SPE-187995-MS

Common Misinterpretations of Gas Condensate Reservoirs

Muhammad S. Abdallah, KFUPM1; Makki A. Al-Zawad, KFUPM; Michael L. Fraim2, KFUPM

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Annual Technical Symposium and Exhibition held in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, 24–27 April
2017.

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 o f 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
Geopressured gas reservoirs materialize as a result of a variety of factors, some of which include the rapid compaction of sand/shale
sequences and the uplift of sediment layers by a salt intrusion. These gas reservoirs are commonly characterized by a significant drop
in formation compressibility owing to the collapse of the rock matrix, and are notorious in the drilling and production industries for
the various problems they cause. This paper reviews the retrograde gas condensate production data presented in SPE-2938 (Duggan,
1972) with modern analysis tools to show that gas condensate banking can cause classic material balance analysis to mimic the shape
of a geopressured gas reservoir.

The condensation of liquid hydrocarbons below the dew-point in a gas reservoir, and the onset of water influx from a leaky fault can
complicate the material balance analysis of these reservoirs and may lead to engineers mistakenly classifying them for what they are
not. Failure to properly classify a gas reservoir may lead to an incorrect estimation of original gas in place (OGIP). Accurate
determination of initial gas in place is of utmost importance in the process of estimating gas reserves. A lower estimation of OGIP or
not accounting for condensate banking in low permeability zones may lead to early abandonment of a gas well or significant loss of
reserves for an operating company.

Results show that proper consideration of the two-phase Z-factor in the material balance calculations calculated via the constant
volume depletion test (CVD) leads to a more accurate determination of gas reserves, in addition, the change in formation
compressibility is shown to be consolidated sandstone as opposed to geopressured rock matrix.

This paper aims to demonstrate a simplified procedure for the flow-after-flow well test of determining the effect of condensate drop-
out within the vicinity of the wellbore as the flowing bottom-hole pressure (BHP) drops below the dew-point pressure. Two-phase
pseudo pressure was calculated from a constant composition expansion (CCE) using Whitson’s Method (Whitson, 1983) for
condensate banking and measured gas composition. The classical Anderson “L” gas reservoir of the Mobil-David field in South Texas
(Duggan, 1972) was chosen as a case study.

Implementation of the proposed procedure will serve as an aid to gas reservoir engineers in properly classifying potential gas
condensate reservoirs.

Introduction
SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972) describes the Anderson “L” consolidated sandstone as being geopressured. The Anderson “L” sand is Frio
in age and its reservoir properties include a porosity of 24%, permeability ranging from 0.7 to 791 mD, an initial gas saturation of
65% and a net gas pay thickness of 75 ft. Moreover, recorded initial BHP was approximately 9,507 psia with a bottom-hole
temperature of 266°F. Table 1 summarizes the remaining reservoir data. Sidewall cores are available from Well-A and Well-B in the
fault block. The cores were taken between a depth of 11,255-11,346 ft from Well-A, and between 11,118-11,166 ft in Well-B. Table#6
(reproduced as Table 2 here) of SPE-2938 summarizes the sidewall core analysis (Duggan, 1972).

The geopressured reservoirs in Texas tend to have a pressure gradient that is far greater than 0.45 psi/ft to prevent normal
compaction processes. We investigated to find evidence of reservoir compaction or surface subsidence, and found no evidence that
the Frio sands were indeed geopressured. There was no evidence of subsidence from compaction of the Frio sands 50 years later (first
production in 1960’s) during the life of the wells in the fault block or the surrounding fault blocks. Looking at the gas production

1 Department of Petroleum Engineering, College of Petroleum Engineering & Geosciences, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals.
2 Corresponding Author (fraim@kfupm.edu.sa).
SPE-187995-MS 2

from surrounding wells shows no production of friable sand from the perforated intervals and many drilling logs show the Frio
formation to be quite strong and competent. The same Frio sand extends all the way to Louisiana, and there exists no evidence of
well subsidence over there as well. The entire 400 km2 of the old seashore did not demonstrate reservoir compaction, which would
translate to surface subsidence. Therefore, we investigated other factors that would give a p/Z curve shape similar to abnormally
pressured reservoirs.

We examined the possibility of mistakenly classifying a reservoir as a geopressured reservoir if the source of the pressure support is
not properly understood. In case of a gas condensate reservoir, several errors compiled into the formation compressibility would
lead to the shape of the p/Z curve to resemble a geopressured reservoir. One of the main errors outlined in this paper is performing
material balance calculations using a single-phase Z-factor correlation below the dew-point of the reservoir when the measured C6+
gas composition is decreasing with time. Using a single-phase Z-factor correlation would not consider the C6+ rich liquid that is
condensing from the gaseous phase as the flowing BHP drops below the dew-point pressure of the gas condensate as highlighted in
SPE-2938’s gas composition versus average reservoir pressure. Gas condensate reservoirs are common in a large part of the world
today. With shale “gas” and shale “volatile oil” production today, it is becoming more of a necessity to understand how to properly
record composition, rate and pressure data for retrograde gas condensate reservoirs.

From numerical simulation results, the following three factors could give a p/Z curve shape similar to an abnormally pressured
reservoir:
 Liquid drop-out within the vicinity of the wellbore (also known as condensate banking).
 Well interference from other production wells in the fault block.
 Liquid level and crossflow between layers during shut-in of well.

The gas compressibility correction factor, more commonly known as the Z-factor, is essential for estimating the initial gas reserves
using the p/Z plots. The utilization of the two-phase Z-factor is important to account for the energy loss by the liquid drop-out that
occurs in the reservoir. Two-phase Z-factor provides a more accurate estimation of initial gas in place for analyzing cumulative gas
production below the dew-point from a gas condensate reservoir. The two-phase Z-factor is normally determined from a CVD test
performed in the laboratory. However, to account for layering and build-up test conditions, a compositional simulator package is
used to history match the complete rate, composition, and pressure data. Compositional simulation was not available to Duggan at
the time of writing SPE-2938.

The difficulty in dealing with gas condensate reservoirs occurs when the liquid that has dropped out of the gaseous phase forms a
condensate bank around the wellbore. This phenomenon influences the relative permeability of the gas phases and leads to a
reduction of gas relative permeability in the condensate bank. Furthermore, the liquid condensate (water and hydrocarbon) will
increase the hydrostatic gradient and friction pressure gradient and reduce gas flow rate over time. In fact, continual reduction of
the pressure will lead to condensate accumulating in the bottom portion of the production tubing. This phenomenon, called liquid
hold-up, will lead to the gas well logging-off if excessive condensate accumulates. Eventually, at some average reservoir pressure,
the gas flow rate will drop below the minimum lift velocity, causing permanent abandonment of a gas well.

This paper aims to demonstrate a simplified procedure of accounting for the effect of the condensate bank within the vicinity of the
wellbore as the flowing BHP drops below the dew-point pressure. The Computer Modelling Group (CMG)’s WinProp module was
utilized to simulate a CVD as well as a CCE. Two-phase pseudo pressure was calculated using Whitson’s Method (Whitson, 1983)
for condensate banking and gas compositions available in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972).

Methodology
A CVD was simulated by use of the CMG-WinProp module. The liquid drop-out curve was then extracted and plotted and maximum
liquid drop-out noted. The static and flowing BHPs were calculated by use of the average temperature and Z-factor method, outlined
in the Gas Reservoir Engineering textbook (Lee & Wattenbarger, 1996), modified according to the static and flowing temperature
profiles presented in Figure 5. The material balance p/Z analysis was conducted using three different methods for calculating the Z-
factor. Next, the gas pseudo pressure function proposed by Al-Hussainy et al. (Al-Hussainy, Ramey, & Crawford, 1966) was
evaluated and used to re-plot the flow-after-flow curves presented in SPE-2938. The reservoir was re-constructed by use of the CMG-
Builder module and forecasted to abandonment in 1977. Lastly, the drawdown and build-up well tests were replicated with
numerical simulation to determine what Duggan would have done to estimate average reservoir pressure. Build-up tests were
analyzed and the middle time region extrapolated to average reservoir pressure and compared to the average reservoir pressure
obtained from the model. The results confirmed that the extrapolated average reservoir pressure does indeed curve down, below the
dew-point pressure.

Constant Volume Depletion (CVD)

One of the most important fluid properties to describing a gas condensate at reservoir and production conditions is matching the gas
and liquid volumes and compositions versus pressure and temperature. In the local Texas area, the gas condensate API gravity did
increase with time and had similar trends so we assumed the initial gas composition in the fault block was constant across the
reservoir volume. When matching the gas condensate properties, it is very important to match the dew-point, the slope of the line
from the dew-point and the maximum liquid drop-out. In Table 3, the initial gas composition was from Well-A, while the PVT test
composition seems to be from up-dip Well-B.

Since this paper was very old, our first approximation was to look at modern offset production gas analysis in the area, but we found
SPE-187995-MS 3

gas compositions after production below dew-point because we noticed the API gravity of the condensate had already started to
increase with time. We at least estimated a Whitson’s characterization factor of 11.8 from the produced API gravity and molecular
weight of the C7+ fraction. The next approximation was to match the trend of the C6+ in the produced gas composition versus average
reservoir pressure for the CVD test. Then, to improve the match we looked at a three-layer radial model to better approximate the
two pseudo components to represent the C7+ fraction. The analogy used was based on Whitson’s method on characterization factor,
Kw, of C7+ fractions (Whitson, 1983). The Whitson characterization factor used was approximately 11.5 for C7+ to match the liquid
drop-out in the field production. The final two pseudo components were C10 and C14 with approximately one paraffin ring to match
the API trend of the produced condensate, the dew-point and the maximum liquid drop-out volume ratio.

