecules to vaporize.(El-Banbi and McCain 2000) as the condensate becomes mobile. The vaporization
process continues until the liquid saturates the vapor phase pressure.
In most gas-condensate reservoirs, the condensed liquid volume seldom exceeds 15-19% of the pore
volume (Shi 2009). When the pressure drop is high, liquid dropout might accumulate to give two phase
flow of gas and retrograde liquid around the wellbore. High liquid saturation around the wellbore results
in reduced gas relative permeability and decreased well deliverability (Sh. Amini et’al 2011). Recovery
of the condensed liquid in such reservoir therefore requires pressure maintenace, which could be with
either injection of gas or water. Injection of water into the bottom aquifer will boost the energy available
in the reservoir. The aim of this work is to investigate the impact of aquifer surport or water injection on
productivity of gas condensate reservoirs.
Figure 2 shows a typical liquid volume curve for a condensate system. The curve is referred to as the
liquid dropout curve.
SPE-172372-MS 3

Figure 2—A typical liquid dropout curve

1.1.2 Liquid loading in gas wells

Liquid loading is the accumulation of liquids in the wellbore (Coleman, 1991). In this case, liquid refers
to either water or condensate or both. When the liquid loading occurs, these liquids are not flowing
upwards towards the wellhead. As a result, the bottomhole pressure increases, and in converse, the
flowrate decreases. The behaviour of the well may be unpredictable when this problem occurs. The well
maybe dead prematurely without any warning. This problem is difficult to detect, so the production rate
of gas maybe unexpectedly reduced.
1.2.0 Principle of aquifer fitting for reservoir
Primary depletion (rock, fluid expansion and aquifer) of gas-condensate reservoirs is normally the most
efficient means of producing the gaseous hydrocarbon components of gas condensate reservoirs. How-
ever, it can be inefficient in producing more valuable liquid components. One possibility for increasing
the recovery of these liquid components is the use of secondary recovery methods to maintain the reservoir
pressure above the dew-point pressure. This helps prevent the condensation within most portions of the
reservoir thereby reducing liquid saturation.
For gas condensate reservoirs, pressure is an important factor affecting the production. High pressure
from a strong aquifer will increase hydrocarbon production efficiency by supplementing the reservoir
pressure lost during gas-condensate production.
1.2.1 Aquifer driven reservoirs
When a reservoir is connected to an adjacent aquifer, withrawals from the reservoir will cause the reservoi
pressure to decline. The drop in pressure causes water from the aquifer to flow into the reservoir. This
influx tends to maintain, either partially or wholly, the reservoir pressure as shown in figure 3.
1.2.2 Aquifer driven model
The three most common aquifer models used to calculate the water influx are the small aquifer model, the
limited aquifer model, and the infinite aquifer mode (Matthew et’al., 1988). The primary difference
between these aquifer models is the size of the aquifer. The small aquifer reservoir model assumes that
water from the aquifer expands into the reservoir instanteneously as the reservoir pressure declines. This
assumption is valid for very small aquifers where the aquifer pore volume is less than three times the
reservoir volume. Essentially, the small aquifer model treats the aquifer and the reservoir as a single
volumetric reservoir. The pore volume of the reservoir is the pore volume of the aquifer plus the pore
volume of the reservoir.
When the aquifer is much larger than the reservoir, the aquifer water can expand much faster than it
can flow into the reservoir. Water influx rates are governed by the diffusivity equation for the reservoir
/ aquifer system. These equations are analogous to the equations that describe fluid flow from the reservoir
4 SPE-172372-MS

Figure 3—Aquifer driven reservoir

Table 1—Average Reservoir Properties

into the wellbore. When estimating water influx, Porosity ø 0.15
aquifer properties such as permeability, thickness, Connate Water Saturation 0.15
compressibility, and areal extent are seldom known Rock Compressibility 3.21E-06
TVD (ft) 11050
since wells are generally not drilled into the aquifer.
When these properties cannot be accurately esti-
mated, the volume of the original hydrocarbons in
place is difficult to estimate uniquely. This is be-
cause a small reservoir with a lot of aquifer pressure support will behave (from a pressure-depletion
standpoint) very similar to a large reservoir with a small aquifer support.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

A reservoir volumetric analysis tool (software) known as MBAL has been used with data obtained from
a certain field in which wells have been drilled across gas condensate. The effect of aquifer support on
gas condensate reservoir is studied by comparing the recovery factor values from two case scenarios: gas
condensate reservoir with aquifer support and gas condensate reservoir without aquifer support.

