ABSTRACT

Condensate accumulation is a major problem encountered in most of the gas condensate

reservoir. During production, the pressure decline causes the formation of condensate that
reduces well productivity. Therefore, this study aims to improve well productivity by using
various type of gas injection. At the same time, different injection scheme such as distance
between injector and producer and injection rate also have been analyzed. Compositional
simulator is employed to simulate the studies on hypothetical gas condensate reservoir model.
By injecting rarely used propane, it manages to increase the recovery up to 19.8% compared
to other conventional injectants. Considering the availability of propane, the efficiency of
gas-gas flooding (propane+nitrogen) and gas-solvent flooding (propane+methanol) flooding
has been studied where gas-solvent flooding shows 21% of recovery which is higher than
pure propane and conventional gas injection. Well distance of the factor of 6 with the
injection rate of 8000 MSCF/d shows 19.5% of condensate recovery increment which is the
highest compared to other injection scheme studied. Based on the results, propane gas should
be considered heavily in condensate removal application as it improves condensate recovery
and well productivity at the same time. In general, this study confirmed that the injection
component and injection scheme plays an important role in enhancing condensate recovery in
the reservoir.

NAME:VICTOR CHUKWUDEBE ONYEKA

MAT NUMBER:COT/2468/2016

SUPERVISOR: ENGR.PROF.AKPOTURI PETERS

 CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Gas reserves have recently seen an uptick in exploration and production. This is because gas
is in great demand, and its use ranks second only to that of oil. Natural gas accounts for about
22% of global energy consumption, according to Economides, Oligney, and Demarchos.
According to Briefing's projections, natural gas usage is expected to double from 2010 levels
by 2040, as seen in Figure 1. Natural gas has seen a dramatic price hike due to its widespread
use, particularly in the energy and industrial sectors. The fact that it is cheaper and better for
the environment is one of the main reasons why a lot of oil and gas firms are interested in
expanding their gas industry into processing, transportation, or production. Beyond that,
condensate makes up the bulk of the heavier component. The gas condensate is processed to
extract components that are useful in making fuel, polymers, and fiber, therefore this
component also has many industrial and everyday use. The oil and gas industry and other
manufacturing sectors are quite worried about the economy if this component is left behind,
as the demand is growing at the same rate as the world's rapid development. As the need for
both natural gas and condensate continues to rise, gas condensate reserves have the potential
to emerge as important suppliers of this fuel in the near future. This highlights the critical
need for engineers and researchers to comprehend the behavior of gas condensate reservoirs
and make significant strides toward optimizing gas production to satisfy the surging demand
for gas in the modern period of global development.
Figure 1: World Natural Gas Consumption, 2010 -2014

1.1STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The gas condensate reservoir frequently encounters the issue of condensation banking.
Reduced pressure encourages condensate formation close to the well bore, which reduces
well productivity. Because their thermodynamics and characteristics are so sensitive to
changing the retrograde gas condensate system, injectants and solvents play a significant role
in the majority of treatments. Carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and methanol are three of the most
popular injectants and solvents, and they have all been the subject of extensive laboratory and
field-scale research. The feasibility of propane in retarding the condensate blockage
phenomena is still unclear, but some study has proven the effect of propane injection in
condensate recovery. Extensive research on propane is necessary to determine its efficacy in
maximizing productivity, nevertheless, because of the present global demand for gas in the
energy and industrial sectors. Furthermore, gas-gas and gas-solvent flooding, which include a
combination of injectants and solvents, have received surprisingly little research attention.

1.2 AIM
The aim of this study is to carry out findings in order to enhanced condensate recovery and
improving well productivity of a gas condensate reservoir
1.3 OBJECTIVES

1. To assess the effectiveness of different gas injection techniques which are pure gas
injection, gas-gas flooding and gas-solvent flooding from the combination between
propane(C3), carbon dioxide(CO2), Nitrogen (N2), and methanol (CH4O)

2. To study the effect of different injection schemes (injection rate and distance between
injector and producer) in improving condensate recovery.

1.4 SCOPE OF STUDY

This study focuses on four different injectant which is carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2)
and propane (C3), and methanol (CH4O). The scope of study for this project was limited to
purely simulation studies by using a compositional numerical simulator known as the
ECLIPSE (E300). The type of reservoir focused in this study was a gas condensate reservoir
as the condensate banking problem only occurs in this kind of reservoir. The input data of the
fluid and reservoir model was acquired from the literatures reviewed.