The CVD results were validated by using the initial composition from the paper to run the CVD test. The dew-point and liquid drop-
out volume ratio were matched as well by altering the hydrocarbon-hydrocarbon (HC-HC) interaction coefficient from the heavier
pseudo components that were utilized until the methane component CH4. The molecular weights of these components helped to
match the parameters within reasonable tolerance. Finally, the pressure stops that were used were obtained from SPE-2938, then a
normal CVD test (500 psia increments) was conducted from the final recorded pressure of 3247 psia to 500 psia. The pressure stops
were used to check the data and ensure everything was running smoothly. Table 4 outlines the results of the CVD test. Moreover,
Figure 2 shows a comparison of the CVD results against the wellstream analysis data presented in Table 3. The initial scatter in well
stream composition is due to taking samples from Well-A (down-dip) and Well-B (up-dip) in the reservoir and the scatter later in the
well life is due to flow from layers with different depletion levels as determined from the numerical simulation of the reservoir.

Liquid Drop-Out Volume Ratio

The liquid drop-out curve helps provide valuable information regarding the relative saturations of the phases that are present in the
reservoir as the reservoir depletes. From Whitson and Kuntadi (Whitson & Kuntadi, 2005), the krgµo/kroµg ratio follows the CCE liquid
drop-out curve due to the multiple pore volumes of condensing gas flowing through the near wellbore volume. Moreover, the gas
saturation of the condensate bank also follows the krgµo/kroµg ratio. The volume of produced gas times the liquid drop-out at wellbore
pressure is used to estimate the total condensate volume, then the average krgµo/kroµg is used to calculate the produced condensate
volume. The remaining volume is used to calculate the condensate bank volume, and finally the skin is estimated using the krgµo/kroµg
curve and the outer radius of the condensate bank. The condensate bank location is required when matching the build-up tests or
the flow-after-flow well tests. The stabilized condensate saturation is also useful when calculating the multi-phase pseudo pressure
function that accounts for gas relative permeability changes.

Note, for hot deep wells the produced water vapor (1-4%) in the natural gas is generated from the near wellbore volume. Therefore,
as the water saturation is reduced near wellbore, the liquid condensate replaces the liquid volume for flowing pressures below dew-
point. As shown in Figure 4, the gas/liquid relative permeability ratio is not affected by the loss of initial brine saturation during the
core experiment for both Knopp (Knopp, 1965) data set and our data set. From numerical simulation runs, we determined that the
relevant range of the curve was for gas saturations greater than 50%. As time progresses, the heavy components in the liquid will be
attracted to the pore surface and there will be shift in wettability towards oil-wet, which in turn, reduces gas relative permeability.

Numerical simulation showed that the CVD liquid drop-out volumetric ratio follows the krgµo/kroµg ratio and saturation beyond
average reservoir pressure to pressure at the boundary. Therefore, the CVD results were used in the material balance analysis and
are discussed below. We also found the CCE liquid drop-out volumetric ratio follows the krgµo/kroµg ratio and saturation between
wellbore pressure and the average reservoir pressure. This is an important point, because it allows estimation of the condensate bank
areal extent around the wellbore.

Static & Flowing Bottom-Hole Pressure Calculation

It seems Duggan used the single-phase Z-factor correlation, which was available at the time, in his calculations of the Z-factor. This
can be verified by comparing the results he tabulated in SPE-2938 with values obtained using the Standing and Katz (Standing &
Katz, 1942) single-phase Z-factor correlation. The deviation of the static BHP, in comparison to values reported in the paper, below
the dew-point tells us that there may exist a liquid level at the bottom of the casing. This liquid level would have formed during the
build-up of Well-A. When the well was shut-in, the liquid that accumulated on the side of the tubing would have fallen down to the
bottom and filled the casing. His composition would have been slightly heavier than actuality. The calculations outlined here are
believed to offer a better representation of what actually happened in the reservoir.

The calculation of static BHP was adopted from Lee and Wattenbarger’s SPE Gas Reservoir Engineering textbook (Lee &
Wattenbarger, 1996). The average temperature and Z-factor method for BHFP calculations assumes that the Z-factor and the
temperature can be represented with an average value calculated at the average of surface temperature and BHT and surface pressure
and BHP. With this assumption, Eq. 4.25 in the textbook is rearranged to yield:
2
53.34 𝑇𝑍 6.67 × 10−4 𝑓 𝑇𝑍 2
𝑑𝑝 = − [cos 𝜃 + ( ) (𝑞𝑔 ) ] 𝑑𝐿 (1)
𝛾𝑔 𝑝 𝑑5 𝑝
Further, if we multiply the numerator and denominator on the left side by p2 and apply the limits of integration, we have:
𝑝𝑡𝑓 𝐿
𝑝𝑑𝑝 𝛾𝑔
∫ =− ∫ cos 𝜃 𝑑𝐿
2 2
6.67 × 10−4 𝑓𝑇 𝑍 𝑞𝑔2 53.34𝑇𝑍 (2)
𝑝𝑤𝑓 0
[𝑝2 + ]
𝑑5 cos 𝜃
Numerical studies of the right hand side of Eq. (2) showed that assuming average value for average 𝑇𝑍 product was equivalent to
SPE-187995-MS 4

assuming linear change between the integration limits. Numerical studies of the left hand side Eq. (2) showed that assuming linear
2 2
change 𝑇 𝑍 product versus p2 is equivalent to integrating the chord slope between integration points. The integration error ranges
by ±1.5% for the entire well interval, but usually approaches 0 for multi-step integration intervals (3 steps).

The final form of the approximation is:

2
(𝑎 − 𝑏𝑝𝑤𝑓 )(𝑒 −𝑠𝑏 − 1)
2
𝑝𝑡𝑓 2
= 𝑝𝑤𝑓 𝑒 −𝑠𝑏 + (3)
𝑏
Where:
0.0375𝛾𝑔 𝐿 cos 𝜃
𝑠=
𝑇𝑍
2 2
6.67 × 10−4 𝑓𝑇𝑤𝑓 𝑍𝑤𝑓 𝑞𝑔2
𝑎=
𝑑5 cos 𝜃
6.67 × 10−4 𝑓𝑞𝑔2 2 2 2 2
(𝑇𝑤𝑓 𝑍𝑤𝑓 − 𝑇𝑡𝑓 𝑍𝑡𝑓 )
𝑏 =1+ 𝑑5 cos 𝜃
2 2
𝑝𝑤𝑓 − 𝑝𝑡𝑓
Moreover, the Chen (1979) friction factor equation is given as:
1 𝜖 5.0452 1 𝜖 1.1098 5.8506
= 4 log [ − log ( ( ) 0.8981 ) ] (4)
√𝑓 3.706𝑑 𝑁𝑅𝑒 2.8257 𝑑 𝑁𝑅𝑒
Where:
𝜖 = 0.0006 (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑔𝑎𝑠); 0.0023 (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑤𝑒𝑡 𝑔𝑎𝑠)
20𝛾𝑔 𝑞𝑔
𝑁𝑅𝑒 =
𝜇𝑔 𝑑
The calculation procedure involved three steps from the wellhead to the bottom of the well. The average Z-factor was calculated
using the Hall-Yarborough (Hall & Yarborough, 1973) equation-of-state (HAY-EOS) that had been programmed via Microsoft’s
Visual Basic for Applications (VBA). The average viscosity was calculated using Carr et al.’s correlation for viscosity (Carr, Burrows,
& Kobayashi, 1954).

Figure 5 below shows the temperature profile that was used in the calculation of the static and flowing BHPs. For a single perforated
interval, static or flowing temperature profile, the following approximate equations were used:

Static Temperature Profile:

𝐵𝐻𝑇 − 𝑇𝑠
𝑇=( ) × 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ + 𝑇𝑠
𝑇𝑉𝐷 (5)

Flowing Temperature Profile:

𝑇𝑠𝑝𝑓 − 𝐵𝐻𝑇
𝑇=( ) (𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ − 𝑇𝑉𝐷)2 + 𝐵𝐻𝑇
𝑇𝑉𝐷 2 (6)

For big deep gas wells, the above methods have less than 3-5% error from surface to bottom hole. For multiple perforated zones, we
assumed temperature profile starts from the top zone. Actual measured temperatures from production logging tool is preferred but
not always available for all production rates and for very low flow rates, it would be better to interpolate between known curves.

Reynolds number (NRe) and the gas production rate were set to zero for calculating the pressure at static conditions. Otherwise, b is
assumed to be 1.1 for first guess of the iteration at each temperature step. The flow equations are acceptable for flow lines unless
there is a low spot for condensate liquid hold-up. Then, a drift flux model can be used on the large diameter pipeline in up-hill
segments.

The shut-in surface tubing pressures tabulated in the paper were used to calculate the static BHP as shown in Figure 6. The shut-in
tubing pressure is usually measured at the wellhead. Therefore, it is assumed accurate. The inside tubing diameter was calculated to
be 2.441 inches, since “2-inch diameter tubing” could not flow the gas to the surface with actual production rates and measured
average reservoir pressure as stated in SPE-2938. The rest of the data is available in Table 1. We feel the initial pressure of 9,507 psia
is from up-dip Well-B as defined in SPE-2938. The calculated pressure of 9,555 psia is for down-dip Well-A in the middle of the zone.
Note, from Table 7 the error in calculated shut-in pressure exceeds 1% when the flowing BHP falls below dew-point pressure. We
could not verify if the author reported both Well-A and B in the test data table. The average gas rate would not be representative if
the well rate had been increased to meet peak demand in summer or winter, which would temporarily drop the BHP below dew-
point.