2.1 Resource and basic assumption of study

The data used in this project are real life data from an offshore gas-condensate reservoir field- X (original
field name withheld). This field is located in the Niger Delta. It has been in production since February
1978. At that time, the production rate was 1522Mscf. At January 2011 when the last record was taken,
it was producing around 1175Mscf/D of natural gas with an appreciable quantity of condensate.
In general the field structure consists of the condensate reservoir at datum level 11050ft which was
produced by seven (7) wells of variable rates. Some petrophysical data obtained from fluid properties were
determined from the laboratory.

2.2 Reservoir performance prediction

Some of the most useful applications of the MBE require the concurrent use of fluid flow equations e.g.
the Darcy’s fluid flow equation, to predict the reservoir future production performance as a function of
time. Without the fluid flow concepts, the MBE simply provides reservoir performance as a function of
SPE-172372-MS 5

Table 2—X Field Gas-Condensate Reservoir PVT parameters

PR Z Bg Ug Bo Uo Tr Pd

(psi) (cf/scf) (cp) (bb/stb) (cp) (of) (psi)

4633 0.945 0.00398 0.0273 2.933 0.100 232 4633

3174 0.863 0.00529 0.0207 2.220 0.117
2201 0.851 0.00752 0.0171 1.799 0.153
1229 0.885 0.01393 0.0145 1.433 0.203

Psep Tsep GOR sep G.G. sep. GORtank G.Gtank °API

(psi) (of) (scf/stb) Sg (Air⫽1 (scf/stb) Sg (Air⫽ cond.
805 104 11999 0.691 566 1.204 51.4

the average reservoir pressure. Prediction of the reservoir future performance is ordinarily performed in
the first phase.
The first phase involves the use of the MBAL software in a predictive mode to estimate the cumulative
hydrocarbon production and fractional oil recovery as a function of declining reservoir pressure and
increasing gas oil ratio (GOR). However, these results are incomplete because they give no indication of
the time that it will take to recover oil at any depletion stage. In addition, this phase is performed without
considering:
1. The actual number of wells
2. The location of wells
3. The production rate of individual wells\
4. The time required to deplete the reservoir
2.2.1 Material Balance Analysis Tool (MBAL)
Efficient reservoir development and management require a good understanding of reservoir and produc-
tion systems. Material balance analysis helps to define reservoir drive mechanisms and hydrocarbon pore
volume. The tool is used for modeling the dynamic reservoir effects prior to building a numerical
simulator model. One application of this tool is in modeling performance of retrograde condensate
reservoir for depletion which is the focus of this paper.

2.3 The Reservoir Model

The model was formed with the data shown in table.
Reservoir rock and fluid properties: The average reservoir rock properties are presented in Table 1.
The fluid properties data for a recombined sample taken at the separator from the reservoir is given in
Table 2.
From the table2 the following plots shown in figures 4 through 6 were generated.

2.4 HISTORY MATCHING AND SIMULATION

History matching is use to detect the consistency between the modeled reservoir PVT data and the
observed field data. This process generated three plots; energy plot, graphical plot and analytical plot
(figures 7-9). Energy plot shows the relative importance of the drive mechanisms available in the model.
The graphical plot acts as a diagnostic tool in term of the drive mechanisms. The graphical plot enables
the selection of the best fit sort for. The analytical plot help to regress on aquifer input data. Material
balance is used in the Regression analysis to estimate the pressures and STGIIP which resulted to the
measured historical data.
6 SPE-172372-MS

Figure 4 —Reservoir CGR as a function of Reservoir pressure

Figure 5—Z-factor as function of Reservoir Pressure

Simulation was conducted to replicate the production process. Production rates used in the history
match were used to simulate the reservoir pressure using material balance technique. Production fore-
casting with Mbal-soft ware predicted the amount of water and gas production
2.4.1 RELATIVE PERMEABILITY MATCHING
This was done to fit the fractional flow curve to the matched data. New relative permeability curves
created enabled the prediction of fractional flow of water as saturation of condensate increased in the
modeled reservoir. Production profile was predicted using well model in MBAL the results are shown in
the following section.
3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the result of enhanced production in gas condensate reservoirs through water influx
technique. The results show the influence of aquifer support on condensate reservoir production perfor-
mance. Based on the result, production optimization was achieved and the effects of different reservoir
SPE-172372-MS 7

