SPE 54351
Application of Horizontal Well in Heterogeneity Gas Condensate Reservoir
A. Muladi, LEMIGAS Research and Development Center; and W.V. Pinczewski, SPE, University of New South Wales
Copyright 1999, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 1999 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition held in Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022 April 1999.
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
As a result of a low pressure around wellbore, a liquid
condensate saturation ring radially propagates the well
reducing the relative permeability to gas. This phenomenon
can occur even if the average reservoir pressure remains above
the dew point pressure. Unless the pressure gradient stabilises
around the well, the condensate ring continues to grow and the
gas-oil ratio varies accordingly.
This paper presents application of horizontal well in
heterogeneity gas condensate reservoir. Horizontal wells
theoretically can improve productivity due to minimizing
pressure drop around wellbore (higher PI). The primary goal
of the study is to examine the difference in production
performance between horizontal and vertical wells for
different heterogeneities in gas condensate reservoir. Result
demonstrate the effect of heterogeneity and average
permeability values. It is shown that level of heterogeneity
was found to have no effect in production performance but the
layering pattern or distribution of heterogeneity was found to
have more important effect.
Introduction
Gas condensate reservoirs have specific problems
characterised by the buildup of a condensate saturation ring
near the wellbore. This condensate ring occurs as the pressure
declines below the dew point. This buildup of liquid
saturation can lead to severe a loss of well productivity and
therefore lower gas recovery.
Several studies have examined the various factors that
influence the behaviour of gas condensate liquids. Takeda et
al.2 claim that the gravity force and interfacial tension (which
is important in determining the relative permeability) are
important factors in determining the buildup of fluid
condensation around the well. Boom et al.3 studied the
uncertainties in well deliverability forecasting for a gas
condensate reservoir. In his study, he revealed that mobility
increase is primarily controlled by capillary number and
interfacial tension. Thomas et al.4 and Bourbioux et al.5
suggested that the fluid phase behaviour and fluid flow in the
rock depend upon the degree of retrograde condensate
accumulation, interfacial tension and mobility (relative
permeability).
Clarke 6 conducted a simulation study based on a single
well model in an 11-layer vertically heterogeneous reservoir
(kv>0) with a nine component fluid to predict producing well
behaviour and condensate development in reservoir pressure
maintenance. In his study, he demonstrated that low flowing
bottomhole pressure leads to detrimental results due to gas
condensate production.
In the case of low permeability reservoirs, the production
well must impose flowing bottom hole pressures less than
fluid dew point for the wells to be significantly productive.
Barnum et al.7 demonstrate that severe loss of gas recovery
occurs primarily in low productivity reservoirs. The
conclusion of their study is that productivity impairment
results in reductions in gas recovery for wells with
permeability-thickness below 1000 md-ft. There are no
reported examples of severe decline from high productivity
formations. Hinchman and Barre 9 showed how the choices
between imbibition and drainage relative permeability curves
can dramatically alter productivity forecasts when the
reservoir pressure below the saturation pressure for gas
condensates reservoirs.
There are several studies for vertical wells in gas
condensate reservoir using numerical simulation. Abid et al.9 ,
Zambrano et al.10 and Barnum et al.7 have used compositional
simulations to examine the behaviour of reservoir under
various depletion and cycling recovery schemes. These papers
describe the relative advantages of various production
strategies in gas condensate reservoirs. Kim11 also used
compositional simulation to evaluate the sensitivity of liquid.
recovery to pressure, production rate and extent of gas cycling
. Abid9 encountered difficulties in matching the short term
test data for wells with flowing bottom hole pressures below
the dewpoint pressure of the reservoir fluid. He reports that
during his single well simulation, the results showed 70 %
loss of production due to condensation near the wellbore,
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR
while no such behaviour was observed in the actual field well.
However, Kim showed that a compositional reservoir
simulator can best describe the complex mass transfer and
compositional changes due to a gas cycling operation. The
simulated results helped to increase the cumulative production
of oil by suggesting additional drilling and reactivation of
wells and relocation of injection wells. Tor Bu et al.12 said
that an integrated compositional reservoir and process
simulator would be the ultimate tool in resolving the
discrepancies noted. Van de Lempuut et al.13 investigated the
key concerns about well impairment due to near well
condensate precipitation. They conclude that reservoir
permeability, completion efficiency and fluid composition are
the most important parameters determining recovery and
productivity in a Central Oman reservoir.
Al Majid et Al.14 conducted a simulation study consisting
of 1-D, single well, radial models designed to deal effectively
with the observed saturation profile using only three cells. The
inner cell represent high oil saturation region, second cell
represent the transition region, the third cell represent the
exterior region. Using the techniques devised, this model
accurately mimics the behaviour of gas condensate reservoirs.
The model's results are superior to those from tank type
models, but would not be expected to be as reliable as those
from compositional models with many cells.
Although numerous works have been repeated on gas
condensate reservoirs, only few publications deal with the
application of horizontal wells to gas condensate reservoirs.
The Vuelta Grande Field uses horizontal wells to improve
production and drainage efficiency7,8. However the horizontal
well performance was described as less than expected due to
the peculiar stratigraphic characteristics of the producing
formation. These include variation of petrophysical
parameters, varied distribution of permeable zones, and
possible lenses with limited communication. Fevang et al15
simulated a single horizontal well with single phase gas at
very high pressure (10000 psia). The results show accurate
matching over the 20-year production period. They found that
simulation result were extremly sensitive to the ratio of kv/kh.
They suggested that if horizontal are being considered in the
development of a gas condensate reservoir, the kv/kh ratio
should be determined with certainty to avoid overly optimistic
production forecast.
Horizontal wells may minimises the occurrence of a
condensate saturation ring by increasing the productivity
index and therefore they may provide a remedy to the
common problems that arise in the production of gas
condensate reservoirs. Horizontal wells also tend to connect
fractures to increase productivity and improve sweep
efficiency. Additionally, the longer wellbore length serves to
reduce the drawdown for a given production rate and thus
further reduces coning tendencies. Furthermore, the
application of horizontal wells early in a project may allow
field development with fewer wells because of the larger
drainage area of each well. In some fields, the advantages of
horizontal drilling may allow a development strategy where
conventional technique would be uneconomical.
2
This study does not address liquid entrainment, IFT
effects, non-Darcy flow effects, or laboratory procedures for
calculating relative permeability curves and critical
condensate saturations. Here, we simply present a numerical
method developed to simulate particular cases where
condensate blockage does occur and which is based on an
assumed set of relative permeability curves which exhibit
significantly reduced gas mobility when liquid saturation
increases. Reservoir heterogeneity influences reservoir
performance in terms of local and overall fluid movement and
