Você está na página 1de 9

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting held in
Canton, Ohio, U.S.A., 1113 October 2006.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Accurate forecasting of condensate well
deliverability usually requires good knowledge of
the gas condensate vapor liquid properties.
Condensate well deliverability is particularly
important as it impacts downstream issues such as
the number of wells required, surface gas handling
facilities, drilling schedules and income from gas
sales contracts.
! #$% &''()&*+ ,)( ,)($*&-./#0 1/&2/3/.4 ),
0&- *)#5$#-&.$ %$33- &#5 *&3*63&./#0 *)#5$#-&.$
0&- (&./) 789:;< 6-/#0 -/='3$( .$*+#/>6$- /-
'($-$#.$5? @+$ *&3*63&./)# 6-$- & 1)36=$.(/*
2&3&#*$ =)5$3 ,)( ($-$(1)/( -4-.$=<
-.&#5&(5/A$5 &#5 =)5/,/$5 *)(($3&./)#-<
$>6&./)# ), -.&.$ &#5 & 1&')(B3/>6/5 $>6/3/2(/6=
.$*+#/>6$? @+$ .$*+#/>6$ +&- 2$$# $C.$#5$5 .)
/#*365$ =&-- .(&#-,$( &#5 &3-) .) &33)% ,)( .+$
*+&#0$- /# '()56*$5 ,36/5 *)=')-/./)# 56$ .) .+$
,)(=&./)# ), .+$ *)#5$#-&.$ 2&#D?


@+$ &''()&*+ %/33 '()1/5$ & 6-$,63 .))3 ,)(
(&'/5 ,)($*&-.- ), *)#5$#-&.$ %$33 '$(,)(=&#*$<
,)( $C&=/#/#0 .+$ $,,$*.- ), *)#5$#-&.$ 23)*D&0$
/# 5/,,$($#. %$33 .4'$- )( ,)( -.654/#0
-$#-/./1/./$-? E. /- &3-) 1&36&23$ %+$($ -/='3$
=)5$3- ), *)#5$#-&.$ ($-$(1)/( '$(,)(=&#*$ &($
($>6/($5 ,)( 6-$ /# /#.$0(&.$5 -.65/$-?

Introduction
Gas condensates are becoming exceptionally
important throughout the world. Two common areas
are of specific interest characterization and
retrograde condensation influences on the properties
of gas condensate mixtures.
Retrograde condensation in gas condensate
reservoirs and gas liberation in volatile oil
reservoirs are examples of two phase flow problems
currently attracting interest. In simulating such
flows, knowledge of the mutual influences between
the flow of the reservoir fluid and the
thermodynamics of the equilibrium is essential. The
term retrograde condensation is used to describe
the anomalous behavior of a mixture that forms a
liquid by isothermal decrease in pressure or by an
isobaric increase in temperature.

SPE-104307



KPIM of Gas/Condensate Productivity: Prediction of Condensate/Gas Ratio (CGR)
Using Reservoir Volumetric Balance
A. F. Olaberinjo, UNILAG, Nigeria, M.O. Oyewola, University of New South Wales, Australia, O. A. Adeyanju and O. A. Alli,

UNILAG,
Nigeria, A. D. Obiyemi,OSPOTECH, Nigeria

and S. O. Ajala,Globacom,Nigeria.

