SPE 88797

Determination of Recovery and Relative Permeability for Gas Condensate Reservoirs

Mohamed Al-Honi, SPE, and Abdulrazag Y. Zekri, SPE, Waha Oil Company
Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 11th Abu Dhabi Intgernational Petroleum
Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 1013 October 2004.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal 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 a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Coreflood experiments on gas condensate flow behavior were
conducted for a Libyan gas condensate reservoir. The
objectives were to investigate the effects of rock and fluid
characteristics on critical condensate saturation (CCS), gas and
condensate relative permeabilitys, hydrocarbon recovery and
trapping by water injection, and incremental recovery by
subsequent blowdown and vaporization by dry gas injection.
The water/gas relative permeability data were generated
using implicit historical matching simulator which uses a
reverse history matching technique to generate a full suite of
relative permeability curves over the range of interest. The
results of the tests on the reduction in gas permeability due to
retrograde condensate accumulation demonstrated that, in
general, the effective permeability to gas decreased
significantly at pressures below the dew point pressure due to
the condensate trapping effect for all the stacks investigated in
this study. Permeability continues to drop at very low
pressures even though theoretically condensate should be revaporizing. The recoveries of the liquid condensate during the
vaporization by dry gas injection at pressures below the dew
point pressure were generally high. The recovery ranged from
66% to 70% for the high permeability core stack and 86% to
98% for the lower permeability core stack. In theory, it is
possible for all of the condensate to be revaporized into the
methane gas stream. However, in practice, the recovery is
usually less than 100% due to macroscopic sweep efficiency
limitations and mass transfer limitations within the rock
matrix.
Poor mobility ratio and viscous fingering during the methane
injection characterize the re-vaporization of gas condensate by
methane gas. This results in early breakthrough of the
methane gas and very high gas/liquid ratios during the test.
The volume of methane gas injection required to recover a
significant amount of the condensate liquid in the core is a
function of temperature, pressure, composition of the gas,

heterogeneity and especially the permeability of the core

sample.
Introduction
Gas condensate fields development and management require
good understanding of fluid flow behavior and techniques to
optimize the recovery. When the well bottom hole flowing
pressure falls below the dew point, condensate liquid builds up
around the well bore, causing a reduction in gas permeability
and well productivity. The liquid saturation may reach values
as high as 50 or 60 per cent, and the well deliverability may be
reduced by up to an order of magnitude Curtis et al.1 stated
that relative permeability effects in gas condensate reservoirs
can be classified into three categories: (1) near-well steadystate gas/condensate flow where saturation hysteresis is severe
throughout the life of a well experiencing hundreds of cycles
of complete or partial imbibitions and drainage; (2) in the bulk
of the reservoir far-removed from the wells, an imbibitions
process occurs throughout the life of the reservoir, where
liquid mobility is (practically) zero and only gas flows at a
somewhat reduced permeability; and (3) water encroachment,
where gas and/or retrograde condensate are trapped in
quantities from 15-40 saturation percent, and water
permeability can be significantly reduced. They presented an
engineering approach to treat gas-condensate relative
permeabilities describing near-well flow in gas condensate
wells. A good number of researchers suggest that gas
condensate relative permeabilities increase at high flow rates,
and that these changes can be correlated against the capillary
number2,3,4,5 The previous conclusion was based on evidence
obtained from laboratory core flood experiments The capillary
number is a dimensionless number which measures the
relative strength of viscous and capillary forces. The increase
in mobility at high capillary number is sometimes termed
velocity stripping.
Mott et al.6 developed a new method to measure gas
condensate relative permeabilities under conditions relevant to
the near well region. The new technique measures krg as a
function of krg/kro and capillary number; this is the most
important information for calculating gas condensate well
productivity.
Moctezuma-Berthier and Samaniego7 present a methodology
for the realization of laboratory representative studies of flow
in heterogeneous cores flowing with gas and condensate
equivalents fluids. The relative permeability curves are found
fitting the gas production and pressure drop experimental data
with a compositional simulator. This simulator was used to
have a detailed behavior of the fluids during the experiment.