displacement processes. The emphasis is on the assessment of
heterogeneity effects on horizontal well productivity. The
models consider a layered representation of vertical
permeability. The layered model has the benefits of simplicity
while retaining geological reality.
The primary goal of this study is to examine the difference
in production performance between horizontal and vertical
wells for different heterogeneities in gas condensate
reservoirs. The model is set up in 3D Cartesian with co-
ordinates with a local refinement of the local to more
accurately model the near wellbore effects. This technique
allows the model to have relatively coarse grids in the
reservoir section and fine grids around wellbore.
The reservoir fluid consisted of seven hydrocarbon
components similar to that used for SPE comparative study no
332 with seven components the simulation program can
accommodate the grids containing up to 12000 cells.
We firstly compare single horizontal and vertical well
performance results for the same permeability distribution and
then evaluate the sensitivity of both types of wells to the
different permeability distributions. Three average
permeability values were used for each permeability
distribution. The average reservoir permeabilities used were1
mD, 10 mD and 100 mD. The heterogeneity level for each
case was characterised by the Dykstra-Parson coefficient of
variability.
Research Methodology and Simulation Modeling
A compositional reservoir simulator is used to model the
complex compositional changes and phase behaviour which
occurs in gas condensate reservoir producing from both
vertical and horizontal wells. The compositional simulator was
used in the present study. The reservoir simulator requires
many input data including gas/oil and gas/water relative
permeabilities, component properties, grid dimension for i, j,
and k directions, well definition etc.
The productivity of a conventional natural well is
proportional to the permeability-thickness product. Low
productivities can arise from low permeability or formation
thickness (or both). This can be compensated by application
of horizontal wells where the length of the horizontal section
is not imposed by nature but chosen. The permeability-length
product in horizontal wells will play a similar role to the
permeability-thickness product of conventional vertical wells
provided where is sufficient vertical permeability.
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR
There are many factors that can affect the performance of
horizontal wells such as length of the well, vertical and
horizontal permeability ratio, thickness of the reservoir and the
elevation of the well. A horizontal well may produce higher
oil or gas rates due to larger contact area but may produce less
oil or gas in thick reservoir displaying low vertical
permeability. In this thesis, we focused on the effects of
layering heterogeneity on horizontal well performance in gas
condensate reservoirs. The other factors such as porosity,
elevation of well, thickness of reservoir, and length of the well
are not examined in this study. These parameters are fixed in
order not to influence the effect of permeability distribution.
Only the effects of permeability distributions are considered in
the evaluation of well performance.
Problem Definition. The depletion of a rich gas condensate
reservoir to pressures significantly below the dew point is a
topic of increasing interest as deeper, hotter hydrocarbon
reservoirs are exploited. The cost and risk to develop
reservoirs under these conditions highlights the need to
confidently predict the recovery of gas and liquids from these
reservoirs. In particular, there is a need to better understand
the effects of heterogeneity on gas condensate well behaviour.
The reservoir model in this thesis consists of reservoir
layers with different permeability values. Our objective is to
analyse the effects of the layering on horizontal well
performance in gas condensate reservoirs. In modeling
heterogeneities of this type, we consider a hypothetical
idealised reservoir consistency of eleven layers with different
layering patterns. The different layering patterns are described
below.
Simulation prediction runs were made to examine
horizontal well performance in the reservoirs and there were
compared with vertical well performance under the same
conditions. The prediction runs were made for two well types
(vertical and horizontal) at a maximum constraints gas rate at
7.4 MMSCF/D per year and for a minimum bottom hole
pressure of 1000 psi. The efficiency was then determined by
comparing the cumulative gas (Gp) and the cumulative
condensate (Np) production.
Rock Properties
Permeability and Capillary Pressure. The relative
permeability curve is taken from SPE comparative solution
project 5 (SPE 5). The critical condensate saturation is 11 %.
The porosity of rock is maintained constant at 13 %
throughout all the simulation cases. The permeability and
capillary pressure curves are depicted in the Figures 1 and 2,
respectively.
Reservoir Heterogeneities. Reservoir heterogeneity has long
been recognised as being an important factor in determining
reservoir performance. Variations in any reservoir property
can degrade the efficiency of the recovery process. The
variability of permeability, however, appears to be particularly
influential. Corbett16 consider permeability to be a key
parameters which:
3
(i) commonly varies over several orders of magnitude in
reservoirs,
(ii) depends on the scale, boundary conditions and
physics of its measurement,
(iii) appears in the flow equations and controls flow
performance.
Weber and van Geuns17 attempted to simplify the
preparation of reservoirs for simulation by considering the
large-scale (flow unit) architecture of elastic reservoirs. They
defined a connectivity spectrum from continuous or layercake
(requiring one well per two square kilometres) to very
discontinuous or labyrinth (requiring one well per thirty two
square kilometres) reservoir types (Fig. 3).
To quantify the heterogeneity levels in the model of the
present study, the Dykstra-Parsons coefficient, VDP is applied.
This measure gives values between zero and one; with the
higher heterogeneity levels being represented by the larger
numbers and zero signifying a homogenous reservoir. The
scale is such that cases of low heterogeneity occupy the range
zero to about one-half, while the moderate and high
heterogeneity cases occupy the remaining half of the scale.
The technique of computing VDP as described by Dykstra-
Parsons requires estimating the 16th and 50th percentiles, k(16)
and k(50) with k(16) k(50) from a set of ordered permeability
data22 . The data are assumed to be log normally distributed.
The method calls for the data to be plotted on a log-normal
probability plot and 'best-fit' line to be drawn and used to
establish k(16) and k(50). If the data do not lie approximately on
a straight line, the 'best-fit' line is to be drawn by weighting
the central portion more than the tails. The two percentile
values then used to define the heterogeneity measures as
VDP = 1 - k(16)/ k(50) (1)
For Model A, where all layers from top to bottom have
same permeability, the VDP is zero which means that the
model is homogeneous. In Model B, the highest permeability
is in the uppermost layer then decreasing to the bottom layer.
Model C follows similar pattern with Model B, but the layer
permeability orientation of Model C is the reverse of model B.
Thus, the highest permeability in Model C is found at the
bottom layer and the lowest permeability in the top layer. The
VDP of both model B and C is 0.56. In Model D, the last
model, is built randomly with VDP of 0.7. Therefore, model D
can be regarded as the most heterogeneous system among the
models. See Figures 4 to 7.
In each model, the average permeability values are set to 1
mD, 10 mD and 100 mD. The figures show the distribution of
permeability with mean average of 1 mD. For the average
permeability values of 10 mD and 100 mD, individual
permeability values in the layers are simply multiplied by 10
and 100 without affecting the heterogeneity level (value of
VDP).
Fluid Properties. The simulator Peng-Robinson equation of
state is used to predict reservoir fluid properties and phase
behaviour. The fluid is taken from the third SPE comparative
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 4