2 SPE 104307

In many gas condensate reservoirs well
productivity has a major impact on development
and operational decisions such as the number of
wells, whether to fracture wells, the size of surface
facilities and the level of gas sales contracts. From
economic point of view, reservoir development and
management decisions must be taken in the
presence of a number of uncertainties. Condensate
blockage and its impact on well productivity is just
one of the uncertainties.
The uncertainty in gas-condensate well
productivity can be reduced by considering a
number of factors such as: mass transfer effect,
interfacial tension, viscosity ratio, number of moles
of liquid and vapor at equilibrium, condensate gas
ratio (CGR), compositional changes and the healing
of fractures with its concomitant effect on absolute
permeability.
Understanding multiphase flow in condensate
reservoirs is paramount in characterizing condensate
dropout and subsequent blockage effect. Fevang et
al
1
presented an accurate yet simple model of a gas
condensate well undergoing depletion which
consists of three flow regions - Region 1: An inner
near - wellbore region where both gas and liquid
flow simultaneously, 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.
Fevang et al.
1
in their studies showed that, when
reservoir pressure around a well drops below the
dew point pressure, retrograde condensation occurs
and three regions are created with different liquid
saturations as shown in Figure B1.
Other areas of gas condensate concern were
dealt with by other authors, Bennion et al.
2, 3
worked
on optimizing production from a gas condensate
reservoir. Their work seeks to describe some of the
phenomena that are at work in rich gas condensate
reservoirs. In this context, specific parameters such
as interfacial tension, mobility effects, pore size
distribution and compositional changes are
important in the optimization of gas condensate
wells.
Cable et el.
4,5
considered issues affecting gas
condensate production and how special core
analysis data for near-well relative permeability
may be used to model productivity in a full field
model for evaluating gas condensate reservoir
development. They argue that though some aspects
of gas condensate reservoir can be studied using
standard techniques from dry gas reservoir
engineering, it is also important to consider issues
such as liquid recovery and change in yield during
field life, compositional gradients, and the reduction
in well deliverability caused by condensate
blockage.
In furtherance to gas condensate productivity
studies, Robert Mott
6,7
reviewed recent
developments in the understanding of near-well
behaviour in condensate reservoirs, and in
estimating well productivity through numerical
simulation. Three different approaches for
calculating condensate well productivity in full field
reservoir simulation were considered - using single
well calculations to estimate skin factors, local grid
refinement and pseudopressure methods.
Sognesand
8
discussed the condensate build up in
SPE 104307 3
vertical fractured gas condensate wells. He showed
that the condensate build up depends on the relative
permeability characteristics and production mode,
increased permeability to gas yields reduced amount
of condensate accumulation, and constant pressure
production yields the largest near fracture
condensate buildup.
Cho et al.
9
presented a correlation to predict
maximum condensation for retrograde condensation
fluids and its use in pressure depletion calculations.
The correlation presented is a function of the
reservoir temperature and the heptanes plus mole
fraction.
Based on the above
9
, Olaberinjo et al
10
presented
a reasonably systematic and inexpensive
compositional approach for calculating pressure
depletion performance of gas condensate reservoirs
with consideration to the properties of liquid and
vapor phase with possible presence of impurities
CO
2
, H
2
S and S.
Furthermore, the impact of condensate blockage
is very sensitive to the gas-oil relative
permeabilities in the region around the wellbore.
Several laboratory experiments have demonstrated
an increase in mobility for gas-condensate fluids at
the high velocities typical of the near-well region, a
mechanism that would reduce the negative impact
of condensate blockage. There is also some
evidence from well test results
11
to suggest that this
effect occurs in the field.
Despite a large number of reported studies
on gas condensate reservoirs, in addition to those
cited here, non of it considered calculations of gas
condensate reservoir performance and productivity
with accurate knowledge of the volumetric
behavior of hydrocarbon mixtures, both liquid and
vapor and other key properties like compressibilities
of the two-phase which are required in the transient
fluid flow problems, and thermal expansion
coefficients which are important in thermal method
of production.
This paper focused basically on forcasting the
viability and performance of gas condensate
reservoir (constant volume depletion calculations
and estimation of condensate gas ratios close to the
well bore) using reservoir volumetric balance. The
approach is economical, reliable and less
cumbersome.
Mathematical Formulations

Considering the inner near - wellbore region
where both gas and liquid flow simultaneously at
different velocities Figure 1, in this region oil
mobility and saturation increases hence a two phase
flow exists. The total volume of fluid flowing in this
region can be given as follows:
Total Volume of Gas Condensate in Place =
(Volume of Condensate + Volume of Vapor)
VAPOR CONDENSATE FLUID
V V V + =

The above volumetric balance can be represented as
v C GASCON
V V V + =
..1
Differentiating in turn with special consideration to
Pressure and Temperature,
T
V
T
C
T
GASCON
P
V
P
V
P
V
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
'
+ !
"
#
$
%
&
'
'
= !
"
#
$
%
&
'
'
.2
Also,
P
V
P
C
P
GASCON
T
V
T
V
T
V
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
'
+ !
"
#
$
%
&
'
'
= !
"
#
$
%
&
'
'
..3
It is important to choose accurate expressions
4 SPE 104307
relating V
C
to the independent variables which
permit greater accuracy in obtaining values for
Equations 2 and 3.
Considering the isothermal compressibility, c

T
P
V
V
c
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
'
( =
1
..4

The coefficient of isobaric thermal expansion, !
is also given as:

P
T
V
V
!
"
#
$
%
&
'
'
=
1
( ..5

From the equations above, the following
expressions for compressibility and thermal
expansion coefficient, respectively, can be written
for a gas condensate reservoir system.