1.5 METHODOLOGY

Literature review and data gathering

2. Modelling and simulation

3. Analysis of result
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

Gas condensate reservoirs have been plagued with condensation banks from the inception of
this type of field. Condensate banking, also known as condensate blocking, is mostly caused
by pressure depletion, particularly in the bottom hole. Condensate will form in the bottom
hole if the pressure drops below the dewpoint; this, in turn, will generate flow path friction as
gas and condensate move in the same direction. The biggest gas condensate field in
Venezuela, Santa Barbara Field, is one of the reservoirs that is affected by this condensate
blockage problem. Roughly 8,500 psi is the field's dew point pressure. Well test results show
that most wells in the field experience a permeability loss of 50% to 90%, indicating a major
degradation in the wells' ability to flow fluids. Additionally, gas mobility decreases, most
noticeably close to the wellbore. The well's deliverability suffers as a result. In Acheh,
Indonesia, you will find Arun Field, which is also severely impacted by the same complicated
issue. Condensate banking causes a considerable drop in production for a few wells in the
reservoir. The reservoir's dew point is at 4400 psi, according to Afidick, Kaczorowski, and
Bette (1994). There was less than 2% liquid condensation in the reservoir, according to
ExxonMobil's reports, although certain wells saw gas productivity losses of more than 50%.
Furthermore, the Baimiao Gas Condensate Field in Henan, China, has also been seeing a
decline in output due to same issue. The tight gas condensate reservoir known as Baimiao
Field undergoes quick pressure decrease. During the initial stages of production, the author
noted that a portion of the reservoir's wells had a pressure drop below the dew point. As a
result, a liquid zone formed near the well bore, which limited gas output. At first, gas
production from 30 wells is rather high, at about 0.8 MMscf/d. The gas production rate,
however, drops precipitously to 0.3 MMscf/d after the first year of output. This demonstrates
the grave and essential fact that the reservoir's output has dropped by 68.5%. This has led to
the introduction and widespread use of condensate banking treatment as a means to alleviate
the issue. Two key goals of treatment are changing the phase behavior of the reservoir fluid
and keeping the pressure above the dew point.
2.1 SOLVENT
Changing the phase's relative permeability and interfacial tension is a common chemical
reaction that involves the use of solvent. Most commonly, it lowers the relative permeability
of the gas and the interfacial tension between the gas and the condensate in a gas condensate
reservoir. To improve gas recovery and well deliverability, the solvent impact must be
considered.
An experiment examining the use of methanol to treat condensate blockage in reservoirs with
high and low permeability was conducted by Hamoud A. Al-Anazi, Pope, Sharma, and
Metcalfe (2002). Cores of Berea sandstone (with a permeability of 246–378 mD) and Texas
Cream limestone (with a permeability of 2–5 mD) were examined in this investigation.
Twenty pore volumes (PV) of methanol was injected into the sample twice during the
methanol treatment. According to the results, the author was able to postpone the condensate
accumulation and increase the flow duration for both the low-permeability and high-
permeability cores by treating them with methanol. The capacity to displace both condensate
and water by the technique of multi-contact miscible, according to Hamoud A. Al-Anazi et al.
(2002), is provided by an adequate injection of methanol (MCM). The research has been
expanded to include field use of methanol injection as it was found to be a dependable and
effective way for retarding the condensate banking phenomenon on lab and simulation scales.
Saturated cores included methanol, field water from Hatter's Pond, and synthetic brines, in
that order. Following methanol treatment, a 120-day increase in gas and liquid production of
almost a factor of two was reported by Hamoud A. Al-Anazi et al. (2005). In this field
application investigation, methanol was found to be highly successful in dispersing the water
and condensate that had gathered around the wellbore area, proving the results of the
laboratory experiment conducted by Hamoud A. Al-Anazi et al. In order to determine how
effective a solvent is at preventing the buildup of condensation, tests are carried out on
several solvent types. Methanol, isopropyl alcohol (IPA), methanol-water, and methanol-IPA
mixes are the four types of solvents used in the coreflood experiment. Lab results reveal that
methanol, IPA, or a combination of the two solvents effectively removes condensate buildup,
postpones condensate banking, and boosts gas production. On the other hand, gas condensate
reservoirs aren't good candidates for methanol-water mixtures since the changed
characteristics aren't appropriate for eliminating condensate buildup near the well bore region.
2.2 GAS INJECTION
2.2.1 NITROGEN
Because it is abundant, safe, non-corrosive, and easy on the environment, nitrogen gas is a
promising solution. In most reservoir fluids, nitrogen is one of the gaseous components.
Furthermore, much of the nitrogen that is taken from producers and other sources is pumped
back into the reservoir, making it easy to transport and cheaper than carbon dioxide (Wu,