solution project with slight modifications. The fluid Thickness 250 ft

composition was divided into seven components (C1, C2, C3,
C4, C5-6, C7-11 and C12-15). Iso and normal butane were Well Data.Given the constraint of topside producing capacity,
combined as 'C4' , iso and normal pentane and hexanes were horizontal wells in this development provide benefits in that a
combined as 'C5-6'. C7-10 and C10-11 were lumped together higher flowing bottom hole pressure can be maintained for a
as 'C7-11'. C12-14 and C15+ were lumped together as 'C12- given rate and this can improve longer term productivity and
15'. The fluid property is shown in Figure 5. recovery of oil.
The initial reservoir pressure is close to the dew point. The For the simulations, a horizontal well length of 900 ft was
dew point of the gas condensate is approximately 2990 psi and chosen. The well was perforated along its entire length.
the general properties of the fluid is tabulated in Table 1.
Data and Modelling. In view of the fine layering and grid Total Blocks (Horizontal Well):
required to accurately model the fluid flow into a horizontal 35 x 17 x 11 = 6545
well, it was decided that the study objectives could be Refine 2 : 1 : 1 at 9:27 9:10 5:7
achieved with a single well simulation rather than full field
study. By doing this, the simulation run times could be kept Total Blocks (Vertical Well):
low without compromising on the grid dimensions and the 33 x 19 x 11 = 6897
ability to resolve sharp saturation changes in the vicinity of the Refine 3 : 3 : 1 at 16:19 9:11 1:11
wellbore.
The well locations are:
Geometry of Reservoir. The simulation studies in this paper Vertical Well x = 1250 ft
used finely gridded models of limited areal extent. We y = 1000 ft
assuming the same drainage radius for horizontal and vertical z = -7425.0 to -7625.0 ft
wells. A horizontal well normally has a larger drainage radius Horizontal Well x = 800 - 1700 ft
than a vertical well. Usually to account for the difference y = 1000 ft
drainage radii, the concept of Replacement Ratio, RR, is used z = 125 ft
(Geiger36). The term Replacement Ratio indicates the number
of vertical wells that are required to produce at the same rate Production Constraint
as a single horizontal well. However, in this study we don't
use the RR because our main focus is the effect of Production constraints are:
heterogeneity in horizontal well performance of gas Maximum Gas Rate 7.40 MMscf/day.
condensate reservoirs. Minimum BHP 1000 Psi
According to Malachowski21 , a field scale
simulation using a large gridblock (grid block dimension ~50 In this work we assume that near well phase equilibrium
m or 165 ft) cannot resolve this near well effects, and the and fluid flow interaction are accurately represented by using
resulting well productivities calculated in the model are too a sufficiently fine square grid. Phase equilibrium/fluid
high. In the simulations of the present study, small rectangular properties calculated using an equation of state which forms
gridblocks around the well were selected to allow accurate part of simulator code.
modelling of the pressure drop in the near well region. Larger
grid blocks tend to give higher grid block pressures, under Initial Reservoir Conditions
estimating the amount of hydrocarbon liquid condensed at
lower pressures. This results in lower hydrocarbon saturations Original Condensate in Place, std bbl
and underpredicts the productivity reduction for the well. In Oil Zone = 0.00000E+00
The technique of local grid refinement was used to Condensate in Gas Zone = 3.73006E+06
model more accurately the near-wellbore effects. In the local Dissolved in Water Zone = 0.00000E+00
grid refinement technique, large gridblocks containing a Total OOIP = 3.73006E+06
vertical well are replaced with a finely gridded three-
dimensional model. This technique allowed the model to have Original Gas in Place, OGIP, std ft3
relatively coarse refinement in the reservoir section 1.58 acre In Gas Zone = 2.55856E+10
(6,394 m2) and refinement is as fine as 0.0041 acre (16.8 m2) Dissolved Gas in Oil Zone = 0.00000E+00
around the vertical wellbore. Dissolved Gas in Water Zone = 0.00000E+00
The reservoir considered is of simple rectangular geometry Total OGIP = 2.55856E+10
with horizontal layers. The reservoir dimensions, and the grid
used for the reference case, are summarised as follows: Original Water in Place, OWIP, std bbl
= 6.38636E+06
Top Depth 7425.0 ft
Areal Dimension Lx = 2500 ft,
Ly = 2000 ft
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR
Result and Discussion
Comparison of Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance
in Same Type of Reservoir. A total of four cases of different
reservoir heterogenities were studied using an 11-layer
reservoir. For each case, three prediction runs were made for
average permeability values of 1 mD, 10 mD, and 100 mD.
The following criteria were used to compare the relative
performance of the different cases studied;
- well production rate
- cumulative production
- well bottom hole pressure
Well performance was compared after 10 years of
production because at that time some of the wells had reached
the 1000 psia average reservoir pressure limit corresponding
to the minimum BHP requirement.
Case 1 (Reservoir Type A). In case 1, we consider reservoir
type A. This reservoir is homogeneous with a permeability of
1 mD in horizontal direction and 0.1 mD in vertical direction
(for average permeability 1 mD). The ratio of kv/kh is
constant 0.1.
The result shows that horizontal wells have better
production performance. Samples of the production
