25 vistas

Cargado por Jhonatan_Valdi_8987

- 2011 02 01-EIA World Shale Gas Resources-Australia+Cooper Basin Extract
- SPE-178368-MS (August, 2015)
- Dynaflodrill User Guide
- 1.1- Petroleum Geology
- SPE-21221-MS
- Field Information
- TORRES-VERDIN Salt Saturation in-Sut
- Thesis on ICDs - Gimre, Jeanette
- bybee2009
- SPE-100710- BSP- An Evolution From Smart Wells to Smart Fields
- 1. Doust & Noble, 2008,petroleum syst
- Model Multi-Layered Reservoirs with Horizontal Drilling – Multiple Producing Zones
- Analisis Nodal Chapter 07
- PCB3013 HW#6 Solutions
- 2016-3 Characterization of Tight and Shale Unconventional Reservoirs From Logs SPE 180961-MS (Crain) Etal
- Tecnlogías Claves.-expansion Reservas
- almurayri2018
- 1110201-4343 IJET-IJENS
- SPE-35385-PA
- 7023-15360-1-PB (1)

Está en la página 1de 17

Well Test Analysis in Lean Gas Condensate Reservoirs: Theory and Practice

A.C. Gringarten, M. Bozorgzadeh, S. Daungkaew, and A. Hashemi, SPE, Imperial College, London

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Russian Oil and Gas Technical

Conference and Exhibition held in Moscow, Russia, 36 October 2006.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of

information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as

presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to

correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any

position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at

SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of

Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper

for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is

prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than

300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous

acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.

Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

Gas condensate reservoirs exhibit a complex behavior when

wells are produced below the dew point, due to the existence

of a two-fluid system, reservoir gas and liquid condensate.

Different mobility zones develop around the wellbore

corresponding respectively to the original gas in place (away

from the well), the condensate drop-out, and capillarity

number effects (close to the well). Condensate drop-out causes

a non-reversible reduction in well productivity, which is

compensated in part by capillarity number effects.

All these effects can be identified and quantified from well

test data. Tests in condensate reservoirs, however, tend to be

difficult to interpret. Build-up and/or drawdown data are

usually dominated by wellbore phase redistribution effects and

the main analysis challenge is to distinguish between reservoir

effects, boundary effects, fluid behavior and wellbore phase

redistribution perturbations.

The paper compares theoretical well test behaviors in vertical

and horizontal wells as obtained from compositional

simulation with actual behaviors selected from more than

twenty different gas condensate reservoirs. An interpretation

methodology is described, which uses time-lapse analyses,

deconvolution and different analytical and numerical tools to

identify the probable causes of the pressure data behavior:

two-region and three-region analytical composite models to

represent the various mobility zones around the wellbore; a

voronoi-grid numerical simulator to represent discontinuous

boundaries; a multilayered analytical simulator to account for

the geological description and a compositional simulator to

Now with NIOC

usual well test analysis results, it is possible to obtain

parameters required for reservoir simulation and well

productivity forecasting, such as gas relative permeabilities at

the end point, critical oil saturation, and the base capillary

number.

Introduction

Gas condensate reservoirs are becoming more common as

deeper depths are being targeted in the exploration for oil and

gas. The behaviors of such systems are complex and are still

not fully understood, especially in the near-wellbore region.

Well tests, in particular, are difficult to interpret.

A discussion of the state-of-the-art in gas condensate well

test interpretation was published in 2000 by Gringarten et al1.

with an extensive review of the related literature. To

summarize, a characteristic of gas condensate production is

the creation of a condensate bank when the bottomhole

pressure drops below the dew point2 pressure. This reduces

the gas relative permeability3 around the well and leads to a

loss of well productivity4-7, with some wells even ceasing

production completely due to condensate loading in the

wellbore5. This condensate banking effect, however, is

compensated by velocity stripping which increases the gas

mobility in the immediate vicinity of the wellbore8. Velocity

or viscous stripping (also called positive coupling)9-13

occurs at high capillarity number, a dimensionless parameter

that represents a ratio of viscous to capillary forces14,15:

Nc =

(1)

interfacial tension (IFT). High capillary numbers are obtained

for high flowrate8 or low interfacial tension16.

Consequently, four regions develop around the wellbore

with different liquid saturations7,8,17,18. Away from the well, an

outer region, still above the dew point pressure, contains gas

with the initial liquid saturation; next, there is an intermediate

region with a rapid increase in liquid saturation and a

corresponding decrease in gas relative permeability. Liquid in

that region is immobile. Closer to the well, a region forms

where the liquid saturation reaches a critical value2, and the

effluent travels as a two-phase fluid with constant composition

(the condensate deposited as pressure decreases is equal to that

SPE 100993

vicinity of the well and is characterized by a decrease of the

liquid saturation and an increase in gas relative

permeability4,19 at low interfacial tensions or high rates (Fig.

1).

0.1

Mobile oil zone

0.08

Velocity stripping

zone

Original So

4

start of

two-phase

zone

Critical So

0.02

0

0.1

10

100

1000

and velocity stripping

from numerical studies8, field production data8,9,20 and

laboratory experiments16,21. Gringarten et al.1 showed that the

corresponding near-wellbore region, the second and third

regions, and the fourth region appeared as three different

mobility zones, exhibiting a three-region radial composite

behavior in a well test (curve a in Fig. 2), when the analysis

was made in terms of a single-phase or dry-gas pseudopressure function, also called real gas potential22:

p

p

(2)

m( p ) = 2

dp

(

)

(

)

p

Z

p

p

ref

103

H ig h c o n d e n s a te

s a tu r a tio n

(liq u id d r o p -o u t)

102

(b )

(a )

G a s w it h lo w e r

c o n d e n s a te s a tu r a tio n

( C a p illa r y n u m b e r e ff e c t)

10

G a s w ith in itia l

C o n d e n s a te

s a tu r a tio n

1

1 0 -3

1 0 -2

1 0 -1

10

102

ref

evidence in the literature of the existence of the velocity

stripping zone. Previous well test publications had only

reported the existence of a condensate bank7,24-27 (zones 2 to 3

in Fig. 1) as a two-region radial composite behavior (curve b

in Fig. 2).