Ling, and Liu, 2013). To keep the reservoir pressure higher than the dew point pressure and
to prevent the buildup of condensate, nitrogen is introduced into the reservoir as condensate.
Even though nitrogen is a commonly employed injection gas for reservoir pressure
maintenance and miscible displacement, its efficacy in hydrocarbon recovery has been
inconsistent in most field operations (Wu et al., 2013). Gas cycling operation, with an
emphasis on nitrogen injection, has been critically examined by Aziz (1983). The author
noted that several aspects, such as areal sweep, vertical sweep, and revaporization of
condensate, determine the recovery efficiency. With a low heterogeneity reservoir and a
steady injection and production rate, nitrogen injection can be used. Donohoe and Buchanan
(1981) compared nitrogen injection and lean gas injection using three distinct fluid
compositions and three distinct techniques for each. No injection, nitrogen injection, and lean
gas injection are the depletion cases that were analyzed. After reviewing the data, Donohoe
and Buchanan (1981) concluded that, from a financial perspective and in comparison to lean
gas injection, nitrogen injection should be considered for reservoirs with condensate
concentrations more than 100 BBL/MMCF. Nitrogen has long been used in the majority of
pressure maintenance applications in the field. In order to learn how three different types of
reservoir fluids with differing compositions and gas-liquid ratios reacted to different amounts
of nitrogen, Vogel and Yarborough (1980) conducted an experiment. Experiment results
demonstrate that nitrogen infusion considerably increases dew point pressures for all three
fluids, leading to more condensate evaporation. The author also discovered that when
nitrogen is added, there is a significant increase in condensate revaporization, which accounts
for about 70 to 80 percent of recovery. On the other hand, nitrogen injection causes gas
productivity to decline because it increases liquid dropout in the mixing zone (Sanger &
Hagoort, 1998). Kossack and Opdal (1988) back this claim up when they investigate a novel
method of removing condensate obstruction by injecting nitrogen slugs after methane slugs.
Because nitrogen mixed with the condensate can lower productivity, methane serves to keep
the two substances apart. Merging gas condensate with nitrogen is a major step since it raises
the mixture's dewpoint pressure, which is higher than reservoir pressure. When comparing
methane and nitrogen in gas condensate recovery, Sanger and Hagoort (1998) found that
methane performed better in both lab tests and simulations. Since nitrogen exhibits less value
than methane and a liquid dropout percentage of over 20% during mixing, nitrogen is the
more stable injectant in terms of static phase behavior. More so than methane flooding,
nitrogen flooding is more dispersion sensitive because of the multiple-contact miscible
process. Still, nitrogen ranks high among the alternatives to gas cycling for unclogging
condensate pipes, according to the author. A simulation research was conducted by Siregar,
Hagoort, and Ronde (1992) to investigate the evaporation capability of nitrogen and dry gas
(methane) supplied at different concentrations. One of the options for extracting condensates
from gas condensate reservoirs is dry gas. In field applications, however, dry gas's
availability and cost continue to be significant concerns. Results from the study by Siregar et
al. (1992) reveal that, when reacting with the condensate, methane exhibited more stable PVT
static behavior than nitrogen. This was demonstrated when it was found that a 55% mole
fraction of methane injection resulted in greater condensate evaporation than a 98% mole
fraction of nitrogen injection. Also, in a lab experiment mimicking a naturally cracked
reservoir under HP/HT conditions, Gachuz-Muro, Gonzalez Valtierra, Luna, and Aguilar
Lopez (2011) noted that nitrogen, compared to carbon dioxide and lean gas, performs the
worst due to its extremely low condensate recovery. This indicates that nitrogen's evaporation
ability for condensate is lower.
2.2.2 CARBON DIOXIDE
Since the industrial and energy sectors are seeing tremendous expansion, the amount of CO2
is steadily increasing. According to Kumar, Zarzour, and Gupta (2010) and Helle, Myhrvold,
and Bratfos (2007), this encourages the combustion of coal, gas, and other hydrocarbons,
leading to the unregulated emission of CO2. Both humans and the ecosystem suffer as a
result of the greenhouse effect. As a result, Kumar et al. (2010), Stein, Ghotekar, and Avasthi
(2010), and Oldenburg and Benson (2002) are among the researchers who have proposed
CO2 capture technology as a means to make better use of it. Kurdi, Xiao, and Liu (2012)
evaluated the efficacy of supercritical CO2 (SCCO2) in reducing the condensate banking
effect through a computational research. The results show that CO2 reduces the viscosity and
surface tension of the condensate, which increases the efficiency of microscopic displacement,
as the author had concluded.
Another study by Zaitsev et al. (1996) demonstrated the dependability of CO2 injection in
sustaining reservoir pressure and evaporation of liquid buildup. The study compared CO2
with three other gases: methane, nitrogen, and separator gas. Based on the research, carbon
dioxide is the gas that works best for clearing the condensate obstruction.