Both surface and flowing BHPs were not presented in the paper. The flowing BHP can be used to match history or forecast future
production. Moreover, the flowing BHP equation can also be used to determine when the well will log-off due to excessive liquid
hold-up. We estimated that during the shut-in, approximately 200 ft of liquid condensate would collect in the bottom of the well.
The drop of liquid can temporarily increase BHP until the liquid bleeds off into the formation.

The well drawdown pressure above dew-point was assumed to be 20% as stated in SPE-2938, subsequent runs matched the
production. 1,000 psi surface line pressure was assumed below the dew-point as stated in SPE-2938. After 1970, surface line pressure
was reduced to 700 psi according to SPE-2938 (compression was installed to prevent the gas wells from logging off).
SPE-187995-MS 5

The gas production rate for Well-A was calculated by taking 2/5th of the delta cumulative gas production divided by the time step
size, since Well-A cumulative production was approximately 2/5th of the total field production as stated in SPE-2938.

Material Balance - p/Z Plots

The p/Z is commonly assumed to represent the average pressure for the gas reservoir. However, in actuality it represents the average
pressure for the drainage area of that particular well. Fetkovich has shown that the drainage area for most gas wells in communication
with reservoir permeability above 1 mD are proportional to gas production rate divided by the permeability-thickness product (kh)
(Fetkovich, 1980). Therefore, p/Z plots from different wells within the same reservoir would give results for different OGIP. The p/Z
curve shape is greatly influenced by pressure interference from other wells, pressure support from an aquifer, and incomplete or
improperly extrapolated average reservoir pressure from build-up tests.

In order to calculate the Z-factor, we used the HAY-EOS (1973), which is close to the Peng-Robinson (Peng & Robinson, 1976) from
CMG-WinProp. HAY-EOS is recommended in the literature for high pressure high temperature (HPHT) gas condensate reservoirs
(Blasingame and Rushing, 2005). The literature also shows HAY-EOS to be better for estimating the Z-factor for deep gas condensate
with water vapor. The p/Zs were plotted against the cumulative gas production tabulated in SPE-2938.

The following methods for calculating Z-factors were used:

 Z-factor assuming initial composition as the pressure depletes (most likely used by Duggan).
 Z-factor taking into account the gas composition changing as the pressure depletes (the gas compositions were obtained
from the CVD test).
 Z-factor taking into account the liquid dropping out of the gas below the dew-point from the CVD test.

Three different p/Z plots were made:

 Figure 7 shows the plot of p/Z vs. Gp with no corrections and the extrapolation is made using the Gp2 estimation technique
(Blasingame & Rushing, 2005). The p/Z curve has the classic shape of an abnormally pressured reservoir with high formation
compressibility. Note that Blasingame’s method is an accurate estimation of original gas in place (OGIP) that brackets our
actual simulation match OGIP of 72,400 MMcf. Assuming initial gas composition for Z factor calculation will generally slightly
over estimate OGIP and assuming variable composition and two-phase Z factors will slightly underestimate the OGIP as
compared to the numerical simulation match. The initial formation compressibility to “straighten” the p/Z curve is
approximately five times the core compressibility in Yale et al.’s data set.
 Figure 8 shows the plot of p/Z with the Ramagost correction vs. Gp using Eq. (7). All Z factor calculation methods under
estimate the OGIP as compared to the numerical simulation match.

𝑝 𝑝 (𝑆𝑤𝑖 𝑐𝑤 + 𝑐𝑓 )(Δ𝑝)
= ( )
𝑍 𝑍 1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑖 (7)

 Figure 9 shows the p/Z plot constructed with the modified Ramagost correction [Eq. (8)] vs. Gp. This method considers the
change in formation compressibility using the chord slope method that has been outlined by Yale et al. (Yale, Nabor, Russell,
Pham, & Yousef, 1993). The formation compressibility function was picked from Yale et al., which is what is quoted in the SPE
Gas Reservoir Engineering textbook (Lee & Wattenbarger, 1996) for the Frio sands. This estimation method provides the best
fit of the data and the two-phase Z factor calculation from the CVD test estimates the OGIP closest to the numerical model
match. Even though a good match of the recorded data in SPE-2938 was generated, we still needed to answer why the initial
formation compressibility factor was twice the core compressibility factor.

𝑑𝑐𝑓
(𝑆𝑤𝑖 𝑐𝑤 + (𝑐𝑓 + Δ𝑝 )) Δ𝑝
𝑝 𝑝 𝑑𝑝
= (8)
𝑍 𝑍 1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑖
( )

Gas Pseudo Pressure Function Calculation

The gas pseudo function considers the viscosity and the compressibility change as pressure decreases. Two-phase Z-factor would
additionally consider the formation of the liquid phase as the pressure is dropped below the dew-point. If Whitson’s method is used,
it considers the gas and condensate relative permeability as well. The calculations of the gas pseudo function using the different Z-
factors are outlined below (Dake, 1977).

The Al-Hussainy, Ramey, Crawford solution technique was used to calculate the real gas pseudo pressure. In their methodology, the
authors tried to linearize the basic flow equation, using the following version of the Kirchhoff integral transformation (Al-Hussainy,
Ramey, & Crawford, 1966):
SPE-187995-MS 6

𝑝
𝑝
𝑀(𝑝) = 2 ∫ 𝑑𝑝 (9)
𝜇𝑍
𝑝𝑜
The limits of integration are between a base pressure, po, and the pressure of interest, p. The value of the base pressure is arbitrary
since in using the transformation only differences in pseudo pressures are considered. Figure 10 shows pseudo pressure plot for the
three different Z factor assumptions (initial composition, variable composition and two-phase Z factor).

Eq. (10) shows the Fevang and Whitson (Fevang & Whitson, 1996) real gas pseudo pressure function. Note, the limits of integration
have changed to flowing BHP, pwf, and average reservoir pressure, 𝑝̅ . The integration becomes a radial or linear composite when the
BHP falls below the dew-point in the wellbore and in the fracture.
𝑝̅
𝜌𝑜 𝑘𝑟𝑜 𝜌𝑔 𝑘𝑟𝑔
𝑀(𝑝) = 2 ∫ ( + ) 𝑑𝑝 (10)
𝜇𝑜 𝑍𝑜 𝜇𝑔 𝑍𝑔
𝑝𝑤𝑓

It is advantageous to express all flow equations in terms of these pseudo pressures rather than in the p2 formulation of Russell and
Goodrich (Russell, Goodrich, Perry, & Bruskotter, 1966). However, theoretically it is more difficult and generally engineers feel more
comfortable dealing the p2 rather than an integral transformation.

Flow-After-Flow Plots
Figure 11 shows the original flow-after-flow tests recorded in the paper that we estimated to be Well-A. It is very difficult to
determine skin factor change or trend from pressure squared representation of the flow-after-flow test data. However, it was the best
available method at the time for estimating the total manifold or field deliverability.

As demonstrated in Figure 12, the collapse of the production curve for Well-A is quite remarkable. The initial or early time flow-after-
flow test shows the effect of drilling fluid invasion that cleans up by the next flow-after-flow test. The last flow-after-flow test shows
some form of skin damage. Using normal capillary pressure curves for sandstone, we could not model any form of water block in
the numerical model of the Frio formation as suggested might be the root cause of permanent damage to the low pressure offset gas
wells in the paper. We also checked the case of bottom water migration, which would cause permanent water block in a gas well
even after swabbing.

CMG-GEM will model precipitation reactions and solid precipitation will permanently block the gas production even after swabbing.
Therefore, we believe the chloride ion content increasing the condensate production as reservoir pressure depletes, as cited in SPE-
2938, would increase the iron ion content in the liquid hold-up brine in carbon steel tubing over six months of exposure. As shown
in the model results below, we think the root cause is the iron ion flash precipitating with the dry salts in the near wellbore region
when the well is shut-in for the annual state required build-up test. There is no way to verify this statement since the wells are
plugged and abandoned, but we could look at a modern near depleted Frio sand gas wells in the area.

Construction & Simulation of Reservoir Model using CMG-Builder

The Anderson “L” sand was re-constructed by use of a 6300 ft by 7500 ft Cartesian grid system with square grid block of dimensions
300 ft by 300 ft. The empty portions of the reservoir model were filled with null blocks. The density of grid blocks close to the wellbore
was refined to capture the formation of the condensate bank. Radial grid blocks close to the wellbore would not have been able to
illustrate properly the formation of the condensate bank because flow was near linear from two sides. The dimensions of the grid
blocks within the vicinity of the wellbores varied from 60 ft by 60 ft to 7 ft by 7 ft as the radius, r, approached wellbore radius, rw. The
grid tops and total thickness were input into CMG-Builder as per Figure 1, which was provided in SPE-2938. The constructed reservoir
model, displaying grid tops, is shown in Figure 13.

The Frio sand package was approximated with three layers based on modern offset logs in the area. The average thickness of 100 ft
was a proportion to 5 ft, 60 ft, and 35 ft for layers 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For layer 1, the average horizontal permeability was set to
30 mD around Well-A, 200 mD around Well-B and 90 mD around Well-C, to match the average gas production rate and estimated
surface production pressure. The horizontal permeability for layers 2 and 3 were set to 5 mD and 1.4 mD, respectively, to match the
average formation permeability above the dew-point. The vertical permeability was estimated to be 0.01 times the horizontal
permeability based on shale content of offset logs.

