Academic literature on the topic 'Gas condensate reservoir'

Summary Coreflood experiments on gas condensate flow behavior were conducted for two North Sea gas condensate reservoirs. The objectives were to investigate the effects of rock and fluid characteristics on critical condensate saturation (CCS), gas and condensate relative permeabilities, hydrocarbon recovery and trapping by water injection, and incremental recovery by subsequent blowdown. Both CCS and relative permeability were sensitive to flow rate and interfacial tension. The results on gas relative permeability rate sensitivity suggest that gas productivity curtailed by condensate dropout can be somewhat restored by increasing production rate. High interfacial tension ultimately caused condensate relative permeability to decrease with increasing condensate saturation. Condensate immobile under gas injection could be recovered by water injection, but more immediate and efficient condensate recovery was observed when the condensate saturation prior to water injection exceeded the CCS. Subsequent blowdown recovered additional gas, but incremental condensate recovery was insignificant. Introduction Reservoirs bearing gas condensates are becoming more commonplace as developments are encountering greater depths, higher pressures, and higher temperatures. In the North Sea, gas condensate reservoirs comprise a significant portion of the total hydrocarbon reserves. Accuracy in engineering computations for gas condensate systems (e.g., estimating reserves, sizing surface facilities, and predicting productivity trends) depends upon a basic understanding of phase and flow behavior interrelationships. For example, gas productivity may be curtailed as condensate accumulates by pressure depletion below the dew point pressure (Pd). Conceptual modeling on gas condensate systems suggests that relative permeability (kr) curves govern the magnitude of gas productivity loss.1,2 Unfortunately, available gas and condensate relative permeability (krg and krc) results for gas condensates are primarily limited to synthetic systems. Such results show that higher CCS and less krg reduction were observed for a conventional gas/oil system compared to a gas condensate system.3,4 If condensate accumulates as a continuous film due to low interfacial tension (IFT), then high IFT gas/oil and water/oil kr data may not be applicable to gas condensates.5 Water invasion of gas condensate reservoirs may enhance hydrocarbon recovery or trap potential reserves. Laboratory results suggest water invasion of low IFT gas condensates may not be represented using high IFT water/oil and water/gas displacements.6 Subsequent blowdown may remobilize hydrocarbons trapped by water invasion. The presence of condensate may hinder gas remobilization, thus conventional gas/water blowdown experiments may not be appropriate in evaluating the feasibility of depressurization for gas condensates.7,8 Other laboratory evaluations of gas condensate flow behavior indicate measured results depend upon experimental procedures, fluid properties, and rock properties.3,9–20 Factors to consider include the history of condensate formation (i.e., imbibition or drainage), how condensate was introduced (i.e., in-situ dropout versus external injection or inflowing gas), flow rate, differential pressure, system pressure, IFT, connate water saturation, core permeability, and core orientation. Experiments performed to evaluate the consequences of water invasion suggest optimum conditions depend upon IFT, initial gas saturation, and core permeability.7,21,22 Reported blowdown experiments imply gas recovery depends upon the degree of gas expansion.7,8 The kr results obtained in this study represent gas condensate flow between the far-field and the near-wellbore region. The results are useful input for numerical simulation, especially to test rate- or IFT-sensitive relative permeability functions. Results on hydrocarbon recovery and trapping from water injection and blowdown are beneficial in evaluating improved recovery options for gas condensates. Experimental Procedures Coreflooding experiments were performed under reservoir conditions using rock and fluid samples from two distinct North Sea gas condensate reservoirs. A detailed description of the experimental methods is provided in the Appendix. Briefly, the experiments were conducted in a horizontal coreflood apparatus equipped with in-line PVT and viscosity measuring devices. The entire system experienced in-situ condensate drop out by constant volume depletion (CVD) from above Pd to either the pressure corresponding to CCS, or to the pressure of maximum condensate saturation Scmax Steady-state krg was measured by injecting equilibrated gas (before CCS). Steady-state krg and krc were measured by injecting gas condensate repressurized to above Pd (after CCS). The gas/oil fractional flow rate was defined by the pressure level in the core which was controlled by the core outlet back-pressure regulator. During krg measurements, the injection rate was varied to access rate effects. After the krg or krg and krc measurements to Scmax were completed, water injection was performed to quantify hydrocarbon trapping and recovery. Blowdown followed to evaluate additional hydrocarbon recovery. Recombined Reservoir Fluid Properties. Two North Sea gas condensate reservoir fluids were recombined using separator oil and synthetic gas. Tables 1 and 2 list compositions and PVT properties for the reconstituted fluids. The Pd was 7,070 psig at 250°F for Reservoir A, and 6,074 psig at 259°F for Reservoir B (Table 2). The maximum liquid dropout under constant composition expansion (CCE) was 31.7% for Reservoir A, and 42.5% for Reservoir B (Fig. 1). Reservoir B is a richer gas condensate and exhibits more near-critical phase behavior than Reservoir A.