performance trend can be seen in Figures 5 to 7. Both in
cumulative gas or condensate production, the horizontal wells
is slighly higher as higher production rate. The differents of
the cumulative gas between two wells are only 2% for average
permeability 1 mD and 1.7 % for 10 and 100 mD average
permeability, whereas the different for condensate are 1.7%,
1.1% and 3.8% for 1mD, 10 mD and 100 mD average
permeability respectively. (Figure 9 and 10).
The bottom hole pressure (BHP) is drop into minimum
pressured allowed 1,000 psi for reservoir with 1 mD
permeability. This cause by the condition of the reservoir can
not maintain the high production rate. At reservoir with 10 mD
average permeability, the BHP of horizontal reach 1,000 psi
after 6-year production meanwhile for vertical well the BHP
reach the 1,000 psi after five and half years. Also for the 100
mD the horizontal has longer time to reach the minimum
bottom hole pressure allowed. For horizontal well is required
seven years and vertical well required six years.
Case 2 (Reservoir Type B). For case 2, we consider reservoir
type B. In reservoir type B, the reservoir consists of
heterogeneous layers with contrasting horizontal permeability
values and the vertical to horizontal permeability ratio of 0.1.
The layering pattern in the reservoir is shown in Figure 2.5.
There are eleven layers with permeability values descending
from top to bottom. For 1 mD average permeability value as
base case, the top layer has the highest permeability of 3.8 mD
and the bottom layer with lowest permeability value of 0.1
mD. The simulation runs were also undertaken for average
permeability values of 10 mD and 100 mD. The horizontal
well is laid in the middle of the reservoir (layer 6 of 11 layers)
where the horizontal permeability is 0.45 mD in the base case.
5
The result shows that horizontal wells have better
production performance except in 1 mD average permeability
the vertical well in this reservoir looks more favorable as
shown in Table 2 and Figures 11 and 12. The differents of the
cumulative gas between two wells are -17.8% for average
permeability 1 mD and 0.2 % for 10 and 6.1% for 100 mD
average permeability, whereas the different for condensate are
-4.9%, 0.4% and 4.6% for 1mD, 10 mD and 100 mD average
permeability respectively.
The bottom hole pressure (BHP) is also drop into
minimum pressured allowed 1,000 psi for reservoir with 1 mD
permeability. At reservoir with 10 mD average permeability,
the BHP of horizontal reach 1,000 psi after five and half year
production meanwhile for vertical well the BHP reach the
1,000 psi after six and half years. However in the 100 mD
average pressure, the horizontal has longer time to reach the
minimum bottom hole pressure allowed. For horizontal well is
required seven years and vertical well required six years.
Case 3 (Reservoir Type C). For case 3, we consider reservoir
type C. As shown by Figure 6, reservoir type C has similar
permeability values with reservoir type B except the
orientation of the heterogeneity distribution now arranged in
ascending order from top to bottom. For 1 mD average
permeability value as base case, the bottom layer has the
highest permeability of 3.8 mD and the top layer with lowest
permeability value of 0.1 mD. The simulation runs were also
undertaken for average permeability values of 10 mD and 100
mD. Likewise, the horizontal well was laid in the middle of
the reservoir with the horizontal permeability at 0.45 mD in
the base case.
The result shows similarity to reservoir type B where the
horizontal wells have better production performance except in
1 mD average permeability. The differents of the cumulative
gas between two wells are -10.5% for average permeability 1
mD and no different for 10 and 0.6% for 100 mD average
permeability, whereas the different for condensate are -2.0%,
1.5% and 0.4% for 1mD, 10 mD and 100 mD average
permeability respectively. See Figures 13 and 14.
At reservoir with 10 mD average permeability, the BHP of
horizontal reach 1,000 psi after five and half years production
meanwhile for vertical well the BHP reach the 1,000 psi after
six and half years. However in the 100 mD average pressure,
the horizontal has longer time to reach the minimum bottom
hole pressure allowed. For horizontal well is required seven
years and vertical well required six years.
Case 4 (Reservoir Type D). For case 4, we consider reservoir
type D. In reservoir type D, the reservoir consists of random
heterogeneous layers with contrasting horizontal permeability
values and the vertical to horizontal permeability ratio is 0.1.
The layering pattern in the reservoir is shown in Figure 7.
There are eleven layers with random permeability values. For
1 mD average permeability value as base case, the top layer
has the highest permeability of 3.2 mD and the bottom layer
with lowest permeability value of 0.08 mD. The simulation
runs were also undertaken for average permeability values of
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR
10 mD and 100 mD. The horizontal well is laid in the middle
of the reservoir where the horizontal permeability is 1.3 mD in
the base case.
The result shows that horizontal wells have better
production performance. Both in cumulative gas or condensate
production, the horizontal wells is slighly higher as higher
production rate (Figures 15 and 16). The differents of the
cumulative gas between two wells are only 2.3% for average
permeability 1 mD and 0.6% for 10 mD and 2.9% for 100 mD
average permeability, whereas the different for condensate are
1.5%, 1.0% and 2.2% for 1mD, 10 mD and 100 mD average