The simulation started when Well-A was drilled in 1966 to abandonment of all three wells in 1977. Figure 14 shows top and cross-
sectional views of the formation of the condensate bank around the wellbores in 1973. It should be noted that the condensate bank
that formed around Well-A was much larger than the ones that formed around Well-B and Well-C. This is due to more gas being
produced below the dew-point in Well-A. This can also be attributed to the effect of well interference within the Anderson “L” fault
block. Initially when Well-A came online the other two wells were yet to be drilled, consequently Well-A did not experience well
interference until a later stage when Well-B came online. This effect can be seen in Figure 14 in the bottom right corner of the
condensate bank that formed around Well-A (top view). Well-B displayed a smaller condensate bank due to interference from Well-
A, whereas Well-C displayed the smallest condensate bank due to interference from both Well-A and Well-B and it produced the
least amount of gas above the dew-point.

The right most column of Figure 14 shows the cross-sectional view of the formation of the condensate bank around the wellbores. It
is apparent that the highest permeability layer (30 mD, 200mD, & 90 mD for Well-A, B, and C, respectively) formed the largest
SPE-187995-MS 7

condensate bank, whereas the lowest permeability layer (1.4 mD) formed the smallest one.

Lastly, the last row of Figure 14 illustrates the water saturation around Well-A. It can be concluded from this result, that the formation
water around the wellbore is vaporizing to supply the water vapor for the natural gas flowing to the wellbore. As the water is
removed from the pore space, it is immediately replaced by the condensate that condensed out of the gaseous hydrocarbon phase.
The long-term occupation of the pore space by the condensate causes the rock matrix to become more oil-wet. When the well is shut-
in, the liquid hold-up on the tubing wall falls to the bottom. As the gas pressure builds up in the wellbore, the liquid is pushed into
the highest permeability layer first. If there is a saturated salt ion such as iron in the brine, it will most likely precipitate as the brine
dissolves the additional salt in the pore space around the near wellbore volume.

Duggan states that water influx flowing from shutting-in the gas well causes permanent productivity loss in offset wells when the
chloride content increases in the brine. We could not numerically replicate this event because the brine would simply evaporate near
wellbore and leave the salt. However, examination of current brine production with current Frio gas wells shows a 30+ ppm iron
ion content. There is a distinct possibility that the iron ion will flash precipitate in the near wellbore volume and permanently plug
the formation where no gas would be produced even when the well is swab to remove the liquid level and vented to atmosphere as
stated in SPE-2938. We reason this is the most likely cause of the permanent skin damage when 28,000+ TDS brine is flush into the
reservoir versus the fresh water condensate measured in the early life of the gas well.

The analytical material balance p/Z extrapolation of the individual wells leads to three different OGIP for each respective well. The
OGIP of all three wells along with the sum of all three have been reported in Figure 15. It should be noted that the summation of the
OGIPs from each of the three wells does not add up the actual model OGIP. This is due to well interference, from the other producing
wells within the vicinity, masking the contribution of the low permeability layer (1.4 mD) during the build-up. When one of the wells
is shut-in for a build-up test, the other well’s drainage area would begin to expand in the highest permeability layer and counter the
pressure increase of the shut-in well for the lowest permeability layer. This phenomenon would not allow the build-up to extrapolate
to the correct average reservoir pressure, and hence the material balance p/Z extrapolation would not extrapolate to the correct OGIP
for the entire field. Moreover, we also determined that Well-A’s p/Z curve did change slope when the other wells were put on
production. Therefore, when Duggan added the production from the total field to Well-A, it looks like a change in formation
compressibility as discussed in the previous section.

Flow-After-Flow Model Simulation

Figure 16 displays four curves. Two are for the actual flow-after-flow test, and the other two are the stabilized curves above and
below dew-point. For the single-phase (or above dew-point) flow-after-flow, the stabilized curve will be below the flow-after-flow
due to the layering and well interference effects. This is because we are using average reservoir pressure from the radial extrapolation.
The gas pseudo pressure function is calculated by use of the variable composition Z factor as discussed previously. This is in contrast
to the single layer bounded reservoir that is normally presented in the SPE Gas Reservoir Engineering textbook (Lee & Wattenbarger,
1996). The analysis presented in the textbook uses material balance average reservoir pressure. However, we used radially
extrapolated average reservoir pressure, which is lower than the material balance reservoir pressure. Moreover, we used the average
reservoir pressure at the end of the time step. This causes the stabilized flow curve to fall below the flow-after-flow instead of above.

The flow-after-flow below dew-point rises above the single-phase flow-after-flow curve due to the extra skin effect of the liquid
saturation. The Whitson approximation cannot account for the transient saturation around the wellbore; therefore, it appears as if
we have an extra skin. The Whitson approximation is designed for stabilized production. The stabilized production curve falls below
the flow-after-flow curve due to using the radial extrapolated average reservoir pressure as well.

The reason for plotting the flow-after-flow model results with the radial extrapolated average reservoir pressure, is because this
information is generally available to the operator for individual well analysis. The average reservoir pressure determined for the
drainage area of the well usually needs to be calculated with numerical reservoir modelling.

Radial Extrapolation Model Results

The purpose of examining the model results was to determine the effects of well interference on the radially extrapolated average
reservoir pressure in a multi-layered system with gas condensate production. Figure 17 shows five radial extrapolations through the
history of Well-A. Note, the pseudo pressure was also calculated with variable composition. Three of these are above dew-point and
two of them are below dew-point. For the three curves above the dew-point, we show that the initial shut-in and the shut-in before
Well-B interference effects do overlay each other. The third curve demonstrates that the radial extrapolation will not overlay due to
the interference of both Well-B and Well-C. We attempted to correct our radially extrapolated average reservoir pressure to actual
average reservoir pressure using the Matthews-Brons-Hazebroek (MBH) method, however we found that the shape of the drainage
area is not constant as a function of time for this relatively simple reservoir case. Hence, our flow-after-flow plots to do not conform
to expected single layer results.

We showed two additional curve for production below the dew-point. The steepest slope is formed when the BHP is near the
maximum liquid drop-out pressure, which would generate the maximum liquid saturation around the wellbore. The second curve
is shown for production below the maximum liquid drop-out pressure where some of the liquid would re-vaporize into the gaseous
phase as it approaches the wellbore (refer to Figure 3). This, in turn, reduces the slope of the radial extrapolation line.

For this radial composite case, there is a second middle time region that represents the permeability beyond the condensate bank.
SPE-187995-MS 8

The second line can provide a more accurate extrapolation to the actual reservoir pressure. However, due to boundary effects and
well interference the second radial flow region may not have enough points to provide an accurate radial extrapolation.

A pressure transient analysis (PTA) package can be used to solve this problem. However, this brings us back to numerically
modelling the entire reservoir.

Conclusions
We conclude that the reservoir was not an abnormally pressured reservoir due to the following three reasons:
 Model results show pressure interference and layering effects. The model results were history matched using the core
formation compressibility given by Yale et al. (Yale, Nabor, Russell, Pham, & Yousef, 1993).
 Condensate bank effects mask the true curve shape for all wells. Moreover, it decreases average reservoir pressure
estimation.
 The radial composite flow effectively adds an additional skin to the well.

Duggan was using the best available current technology for analysis and most likely could not perform the numerical modelling
available today. We suspect Duggan did not include the effects of well interference on the p/Z curves or the liquid drop-out as
flowing BHP drops below the dew-point pressure. The calculation may have been too coarse with the slide rule/adding machine at
the time. As a result, all errors were put into the formation compressibility, and thus this lead him to classify the reservoir as an
abnormally pressured reservoir according to the guidelines that were available at the time.

This research offers the following applications to the industry:

 Demonstration of the correct calculation of the MBE for gas condensate reservoirs.
 Superposition considerations for interference from other wells within the vicinity.
 Determine the extent of the condensate bank, so as to evaluate alternative means to increasing well productivity index.

