SPE 94065

Estimation of Long Term Gas Condensate Well Productivity Using Pressure Transient
Data
R. Osorio, G. Stewart, A. Danesh, D. Therani and M. Jamiolahmady, Inst.of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt U.

Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference held
in Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
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 SPE, their officers, or members. 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
Conventional composite models can be used to calculate gas
condensate well skin values including that due to condensate
banking. However, the calculated skin varies in time as the
fluid properties and gas and condensate fractional flow
change, hence, making estimation of long term performance of
a well unreliable. The dependency of gas and condensate
mobility on the flow rate at near well bore conditions makes
the problem more challenging. We have addressed this issue
by developing an analytical method to use transient well test
data to determine gas-condensate relative permeability,
accounting for the rate effect, which makes future performance
prediction a more reliable task.
Synthetic well test data have been generated by a commercial
compositional numerical simulator with and without the rate
effect. The impact of including the rate effect in the simulated
cases on well test analysis results has been evaluated. The
results show that for the cases analysed that the derivative of
pressure responses does not necessarily always exhibit a threeradial composite behaviour due to condensate banking, when
the rate effect is present, though such behaviour could be
exhibited in some cases.
Our developed analytical methodology is based on a technique
that allows estimating the reservoir pressure as a function of
distance from the well, at the end of the drawdown period,
using the bottom-hole pressure value before the shut-in. Once
this reservoir pressure profile is available, the actual reservoir
pressure gradient as a function of distance is determined,
which can be used to calculate the values of gas and
condensate relative permeability. Therefore, we show for the
first time that it is possible to calculate from pressure transient
data the near well gas and oil relative permeability values

accounting for the rate effect. The well must be shut in at the
bottom of the hole to avoid any wellbore storage effect on
pressure build-up. We also show that the size of the twophase region can be predicted with excellent accuracy using an
analytical approach.
Introduction
When bottom-hole flowing pressure drops below the dew
point, a zone of high liquid saturation forms near the well
bore. For a long time, engineers in oil industry considered that
this high liquid saturation region always resulted in reduced
gas relative permeability and lowered well deliverability
causing in many cases a severe damage, which is often called
skin due to condensate banking.
It has been demonstrated by different studies, which focused
on the measurement and correlation of gas and condensate
relative permeabilities at near well bore conditions, that the
rate effect as well as the negative inertial effect were both
significant in many cases. However, the negative inertial effect
over a wide range of conditions can be subordinated to the
positive rate effect and therefore the gas relative permeability
can increase with increasing velocity when significant quantity
of condensate is present in the region near the wellbore.
Danesh et al.[1] were first to report the improvement of relative
permeability of condensing systems due to an increase in
velocity as well as that caused by a reduction in interfacial
tension. This flow behaviour, named as the positive coupling
effect, was subsequently confirmed experimentally by other
investigators [2-5].
The analysis of well tests on gas systems with retrograde
condensation is based on either the two-zone radial composite
model or the multiphase pseudo-pressure approach. However,
analysis of well test in gas condensate reservoirs, either using
composite models with single pseudo-pressures or multi-phase
pseudo-pressure approaches, is still based on the wrong
paradigm, which states that reduced gas relative permeability
due to liquid saturation in the vicinity of the well bore is not
improved by the rate effect, although there is evidence of cases
where the rate effect concept has been used in reservoir
simulation to match DST draw-down data from the Britannia
and Cupiagua fields (Diamond et al.[6] and Salino[7]). At first

glance, there would be good reasons to think that if the rate

effect impacts the production matching process of a gas
condensate well using reservoir simulation at the same time it
should impact the well test interpretation using any of the
existing standard approaches to calculate the skins, specially
the skin due to condensate banking.
The basis of the multiphase pseudo-pressure approach to
interpret the well pressure responses in gas condensate
reservoirs is the pressure integral that has been widely used in
gas rate equations for a long time. This means that before
multiphase pseudo-pressure functions were incorporated in the
analysis of pressure transient data, some different types of
pseudo-pressure integrals were used in order to evaluate well
performance in gas condensate reservoirs.
ODell and Miller[8] presented the first gas rate equation using
a pseudo-pressure function to describe the effect of condensate
blockage. Their equation is valid only if the zone with twophase flow regime is small and the produced well stream is the
original reservoir gas.
Fussell[9] examined the performance of a well in a gas
condensate reservoir and showed that the productivity of the
well is much higher than the productivity calculated by the
ODell and Miller[8] theory, which is unable to predict the
saturation profile in the two-phase region correctly. Fussell[9]
concluded that the model of ODell and Miller[8] might be used
to predict sandface saturations, provided that the gas in the
single-phase region is identical to the initial composition of the
fluid.
Jones and Raghavan[10-12] carried out different studies in order
to build a framework to establish a coherent theory for
analysing pressure transient behaviour (draw-down and buildup) in gas condensate reservoirs. They showed that drawdown pressure responses from retrograde gas condensate
systems could be correlated with the classical liquid solution,
if the pressures were transformed to appropriate two-phase
reservoir pseudo-pressure.
Raghavan et al.[13] presented analysis of several field and
simulated cases using the steady-state pseudo-pressure and
showed that their method works best when the reservoir
pressure is much higher that the dew point pressure and the
well bottom-hole pressure is much lower.
These
circumstances, as they pointed out, allow the formation of a
stabilized bank of fluid with a very small transition zone
around the well, in other words, this means that the steadystate theory used by Raghavan et al.[13] neglects a transition
zone where oil saturation is below the critical oil saturation.
Hence the steady-state approach models the flow in the
reservoir in two regions: a near well bore region where
condensate and gas are present (and mobile) and an outer
region containing single-phase flow only. The clear advantage
of using the steady-state concept is that saturations as function
of radius at a given time in depletion do not need to be known.
Fevang[14] developed two-phase pseudo-pressure using a
pressure-saturation relationship computed separately after