Figure 6 —Gas FVF as a function of Reservoir Pressure

Figure 7—Energy Plot of Depletion Without Aquifer.

properties on aquifer influx are discussed. During the depletion, production prediction was controlled by
gas production rate and tubing head pressure.
3.1 PRODUCTION WITHOUT AQUIFER
To understand the nature of a representative reservoir in terms of production, depletion without aquifer
was analyzed first as base case. This was compare to deletion with aquifer. In the study production was
controlled by rate in the range of 5000 to 10, 000Mscf/D Figures 7, 8 and 9 illustrates the history matched
result of depletion without aquifer. Figure7 showed the two drive mechanisms acting on the reservoir.
Form the figure fliud expnsion is the active reservoir energy.
The mechanism of producing gas condensate reservoirs is the main consideration of this work. Figures
10 and 11 illustrate production profiles of gas and condensate respectively. Gas was produced at different
constant production rates and variable bottom hole flowing pressure as production controls. Reduction in
8 SPE-172372-MS

Figure 8 —Graphical Plot of Depletion Without Aquifer.

Figure 9 —Analytical Plot of Depletion without Aquifer.

production increased as liquid bank is formed near the well bore. Production of condensate declined early
(figure 11). It could be seen that low production rate (5000Mscf/d) has long production period occassioned
by low condensate build up compared with high production rate of 10, 000 Mscf/d. production is
terminated as soon as bottom hole pressure cannot lift the fliud up to the surface. Condensate accumu-
lation near the well bore can also be observed by plotting the oil saturation. This is graphically shown in
figure 12.
SPE-172372-MS 9

Figure 10 —Gas production profile of depletion without aquifer support.

Figure 11—Condensate production profile of depletion without aquifer support.

3.1.2 PRODUCTION WITH AQUIFER SUPPORT

In this section the influence of aquifer support was evaluated. Aquifer of different sizes were attached to
the gas condensate reservoir to maintain the reservior pressure above the dew point as long as possible.
The water influx lasted throughout the production period. This equally investigated the effect of water
inject injection on prodctivity of gas condensate reservoirs. From the the history match, the following
plots were generated; the energy plot, gragpical plot and analytical plot (figures 13 – 16). The energy plot
indicate the contribution of water infux in addition to the existing drive mechanisms acting on the
reservoir (energy).
10 SPE-172372-MS

Figure 12—Condensate accumulation near the wellbore during natural depletion without aquifer support.

Figure 13—Energy plot of depletion with aquifer.

3.2 Discussion of results

3.2.1 Comparison Production without and with water influx

In this section, comparisons of the analysis results between production with and without aquifer support
is discussed. The reservoir pressure, hydrocarbon production rates for gas and condensate, total gas and
condensate productions and production life are discussed.
Production rate In the water influx case, the period of constant gas production rate is extended than
without water influx figure 17. This is directly affected by the incremental water influx from aquifer into
the reservoir because of pressure maintenance.
SPE-172372-MS 11

Figure 14 —Graphical plot of depletion with aquifer.

Figure 15—Analytical plot of depletion with aquifer.

The condensate productions between the two cases are similar. Nevertheless, magnitudes of the
production rates are different.
The condensate rate is higher in the case of water influx due to the delay of pressure drop below the
dew point by aquifer support. Due to this water support, the condensate rate declines more slowly figures
18.
Total production From analysis of depletion without aquifer support, the variation of gas production rate
does not have much influence on increase in gas recovery. The factor that has more effects is water influx.
The increase in oil recovery is obtained when producing the gas-condensate reservoir with water influx.
The main reason is that there is low condensate accumulation in the reservoir. In another words, the
condensate is obtained at the surface instead of dropping out and remaining within the reservoir figure 19.
Reservoir pressure Referring to the analysis, the main objective of natural water influx is to maintain the
reservoir pressure above the dew point pressure. In the case of depletion without aquifer, the pressure in
12 SPE-172372-MS

Figure 16 —Water drive function of depletion with aquifer.

