SPE-184277-MS

Onshore Condensate Well Production Testing and Analysis: A Tool for

Optimal Reservoir Management
O. O. Agbaka, Obax Worldwide Limited; J. A. Dala, Nigerian Petroleum Development Company

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 2– 4 August 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Considering that well test is an asset evaluation tool, condensate well testing is designed to address the
uncertainties in retrograde performance with respect to various flow regimes under certain completion
strategies and surface facility design. Condensate banking/trapping around the near wellbore due to liquid
dropout (heavy end fraction condensation resulting to high reduction in effective gas permeability), the
desire critical condensate saturation to re-establish mobility, the effect of interfacial tension and the
capillary pressure present between the immiscible fluids can be observed and possibly addressed from
well testing and analysis. A designed pressure scheme suitable to reduce productivity losses is adequately
advisable from well test. Well test (which is a variation in sand phase pressure with time) can be used to
determine: the dynamism in rock and fluid properties, underground withdrawals and cash flow. It could
also serve as a factor for joint venture agreement and sale/purchase of assets. These achievements are
based on excellent reservoir/well management initiated by accurate performance interpretation and
forecast. The discussion of this paper is centered in the use of production testing and analysis for enhance
condensate reservoir/well management.
Various evaluation criteria’s (Reservoir Deliverability, Well Productivity and Completion Strategies)
were deployed in the characterization of the reservoir/well performance using simulated field data.
However, back pressure, process facility design, surface data recordings and sample analysis under
selected surface operating conditions were used to simulate the well stream process.
This research has been able to shown that: production well testing and analysis can be used to
determine the maximum attainable drawdown that will increase production and delay condensate liquid
dropout around the wellbore. The similarities and variations in the results obtained from Maximum
Efficiency Rate (MER) test and Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) test as regards the aforementioned criteria’s
considering condensate behavior and the necessary maintenance (pressure, completion, wellhead etc) that
will be required to sustain and/or improve production performance has been discussed.
Introduction
Accuracy in engineering computations for gas-condensate systems (e.g., well testing, estimating reserves,
sizing surface facilities, and predicting productivity trends) depends upon a basic understanding of phase
and flow behavior relationships as shown in figure 1. So many factors affect the performance of
2 SPE-184277-MS

gas-condensate reservoir during exploitation process, but the single most striking factor about gas-
condensate systems (fluids) is that, they exist either wholly or preponderantly as vapor phase in the
reservoir at the time of discovery (the critical temperature of the system is lower than the reservoir
temperature). This key fact nearly always governs the development and operating programs for recovery
of hydrocarbons from such reservoirs; the properties of the fluids determine the best program in each case.
A thorough understanding of fluid properties together with a good understanding of the special economics
involved is therefore required for optimum engineering of gas-condensate reservoirs. Other important
aspects include: geologic conditions, rock properties, well deliverability, well costs and spacing, well-
pattern geometry, and plant costs.

Figure 1—Phase diagram of a gas-condensate system (Fan et. al. 2005)

A typical gas-condensate initial reservoir pressure might be above or close to the critical pressure. At
this time there exists only single-phase gas. During production, there is isothermal pressure decline and
as the bottom hole pressure in a flowing well falls below the dew-point pressure of the fluid, a liquid
hydrocarbon phase is formed. This retrograde condensate formation results in buildup of liquid phase
around the wellbore, leading to a decrease in the effective permeability of gas into the wellbore. As the
average pressure in a gas-condensate reservoir continues to decline on production, condensate dropout
occurs across the reservoir.
An accurate, yet simple model of a gas-condensate well undergoing depletion consists of three flow
regions:
● Region 1: An inner near-wellbore region where both gas and liquid flow simultaneously (at
different velocities).
● Region 2: A region of condensate buildup where only gas is flowing.
● Region 3: A region containing single-phase (original) reservoir gas. This region is the farthest
away from the well.
The above figure 2 and 3, could either exist more especially for vertical well completion case in
sequence or simultaneously at various flow regimes. This is due to the fact that large surface area into the
reservoir is covered under horizontal completion.
SPE-184277-MS 3

Figure 2—Schematic gas-condensate flow behavior (Roussennac, 2001).