Energy control (i. e. pressure control) has an obvious effect on development effect in the depletion of gas condensate reservoir. Phase change behavior and characteristics of the relative pemeability in gas condensate reservoirs were displayed in this paper, then pressure and condensate distribution were showed through reservoir simulation. Finally, the influence of the pressure drop on condensate distribution and condensate oil production in gas condensate reservoirs with different permeabilities was studied. Results show that: First, in high / moderate permeability gas condensate reservoirs, the pressure and the condensate blocking will extend to further reservoir, while the pressure and condensate just appear in the vicinity of wellbore in low permeability gas condensate reservoirs. Second, the influence of pressure drop on condensate distribution in high permeability gas condensate reservoirs is obvious, the condensate blocking extends with the increasing of the pressure drop, and condensate extent can be controlled by optimizing a rational pressure drop, while the influence is inconspicuous in low permeability gas condensate reservoirs. Third, the influence of pressure drop on condensate oil production in high / moderate permeability gas condensate reservoirs is conspicuous, a rational pressure drop exists, while the influence is indistinct in low permeability or tight gas condensate reservoirs, before the retrograde condensation, a low pressure drop should be adopted in a long term until the bottom hole flowing pressure drops below the dew point pressure, when the condensate blocking forms, well stimulation is advised before developing by pressure control.

Summary Rapid development of shales for the production of oils and condensates may not be permitting adequate analysis of the important factors governing recovery. Understanding the performance of shales or tight oil reservoirs producing condensates requires numerically extensive compositional simulations. The purpose of this study is to identify important factors that control production of condensates from low-permeability plays and to develop analytical “surrogate” models suitable for Monte Carlo analysis. In this study, the surrogate reservoir models were second-order response surfaces functionally dependent on the nine main factors that most affect condensate recovery in ultralow-permeability reservoirs. The models were developed by regressing the results of experimentally designed compositional simulations. The Box-Behnken (Box and Behnken 1960) technique, a partial-factorial method, was used for design of these experiments or simulations. The main factors that controlled condensate recovery from ultralow-permeability reservoirs were reservoir permeability, rock compressibility, initial condensate/gas ratio (CGR), initial reservoir pressure, and fracture spacing. Another main outcome of this paper was the generation of probability-density functions, and P10, P50, and P90 values for condensate recovery on the basis of the uncertainty in input parameters. The condensate-recovery P50 for rate-based outcome of a 5-B/D per fracture was found to be less than 10%.

