SPE 71588

Evaluation of a Horizontal Gas-Condensate Well Using Numerical Pressure Transient

Analysis
R.A. Harisch, SPE, Schlumberger, R.C. Bachman, SPE, Taurus Reservoir Solutions, P.J. Puchyr, SPE, SpaceTime
Simulation Corp., G.W. Strashok, SPE
Copyright 2001, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 30 September3 October 2001.
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
This paper will describe the evaluation of a horizontal gascondensate well using numerical pressure transient analysis
techniques. The reservoir contains near critical fluid which
exhibits significant liquid dropout when subjected to
depletion. The paper will describe the experimental work
performed, its mathematical characterization and the matching
of both a well test and long-term production data with an
extended black-oil reservoir simulation model. The focus of
the work was to determine how the multiphase flow effects
impact test interpretation and how liquid dropout would affect
the long-term production performance of the well.
One of the important practical aspects was resolving
production data at different separator conditions. The
difficulties in characterizing near critical fluids and their
impact on the test interpretation will also be reviewed.
Introduction
Gas-condensate systems are becoming increasingly important
as higher pressure and temperature reservoirs are exploited. In
many instances, the economic value of the condensate
production far outweighs that of the gas. As a result, it is vital
to accurately characterize the reservoir and reservoir fluids in
order to maximize fluid recoveries and to accurately project
future cash flows.
This paper examines techniques to analyze gas-condensate
systems using the extended black-oil model suggested by
Coats1. To this end, a discussion of methods to convert
laboratory PVT data (constant volume depletion and constant

composition expansion experiments) to an extended black-oil

PVT model is provided.
As the pressure in the reservoir declines in a typical gascondensate system, condensate drops out of solution,
impeding the flow of gas due to relative permeability effects.
At lower pressures, however, it is possible for some of the
condensate to re-vaporize into the gas phase. This complex
PVT behaviour requires the use of numerical rather than
conventional analytical solutions to analyze well test
behaviour and to predict future production performance.
An extended production test on a horizontal well located in
a gas-condensate system was used as a case study. Initially, a
single-point well test was conducted with an extended shut-in
period exceeding one month. Subsequently, the well was
placed on production. Since permanent downhole gauges were
installed in the well upon initial completion, it was possible to
analyze the long-term production as part of the well test. Prior
to the well test, a series of fluid samples were collected and
constant volume depletion (CVD) and constant composition
expansion (CCE) tests were conducted on the fluid samples.
The laboratory experiments allowed derivation of extended
black-oil PVT properties for use in the numerical modelling of
the well test and long-term production history of the well.
In general, well tests with their limited production times
and, correspondingly, limited investigation depths into the
reservoir often yield non-unique solutions. It was anticipated
that the long-term production and pressure data available for
the well would allow for a more unique reservoir
characterization.
The intent of the case study was to characterize the
reservoir and reservoir fluid properties, initial fluid
distributions, assess the impact of multiphase flow on the well
test and to predict future production performance for the well.
Of particular importance was the estimation of a long-term
deliverability profile for purposes of nominating gas plant
capacity and for project economic purposes.
Background
A conventional black oil model is represented by two
hydrocarbon pseudo-components, oil and gas. The oil
component can exist only in the oil phase, while gas can exist
in both the gas and oil phases. Additionally, all PVT

R.A HARISCH, R.C. BACHMAN, P.J. PUCHYR, G. STRASHOK

parameters including gas solubility in the oil (called the

solution gas-oil ratio or Rs) can be expressed as functions of
pressure alone. In an extended black oil model there are still
two components. However, the oil component can now have
solubility in the gas phase (in addition to gas solubility in the
oil phase). This solubility is called the condensate-gas ratio (or
rs), and again is a function of pressure alone. Coats has shown
that this two-component PVT model yields results similar to
more rigorous multi-component compositional models when
only pressure depletion cases are considered. The relationship
between compositional and black-oil properties is detailed in
the Appendix, along with a discussion of black-oil property
constraints required to achieve physically meaningful results.
Coats also provided a technique for calculating the
extended black oil PVT properties of the fluid to honor both
the constant volume depletion data and the multi-stage flash
experimental results. The calculation is complicated, however
the basic idea is to set the solution oil gas ratio (rs) to the
measured values from the CVD experiment accounting for
separator conditions. Then a material balance on each step of
the CVD experiment is performed, honoring the liquid dropout volumes and oil density. This allows direct calculation of
the reciprocal gas formation volume factor (Eg), the oil
formation volume factor (Bo), and the solution gas-oil ratio
(Rs). An additional matching parameter is to ensure the
calculated gas density matches measured values. The only
issue with this approach is that dew point values for oil
properties (Bo and Rs) are not well defined as no liquid is
present. Standard extrapolation of sub-dew point properties to
the dew point can lead to situations where the oil has a nonphysical negative compressibility. The Appendix provides a
series of compressiblity equations for the extended black-oil
treatment.
Since the case study involved a horizontal well test, a
review of horizontal well flow regimes is instructive. An
idealized horizontal well test exhibits the log-log pressure
derivative response illustrated in Fig. 1. An explanation of the
flow regimes indicated in the figure follow2:
Wellbore Storage Wellbore storage is characterized by
a unit slope on the log-log pressure derivative plot in earlytime. Conceptually, it is identical to wellbore storage for
conventional vertical wells though, in general, the value is
typically larger than for vertical wells as a consequence of the
larger wellbore volume. Due to the large wellbore storage
effect found in horizontal wells, it may mask the vertical radial
flow regime.
Vertical Radial Flow Vertical radial flow is
characterized by a zero slope on the log-log pressure
derivative plot in early time, occurring just after wellbore
storage. In this flow regime fully developed radial flow
between the wellbore and the upper and lower boundaries of
the reservoir occurs. This flow regime continues until the
upper and lower reservoir boundaries are detected. Reservoir
parameters that influence the duration of vertical radial flow
include kv to kh ratio and formation thickness.
Linear Flow Linear flow is characterized by a half-slope
on both the log-log pressure and log-log pressure derivative