Permeability reduction to the gas phase due to an increment in

the residual liquid saturation.
The reservoir pressure can be maintained above the
dewpoint pressure through injection of gas. Gas cycling or
(re)injection of lean gas is frequently applied, because dry,
methane-rich hydrocarbon gas has suitable physical properties.
Nitrogen is a potential alternative injection gas. It is available
everywhere because it can be produced from air at low costs
using cryogenic or membrane separation8. Economic
evaluations show that nitrogen injection is realistic, provided
that the gas condensate is sufficiently rich9,10. Nitrogen
injection has been applied, often in combination with gas
cycling, in several gas-condensate reservoirs11,12,13,14.
Description of Experiments
Apparatus and Materials
Core Flooding Apparatus. The schematic diagram of the
core flooding apparatus is shown in Fig.1. Two fluid
accumulators are connected to a variable rate injection pump.
The core holder is placed in a variable temperature oven.
Pressure and temperature transducers are connected at both
ends of the core inside the core holder. A chart recorder and a
digital pressure recorder are connected to the temperature
transducer and pressure transducer respectively.
Rock and Fluids. Stacked (composite) cores are constructed
to reduce experimental error by increasing the pore volume of
the porous media utilized for the experiment. End effect
errors can also be reduced by increasing the amount of rock
volume which possesses stabilized saturation apart from the
inlet and outlet phenomena. The longer core composed of
several shorter samples is constructed by mounting the core
end to end and placing wafers of thin porous fiber between the
samples to ensure capillary continuity between the rock faces.
To prepare the reservoir fluids by recombining the separator
condensate and synthetic separator gas, the gas is first
condensed into a high pressure cylinder for high pressure
applications. By immersing the target high pressure cylinder
in liquid nitrogen, the low pressure gas can be readily
transferred. Once the specified pressure drop has been
achieved on the source gas in the low pressure tank, the high
pressure cylinder is then heated to system temperature. To
increase the pressure to operating pressure mercury is injected
into the bottom of the cylinder which acts as a confining fluid.
In this manner any pressure can be achieved (up to 10,000 psi,
about 70,000 kPa) and a constant injection pressure can be
maintained. Table 1presents the physical properties of eight
core stacks.
Experimental Procedure
Wettability Restoration of Plugs
The samples were initially evacuated and then pressure
saturated to 100% water saturation. The samples were then
desaturated to irreducible water saturation by centrifuging
each individual sample under air. To mimic hydrocarbon
migration into place, gas samples from the studied reservoir
were displaced through these samples for an extended period
of time in an effort to restore these samples to their virgin
conditions. The restoration procedure was performed at
reservoir conditions of 315F and 7082 psig pore pressure

SPE 88797

with the application of net overburden pressure (4850 psig)