To determine gas well productivity, Moradi, Tangsiri Fard, Rasaei, Momeni, and Bagheri
(2010) ran a simulation research comparing several scenarios' mechanisms on condensate
recovery and permeability reduction. Five distinct scenarios—natural depletion, gas recycling,
methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen—are considered in this research. Moradi et al. (2010)
found that carbon dioxide had the best condensate and gas recovery out of all the scenarios
they simulated.

A study conducted by Gachuz-Muro et al. (2011) examined the effectiveness of carbon

dioxide, nitrogen, and lean natural gases in dissolving condensate buildup in a gas condensate
reservoir made of naturally occurring fissures and slits. The HPHT reservoir condition is
depicted in the study at a temperature of 334 oF and a pressure of 8455 psia. While natural
gas performs marginally better in terms of condensate recovery, the study confirms that
carbon dioxide generally performs better.

Another method that uses carbon dioxide to reduce the problem of condensate blockage—
which has the same impact on skin within the harm radius—is the huff-n-puff approach (Odi,
2012). To accomplish miscible displacement of natural gas and condensate, the carbon
dioxide huff-n-puff technique involves pumping a sufficient volume of carbon dioxide near
the wellbore, closing the well for a period of time, and then opening it again. Depending on
the carbon concentration, the dewpoint pressure at reservoir temperature decreases. Reservoir
fluid will be able to keep its one-phase structure thanks to the pressurizing effect. Research
by Odi (2012) supports the idea that CO2 can boost output in areas hit hard by condensate
banking; however, the effectiveness of this strategy is highly dependent on when it is first
applied. The following figure is a simplified diagram of the CO2 huff-n-puff procedures.
Figure 3: CO2 Huff-n-Puff injection (Odi, 2012)

In a fractured gas condensate reservoir, Taheri, Hoier, and Torsaeter (2013) used simulations to study the
efficacy of injecting immiscible and miscible gas in dissolving condensate buildup close to the wellbore
area. Fractures surrounding a single matrix block were simulated in this study, along with scenarios for
gas injection (both miscible and immiscible) and natural depletion. The injectant employed in this
investigation is a mixture of methane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and the gas composition from the stock
tank. According to Taheri et al. (2013), injecting a miscible gas, such as CO2, recovers more condensate
than injecting an immiscible gas. Also, because the interaction's minimum miscibility pressure is reduced,
increasing the carbon dioxide level in the stock tank gas leads to better condensate recovery.
2.2.3 Propane
Propane has many practical and industrial uses. As an injectant, it finds extensive usage in the
petroleum sector for the purpose of increasing heavy oil recovery through the reduction of
viscosity. Propane is abundant in countries that produce a lot of petroleum and natural gas since
it is a byproduct of such industries. New uses for propane are continually expanding its market,
which in turn drives up demand for the fuel.
To collect the oil that was left over after waterflooding in Adena Field, Colorado, the tertiary oil
recovery method used propane gas injection (Holm, 1972). The author discovers that the oil
could be mobilized by miscible displacement through propane infusion. It is important to use the
correct injection technique to prevent injectant loss and channeling effect. In order to improve
recovery from the Morichal Field in Venezuela using steam injection, Ferguson, Mamora, and
Goite (2001) conducted an experimental research on the efficacy of adding propane to heavy oil
reservoirs. From injecting only steam to using a 5:100 ratio of propane to steam, researchers
have tried out a wide range of mass ratios. The outcome shows that oil output is 20% more than
when steam is used alone.
Venturini, Mamora, and Moshfeghian (2004) conduct an independent investigation on Hamaca
heavy oil with the same goal of evaluating propane's efficacy in heavy oil recovery. To replicate
the properties of Hamaca oil, the research used numerical simulations utilizing a 3D cartesian
grid model that included 10 pseudo-component oil models. The study's author draws the
conclusion that, in comparison to pure steam injection, a larger propane steam mass ratio will
hasten oil production and triple incremental oil recovery. Jamaluddin et al. (2001) used constant
composition expansion (CCE) studies to examine how CO2 and C3 affected the vaporization of
liquid dropouts in the vicinity of the well bore in gas condensate research. The CCE test
conducted by Jamaluddin et al. (2001) using different concentrations of carbon dioxide (varying
between 30% and 40% mol) and propane (varying between 28% and 40% mol) reveals that
carbon dioxide raises the dewpoint pressure while decreasing the total liquid dropout below the
dewpoint, while propane lowers both of these variables. Because propane has an optimal phase
behavior, the author comes up with the concept to inject it into the field utilizing the huff and
puff approach under certain conditions. Because of its many useful properties, propane is an
injectant that could be investigated for use with recovered condensate. The results have been
pretty compelling when it comes to steam injection in heavy oil reservoirs and gas injection in
tertiary recovery techniques. This is because it can decrease oil viscosity and boost oil mobility.
2.3 HORIZONTAL DRILLING TECHNIQUE
A number of reservoir applications have made use of horizontal wells. Many reservoir types,
including gas, heavy oil, and fractured reservoirs, have made use of the horizontal drilling
technique. While horizontal drilling did not become widely used until the 1980s, the first well
was drilled using this technique in 1927. (Joshi, 2003). Horizontal wells are advantageous
because, according to Sayed and Al-Muntasheri (2014), they reduce pressure drop close to the
wellbore, which delays the buildup of condensate in the gas condensate reservoir and, ultimately,
improves productivity. Because of its vast contact area between the wellbore and the reservoir
and its capacity to delay the condensate banking phenomena, the horizontal well technology is
extremely efficient. In order to examine the production performance of horizontal and vertical
wells for different types of gas condensate reservoir heterogeneities, Muladi and Pinczewski
(1999) conducted a comprehensive analysis. The study found that in average permeability
reservoirs, horizontal wells show better production performance than vertical wells. Placing
horizontal wells in a high permeability layer optimizes their performance. Horizontal gas
condensate well production is very sensitive to the permeability distribution, an observation
reached by both Fevang and Whitson (1996) and Muladi and Pinczewski (1999). Because of its
impact on the end projection, Fevang and Whitson (1996) stressed the significance of conducting
thorough research to establish the kv/kh ratio. North Field Qatar is one of the biggest gas
condensate reservoirs that encountered the condensate banking phenomena; Miller, Nasrabadi,
and Zhu (2010) studied the use of horizontal wells in this reservoir. The North Field in Qatar is
home to over 900 trillion cubic feet of confirmed natural gas reserves, earning it the title of the
world's highest non-associated gas field. The study by Miller et al. (2010) successfully
demonstrated that, in comparison to vertical wells, horizontal wells have a smaller drawdown
pressure, which in turn delays the build-up of condensate. When the pressure hits the dew point
pressure, the horizontal to vertical well productivity index (PI) ratio is 6.11.
 CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Figure 3.1: process flowchart