!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
-
+ '
(
)
*
+
,
-
-
+
. = '
(
)
*
+
,
-
-
.
T
V
T
C
V C T
GASCON
GASCON
P
V
P
V
V V P
V
V
1 1
.6


!
"
#
$
%
&
'
(
)
*
+
,
-
-
+ '
(
)
*
+
,
-
-
+
= '
(
)
*
+
,
-
-
P
V
P
C
V C P
GASCON
GASCON
T
V
T
V
V V T
V
V
1 1
.7

Employing Surjit et al
12


approach with sound
modifications in terms of reduction in the number of
constants, variables and considering pseudo
component system Light (C
1
), Intermediate (C
2
-
C
6
) and Heavier (C
7+
) and also giving critical
considerations to mass transfer effects and vapor-
liquid equilibrium of the system (separate mole
fractions of the components); we have for
condensate and vapor fraction volumes respectively:



CONDENSATE (LIQUID) VOLUME, V
C

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
( ) ( )
( )
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
%
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
&
'
+ +
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
+
+ + +
+ + +
+ . +
+ . +
+ . +
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
+
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
+
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
+
. =
+ +
+
+ + + +
+ +
+ . +
. +
. +
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
+
+
P D T D
M
T xC
D
M D M D
D D
M D xC xC xC D
xC xC xC D
xC xC xC D
xC
xC
D
xC
xC
D
xC
xC
D
xC
xC
D
xC
xC
D
xC
xC
D
xC
xC
D
xC
xC
D D
V V
C C
C C C C
C C
C
O
REF C
19 18
7 7
7
17
2
7 7 16 7 7 15
7 14 7 13
7 12
2
6 2 7 1 11
4
1
6 2 7 1 10
6 2 7 1 9
4
1
6 2
6 2
8
2
1
6 2
6 2
7
4
1
6 2
6 2
6
2
1
6 2
6 2
5
2
7
1
4
7
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
01 . 0 *
*
* *
01 . 0 ln
2 . 1 1 . 1 9 . 0
2 . 1 1 . 1 9 . 0
2 . 1 1 . 1 9 . 0
01 . 1 01 . 1
01 . 1 01 . 1 01 . 0
01 . 0 01 . 1 01 . 1
ln
/
/ /
/ /

.8

Equation 8 can be differentiated to calculate
compressibilies and the thermal expansion
coefficients of condensate (liquid) fraction.
Hence, differentiating with respect to pressure
yields:

( ) ( ) [ ]
19
* exp D V V
P
V
P
V
REF C
T
REF
T
C
! ! "
#
$
%
&
'
(
(
= "
#
$
%
&
'
(
(

..9

Differentiating Equation 8 with respect to
temperature yields the following expression:

( ) ( )
( )
!
"
#
$
%
&
+
+
' ' (
)
*
+
,
-
.
.
= (
)
*
+
,
-
.
.
+ +
+
18
7 7
7
17
01 . 0 *
* exp D
M
xC
D V V
T
V
T
V
C C
REF C
P
REF
P
C
/
...10