with the duration being four weeks. The results of restoration
indicated that the reservoir is a water wet system at reservoir
condition.
WaterGas (Condensate) Relative Permeability
Water-gas relative permeability tests were conducted on
reservoir core materials and fluids the studied gas condensate
reservoir. Routine air permeability and helium expansion
porosity tests were conducted on selected samples following
cleaning (to remove residual hydrocarbon) to aid in the
selection of representative core material for testing in all the
core stacks. Composite core samples are mounted and initial
displacement of humidified methane gas is conducted to
increase pore pressure to the desired reservoir internal pore
pressure. Displacement is then switched to retrograde
condensate gas from the selected reservoir until the effluent
GOR matches the live fluid gas-condensate ratio. Injection of
formation brine at a low rate followed until no additional gas
and/or retrograde condensate is produced. During this
displacement, measure the pressure drop across the core and
record the gas and water production rates to facilitate the
calculation of the saturation and permeability values.
Reduction in Gas Permeability Due to Retrograde
Condensate
In order to provide accurate material balance and to
minimize the end effect, each core stack consisted of four
plugs of similar permeability and porosity values. The core
samples were then restored to their native wettability using the
procedure mentioned above. Core flood tests were conducted
at the reservoir temperature of 315F, with a confining
pressure of approximately 12000 psig and a back pressure of
7082 psig. The experimental procedures involved first
mounting the core samples using specified reservoir
conditions. Then, initial displacement of gas was conducted to
increase internal pressure to the desired reservoir pore
pressure. Gas displacement continued until the effluent
gas/liquid ratio matched the initial gas/liquid ratio. The
pressure at the back pressure regulator (BPR) was reduced to
the dew point pressure of 6610 psig and the permeability to
gas was measured at the dew point pressure and the reservoir
temperature. The BPR was reduced again to 6320 psig (below
the dew point pressure) to allow a condensate saturation to
form uniformly in the pore system of the test sample. The
permeability to gas at 6320 psig and reservoir temperature was
measured. Subsequently, the BPR was reduced to 5763, 5263,
4763, 3763, 3263, 1000 and 100 psig, and the gas permeability
measured using equilibrium gas at each pressure step.
Condensate Vaporization by Dry Gas at Pressures Below
Dewpoint Pressure
Two composite core stacks (Table 2) were prepared for
the vaporization of condensate experiments. In order to
minimize the end effects, up to 12 plug samples were used in
each stack. These plug samples were arranged in a sequence
using the Huppler15 method such that the harmonic average
permeability between each core plug is as close as possible to
the overall average permeability for the whole stack. This
results in the core plugs having permeabilities closest to the

SPE 88797

overall permeability being located near the outlet end of the

core stack where the pressure gradient is greatest. Composite
core samples are mounted using specified reservoir conditions,
and initial displacement of methane gas is conducted to
increase pore pressure to the desired reservoir pore pressure.
Displacement is then switched to recombined condensate gas
from the selected reservoir until the effluent GOR matches the
reservoir GOR. Drop the back pressure regulator (BPR) to
6320 psig (below the dew point pressure of 6610 psig) to
allow a condensate saturation to form. Monitor gas and
condensate production during the pressure depletion. A dry
gas flood using methane gas is conducted at 6320 psig to
determine what portion of the residual condensate saturation is
vaporized by the dry gas. Collect relative permeability data
and effluent gas and condensate samples at every 0.5 pore
volume of dry gas injection. Analyze composition of both
gas and condensate samples and measure effective
permeability to dry gas at the end of the flood.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water-Gas (Condensate) Relative Permeability Tests
Eight core stacks were constructed using samples from the
selected gas condensate reservoir. Compositions of the
recombined reservoir fluid and the synthetic formation brine
are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 5 presents a summary of
the end point data from the waterflood relative permeability
tests for these core stacks. The relative permeability curves for
stacks 1to 8 are shown in Fig. 2 Residual trapped gas
saturations ranged from 10.7% to 30.9% for all core stacks and
averages about 27%. Gas recoveries ranged from 56.9% to
79.5% of hydrocarbon in place. On the average, breakthrough
of the injected water occurred after about 0.5 pore volume of
water injection.
Reduction in Gas Permeability
Prior to these relative permeability measurements, a
constant volume depletion experiment was conducted using
recombined reservoir fluid which indicated that the dew point
pressure of the reservoir fluid is at about 6610 psig. The
volume percentage of the retrograde condensate increased
rapidly at pressures below the dew point pressure to a
maximum of about 25 percent at a pressure of approximately
4000 psig after which further pressure results in more volatile
components of the condensate revaporazing back into the gas
phase. Some small vaporization of the retrograde condensate
can be observed at pressure below 4000 psig down to the
atmosphere pressure. Past experience indicates that significant
in-situ revaporization in the porous media will likely not occur
due to capillary pressure and mass transfer limitations. In our
work, significant reductions in permeability were observed as
the pore pressure was decreased. This is expected, of course,
due to the increase in condensate trapping effects with
decreased pore pressure. Permeability continued to drop at
pressures below 4000 psig even though theoretically
condensate should be re-evaporating. These observations are
likely caused by the mass transfer limitations during
multiphase flow in the core stack and the effect of the
increasing overburden pressure (matrix compressibility) as the
internal pore pressure of the reservoir is reduced. In addition,