permeability respectively. See Figure 11.
At reservoir with 10 mD average permeability, the BHP of
horizontal and vertical wells reach 1,000 psi after five and half
years production. In the 100 mD average pressure, the
horizontal has longer time to reach the minimum bottom hole
pressure allowed. For horizontal and vertical wells are
required seven years.
Comparing Horizontal and Vertical Well Performance in
Different Types of Reservoir. From Table 2, for 1 mD and
10 mD, it is shown that the horizontal well production in
reservoir types A and D could achieve better results than
horizontal wells in reservoir types B and C. But at a higher
permeability of 100 mD, the horizontal wells in reservoir
types A and D had achieved better results in production
performance. Note horizontal wells A and D are laid in
relatively high permeabilities of 1 mD and 1.2 mD. On the
other hand, the horizontal well in the reservoir types B and C
are laid in low permeability layer of 0.45 mD. Therefore, it
would seem that in tight reservoirs, the position of horizontal
well is very important. But in high average permeability
reservoirs, the reservoir performance would be less sensitive
to the position of the horizontal well.
In high average permeability reservoir, fluid mobility is
much higher such that the fluid can easily move vertically to
the horizontal well and the effect of heterogenities would be
less significant.
In reservoir types B and C, where the patterns are alike
except the order of permeability values, the production
performances of horizontal wells are practically the same.
With high average permeability of 100 mD, however, in
reservoir type B horizontal wells exhibits higher production
rates for both gas and condensate.
In reservoir type B, we note that the high permeability
layers are above the horizontal well. In contrast, the high
permeability layers in reservoir type C are below the
horizontal well. Thus, it would seem that the gravity effects
can influence the productivity in the case of high permeability
reservoir.
6
Conclusion
Simulation study was made on the application of horizontal
wells in a gas condensate reservoir. Based on the
interpretation of these simulated results, the following
conclusion can be drawn;
1. Reservoir heterogeneity can influence the reservoir
performance in terms of fluid movement. In this study, the
level of heterogeneity, Dykstra Parson coefficient VDP was
found to have no effect in production performance. But the
layering pattern or distribution of heterogeneity was found to
have more important effect than the VDP.
2. Horizontal wells have better performance in cases of
high average permeability reservoir when comparing against
the performance of vertical wells. In tight reservoirs, however,
the horizontal wells appear to be more sensitive to the
permeability distribution. Horizontal wells achieve better
performance when positioned in high permeability layer
assuming the same average permeability value.
3. Critical condensate saturation was found to have no
direct effect on well deliverability. Although gas relative
permeability appears reduced due to condensate build-up but
this is not enough to significantly affect well performance.
4. It would therefore appear that in field cases where
significant loss in gas production occurs this must be due to
either:
a. Much higher critical condensate saturation than
conventionally model.
b. Changes in the shape of relative permeability curve arise
from changes in interfacial tensions, which result in large
reduction in gas relative permeability for small increases in
critical condensate saturation.
c. Conventional relative permeability do not apply close to
the well bore where two-phase turbulent flow in porous media
may result in much higher pressure changes than modeled in
current reservoir simulators.
Nomenclature
Gp = cumulative gas production, L3, scf
k = permeability, L2, mD
L = length of reservoir, L, ft
Np = cumulative condensate production, L3, bbl
VDP = Dykstra Parson coefficient
x = distance in direction of well location, L, ft
y = distance in direction of well location, L, ft
z = distance in direction of well location, L, ft
Subscript
y,x = directions
Reference
1. Hueni, G. B., Hillyer, M. G.,: "Kurunda Field Tirrawarra
Reservoir. A Case Study of Retrograde Gas Condensate
Production Behaviour," Proceedings of the SPE Asia Pacific
Conference. Perth, Australia.
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR
2. Takeda, T., Fujinaga, Y., Fujita, K., Fujita, K.,: "Fluid
Behaviour around a Well in Gas Condensate Reservoir," paper
SPE 38062 presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Gas Conference &
Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, 1997
3. Boom, W., Wit, K., Schulte, A. M., Oedai, S., Zeelenberg, J. P.
W., Maas, J. G.,;" Experimental Evidence for Improved
Condensate Mobility at Near-wellbore Flow Conditions," SPE
30766 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Dallas, 1995.
4. Thomas, F. B., Anraku, T., Bennion, D. B., Bennion, D. W.,: "
Optimising Production from a Rich Gas Condensate Reservoir,"
Proceedings SPE Symposium on Improved Oil Recovery v 2
1996, Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE), Richardson, TX,
USA. p 545-555.
5. Bourbix, B.J.,: "Parametric Study of Gas Condensate Reservoir
During Depletion: A Guide for Development Planning,"
European Petroleum Conference Proceeding. V/1 1994, SPE,
TX, USA. p 425-440.
6. Clark, T. J.,: " The Application of a 2-D Compositional, Radial
Model to Predict Single-Well Performance in a Rich Gas
Condensate Reservoir," SPE 14413 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition, Las Vegas 1985.(1)