3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW AND DATA GATHERING
Research for this part primarily consists of perusing scholarly articles and books on the subject
of gas condensate reservoirs. The majority of the literature was sourced from the Society of
Petroleum Engineers (SPE) chapter, which guarantees that the information acquired is reliable
and accurate.
There is a high degree of relevance and currency among the reviewed papers. For the sake of
objectivity, the research is presented in chronological order, beginning with the features of gas
condensate reservoirs and moving on to the methods used by businesses to address the
challenges posed by these reservoirs. There is no shortage of gas condensate reservoir journals or
articles since, owing to the reservoir's complexity, condensate banking is a major issue for
engineers. Since the primary goal of this research is to determine the impact of gas injection on
gas condensate recovery, the mitigation strategy primarily emphasizes the employment of gas
injection and solvent. But there isn't a tonne of research on propane injection because nobody has
really looked at injecting propane into a gas condensate reservoir.
3.1.2 MODELLING AND SIMULATION
The simulations were run on the ECLIPSE simulator, which Sclumberger created. The ECLIPSE
software is comprised of sets of applications designed for diverse modeling and simulation uses.
Only a few applications—ECLIPSE 300, PVTi, Floviz, and Office—have been used due to the
project's scope.
The option for simulating the compositional model is ECLIPSE 300. ECLIPSE 300 is the best
numerical simulator to simulate the condensate effect because this study focuses on gas
condensate reservoirs, which have multiple component phases. Additionally, as the simulator
allows users to customize the composition of the gas injection, several gas injection scenarios
can be implied. The reservoir fluid's composition and thermodynamic properties are modeled
using PVTi. While for Office, it is used to generate the result from the simulation and portrays
the result in graphical form.
3.1.2.1 STATIC MODELING
The study employs ECLIPSE 300 for static modeling, whereby all available data is input into the
software to create a hypothetical gas condensate reservoir. The reservoir model is based on the
paper "Third SPE Comparative Solution Project: Gas Cycling of Retrograde Condensate
Reservoirs" (Kenyon, 1987). The gas-oil permeability plays a critical role in this study because it
examines how the flow of both phases impacts condensate recovery.

Table 3.1: Properties of Hypothetical Gas Condensate Model

Properties Values
Grid Dimension 18x18x9
Hydrocarbon pore volume 20.24MMrb
Datum (subsurface) 7500 ft
Gas/water contact 7500 ft
Water saturation at contact 1.00
Initial pressure at contact 3550 psia
Water density at contact 63.0 lbm/ft3
PV compressibility 4.0 x 10-6
Horizontal permeability Layer 1 - 130 mD
Layer 2 - 40 mD
Layer 3- 20 mD

3.1.2.2 FLUID STUDY

The tool used in modelling the fluid in ECLIPSE in PVTi. PVTi functions to model fluid
behaviour perform PVT calculations and reservoir fluid characterization. Table 2 depict the
hydrocarbon analysis incorporated in this study.
Table 3.2: Composition of Reservoir Fluid Sample
Component Mol %
Carbon dioxide 1.21
Nitrogen 1.94
Methane 65.99
Ethane 8.69
Propane 5.91
 C4-6 9.67
C7+1 4.7448
C7+2 1.5157
C7+3 0.3295
Since all of the PVT data for the condition of the gas condensate reservoir is available in the
literature, the fluid data is taken from the SPE3 model. Consisting of constant-composition
expansion (CCE), constant volume depletion (CVD), fluid compositions, fluid molecular weight,
and laboratory-prepared constant-composition expansion (FCE) make up the PVT data. Because
of its dependability, this composition is frequently utilized in gas-condensate research (Moses &
Wilson, 1981). With Peng-Robinson EOS, PVT modeling was carried out.
Since methanol is not pre-built into the ECLIPSE program, it needs to be added to the model
using PVTi. The methanol data is taken from the literature review (Bang, Pope, & Sharma, 2010)
since this project does not involve any experiments. You may find the PVTi data in Table 3.
Table 3.3: EOS Parameters For Methanol
Component Molecular Critical Critical Acentric
Weight Temperature Pressure Factor
(oF) (Psia)
Methanol 32.042 922.68 1174.21 0.559

The PVTi library has all the necessary parameters for pure gas injection, which includes propane,
nitrogen, and carbon dioxide. So, the simulator uses it directly to analyze how it affects the
reservoir's performance. To bring the observed and estimated data into agreement, the binary
interaction is adjusted for the freshly added methanol. For all the pressures involved, it is crucial
that methanol be able to depict the phase envelop and behavior. In Table 3.4, you can find the
binary interaction parameters for hydrocarbon and methanol.
Table 3.4: Binary interaction parameters between hydrocarbon and methanol
methanol Component Kij with Methanol
Methanol 0
Methane 0.29
n-butane 0.25
 n-heptane 0.075