Figure 3—Condensate Saturation profile with Condensate drop-out and Velocity stripping

Many literatures on gas-condensate have been published, although there is still limited knowledge
about gas-condensate behavior especially in real-time field performance analysis. The concept of con-
densate well testing, its productivity losses owing to liquid buildup around the wellbore and creation of
three region with different liquid saturation due to retrograde condensation have been discussed (Afidick
et al. 1994, Barnum et al. 1995, Fevang 1995, and Ali et al. 1997). However, the possibility of a fourth
region in the immediate vicinity of the well where low interfacial tension (IFT) at high rate yield a
decrease of the liquid saturation and an increase of the gas relative permeability has also been discussed
(Economides et al., 1987 and Fussel 1973). Agbaka et. al. 2015 (Pressure drop in natural flowing gas well)
also provided details in inflow performance relation IPR. This paper is aimed at using Subsurface
(Reservoir, Fluid Composition, Well and Completion) and Surface data (Wellhead, Process Equipment
and Production History) to simulate the performance of an onshore condensate reservoir. The results of
MER and BHP test will be used to interpret the severity of condensate liquid drop-out and its corre-
4 SPE-184277-MS

sponding mitigating strategy. This study is streamlined to vertical completion and as such, the perfor-
mance of gas-condensate well subject to horizontal completion is not discussed.

Gas Condensate Models

The volumetric rate equation for a gas condensate well of any geometry (radial, vertically fractured, or
horizontal) is given as:
(1)

If black-oil PVT is considered, then the above becomes:

(2)

Where:
(3)

and
for oil field units

If permeability is given as:

(4)

And skin effect due to near wellbore damage becomes:

(5)

Then the expression below will account for flowing BHP.

(6)

Region 1: After samples are collected during a flowing gradient test, a usual laboratory result of
constant composition gas-oil ratio GOR is shown throughout this region. The single phase gas entering
Region 1 has the same composition as the produced wellstream. For flowing gradient test, the produced
wellstream is actually a representation of the flowing composition within Region one 1. This region is also
the main source of productivity losses experienced in region 2 by a factor of two to four and the size of
Region 1 increase with time. For steady state conditions, the condensate saturation in Region 1 is
determined (as a function of radius) specifically to ensure that there is sufficient mobility to evacuate all
liquid that condenses from the single-phase without any net accumulation.
Region 2: This is the region of net accumulation of condensate. Effectively, only gas is flowing in this
region because oil mobility is zero (or very small). The size of region 2 is largest at early times just after
the reservoir pressure drops below the dewpoint. Region 2 decreases in size because Region 1 is
expanding (isothermal drop in BHP below dewpoint under constant fluid accumulation). The size and
importance of Region 2 is greater for lean (dry) gas condensates. The major consequence of Region 2 is
that produced wellstream composition GOR is leaner than that calculated by a volumetric material balance
(e.g. Constant Volume Depletion CVD measurements). If wrong GOR’s are used in the material balance
when calculating pseudopressure, the deliverability loss in region 1 is overestimated especially at early
time of depletion just after reservoir pressure drops below the dewpoint.
Region 3: This Region always exist in a gas-condensate reservoir that is currently undersaturated i.e.,
initially operating above dew point pressure. For a condensate reservoir, the standard treatment of single
SPE-184277-MS 5

phase gas flow is used to quantify the contribution of Region 3 to well deliverability and composition is
constant in this region.

Application Case Study

The performance analysis report of a Niger-Delta onshore condensate reservoir, estimated to have a
reserve of 99.36Bscf is required. One of the penetrating wells has stop producing, hence the last Well Test
(Maximum efficiency rate MER and Bottom Hole Pressure BHP) conducted on the well, pressure volume
temperature PVT and petrophysical data were used for this analysis. Performance interpretation was done
after imputation of test data into various simulators.

PVT Application: Results and Discussion

Fluid Composition
Hydrocarbon analysis was done and the mole composition of the wellstream, separator gas and liquid is
shown in the table below.