SPE 94065

defining three regions instead of two, that is, he accounted for

the existence of a transition zone, where both oil and gas are
present but only the gas is flowing. This approach is an
extension of the pseudo-pressure method proposed by Evinger
and Muskat[15] for solution gas drive wells.
Xu and Lee[16] applied the Fevang[14] three-zone concept to gas
condensate well test analysis and showed that the three-zone
method is more accurate than the steady-state approach for
evaluating both skin and reservoir flow capacity.
There is no publication dealing with the issue of including the
rate effect in the evaluation of multi-phase pseudo-pressure
functions although Xu and Lee[16 and Roussenac[17] have
recognised a technical vacuum for not using rate dependent
gas and oil relative permeability curves to evaluate two-phase
pseudo-pressure integrals. It is clear for us that any attempt to
do so must sort out first the issue of calculating analytically
the gas and condensate relative permeability values with rate
effect required to evaluate the pseudo-pressure function.
On composite models with single pseudo-pressures, there is
only one publication by Gringarten et al.[18] dealing with the
issue of including the rate effect on relative permeability
functional forms in simulation of well tests of gas condensate
reservoirs in order to generate synthetic responses to be
interpreted using common approaches of determining the twophase skin. The authors conclude that when capillary number
effects are important, the pressure derivative should exhibit
three stabilization periods.
More recently a study using the two and three-radial
composite model helped to gain a better understanding of
Santa Barbara condensate reservoir behaviour when many well
tests were interpreted by Briones et al.,[19]. The results
obtained provide evidences of the existence of retrograde
condensation and improvement of gas relative permeability
around the wells. Four wells were presented where the near
well bore zone with high capillary number was present.
Unfortunately, the tests were not long enough in duration for
the pressure derivative to exhibit the gas mobility at the outer
zone.
On muti-rate tests in gas condensates wells, to the best of our
knowledge, there are only two publications dealing with issue.
Raghavan et al.[13] analysed two actual multi-rate tests in gas
condensate wells. Since no theoretical evaluations of multirate tests, from pressure transient analysis point of view, were
available by that time, they conducted a number of
simulations, without rate effect, using a compositional model
to ensure that explanations they provided for the field cases
were plausible. The second publication was that of Gringarten
et al.[18]. They presented a simulated gas condensate multi-rate
test with rate effect. The run consisted of 10 periods of
alternating draw-downs and build-ups (1DD, 2PBU, 3DD,
4PBU, 9DD and 10 PBU) following a normal sequence, that
is, a scheme based on increasing gas flow rate. Only the first
draw-down (1DD) was analysed using single-phase pseudopressure in order to propose a three-zone radial composite
model to incorporate rate effect in gas condensate well test

SPE 94065

analysis. Unlike Raghavan et al.[13] paper, this study did not

present any interpretations for the subsequent build-up periods
nor for the reverse sequence of the normal simulated multi-rate
case even though variations of such production history were
run with different rates, gas-oil relative permeability models
and fluid compositions.
Conventional Well Test Analysis Using Composite
Models and Multiphase Pseudo-Pressure Functions
From a general point of view, radial composite models were
created to analyse systems where a discontinuity in reservoir
properties (permeability for instance) can be specified at some
radius from a well. Thus, the system is divided into a
cylindrical inner region with the well at the centre and an
infinite outer region.
In homogenous gas condensate
reservoirs, the physical nature of radial composite systems is
usually connected with the two-phase conditions arising in the
reservoir when the pressure in the vicinity of the wellbore falls
below the dew point and retrograde liquid condenses out to
give two-phase conditions near to the well. In this case, the
reservoir pressure far from the well is above the dew point and
the outer region is single-phase gas as it is shown in Figure 1.
The applicability of the two-zone model to diagnose the
presence of a condensate bank is based on the fact that any
contrast in the gas mobility causes the pressure derivative
curve to stabilize at a lower or higher level in a diagnostic loglog plot depending on whether the gas mobility is increased or
decreased, respectively. Therefore, when the bottom-hole
pressure drops below the dew point, a two-zone radial
composite could be used to identify regions of condensate
drop-out around the wellbore and of initial gas composition
away from the well as it is shown in Figure 2. Using this
methodology two skin values can be obtained, a mechanical
skin from the higher plateau and the total skin from the lower
plateau, hence the difference between those values is the skin
due to condensate banking around the well.
Two-zone radial composite models use a single phase pseudopressures function m(p), which includes fluid viscosity and
compressibility factor, and is defined as:

m (p) =

p
dp
( )( z )

(1)

, where z and are the compressibility factor and viscosity of

gas, respectively. The limits of integration are between a base
pressure, usually taken as atmospheric pressure, and the
pressure of interest. The value of the base pressure is arbitrary
since only differences in pseudo pressure are considered.
On the other hand, the two-phase pseudo-pressure function has
been defined, by analogy, as:

( p ) =

k rg + o k ro dp .

Pwf , s
o

Pws

(2)

Here k rm is the relative permeability to phase m and the

subscript o and g refer to the oil phase and gas phase,
respectively.
When the two-phase pseudo-pressure function, given by
Equation 2, is used for analysing well pressure responses, the
two-zone radial composite behaviour is removed from the
diagnostic log-log plot because the relative permeability
curves yield homogeneous looking derivatives giving access to
the mechanical skin only. Thus, the value of incorporating
relative-permeability effects in the pseudo-pressure function is
that skin due to condensate banking is already being included
within the two-phase pseudo-pressure integral.
To evaluate the two-phase pseudo-pressure integral it is
necessary to express k g and k o as a function of pressure.
For the purpose of transient pressure analysis this has been
accomplished based on fluid saturation-pressure relationships
corresponding to the steady-state flow. Such relationships are
reported by Chopra and Carter[20] and also by Jones and
Raghavan[11]. This theory states that the saturation pressure
relationship for steady-state flow is given by,

g L o
k ro
=
.
k rg
oV g

(3)