3.1.2.3 DYNAMIC MODELLING

After all the data has been incorporated, the gas condensate model has been initialized for the
simulation run. The dynamic modelling is carried out to simulate our cases based on the
objective defined. There are two parts of dynamic section which can be divided as this project
carries two main objectives.
For the first objective, which is to study the effect of different injection gases in condensate
recovery, three types of gases have been studied which is:
1. A rarely used propane.
2. Conventional gas which is carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
1 pore volume (PV) of slug is injected for each case in the duration of 10 years which is 0.1 PV
per year. For the first 5 years, the reservoir is producing by natural depletion scenario which is
the base case in this section. The function of 5 years of natural depletion is to build the scenario
of condensate blockage. Thus, it will divide the simulation to two parts which is pre-treatment
and post treatment. The injection rate of each case is designed to inject 1 PV of slug in 10 years.
The injection rate can be viewed from Table 3.5.
Table 3.5: Injection Rate For Each Gas

Pure gas Injection rate (MSCF/day)

Carbon Dioxide 9832
Propane 9260
Nitrogen 5437

For all the cases in this section, the changing parameter is only the gas injection composition
while other parameters are kept constant. For the well data, the injection well is set at the grid of
6, 6 with the perforation are targeted at the top layer which is layer 1 and 2. As for production
well, it is placed in the location of 13, 13 where perforation is targeted at bottom layer which is
Layer 3 and Layer 4 specifically. The bottomhole pressure for producer is minimally set to 500
psi.
Figure 3.1: Top View Of The Hypothetical Gas Condensate Model In The Function Of
Gas Saturation

The gas-solvent injection and gas-gas injection techniques are being further investigated for use
with propane. Propane, a byproduct of natural gas production, is in short supply, hence this
method is employed (Paszkiewicz, 1982). So, this method allows for a sharp drop in propane
injection rates. According to Kossack and Opdal (1988) and Donohoe and Buchanan (1981),
nitrogen is a great secondary slug for gas-gas injection since it is abundant, inexpensive, and
effective at maintaining pressure. For gas-solvent injection, methanol is chosen because it is
easily accessible, is one of the most commonly used chemicals for condensate banking removal,
and because it works. Both scenarios include injecting 0.1 PV annually through alternating
flooding for a duration of 10 years.
 CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This project aimed to simulate and examine the effect of gas injection in condensate recovery.
The efficiency of gas-gas flooding and gas-solvent flooding in removing condensate is also being
examined. Besides, injection scheme which covers different well distance between injector and
producer as well as injection rate is also simulated to examine the condensate production
performance. The results from the simulation are presented in this chapter.
4.1 EFFECT IF GAS INJECTION IN CONDENSATE RECOVERY
For the first five years, the amount of condensate increases in a consistent pattern across all cases,
indicating that the reservoir is being produced by natural forces without any manipulation or
adjustments during this time. But the pattern began to shift depending on the injected cases in the
fifth year. Injecting propane results in the most condensate generation, followed by nitrogen,
carbon dioxide, and, in the absence of treatment or injection, natural depletion (the base
scenario).

Since propane lowers the reservoir's dew point pressure, it demonstrates superior condensate
recovery. The reservoir's dew point pressure before adding propane was 3817 psi, according to
Table 9, but after adding propane, it dropped to 3493 psi. When CO₂ is present, the dew point
pressure drops to 3759 psi, displaying identical behavior. As an example of its opposing action,
nitrogen can raise the reservoir dew point pressure to a maximum of 4,164 psi. The results
demonstrate that, when contrasted with other common gases, propane has the greatest effect on
lowering the dew point pressure. Consistent with the study, Jamaluddin et al. (2001) found that
reducing the dew point pressure in the reservoir fluid by adding propane is possible. This study
contradicts the authors' claims that adding carbon dioxide raises the dew point pressure.

Odi (2012) confirms what we found in this study: a lower dew point pressure is the result of an
increase in carbon dioxide content in the condensate due to an increase in carbon dioxide
diffusivity. Multiple investigations have shown that nitrogen raises the dew point pressure; for
example, Vogel and Yarborough (1980) and Moses and Wilson (1981) are among them. By
lowering the dew point pressure, the reservoir's condensate production can be postponed,
allowing the single phase to persist in the reservoir for an extended period of time. In addition to
lowering the dew point, maintaining reservoir pressure is another benefit of continuous gas
injection. Nitrogen outperforms carbon dioxide and propane in terms of pressure maintenance, as
shown in Figure 11. However, throughout the injection period, the pressure remains between
2950 and 3150 psi in every case. A higher rate of gas injection could be used to maintain the
reservoir pressure.