SPE 71588

plots. In this flow regime, the reservoir fluid streamlines

become parallel to the upper and lower reservoir boundaries.
During linear flow, a horizontal well behaves essentially as a
vertical well in a narrow channel. This regime continues until
the drainage area becomes much larger than the length of the
horizontal well. Reservoir parameters that influence the
duration of this flow regime include kh and horizontal well
length.
Horizontal Radial Flow Horizontal radial flow is
characterized by a zero slope on the log-log pressure
derivative plot in late time, occurring after the linear flow
period. This flow regime is similar to radial flow in a vertical
well. The reservoir fluid streamlines become horizontal and
are directed to the wellbore. The stabilization in the pressure
derivative is dictated by the far field kh.
Case Study - Introduction
A field case study was analyzed using the techniques for
conversion of the laboratory PVT experiments to extended
black-oil PVT parameters. This case study consisted of an
extended production test for a horizontal well in a gascondensate reservoir.
The case study well was located within a carbonate reef.
Geological analysis, supported by offset well drilling results,
indicated the best portions of the reservoir had a significant
quantity of dolomite. The surrounding limestone, however,
was believed to have low permeability. Although the
horizontal well was nearly 800m in length, a maximum of
140m of the well length was in the higher quality dolomitic
reservoir. The remainder of the well was located in the poor
quality limestone.
The well test itself was a single-point test. A drawdown
period of 109 hours in duration was followed by a shut-in
period of about 850 hours. Due to the presence of permanent
downhole pressure gauges, it was possible to analyze the
subsequent long-term production period in conjunction with
the well test using a single numerical reservoir model.
One unique problem associated with this test was the
production data was reported at separator conditions, rather
than at standard conditions required for use in the numerical
modelling. As a result, all reported fluid volumes were
converted to standard conditions using the PVT
characterization for the reservoir fluid.
Due to the complexities of the fluid system, numerical
well test analysis was required to allow the complex gascondensate PVT characterization developed for this well to be
directly incorporated into well test analysis. Further, due to
liquid dropout, the multiphase flow characteristics of the
system were considered an important modelling characteristic.
PVT Characterization
Separator fluid samples from the horizontal well were
retrieved and recombined to separator conditions. A series of

SPE 71588

EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA

experiments were performed to characterize the gascondensate fluid. These experiments consisted of:

a compositional analysis of the fluid

a constant composition experiment at the reservoir
temperature of 103.7 oC
a constant volume experiment at reservoir temperature
a two stage flash separator experiment with the dew
point fluid
measurement of the gas viscosity above the dew point
pressure
Following the experimental work, the fluid was
mathematically characterized using the Peng-Robinson
equation of state with 16 components. Oil viscosities were not
directly measured but were calculated using the ChristensenFredenslund technique3.
The composition of the recombined reservoir fluid is
presented in Table 1, while Table 2 shows the fluid properties
from the constant volume depletion experiment. Fig. 2 plots
the liquid dropout versus declining pressure occurring
throughout the experiment. A relatively small change in
pressure (4,137 kPa) from the initial dew point pressure of
31,717 kPa resulted in significant amounts of liquid drop out
in the reservoir (in excess of 32 percent). During the long term
production history of the well liquid drop-out will be
significant, and its proper effect on reservoir performance
must be accounted for.
Gas and oil (condensate) production data for the well was
reported at a variety of conditions throughout the productive
life of the well. This in turn led to various different liquid-gas
ratios reported for the well over time. For our purposes,
reported production data assumes the well undergoes a two
stage separation process. The first stages liquid is assumed to
go to a second stage separator at standard conditions (Fig. 3).
The first stage gas stream is assumed to contain no more liquid
and its volume is simply corrected for pressure and
temperature effects to get volumes at standard conditions. The
total reported gas production includes non-hydrocarbon gases
such as CO2, H2S and N2, which account for approximately 20
percent of the gas volume.
Basic Data
The goal of the history matching effort was to achieve an
acceptable history match for both the well test and the
extended production history using a single, cohesive
numerical model. The model was run with specified gas
production rates (historical field gas production rates corrected
to standard conditions) and reservoir, well and fluid
parameters were adjusted until the produced oil rate and
bottomhole pressure matched observed field values.
The single-point well test was analyzed first to determine
general model characteristics such as reservoir permeability,
effective horizontal well length, wellbore storage coefficient
and skin factor. Numerical well test analysis software,
incorporating an extended black-oil reservoir simulation
model that explicitly modelled the complex PVT behaviour of

the fluid system, was used to analyze the well test. The general
model developed from the well test analysis was then
incorporated into an extended black-oil simulator to history
match the historical long-term production data.
The laboratory CVD experiments were used to derive
extended black oil PVT properties as detailed in the
Background section of this paper. Separator conditions during
the well test were 3,500 kPa and 35 oC. These calculations
resulted in the PVT properties shown in Table 3 and
illustrated in Fig. 4. Since the PVT representation consisted of
a two pseudo-component system, a standard phase envelope
versus gas mole fraction was constructed, as illustrated in Fig.
5. The initial composition of the fluid is the dew point entry at
the 31,717 kPa. The dew and bubble point lines converge at
the critical point. As can be seen from the phase envelope the
fluid system is within a few mole percent of being classified as
a volatile oil. At separator conditions, a solution gas-oil ratio
(GOR) of 653.0 m3/m3 and a condensate-gas ratio (CGR) of
1.1101 m3/m3 at the dew point pressure of 31,717 kPa was
obtained.
Daily oil and gas rates for the long-term production period
were recorded at conditions that did not represent standard
conditions of either the gas or oil. Liquid rates from the first
stage separator were metered and reported without regard to
further flashing of this liquid to surface conditions. The gas
volumes reported were metered values from the first stage
separator, corrected to surface conditions using standard
orifice correction factors. The actual field separator
configuration is schematically illustrated in Fig. 6.
Unfortunately, the numerical model required volumes input at
standard conditions. As a result, it was necessary to convert
the reported volumes to standard conditions using the PVT
characterization. To compute actual surface volumes of gas
and oil, gas volumes were first re-converted to volumes at first
stage separator pressure and temperature. This was
accomplished by inverting the pressure and temperature
corrections of the standard orifice calculation. The oil and gas
rates at first stage separator pressure and temperature were
then known. This mixture was flashed using the known PVT
properties of the fluid to give oil and gas rates at standard
conditions. This last step must be accomplished using either a
mathematically characterized EOS package or the extended
black oil properties previously described. The flow rates,
corrected to standard conditions as previously outlined, are
shown in Table 4.
Unfortunately, special core analysis was not available for
this well. Therefore, relative permeability characteristics were
estimated using typical values for a gas-condensate system. Of
note was the low residual oil saturation in the presence of gas
(Sorg), also referred to as the critical condensate saturation. A
value of 10 percent was initially chosen for the residual oil
saturation. In a conventional gas-oil-water system, the residual
oil saturation is typically much higher, often in the range of 25
to 50 percent. Recent studies4, have suggested that low critical
condensate saturations, ranging from 7 to 15 percent, are
reasonable in gas-condensate systems. The low residual oil
saturation is further supported by the history match.