7. Barnum, R. S., Brinkman, F. P., Richardson, T. W., Spillette, A.
G.,: "Gas condensate reservoir Behaviour: Productivity and
Recovery Reducton Due to Condensation," SPE 30767,
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Dallas 1995.
8. Hinchman, S. B. and Barree, R. D., : "Productivity loss in Gas
Condensate Reservoirs", SPE 14203, 60TH Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Las Vegas 1985.
9. Abid, M. S., Mateen, K., : "Compositional Simulation Studies as
Aid to Development of Gas Condensate Reservoirs at Adhi
Field, Pakistan," SPE 15767 presented at the Fifth SPE Middle
East Oil Show, Manarma, Bahrain, 1987.
10. Zambrano, G., Granado,A., Rincon, A.,: " A compositional
Simulation Evaluation of Santa Rosa, Colorado EF Reservoir,
Eastern Venezuela", SPE 18279 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition, Houston, 1988.
11. Kim, J. S., : "Compositional Simulation of the Coyanosa
Wolfcamp Field gas cycling operation," SPE/DOE 20130,
presented at the SPE/DOE Seventh Symposium on Enhanced
Oil Recovery, Tulsa, April, 1990.
12. Tor Bu, Berge, L., Solsvlk, O., Overaa, S., :"Process
Optimization for an Oil Field Under Gas Injection," paper SPE
25060 presented at the European Petroleum Conference,
Cannes, 1992.
13. Van de Leemput, L.E.C, Bertram, D. A., Bentley, M.R., Gelling,
R., :" Full Field Reservoir Modelling of Central Oman
Gas/Condensate Fields," paper 30757 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, 1995.
14. 14. Al-Majed, A.A., Dougherty, E.L., :" A Variable Cell Model
for Simulating Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance," paper
21428 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain,
1991.
15. Fevang, O., Whitson, C. H.,: "Modeling Gas Condensate Well
Deliverability," SPE 30714 presented at the SPE Annual
Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas 1995.
16. Corbett, P. W. M.: "Applied Geostatistical Reservoir Modelling,
an Introduction to Geoengineering" Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh 1997. (3.4.1)
17. Weber, K. J., van Geuns, L. C.,: "Framework for Construction
Clastic Reservoir Models," JPT vol 42 October 1990. p.2248-53.
7
18. Kalaydjian,F. M., Bourbiaux, B.J., Lombard, J. M.,: "Predicting
Gas Condensate Reservoir Performance: How Flow Parameters
are Altered When Approaching Production," paper SPE 3615
presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Gas Conference & Exhibition,
Kuala Lumpur, 1997.
19. Miranda, M.C.: " First Bolivian Horizontal Well Drilled," Oil
and Gas Journal (July, 1991) 91-92.
20. Lacy, S., Joshi, S. D.,: " Horizontal Well Applications and
Parameters For Economic Success", SPE 23676 presented at the
Second Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference, II
LAPEC of SPE, Caracas,Venezuela, 1992.
21. Wang, B., Markitell., B. N., Huang W. S.,: "Case Studies of
Horizontal Well Design and Production Forecast," SPE 25567
presented at the SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Bahrain, 1993.
22. Jensen, J. L.,: "The Influence of Sample Size and Permeability
Distribution Upon Heterogeneity Measure," SPE 15434
presented at the Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition of
SPE, New Orleans, 1986. (1)
23. Ikoku, C. U.: "Natural Gas Production Engineering", John Wiley
and Sons, Toronto (1984).
24. Consonni, P., Thiele, M.R., Palagi, C.L., Aziz, K.: "Flexible
Gridding Techniques for Coning Studies in Vertical and
Horizontal Wells," paper SPE 25563 presented at the SPE
Middle East Oil Technical Conference & Exhibition held in
Bahrain, 3-6 April 1993. (3.2.2)
25. van Wagoner, J.C., C. R. Mitchum, K. M. Campion, and V. D.
Ramanian, "Siliclastic Sequence Stratigraphy in Well Logs,
Cores and Outcrops," AAPG Methods in Exploration Series, 7
Tulsa, Oklahoma (1990) 55.
26. Amyx J. W., Bass D. M., Whiting R. L.," Petroleum Reservoir
Engineering, Physical Properties", McGraw-Hall Book
Company, New York 1960.
27. Dake, L. P., "Fundamental of Reservoir Engineering", Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam,1978.
28. Slider, H. C. ,"Petroleum Reservoir Engineering Methods",
Petroleum Publishing Company, Tulsa, 1975.
29. Archer, J. S., Wall C. G. ,"Petroleum Engineering Principles and
Practice", Graham & Trotman, London, 1986.
30. Malachowski, M. A., Yanosik, J. L., Saldana, M. A.,:
"Simulation of Well Productivity Losses Due to Near Well
Condensate Accumulation in Filed Scale Simulations", SPE
30715 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference &
Exhibition, Dallas 1995.
31. Fussel, D. D.,: "Single Well Performance Predictions for Gas
Condensate Reservoirs," JPT (July 1973).
32. Kenyon, D. E., :" Third SPE Comparative Solution Project : Gas
Cycling Retrograde Condensate Reservoirs", paper SPE 12278
presented at the 7th SPE Symposium on Reservoir Simulation,
San Francisco, California, November, 1983.
33. Jones, L.J., Cullick, A.S., Cohen, M.F.,: "WAG Process
Promises Improved Recovery in Cycling Gas Condensate
Reservoirs: Part 1-Prototype Reservoir Simulation Studies", SPE
19113, presented at the SPE Gas Technology Symposium,
Dallas 1995.
34. Raub, M. R. A.,: "Horizontal Well Simulation in the Baram
South Area, Offshore Sarawak, Malaysia," SPE 29305 presented
at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Annual Technical Conference
& Exhibition, Dallas, 1995.
35. Joshi, S. D.,: "A Review of Horizontal Well and Drainhole
Technology," SPE 16868 presented at 62nd Annual Technical
Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, 1987.
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 8