some of the effective permeabilities measured at the saturation

pressure of 6610 psig were less than the air permeabilities
obtained from routine core analysis for the same core
materials. This is a common phenomenon that can be
attributed to a combination of the relative permeability effects,
Klinkenberg effects and overburden effects. Results of the
permeability reductions for all eight core stacks are shown in
Fig. 3.
Condensate Vaporization by Dry Gas Injection below
Dewpoint Pressure
For this test program, two long core stacks (12 samples
each) were constructed using core materials from the chosen
reservoir. The tests were conducted at two pore pressures: at
6320 psig and 5700 psig. A summary of the condensate
recoveries is shown in Table 6. The cumulative condensate
production curves expressed in percent of ICIP (InitialCondensate-In-Place) are shown in Fig. 4. Compositional
analyzes of the produced gas demonstrated that breakthrough
of the injected methane occurred at about 0.6 pore volume of
methane injection; however, a significant volume of
condensate continued to be produced after breakthrough. The
condensate recovery at breakthrough is at approximately 45
percent due mostly to the relatively high core permeability (50
md) which may allow channeling of the injection gas. Fig. 5
shows the molecular weight of the produced condensate liquid
as a function of methane gas injection for the higher
permeability stack #1. The data demonstrate an increasing
trend in the molecular weight of the produced condensate
liquid. This is a good indication of the vaporization of the
heavy hydrocarbons by multi-contact miscibility with methane
gas. Similar observations can be found in the molecular
weights of the heavier hydrocarbons such as Heptane-plus
(C7+) to Dodecane-plus (C12+) components (Fig. 6). In
addition, the mole fraction curve of the Dodecane-plus
components shows a significant increasing trend with the
volume of methane injection which again indicates multicontact miscibility with the methane gas. On the other hand,
the mole fractions of the Hexane-plus and Heptane-plus
components in the condensate production remain fairly
constant with time because the lighter hydrocarbon
components can be readily vaporized by first-contact
miscibility with methane gas. The amount of these lighter
hydrocarbons being recovered at later times becomes less and
less significant. The effective permeability to gas during the
revaporization of condensate tests was monitored. The results
show that, as more methane gas is injected, the effective
permeability to gas for the higher perm stack #1 increases
from about 4 percent before the start of methane injection to
about 50 percent after 3 pore volumes of methane gas have
been injected. This regain permeability is shown in Fig. 7.
The second core stack (#2) has a much lower average
permeability (3 mD) than stack #1; which had an average
permeability of 50 mD. The overall recovery of the condensate
from the dry gas displacement is very high at an average of
about 90 percent. The test parameters and coreflood test
results for this core stack are shown in Tables 59 to 65 and in
Compositional analyzes of the produced gas shows that
breakthrough of the injected methane occurred at between 0.6