R.A HARISCH, R.C. BACHMAN, P.J. PUCHYR, G. STRASHOK

Other parameters input into the numerical well test model

included:
Porosity:
7 percent
Initial water saturation, Swi:
25 percent
Reservoir Temperature, Tres:
104 oC
Dew point pressure, Pdew:
31,717 kPa
Single-point Well Test Analysis
The build-up pressure derivative response (Fig. 7) for the case
study horizontal well is consistent with the idealized
derivative response presented previously in Fig. 1, except that
the case study well does not appear to enter horizontal radial
flow in late-time.
After a series of model runs, a good match between the
observed and the model-generated pressures and oil
production rates was obtained. The following summarizes the
findings of the well test analysis:
Horizontal permeability, kh:
0.75 md
Vertical permeability, kv:
0.75 md
Formation thickness, h:
25m
Initial reservoir pressure, Pi:
33,800 kPa
Well skin factor, S:
-3.25
Effective well length, Lw:
125m
Wellbore storage coefficient, cw: 1.8 x 10-4 m3/kPa
Distance to boundaries:
No boundaries
Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the cartesian pressure and log-log
pressure derivative matches, respectively.
Of the results presented above, the effective horizontal
well length, formation thickness and skin require further
explanation. Geological analysis indicated the effective
horizontal well length (that which is within dolomite rather
than limestone) was between approximately 70 and 140m,
depending on the porosity cutoff value chosen. Therefore, the
effective horizontal well length determined from the
modelling is consistent with the geological interpretation. If
the horizontal well length was reduced further in the model,
then the pressure drawdown for a given gas production rate
increased, resulting in a poor pressure match. One possible
remedy would be to incorporate additional negative skin,
however, the negative skin required to achieve a match with a
shorter well was unrealistically large, given that the well was
only subject to a foamed acid wash, rather than an acid
fracture treatment. As a result, a reasonable compromise was
struck between effective horizontal well length and the skin
factor.
The formation thickness required to achieve a history
match was considerably lower than originally suggested by
geological analysis. The geological interpretation indicated a
formation thickness of between 50 and 75m compared to the
25m formation thickness determined from the well test.
Increasing the formation thickness in the model resulted in a
significantly delayed transition from the vertical radial flow to
the linear flow regime, as illustrated conceptually in Fig. 10.
As a result, in order to match the time at which the vertical
radial flow regime ended, the formation thickness was
reduced. It was possible to moderate the reduction in
formation thickness with a corresponding increase in vertical

SPE 71588

permeability, however, for this study, it was assumed that the

vertical permeability would be no larger than the horizontal
permeability (that is, a kv:kh ratio of 1:1).
In order to assess the impact of multiphase effects on the
well test pressure response, a dry gas numerical model was
constructed for comparative purposes. The PVT properties for
the dry gas model were chosen to mimic, as closely as
possible within the limits of a single-phase PVT
characterization, the gas-condensate PVT properties. Other
model parameters, such as horizontal well length, reservoir
thickness, permeabilities and the wellbore storage coefficient
were identical to those of the gas-condensate numerical model.
It was discovered it was possible to achieve an acceptable
match between the pressure data and the model-generated
pressure response for the dry gas model. The character of the
pressure derivative response for the dry gas case was very
similar to that of the gas-condensate case. This suggested the
horizontal well flow regimes, governed by reservoir
permeabilities and geometry, rather than multiphase flow
effects, dominated the pressure response of the system during
the well test.
It is noted the BHP dropped below the dew point pressure
of the fluid system for only a portion of the drawdown period
of the single-point well test. As a result, a relatively small
amount of condensate dropped out of solution in the reservoir.
A review of the saturation profile for the gas-condensate
model indicated a condensate saturation of 10 to 15 percent,
extending out for a distance of only 3 meters. It is possible that
multiphase flow effects may become more dominant in the
pressure response of the system if the BHP were at a pressure
much less than the dew point pressure for an extended period
of time. Additional case studies with more severe and
extended drawdowns are required to verify this postulation.
Extended Production Period Analysis
Following the test, the well was tied-in to a gas gathering
system for continuous production. Thereafter, the well flowed
at gas rates between approximately 40 and 60 103m3/d with
corresponding condensate production rates of 40 m3/d, on
average. One-month average daily production rates were input
into the model. As noted previously, all volumes input into the
model were converted from separator conditions to standard
conditions using the PVT characterization developed for the
well. A schedule of volumes used in the model is presented in
Table 4.
Although permanent downhole gauges were installed in
the well, pressure data was recorded from these gauges
sporadically. Despite the intermittent pressure data, a
reasonably clear indication of the pressure trend was evident
from the data. Most of the pressure points represent flowing
BHP, although in some cases limited shut-in periods preceded
the pressure measurement. The pressure history is presented
on the history match plots (Figs. 11 and 12).
A much lower value of residual oil saturation, Sorg, was
used in this model than typically used in a conventional oilgas-water system. In addition to the published literature
supporting this conclusion, the history match of the extended