Table 1—Analysis of Wellstream and separator products

Separator Liquid Separator Gas Reservoir Fluid
Component Mol % Mol % Mol %

N2 0.00 4.26 3.62

CO2 0.23 0.82 0.73
H2S 0.00 0.00 0.00
C1 9.10 79.18 68.69
C2 5.99 8.56 8.18
C3 10.96 4.67 5.61
iC4 4.80 0.80 1.40
nC4 10.26 1.06 2.44
iC5 5.02 0.21 0.93
nC5 6.42 0.25 1.17
C6 8.24 0.06 1.28
C7⫹ 38.98 0.19 5.95
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Physical Properties
Molecular Mass 20.501 20.311 20.436
Specific Gravity 0.707 0.701 0.705
Viscosity (cp) 0.0118 0.0118 0.0118

Depletion Study of Reservoir Fluid

Depletion study is designed to: provide the well stream composition at different reservoir pressure,
determine the dew-point pressure for the fluid system and estimate the condensate saturation during
depletion. At a reservoir temperature of 187.7°F, dew-point pressure for the gas-condensate system was
determined to be 4390psia.
From figure 4, It is observed that, as the BHP decline continues below the dew-point pressure of
4390psia, gas expansion in region 1 gave a drawal of the two phase fluid (liquid and gas), with no liquid
mobility in region 2, which resulted in condensate build up i.e., banking/trapping.
6 SPE-184277-MS

Figure 4 —Condensate saturation as a function of pressure

The estimated maximum liquid dropout was 8.2% at a reservoir pressure of 1673psia. Thus, at a critical
condensate saturation less than 6.4%, productivity looses will occur i.e., in region 2, condensate becomes
immobile.
Maximum velocity stripping occurred at 1690psia. As the flow rate increase, velocity stripping results
in improved production. However this is not same for all condensate systems. It is observed that saturation
buildup is different for same pressure drop at different rates. The lesser saturation buildup at increase rate
might be due to the velocity stripping effect as has been documented in literatures.

Constant Composition Expansion

Depicted below in figure 5, is a plot showing the total relative volume i.e., volume of condensate and gas
mixture with respect to the volume at dew-point pressure.

Figure 5—Total Relative Volume as a function of pressure

SPE-184277-MS 7

Figure 6, is the determined relative permeability curve (included in the radial model) obtained from
multiphase experiments. The performed steady state and unsteady-state oil-gas relative permeability
experiment defines the oil-gas relative permeability curve and end points.

Figure 6 —Relative Permeability Curve

Maximum Efficiency Rate Test Application: Results and Discussion

Twenty four 24 hours test was carried-out using choke 20⬙/64⬙ under hundred percent master valve open
condition. Before hourly separator reading commenced, one hour purge was allocated for stabilization.
The Echometer simulator AWP2000, was deployed to account for producing and static BHP.

Table 2—MER Test Results

Pressure (FTHP) psia Pressure (FLP) psia Gross (bbl/d) Net Oil (bbl/d) Water (bbl/d) Gas (MMscf/d)

2550 460 0.0 0.00 0.10 1.06

Laboratory results gave oil gravity as 66.40°API, water and gas specific gravity SG as 1.05 and 0.71
respectively. The well is placed at the center and completed with a 3-1/2⬙ outer diameter OD Tubing and
9-5/8⬙ OD Casing. The recorded separator pressure and temperature were at 261.44psia and 69.03°F
respectively. Other real-time and calculated data are: Gas Formation volume Factor FVF
, Oil FVF , Sand Thickness h ⫽ 34feet, Porosity ⫽ 0.2, Formation
Compressibility ⫽ 0.00000423psi-1, wellbore radius ⫽ 0.32feet.
In order to interpret the performance around region 1, its effect in region 2 (i.e., region 2 shrinkage
owning to region 1 expansion) and the overall effect on well productivity, production performance of the
well under choke 20⬙ was used to account for the actual production potential of the well.
Other inputted data that gave the producing and static BHP as 2152.2psia and 2971.9psia respectively,
were: Pump Depth ⫽ 9000feet, Casing Pressure ⫽ 1370psia, Liquid Level ⫽ 150feet, Datum Depth ⫽
9034feet. From the results obtained in table 3, it is obvious that production performance is affected by
condensate liquid drop-out within region 2. The production efficiency shows the percentage of produc-
tivity loss as against the actual reservoir deliverability.
8 SPE-184277-MS

Table 3—Well Production Potential

Wellstream Fluid Current Potential PBHP/SBHP Production Efficiency (%)

Oil (stb/d) 0.1 0.2

Water (stb/d) 0.1 0.2 0.72 43.5
Gas (MMscf/d) 1.1 2.4

Bottom Hole Pressure Test Application: Results And Discussion

Three years after consistent MER test results, BHP test was conducted. In characterizing the reservoir,
permeability and skin were determined by manual calculation. Flowing gradient FG, Build-up BU and
Static gradient SG i.e FG/BU/SG, where conducted and table 4 shows the information of the gauge (quartz
crystal). After the entire FG/BU/SG survey, the obtained profile is shown below:

Figure 7—FG/BU/SG Survey profile

Table 4 —Gauge Specification

Characteristics Gauge 1 & 2

Range 16000psi & 175°C

Pressure Accuracy/Resolution 0.02% FSR / 0.000% FSR
Temperature Accuracy/Resolution 0.5°C / 0.02°C
Memory capacity 1000,000 Data Set
Minimum Sampling Rate 1sec
Outer Diameter

Length/Weight 5= / 4kg
End Connection 15/16⬙ Sucker rod

As the well produced, collected pressure readings is shown below.

SPE-184277-MS 9

Table 5—Flowing Gradient Data

Pseudo pressure
Million

Real Time (hr) Pressure (psia)

8.36 1688.196 241

9.36 1986.296 334
10.20 2220.996 418
10.36 2301.211 448
10.46 2335.785 462
11.00 2368.319 475
11.06 2384.811 481
11.13 2401.352 488
11.21 2417.998 495
16.32 2435.502 502

Practically, wellbore storage WBS increases the time to reach the conventional semi-log straight line
as seen in figure 8. Thus, if the test is not run for a long enough period, then the semi-log straight line
will not be obtained. If WBS effects are not considered, then an improper straight line may be chosen. If
the test is not designed properly, then WBS effect may completely dominate the test.

Figure 8 —Semi-log plot of Pseudo square pressure against time

A gradient (M) of 7 was the resulting slope of the pressure-time plot.

if the Pi ⫽ 4192 psia then ␺i ⫽ 1489psi2/cp

Hence Permeability K, was determined as 4.76md and Skin S, as 3.718. However, calculated Flow
Capacity was 161.84md-ft.
Following the manual results, WELLTEST simulator was used to: modify the manual results gotten
and determine the reason for poor performance. The reservoir model requires that permeability, WBS
coefficient, Choke fractured skin, fractured half-length and fracture conductivity be specified to define the
model uniquely.
10 SPE-184277-MS

Figure 9 —Log-log plot of pressure against time

A model having finite conductivity vertical fracture with wellbore storage and choke fracture skin in
homogeneous, infinite-acting reservoir was considered. However, since this is a pressure buildup test,
average reservoir pressure will be obtained from the analysis.
After type curve matching, i.e., aligning the derivative to the half unit slope line, a skin of 4.599 (which
actually compliments the manual calculation of a near wellbore damaged) was gotten. Skin effect owning
to: tremendous drop in BHP below dewpoint pressure occasioned by a drop in critical condensate
saturation leading to liquid buildup, yields a positive value which indicate an un-stimulated near wellbore
condition.
Average reservoir pressure was determined to be 2988.7psia and the match points for the selected
reservoir models were: and CDe2s ⫽ 982000.

Table 6 —Static Gradient Data

Time (hr Pressure (psia)

7.46 2784.035
7.59 2768.111
8.59 2574.707
9.14 2497.956
9.28 2422.909
9.43 2349.477
9.58 2277.363
10.12 2206.329
10.28 2133.871
SPE-184277-MS 11

Figure 10 —Type Curve Matching for Radial flow, Single porosity, Infinite-acting gas-condensate reservoir.

The calculated average reservoir pressure reading of 2988.7psia indicated that there was insufficient
build-up time (leading to a gauge record of 2784.035psia) before static gradient commenced.
Having determined permeability and skin, other data inputted into the PROSPER simulator to account
for the reservoir deliverability are: Separator Pressure ⫽ 261.44psig, Separator Temperature ⫽ 69.3°F,
Separator Gas-Oil ratio GOR ⫽ 0.1scf/stb, Separator Gas Gravity ⫽ 0.7, Initial GOR ⫽ 5755scf/stb,
Condensate Gravity ⫽ 66.4°API, Water-Gas ratio ⫽ 1.0stb/MMscf and Water Salinity ⫽ 1.11.
It was observed that the Absolute Open flow Potential AOFP (subject to simulator calculated Skin) was
10.865MMscf/day as show in figure 11. This encourages the need for a Well Stimulation operation i.e.,
Increasing the effective bottom hole flow area. Gradual initiation (based on economic evaluation) of
different techniques, e.g. Pumping of brine to clean-up the well, should be carried out. If this process is
effective, skin will be partially reduced with increase permeability. A proactive alternative will be
Fracking and if successful will improve Well Productivity significantly.