Because of properties of the pure component, the viscosity decrease achieved by injection of
propane is greater than in other circumstances. Because propane is a hydrocarbon component
that can be dissolved in reservoir fluid, a portion of the injected propane will condense and
produce further condensate. The condensate's viscosity will drop as a result of propane's
properties, which make it less dense than other components. Research by Kariznovi, Nourozieh,
and Abedi (2011) on the topic of heavy oil applications demonstrates that, at a constant
temperature, a combination containing a high percentage of propane can significantly decrease
the oil's viscosity. Gas condensate reservoirs use a similar idea, since the two primary
components of condensate are heavy and intermediate components. This proves without a
reasonable doubt that propane is an excellent agent for diluting thick components.

Carbon dioxide, like propane, decreases viscosity, but to a lesser extent. Carbon dioxide has a
larger density than natural gas but a lower density than condensate, as stated by Vayenas et al.
(2002). As carbon dioxide is continuously injected, the condensate phase density (pr) will
decrease. It may be noticed that a decrease in condensate viscosity is facilitated by a lower
condensate density, according to the correlation used to compute condensate viscosity (µ) by
Lohrenz, Bray, and Clark (1964) (Kurdi et al., 2012).

Since there is very little mixing of nitrogen with reservoir fluid, injecting nitrogen does not
significantly change the condensate viscosity. Nitrogen, when injected continuously, raises both
its concentration and viscosity. The effectiveness of the flood sweep could be enhanced using an
injectant with a higher viscosity. This means that the external force to push the condensate onto
the surface will be roughly the same as piston displacement. The condensate will build up in the
producer well due to this piston-like movement, which will also increase its viscosity at the well
bore. Condensate production to the surface is also assisted by the piston-like force.
Table 4.1: PVT Analysis of Fluid Composition
Gas Injection Viscosity (cp) Dew Point (psia) Condensate
(0.1 mole %) volume @ 700
psia (%)
Original reservoir 0.065 3817 18
fluid
(no injection)
Carbon Dioxide 0.064 3759 16.2
Nitrogen 0.066 4164 17.4
Propane 0.0625 3493 15
Viscosity controls the ease of flow of the fluids. Thus, as the viscosity of condensate decreases, it
causes the flow of condensate much easier. Based on the understanding of mobility which is the
ratio of effective permeability to phase viscosity, the lower the viscosity (µ) the higher would be
the mobility (M) Propane and carbon dioxide has major advantage in removing condensate
blockage as both of them have high evaporation capacity, while for nitrogen, the effect is minor.
The relationship can be viewed from Equation 1:

�(��������� �����������)
Mobility = �(���������)

Addition of propane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen in reservoir fluid could alter the volume of
condensate formation with respect to pressure. As for propane injection, it reduces the
condensate volume to approximately 15% which is the highest reduction compared to carbon
dioxide and nitrogen which is 16.2% and 17.4% respectively. From here, we could observe that
propane reduces the condensate volume the most followed by carbon dioxide and lastly nitrogen.
Nitrogen only manages to reduce 0.6% of the original fluid condensate volume. Many studies
proved that the injection of nitrogen promotes liquid drop out (Sanger and Hagoort (1998) ;
Kossack and Opdal (1988)). The amount of condensate volume near the wellbore will affects the
gas relative permeability and the well productivity.
4.2 EFFECT OF INJECTION SCHEME ON CONDENSATE RECOVERY
4.2.1 EFFECT OF DIFFERENT INJECTOR AND PRODUCER DISTANCE ON
CONDENSATE RECOVERY
From the result of the section above, it clearly shows that propane serves as best injectant
compared to other conventional gas injectant. Thus, further study is done to investigate the
suitable injection scheme to be implemented in order to get the optimum condensate recovery by
using propane injectant. The injection scheme studied is focusing on different producer and
injector well distance and injection rate. For well distance, five different cases has been designed
which is 414.8 ft (2 blocks), 1244.4 ft (6 blocks), 2074 ft (10 blocks), 2903.6 (14 blocks) and
3318.4 ft (16 blocks).

Figure 4.1: Condensate Production Based On Well Distance

Figure 15 demonstrates that the lowest condensate recovery occurs at the smallest well distance
of 2 blocks. The condensate recovery is much higher for the middle well distance (6 blocks) than
for the further well distances of 10 blocks, 14 blocks, and 16 blocks.

Because the injected gas forms a condensate bank in a short amount of time due to the well
distance and velocity of the injected gas, the shortest well distance displays the lowest
condensate recovery (Figure 16). The relative gas permeability is low and the relative liquid
permeability is high in the producer block at the moment. Thus, injectant loss occurs as a result
of mobility differences (injected gas is less viscous than condensate), when the gas flows to the
high permeability zone and then fingers through the viscous zone (Sänger et al., 1994). At a
medium well distance of 6 blocks, the injected gas comes into touch with a substantial volume of
condensate. Since propane enhances the mobility of condensate, the recovery rate goes up a
notch. A larger quantity of propane had to be injected for cases where the distance was greater
than 6 blocks (10 blocks, 14 blocks, and 16 blocks), since 1 PV of propane does not have enough
force to produce the same reaction as the 6 blocks distance case. Oil recovery can be enhanced
by maintaining a sufficient distance between the injector and producer (Ehlig-Economides,
Fernandez, and Economides, 2001; Akhondzadeh and Fattahi,
2014).