0.06

0.04

ref

are the same as for pressure, and equations for well test

analysis are the same as for oil, with the gas formation volume

factor in Bbl/Mscf.

P > pdew

Immobile

oil zone

p

Z

p

(3)

mn ( p) =

dp

(

)

p p p p Z ( p)

103

E la p s e d tim e ( h o u rs )

1

behaviors: (a) three-region composite; (b) two-region composite

condensate bank on well test data, to document further

examples of complex well test behaviors from a number of

lean gas condensate sandstone reservoirs and to describe an

interpretation methodology to identify the probable causes of

these behaviors. This methodology, which combines timelapse analyses, deconvolution and the use of different

analytical and numerical tools, provides parameters required

for reservoir simulation and well productivity forecasting in

addition to the usual well test analysis results.

Dynamic Behavior of the Condensate Bank

As in all complex well test situations, it is helpful to use

simulation to identify key features that can then be recognized

on actual data. The following summarizes the main findings

on the dynamic behavior of the condensate bank from

numerical compositional simulation12.

Drawdown versus build up condensate saturation

distribution

Fig. 3 presents a pressure and rate history for a lean gas

condensate well in a sandstone reservoir of infinite extent with

homogeneous behavior, and the corresponding simulated

condensate saturation distributions in the reservoir for both

drawdowns and build ups. The first drawdown, Dd1, is below

the dew point pressure and has a duration which is long

enough so that a condensate bank has time to fully develop

(zones 1 to 3 in Fig. 1). It is followed by a build up where the

final pressure is above the dew point pressure. The next

drawdown, Dd2, has a much lower rate and the pressure

remains above the dew point pressure. Subsequent drawdowns

are at increasing rates and below the dew point pressure,

whereas all build ups end above.

Fig. 3 shows that the saturation distributions in drawdowns

and build ups are only slightly different. This is because,

during a shut-in, the high accumulation of condensate mass

near the well prevents the re-vaporization of the condensate

that should occur due to the increase in pressure (hysteresis

effect)19. The condensate saturation may even be higher than

SPE 100993

to the wellbore skin. Dd3 and Dd4 are the first drawdowns

where the pressure drops below the dew point pressure. The

derivatives in the following build ups, Bu3 and Bu4

respectively, still exhibit a homogeneous behavior, but the

corresponding pressures display higher total skins, which

include the wellbore skin and the effect of the condensate drop

out. This is because the condensate saturation around the well

has not yet reached the critical saturation and only zones 3 and

4 (Fig. 1) exist. Only the gas phase is produced and the

immobile condensate appears as an additional skin effect.

4000

Dew

Point

Pressure

Dd5

14

Dd4

10

1000

50

100

150

200

250

Bu4

Bu5

6

Bu3

Bu1

0

Bu2

Dd3

Dd2

300

2

0

Dd5 15MMscf/D for 10 days

0.20

End of Dd1 (200 days)

End of Bu1 (210 days)

End of Dd2 (220 days)

End of Bu2 (230 days)

End of Dd3 (240 days)

End of Bu3 (250 days)

End of Dd4 (260 days)

End of Bu4 (270 days)

End of Dd5 (280 days)

End of Bu5 (290 days)

So

0.15

0.10

Dd2

2.5MMscf/D for 10 days

0.05

0.00

10-1

10

102

103

Dd14

Dd12

Bu11

Bu12

Dd10

Dd11

Bu4

Bu3

Bu1

1000

Bu10

Dd3

Dd4

Dd1

2000

40

30

0

20

10

100

0

300

200

Time (days)

Time

(Days)

0.25

3000

104

Fig. 3: Lean gas condensate saturation distribution with

29

increasing and decreasing flow rates

Fig. 4 shows another pressure and rate history for a similar

well-reservoir configuration, and a rate-normalized log-log

plot of the simulated normalized pseudo-pressure and

derivative curves of some of the build ups. The pressure in

the first two drawdowns, Dd1 and Dd2, remains above the

dew point pressure, whereas the pressure in all subsequent

drawdowns, from Dd5 to Dd14, is mainly below. As there is

no depletion in the reservoir, the pressure at the end of all the

build ups is above the dew point pressure. The log-log

derivative for the build up following the first drawdown, Bu1,

exhibits a homogeneous behavior, as expected from a dry gas,

18

Dd1

2000

Pressure (psia)

3000

Pressure (psia)

3443

Dd2

4000

accumulation of condensate and migration of the heavy

components towards the well changes the fluid composition

and makes the fluid to behave as a black oil28 (the gas may

dissolve into the oil, thus increasing the condensate saturation

in the vicinity of the well). Some re-vaporization does occur,

but only near the outer edge of the two-phase region, and only

if the preceding drawdown has a high production rate. The

leaner the gas and the lower the production time, production

rate and critical saturation, the smaller the saturation profile

difference between a drawdown and the subsequent build-up29.

10 4

10 3

Bu12

5 MMscf/D

Bu10

27.5 MMscf/D

Condensate bank

Bu11

10 2

30 MMscf/D

Bu3

7.5 MMscf/D

Bu1

2.5 MMscf/D

Bu4

10 MMscf/D

10

10 -5

10 -4

10 -3

10 -2

10 -1

10

10 2

10 3

Fig. 4: Lean gas condensate well test behavior with increasing

30

and decreasing flow rates

reaches a critical value and the condensate becomes mobile.