to 0.75 pore volumes of methane injection and the production

of the condensate still continued afterwards. The condensate
recovery at breakthrough is slightly higher than 60 percent (of
initial condensate in place) depending on the pressure
conditions. This indicates a much more efficient gas flood
likely due to the low permeability and more homogeneous
nature of this core stack. Considering the scatter in the data,
the molecular weight, mole fraction and densities, we believe
that the mechanism of vaporization by first and multi-contact
miscibility between the heavy hydrocarbons with the methane
gas takes place as with the first core stack.
Effective gas permeability shows similar functionality for
the lower permeability stack #2, but the final permeability
attained was only about 2 percent of air permeability. This is
an indication that the finer pore structure/greater tortuosity of
the lower permeability stack have a limiting effect on the
effective permeability with residual fluids in place.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. The effective permeability to gas decreased significantly at
pressures below the dew point pressure due to the
condensate trapping effect for all the stacks investigated in
this study. Permeability continues to drop at very low
pressures even though theoretically condensate should be
re-vaporizing. In our experience, this phenomenon is most
likely due to mass transfer limitations during multi phase
flow in the core stack which practically limit the amount of
condensate which can be revaporized (due to diffusion
limitation). Also, as the pore pressure is decreased, the
net overburden pressure on the rock matrix will increase
as pore pressure continues to be reduced. This increase in
overburden will also tend to reduce the effective
permeability of the core matrix.
2. The recoveries of the liquid condensate during the
vaporization by dry gas injection at pressures below the
dew point pressure were generally high. The recovery
ranged from 66% to 70% for the high permeability core
stack and 86% to 98% for the lower permeability core
stack.
3. Poor mobility ratio and viscous fingering during the
methane injection characterize the re-vaporization of gas
condensate by methane gas.
This results in early
breakthrough of the methane gas and very high gas/liquid
ratios during the test.
4. Methane gas will be least efficient hydrocarbon based gas
that would be considered for revaporization, the gas from
the reservoir would be more effective and might be used in
the field since it will more richer.
5. The volume of methane gas injection required to recover a
significant amount of the condensate liquid in the core is a
function of temperature, pressure, composition of the gas,
heterogeneity and especially the permeability of the core
sample.
6. It is evident from the laboratory data that heavy
hydrocarbon components from hexane-plus up to

SPE 88797

dodecane-plus fractions can be revaporized by miscible

extraction at high pressure with methane gas.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like thank Waha Oil Company for
permission to publish the paper. All the laboratory work was
performed at Hycal Laboratories.

References
1. Whitson, C. H., Fevang, O., and Svareid, A.: Gas
Condensate Relative Permeability For Well Calculations,
paper SPE 56476 presented at presented in the 1999 SPE
Annual Techenical Conference and Exhibition held in
Houston, Texas 3-6 october 1999.
2. Henderson, G.D. et al.: Measurement and Correlation of
Gas Condensate Relative Permeability by the Steady-State
Method,SPEJ, June 1996.
3. Ali, J.K. et al.: The Effects of High-Velocity Flow and
PVT Changes near the Wellbore on Condensate Well
Performance,paper SPE 39823, presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San
Antonio, 5-8 October 1997.
4. Boom, W. et al: Experimental Evidence for Improved
Condensate Mobility at Near-Wellbore Flow Conditions,
paper SPE 30766, presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22-25 October 1995.
5. Kalaydijan, F. J-M. et al: Predicting Gas Condensate
Reservoir Performance: How Flow Parameters are Altered
when Approaching Production Wells, paper SPE 36715,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, 6-9 October 1996.
6. Mott, R., Cable, A., and Spearing, M.: A New Method Of
Measuring Relative Permeabilities For Calculating GasCondensate Well Deliverability, paper SPE 56484
presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1999.
7. Moctezuma-Berthier, A., Samaniego, F. V.: Relative
Permabilities of Gas-Condensate Fluids in Heterogeneous
Porous Media, paper SPE 59049 presented at the 2000
SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in
Mexico held in Villahermosa, Mexico, 1-3 February 2000.
8. Evison, B. and Gilchrist, R.E.: New Developments in
Nitrogen in the Oil Industry, paper SPE 24313 presented
at the 1992 SPE Mid-Continent Gas Symposium, Amarillo,
Texas, 1314 April.
9. Donohoe, C.W. and Buchanan, R.D.: Economic Evaluation
of Cycling Gas-Condensate Reservoirs with Nitrogen,
JPT (February 1981) 263.
10 Hagoort, J., Brinkhorst, J.W., and van der Kleyn, P.H.:
Development of an Offshore Gas Condensate Reservoir
by Nitrogen Injection visa`-vis Pressure Depletion, JPT
(April 1988) 463.
11. Eckles, W.W. Jr., Prihoda, C., and Holden, W.W.:
Unique Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery for Very HighPressure Wilcox Sands Uses Cryogenic Nitrogen and
Methane Mixture, JPT (June 1981) 971.
12. Wendschlag, D.D., Stephenson, R.E., and Clark, T.T.:
Fieldwide Simulation of the Anschutz Ranch East