SPE 71588

EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA

production period confirmed the requirement for a low Sorg. It

was discovered that higher residual oil saturations resulted in
low condensate recovery, relative to observed field data. At
high Sorg, much of the condensate that dropped out of the gas
was trapped in the reservoir as a residual saturation and, as a
result, the model-generated condensate production at the well
dropped dramatically, compared to the actual observed field
production.
The basic numerical model developed during the well test
analysis portion of this study was used without modification
for the initial history match of the extended production period.
The most significant observation was that the well detected
some form of reservoir boundary or permeability reduction
away from the wellbore during the course of the extended
production history. A review of the historical downhole gauge
data suggests that the pressure declined significantly over the
extended production period, beginning at approximately 33.8
MPa and declining to near 15 MPa by January 1998. When the
model was run with an infinite-acting reservoir, however, the
model calculated BHP did not match observed values from the
downhole gauges as the pressure in the infinite-acting
reservoir model did not show any significant decline. This led
to the conclusion that the pressure decline was caused by
either a limited reservoir or a composite reservoir in which the
permeability away from the wellbore was very low
(hereinafter referred to as the recharge case). Further history
matching efforts using these two general models yielded
successful matches between observed and model calculated
bottom-hole pressure. It was discovered that the best history
matches were obtained using a drainage area of 35.5 ha for the
limited reservoir case and a composite permeability of 0.75
md near the wellbore (extending out over an area of 35.5 ha)
with a far-field permeability of 0.001md.
Since the rate of recharge from the tight rock in the
recharge case was very low, both the recharge case and the
limited reservoir case yielded similar pressure responses over
the limited time period considered during the history match.
However, in the long-term, significant recharge of the higher
permeability rock in the vicinity of the wellbore is expected to
occur. Thus, the long-term deliverability of the well will be
substantially different, depending on which model is applied.
Predictions
In addition to providing a means to characterize the
reservoir and fluid properties, the numerical model was
constructed to provide the capability for predicting future
deliverability for purposes of plant and gathering system
nominations and project economics. Using the numerical
models described previously, a series of performance
predictions were created as follows:
Case 1:
The well was forecast to produce against a
bottom hole pressure (BHP) of 5500 kPa (equivalent to a
tubing head pressure of 1500 kPa). The limited drainage area
reservoir model was used.
Case 2:
As in Case 1, except that the recharge
reservoir model was used.

All prediction forecasts were run until January 1, 2018 or

when the production volumes became uneconomic, whichever
occurred first. Production rates of approximately 2.8 103m3/d
(100 Mcfd) of gas and 0.5 m3/d (3 BCPD) of condensate were
applied as economic limits.
A summary of results for the predictive cases are presented
in Table 5. Production plots for the predictive cases are
contained in Figs. 13 and 14.
Case 1 represented the limited reservoir predictive case. As
expected with such a limited drainage area, the gas and
condensate production rates dropped very quickly and the
ultimate recovery was limited compared to Case 2
(approximately half that of the Case 2). Based on the
geological interpretation and analysis of well test data from an
offset well, this may not be the most realistic of the predictive
cases. The current geological description has regions of
moderate permeability and porosity (dolomitic reservoir)
encased by poor quality (low permeability and porosity)
limestone. While it is possible that the reservoir is of limited
dimensions, the geological description is more consistent with
the recharge case of a low outer region permeability.
Case 2 represented the recharge model in which the region
surrounding the wellbore contained rock of much higher
permeability than the outer region. Like the limited reservoir
model, the recharge model predicted gas and condensate
production to decline sharply, however, the decline was far
less severe than in the limited reservoir model. As the well
was produced, the inner region depleted relatively quickly and
gas from the tight, outer region slowly recharged the partially
depleted inner region. As observed from Table 5, the quantity
of fluid influxed into the inner region was small relative to the
total volume originally in-place, but replaced a reasonable
portion of the total produced gas and condensate.
Conclusions
1. A properly conducted CVD experiment can be used to
develop an extended black-oil PVT characterization suitable
for numerical modelling.
2. Due to the complex PVT behaviour of a gas-condensate
system, numerical rather than analytical techniques were
required to more accurately model the reservoir.
3. It was vital to convert the reported volumes from
separator conditions to standard conditions for modelling
purposes. This required the use of the PVT characterization
developed from the CVD experiments.
4. A low residual oil saturation (Sorg) was required to
match the field observed data. This is consistent with other
published data.
5. For this well test, with a limited drawdown period below
the fluid dew point, multiphase effects appeared to have
minimal impact on the pressure response of the system.
Instead, horizontal well fluid flow regimes, driven by reservoir
permeability and geometry, appeared dominant.
6. Long-term production and pressure data improved the
quality of the model description. The long-term data indicated
that either a limited reservoir or a low far-field permeabilty
reservoir was present.