Zones 1 and 2 (Fig. 1) develop while the saturation at the

wellbore increases further (up to a maximum value). This

yields a composite behavior and a further increase in total skin

(Bu10 and Bu11).

Initially, capillary number effects create a three-region

composite well test behavior, with three derivative

stabilizations (Fig. 5). The first derivative radial flow

stabilization line develops as soon as oil becomes mobile in

the reservoir because the gas effective permeability in the

near-wellbore region is greater than that in the condensate

bank due to capillary number effects. As production continues,

SPE 100993

permeability decrease in the two-phase zone. This

permeability reduces faster in the velocity stripping zone than

elsewhere in the reservoir. Eventually, the first stabilization

line disappears when the near-wellbore gas effective

permeability becomes less than that in the mobile zone, in

which case a two-zone radial composite behavior develops,

with only two stabilizations on the derivative (after 50 days

production in Fig. 5)30.

50 days

0.12

45 days

0.10

20 days

0.08

5 days

0.06

0.04

0.02

0

0.1

10

Figs. 3 and 4 also show the effects of decreasing gas flow

rates. In Fig. 3, lowering the rate maintains the pressure above

the dew point pressure in Dd2 and causes the condensate

saturation in the near-wellbore region to decrease, as part of

the condensate accumulated near the wellbore is recovered. As

soon as the bottomhole pressure drops again below the dew

point pressure in a subsequent flow period (Dd4), oil

saturation increases near the wellbore due to renewed

condensate deposit. The bank radius (i.e. the start of the twophase zone) remains approximately constant in this particular

example. Fig. 4 shows the corresponding impact on the

pressure derivative: as the flow period Dd12 has a much lower

rate than Dd11, the condensate saturation decreases around the

wellbore, and consequently, the following build up, Bu12, has

a lower condensate stabilization level and a lower total skin

effect. In a multirate exploration test, where the pressure

during successive drawdowns may fall below or remain above

the dew point pressure, depending on the flow rate, the skin

due to the condensate may appear and disappear accordingly.

100

50

45

20

5

effects are shown in Fig. 6, where the normalized pseudopressures from Eq. 3 and derivatives are plotted versus elapsed

time on a log-log graph. For demonstration purpose, data have

been shifted vertically so that the derivatives coincide in the

condensate bank area.

days

days

days

days

2nd

stabilisation

10 2

1st

stabilisation

3rd stabilisation

10

10-5

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

Fig. 5: Impact of capillary number effects on saturation profiles

and log-log derivative shapes (10 day build-ups following

30

drawdowns with various production durations at 15MMscf/D)

on the derivative. The last one corresponds to the gas mobility

in the portion of the reservoir still above the dew point, i.e. it

represents the reservoir effective permeability. The first one,

at a higher level, corresponds to the lower gas relative

mobility in the condensate bank. The level of this first

stabilization depends on the condensate saturation in Zone 2

(Fig. 1) and therefore increases as the condensate saturation

increases until the condensate saturation reaches its maximum

value. This maximum condensate saturation is slightly higher

at high production rates than at low production rates, for the

same cumulative production. As production time increases at

constant rate, the maximum condensate saturation at the

wellbore and the first derivative stabilization level no longer

change, but the bank radius increases.

10 3

G erm any

High condensate

saturation

(liquid drop-out)

Croatia

condensate saturation

(Capillary num ber effect)

North Sea

Algeria

Gas with initial

Condensate

saturation

condensate reservoirs showing condensate drop-out and velocity

stripping

test analysis in dry gas reservoirs, in an attempt to linearize the

diffusivity equation. Using it for gas condensate reservoirs

amounts to considering the gas as the dominant fluid, and the

condensate as a fluid heterogeneity. When the bottomhole

pressure drops below the dew point pressure, this creates a

fluid-induced composite behavior, as illustrated in Fig. 2, on

top of any possible geology-induced heterogeneous behavior

and/or complex well behavior, as in hydraulically fractured or

horizontal wells (Fig. 7).

SPE 100993

0.40

Increasing production

time below the dew

point pressure

at constant rate

Radial flow

0.30

0.20

slope

point pressure

slope

10-4

10-3

10-2

10-1

102

10

103

104

105

104

Horizontal well60

Increasing production time below the

dew point pressure at increasing rate

103

Condensate Saturation

Fractured well59

Increasing production

time below the dew

point pressure

at constant rate

0.10

0

10-2

10-1

102

10

103

104

0.3

Increasing production

time below the

dew point pressure

at increasing rate

0.2

slope

102

0.1

10

10-4

Radial

flow

point pressure

10-3

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

104

0

10-1

10

102

103

104

31

32

hydraulically fractured well and in a horizontal well obtained

The diffusivity equation in a gas condensate reservoir can be

further linearized33 with a two-phase pseudo-pressure

function:

p

k

k

(4)

m2 ( p) = ( rg + ro )dp

B

B

g g

o o

p

ref

S in g le -p h a s e

Sw

St

Sw

G a s w ith in itia l

c o n d e n s a te

s a tu ra tio n

max

T w o -p h a s e

fluid equivalent in the two-phase flow regions (Regions 1 to 3

in Fig. 1). As a result, the fluid-induced composite behavior

obtained with single-phase pseudo-pressures no longer exists

and any heterogeneous behavior must be due to the geology,

not to the fluid. In the case of a reservoir with homogeneous

behavior and infinite extent, a single derivative stabilization is

therefore obtained, which yields the absolute permeability.