Here L and V refer to the fraction of total moles of liquid and

vapor, respectively. The left hand side of Equation 3 is
function of saturation only and the right hand side, which can
be calculated from a Constant Composition Expansion (CCE),
is only function of pressure. Once the left hand side of
Equation 3 is calculated then the values of k rg and k ro can be
obtained from a single set of gas-oil relative permeability
curves, which in this case do not account for the rate effect.
The steady-state flow also implies that the overall composition
of the flowing mixture is the composition of the original
reservoir gas. This means that there is no transition zone where
oil saturation is below the critical oil saturation. Hence the
steady-state approach models the flow in the reservoir into two
regions: a near well bore region where condensate and gas are
present (and mobile) and an outer region containing singlephase flow only. To include the third transition zone in the
two-phase pseudo-pressure calculations another pressuresaturation relationship is computed separately in each of the
three regions. This has been defined and used recently in well
test analysis, however k rg and k ro involved in the two-phase
pseudo-pressure calculations are still based on a single set of
base gas-oil relative permeability curves without the rate
effect. Details related to this different pressure-saturation

relationship and its implementation in well test analysis of gas

condensate reservoirs have been presented by Xu and Lee[16],
Roussenac[17], Barrios[21] and Barrios and Stewart[22].
Single Well Simulation Models
In order to evaluate the impact of including the rate effect in
the well test analysis of gas condensate reservoirs, through the
two-zone composite model approach and using the singlephase pseudo pressure, several well tests were simulated with
the commercial compositional simulator Eclipse 300. A twophase, one-dimensional model was built and different
synthetic cases were simulated to model the behaviour of well
pressure responses in gas condensate reservoirs. The purpose
of using these single well models is to produce a data file
which includes time, wet gas rate and bottom-hole pressure as
variables to be imported into Pansystem, which is a
commercial pressure transient analysis software, in order to
apply the methodology explained previously.
For both single-phase and two-phase conditions near the
wellbore the simulation consisted of reproducing a well test in
which the well is flowed at constant rate for some period
(draw-down) and then closed during another period for a
pressure restoration period (build-up).
For all the predictions performed in this study, the reservoir is
assumed to be a homogeneous porous medium of uniform
thickness of 200 feet, where gravity and capillary pressure
effects are negligible. Therefore the porosity and permeability
data for each of the grid block is assumed to be the same.
Hence any composite model identified in a log-log plot of
pressure response is because of the existence of zones with
different gas mobilities. It is also assumed that the well is shut
in at the bottom of the hole and there is no wellbore storang
effect present.
The bases for the input reservoir properties were a limestone
and sandstone cores with laboratory measurements. This
means that porosity, permeability and gas-condensate relative
permeability curves included in the single well model
correspond to those measured in the laboratory for the specific
case of zero water saturation. Limestone and sandstone
absolute permeability values are 9.1 and 11 mD, respectively.
Porosity values are 20.9% for limestone and 18.0% for
sandstone.
Figure 3 shows the gas-oil relative permeability curves of
limestone and sandstone cores used in this study. The gas oil
relative permeability curves correspond to those measured in
the laboratory to the highest value of interfacial tension (IFT)
and lowest velocity
There are simulated well test cases accounting for three
different compositions, as shown in Figure 4.
Flowing gas rates from 5 MMscf/day to 40 MMscf/day before
the build-up period were used in the simulations. The
simulator calculates the fluid PVT properties using a 10-

SPE 94065

component fluid and the three-parameter Peng-Robinson

equation of state.
Numerical simulation of well tests in gas condensate
reservoirs should recognise the fact that the pressure transient
information occurs during the first hours of the test and the
near wellbore region is of great interest. The numerical
simulation should therefore be performed on not only very
small grid blocks around the well but also using very small
time steps.
The final model grid chosen consisted of one layer with 40grid blocks in the radial direction, one grid in the angular
direction and an outer radius of 5000 feet to ensure that no
boundary effects are seen in the simulated well tests. Near the
wellbore, the cells are small to simulate the gas-condensate
near-wellbore behaviour accurately. The nearest cell to the
wellbore has a size of 0.15 feet and the size of the other cells
increases logarithmically away from the wellbore by a factor
of 1.3 up to cell 40.
After the grid size was optimised, the number of report steps
and the time between report steps together with the right
convergence criteria were set up by matching single-phase
simulations to analytical solutions in which the bottom-hole
pressure is above the dew point. However, in some cases, this
approach is not sufficient and instabilities of pressure
responses and production parameters are still observed when
simulating two-phase flow cases.
We used the analytically derived pressure derivative plots to
check the validity of our simulations. This means that the
optimum grid size, time steps between report steps and
convergence criteria must be capable of eliminating relevant
noises in the diagnostic log-log plot and at the same time the
results of the analytical interpretation of the pressure
derivative must fit the reservoir properties included in the
single well model.
In addition, an optimised model must ensure that production
data during the draw down period (such as producing gas-oil
ratio) do not oscillate and further tuning had to be made to
accomplish this aim. We have seen that rigorously, both the
time step tuning and convergence criteria should be done for
each of the particular considered cases.
Figures 5 and 6 show log-log plots of single-phase case and
two-phase case, respectively, where the derivative response
and the formation parameter calculated analytically match
with those included in the simulator input data.
An issue of particular importance in this study is the fact that
the Velocity Dependent Relative Permeability option
(VELDEP keyword in ECLIPSE 300) has been applied to
calculate the gas and condensate relative permeabilities
required for estimation of block to block flow.
The
experimental values of the exponents, together with the value
of the base capillary number of both limestone and sandstone
cores, were directly introduced to the simulation model. This
means that the positive rate effect and the negative inertial

SPE 94065

effect on the relative permeabilities as a function of capillary

number are being realistically incorporated in the simulation
model or at least based on values of exponents measured using
actual cores. Table 1 shows the exponents and constants for
limestone and sandstone cores used in the simulation model.

where, t is shut-in time, r is the probe radius,

is porosity,

k is absolute permeability and ct total compressibility.