Figure 4.2: Field Condensate Production Total Based On Amount Of Propane Injected
Due to the gravity override effect and the reservoir's uneven permeability distribution, wells that
are shorter in distance will bypass more quickly than those that are longer. Layers 1 and 2
accommodate injection at 130 and 40 mD, respectively, while layers 3 and 4 are responsible for
production at 20 and 150 mD. Because injected gas is less dense than the surrounding gas, it will
likely penetrate to the topmost layer, where it will be helped by the higher permeability layer and
the force of gravity. Injectant losses will occur as a result of less frequent contact between the
gas and condensate. Nonetheless, it will begin to descend so that the influence of gravity
override is balanced as the density of the injected gas increases due to the continual injection and
condensate sweeping.
4.2.2 EFFECT OF INJECTION RATE ON CONDENSATE RECOVERY
According to Shahvaranfard, Moradi, Tahami, and Gholami (2009), injection rate is another
injection strategy that impacts condensate recovery. We have simulated three distinct injection
rates for propane: 2000 MSCF/d, 4000 MSCF/d, and 8000 MSCF/d. We run the scenarios with
varying well distances (2 blocks, 6 blocks, 10 blocks, and 14 blocks) to see how the injection rate
relates to the well distance. Because it demonstrates optimal condensate recovery among other
examples, the injection rate is tested using 6 well block
distance.

Figure 43: Condensate Production Total Based On Injection Rates (6 Blocks)

Figure 17 illustrates that the three different injection rates—8000 MSCF/d, 4000 MSCF/d, and
2000 MSCF/d—lead to different levels of condensate recovery. The concentration of propane in
the reservoir is increased with an increase in the injection rate. A greater quantity of condensate
can be swept and evaporated at the producer due to the stronger force exerted by a propane
concentration. Amini, Aminshahidy, and Afshar (2011) found in their simulation study that the
gas injection rate significantly affects the condensate recovery.
4.2.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIFFERENT WELL DISTANCE AND INJECTION
RATE
Table 2 shows the condensate recovery for each well distance case with different injection rate.
Table 2: Condensate Recovery Based On Relationship Between Injection Rate And Well
Distance

In the shortest well distance (2 blocks) scenario, the condensate recovery for 4000 MSCF/d and
8000 MSCF/d is less than the base case, which accounts for natural depletion rates. This occurs
because the injectant does not have enough time to sweep the majority of the condensate along
the propagations when the injection rate is high, as the frontal displacement becomes faster.
Injection rates have a direct correlation to the condensate recovery in other well distance
scenarios (6 blocks, 10 blocks, and 14 blocks).

Evidence from the aforementioned studies strongly suggests that propane is a viable option for
improving the efficiency of gas-condensate reservoirs.

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the effectiveness of different gas injection has been studied with propane injection
as the main focus due to the limited study done on this injectant. As a result of propane injection,
it clearly shows that it possessed some characteristics that helps is condensate recovery
enhancement:
1. Increase the mobility of condensate by reducing the viscosity of condensate.

2. Reduce the dew point pressure which helps delaying condensate formation.

3. Improve the condensate relative permeability and gas relative permeability with only 0.7
PV of propane injection

4. Manage to increase the condensate recovery by 23.8% which is the highest among other
conventional gases.

5. Methanol addition improves condensate production by 27.7% due to its properties which
increase the gas relative permeability and reduce condensate viscosity.

The injection scheme also gives a big impact on condensate recovery as well as well productivity.
Based on the relationship between well distance between injector and producer and injection rate,
it clearly shows that:
1. Horizontal well configuration delays condensate build up and increase condensate
recovery
2. Sufficient injection rate is needed for different well distance where shorter distance works
well with lower injection rate while longer distance needs higher injection rate to increase
the production.
Most of the result shows very little differences between one case to another. Considering this
study is carried out in a small hypothetical model, the differences could become significant in the
real field application study as it is in a larger scale.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Understanding the phase behavior and thermodynamics of gas condensate makes studying its
reservoirs a challenging task. The research of gas condensate involves a lot of moving parts.
Findings from this study point to a method that can reduce condensate banking and boost
efficiency. This study area has led to the development of several suggestions for further work:

1. The right experimental data, which in turn lead to correct modeling, can only be obtained
through thorough experiments that include tests for swelling, miscibility, constant-
composition expansion, and constant-volume depletion. An improved understanding of
how the injected gas interacts with the reservoir fluid and how it affects gas productivity
can be obtained from comprehensive experimental data. To further complicate matters,
simulations should be run with actual reservoir properties in order to analyze the precise
propagations of injectants.
2. The experimental data is scarce and poorly documented in the literature; so, more
research into propane injection in gas condensate reservoirs is required. The suitability of
propane injection for various gas condensate reservoirs needs further investigation since
many studies have shown conflicting results.
3. This study demonstrates that the gas-solvent injection approach is quite efficient, hence it
is imperative that further research into this area be conducted. A novel approach to
improving the efficiency of gas condensate reservoirs might be developed by
implementing this method in practical field application studies.
4. The relative permeability prediction near the well bore is still unclear, despite numerous
research published on the subject, therefore gas condensate investigations should focus
more on relative permeability modeling rather than phase behavior.