R.A HARISCH, R.C. BACHMAN, P.J. PUCHYR, G. STRASHOK

7. A multiphase model was required for developing

accurate performance predictions. A dry gas model cannot
account for condensate production, which is of significant
economic value.
Nomenclature
Bg= gas formation volume factor, res volume/stock tank
volume, res m3/st m3
Bo= oil formation volume factor, res volume/stock tank
volume, res m3/st m3
c= compressibility, kPa-1
cw= wellbore storage coefficient, m3/kPa
Eg= gas expansion factor, st m3/res m3
h= formation thickness, m
k= permeability, md
Lw= effective horizontal well length, m
Pdew= dew point pressure, kPa
Pi= initial reservoir pressure, kPa
Rs= solution gas-oil ratio, m3/m3
rs= solution oil-gas ratio, m3/m3
rw= wellbore radius, m
S= skin factor, dimensionless
Swi= initial water saturation, percent
Tres= reservoir temperature, oC
Subscripts
h= horizontal
v= vertical
T= total
o= oil
g= gas

SPE 71588

parameters, and discusses the features that these parameters

must have in order to ensure physical meaningfulness.
Most notably, it will be shown that the critical pressure is
determined entirely by the ratio parameters, and does not
depend at all on the volume factors. In addition, in order to
ensure the total compressibility remain finite as the critical
point is approached, it is necessary for the quantities
Bo B g R s and B g Bo rs to go to zero faster than 1 rs Rs .
This is because the total compressibility is
Sg
rs Bo B g R s S o
R s B g Bo rs
cT =
B g

Bo
1 rs R s
1 rs R s
B g
B o
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect
pressure.

gSTC
oSTC

Denote the mass of component c in phase p as m cp , so

that mog is the mass of the oil component in the gas phase,
and so on. Then the total mass of gas component and the total
mass of oil component in the system are
m gT = m gg + m go
m oT = m og + m oo

3.
4.

5.

Appendix Compositional Properties in the Black

Oil Formulation
In the reservoir simulation, the black oil properties are usually
specified in the form of a table. Great care must be taken that
the properties, as defined by these tables, are consistent and do
not lead to non-physical results. It is not uncommon to define
properties which lead to negative compressibility, which is not
only physically unrealistic but also numerically troublesome.
This is especially true if the simulation involves pressures near
the critical pressure. This appendix describes the derivation of
useful physical quantities in terms of the above four black oil

to

(A-1)

References
2.

Basic Notation
The starting point for deriving expressions relating the black
oil to compositional properties is to partition the total
hydrocarbon mass into four parts. But first define the ratio of
the stock tank density of gas to the stock tank density of oil as

1.

Coats, K.H.: Simulation of Gas Condensate Performance, SPE

10512, SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation, Feb 1982.
Lichtenberger, G., Data Acquisition and Interpretation of
Horizontal Well Pressure Transient Tests, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, February 1994, 157.
Christensen and Fredenslund, Chemical Engineering Science,
Vol. 35, 1980, 871.
Danesh, A., Henderson, G.D., Peden, J.M., Experimental
Investigation of Critical Condensate Saturation and Its
Dependence on Interstitial Water Saturation in Water-Wet
Rocks, SPE Reservoir Engineering, August 1991, 336.
Dake, L.P., Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering, Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V., 1978, 294.

..(A-2)

Conversely, the total mass of each phase is

mTg = m gg + m og
mTo = m go + m oo

..(A-3)

The solution gas-oil ratio is defined as the stock tank

volume of gas which dissolves in a given stock tank volume of
oil for varying pressure, i.e.,
m go
Rs =

gSTC
m oo
oSTC

1 m go
.
m oo

..(A-4)

Similarly, the condensate-gas ratio is the stock tank volume of

oil component dissolved (vaporized) in a specific stock tank
volume of gas component, i.e.,

SPE 71588

EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA

m og
rs =

m og
oSTC
=
.
m gg
m gg

yg =
..(A-5)
yo =

gSTC
For the oil formation volume factor, consider a given
volume of the oil phase at reservoir conditions. When that
volume to taken to stock tank conditions, the volume generally
will have shrunk due to the evolution of gas. The oil formation
volume factor Bo is, by definition, the above volume at
reservoir conditions divided by the volume at stock tank
conditions. The thing to keep in mind here is that the
composition has changed, and that the density, a phase
property, includes that change in composition. So the oil
formation volume factor is
mTo
oSTC + R s gSTC
o

Bo =
= oSTC (1 + R s ) =
.
m oo
o
O
oSTC

(A-6)

These latter expressions are the standard found in all

references, but we re-derived here to show that the approach
leads to expected results.
Mole Fractions
Letting the molecular weight of the gas and oil components be
M g and M o , and using a caret to denote mass in moles, then
the liquid mole fractions are defined
m go
m go + m oo

R s m oo
R s m oo + m oo

R s
R + 1
s

m oo
m oo
1
xo =
=
=
m go + m oo R s m oo + m oo R s + 1

m Tg
m og
m Tg

=
=

+ rs
rs

(A-9)

+ rs

The K values can now be expressed explicitly as functions of

pressure, namely,
1 rs R s
R s + 1
= 1+

xg
R s + rs
R s + rs
.
y o rs R s + 1
(1 rs R s )
=
= 1
Ko =
xo
+ rs
+ rs

Kg =

yg

)
)

...(A-10)

We note in passing that the inversion of equations (A-10)

gives

Similarly, the gas formation volume factor is the volume at

reservoir conditions of a given amount of gas component (and
associated oil component) relative to the volume at stock tank
conditions of the same amount of gas component, i.e.
gSTC
m Tg gSTC
r gSTC + rs oSTC
.(A-7)
1 + s =
Bg =
=
g m gg
g

g

xg =

m gg

.(A-8)

where = M o M g and the equations have been written out

in agonizing detail to show how the unknown masses cancel,
leaving only functions of pressure. In exactly analogous
fashion, the vapor mole fractions are

Rs =
rs R s =

1 1 Ko
K g 1
Ko
Kg

Critical Point
It is a well-known property that at the critical point, the K
values must be 1. From equations (A-10), it is clear that the K
values become 1 when

...(A-11)

1 rs R s = 0

so this provides a means of determining the critical pressure.

The critical pressure is the solution to equation (A-11). Note
that it depends only on the ratios and not on the formation
volume factors, and that at the critical pressure, the ratios must
equal the reciprocals of each other. Furthermore, since
1 rs R s is zero only at the critical point and is positive at
stock tank conditions, it follows that it is positive for all
pressures below the critical.
It is a physical and computational requirement that at the
critical point, the densities of the gas and oil phases must be
equal. Equating the phase densities, and using equations (A-6)
and (A-7) gives, after some re-arrangement
B gc
Boc

+ rsc
1 + R sc

1
R sc

= rsc ,

..(A-12)

where the superscript c has been added to denote being at the

critical point, and the latter relations follow from equation (A11). Equations (A-11) and (A-12) place very strong
restrictions on the black oil curves as they approach the
critical point.