36. Giger, F. M.,: "Low Permeability Reservoirs Development

Using Horizontal Wells," SPE/DOE 16406, presented at the
Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver, 1987.
37. CMG: "GEM User Manual : General Adaptive Implicit
Equation of State Compositional Model," Computer Modelling
Group (1997).
38. Goldthorphe, W. H.,: "Simulation of Gas Injection Processes in
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs Using a Binary Pseudo-Component
Representation," SPE 19740, presented at the SPE Asia-Pacific
Conference, Sydney,1989.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

cp x 1.0* E-03 = Pa.s

ft x 3.048* E-01 = m
ft2 x 9.290 304 E-02 = m2
ft3 x 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
mD x 9.869 233 E-04 = m2
psi x 6.894 757 E+00= kPa
*
conversion factor is exact
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 9

TABLE 1- RESERVOIR FLUID PROPERTIES

Component Pc Vc TC Mol Weight 1.0

atm (m3/ kg mol) (K)

'C1' 40.00 0.099 194.4 16.043

0.8
'C2' 48.20 0.148 305.4 30.070
'C3' 42.01 0.200 369.9 44.097
'C4' 37.47 0.255 425.2 58.124
'C5-6' 31.95 0.334 486.0 77.793 0.6

Relative Permeability
'C7-11' 25.53 0.490 588.5 121.549
'C12-15+' 16.86 0.806 712.1 209.659