Figure 11—Inflow Performance Relation, for K ⴝ 4.76md and skin ⴝ 4.59

12 SPE-184277-MS

Reservoir Deliverability
Although this can be achieve by maintaining a suitable pressure drop i.e., producing at a BHP (increase
in production) that will allow longer time before critical condensate saturation can be attained.
Sensitivity studies to select the pressure scheme suitable for maximum production was conducted.
From simulator estimated productivity potential, a producing BHP of 2152psia will guarantee 2.4MMscf/
day. Other pressure schemes with their corresponding rates are shown in table 7.

Table 7—Suitable Pressure Scheme

Gas Rate Oil Rate Water Rate Wellhead Pressure Wellhead Temperature Bottomhole Pressure
(MMscf) (stb/day) (stb/day) (psig) (°F) (psia)

4.1 0.1 0.1 1500 130 1909.7

1.70 0.1 0.1 735 130 1778.4
1.34 0.1 0.1 689 130 1647.5

Back Pressure
The same pressure i.e., 2152psia, from the inflow (upstream) performance relation plot produced above
6.5MMscf/day. This anomaly is highly attributed to: liquid drop-out effect leading to condensate banking.
Other likely responsible factors are: the open condition of the master gate valve, choke performance, back
pressure from manifold plug valve and the open condition of the separator inlet gate valve. Depending on
the design configuration of the separator, the gas outlet line check valve (after the Daniel orifice valve)
integrity is also a determinant in accurate volume recording.
Maximum Attainable Pressure Drop
From table 7 below, it is shown that maximum production from region 1 and 2, yielding a rate of
2.4MMscf/day is achievable. Considering that build-up pressure i.e., average reservoir pressure, is
2988.7psia, and a producing potential of 2.4MMscf/day is realizable under a producing BHP of 2152psia,
sensitivity studies has revealed that economic production from this well can only be maintain at a
producing BHP of 1909.7psia. This pressure can be seen as the maximum attainable pressure drop that
increases production and delay liquid drop-out i.e., attainment of critical condensate saturation
Process Facility Design and Wellstream Processing
If the well is producing simultaneously with other (high pressure) wells into one header, the high pressure
wells will create back pressure i.e., for the low pressure well. Thus it will be required to draft a Front End
Engineering Design FEED, for the debottlenecking of such process plant, to enable the realization of the
production potential of the well.
This modified process facility design will enhances production, by tying-in i.e., Medium pressure MP
or Low pressure LP, well (depending on the pressure regime) to a separate header from the manifold.
Depending on the economic evaluation, a new Medium Pressure Heater Treater MPHT vessel with a
burner management system BMS may be required to separate wellstream fluid from the well. Another
option that should be more economical (allowing proper retention time) and will guarantee the desire
through put are: resizing of the process lines, resizing of critical valves and the replacement of all passing
valves. This may also change the shut-down philosophy of the process plant. However the cost and effect
matrix of the process plant needs to be considered. It will also be necessary to install a de-emulsifying unit
at the wellhead and/or downstream the manifold to handle hydrate formation. Finally the level setting of
the separator chosen by the operator is vital in the realization of the production potential of the well as
shown in table 3.
SPE-184277-MS 13

SOME PROBLEM SOLUTIONS

1. To establish mobility, drawdown can be reduced by increasing the effective bottom hole flow area
through: the use of high shot density perforation, horizontal (directional re-entry) well drilling and,
in some cases, even by small fracture treatment.
2. Periodic treatment (static repressurization and imbibitions, lean gas injection, rich gas injection,
solvent injection, mutual solvent injection, in-situ combustion and water injection/displacement)
that attempt to remove a portion of the trapped condensate liquid from around the wellbore should
be deployed to increase production rate.
3. Ensure that there are no fluid flow barrier at the upper completion i.e, surface control subsurface
safety valve SCSSV is 100% open. The same applies to the gate valves. Before commencing a test
or inserting the choke into the beam box at the wellhead, integrity check (using choke gauge)
should always be done to ascertain if choke is eroded and/or corroded. This will yield accurate
volumetric recording.
4. Regular maintenance of the Manifold Plug valve should be encouraged to avoid back pressure
effect even when there is proper line-up to the process facility.
5. LP/MP wells should have a separate header from the manifold to avoid back pressure issues and
productivity loses. If production capacity have to be increased, resizing of line and valve should
be the first considering before installation of higher capacity vessel.