The skin effect obtained from the corresponding analysis

represents the wellbore skin (Fig. 8). Calculation of the

integral in Eq. 4, however, is challenging, because it requires

the knowledge of the gas phase relative permeability as a

function of pressure.

E la p s e d tim e (h o u rs )

Fig. 8: Single-phase vs. two-phase pseudo-pressure formulation

max

to yield a final

(single-phase pseudo-pressures are multiplied by k rg

derivative stabilization that corresponds to the absolute permeability

instead of the effective permeability)

long enough so that all the features of the composite behavior

have had time to develop, interpretation of gas condensate

pressure transient data that exhibit a two- or a three-region

radial composite behavior yields the effective reservoir

permeability and the total skin effect from the final derivative

radial flow stabilization, and the mobility or permeability

ratios between the various regions from the respective

derivative radial flow stabilizations. The radius of each

mobility zone, on the other hand, cannot be un-coupled from

the storativity ratio between that zone and the next because

analytical well test analysis methods can only account for one

set of PVT data. An independent estimate of the condensate

bank storativity is therefore required to calculate the bank

radius, the contribution of the bank to the skin effect, and the

wellbore skin effect. Bozorgzadeh and Gringarten29 have

shown that, for the analysis of build up data, the total

compressibility of the two-phase region could be obtained

from the wellbore flowing pressure at the time of shut-in and

the corresponding saturation profile. They demonstrated on

both computer-generated and real data that the calculation

procedure they proposed (Fig. 9) ensures that the condensate

bank characteristics obtained from well test analysis were

consistent with those from compositional simulation.

1. Construct an equation of state (EOS) model to predict the

actual reservoir fluid properties

2.

Tune the EOS parameters with reservoir fluid

experimental data, using the critical properties of the pseudocomponents as variables in the tuning process.

3. Generate live oil and wet gas PVT tables as a function of

pressure over the pressure range of the test, using the tuned

EOS and Whitson and Trops procedures 52 .

4. Calculate the total compressibility for the two-phase region

at the pressure and time of shut-in, using the PVT table

generated in Step 3:

Sg

Bg

ctc = (1 S w ).

S

o

Bo

dBg dRv B0 Rs Bg

+

1

dP

R

R

s

v

dp

+ S w c w + cr

dBo dRs Bg Rv Bo

dP 1 Rs Rv

dp

(where the reservoir pressure is above the dew point pressure)

at the average reservoir pressure

6. Calculate

the

storativity

ratio

compressibilities from Steps 4 and 5:

( h ct )1 / 2 =

using

the

total

ct1

ct 2

29

condensate bank

radius on the storativity ratio. Experience indicates that the

storativity ratios are almost always underestimated by

SPE 100993

bank radius (by up to one order of magnitude). The impact on

the wellbore skin, on the other hand, is small.

Outer zone

radius (ft)

289

103

30

(cth)bank/reservoir

0.3

1

4.9 (correct value)

Total skin

effect

20

20

20

Wellbore

skin effect

5.7

6.7

7.9

Table 1: Relationship between storativity ratio, zone radius and wellbore skin

effect for a North Sea well29

point pressure is that the wellbore skin effect may increase,

decrease (Fig. 10) or remain constant as the gas rate increases,

instead of increasing with rate, the expected behavior above

the dew point pressure. This reflects the balance between the

positive impact on productivity of the capillary number effect,

and the negative impact of inertia (non-Darcy or turbulent

flow).

30

25

Capillary number

effects dominate

over inertia

Wellbore skin

20

15

10

point pressure

point pressure

0

0

10

15

20

25

START

Conventional

analysis

Estimation of

pseudo-relative

permeabilities

Guess krg @ S wi

Build-up

pressure data

Single - phase

pseudo -pressure

i = 0

m

krg @ Swi

keff @ Swi

Mobility ratio of

bank to reservoir

Base

capillary

number

(k abs )i

k eff

/ (k abs )i+1

Pseudo- k r

(k abs )i+1

(k abs )i

(k abs )i+1

Two-phase

pseudo pressure

=1

END

30

possible to estimate the relative permeabilities and the

absolute permeability from well test analysis in lieu of

experimental data, using single-phase and two-phase pseudopressures simultaneously. It is also possible to obtain the base

capillary number (i.e., the minimum value required to see

capillary number effects) using single-phase gas pseudopressures. The gas relative permeability at near-wellbore

saturation and at the initial liquid saturation, and the absolute

permeability are thecontrolling parameters for predicting well

productivity in gas condensate reservoirs. The trial and error

procedure, schematically described in Fig. 11, has been

validated with field data and has been found to be accurate

enough to be used for forecasting well productivity in gas

condensate reservoir34.

Well test analysis using compositional simulation

The conventional well test analysis approach described above

provides a series of snapshots of the well-reservoir-fluid

characteristics at specific times from the start of production. It

does not allow predicting how the system will evolve in the

future. This can only be achieved by compositional

simulation. Compositional simulation also provides a

verification of the results from conventional well test analysis,

and in particular of the condensate bank radius. Using the

analytical well test interpretation results as inputs, the

compositional model must provide a reasonable match not

only on the pressure-rate history and the producing GOR, but

also on the loglog plot of pseudo-pressure and derivatives of

the main build-ups and drawdowns.

In general, a radial local grid is used with logarithmically

increasing sizes away from the well to permit evaluation of the

near-wellbore gas condensate behavior in enough detail. High

resolution time steps must be used, which provide linear

pressure gradients and smooth saturation profiles on a semilog scale.

In order to ensure the reliability of the compositional

simulation, it is essential to have a fluid model that behaves as

the actual reservoir fluid, within the applicable pressure range.