SPE 88797

Nitrogen Injection Project with a Generalized

Compositional Model, paper SPE 12257.
13. Metcalfe, R.S., Vogel, J.L., and Morris, R.W.:
Compositional Gradients in the Anschutz Range East
Field, SPERE (August 1988) 1025; Trans., AIME, 285.
14. Huang, W.W., Bellamy, R.B., and Ohnimus, S.W.: A
Study of Nitrogen Injection for Increased Recovery From a
Rich Retrograde Gas/Volatile Oil Reservoir, paper SPE
14059.
15. Huppler, J. D.: Waterflood Relative Permeability in
Composite Cores, Journal of Petroleum Technology (May
1969) 539-540.

SPE 88797

Table 1. Coposite rock stacks properties

Core

Air

Core

Air

Stack

Plug sample

Permeability

Porosity

Stack

Plug
sample

I.D.

I.D.

(mD)

(fraction)

I.D.

I.D.

(mD)

(fraction)

P581

28.0

0.107

P101

92.0

0.129

P582

28.0

0.096

P5

91.0

0.128

P381

27.0

0.105

P156

91.0

0.139

P383

27.0

0.109

P222

95.0

0.142

P67

6.4

0.080

P135

8.5

0.106

P69

5.5

0.084

P142

9.0

0.095

P201

6.6

0.114

P77

9.0

0.120

P257

7.8

0.119

P141

8.0

0.096

P28

2.5

0.114

P270

19.0

0.102

P54

2.1

0.100

P265

22.0

0.101

P105

1.9

0.099

P200

19.0

0.126

P152

2.7

0.085

P181

20.0

0.145

P261

5.0

0.104

P56

30.0

0.124

P220

4.0

0.125

P65

71.0

0.135

P212

4.2

0.122

P118

37.0

0.114

P28

3.7

0.071

P33

47.0

0.102

Permeability

Porosity

Table 2. Composite core , condensate vaporization test

Core

Air

Core

Air

Stack

Plug
sample

Permeability

Porosity

Stack

Plug sample

Permeability

Porosity

I.D.

I.D.

(mD)

(fraction)

I.D.

I.D.

(mD)

(fraction)

P25

43

0.115

P241

3.0

0.080

P67

48

0.127

P225

2.2

0.116

P62

55

0.091

P187

3.1

0.113

P140

50

0.123

P191

2.9

0.124

P65

45

0.109

P158

3.3

0.085

P87

45

0.113

P230

2.5

0.115

P170

60

0.119

P159

2.2

0.062

P34

68

0.120

P73

3.7

0.087

P105

38

0.102

P95

2.4

0.099

P174

49

0.148

P63

2.7

0.084

P83

44

0.137

P49

2.3

0.101

P80

68

0.144

P72

3.3

0.081

51

0.121

2.8

0.096

SPE 88797

Table 3. Reservoir fluid composition

Table 4. Formation water composition

Composition

(mole %)

Cations/Anions

(mg/L)

N2

1.24

Na

56400

CO2

5.25

392

H2S

0.00

Ca

22200

C1

72.34

Mg

1560

C2

7.85

Ba

C3

2.46

Sr

IC4

0.65

Fe

700

C4

1.10

Cl

134000

IC5

0.46

Br

C5

0.45

C6

0.72

HCO3

C7+

7.48

SO4

2.9

TOTAL

100.00

CO3

OH

Pressure (psia)

6597

GOR

6030 scf/bbl

Total Dissolved
Solids

215255 mg/L

Brine Viscosity

0.329 cP

Table 5. Water-Gas relative permeability summary

Co
re Stack
I.D.