R.A HARISCH, R.C. BACHMAN, P.J. PUCHYR, G. STRASHOK

Flash Calculation
If the K values are known for a given total composition, then it
is possible to determine the amount of material in each phase
by doing a flash calculation. The general flash equation is

z c (1 K c )
=0,
K c + (1 K c ) f L

(A-13)

where the summation is over all the components, and

z c = m cT m TT is the total mole fraction of component c, and
f L = m To m TT is the liquid fraction. Substituting the above
expressions for the K values and re-arranging gives
1 r R
s s
1
zg =

+ rs 1 + R s

fL .

dew-point curve, and that obtained for f L equal to 1 is the

bubble point curve. These two curves intersect at the pressure
determined by equation (A-11), and they define the two-phase
envelope for the fluid. An example of this is seen in Fig. 5.
Phase Volumes
The above flash calculation determines the mass in the liquid
phase in terms of the total composition. In this section, the
volume of each phase will be determined in a manner totally
independent of the flash. This will be done starting from the
phase density, and using the following definitions and
identities.
The amount of hydrocarbon in the system is specified by
the volumes at stock tank conditions, i.e.,

m oT = oSTC VoSTC

(A-15)

With this definition, it is implicitly assumed that the solution

gas-oil ratio and the condensate-gas ratio are zero at stock tank
conditions. Defining the stock tank volume ratio as
=

V gSTC
VoSTC

m oT

..(A-17)

and
zg =

m gT

m gT + m oT

.
1 +

..(A-18)

Now an interesting identity expressing the amount of the oil

component in the oil phase can be derived as follows.
m oo = m oT m og
rs
m gg

r
s m gT m go

rs
m gT R s m oo

= m oT

...(A-14)

This expression completely determines the phase behavior

as a function of pressure. For constant composition expansion,
the total mole fractions are fixed, and equation (A-14) shows
how the liquid fraction changes with pressure. Conversely, f L
can be fixed, and equation (A-14) used to determine the mole
fraction in the gas phase as a function of pressure. On a plot of
z g versus pressure, the curve obtained when f L is zero is the

m gT = gSTC V gSTC

m gT

SPE 71588

= m oT

= m oT

..(A-19)

Re-arranging and dividing through by the total mass of oil

component gives
m oo
1 rs
=
,
m oT 1 rs R s

(A-20)

and similarly
m gg
m gT

1 Rs
.
1 rs R s

(A-21)

Of course in equations (A-20) and (A-21), it is assumed

that the pressure is not at the critical point. With these
identities, the phase volumes can now be expressed in terms
of the pressure functions, by starting simply with the phase
density definition,
Vg =
=

mTg
g

(m gg + rs m gg )B g
gSTC + rs oSTC

m gg B g
gSTC

= V gSTC

...(A-22)

1 Rs
Bg
1 rs R s

..(A-16)

gives a convenient single parameter for the total composition

of the hydrocarbon system in the volume representation. Using
this and equation (A-1) gives

The analogous steps for the oil phase give

Vo =

m oo Bo
1 rs
= VoSTC
Bo .
oSTC
1 rs R s

...(A-23)

SPE 71588

EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA

The total hydrocarbon volume is, of course, just the sum of

these two, which gives, after some re-arrangement,
VT = V oSTC

( R s )B g + (1 rs )Bo
1 rs R s

...(A-24)

This expression is entirely general. It contains constants

which reflect the composition of the system, and explicitly
known functions of pressure.
Saturation
The amount of each component in the system is arbitrary, and
is defined by VoSTC and V gSTC . The amounts are arbitrary
except that there should be enough of each component that
both phases exist at reservoir conditions. In reservoir
engineering terms, the oil saturation, S o , and the gas
saturation, S g = 1 S o , should both be non-zero at reservoir
conditions, and it would preferable to express the equations in
terms of saturations rather than the initial stock tank volumes.
The saturation can be related to the initial composition as
follows. The oil saturation by definition is S o = Vo VT . Using
the above equations gives
So =

(1 rs )Bo
( R s )B g + (1 rs )Bo

S g Bo + S o B g R s
S o B g + S g Bo rs

(A-26)

an expression with marvelous symmetry. Because of the

frequency with which certain combinations occur, note in
passing that
Rs =

S g Bo (1 rs R s )

..(A-27)

S o B g + S g Bo rs

These equations can be used to solve for the volumes and

saturation in a constant composition expansion, as Coates did
in reference 1.
Total Compressibility
It is a physical and computational requirement that the total
hydrocarbon compressibility be positive for the full range of
pressures and saturations encountered in the simulation. This
section derives an expression for the total compressibility in
terms of the above quantities. It does so in a general two
component formuation, and shows that the resulting
expression reduces to the expected relation for the strictly
black-oil ( rs = 0 ), and for the gas condensate ( R s = 0) cases.
Compressibility is defined in general as
c=

1 V
.
V P

cT =
.