AbstractGas condensate reservoirs usually exhibit complex flow behaviors because of propagation response of pressure drop from the wellbore into the reservoir. When reservoir pressure drops below the dew point in two phase flow of gas and condensate, the accumulation of large condensate amount occurs in the gas condensate reservoirs. Usually, the saturation of condensate accumulation in volumetric gas condensate reservoirs is lower than the critical condensate saturation that causes trapping of large amount of condensate in reservoir pores. Trapped condensate often is lost due to condensate accumulation-condensate blockage courtesy of high molecular weight, heavy condensate residue. Recovering lost condensate most economically and optimally has always been a challenging goal. Thus, gas cycling is applied to alleviate such a drastic loss in resources.In gas injection, the flooding pattern, injection timing and injection duration are key parameters to study an efficient EOR scenario in order to recover lost condensate. This work contains sensitivity analysis on different parameters to generate an accurate investigation about the effects on performance of different injection scenarios in homogeneous gas condensate system. In this paper, starting time of gas cycling and injection period are the parameters used to influence condensate recovery of a five-spot well pattern which has an injection pressure constraint of 3000 psi and production wells are constraint at 500 psi min. BHP. Starting injection times of 1 month, 4 months and 9 months after natural depletion areapplied in the first study. The second study is conducted by varying injection duration. Three durations are selected: 100 days, 400 days and 900 days.In miscible gas injection, miscibility and vaporization of condensate by injected gas is more efficient mechanism for condensate recovery. From this study, it is proven that the application of gas cycling on five-spot well pattern greatly enhances condensate recovery preventing financial, economic and resource loss that previously occurred.

Due to the special phase behavior of near-critical fluid, the development approaches of near-critical condensate gas and near-critical volatile oil reservoirs differ from conventional oil and gas reservoirs. In the near-critical region, slightly reduced pressure may result in considerable change in gas and liquid composition since a large amount of gas or retrograde condensate liquid is generated. It is of significance to gain insight into the composition variation of near-critical reservoir during the depletion development. In our study, we performed a series ofPVTexperiments on a real near-critical gas condensate reservoir fluid. In addition to the experimental studies, a commercial simulator combined with the PREOS model was utilized to study retrograde condensate characteristics and reevaporation mechanism of condensate oil with CO2injection based on vapor-liquid phase equilibrium thermodynamic theory. The research shows that when reservoir pressure drops below a certain pressure, the variation of retrograde condensate liquid saturation of the residual reservoir fluid exhibits the phase behavior of volatile oil.

Production from gas condensate reservoir poses the major challenge of condensate banking or blockage. This occurs near the wellbore, around which a decline in pressure is initially observed. A good sign of condensate banking is a rise in the gas–oil ratio (GOR) during production and/or a decline in the condensate yield of the well, which leads to considerable reductions in well deliverability and well rate for gas condensate reservoirs. Therefore, determining the well deliverability of a gas condensate reservoir and methods to optimize productivity is paramount in the industry.