Nomenclature
BHFP: bottom-hole flowing pressure, psia qg: gas flow rate, MMcf/day
BHP: bottom-hole pressure, psia r: radius, ft
BHT: bottom-hole temperature, °F rw: wellbore radius, ft
cf: formation compressibility, psi-1 R2: coefficient of determination, dimensionless
cw: water compressibility, psi-1 s: average temp. and Z-factor method parameter
d: tubing diameter, in. Swi: initial water saturation, fraction
f: Moody friction factor, dimensionless t: time, days
Gp: cumulative gas production, MMcf T: temperature, °F
GPM: gallons per thousand SCF of Gas, gal/1000 SCF 𝑇̅: average temperature, °R
kro: oil relative permeability, fraction Tavg: average temperature, °R
krg: gas relative permeability, fraction Ts: surface temperature, °F
Kw: Whitson characterisation factor, dimensionless Tspf: surface produced fluid temperature, °F
L: segment length, ft Ttf: flowing tubing temperature, °F
M(p): gas pseudo function, psia/cP Tts: static tubing temperature, °F
NRe: Reynolds number, dimensionless Tws: static bottom-hole temperature, °F
OGIP: original gas in place, MMcf Z: gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
p: pressure, psia 𝑍̅: average gas compressibility factor, dimensionless
p2: pressure squared, psia2 γg: gas specific gravity, fraction
𝑝̅ : average pressure, psia θ: well deviation angle, radians
pavg: average Pressure, psia ε: absolute pipe-wall roughness, in.
pd: dew-point pressure, psia µ: gas viscosity, cP
po: base pressure, psia µgavg: average gas viscosity, cP
ptf: flowing tubing pressure, psia ρ: fluid density, lbm/ft3
pwf: flowing bottom-hole pressure, psia

Acknowledgements
The authors thank King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals for their permission to present this paper. Moreover, the authors
would like to sincerely thank the entire Natural Gas Engineering class of the Fall 2016 Semester at KFUPM for contributing to the
completion of this work. Thanks goes to Najmudeen Sibaweihi (Lecturer, KFUPM) for conducting a tutorial on CMG-WinProp for
the students, Khalid L. Al-Samadony for initial help in calculation of the gas pseudo pressure function and construction of
temperature profile, and Ahmed Khaled El-Saed for initial help in calculation of static and flowing BHPs. Thanks also goes to Jaber
A. Al-Sheqiqi for help in construction of the reservoir model, and Ahmed Al-Hajari for initial help in matching of drawdown and
build-up tests via Ecrin. Special thanks is due to Sunil Kokal (Principal Consultant, Saudi Aramco) for his valuable feedback. Lastly,
thanks go to CMG for donating their software to the Department of Petroleum Engineering at KFUPM.
SPE-187995-MS 9

References
Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J., & Crawford, P. B. (1966). The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media. Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 18(5), 624-636. doi:10.2118/1243-A-PA

Blasingame, T. A., & Rushing, J. A. (2005). SPE Eastern Regional Meeting. SPE Eastern Regional Meeting. Morgantown, West
Virginia: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/98042-MS

Carr, N. L., Burrows, D. B., & Kobayashi, R. (1954). Viscosity of Hydrocarbon Gases Under Pressure. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
6(10), 47-55. doi:10.2118/297-G

Chen, N. H. (1979). An Explicit Equation for Friction Factor in Pipe. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals, 18(03), 296-
297.

Collins, G. (1975). Chapter 11. Geopressured Reservoirs. Developments in Petroleum Science, 1, 343-365. doi:10.1016/S0376-
7361(08)70204-8

Dake, L. (1977). Fundamentals of Reservoir Engineering. The Hague: Elsevier.

Duggan, J. O. (1972). The Anderson "L" - An Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoir in South Texas. Journal of Petroleum Technology,
24(02), 132-138. doi:10.2118/2938-PA

Fetkovich, M. J. (1980). Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 32(06), 1065-1077.
doi:10.2118/4629-PA

Fevang, Ø., & Whitson, C. H. (1996). Modeling Gas-Condensate Well Deliverability. SPE Reservoir Engineering, 11(04), 221-230.
doi:10.2118/30714-PA

Hall, K. R., & Yarborough, L. (1973). A New Equation of State for Z-Factor Calculations. Oil & Gas Journal, 71(25).

Harville, D. W., & Hawkins Jr., M. F. (1969). Rock Compressibility and Failure as Reservoir Mechanisms in Geopressured Gas
Reservoirs. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 21(12), 1528-1530. doi:10.2118/2500-PA

Knopp, C. R. (1965). Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Ratio Correlation from Laboratory Data. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 17(09),
1111-1122. doi:10.2118/963-PA

Lee, J., & Wattenbarger, R. A. (1996). Gas Reservoir Engineering. Richardson, TX: Society of Petroleum Engineers.

Peng, D. Y., & Robinson, D. B. (1976). A New Two-Constant Equation of State. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: Fundamentels,
15, 59-64. doi:10.1021/i160057a011

Ramagost, B. P., & Farshad, F. F. (1984). P/Z Abnormally Pressured Gas Reservoirs. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition.
San Antonio, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/10125-MS

Russell, D. G., Goodrich, J. H., Perry, G. E., & Bruskotter, J. F. (1966). Methods for Predicting Gas Well Performance. Journal of
Petroleum Technology, 18(01), 99-108. doi:10.2118/1242-PA

Shannak, B. A. (2008). Frictional pressure drop of gas liquid two-phase flow in pipes. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 238, 3277-
3284. doi:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.015

Standing, M. B., & Katz, D. L. (1942). Density of Natural Gases. American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers (pp. 140-149).
New York: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers Inc.

Whitson, C. H. (1983). Characterizing Hydrocarbon Plus Fractions. Journal of Petroleum Technology, 23(04), 683-694.
doi:10.2118/12233-PA

Whitson, C. H., & Kuntadi, A. (2005). Khuff Gas Condensate Development. International Petroleum Technology Conference. Doha,
Qatar: International Petroleum Technology Conference. doi:10.2523/IPTC-10692-MS

Yale, D. P., Nabor, G. W., Russell, J. A., Pham, H. D., & Yousef, M. (1993). Application of Variable Formation Compressibility for
Improved Reservoir Analysis. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition (pp. 435-450). Houston, Texas: Society of
Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/26647-MS
SPE-187995-MS 10

Tables & Figures

Figure 1 Anderson “L” sand, Mobil-David field. [Figure#01 in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972)]

Table 1 Reservoir data for Anderson “L” reservoir, Mobil-David field, Nueces County, Tex. [Table#3 in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972)]

Physical Properties
Age Frio
Depth, subsea, ft -11,167
Porosity, percent: 24
Permeability, mD 0.7 to 791
Original gas saturation, percent 65
Structural Features
Gas-water contact Unknown
Net gas pay thickness, ft. 75
Formation dip 10 to 15° to NW
Closure, ft. +466
Characteristics of Fluid Content
Gravity of gas and condensate °API
Initial, 12/65 0.942 54.1
Current, 3/70 0.801 61.7
Salinity of water, ppm NaCl 28,000
Estimated dew-point pressure, psia 6,118
Gas in place, Mcf/acre-ft 2,240
Pressures and Temperatures
Bottom-hoIe pressure, psia
Initial, 12/65 9,507
Current, 3/70 3,247
Pressure Gradient, lb/ft 0.843
Bottom-hole temperature, °F 266

Table 2 Sidewall core data for Well-A and Well-B. [Table#6 in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972)]

Well-A Well-B
Depth (ft) Permeability (mD) Porosity (%) Depth (ft) Permeability (mD) Porosity (%)
11255 12 18.8 11118 83 16.4
11278 14 23.9 11124 223 23.4
11308 13 N.A. 11137 791 24.1
11323 15 25.8 11144 186 22.5
11333 14 22.4 11157 39 23.0
11346 5 24.0 11166 15 20.9

Table 3 Wellstream Analysis. [Table#4 in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972)]

Mobil PVT Independent Testing Laboratory Tests

1966- 1966-
Test 1967- 1967- 1968- 1968- 1969- 1969- 1970- 1970- 1971- 1971-
Date of Test:
04-15 06-22 03-20 11-02 04-08 09-25 03-17 10-01 03-23 09-16 03-09 09-04
Wellstream, Mol %
Nitrogen 0.19 0.24 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.12 0.22 0.24
Carbon dioxide 0.63 0.50 0.25 0.56 0.60 0.55 0.62 0.66 0.61 0.69 0.67 0.64
Methane 79.72 79.79 79.64 79.85 79.85 80.75 80.99 81.22 82.2 84.51 84.03 84.05
Ethane 5.67 6.50 7.08 6.75 6.59 6.52 6 78 6.47 6.81 6.50 6.65 6.94
Propane 3.55 3.35 3.55 3.05 3.48 3.52 3.4 3.43 3.42 2.99 3.26 3.25
i-Butane 1.43 1.33 1.48 1.05 1.49 1.45 1.44 1.52 1.42 1.16 1.34 1.33
n-Butame 1.15 1.11 1.14 1.13 1.17 1.18 1.12 1.16 1.11 0.87 1.04 1.02
SPE-187995-MS 11

i-Pentane 0.54 0.73 0.71 1165 0.64 0.68 0.64 0.66 0.6 0.44 0.49 0.49
n-Pentane 0.47 0.45 0.42 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.44 0.33 0.33 0.34
Hexanes +, or 0.51 0.91 5.51 5.49 0.57 4 .59 4.34 4.23 3.19 2.39 1.97 1.70
Heptanes + 4.74 5.48 4.87
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Gallons per 1000 SCF
Wellstream gravity 0.942 0.969 0.926 0.933 0.926 0.816 0.063 0.655 0.801 0.757 0.755 0.732
Separator gravity 0.665 0.657 0.658 0.670 0.670 0.673 0.675 0.675 0.674 0.682 0.690 0.675
Stock-tank GPM 3.658 3.587 3.216 3.406 3.494 3.321 2.644 2.519 1.795 1.020 0.912 0.801
Condensate, °API 54.1 N.A. 54.7 54.7 54.7 57.1 56.9 60.9 62.7 60.0 60.1 60.0
Propane 0.974 0.921 0.985 0.949 0.951 0.965 0.933 0.941 0.935 0.820 0.894 0.891
i-Butane 0.466 0.433 0.482 0.472 0.486 0.472 0.469 0.495 0.452 0.378 0.437 0.433
n-Butame 0.361 0.349 0.358 0.355 0.367 0.370 0.352 0.364 0.348 0.273 0.327 0.320
i-Pentane 0.233 0.266 0.258 0.240 0.233 0.247 0.233 0.240 0.218 0.160 0.178 0.178
n-Pentane 0.170 0.162 0.151 0.169 0.162 0.169 0.166 0.166 0.158 0.119 0.119 0.122
Hexanes +, or 0.331 0.372 3.152 3.105 0.274 2.528 2.383 2.255 1.646 1.227 1.019 0.885
Heptanes + 2.874 3.113 2.833
Total GPM 5.409 5.616 5.386 5.290 5.309 4.751 4.536 4.461 3.768 2.977 2.974 2.829
BHP, psia 9162 8970 7603 6480 5630 4710 4395 3720 3247 N.A. N.A. N.A.