1 rs =

S o B g (1 rs R s )
S o B g + S g Bo rs

..(A-28)

With these relations, the total hydrocarbon volume is

Bo B g
Bo B g
VT = VoSTC
= V gSTC
.
S o B g + S g Bo rs
S g Bo + S o B g R s
...(A-29)

Sg
rs Bo B g R s S o
R s B g Bo rs
B g

Bo

B g
1 rs R s
1 rs R s
B o

...(A-31)

where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to

pressure. This is the primary result.
Special Cases
Since the above result is new, it would be prudent to ensure
that it reduces to known results for the cases of strict black-oil,
and gas condensate. In strict black-oil, the oil component does
not vaporize at all, so rs = 0 and so is the derivative, in which
case equation (A-31) becomes
cT =

and

..(A-30)

Although it is tempting to use equation (A-29) to compute

the total compressibility, that is not a good idea because the
saturations are functions of pressure. To be sure, the saturation
representation will be used, but only after doing the
differentiation by substituting equation (A-24) in equation (A30). Doing the derivative and then replacing by the
saturation is tedious but straightforward, with the result

..(A-25)

This can be inverted, to express the stock tank volume ratio in

terms of the saturation at any pressure,

Sg
So
B o B g R s
B g ,
Bo
Bg

which is the conventional black-oil result, as seen in Dake

[ref. 5], and Coats [ref. 1]. When gas does not dissolve in the
oil, the gas condensate case, then R s and its derivative are
both zero, and equation (A-31) becomes
cT =

Sg
So
B o
B g Bo rs ,
Bo
Bb

again the expected result for gas condensates.

10

R.A HARISCH, R.C. BACHMAN, P.J. PUCHYR, G. STRASHOK

Discussion
Based on the familiar saturation weighted average concept,
the individual phase compressibilities can clearly be identified
in equation (A-31) as
Bo B g R s

B g rs

1 rs R s

B g B o rs
1
co =
Bo R s

Bo
1 rs R s

cg =

1
Bg

..(A-32)

One of the ultimate objectives was to ensure that the total

compressibility was positive for all pressures and saturations
expected in any simulation. Equation (A-31) makes it possible
to compute the total compressibility in terms of the known
functions of pressure, and thereby validate the PVT properties.
Notice that if the compressibility of each phase is always
positive, then the total compressibility must also be positive.
However, this can be overly restrictive; it is possible for one
of the phase compressibilities to go negative while the total
compressibility remains positive.
Notice also that as the pressure approaches critical
pressure, the denominator of the transfer term in equations (A31) and (A-32) goes to zero. However, the requirement of
equal density as the critical point makes the numerator of the
term also zero. Care must be taken in specifying the PVT
properties to ensure that the entire term remains finite at the
critical pressure.

SPE 71588

Table 1 Composition of Recombined Reservoir Fluid

Mo1ecular
Weight %
Mole %
Component
Weight
CO2
H2S
N2
C1
C2
C3
i-C4
n-C4
i-C5
n-C5
C6
mcyc-C5
BENZENE
cycl-C6
C7
mcycl-C6
TOLUENE
C8+

44.010
34.080
28.013
16.043
30.070
44.097
58.124
58.124
72.151
72.151
86.200
84.160
78.110
82.150
100.200
98.190
92.140

3.375
9.745
2.903
23.022
4.540
3.925
1.454
2.964
1.705
1.836
3.159
0.644
0.228
0.535
3.365
1.160
0.965
34.475

2.971
11.078
4.015
55.595
5.850
3.449
0.969
1.976
0.916
0.986
1.420
0.296
0.113
0.252
1.301
0.458
0.406
7.949

SPE 71588

EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA

Pressure

Table 2 Constant Volume Depletion Data (@103.7 oC)

Raw Experimental Data
Vapor Volume
Equilibrium
Equilibrium
Total Volume
Displaced
Liquid Volume
Vapor Volume
(cm3)
3
3
(cm3)
(cm )
(cm )
68.694
0.000
68.694
0.000

11

Displaced
Vapor Density
(g/cm3)

(psia)
4600

(kPaa)
31717

4000

27580

48.713

24.673

73.386

5.346

0.3291

3250

22409

52.184

25.707

77.891

9.852

0.2403

2750

18961

53.370

24.585

77.955

10.076

0.1883

2000

13790

68.391

22.413

90.804

22.829

0.1275

1500

10343

69.065

20.761

89.826

21.868

0.0935

1000

6895

83.478

18.958

102.436

34.478

0.0600

562

3875

110.700

17.226

127.926

59.887

0.0324

Calculated Produced Gas Properties

Pressure

Vapor Produced Per Step

4000

(kPaa)
27580

(gmol) (1)
0.0548

3250

22409

2750

Cumulative Vapor Produced

(%) (1)

Res Relative %
Liquid (2)
(Vol%)

Liquid Density (3)

(g/cm3)

7.42

(gmol) (1)
0.0548

7.42

0.8421

36.26

0.5096

0.0837

11.33

0.1384

18.75

0.8252

37.78

0.5565

18961

0.0724

9.81

0.2108

28.55

0.8250

36.22

0.5868

2000

13790

0.1188

16.09

0.3296

44.64

0.8286

32.97

0.6184

1000

6895

0.0870

11.79

0.5016

67.94

0.8542

27.90

0.6655

562

3875

0.0757

10.26

0.5774

78.20

0.9581

25.32

0.6948

(psia)

(%) (1)

Vapor Z Factor

12

R.A HARISCH, R.C. BACHMAN, P.J. PUCHYR, G. STRASHOK

SPE 71588

Table 3 Black-oil PVT Properties

Well test Separator Conditions
Oil Stock Tank Density (kg/m3)

775.20

Stage 1 Press

3500 kPa

Stage 2 Press

101 kPa

Gas Density at standard conditions (kg/m3)

0.9782

Stage 1 Temp

35 oC

Stage 2 Temp

15.6 oC

Pressure
(kPa)
3875

Solution GOR, Solution OGR,

rs
Rs
(m3/103 m3)
(m3/m3)
20.61
0.08808

Oil Formation Volume

Factor, Bo
(res m3/st m3)
1.1447

Gas expansion
factor, Eg
(st m3/res m3)
30.9610

Oil viscosity
(mPa-s)
0.892

Gas Viscosity
(mPa-s)
0.01400

Oil density
(kg/m3)
694.80

Gas density
(kg/m3)
32.40
60.00

6895

51.05

0.01432

1.2399

60.6491

0.620

0.01510

665.50

10343

103.33

0.06694

1.3769

90.7686

0.425

0.01670

636.40

93.50

13790

151.13

0.08754

1.4926

121.8865

0.304

0.01880

618.40

127.50

18961

159.43

0.02838

1.5868

188.2627

0.196

0.02350

586.80

188.30

22409

331.29

0.34247

1.9753

193.2173

0.150

0.02820

556.50

240.30

27580

445.68

0.62305

2.3767

225.2276

0.100

0.03990

509.60

329.10

31717

653.03

1.11001

2.6000

250.0000

0.060

0.05670

543.84

459.67

33000

717.34

1.20000

2.6200

257.6826

0.048

0.06191

563.70

491.77

35000

817.58

1.30000

2.6300

269.6587

0.028

0.07003

598.84

535.53

Long-term Production Separator Conditions

Oil Stock Tank Density (kg/m3)