CONCLUSION
It has been shown that Well Production Testing is a strong tool for Reservoir/Well Management. For a
condensate well with 0.1bbl/day production record from MER test, optimum exploitation is dependent on
the Production Performance analysis of such well using the Well Test tool. Results obtained showed that
Production Well Testing and Analysis can be used for the following:
● Know the maximum attainable pressure drawdown (i.e., pressure at which critical condensate
saturation can be delayed) that will increase gas production.
● Determine static and producing BHP from MER test results.
● Understand the effect of liquid drop-out from the differences in IPR production interpretation and
MER data.
● Correcting operational errors of wrong gauge reading i.e., insufficient Build-up time, resulting to
wrong values of average reservoir pressure.
● Scoping Process Facility Design/Well Stimulation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful to Echometer AWP2000, Petroleum Expert IPM 7.5, WELLTEST 2003 whose
tool were used for this study.

NOMENCLATURE
Bg – gas formation volume factor (cu.ft/SCF)
Bo – initial oil formation volume factor (bbl/STB)
bbl – barrels
BHP – bottom hole pressure
C – Carbon
C1 – methane
C2 – ethane
C3 – propane
14 SPE-184277-MS

C4 – butane
C5 – pentane
C6 – hexane
C7 – heptanes
Ct – total rock compressibility
CGR – condensate gas ratio
CO2 – carbon dioxide
Dp – pressure drop
FVF – formation volume factor
°F – degree Fahrenheit
GOR – gas oil ratio (scf/bbl)
h – Thickness (ft)
HC – hydrocarbon
H2S – hydrogen sulfide
Ib – pound mole
Ib/ft3 – pounds per cubic feet
In – inch
IPR – inflow performance relation
K – permeability
Kro – oil relative permeability
Krg – gas relative permeability
Mg – gas mobility
Mo – Oil mobility
MMscf – million standard cubic feet
Mstb – thousand stock tank barrel
N2 – Nitrogen
Pi – initial pressure
Psia – pound per square inch absolute
Psc – Pressure at standard condition
PVT – pressure volume and temperature
Pwf – well flow pressure
Scf – standard cubic feet
STB – stock tank barrel
SG – specific gravity
q – rate
qg – gas rate
R – real gas constant
rw – wellbore radius
re – drainage radius
S – skin
T – Temperature
Tsc – Temperature at standard condition
VLP – vertical lift performance
WHP – well head pressure
WHT – wellhead temperature
Z – Gas compressibility factor
ᐉ – density
ᐉg – Gas density
SPE-184277-MS 15

ᐉo – oil density
ᐉsat – Saturation density
␥ – specific gravity
␥g – Gas specific gravity
– Average pressure change
␮ – Viscosity
␮g – Gas viscosity
␮o – oil viscosity
ø – porosity
⌬P – pressure change
␮ – Viscosity
⌬pD – Dimensionless change in pressure
␺i – pressure in terms of pseudo effect
(⌬␺)total – Total pressure drop in terms of pseudo effects

REFERENCES
Agbaka O.O., Dala J.A, Olafuyi O.A, Adewole E.S., 2015 determination of pressure drop in a natural flowing gas well
using nodal analysis,SPE-1782827-MS 7–11
Amin M.I., Abdolnabi H., 2012 pressure transient analysis of a gas-condensate well by analytical and numerical models
(a case study in south of iran),Int. J Sci. Emerging Tech Vol-3 55–60
Fevang Ø., Whitson C.H., Tondheim U. 1995 modeling gas condensate well deliverability, SPE30714 2–4
Chumei S. 2009 flow behavior of gas-condensate wells,Ph.D. thesis Stanford university 13–14
Rajeev R.L., 2003 well testing in gas-condensate reservoir, Master thesis Stanford university 6 –17
Ikoku C.U, 1984 Natural Gas reservoir Engineering ISBN:0894646400, 53-55, 201–233
Bennion D.B., Thomas F.B., Schumeister B., 2001 retrograde condensate dropout phenomena in rich gas reservoir - impact
on recoverable reserve, permeability, diagnosis, and stimulation techniquesTechnical Note JCPT vol-40 1–9