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
TABLE-2 SIMULATION RESULT AFTER 10
YEARS OF PRODUCTION Gas Saturation

Production Rate Cumulation Avg. Fig. 1- Relative permeability curve rock for all four types of
Avg. Well Type After 10 years GOR Res. reservoir rocks.
Perm. Type of Oil Gas Oil Gas Press.
mD Res. STB/D MSCF/D MSTB MMSCF SCF/STB Psia

H A 79.16 2107.2 915 11876 26620 1478

V A 80.51 2040.2 860 11253 25340 1143
H B 98.13 1634.6 708 7153 16658 1917
1 V B 80.46 2163.5 890 11706 26888 1149
H C 97.06 1696.1 700 7181 17474 1906
V C 75.67 1849.9 777 9878 24447 1164
H D 84.90 2142.7 876 11091 25239 1458 50
V D 79.23 1976.2 821 10495 24943 1152
45
H A 3.44 127.6 1160 18262 37127 1003
V A 2.96 109.1 1118 17915 36849 1001 40
H B 12.54 462.3 1142 17822 36883 1024
10 V B 2.45 90.6 1125 17886 36985 1001 35
H C 12.18 446.8 1141 17880 36681 1024
V C 6.68 246.2 1086 17801 36844 1003 30
Pc (Psia)

H D 3.61 132.9 1138 18022 36778 1003

V D 4.30 158.3 1102 17847 36801 1002 25
H A 0.02 0.9 1247 19003 37219 1000
V A 0.10 3.8 1103 17605 37680 1000 20
H B 0.19 7.1 1275 19331 37335 1000
100 V B 1104 17770 978 15
H C 0.01 0.2 1189 18408 37409 1000
V C 0.02 0.9 1203 18543 37436 1000 10
H D 0.00 0.0 1182 18314 37439 1000
V D 0.07 2.4 1102 17579 37481 1000 5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Water Saturation (fraction)

Fig. 2- Capillary pressure for all four types of reservoir rock.

SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 10

10

Layer
4
LAYER-CAKE RESERVOIRS

0 1 2 3 4

Permeability mD
Fig. 5- Permeability distribution for reservoir
model B

JIGSAW PUZZLE RESERVOIRS

10

7
Layer
4

LABYRINTH RESERVOIRS 0 1 2 3 4

Perm eability m D
Fig. 3-Simplified reservoir architecture models (after
Fig. 6-Permeability distribution for reservoir
Weber and van Geuns, 1990)
model C

11
10
9

7
Layer

7
Layer

5
4
3

1 1
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Permeability mD
Permeability mD
Fig. 4-Permeability distribution for reservoir
model A Fig. 7-Permeability distribution for reservoir
model D
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 11

3500

3000
35

2500

Cumulative condensate (Percent)

30
Pressure (Psi)

2000
25

1500 20

ver.
hor.
1000 15

hor.

500 10

ll
We
1mD ver.
10mD
0 Permeabilit 100mD
y
0 4 8 12 16 20
L iq u i d V o lu m e %

Fig. 8- Condensate drop out of gas mixture calculated by Fig. 10- Cumulative condensate production of horizontal dan
composition expansion vertical wells for reservoir type A

75 80

70
65
Cumulative gas (Percent)

Cumulative gas (Percent)

60

55 50

40
45
30
ver. ver.
35 hor. 20 hor.

hor. 10
25 hor.
ll
We

0
ll

1mD ver.
We

1mD
Permeabilit10mD
y
ver.
100mD 10mD
Permeabil
ity 100mD

Fig. 11- Cumulative gas production of horizontal and vertical

Fig. 9- Cumulative gas production of horizontal and
wells for reservoir type B
vertical wells for reservoir type A
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 12

35 35
Cumulative condensate (Percent)

30

Cumulative condensate (Percent)

30

25

25
20

20 15

10 ver.
ver.
15 hor.
hor.
5
hor. hor.
10 0

ll
We

ll
We
1mD ver. 1mD ver.
10mD
Permeabi 10mD
lity 100mD
Permeability 100mD

Fig. 12-Cumulative condensate production of horizontal and Fig. 14-Cumulative condensate production of horizontal and
vertical wells for reservoir type B vertical wells for reservoir type C

80
Cumulative gas production (Percent)

70 80

60 70
Cumulative gas (Percent)

50
60

40
50

30 ver.
hor. 40
20
ver.
hor.
hor.
30
10
ll

hor.
We

1mD ver. 20
ll

10mD
We

Permeability
1mD ver.
100mD
Permea 10mD
bility
100mD

Fig. 13-Cumulative gas production of horizontal and vertical Fig. 15-Cumulative gas production of horizontal and vertical
wells for reservoir type C wells for reservoir type D
SPE 54351 APPLICATION OF HORIZONTAL WELL IN HETEROGENEITY GAS CONDENSATE RESERVOIR 13

35

30
Cumulative condensate (Percent)

25

20

15

10
ver.
hor.
5
hor.
0

ll
1mD We
ver.
10mD
Permea
bility 100mD

Fig. 16- Cumulative condensate production of horizontal and

vertical wells for reservoir type D