SPE 104307 5


VAPOR VOLUME, V
V
:
( )
( )
( )
( ) [ ]
( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
"
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
#
$
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
%
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
&
'
+ +
+ +
(
)
*
+
,
-
+
+
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
+
+ .
/
0
1
2
3
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
+
+ .
/
0
1
2
3
+
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
+
+ .
/
0
1
2
3
+ + +
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
4
+
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
4
+
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
+
+
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
+
+ +
+
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
4
+
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
4
+
.
.
/
0
1
1
2
3
4
+
4 =
4 4
+ +
4
+
+
+ +
+
+ +
+
+ +
+ 4
4
4
4
4
+ +
+
4
2
19
3
18 17
2
1
16
7 7
2
7
15
2
1
7
7 7
14
2
7
7 7
13
7
7 7
12
7 11 6 2 1 10
2
1
6 2
6 2
9
6 2
6 2
8
2
7
1
7
7
1
6 7 5
2
1
6 2 4
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1 0
) (
10 * ln * 10 * ln *
01 . 0 *
01 . 0 10 * * ln
01 . 0
2
0 . 1 *
0 . 50
*
01 . 0
2
0 . 1 *
0 . 50
*
01 . 0
2
0 . 1 *
0 . 50
*
2 . 1 1 . 1
01 . 1
01 . 1
01 . 0 01 . 0
6
01 . 1 01 . 1 01 . 1
ln
T P B P T B
P
T
B
T B
M
T yC
B
M yC
B
M yC
B
M yC
B
B yC yC B
yC
yC
B
yC
yC
B
yC
yC
B
yC
yC
B yC B
yC B
yC
yC
B
yC
yC
B
yC
yC
B B
V V
C C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
V REF V
5
5
5
5
5

..11
Equation 11 can be differentiated to calculate
compressibilities and thermal expansion coefficients
of the vapor fractions.
Differentiating with respect to pressure yields:

( ) ( )
( )
!
!
!
!
!
"
#
$
$
$
$
$
%
&
'
'
'
(
)
*
*
*
+
,
- -
-
+
'
'
(
)
*
*
+
,
.
.
= '
(
)
*
+
,
.
.
-2
19
18
2
17
) (
) (
10 * ln
* exp
T B
P
T
B
P
T
B
V V
P
V
P
V
V REF V
T
V REF
T
V

..12
Differentiating with respect to temperature yields:
( ) ( ) [ ]
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
!
!
!
!
!
"
#
$
$
$
$
$
%
&
+ + +
+
+ +
' '
(
(
)
*
+
+
,
-
.
.
= (
)
*
+
,
-
.
.
'
'
+ +
'
+
'
+
T
P
B P B
P
B
T
B
M T yC
yC
B
V V
T
V
T
V
C C
V REF V
P
V REF
P
V
19
3
18 17
2
1
16
7 7
2
7
2
7
15
) (
) (
10 * ln
1
2
01 . 0 * * 01 . 0 10 * *
10 *
* exp
/

FFFFFFFF?GH
Where V
REF
and V
REF(V)
are reference volumes for
the condensate and vapor respectively and can be
determined using Equation 14.

( ) 0
2 3
= + ! +
"
#
$
%
&
'
+ + ! C mT
P
Ke
V
P
Ke
V C mT
P
RT
V
T
n
T
n

.14

Equation 14 provides functional relationships
between pressure, temperature, volume and
composition in a fluid system. In vapor-liquid
equilibrium calculations, it is a common practice to
use a single equation of state for liquid and vapor.
The equation is usually cubic in volume where the
smallest root is chosen for liquid and the largest for
vapor.

Analysis of Results:
From practical point of view, the liquid
phase viscosity, molal density and volume affect the
pressure. The liquid phase fraction determines the
response of a gas condensate system. The gas
deviation factor, viscosity and the formation volume
factor (B
g
) are functions of pressure only in situ,
although the deviations are usually small. The
leaner the retrograde gas, the smaller the deviations.
Table1 shows the two cases considered -
Rich Gas Condensate Reservoir and Lean Gas
Condensate Reservoir. The predicted liquid molal
volume (Figure B2), isothermal compressibility and
the liquid phase density were calculated based on
the liquid phase composition in the overall mixture.
Figure B3 shows the variation of vapor phase
compressibility factor with pressure.
6 SPE 104307
TABLE 1:
Gas Condensate Feed Composition