From the probe radius concept, Equation 4, and replacing k/
___

New Analytical Method

In this section we will present theory and aspects of our
technical strategy aimed at developing a comprehensive
framework that allows inclusion of the rate effect in gas
condensate well test data analysis. Our new analytical
approach is based on the application of the probe radius
concept of Peaceman[23] and Agarwal[24] multibank theory in
gas condensate well test analysis. We have evaluated the
application of probe radius concept to cases with different gas
rates, rock properties and fluid systems.
The first aim at using the probe radius is the calculation of rate
dependent reservoir pressure gradient near the well bore from
pressure transient analysis.
More importantly, the second objective of using the probe
radius, to interpret well test data, is the analytical calculation
of rate dependent gas and oil relative permeability values from
pressure transient data interpretation. We will show that we
are able to accomplish this task near the well bore, that is,
exactly where the steady-state assumption is valid and rate
effect is important. This calculation has been carried out for
cases with different flowing gas rates during the draw-down
period before the build-up.
The ability of calculating both reservoir pressure gradient and
relative permeability values with rate effect is very important
due to its potential application in a different number of ways in
order to analyse productivity of a gas condensate well over its
production life.
Basics of Probe Radius Method
The probe radius is the radius at which the steady-state
flowing pressure (before shut-in) was equal to the current well
pressure after the shut-in. Peaceman[23] used this parameter for
calculating the pressure equivalent block radius in reservoir
simulation with Cartesian co-ordinates. However, we have
adopted the same concept for an entirely different purpose,
i.e., for determination of the relative permeability, in the
vicinity of the well within the reservoir, using the well test
data.

by T , the average total mobility ratio. The probe radius

corresponding to each value of T can be estimated using the
following equation:
___

2 .247
c t

r=

k t

c t r 2

te =

(4)

(5)

t p t
t p + t

(6)

where t p is the effective producing time or flowing time at

constant rate (in draw-down test) and t is the time elapsed
from start of the transient test (in build-up test). A given
pressure change, p , that occurred at shut-it time, t ,
during a build-up test would have occurred at equivalent time,
t e , in the test.
An important parameter in Equation 5 is the average
__

mobility T , which can be obtained from constant rate

solutions of diffusivity equation commonly used by well test
data analysis:

___

= 70 .62

qB
hp '

(7)

where q is flow rate in scf/d, B the gas formation volume

factor in reservoir cf/scf and h pay thickness in feet.

p ' is the standard logarithm derivative of

p with respect to time.

It can be obtained from the

derivative of the pressure response on the diagnostic log-log
plot and is given by,

p ' =
= 0 .445

When pressure response data from a build-up test are

analysed, shut-in time t is often changed to the equivalent
time or the Agarwal equivalent time, which is defined by,

In Equation 7,
Peaceman[23] showed that the probe radius (Figure 7), r , is a
function of shut-in time and through two independent
mathematical derivations (using Bessel series and the Ei
function) he verified that the probe radius and the shut-in time
are related by the following equation:

dp
.
d ln ( t e )

(8)

SPE 94065

___

The mobility T is almost constant for a single-phase flow,

from practical point of view, if the calculation with Equation 7
is carried out using p ' values from the outer radial flow
regime on the diagnostic log-log plot. If p ' values are
picked up from either the condensate bank transition zone or
___

the inner radial flow regime, then T is still a total mobility

but we must refer to it as two-phase total mobility and it is not
constant but changes with distance from the well bore.

Analytical Calculation of Rate Dependent Gas and Oil

Relative Permeability Values
The Analytical methodology we propose to obtain the gas and
oil relative permeability values with rate effect has two
different types of calculations. The first one is related to the
rate dependent pressure gradient as a function of distance and
the second one is the analytical calculation of the krg and kro
with rate effect itself.
We will show that these rate dependent gas and oil relative
permeability values can be calculated based on the steady-state
approach, which means that the following equations could be
used for this purpose:

k rg =

k ro =

m T g (1 x )
P
2 kh g r

mT o x
P
2 kh o r

(9)

(10)

Where,

mT : total mass rate.

x : liquid mass fraction.

g , o : gas and condensate viscosities, respectively.

g , o : gas and condensate densities, respectively.

kh : permeability-thickness product.
P
: rate dependent reservoir pressure gradient at radius r.
r
P : rate dependent reservoir pressure losses calculated based
on a small r at some specific radius r.

Total mass rate can be calculated from gas and condensate

flow rates measured during the actual well test. This total mass
rate would correspond to that existing at the sand-face in the
bottom hole. Fluid properties (densities, viscosities and liquid
mass fraction) are obtained from a constant composition
expansion (CCE) using an EoS and the produced gas
composition based on the assumption of steady-state. The
permeability-thickness product can be estimated by analysing
just the outer zone from the diagnostic log-log plot of
derivative of pressure (single phase flow) using single-phase
pseudo-pressures. Rate dependent reservoir pressure gradient
and rate dependent reservoir pressure losses would be
available after applying probe radius concept.
Fluid Properties Management
We have verified that fluid properties (densities, viscosities
and liquid mass fraction) required to calculate krg and kro
values with rate effect, according to Equations 9 and 10, must
be calculated from the constant composition expansion (CCE)
test results using an EoS and the produced gas composition
based on the assumption of steady-state flow in the immediate
vicinity of the well.
However, on the application of probe radius concept to gas
condensate cases, the situation is different.
It is not
completely clear that required fluid properties (formation
volume factor and total compressibility in Equation 5 and 7)
must be obtained from the produced gas composition based on
steady-state assumption. In fact, Peaceman[23] proved
mathematically that it is possible to use the build-up curve to
probe to a radius up to one-half that of an external boundary.
This makes the probe radius a very robust and powerful
concept, which is applicable both near the well bore and
reservoir far away from the well. The external boundary in our
single well models is located 5000 feet away from the well
bore, which means that probe radius should still be valid in
some part of the region with single-phase flow regime in our
simulation runs. This means, as we will show later, that probe
radius method is a practical concept to predict the size of a
condensate bank from pressure transient data analysis.
We have managed in two different ways the input related to
fluid properties in order to extend the probe radius concept to
gas condensate cases. This scheme of fluid input aims at
modelling the phase behaviour related to different zones of the
reservoir in the probe radius calculation, therefore, the
objective here is to see how sensitive this concept is when it is
applied to gas condensate systems.
Firstly, we used original gas composition to calculate a
constant formation volume factor at bottom-hole and constant
total compressibility based on initial reservoir conditions.
Then we obtained the same two parameters but now based on
composition of produced fluid. We have verified that probe
radius results in both cases are similar.