Summary Well deliverability in many gas-condensate reservoirs is reduced by condensate banking when the bottomhole pressure falls below the dewpoint, although the impact of condensate banking may be reduced due to improved mobility at high capillary number in the near-well region. This paper presents the results of relative permeability measurements on a sandstone core from a North Sea gas-condensate reservoir, at velocities that are typical of the near-well region. The results show a clear increase in mobility with capillary number, and the paper describes how the data can be modeled with empirical correlations which can be used in reservoir simulators. Introduction Well deliverability is an important issue in the development of many gas-condensate reservoirs, especially where permeability is low. When the well bottomhole flowing pressure falls below the dewpoint, condensate liquid may build up around the wellbore, causing a reduction in gas permeability and well productivity. In extreme cases the liquid saturation may reach values as high as 50 or 60% and the well deliverability may be reduced by up to an order of magnitude. The loss in productivity due to this "condensate banking" effect may be significant, even in very lean gas-condensate reservoirs. For example, in the Arun reservoir,1 the productivity reduced by a factor of about 2 as the pressure fell below the dewpoint, even though the reservoir fluid was very lean with a maximum liquid drop out of only 1% away from the well. Most of the pressure drop from condensate blockage occurs within a few feet of the wellbore, where velocities are very high. There is a growing body of evidence from laboratory coreflood experiments to suggest that gas-condensate relative permeabilities increase at high velocities, and that these changes can be correlated against the capillary number.2–8 The capillary number is a dimensionless number that measures the relative strength of viscous and capillary forces. There are several gas-condensate fields where simulation with conventional relative permeability models has been found to underestimate well productivity.1,9,10 To obtain a good match between simulation results and well-test data, it was necessary to increase the mobility in the near-well region, either empirically or through a model of the increase in relative permeability at high velocity. This effect can increase well productivity significantly, and in some cases may eliminate most of the effect of condensate blockage. Experimental Data Requirements Fevang and Whitson11 have shown that the key parameter in determining well deliverability is the relationship between krg and the ratio krg/ kro. When high-velocity effects are significant, the most important information is the variation of krg with krg/k ro and the capillary number Nc. The relevant values of krg/kro are determined by the pressure/volume/temperature (PVT) properties of the reservoir fluids, but typical values might be 10 to 100 for lean condensates, 1 to 10 for rich condensates, and 0.1 to 10 for near-critical fluids. There are various ways of defining the capillary number, but in this paper we use the definition (1)Nc=vgμgσ, so that the capillary number is proportional to the gas velocity and inversely proportional to interfacial tension (IFT). The capillary numbers that are relevant for well deliverability depend on the flow rate, fluid type, and well bottomhole pressure, but as a general rule, values between 10?6 and 10?3 are most important. Experimental Methods In a gas-condensate reservoir, there are important differences between the flow regimes in the regions close to and far from the well. These different flow regimes are reflected in the requirements for relative permeability data for the deep reservoir and near-well regions. Far from the well, velocities are low, and liquid mobility is usually less important, except in reservoirs containing very rich fluids. In the near-well region, both liquid and gas phases are mobile, velocities are high, and the liquid mobility is important because of its effect on the relationship between krg and krg/kro. Depletion Method. Relative permeabilities for the deep reservoir region are often measured in a coreflood experiment, where the fluids in the core are obtained by a constant volume depletion (CVD) on a reservoir fluid sample. Relative permeabilities are measured at decreasing pressures from the fluid dewpoint, and increasing liquid saturation. In this type of experiment, the liquid saturation cannot exceed the critical condensate saturation or the maximum value in a CVD experiment, so that it is not possible to acquire data at the high liquid saturations that occur in the reservoir near to the well. The "depletion" experiment provides relative permeability data that are relevant to the deep reservoir, but there can be problems in interpreting the results due to the effects of IFT. Changes in liquid saturation are achieved by reducing pressure, which results in a change of IFT. The increase in IFT as pressure falls may cause a large reduction in mobility, and Chen et al.12 describe an example where the condensate liquid relative permeability decreases with increasing liquid saturation. Steady-State Method. The steady-state technique can be used to measure relative permeabilities at the higher liquid saturations that occur in the near-well region. Liquid and gas can be injected into the core from separate vessels, allowing relative permeabilities to be measured for a wide range of saturations. Results of gas-condensate relative permeabilities measured by this technique have been reported by Henderson et al.2,6 and Chen et al.12 .

Prediction of the timing and location of condensate build-up around the wellbore in gas condensate reservoirs is essential for the selection of appropriate methods for condensate recovery from these challenging reservoirs. The present work focuses on the use of a novel phase change tracking approach in monitoring the formation of condensate blockage in a gas condensate reservoir. The procedure entails the simulation of tight, low and high permeability reservoirs using global and local grid analysis in determining the size and timing of three common regions (Region 1, near wellbore; Region 2, condensate build-up; and Region 3, single-phase gas) associated with single and two-phase gas and immobile and mobile gas condensate. The results show that permeability has a significant influence on the occurrence of the three regions around the well, which in turn affects the productivity of the gas condensate reservoir studied. Predictions of the timing and location of condensate in reservoirs with different permeability levels of 1 mD to 100 mD indicate that local damage enhances condensate formation by 60% and shortens the duration of the immobile phase by 45%. Meanwhile, the global change in permeability increases condensate formation by 80% and reduces the presence of the immobile phase by 60%. Finally, this predictive approach can help in mitigating condensate blockage around the wellbore during production.