Air
Permeability
Range (mD)

Swi
(percent)

Initial
Permeability
to Gas

Recovery
(% PV)

Recovery
(% HCPV)

Residual
Gas
Saturation

Final
Permeability
to water

#1

27 28

7.1%

5.36 mD

64.6%

69.6%

28.3%

22.3 mD

#2

5.5 7.8

24.1%

1.84 mD

53.0%

69.9%

22.9%

0.64 mD

#3

1.9 2.7

28.4%

0.24 mD

40.7%

56.9%

30.9%

0.024 mD

#4

3.7 5.0

26.1%

0.106 mD

55.0%

74.5%

18.9%

0.077 mD

#5

91 95

16.2%

24.5 mD

56.2%

67.0%

27.6%

8.19 mD

#6

8.0 9.0

48.0%

0.94 mD

41.3%

79.5%

10.7%

0.37 mD

#7

19 22

19.9%

3.84 mD

57.6%

72.0%

22.5%

1.89 mD

#8

30 71

16.6%

19.5 mD

56.4%

67.6%

27.0%

3.30 mD

SPE 88797

Table 7. Summary of condensate recoveries

Core Stack #1

Initial Condensate
Saturation
(%PV)

Final Condensate
Saturation
(%PV)

% Revaporization
(% of Original
Condensate In Place)

@ 6320 psig

7.8

2.3

70.4

@ 5700 psig

13.8

4.6

66.4

@ 6320 psig

7.4

0.2

97.9

@ 5700 psig

12.3

1.8

85.8

Core Stack #2

BPR Pressure
To Vacuum
Pressure Transducer

Filter

Coreholder

Core

Backpressure
Valve

Wet Test Meter

Annular Pressure

Injection
Pressure

Annulus Pressure
Positive Displacement Pump

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of flooding apparatus.

SPE 88797

1
1
Relative Permeability

Krg

0.8

Krw

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.8

Krg
Stack 2

Krw

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water Saturation (fraction)

Water Saturation (fraction)

Krg

Stack # 3

0.6

Relative Permeability

0.8

Krw

0.4
0.2

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Stack # 4

K rg

K rw

0.6
0.4
0.2

0.2

Water Saturation (fraction)

0.4

0.6

0.8

W ater Saturation (fraction)

1
Stack # 5

0.8

Relative Permeability

Relative Permeability

Krg

0.6

Krw
0.4
0.2

Stack # 6

0.8
Krg

0.6

Krw

0.4
0.2

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water Saturation (fraction)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water Saturation (fraction)

Stack # 7
Krg

0.8

Relative Permeability

Relative Permeability

Relative Permeability

Relative Permeability

Stak # 1

Krw

0.6
0.4
0.2

Stack # 8

0.8
0.6

Krg
Krw

0.4
0.2
0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Water Saturation (fraction)

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Water Saturation (fraction)

Figure 2. Gas condensate water relative permeabilities.

10

SPE 88797

60.0

Effective gas permeability,mD

50.0

S tac k 1
S tac k 2

40.0

S tac k 3
S tac k 4
S tac k 5

30.0

S tac k 6
S tac k 8

20.0

10.0

0.0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

P ore pres s ure ps ig

100%

80%

60%
Place)

Cumulative Condensate Production (% Original Liquid in

Figure 3. Permeability reduction for different core stacks.

40%

6 3 2 0 p s ig P o re P re s s u re

20%

5 7 0 0 p s ig P o re P re s s u re
0%
0

0 .5

1 .5

2.5

3 .5

C u m u l a t i ve D r y G a s In j e c t i o n ( P . V . )

Figure 4. Gas condensate recovery as function of cum gas injection.

SPE 88797

11

350
300

Molecular Weight

250
200
6320 psig Pore Pressure
150

5700 psig Pore Pressure

100
50
0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Cumulative Dry Gas Injection (P.V.)

Figure 5. Molecular weighr vs. cum dry gas injection.

1.2

C12+ Mole Fraction

0.8

Figure 5. Molecular weight of produced condensate.

0.6

6320 psig Pore Pressure

5700 psig Pore Pressure

0.4

0.2

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Cumulative Dry Gas Injection (P.V.)

Figure 6. Stack #1 - Condensate Vaporization Test, C12+ Mole Fraction Profile

Regain Permeability (% of average Kair)

100%
90%
At 6320 psig
80%

At 5700 psig

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Figure 7. Condensate vaporization Test, regain permeability versus Dry Gas injection.