10
WellStreamAnalysis (N2)
WellStreamAnalysis (CO2)
WellStreamAnalysis (C2H6)
WellStreamAnalysis (C3H8)
WellStreamAnalysis (IC4)
WellStreamAnalysis (NC4)
WellStreamAnalysis (IC5)
Mol %

1
WellStreamAnalysis (NC5)
CVD (N2)
CVD (CO2)
CVD (C2H6)
CVD (C3H8)
CVD (IC4)
CVD (NC4)

0.1 CVD (IC5)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 CVD (NC5)
Bottom-Hole Pressure (psia)

Figure 2 Comparison of CVD results and Wellstream Analysis.

SPE-187995-MS 12

Table 4 CVD results obtained from CMG-WinProp.

Pressure (psia) 9507 9292 9162 8970 8595 8332 8009 7603 7406 7002 6721 6535 6480 6125.6
Component
N2 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
CO2 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63
CH4 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72 79.72
C2H6 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67
C3H8 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55 3.55
IC4 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.43
NC4 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
IC5 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64
NC5 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47
FC6 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
FC10 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
FC14 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44
Single-Phase Z-factor 1.4654 1.444 1.4311 1.412 1.3747 1.3486 1.3166 1.2764 1.2569 1.2172 1.1897 1.1715 1.1662 1.1319
Two-Phase Z-factor 1.4654 1.444 1.4311 1.412 1.3747 1.3486 1.3166 1.2764 1.2569 1.2172 1.1897 1.1715 1.1662 1.1319
Liquid Drop-Out % HCPV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pressure (psia) 6118 5764 5630 4766 4710 4295 3750 3720 3247 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
Component Dew Point
N2 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.19
CO2 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.67 0.67
CH4 79.74 80.58 80.85 82.2 82.27 82.74 83.25 83.27 83.61 83.75 83.97 84.07 83.99 83.61 82.48
C2H6 6.67 6.68 6.69 6.72 6.72 6.74 6.76 6.76 6.79 6.8 6.84 6.88 6.95 7.05 7.19
C3H8 3.55 3.53 3.52 3.49 3.49 3.49 3.48 3.48 3.48 3.49 3.5 3.54 3.6 3.72 3.96
IC4 1.43 1.41 1.41 1.38 1.38 1.37 1.36 1.36 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.37 1.39 1.46 1.62
NC4 1.15 1.13 1.13 1.1 1.1 1.09 1.08 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.1 1.16 1.31
IC5 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.6 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.57 0.61 0.72
NC5 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.4 0.4 0.41 0.43 0.52
FC6 0.81 0.78 0.77 0.72 0.72 0.7 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.62 0.66 0.83
FC10 1.3 1.17 1.13 0.91 0.9 0.8 0.69 0.68 0.59 0.55 0.46 0.39 0.33 0.31 0.37
FC14 3.42 2.8 2.6 1.62 1.57 1.23 0.89 0.87 0.64 0.54 0.37 0.26 0.18 0.13 0.12
Single-Phase Z-factor 1.1313 1.0936 1.0807 1.0107 1.0069 0.9806 0.9525 0.9511 0.933 0.9258 0.9166 0.915 0.9216 0.9369 0.9613
Two-Phase Z-factor 1.1313 1.1031 1.0927 1.0301 1.0263 0.999 0.9661 0.9644 0.9389 0.9266 0.9035 0.8814 0.8559 0.8141 0.7068
Liquid Drop-Out % HCPV 0.15 5.41 6.72 11.59 11.75 12.67 13.32 13.33 13.5 13.47 13.28 12.93 12.44 11.84 11.12
SPE-187995-MS 13

Liquid Drop-Out vs. Bottom-Hole Pressure

16

14

12
Liquid Drop-out (%HCPV)

10

8
Light Oil Retrograde Condensate
6

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Bottom-Hole Pressure (psia)

Figure 3 Liquid Drop-Out vs. BHP.

k rg/kro vs. S g
100000
Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Ratio, krg/kro (fraction)

10000
1000
Minimum Gas Saturation
100 in Model = 50%
10
Relevant Range
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Gas Saturation, Sg (fraction)

CVD C.R. Knopp (1965)

Figure 4 Gas-Oil Relative Permeability Ratio vs. Gas Saturation.

 SPE-187995-MS 14

Temperature Profile (Well-A)

Temperature, T (°F)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
0

2000

4000
Depth (ft)

6000

8000

10000
Total Vertical Depth (TVD) = 11,167 ft
12000

Static Temperature Profile Flowing Temperature Profile

Figure 5 Tempertature profile for static and flowing scenarios for Well-A.

Table 5 Production Data. (*) The flowing BHP is below the estimated dew-point pressure of 6,118 psia. [Table#5 in SPE-2938 (Duggan, 1972)]

Shut-in Shut- Δ BHP/Z BHP/Z/MMc Cumulative Production Condensate

Tubing in BHP/Z f (bbl / MMcf)
Test Date Calculated Z Gas Condensate Period
Pressure BHP (psia) Cum. Period Cum. Period Cum. Period
(MMcf) (Mbbl) (MMcf)
(psia) (psia)
1965-12-22 7599 9507 1.440 6600 0 0
1966-03-01 7399 9292 1.418 6553 47 47 0.120 0.120 392.50 29.9 392.5 76.2 76.2
1966-06-22 7121 8970 1.387 6468 132 85 0.080 0.068 1642.20 122.9 1249.7 74.8 74.4
1966-09-29 6744 8595 1.344 6393 207 75 0.064 0.047 3225.80 240.5 1583.6 74.6 74.3
1966-11-17 6503 8332 1.316 6329 271 64 0.064 0.062 4260.30 317.1 1034.5 74.4 74.0
1966-12-30 6202 8009 1.282 6246 354 83 0.064 0.067 5503.50 406.9 1243.2 73.9 72.2
1967-03-23 5827 7603 1.239 6136 464 110 0.062 0.054 7538.10 561.2 2034.6 74.4 75.8
1967-05-15 5650 7406 1.218 6080 520 56 0.059 0.046 8749.20 650.8 1211.1 74.4 74.0
1967-07-31 5284 7002 1.176 5955 645 125 0.061 0.071 10509.30 776.7 1760.1 73.9 71.5
1967-09-14 5027 6721* 1.147 5862 738 93 0.063 0.074 11758.90 864.3 1249.6 73.5 70.1
1967-10-19 4837 6535 1.127 5797 803 65 0.063 0.063 12789.20 939.5 1030.3 73.5 73.0
1968-03-05 4132 5764 1.048 5499 1101 298 0.064 0.067 17262.50 1255.3 4473.3 72.7 70.6
1968-09-04 3490 4766 0.977 4880 1720 619 0.075 0.110 22890.80 1615.8 5628.3 70.6 64.1
1969-03-19 3001 4295 0.928 4627 1973 253 0.070 0.048 28144.60 1913.4 5253.8 68.0 56.6
1969-09-29 2584 3750 0.891 4207 2392 420 0.073 0.095 32566.70 2136.0 4422.1 65.6 50.3
1970-03-31 2208E 3247E 0.854 3800 2800 407 0.076 0.096 36819.90 2307.8 4253.2 62.7 40.4

Table 6 Prediction of static and flowing BHP for Well-A (Surface temperature used was 80°F).

Shut-in
Tubing qg Δt Gp pwf Surface
pws (psia) Date 𝑝̅
Pressure (MMcf/D) (Days) (MMcf) (psia) pwf (psia)
(psia)
9555 7599 1965-12-22 0 9507
9344 7399 1966-03-01 5.688 69 392.5 6461 9403 4899
9049 7121 1966-06-22 5.529 113 1642.2 6351 9078 4803
8648 6744 1966-09-29 6.398 99 3225.8 6113 8677 4567
8391 6503 1966-11-17 8.445 49 4260.3 5899 8422 4307
8069 6202 1966-12-30 11.565 43 5503.5 5725 8122 4006
7593 5827 1967-03-23 9.805 83 7538.1 5450 7650 3849
7378 5650 1967-05-15 9.140 53 8749.2 5181 7379 3745
7077 5284 1967-07-31 9.143 77 10509.3 4948 7000 3542
6574 5027 1967-09-14 11.108 45 11758.9 4780 6741 3301
6364 4837 1967-10-19 11.775 35 12789.2 4624 6534 3127
5516 4132 1968-03-05 12.966 138 17262.5 4442 5700 2934
4719 3490 1968-09-04 12.302 183 22890.8 3675 4794 2316
4128 3001 1969-03-19 13.403 196 28144.6 3086 4078 1701
3548 2584 1969-09-29 10.030 194 32566.7 2503 3556 1460
3025 2208 1970-03-31 9.252 183 36799.4 2048 3112 1101
2692 1972 1970-09-16 8.500 169 40390.7 1629 2769 700
SPE-187995-MS 15

2447 1795 1971-03-09 6.435 174 43190.0 1370 2517 700

2249 1653 1971-09-04 5.249 179 45538.8 1239 2313 700

Table 7 Comparison of BHP in paper with calculated static BHP.