Therefore, a proper characterization of the most representative

fluid sample is mandatory. Often, however, there is no fluid

sample from the well under study or the available samples are

not representative and a PVT fluid sample from a different

well, which had been correctly recombined, must be selected.

The heavier fractions of the fluid samples (i.e. C7+) must be

lumped into fewer pseudo-components in order to decrease

CPU time. An equation of state must be selected to predict the

actual reservoir fluids properties and its parameters tuned by

regressing on the critical properties of the plus fraction until a

good match was obtained between predicted values and

observed data, such as dew point pressure, fluid density and

viscosity, fluid volume and composition, and liquid shrinkage

during CVD and CCE experiments. These variables are

selected for regression because the properties of the plus

fraction were less accurate and not well defined.

Relative permeability curves should be selected from a set

used in the actual full-field compositional simulation based on

the reported fluid connate water saturation. The end point of

the gas relative permeability must be adjusted in order to

SPE 100993

conventional well test analysis. When special core analysis is

not available, the relative permeability characteristics can

estimated using Corey function12. Sensitivity runs must be

made on the Corey parameters to define a consistent set of

relative permeability curves that provides both calculated oil

rates equal to the measured oil rate at a specific gas rate, and a

good match with the flowing bottomhole pressure.

Capillary number and inertia effects must be included in the

simulation. The Forchheimer62 parameter that defines inertia

can be obtained from Geertsmas correlation36, whereas

capillary numbers can be obtained from a number of

correlations37-42. These require coefficients that must be

determined experimentally or from correlations29.

Once the capillary number parameters are obtained, well skins

must be adjusted by trial and error to obtain a good match for

all the drawdown periods on the pressure history plot.

An example of results from compositional simulation analysis

is shown in Fig.1229.

16

Data

15

Simulation with

capillary number

3000

<10%

14

2000

13

Simulation without

capillary number

1000

12

0

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

GOR

Measured

Calculated

2.4

10

10-4

10-2

10-1

10

Condensatesaturation

Effective permeability

10-3

10

12

14

102

0.06

0.04

Bu6

Dd5

0.02

0

10-1

0.08

r2=38 ft

(Numerical)

Data

Dd5

10000

0.1

and no wellbore storage

102

r1=5 ft

(Numerical)

103

r2=30 ft

(WTA)

10

6000

102

R=38 ft

(Numerical)

Interpretation Challenges

Corrected rates

Raw rates

5000

4000

100

3000

80

2000

60

1000

40

20

0

0

400

800

1200

1600

Rate normalized mn(p)

and derivative (psi)

Data

Well test interpretation consists of solving an inverse problem,

the solution of which is non-unique by definition43. The only

way to decrease the non-uniqueness is to increase the amount

of data one is working with. These include more pressure and

rate data (ideally, all the pressure and rate information on the

well), and all possible interpreted information on the reservoir

(geology, seismics and logs), the fluid (PVT) and the well

(drilling and completion) and on the way the test has been run

(sequence of operations). The more complex the environment

of the test, the more information is required. Tests in gas

condensate reservoirs below the dew point pressure are

probably at the high end of the difficulty scale, as they

combine the complexities of the geology and the well with the

complexity of the fluid.

Complete rates

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

104

103

Bu392

Bu499

102

Bu392

Bu499

Bu322

10

Bu322

Bu456 Bu310

1

10-2

10-1

10

Bu456

Bu310

102

10-2

10-1

10

44

102

Rate (MMscf/D)

29

compositional simulation

Pressure (psia)

4000

GOR(Mscf/D)

Pressure (psia)

6000

5000

The issues more specifically associated with rates are

illustrated in Fig. 13. They are of two types: uncertainties in

the values and incomplete histories.

Rates measured at the separator during a well test have

typically errors between 10 and 20%. In production wells,

rates are often allocated, with the allocation calibrated at

regular interval, and may be incorrect. Even the latest

multiphase flowmeters provide noisy data which must be

smoothed with a moving average algorithm, thus introducing

additional errors. The rates must therefore be validated and

made consistent between flow periods, otherwise errors in

rates will be transmitted to the calculated permeability values.

This is usually done by plotting rate-normalized derivatives

together on a log-log graph and verifying that they share the

same stabilization during radial flow: if there is an inconsistent

flowrate in any period, the radial flow derivative stabilization

for that period would be different from that for other periods.

Flowrate adjustments should be limited to the uncertainty in

the rates (10-20%). When the main radial flow stabilization

has not been reached or does not exist, a different flow regime

could be used for adjustment, with the caveat that such a flow

regime may be affected by the rate history and therefore have

different characteristics in different flow periods. In a gas

condensate well test, for instance, the radial flow stabilization

corresponding to the condensate bank could be used if the

reservoir stabilization has not been reached (a common

occurrence, as discussed later). In that case, great caution must

be exercised in adjusting the rates, as the level of the bank

stabilization varies with the condensate saturation and

therefore with the rate. Such an adjustment has been

performed in the left hand side of Fig. 1344.

SPE 100993

10 3

FP 8 Bu

(DD 45 M Scf/D)

10 2

FP 21 Bu

FP 15

(DD 38 MScf/D)

(DD 47 M Scf/D)

FP 17

10

FP 14

(DD 38 M Scf/D)

10 -2

FP 18 Bu

(DD 57.5 M Scf/D)

10 -1

1 second

pressure

acquisition

pressure

Above dew point

103

Condensate

bank

Production test

102

Reservoir

Effective

permeability

DST

24 hour flow period

10

10-5

10-3

10-1

103

10

105

107

Fig. 15: Influence of the size of the condensate bank on the onset

of the final derivative stabilization

24 hour may be enough to see a radial flow stabilization on the

derivative if the pressure remains above the dew point

pressure, and even in a DST below the dew point pressure,

when the condensate bank has just started to form. In a

production test, on the other hand, the radius of the condensate

bank may be such that the derivative is still only showing the

stabilization due to the bank at the end of the 24 hour period.