SPE 94065

Results and Discussion

Analytical Calculation of Rate Dependent Gas and Oil
Relative Permeability Values
The procedure to convert bottom-hole pressures from build-up
test into the reservoir pressure versus distance profile by using
the probe radius concept could be summarized as follows:
Synthetic bottom-hole pressure responses are generated
using a compositional simulator and different single well
models depending on the specific case.
Pressure responses obtained from the build-up period are
processed and analysed in pressure transient data analysis
software.
Derivative values related to the build-up analysis are
extracted from the well test data analysis.
Average total mobility values as a function of equivalent
time are calculated by using Equation 7; therefore these
total mobility values can also be expressed as a function of
bottom-hole pressure.
Probe radius is estimated based on Equation 5.
Bottom-hole pressure responses can be associated now to a
radius in the reservoir, hence a reservoir pressure versus
distance is available from the above analytical approach.
The reservoir pressure profile calculated is compared with
the reservoir pressure versus distance values given by the
numerical simulator at the end of each draw-down period.
Figures 8 and 9 compare the rate dependent pressure gradient
profiles calculated analytically through probe radius concept
with those given by the single well models at the end of the
eight-day draw-down period before the shut-in.
As we pointed out previously, once the reservoir pressure as a
function of distance is available, the reservoir pressure
gradient with rate effect, P

, is also known and it is

possible to proceed with the calculation of the rate dependent

krg and kro values using Equations 9 and 10.
Figures 8 and 9 show results for limestone and sandstone
cores, fluid system 1 and flowing gas rate of 30 MMscf/day,
which has one of the lowest bottom-hole pressure values, at
the end of the draw-down period, of all the cases we have
analysed in our study. Therefore, these cases constitute a very
good reference to show how accurate the probe radius concept
can be in predicting the rate dependent pressure gradient in the
immediate vicinity of a gas condensate well, which is the
region where the assumption of steady-state flow is valid and
therefore Equations 9 and 10 are applicable. Hence, if the rate
dependent P

can be estimated with good accuracy from

probe radius method, we will show that the calculation of krg

and kro with rate effect depends only on both the validity of the
steady-state flow assumption and the management of fluid
properties in Equations 9 and 10.

The estimation of rate dependent krg and kro using Equations 9

and 10 is quite sensitive to the composition of fluid used to
determine fluid properties. Therefore, we have noted that,
based on steady-state assumption, it is mandatory to use
composition of produced fluid in order to obtain proper values
of krg and kro near the well bore. As original fluid is richer
than produced fluid, using fluid properties based on
composition of original fluid in Equations 9 and 10 would lead
us to overestimate values of kro and under-estimate krg.
Rate dependent krg and kro can be calculated by our
methodology presented above provided that steady-state-flow
assumption is valid. In addition, we know that steady-state
assumption has been a long standing, reasonable and sound
approach to manage a number of issues near the well bore in
gas condensate wells, which is precisely the place where rate
effect is important. Figures 10 to 12 compare krg/kro ratio
values calculated analytically based on steady-state theory
with those given by the numerical single well models at the
end of the eight-day draw-down period before the shut-in.
Those charts correspond to limestone core, fluid system 1 and
flowing gas rates of 10, 20 and 30 MMscf/day. The krg/kro
ratio from steady-state theory was calculated based on
composition of produced fluid and using Equation 3.
Figures 10 to 12 confirm that there is a range of both reservoir
pressure and krg/kro ratio values where the steady-state
assumption is valid. It can also be observed that above some
reservoir pressure value the curves shown in these charts do
not match. In Figures 10 to 12, low pressures are related to a
near well bore region and high pressures correspond to regions
in the reservoir far away from the well. The higher the
flowing gas rate the lower the bottom-hole pressure values at
the end of the draw-down and the wider the range of reservoir
pressure where the steady-state-flow assumption is valid.
Figures 13 and 14 show results of rate dependent krg and kro
distribution just prior to shutting the well in, calculated
analytically using limestone core information, fluid system 1
and for a flowing gas rate of 20 MMscf/day. Composition
from produced fluid was always used in order to calculate the
required fluid properties in Equations 9 and 10. These charts
show that both krg and kro with rate effect in the immediate
vicinity of the well can be calculated analytically from
pressure transient data with reasonable accuracy provided that
steady-state-flow assumption is valid.
It is also known that krg and kro can each be expressed directly
as a function of the ratio krg/kro when both phases are mobile.
We already showed that after applying our analytical
methodology, krg and kro profiles as a function of distance
from wellbore are determined. Therefore, if we pick up from
those profiles values of krg and kro where the steady-state
theory is valid, then we could obtain from pressure transient
data analysis very useful relationships between rate dependent
krg as function of krg/kro ratio at different rate and interfacial
tension values, as it is shown in Figure 15. In this chart, IFT is
calculated from a CCE run with composition of produced
fluid, using an Equation of State and based on bottom-hole
pressure at the end of the draw-down period.

Now we show the validity of the probe radius concept in a

realistic multi-rate test. Our joint industry research
project[25,26], has addressed the issue of multi-rate testing,
highlighting major differences between that of dry gas and gas
condensate reservoir in order to develop insight into the multirate approach to test gas condensate wells.
Scheme shown in Figure 16 is used with fluid system 1 and
sandstone rock properties. This chart shows that total duration
of the multi-rate test was 50 hours.