Equations 15 and 16 established that the flow
coefficient of gas phase to oil phase which depends
greatly on pressure is equal to the ratio of the total
moles of vapor to liquid hence the justification of
the reservoir volumetric balance in the
determination of the constant volume depletion of
gas condensate reservoir.
( ) P f
l
l
L
V
o
g
= =
.15
where l
g
and l
o
are flow coefficient of gas and oil
phase respectively.
g o ro
o g rg
o
g
K
K
l
l
!
!
=
..16
For gas condensate with low dropout, the
change in pressure difference with time is not
significant since the flow coefficient of gas phase to
oil phase and relative permeability to gas is
considerably high. Unlike in the case of a gas
condensate with high liquid dropout where
retrograde condensations impairs the relative
permeability to gas.
Increase reservoir pressure increases the gas
condensate viability and productivity. Figure B4
shows significant productivity loss due to
condensate richness. The productivity loss also
depends on the relative permeability characteristics,
the production mode and most especially the initial
reservoir pressure. The total flow rate decreases
with decrease in pressure as a result of liquid hold-
up.
Figure B5 shows the plot of estimated
Condensate Gas Ratio (CGR) to a vertical well. The
change in CGR is due to the loss of oil in Region 2
(R2) as the condensate bank builds up.
Comparatively, constant volume depletion
calculations for retrograde condensate fluid for Cho
et al
9
, Firoozabadi et al
13
and the one predicted by
Olaberinjo et al ( New Approach), shows good
agreement between predicted values and
experimental values. Figure B6 presents the plot of
the three methods above, Cho et al
9
made use of
percentage mole of C
7+
in their correlation while the
new approach take into consideration C
1
(Light), C
2

C
6
(Intermediate) and C
7+
(Heavier).
The adopted reservoir volumetric approach
expresses molal volume of retrograde liquid with
considerably greater accuracy than methods of
prediction presently available, and applies over
wider ranges of the variables involved.

Conclusions
This work formulate a better method for
determining the constant volume depletion
calculations for retrograde condensate fluid and also
for calculating accurately the volumes,
COMPONENT
MOLE % -
Rich Gas
Condensate
MOLE % -
Lean Gas
Condensate
C
1
(Light) 58.77 73.190
C
2 -
C
6
(Intermediate) 18.33 15.920
C
7+
(Heavier) 21.76 08.210
N
2
00.21 00.310
CO
2
00.93 02.370
TOTAL MOLE 100.00 100.000
SPE 104307 7
compressiblities and thermal expansion coefficients
of both liquid and vapor components of a gas
condensate system which are highly essential in
gas condensate reservoir performance and
productivity analysis.

Nomenclature
c Compressibility, Psia
-1

M Molecular Weight, lbm / lbmol
P Reservoir Pressure, psia
R Universal Gas Constant, 10.73
(Psia ft
3
/ mol R)
T Formation Temperature
o
F
Z Gas Compressibility Factor
! Density, lbm / ft
3

Viscosity, cp
x Liquid Composition
y Vapor Composition
L Mole Fraction of Liquid
V Mole Fraction of Vapor

References
1. Fevang et al. (1995):Modeling Gas
Condensate Well Deliverability, SPE paper
30714. Paper prepared for presentation at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition held in Dallas, U.S.A., 22-25
October, 1995. pp103-118.
2. Bennion, D. B. et al. Optimizing
Production from Gas Condensate Reservoir,
JCPT Oct., 1997, Vol. 36, No. 9
3. Bennion, D. B. et al. Towards Optimizing
Gas Condensate Reservoir, Petroleum
Society of CIM and CANMET Paper No.
95-09.
4. Cable A. S. et al. (2000): X-Ray In-situ
Saturation in Gas Condensate Relative
Permeability Studies, SCA 2000 39 AEA
Technology PLC, Winfrith Technology
Centre, Dorchester, Dorset, DT2 8ZE, UK
5. Cable A. S. et al. (2002): Field Model
Predictions To Demonstrate the Value of
Integrated Gas Condensate Near-Well
SCAL Data, SCA 2002-46. AEA
Technology plc, Winfrith Technology
Centre, Dorchester, Dorset, DT2 8ZE, UK.
6. Robert Mott (1999), Calculating Well
Deliverability in Gas Condensate
Reservoirs, EAGE - 10th European
Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery,
Brighton, UK, 18-20 August, 1999 p 104.
7. Robert Mott (2002), Engineering
Calculations of Gas Condensate Well
Productivity, SPE 77551, Presented at SPE
Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio
Texas, USA, Oct. 2002.
8. Sognesand S. (1991) Long Term Testing
of Vertically Fractured Gas Condensate
Wells, SPE Paper 21704
9. Cho S. J. et al (1985): A Correlation to
Predict Maximum Condensation for
Retrograde Condensation Fluids and its use
in Pressure Depletion Calculations, SPE
Paper 14268.
10. Olaberinjo A. F. et al. (2004) A
Compositional Approach for Calculating
8 SPE 104307
Pressure Depletion Performance of Gas
condensate Reservoirs, PTDF Report Series
2004, Department Of Petroleum
Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
11. Olaberinjo A. F. (2006): Modeling the
Effects of Compositional Changes in Gas
Condensate Reservoirs. SPESA Paper
0604. Paper Presented at SPE (Saudi Arabia)
2006 Technical Symposium, May 2006.
12. Surjit M. et al. (1968): the Prediction of
Volume, Compressibilities and Thermal
Expansion Coefficients of Hydrocarbon
Mixtures SPEJ June, 1968 pp.95 106
13. Firoozabadi, A. et al.: Reservoir Depletion
Calculations for Gas Condensates Using
Extended Analysis in the Peng Robinson
Equation of State, SPE Reprint Series
Number 15, Phase Behaviour.