Figure 17—Gas production profile of depletion with aquifer.

the reservoir declines faster, causing the pressure to fall below the dew point early. For the water influx
case, the pressure still declines as in the depletion case without aquifer, but it declines more slowly.
Therefore, we can say that water influx (aquifer support) help maintain the pressure. These results are
shown in Figure 20.
Production life The production life of natural depletion without aquifer is shorter than the one with
aquifer support. The extension of production life in the production with water influx from an aquifer is
obtained by pressure maintenance. Therefore, the BHP can sustain enough pressure to produce the fluid
to the surface longer.
SPE-172372-MS 13

Figure 18 —Condensate production profile (with aquifer)

Figure 19 —Condensate saturation (depletion with aquifer support)

3.2.2 Effect of reservoir properties on production with Aquifer Support

This section presents the effect of physical properties of the reservoir on the production in case of water
influx. These properties comprise of aquifer strength, and relative permeability.
The production scenarios used in studying the effect of reservoir properties are same. Only the
reservoir properties required for the study were varied. The results of the analysis are reported as follows:
Effect of aquifer strength In the case study of aquifer size effect, small and limited strength aquifers
were constructed in term of reservoir pore volume (PV). The small aquifer is defined as an aquifer having
the size less than 3times the PV while the limited aquifer is defined as 3times of the PV. Due to less
14 SPE-172372-MS

Figure 20 —Average reservoir pressure comparison between production without and with aquifer

Table 3—% Gas recovery for various aquifer strengths

Gas Recovery (%) Gas Recovery (%) Gas Recovery (%)
Gas Prod. Rate (Mscf/D) Aquifer 3PV Aquifer 2PV Without Aquifer

5000 70.58 67.47 66.52

6000 70.67 67.52 66.53
7000 70.59 67.44 66.53
8000 70.76 67.57 66.51
9000 70.74 67.59 66.52
10000 70.72 67.47 66.52

hydrocarbon production obtained from very large aquifer or strong strength aquifer defined as 50 times
larger so we do not considered it for enhanced hydrocarbon production.
When comparing the production with water influx, we observed that higher water influx generally
yielded higher gas and condensate production. Nevertheless, too much water influx causes gas production
to decreases because of gas trapping problem. In addition, a lot of water influx causes water to break
through early. The results as shown in Table 3 and 4 compared the production with and without aquifer
drive. From the results water influx is effective to enhance gas-condensate performance.
Effect of encroachment angle From the result of tables 5 and 6, it is clear that when the reservoir is
sitting directly (180°) on the aquifer more and faster influx occur leading to more hydrocarbon production
than when the aquifer is adjacent to the reservoir. The performance of enhanced gas-condensate
production with water influx can be summarized as follows in Table 6.
During the production with water influx from an aquifer, influx/injection of water into the reservoir
increased the reservoir pressure. Increasing the quantity of water influx increased pressure for production.
However, the water influx cannot maintain the pressure above the dew point throughout the production
period. The pressure still declines below the dew point during the production. High water influx causes
SPE-172372-MS 15

Table 4 —% Condensate Recovery for Various Aquifer Strengths

Condensate Recovery(%) Condensate recovery (%) Condensate Recovery (%)
Gas Production Rate (Mscf/D) Aquifer 3PV Aquifer 2PV Without Aquifer

5000 64.37 49.17 42.76

6000 64.48 49.2 42.77
7000 64.59 49.15 42.77
8000 64.59 49.23 42.76
9000 64.56 49.25 44.77
10000 64.53 49.17 44.76

Table 5—%Gas recovery for various encroachment angles Table 6 —%Condensate recovery for various encroachment angles
Angle Angle Angle Angle Angle Angle
Gas Production Rate (Mscf/D) 180° 230° 270° condensate Production Rate (Mscf/D) 180° 230° 270°