SPE 94065

Multi-rate schemes with short test times would allow us to

probe the region near the well bore for instance up to three
times with three different flowing gas rates. Therefore, under
steady-state conditions around the well bore, we could obtain
from pressure transient data analysis krg and kro with rate
effect up to some distance from the well. Alternatively, we
could also define useful relationships between rate dependent
krg as function of krg/kro ratio at different rate and interfacial
tension values, as it was shown previously in Figure 15.
Size of two-phase region (condensate bank size)

We have defined certain criteria to establish the duration of the

flowing and build-up periods. Firstly, the last build-up in any
multi-rate test should be the longest. The aim here is to
achieve radial flow in the reservoir and to calculate reservoir
properties, which are necessary to perform calculations of
probe radius in any build-up period. In addition, those
reservoir properties are data that are conventionally is obtained
from pressure transient analysis. Contrary to this, in other
cases a build-up period is quite short and the objective in these
scenarios is exclusively to acquire data to understand flow near
the well bore, which is the region where the rate effect is most
important. The main criterion related to the duration of the
flowing periods is that a draw-down period must be as short as
possible because their purpose is just that bottom-hole
pressure drops below the dew point and two-phase flow
regime takes place around the well bore under different
flowing gas rates. However, we have also considered
scenarios with a long drawdown period before a long build-up
period, which is the most common scheme in single point gas
condensate well tests. Summarizing, we have tried to take into
account a number of possible schemes of flowing/build-up
periods, in terms of test times, in order to evaluate the
applicability of probe radius concept. However, we have kept
total duration of the multi-rate test within the realistic limits of
test times related to this type of operations in the field.
Figure 17 compares rate dependent reservoir pressure profiles
calculated analytically through probe radius concept with
those given by the single well models at the end of each drawdown period before the shut-in based on multi-rate test shown
in Figure 16. The results shown are related to the sandstone
core and fluid type 1 (47% liquid drop out). We have
simulated other multi-rate tests, all of them realistic from
duration point of view, using other fluid systems and rock
properties and the results are similar to those shown in Figure
17.

It has been considered by many engineers that data related to

size of condensate banks could be useful for workover
operations in gas condensate wells.
Figure 17 compares favorably reservoir pressure profiles
calculated analytically with those given by the single well
simulation models at the end of the drawdown period before
the shut-in. Since we are interested only in the region around
the well bore where the two-phase flow regime takes place, in
all these charts reservoir pressures shown are related to
distances in the r direction up to the specific radius where
single-phase flow ends.
We have run many different simulations and synthetic
transient pressure data have been analysed using the extension
of probe radius concept to gas condesante cases. In fact more
than 200 simulated PBU tests have been interpreted in our
study. The size of the two-phase region was predicted with
excellent accuracy for the tested fluids.
Size of condensate banks have been included in Tables 2 and 3
for some cases that we have simulated in order to compare the
analytical results with the values obtained from single well
models. In the simulated cases we have taken into account
different rock types, gas flowing rates, skin values and type of
drawdown before the shut-in. Results shown in Tables 2 and 3
are related to fluid type 1.
Conclusions
This study is the first step of a long-term project aimed at
developing new and efficient techniques for estimating
productivity of a gas condensate well over its production life
by analysing pressure transient data. Important observations
based on our results are as follows:

From these results it can be concluded that it is possible for a

build-up test in a gas condensate reservoir, to obtain from
bottom-hole pressures p ws at time t the equivalent reservoir

It is possible for a pressure build-up well test in a gas

condensate reservoir, including the rate effect, to derive the
reservoir pressure Pr , vs. radius r using the bottom-hole

pressure Pr at radius r . This can be accomplished even for

pressures, p ws , vs. time after shut-in. Therefore, rate

very short duration of drawdown and build-up periods and for

a wide range of flowing gas rates. Additionally, it is not
mandatory that flowing periods before shut-in be longer than
build-up periods.

dependent reservoir pressure gradient can be known and based

on steady-state-flow theory, gas and oil relative permeability
values with rate effect can also be determined from pressure
transient data analysis.
This technique is what we call
application of the probe radius method to gas condensate
systems. Since gas-condensate relative permeability values are

SPE 94065

rate dependent, skins due to condensate banking also depend

on flow velocity near the wellbore.
The applicability of the probe radius concept in gas condensate
systems was proven for different flowing gas rates and
different schemes of multi-rate tests. More importantly, it has
been shown that probe radius method can work properly in
cases with short flowing and build-up periods. Different rock
types and fluid systems have been used to extend the probe
radius concept to a variety of gas condensate scenarios.
Size of the two-phase region (condensate bank) can be
predicted with excellent accuracy from transient pressure data
by applying the probe radius concept to gas condensate cases.
Acknowledgements
The above study has been soponsored by UK Department of
Trade and Industry, BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd.,
Gaz de France, Marathon Oil UK, Statoil A.S.A and Total
Exploration UK plc, which is gratefully acknowledged.
Schlumberger and Edinburgh Petroleum Services are thanked
for the use of ECLIPSE300 and Pansystem, respectively.
References
1. Danesh, A., Khazam, M., Henderson, G.M., Therani, D.H. and
Peden, J.M.: "Gas Condensate Recovery Studies, DTI Improve Oil
Recovery and Research Dissemination Seminar, London, June, 1994.
2. Henderson, G.M., Danesh, A., Therani, D.H., Peden, J.M.: The
effect of velocity and interfacial tension on the relative permeability
of gas condensate fluids in the wellbore region, presented at the 8th
IOR European Symposium, Vienna, May 1995, proccedings page
201-208.
3. Henderson, G.M., Danesh, A., Therani, D.H., Peden, J.M.:
Measurement and correlation of gas condensate relative
permeability by the steady-state method, SPEJ, June 1996, 191-201.
4. Ali, J.K., McGauley, P.J. and Wilson, C.J.: The effects of high
velocity flow and PVT changes near the wellbore on condensate well
performance, SPE paper 38923, SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, 5-8 Oct., 1997, proccedings, page 823-838.
5. Blom, S.M.P., Hagoort, J. and Soetekouw, D.P.N.: Relative
permeability near wellbore conditions, SPE 38935, SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, 5-8 Oct., 1997, proccedings,
page 957-967.
6. Diamond, P.H., Pressney, R.A., Snyder, D.E. and Seligman, P.R.:
Probabilistic prediction of well performance in a gas condensate
reservoir, SPE paper 36894 presented at SPE European Petroleum
Conference, October 1996, Milan, Italy.
7. Salino, P.: Gas condensate near-wellbore processes reconciling
laboratory & field data, Internal Report RPT/054/98, bp, SPRReservoir Performance, 1998.
8. ODell, H.G. and Miller, R.N.: Succesfully cycling a low
permeability, high-yield gas condensate reservoir, JPT (1967) 41-47;
Trans., AIME, 240.
9. Fussel, D. D.: Single well performance predictions for gas
condensate reservoirs, JPT (1973) 258-268; Trans., AIME, 255.
10. Jones, J. R.: Computation and analysis of single well responses
for gas condensate systems, PhD Thesis, 1985, University of Tulsa,
OK.
11. Jones, J.R. and Raghavan, R.: Interpretation of flowing well
response in gas-condensate wells, SPE paper 14204, 1988.