Seeing the final derivative stabilization would possibly take

ten times as long.

104

DST well B

103

102

10

1

FP 7

(DD 45 M Scf/D)

1

10 -3

104

Wellbore phase redistribution is a recurrent problem in gas

condensate reservoir well tests. It occurs whenever gas and

condensate flow in different directions in the wellbore1. This

would not happen in a drawdown with a gas rate high enough

to lift the condensate droplets to the surface, but it would most

likely be present in a subsequent build-up or a subsequent

drawdown period at a lower rate20. Similarly, phase

redistribution can take place during low flowrate drawdowns,

in which case there would be no phase redistribution in a

following build-up or lower rate drawdown20. Wellbore phase

redistribution creates an increase in wellbore storage during

both drawdown or build-up periods and may dominate the test.

Figure 14 is a rate-normalized log-log plot of drawdown data

for a North Sea lean gas condensate well1. Phase redistribution dominates the drawdown data and is more

pronounced and lasts longer for low flow rates (Flow periods

14, 7 and 15). The highest rate drawdown, FP 17, is less

affected and only at very early times, which makes it

analyzable. Its derivative is similar to the build-up ones, Flow

periods 8, 18 and 21.

The interpretation results described earlier can only be

obtained if all the flow regimes required for analysis can be

identified on the data. Fig. 6 points to a very common problem

in condensate gas well test analysis, namely, the derivatives

have not reached their final stabilizations. This is mostly the

case in production tests, as illustrated in Fig. 15.

The entire production history is required in order to obtain a

correct analysis, especially for production well tests.

Truncating the rate history by ignoring its early part or

simplifying it with an equivalent Horner time45 (cumulative

production divided by last rate) may distort the derivative46

and lead to erroneous interpretations. This is illustrated in Fig.

13: the derivatives calculated on the left hand side with only

the rates corresponding to the pressure measurements are

different from those on the right hand side, which include all

the rates from the start of production. As a rule, the more

recent the changes in production rates, the more detailed the

rate history must be. Describing accurately the rate history

over a period corresponding to the last 40% of the cumulative

production of the well, and using the equivalent Horner time

to represent the first 60% provides a correct derivative46.

10

10-3

North Sea

10 2

10-2

10-1

10

102

10 3

1

redistribution in the wellbore during low rate drawdowns

44

well: well test effective reservoir vs. core permeability

derivative stabilization on the derivative, is to decide whether

SPE 100993

reservoir. In sandstone reservoirs, our experience indicates

that the effective permeability from the final derivative

stabilization is in good agreement with the arithmetic average

core permeability44 (Fig. 16). The single derivative

stabilization should therefore be compared with the

stabilization level corresponding to the core permeability: if it

is above, it is likely to represent the condensate bank.

104

Bu392

The derivative shapes are often ambiguous and can due either

to the fluid or to geological features. Forward modeling with

analytical or numerical models must be used to identify

possible causes.

103

Bu499

?

102

WIRE.PEF_1

50000

Core permeability

IN

V/V

WIRE.VSHGR_1

16 0

V/V

TVDSS

150 0

WIRE.CALI_1

140

FEET

WIRE.VSHTH_1

FACIES

10

API

10 0.2

WIRE.DT_1

2082

BED

WIRE.PAYAUTO_2 0.45

V/V

G/C3

20

OHMM

20

WIRE.AT30_1

40 0.2

OHMM

20

WIRE.AT60_1

-0.15 0.2

WIRE.RHOB_1

6 1.95

US/F

WIRE.NPHI_1

WIRE.NETAUTO_2

OHMM

WIRE.AT20_1

B/E

CORE.PLT_1

WIRE.GR_REF_1

2.95 0.2

OHMM

20

OHMM

WIRE.KAHCOMPN_1 CORE.PORBEST_1

0.01

WIRE.RT_1

MD

1000 0.3

CORE.KAHBEST_1

20

0.01

MD

1000 0.3

Sw

PERFS

MSCFT/DAY

kh

WIRE.AT10_1

0.2

PLT.FLOW_1

CONTACTS

PLT

0

CORE.SWC_1

1

WIRE.PHIT_1

V/V

V/V

WIRE.SW_1

0

V/V

12860

Bu322

Bu310

Layer

1 6 /2 6 -B 1 0

Condensate mobility

TOPS.ZONE_1

Bu456

mn(p) change and derivative (psi)

deconvolved derivative suggests that the derivative

stabilization represents the condensate bank mobility rather

than the reservoir effective permeability. The deconvolved

derivative does not match the data at the end because it is an

average over the deconvolved period, and therefore the

downward trend represents the average of the condensate front

locations. The final stabilization does not appear in the

deconvolved derivative because the test was too short.

C o re

S k in

(ft)

kh

kv

13

0 .0 6

12870

86

10

12880

12880

12886

84

11

12896

Z50

97

12900

82

Production well A

13

12910

c lo s e d

24

c lo s e d

19

25

0 to 4 0

20

12

c lo s e d

20

19

0 .0 5

30

0 .1

80

15

82

12920

12926

12933

78

13

12940

12946

1

10-2

10-1

102

10

12947

12960

GAS

232

0 .1 4 0 .0 7

12977

12980

12

66

37

13000

13014

44

North Sea well: condensate mobility vs. core permeability

13020

62

22

13037

13040

13042

60

Z45

7

13049

198

58

17

13060

13066

56

9

13075

13081

13092

52

11

104

13100

13105

13108

WATER

50

63

12

13120

13120

48

10

13130

13140

103

40

10

1E+01

13082

11

in Fig. 12. A second conclusion is that the end of Bu310,

which falls below the bank stabilization, must correspond to

the transition between the bank and the reservoir

stabilizations, reflecting the advancement of the condensate

bank.