775.20

Stage 1 Press

9000 kPa

Stage 2 Press

101 kPa

Gas Density at standard conditions (kg/m3)

0.9782

Stage 1 Temp

38 oC

Stage 2 Temp

15.6 oC

Pressure
(kPa)
3875

Solution GOR, Solution OGR,

rs
Rs
(m3/m3)
(m3/103 m3)
55.85
0.05159

Oil Formation Volume

Factor, Bo
(res m3/st m3)
1.1943

Gas expansion
factor, Eg
(st m3/res m3)
31.8210

Oil viscosity
(mPa-s)
0.892

Gas Viscosity
(mPa-s)
0.01400

Oil density
(kg/m3)
694.80

Gas density
(kg/m3)
32.40
60.00

6895

92.04

0.00207

1.3001

61.2368

0.620

0.01510

665.50

10343

145.32

0.04385

1.4415

92.3738

0.425

0.01670

636.40

93.50

13790

195.94

0.06215

1.5635

124.2237

0.304

0.01880

618.40

127.50

18961

316.63

0.21739

1.8489

164.2075

0.196

0.02350

586.80

188.30

22409

354.34

0.29351

2.0158

199.2984

0.150

0.02820

556.50

240.30

27580

477.09

0.56306

2.4370

232.6314

0.100

0.03990

509.60

329.10

31717

600.00

1.02712

2.6000

250.0000

0.060

0.05670

523.89

443.60

33000

638.12

1.20000

2.6200

255.3865

0.048

0.06191

534.12

487.39

35000

697.54

1.30000

2.6300

263.7832

0.028

0.07003

554.19

523.86

Table 4 Flow Period Details

(All flow rates converted to standard conditions)
Gas Rate
Cond Rate Wtr Rate Flow
Duration
Gas Rate
Cond Rate
(103m3/d)
(m3/d)
(m3/d)
Period
(hours)
(103m3/d)
(m3/d)
117.530
62.417
0.524
10
744.000
45.253
42.598

Flow
Period
1

Duration
(hours)
0.917

Wtr Rate
(m3/d)
0.000

17.500

100.527

112.800

1.083

11

720.000

42.749

35.930

0.000

26.000

113.776

127.500

0.822

12

744.000

41.565

40.102

0.000

65.000

80.237

93.000

0.491

13

744.000

44.923

59.177

0.000

863.750

0.000

0.000

0.000

14

720.000

42.426

58.481

0.000

468.250

57.523

77.659

0.000

15

744.000

35.300

40.217

0.000

744.000

51.859

52.496

0.000

16

720.000

53.779

55.881

0.000

192.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

17

744.000

50.929

45.682

0.000

528.000

34.530

33.522

0.000

18

552.000

50.810

40.475

0.000

SPE 71588

Parameter
Ultimate gas recovery
Ultimate C5+ recovery
Gas recovery factor
C5+ recovery factor
Gas influx into inner region at
01/01/2018
Well shut-in date

EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA

Table 5 Prediction Case Summary

Case 1
Case 2
(Limited reservoir)
(Recharge case)
57.5
104.3
32.5
55.9
78.3
12.0
42.9
6.2
n/a
07/01/04

Fig. 1 Typical horizontal well flow regimes and their associated

log-log pressure and log-log pressure derivative responses.

16.2
01/01/13

106m3
103m3
percent
percent

13

Units

106m3

Fig. 2 Liquid dropout curve derived from the laboratory CCE

experiment.

Fig. 3 Idealized separator configuration used in laboratory

experiments and for conversion of measured field production
volumes to standard conditons.

14

R.A HARISCH, R.C. BACHMAN, P.J. PUCHYR, G. STRASHOK

SPE 71588

Fig. 4 Fluid PVT properties developed from CVD laboratory experiment.

Fig. 5 Phase envelope for separator conditions of Psep = 3500

kPa, Tsep = 35 oC.

Fig. 6 Actual field separator configuration. Measurement of

fluids occur at separator conditions, rather than standard
conditions.

SPE 71588

EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA

Fig. 7 Observed pressure response (log-log pressure and

pressure derivative plot) from the build-up portion of the singlepoint test.

Fig. 8 Model generated pressure match. Solid lines represent

model generated parameters while symbols represent field
observed pressures.

15

Fig. 9 Model generated pressure match (log-log pressure and

pressure derivative) for the build-up portion of the well test.
Model generated pressure response is indicated by solid line
while field observed pressure response is denoted by symbols.

Fig. 10 Effect of increasing formation thickness on the log-log

pressure derivative. Increasing thickness results in delaying the
onset of the linear flow period (indicated on the log-log derivative
plot as a half-slope line).

16

R.A HARISCH, R.C. BACHMAN, P.J. PUCHYR, G. STRASHOK

SPE 71588

Fig. 11 - Long-term production history match for the limited reservoir case. Model generated results are presented as solid lines while
observed data is presented as symbols.

Fig. 12 Long-term production history match for the recharge case. Model generated results are presented as solid lines while observed data
is presented as symbols.

SPE 71588

EVALUATION OF A HORIZONTAL GAS CONDENSATE WELL USING NUMERICAL PTA

Fig. 13 Production performance prediction for the limited

reservoir case.

Fig. 14 Production performance prediction for the recharge

case.

17