12. Jones, J.R, Vo, D.T. and Raghavan, R.: Interpretation of pressure
build-up responses in gas condensate wells, SPE paper 15535, 1989.
13. Raghavan, R., Chu, W.C, and Jones, J.R.: Practical
considerations in the analysis of gas-condensate well tests, 1999,
SPE Reservoir Eval. & Eng. 2, 288-295.
14. Fevang, O.: Gas Condensate Flow Behaviour and Sampling,
PhD thesis, 1995, Norges Tekniske Hogskole.
15. Muskat, M.: Physical principles of oil production, McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc., 1949.
16. Xu, S. and Lee, J.W.: Two-phase well test analysis of gas
condensate reservoirs, SPE paper 56483, 1999.
17. Roussennac, B.: Gas Condensate well test analysis, Master of
Science in Petroleum Engineering Thesis, 2001, Stanford University.
18. Gringarten, A.C., Al-Lamki, A. and Daungkaew, S.: Well Test
Analysis in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs, 10th European Symposium
on Improved Oil Recovery, August 1999, Brigthon, United Kingdom
19. Briones, M., Zambrano, J.A. and Zerpa, C.: Study of GasCondensate Well Productivity in Santa Barbara Field, October 2002,
Venezuela, by Well Test Analysis, SPE paper 77538 presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
20. Chopra, A. and Carter, R.: Proof of the two-phase steady-state
theory for flow through porous media, SPE paper 14472, 1985.
21. Barrios, K.: Analysis of well test responses in gas condensate
reservoirs, MPhil Thesis, 2002, Institute of Petroleum Engineering,
Heriot-Watt University.
22. Barrios, K., Stewart, G. and Davies, D.: A novel methodology
for analysis of well test responses in gas condensate reservoirs, SPE
paper 81039, 2003.
23. Peaceman, D.W.: Interpretation of well-block pressures in
numerical reservoir simulation, SPE paper 6893, 1978.
24. Agarwal, R.G. and Yeh, N.S.: Pressure transient analysis of
injection wells in reservoirs with multiple fluid banks, SPE paper
19775, 1989.
25. Progress Report 3, Gas Condensate Recovery Project, Institute of
Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt Unversity, January 2004.
26. Progress Report 4, Gas Condensate Recovery Project, Institute of
Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt Unversity, August 2004

Nomenclature
B
ct
p
q
h
k
kr
L
mT
r
tp
V
x
z

= Formation volume factor

= Total compressibility
= Pressure
= Flow rate
= Thickness
= Absolute permeability
= Relative permeability
= Liquid mole fraction
= Total mass rate
= Probe radius
= Effective producing time
= Vapor mole fraction
= Liquied mass fraction
= Compresibility factor
= Density
= Viscosity
= Porosity

= Shut-in time

te
p '
p

= Equivalent time
= Rate dependent derivative of pressure
= Rate dependent reservoir pressure losses

10

SPE 94065

__

T
T

= Averaged total mobility of gas and condensate.

= Discrete total mobility
= Single-phase pseudo-pressure

m(p)

Table 1. Exponents and parameters of the VDRP correlation for the

cores used in the single well model.

Limestone

mg- exponent of residual gas

saturation correlation
ng- exponent of scale function
correlation
of gas relative permeability
nc- exponent of scale function
correlation
of condensate relative permeability
Ncb- Base Capillary number
Inertia factor for dry gas phase (m-1)
Two-phase inertia factor (F)
C and D parameters to calculate the
two-phase inertia factor

2.

7.5
0.5100

2.0
0.2378

10
20
30
10
20
30

0.013

0.0694

Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone
1.

2.

Transient
Pseudo-steady
Transient
Transient
Pseudo-Steady
Transient

Pressure

3.81 E07
1.623 E10
2846.25
-0.3 and 1.2

1.41E-06
3.927 E9
548.52
-0.3 and 1.2

Mechanic
al Skin

0
0
6
0
0
6

Two

Single Phase Reg ion

Phase

p > p sat

Region

rsat

re
Ra dius, r

Figure 1. Radial composite behaviour near the wellbore in gas

condensate reservoirs

FFF
L o g-L o g

Between 53-67
Between 210-263
Between 70-77
Between 34- 43
Between 167-209
Between 329-413

above

p tp

rw

65
243
72
43
200
332

Table 3. Size of the region with two-phase flow regime given by

numerical simulation and calculated analytically using probe radius
concept. Gas Rate of 10 MMscf/day

Draw-down
before
shut-in

Reservoir

Saturation

pw

This distance is based on the size the of two adjacent grid blocks in the
single well model where two-phase flow begins (krg < 1 and liquid
saturation is greater than zero).
Distance away from the well bore at which the reservoir pressure
calculated by the probe radius method is equivalent to the dew point
pressure.

Type
of
core

Single P hase
Pressure P rofile

Sandstone

Table 2. Size of the region with two-phase flow regime given

by numerical simulation and calculated analytically using
probe radius method, at different rates.
Two-phase zone size
/feet
Gas Rate
Type of core
/MMscf.day-1
Simulation1
Analytical2

1.

p sat

Two Phase
Pressure Profile

Exponent or parameter

Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Sandstone
Sandstone
Sandstone

pi

Ga s Block
or
Liquid D ropout

Two-phase zone size

/feet

D i a g n o s t ic

an d

C urv e

M TR

W B S

R a d ia l C o m p o s it e

p
k
=
1

k2

D P

k1

tw o
ph as e

k
=
sp hginaagssl ee
D P

T r a n s it i o n

t
S e m ilo g

pws

T y pe

E TR

P lot

T o ta l
( P s e u d o r a d i a l)
S k in

S e c o n d
S t ra ig h t
L in e
F i rs t
S t r a ig h t
L in e

F ig 1 6 .3 .3

Figure 2. Composite model interpretation in gas condensate reservoirs.