13080

54

I n c r e a s in g S 4 ( 0 ,5 , 1 0 ,2 0 ,4 0 )

10

1 0 -2

1 0 -1

10

102

103

104

106

E la p s e d t im e ( h o u r s )

44

well

1E+00

1E-01

Deconvolved Derivative

1E-02

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

1E-01

1E+00

1E+01

1E+02

1E+03

43

condensate bank

permeability is not available. Deconvolution transforms

variable rate pressure data into a constant rate initial

drawdown with a duration equal to the total duration of the

test, and yields directly the corresponding pressure derivative,

between the end of wellbore storage and skin effects and the

start of the condensate bank stabilization. These data could be

part of the condensate bank, represent spherical flow or

correspond to the reservoir layering. An analytical

multilayered simulator48 was used to test the various

possibilities (Fig. 19). The reservoir includes three, noncommunicating, layers, labeled (1), (3-4-5) and 6 in the upper

part of Fig. 19. The middle layer, (3-4-5), is only perforated in

(4). If the skin coefficient for every perforated layer is the

same (say, zero), the multilayer derivative displays a double

permeability behavior, with a U-shaped minimum

corresponding to the V-shape found in double porosity

behavior49. As the contrast in skin increases, however, with the

skin factor in layer (4) increasing to 5, 10, 20 and 40, the

minimum disappears and the early part of the derivative shape

tends toward that found in commingled layers. This leads to

10

SPE 100993

not to the condensate bank.

104

Bank

103

Bu3

102

Bu6

D S T w e ll 4

10

1 0 -2

1 0 -1

102

10

E la p s e d tim e (h rs )

104

D e c o n v o lv e d

d e riv a tiv e

Bu9

Bu7

103

B a n k o r b o u n d a rie s ?

Bu3

be resolved through forward simulation is shown in Fig. 20.

The derivative shapes of the build ups, Bu3 from well 4 in the

log-log plot at the top, and Bu3, Bu7 and Bu9 from well E in

the log-log graph at the bottom, are very similar. In well 4, the

next build up, Bu6, shows clearly a 3-region composite

behavior due to condensate banking. It can therefore be

concluded that Bu3 also shows the bank and more specifically,

the capillary number zone (zone 1 in Fig. 1).

The core permeability for well E suggests that the derivatives

data correspond to the condensate bank. The upward trend at

the end of the derivatives, confirmed by deconvolution, could

therefore be due to the bank or to the discontinuous faults

identified by seismic (Fig. 21). The effect of the faults is tested

in Fig. 21 with a voranoid grid simulator50, for a single phase

gas above the dew point pressure. The resulting derivative

clearly indicates that the upward trend is due to the fault, with

the derivative going directly from the condensate bank into the

fault without reaching the reservoir effective permeability

stabilization.

102

1 0 -1

102

10

E la p s e d tim e (h o u rs )

44

4550 ft

13800 ft

1180 ft

13300 ft

9660 ft

10000 ft

180 ft

9110 ft

1090 ft

6000

FP16

FP50

10 4

5600

10 3

60

5400

50

5200

40

5000

30

4800

20

4600

10

4400

20 40

FP50

FP16

Bu3

10

-1

10 -1

1

10

10

103

10

104

103

-500

10-2

Deconvolution

Condensate

mobility

Core

permeability

Deconvolution of FP16

10 2

10 -3

102

10

10-2

0

60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280

500

10

103

80

70

Dew point

pressure

Numerical simulation with core arithmetic average permeability (w/o bank)

Pressure (psia)

5800

10

1 0 -2

and is due to the growth of the condensate bank. Another

example is shown in Fig. 22. The build up labeled FP16 has a

very different derivative from that of the build up FP50. FP16

is at the start of production and the condensate bank has just

begun to form. Its derivative exhibits a downward trend which

represents the transition between the stabilization due to the

condensate bank and that corresponding to the reservoir

effective permeability (represented by the core permeability

line). The derivative in FP50, on the other hand, is mostly flat

except for an upward trend at the end which is confirmed by

deconvolution. Voronoid grid simulation50 shows that that

trend is due to the faults of limited extent around the well. As

the radius of the condensate bank increases, the behavior

becomes less dominated by the bank and more by the

boundaries.

mn(p) and derivative (psi)

D S T w e ll E

10 2

103

10 4

-1500

10 5

44

simulator

-1500

-500

500

1500

arithmetic average

Increasing permeability

bank

radius

102

FP50

FP16

Core

permeability

10

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

104

Fig. 21: Example of changing well test behavior due to the growth

44

of the condensate bank and the presence of boundaries

SPE 100993

11

slightly below the dew point pressure, which exhibits the

characteristics of a condensate bank, although it was not clear

from PVT data whether a condensate bank could have formed

or not. The ambiguity was solved by deconvolution: the

deconvolved derivative indicates a homogeneous behavior and

channel boundaries, with the derivative shape due to the

derivative calculation algorithm (the multirate derivative

differs from the drawdown derivative43 because of the

previous rate history).

equal to 7 when k1=k3, i.e. for the theoretical case where all

condensate has been removed around the well. The other loglog plots in Fig. 23 show the effects of r1 and r2 and of the

bank size (r2 r1). They are negligible compared to the impact

of k1. The main conclusion is that the condensate saturation

need to be decreased only in the immediate vicinity of the well

to improve productivity significantly.