5000 70.58 70.58 70.58 5000 63.43 63.24 62.95

6000 71.57 71.51 71.49 6000 64.59 64.38 63.92
7000 71.47 71.44 71.41 7000 64.47 64.44 63.98
8000 71.57 71.52 71.5 8000 64.59 64.56 64.48
9000 71.64 71.54 71.52 9000 64.68 64.56 64.38
10000 71.67 71.6 71.56 10000 64.77 64.6 64.41

the reservoir pressure to deplete at a slower pace. Finally, the length of production is extended as long as
the water can sustain the pressure within the system.
For gas and condensate production, the gas is produced constantly at the maximum production rate at
the beginning. After the reservoir pressure drops and cannot provide enough pressure to sustain such rate,
the gas production rate declined. Longer production due to pressure maintenance by water influx results
in more gas production. More condensate is also produced at the surface. Increase in water influx reduces
accumulated condensate in the reservoir because the pressure drop below the dew point was delayed. Thus
the condensation was deferred and condensate was produced before it dropped out in the reservoir equally
the condensed hydrocarbon was displaced as water swept the reservoir. Therefore, only 70.68% of gas and
64.52% of condensate in average and total fluid recovery is 67.6%.
CONCLUSION
From the results of the water influx treatment, we can conclude that water influx/water injection can
enhance hydrocarbon production up to a certain level. The analysis of the energy plot showed the
contribution of aquifer in enhancing the reservoir energy.
Water influx into the reservoir provides pressure maintenance which reduces pressure decline rate
thereby preventing condensate dropout early in the reservoir. Accumulation of condensate around the
wellbore is delayed due to low decline in BHP.
Condensate production can be increased as water influx into the reservoir increases under the reservoir
limitation. From the study on encroachment angle, it is also preferable to inject into a bottom (180 deg.)
aquifer during injection project for production enhancement in a gas condensate reservoir.

NOMENCLATURE
BHFP ⫽ bottom hole flowing pressure
Bg ⫽ Gas formation volume factor.
Bo ⫽ oil formation volume factor
CGR ⫽ condensate gas ratio
Pd ⫽ dew point pressure
16 SPE-172372-MS

Psep ⫽⫽ separator pressure

Tsep ⫽ separator pressure
Tr ⫽ resevoir temperature
TVD ⫽ true vertical depth
GOR ⫽ gas oil ratio
PV ⫽ pore volume
PVT ⫽ Pressure-Temperature–Volume relationship
PR ⫽ reservoir pressure
STGIIP ⫽ stock tank gas initially in place
Stb/d ⫽ stock tank barrel per day
Ug ⫽ gas viscosity
Uo ⫽ oil viscosity
Z ⫽ gas deviation factor

REFERENCE
1. Ahmed T. (2006). Reservoir Engineering Hanbook, (3rd ed.). Burlington. The United State of
America: Gulf Professional Publishing.
2. Coleman, S. B.; Clay, H. B.; McCurdy, D. G.; Norris, H. Lee III: “New look at predicting gas well
load up, ” JPT, Journal of Petroleum Technology v 43 n 3 Mar 1991 p 329 –333.
3. El-Banbi A. H, and McCain W. D., (2000): “Investigation of Well Productivity In Gas-
Condensate Reservoirs”, Present at the 2000 SPE Gas Technology symposium held at Calgary Canada.
4. Fan Li, Harris B. W., Jamaluddin A., Kamath J., Mott R., Pope G. A. and Whitson C. H. (2006),
”Understanding Gas Condensate Reservoirs”, Oilfield Review, Winter, 2005/2006
5. Jann-Rune Ursin (2004): “Fluid flow in Gas Condensate Reservoirs; The Interplay of Forces and
their strengths”, Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering Vol. 41 issue 4,
6. Matthews, J. D., Hawes, R. I., Hawkyard, I. and Fishlock, T. P. (1988). Feasibility Studies of
Waterflooding Gas-Condensate Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Technology, 40(8), 1049 –1056.
7. Sh. Amini, B. Aminshahidy, M. Afshar (2011): “Simulation Study of Enhanced Condensate
Recovery in a Gas-Condensate Reservoir”. Iranian Journal of Chemical Engineering Vol. 8, No. 1
(Winter), 2011, IAChE
8. Shi Chunmei (2009): “Flow Behavior of Gas-Condensate Wells”. A Ph.D Dissertation Submitted
to the Committee on Graduate Studies Stanford University
9. Tarek Ahmed, John Evans, Regge Kwan and Tom Vivian (1998): “ Wellbore Liquid Blockage in
Gas Condensate Reservoirs”. SPE 51050, Presented at the 1998 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Pitts-
burgh.
10. Taufan M and Adrian K. (2007): Parametrical study on Retrograde Gas Reservoir Behavoir”.
Journal of JTM Vol. xiv No. 1 2007