Shut-in BHP [SPE-

pws (psia) Absolute Relative Error (%)
2938] (psia)
9507 9555 0.50
9292 9344 0.56
8970 9049 0.88
8595 8648 0.62
8332 8391 0.71
8009 8069 0.75
7603 7593 0.13
7406 7378 0.38
7002 7077 1.07
6721 6574 2.19
6535 6364 2.62
5764 5516 4.30
4766 4719 0.99
4295 4128 3.89
3750 3548 5.39
3247 3025 6.84

Static BHP Comparison Plot

10000

9000

8000

7000
BHP [SPE-2938] (psia)

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0.00 1000.00 2000.00 3000.00 4000.00 5000.00 6000.00 7000.00 8000.00 9000.00 10000.00
Calculated BHP (psia)

Figure 6 Static BHP Comparison Plot.

Table 8 Summary calculations for p/Z plots.

Shut-in BHP Z-factor p/Z

Z-factor [Initial Z-factor [2- p/Z [Variable p/Z [2-
[SPE-2938] [Variable [Initial Gp (MMcf)
Composition] Phase] Composition] Phase]
(psia) Composition] Composition]
9507 1.454 1.465 1.465 6537 6488 6488 0
9292 1.433 1.444 1.444 6486 6435 6435 392.5
9162 1.419 1.431 1.431 6454 6402 6402 897.0
8970 1.400 1.412 1.412 6407 6353 6353 1642.2
8595 1.362 1.375 1.375 6310 6252 6252 3225.8
8332 1.335 1.349 1.349 6239 6178 6178 4260.3
8009 1.303 1.317 1.317 6147 6083 6083 5503.5
7603 1.262 1.276 1.276 6025 5957 5957 7538.1
7406 1.242 1.257 1.257 5963 5892 5892 8749.2
7002 1.201 1.217 1.217 5828 5753 5753 10509.3
6721 1.173 1.190 1.190 5728 5649 5649 11758.9
6535 1.155 1.172 1.172 5659 5578 5578 12789.2
6480 1.149 1.166 1.166 5638 5557 5556 13528.4
6125.6 1.114 1.132 1.132 5497 5412 5411
6118 1.114 1.131 1.131 5494 5408 5408
5764 1.079 1.094 1.103 5341 5271 5225 17262.5
5630 1.066 1.081 1.093 5280 5210 5152 18018.2
4766 0.986 1.011 1.030 4833 4716 4627 22890.8
4710 0.981 1.007 1.026 4801 4678 4589 23515.5
SPE-187995-MS 16

4295 0.946 0.981 0.999 4542 4380 4299 28144.6

3750 0.904 0.953 0.966 4148 3937 3882 32566.7
3720 0.902 0.951 0.964 4125 3911 3857 32820.4
3247 0.873 0.933 0.939 3721 3480 3458 36819.9
3000 0.861 0.926 0.927 3485 3240 3238
2500 0.846 0.917 0.904 2954 2727 2767
2000 0.847 0.915 0.881 2360 2186 2269
1500 0.866 0.922 0.856 1732 1628 1753
1000 0.900 0.937 0.814 1111 1067 1228
500 0.946 0.961 0.707 529 520 707

p/Z vs. Gp
7000.00

6000.00

5000.00
p/Z (psia)

4000.00

3000.00

2000.00

1000.00

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
THOUSANDS

Cumulative Gas Production, Gp (MMcf)

p/Z [Initial Composition] p/Z [Variable Composition] p/Z [2-Phase]

Figure 7 p/Z vs. Cumulative Gas Production (Gp2 Method).

Table 9 Results of p/Z vs. Cumulative Gas Production (Gp2 Method).

Z-Factor [Initial Composition] Z-Factor [Variable Composition] Z-Factor [2-Phase]

OGIP (MMcf) 77000 68000 66000
R2 0.9989 0.9990 0.9880

Table 10 Summary calculations for p/Z corrected by the Ramagost correction factor.

p/Z [Initial Composition] p/Z [Variable Composition] p/Z [2-Phase] Gp (MMcf)

6537 6488 6488 0

6445 6394 6394 392.5
6389 6337 6337 897.0
6306 6252 6252 1642.2
6141 6084 6084 3225.8
6023 5965 5965 4260.3
5876 5815 5815 5503.5
5688 5623 5623 7538.1
5594 5528 5528 8749.2
5399 5328 5328 10509.3
5259 5186 5186 11758.9
5164 5090 5090 12789.2
5136 5061 5061 13528.4
4950 4873 4873
4946 4868 4868
4753 4690 4649 17262.5
4678 4615 4564 18018.2
4159 4057 3981 22890.8
4123 4017 3941 23515.5
3845 3708 3640 28144.6
3445 3270 3224 32566.7
3422 3245 3200 32820.4
3035 2839 2821 36819.9
2818 2620 2617
SPE-187995-MS 17

2345 2165 2196

1839 1703 1768
1324 1244 1339
833 800 921
388 382 520

p/Z (Ramagost) vs. Gp

7000.00

6000.00

5000.00
p/Z (psia)

4000.00

3000.00

2000.00

1000.00

0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
THOUSANDS

Cumulative Gas Production, Gp (MMcf)

p/Z [Initial Composition] p/Z [Variable Composition] p/Z [2-Phase]

Figure 8 p/Z (Ramagost) vs. Cumulative Gas Production.

Table 11 Results of p/Z (Ramagost) vs. Cumulative Gas Production.

Z-Factor [Initial Composition] Z-Factor [Variable Composition] Z-Factor [2-Phase]

OGIP (MMcf) 69000 66000 65000
R2 0.9969 0.9981 0.9978
cw 3.25E-06 3.25E-06 3.25E-06
Swi 0.35 0.35 0.35
cf 1.80E-05 1.80E-05 1.80E-05

Table 12 Summary calculations for p/Z corrected with the modified Ramagost correction factor.

p/Z [Initial Composition] p/Z [Variable Composition] p/Z [2-Phase] Gp (MMcf)

6537 6488 6488 0

6472 6415 6417 392.5
6432 6370 6373 897.0
6372 6302 6308 1642.2
6249 6161 6178 3225.8
6158 6058 6083 4260.3
6043 5924 5964 5503.5
5890 5747 5808 7538.1
5812 5658 5730 8749.2
5645 5465 5564 10509.3
5523 5324 5444 11758.9
5438 5228 5362 12789.2
5413 5199 5337 13528.4
5244 5006 5173
5240 5001 5168
5060 4815 4970 17262.5
4989 4737 4891 18018.2
4484 4143 4340 22890.8
4448 4100 4302 23515.5
4167 3768 4006 28144.6
3755 3299 3589 32566.7
3731 3272 3566 32820.4
3324 2839 3175 36819.9
SPE-187995-MS 18

3092 2607 2962

2582 2129 2514
2031 1651 2046
1467 1187 1569
924 749 1092
432 350 624

p/Z (Constant dcf/dp) vs. Gp

7000.00

6000.00

5000.00
p/Z (psia)

4000.00

3000.00

2000.00

1000.00

0.00
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0
THOUSANDS

Cumulative Gas Production, Gp (MMcf)

p/Z [Initial Composition] p/Z [Variable Composition] p/Z [2-Phase]

Figure 9 p/Z (Constant dcf/dp) vs. Cumulative Gas Production.

Table 13 Results of p/Z (Constant dcf/dp) vs. Cumulative Gas Production.

Z-Factor [Initial Composition] Z-Factor [Variable Composition] Z-Factor [2-Phase]

OGIP (MMcf) 76000 66000 73000
R2 0.9986 0.9997 0.9989
cf (psi-1) 6.22E-06 8.87E-06 8.50E-06
dcf/dp 7.79E-10 1.64E-09 3.91E-18

Table 14 Summary calculations for gas pseudo function using a Z-factor that assumes initial gas composition as the pressure is depleted to 500
psia.

BHP (psia) Gas Viscosity (cP) Z-factor [Initial Composition] 2p/μZ [Initial Composition] M(p) [Initial Composition]

0 0.00E+00
500 0.0143 0.946 73868 1.85E+07
1000 0.0157 0.900 141836 7.24E+07
1500 0.0169 0.866 204681 1.59E+08
2000 0.0182 0.847 258977 2.75E+08
2500 0.0196 0.846 301150 4.15E+08
3000 0.0211 0.861 329614 5.73E+08
3247 0.0220 0.873 338859 6.55E+08
3720 0.0237 0.902 348705 8.18E+08
3750 0.0238 0.904 348986 8.28E+08
4295 0.0260 0.946 349264 1.02E+09
4710 0.0279 0.981 343536 1.16E+09
4766 0.0282 0.986 342468 1.18E+09
5630 0.0332 1.066 317903 1.47E+09
5764 0.0341 1.079 312889 1.51E+09
6118 0.0368 1.114 298189 1.62E+09
6125.6 0.0369 1.114 297834 1.62E+09
6480 0.0386 1.149 291991 1.72E+09
6535 0.0389 1.155 291068 1.74E+09
6721 0.0398 1.173 287922 1.79E+09
7002 0.0412 1.201 283109 1.87E+09
7406 0.0432 1.242 276096 1.99E+09
7603 0.0442 1.262 272645 2.04E+09
SPE-187995-MS 19

8009 0.0463 1.303 265481 2.15E+09

8332 0.0480 1.335 259733 2.24E+09
8595 0.0495 1.362 255018 2.30E+09
8970 0.0516 1.400 248234 2.40E+09
9162 0.0527 1.419 244730 2.44E+09
9292 0.0535 1.433 242344 2.48E+09
9507 0.0548 1.454 238372 2.53E+09

Table 15 Summary calculations for gas pseudo function using composition that changes as the pressure is depleted to 500 psia.