1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4

Simulation1

Analytical2

Between 70-77
Between 175-191
Between 70-77
Between 45- 49
Between 122-133
Between 45-49

72
175
72
55
127
55

This distance is based on the size the of two adjacent grid blocks in the
single well model where two-phase flow begins (krg < 1 and liquid
saturation is greater than zero).
Distance away from the well bore at which the reservoir pressure
calculated by the probe radius method is equivalent to the dew point
pressure.

Krg - Limestone
Kro - Limestone
Krg - Sandstone
Kro - Sandstone

0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

So

Figure 3. Gas and condensate relative permeability curves of the

limestone core at high IFT and low velocity (base curve).

SPE 94065

11

rw
0.5

t 5
Liquid Saturation

pr(tp,rp5)

t 4

0.4

t 3

0.3

Peaceman Probe
Radius Concept

pr(tp,rp4)
p r(tp,rp3)

pr

0.2

t 2

0.1

Fluid System 1
Fluid System 2
Fluid System 3

pr(tp,rp2)

t 1

pr(tp,rp1)

tp

0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Pressure /psia

Res ervoir pres sure distribution

at moment of shut-in, pr(tp )

Figure 4. Fluid systems used in this study.

Pressure Build-Up in a Reservoir

Fig 2.5.11

Figure 7. Ilustration of the Probe radius concept.

PVT from Original Fluid at Initial Reservoir Conditions

10000

Pressure Gradient /psi.ft-1

Probe Radius
1000

Simulation

100

10

1
0

10

Distance /feet

Figure 5. Log-log plot of a single phase case.

Figure 8. Rate dependent reservoir pressure gradient profile at shut-in
time. Used limestone core (k=9.1 mD) and fluid of 47% maximum
liquid drop out. Gas rate of 30 MMscf/day.

PVT from Original Fluid at Initial Reservoir Conditions

10000

Pressure Gradient /psi.ft-1

Probe Radius
1000

Simulation

100

10

1
0

10

Distance /feet

Figure 6. Log-log plot of a two-phase case.

Figure 9. Rate dependent reservoir pressure gradient profile at shut-in

time. Used sandstone core (k=11. mD) and fluid of 47% maximum
liquid drop out. Gas rate of 30 MMscf/day.

12

SPE 94065

t = 8.2 days (Before PBU)

t = 8.2 days (Before PBU)

70

1.2
Simulation

60

Simulation

1.0

Steady-State Theory - PVT from Produced Fluid

50

Probe Radius - Rate Dependent dP/dr

40

krg

krg/kro

0.8
0.6

30

0.4

20

0.2

10
0
4900

0.0
5000

5100

5200

5300

5400

5500

10

20

Pressure /psia

30

40

50

60

70

Distance /feet

Figure 10. Rate dependent krg/kro ratio as a function of pressure at

shut-in time. Used limestone core (k=9.1 mD), fluid of 47% maximum
liquid drop out and gas rate of 10 MMscf/day.

Figure 13. Rate dependent gas relative permeability as a function of

distance at shut-in time. Used limestone core (k=9.1 mD), fluid of 47%
maximum liquid drop out and gas rate of 20 MMscf/day.

t = 8.2 days (Before PBU)

t = 8.2 days (Before PBU)

50

1.2

Simulation
40

Simulation

1.0

Steady-State theory - PVT from Produced Fluid

30

kro

krg/kro

Probe Radius - Rate Dependent dP/dr

0.8
0.6

20
0.4

10
0.2

0.0

4400 4500 4600 4700 4800 4900 5000 5100 5200 5300 5400 5500

Pressure /psia

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Distance /feet

Figure 11. Rate dependent krg/kro ratio as a function of pressure at

shut-in time. Used limestone core (k=9.1 mD), fluid of 47% maximum
liquid drop out and gas rate of 20 MMscf/day.

Figure 14. Rate dependent oil relative permeability as a function of

distance at shut-in time. Used limestone core (k=9.1 mD), fluid of 47%
maximum liquid drop out and gas rate of 20 MMscf/day.

t = 8.2 days (Before PBU)

40
t = 8.2 days (Before PBU)

Simulation
30

0.6

Steady-State Theory - PVT from Produced Fluid

20

0.4

krg

krg/kro

0.5

0.3

10
0.2

0
3700

10 MMscf/day - IFTwellbore=0.01 mNewton/mt

20 MMscf/day - IFTwellbore=0.1 mNewton/mt
30 MMscf/day - IFTwellbore=0.26 mNewton/mt

0.1

3900

4100

4300

4500

4700

4900

5100

5300

5500

Pressure /psia

0.0
0

Figure 12. Rate dependent krg/kro ratio as a function of pressure at

shut-in time. Used limestone core (k=9.1 mD), fluid of 47% maximum
liquid drop out and gas rate of 30 MMscf/day.

10

krg/kro

Figure 15. Rate dependent krg as function of krg/kro with rate effect at
shut-in time. Used limestone core (k=9.1 mD), fluid of 47% maximum
liquid drop out and gas rates of 10, 20 and 30 MMscf/day.

SPE 94065

13

MULTI-RATE TEST - FLUID SYSTEM 1

45

3 DD

35

Rate/ MMscf.day

-1

40
2 DD

30
25

1 DD

20
15
10
5

1 PBU

2 PBU

3 PBU

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time/ hours

Figure 16. Multi-rate Test scheme for sandstone core. Used fluid of
47% maximum liquid drop out. Gas rates of 20, 30 and 40 MMscf/day.

5500
5200

Pressure /psia

4900
Qg /Mmscfday-1

4600
Probe Radius
Simulation

4300

20

Probe Radius
4000

Simulation
Probe Radius

3700

30
40

Simulation
3400
0

10

20

30

40

50

Distance /feet

Figure 17. Reservoir pressure distribution at first, second and third

shut-in times. Used sandstone core (k=11 mD) and fluid of 47%
maximum liquid drop out. Gas rates of 20, 30 and 40 MMscf/day.