APPENDIX A:
COEFFICIENTS FOR EQUATIONS 8
D
0
0.35568804*10
2
D
10
0.47097391*10


D
1
-0.13527706 D
11
0.15158952*10
D
2
0.92788640*10
-1
D
12
-0.25714342*10
-1
D
3
0.14113548 D
13
-0.37107261*10
2

D
4
-0.32315277*10
-1
D
14
0.27414938*10
2

D
5
-0.10549435*10 D
15
0.30740710*10
-1

D
6
0.10252432*10 D
16
-0.52353616*10
-5

D
7
0.51822466 D
17
-0.74618823*10
-2

D
8
-0.49754594 D
18
-0.56509643*10
-4

D
9
-0.48125456*10 D
19
-0.51760612*10
-5


COEFFICIENTS FOR EQUATIONS 11
B
0
0.13530821*10 B
10
-0.28777369
B
1
0.19848504*10
-2
B
11
-0.30461668
B
2
-0.19844088*10
-3
B
12
-0.81160977
B
3
0.51379175*10
-5
B
13
0.94223921*10
-1

B
4
0.24836420*10
-1
B
14
0.32539924
B
5
0.44694647*10 B
15
0.30306454*10
B
6
-0.14129608*10
-2
B
16
0.10854281*10
-1

B
7
0.34589052*10
-4
B
17
-0.33153892
B
8
-0.12601651 B
18
-0.15405355*10
-3

B
9
0.12378339 B
19
0.52470355*10
-5


SPE 104307 9
APPENDIX B: FIGURES

Figure 1: Schematic Gas Condensate Flow Regimes
1


FIGURE B2: PRESSURE VARIATION WITH MOLAL VOLUME OF LIQUID
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
PRESSURE, PSIA
L
I
Q
U
I
D

V
O
L
U
M
E
,

C
U
F
T
/
L
B
M
O
L
Rich Gas Condensate
Lean Gas Condensate

FIGURE B3: VARIATION OF PRESSURE WITH VAPOR PHASE COMPRESSIBILITY FACTOR, Z
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
PRESSURE, PSI
C
O
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y

F
A
C
T
O
R
,
Z
Rich Gas Condensate
Lean Gas Condensate






FIGURE B4: VARIATION OF PRESSURE (PSI) WITH TOTAL FLOWRATE, qT (LBMOL/DAY)
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
500 1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500
PRESSURE, PSIA
T
O
T
A
L

F
L
O
W
R
A
T
E
,

(
L
B
M
O
L
/
D
A
Y
)
Rich Gas Condensate
Lean Gas Condensate



FIGURE B5: EXTIMATED FLOWING CONDENSATE-GAS RATIO TO A VERTICAL WELL
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
1.00E-01 1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04
DISTANCEFROMWELL (FT)
E
X
T
IM
A
T
E
D
F
L
O
W
IN
G
C
G
R
(
S
T
B
/M
M
s
c
f
)
VAPOUR PHASE
VAPOUR +
CONDENSATE



FIGURE B6: CONSTANT VOLUME DEPLETION CALCULATION FOR RETROGRADE CONDENSATE
FLUID - CONDENSATE YIELD VERSUS PRESSURE
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
PRESSURE, PSI
C
O
N
D
E
N
S
A
T
E

L
I
Q
U
I
D

M
O
L
A
L

V
O
L
U
M
E




Olaberinjo et al
Firoozabadi et al.
Cho et al.