BHP Gas Viscosity Z-factor [Variable 2p/μZ [Variable M(p) [Variable

(psia) (cP) Composition] Composition] Composition]

0 0.00E+00
500 0.0143 0.961 72687 1.82E+07
1000 0.0157 0.937 136237 7.04E+07
1500 0.0169 0.922 192293 1.53E+08
2000 0.0182 0.915 239846 2.61E+08
2500 0.0196 0.917 278036 3.90E+08
3000 0.0211 0.926 306449 5.36E+08
3247 0.0220 0.933 316918 6.13E+08
3720 0.0237 0.951 330647 7.66E+08
3750 0.0238 0.953 331195 7.76E+08
4295 0.0260 0.981 336838 9.58E+08
4710 0.0279 1.007 334744 1.10E+09
4766 0.0282 1.011 334127 1.12E+09
5630 0.0332 1.081 313650 1.40E+09
5764 0.0341 1.094 308751 1.44E+09
6118 0.0368 1.131 293522 1.54E+09
6125.6 0.0369 1.132 293214 1.55E+09
6480 0.0386 1.166 287760 1.65E+09
6535 0.0389 1.172 286908 1.67E+09
6721 0.0398 1.190 283945 1.72E+09
7002 0.0412 1.217 279424 1.80E+09
7406 0.0432 1.257 272812 1.91E+09
7603 0.0442 1.276 269529 1.96E+09
8009 0.0463 1.317 262703 2.07E+09
8332 0.0480 1.349 257208 2.15E+09
8595 0.0495 1.375 252682 2.22E+09
8970 0.0516 1.412 246135 2.32E+09
9162 0.0527 1.431 242744 2.36E+09
9292 0.0535 1.444 240436 2.39E+09
9507 0.0548 1.465 236576 2.44E+09

Table 16 Summary calculations of gas pseudo function using two-phase Z-factor as the pressure is depleted to 500 psia.

BHP (psia) Gas Viscosity (cP) Z-factor [2-phase] 2p/μZ [2-phase] M(p) [2-phase]

0 0.00E+00
500 0.0143 0.707 98860 2.47E+07
1000 0.0157 0.814 156787 8.86E+07
1500 0.0169 0.856 207054 1.80E+08
2000 0.0182 0.881 248989 2.94E+08
2500 0.0196 0.904 282067 4.26E+08
3000 0.0211 0.927 306184 5.73E+08
3247 0.0220 0.939 314927 6.50E+08
3720 0.0237 0.964 326087 8.02E+08
3750 0.0238 0.966 326532 8.12E+08
4295 0.0260 0.999 330634 9.91E+08
4710 0.0279 1.026 328416 1.13E+09
4766 0.0282 1.030 327834 1.15E+09
5630 0.0332 1.093 310205 1.42E+09
5764 0.0341 1.103 306092 1.46E+09
6118 0.0368 1.131 293522 1.57E+09
6125.6 0.0369 1.132 293214 1.57E+09
6480 0.0386 1.166 287760 1.67E+09
6535 0.0389 1.172 286908 1.69E+09
6721 0.0398 1.190 283945 1.74E+09
7002 0.0412 1.217 279424 1.82E+09
7406 0.0432 1.257 272812 1.93E+09
7603 0.0442 1.276 269529 1.99E+09
8009 0.0463 1.317 262703 2.10E+09
8332 0.0480 1.349 257208 2.18E+09
8595 0.0495 1.375 252682 2.25E+09
8970 0.0516 1.412 246135 2.34E+09
9162 0.0527 1.431 242744 2.39E+09
9292 0.0535 1.444 240436 2.42E+09
9507 0.0548 1.465 236576 2.47E+09
SPE-187995-MS 20

M(p) vs. BHP

3.00E+09
Gas Pseudo Function, M(p) (psia2/cP)

2.50E+09

2.00E+09

1.50E+09

1.00E+09

5.00E+08

0.00E+00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Bottom-Hole Pressure (psia)

Σ [Initial Composition] Σ [Variable Composition] Σ [2-phase]

Figure 10 Gas Pseudo Function vs. BHP.

Table 17 Digitized data points of the flow-after-flow graphs presented in Figure#04 of SPE-2938 A (Duggan, 1972).

6-22-1966 11-17-1966 3-23-1967

qg p2*10-6 qg p2*10-6 qg p2*10-6
(MMcf/D) (psia2) (MMcf/D) (psia2) (MMcf/D) (psia2)
1.87 4.12 4.88 4.70 3.90 3.43
3.06 6.14 6.18 5.39 5.22 4.10
3.78 7.49 7.70 6.70 7.14 5.23
5.54 11.59 9.65 8.59 10.29 7.57
42.22 91.78 80.14 71.34 76.60 58.28
10-19-1967 3-5-1968 9-29-1969
qg p2*10-6 qg p2*10-6 qg p2*10-6
(MMcf/D) (psia2) (MMcf/D) (psia2) (MMcf/D) (psia2)
3.45 2.37 6.10 3.22 3.43 1.36
4.51 2.86 9.00 4.71 4.30 1.85
6.00 3.71 12.99 6.85 5.94 2.32
12.93 7.61 32.02 16.76 8.14 3.53
72.65 42.88 65.71 32.37 28.43 12.35
SPE-187995-MS 21

p 2 vs. q g (Flow-After-Flow)
100.00
p2 * 10-6 (psia2)

Initial Test
10.00

Date Best Fit Trendline R2

6-22-1966 𝑦 = 2.1837𝑥 − 0.4456 0.9999
11-17-1966 𝑦 = 0.8897𝑥 + 0.0288 1.0000
Single Phase Condensate Bank 3-23-1967 𝑦 = 0.7597𝑥 + 0.0472 0.9999
10-19-1967 𝑦 = 0.5872𝑥 + 0.1955 1.0000
3-5-1968 𝑦 = 0.4897𝑥 + 0.4584 0.9991
9-29-1969 𝑦 = 0.4389𝑥 − 0.1279 0.9995
1.00 111
1.00 10.00 100.00
Gas Production Rate, qg (MMcf/D)

6-22-1966 11-17-1966 3-23-1967 10-19-1967 3-5-1968 9-29-1969

Figure 11 p2 vs. Gas Production Rate (It seems Duggan may have used a ruler and extrapolated to maximum open rate on a graph paper).

ΔM(p) vs. q g (Flow-After-Flow)

1.E+9
Δ Gas Pseudo Function, ΔM(p) (psia/cP)

Condensate Bank

Initial Test
Single-Phase
1.E+8

Date Best Fit Trendline R2

6-22-1966 𝑦 = (2𝐸 + 06)𝑥 2 + (1𝐸 + 07)𝑥 + (2𝐸 + 07) 1.0000
3-23-1967 𝑦 = (2𝐸 + 06)𝑥 2 + (2𝐸 + 06)𝑥 + (4𝐸 + 07) 1.0000
9-29-1969 𝑦 = (6𝐸 + 05)𝑥 2 + (4𝐸 + 06)𝑥 + (4𝐸 + 07) 1.0000
1.E+7
1 10 100
Gas Production Rate, qg (MMcf/D)
6/22/1966 11-17-66 3/23/1967 10/19/1967 3/5/1968 9/29/1969

Figure 12 Change in Gas Pseudo Function vs. Gas Production Rate.

SPE-187995-MS 22

Figure 13 Anderson "L" sand constructed by use of CMG-Builder (Injection well at the top is for future studies).
SPE-187995-MS 23

Figure 14 From top to bottom, left to right: Top view of Well-A oil saturation profile; cross-sectional view of Well-A oil saturation profile. Top
view of Well-B oil saturation profile; cross-sectional view of Well-B oil saturation profile. Top view of Well-C oil saturation profile; cross-sectional
view of Well-C oil saturation profile. Top view of Well-A water saturation profile; cross-sectional view of Well-A water saturation profile.
SPE-187995-MS 24

p/Z vs. Gp
7000
OGIP (MMcf)
6000 Well-A 33100.0
Well-B 25300.0
5000 Well-C 9180.0
Total 67600.0
p/Z (psia)

4000 Model 72400.0

3000

2000

1000

0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
THOUSANDS

Cumulative Gas Production, Gp (MMcf)

Well-A Well-B Well-C Total Model

Figure 15 Comparison of analytical solution and model runs.

SPE-187995-MS 25

ΔM(p) vs. qg (Flow-After-Flow for Well-A)

1E+10
Δ Gas Pseudo Pressure Function, M(pavgradial extrapolation)-M(pwf) (psia/cP)

1E+09

100000000

10000000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Gas Production Rate, qg (MMSCF/D)

Single-Phase Flow-After-Flow
Multi-Phase Flow-After-Flow (Maximum Liquid Drop-Out)
Stabilized Single-Phase
Stablized Multi-Phase

Figure 16 Flow-After-Flow above and below dew-point pressure for Well-A.

SPE-187995-MS 26

Radial Extrapolation (Well-A)

14

12

10
ΔM(p)/qg (psia/cP/MMSCF/D)

0
1 10 100 1000
Horner Time Ratio
Initial Build-Up Before Well-B Inteference
Inteference from Well-B and Well-C BHP below Maximum Liquid Drop-Out
Maximum Liquid Drop-Out

Figure 17 Radial extrapolation above and below dew-point for Well-A.