10000

St

28

St 19

18

18

12

7

1000

10

Condensate bank?

10 -1

Reservoir effective

permeability?

10 2

Channel?

10 3

10 -4

bank of constant width

10000

10-2

10-1

1

Elapsed time (hours)

10

10 2

k2

k3

100

100

k1= k3 = 3/2 k2

k1 = k 3 = 3 k2

k1= 2/3 k3 = 2 k2

10

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

10

0.001

1000

outer radius increases

10000

0.01

0.1

100

1000

10000

10000

St

St 25

18 - 21

r1= 1 r2 = 1150

r1= 30 r2 = 1150

r1= 100 r2 = 1150

1000

1000

18

100

103

r1= 100 r2 = 250

0.001

10

increases

10

10

k1= 1/3 k3 = k2

Sw=5

100

10 -3

r1= 10 r2 = 160

1000

10

0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

10000

0.001

0.01

0.1

10

100

1000

10000

Pressure

1

location on the total skin effect

Deconvolved derivative

10 -1

Derivative

Shape due to algorithm

for calculating the

multirate derivative

10 2

10 3

10 -4

10 -3

10-2

10-1

1

Elapsed time (hours)

10

10 2

10 3

due to the pressure derivative calculation algorithm, not to a

43

condensate bank

Fig. 23 illustrates with a simple example the importance on the

total skin effect of the condensate saturation in the condensate

bank and in the velocity stripping zone. The four log-log plots

included in Fig. 23 all show a 3-region composite behavior

due to condensate banking. k3 is the reservoir effective

permeability, k2 the gas relative permeability in the condensate

bank, and k1 the gas relative permeability in the velocity

stripping zone (respectively, zones 4, 2+3, and 1 in Fig. 1). r1

is the inner radius of the condensate bank (the outer radius of

the stripping zone) and r2 is the outer radius. The wellbore

mechanical skin effect is equal to 5. The maximum total skin

effect is obtained when there is no capillary number effect

(k1=k2). Its value, 28, depends on the condensate saturation in

the condensate bank, i.e. on k2. As k1 increases with the

productivity. They include solvent injection, gas cycling,

acidising and hydraulically fracturing of vertical wells before

or after the development of the condensate bank, and drilling

horizontal wells instead of vertical wells.

In the solvent injection technique, a solvent is pumped into the

formation in order to alter the wettability of the reservoir rocks

near the wellbore from strongly liquid-wet to intermediate gas

wet51. The results from laboratory tests show that wettability

significantly affects both critical condensate saturation and gas

phase relative permeability52. This method however, is still at

the research stage and has not yet been used at reservoir scale.

In gas cycling, the condensate liquid is removed from the

produced (wet) gas, usually in a gasoline plant, and the

residue, or dry gas is returned to the reservoir through

injection wells. The injected gas maintains reservoir pressure

and retards retrograde condensation. Although this technique

appears to be an ideal solution to the retrograde condensate

problem, it is often less attractive due to practical limitations

and/or economical considerations. Gas cycling usually

requires additional expenditures for drilling additional wells,

liquid recovery plants and compression systems53.

The most common ways of improving productivity are still

acidification, fracturing, and horizontal wells, all aiming at

decrease or delay the pressure drawdowns, and therefore the

condensate saturation, in order to increase or maintain gas

well deliverability. In the following, we present examples

12

SPE 100993

behavior.

Fig. 24 shows a log-log plot with build ups before (FP3 and

10) and after (FP26) a matrix acidification, performed because

a high skin damage had been observed during the test.

Deconvolution and the permeability from cores suggest that

only the condensate bank is seen on the derivatives before the

acid job, whereas the transition between condensate bank and

reservoir is seen afterwards. The post-acid data exhibit a high

wellbore storage, which hides the condensate bank derivative

stabilization and makes it impossible to decide whether the

condensate saturation has been decreased or not. The total skin

effect, however, has not decreased, which would imply that

acidification has not been effective in improving productivity

impairment due to the condensate bank.

derivatives for a North Sea horizontal well54. The pressure and

rate data, shown in Fig. 26, include a DST (build ups FP29

and 38), mostly above the dew point pressure, and two

production tests below the dew point pressure (respectively,

build ups FP 48-50 and FP62-65). The derivatives clearly

show the existence and growth of a condensate bank, which

appears as a composite behavior superimposed on the

horizontal well behavior, as predicted by forward composition

simulation (Fig. 7). There is, however, no published analytical

solution for such a model and the growth of the condensate

bank must be handled through an increase in the total skin in

conventional analysis. Deconvolution indicates the presence of

parallel faults, which is consistent with the seismic

information. Here again, the derivative would go directly from

the condensate bank to the boundaries, never reaching the

final radial flow stabilization identified from cores.

104

4000

Before acid

After acid

38

48

20

10

1000

FP10

Condensate mobility

0

10

20

30

40

50

FP26

1

1

7630

Elapsed time (hrs)

2nd production

test

40

30

3000

2000

20

1000

10

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

0

8000

44

and size

Figure 26: Pressure and rate history for a North Sea horizontal

54

well

1st production

test

0.30

Condensate saturation

dF

P6

5

FP50

De

co

nv

olv

e

2nd

FP65 production

test

102

Core permeability

FP48

FP50

10

10-2

10-1

0.20

FP65

2nd production

test

0.15

0.10

FP38

0.05

1st

FP29

DST

production

FP38

test

FP48

0.25

0.35

103

2570 7602

1st production

test

DST

102

10

2544

Elapsed time (hrs)

4000

10

10-3

30

2000

10-1

65

10-2

62

3000

102

FP3

50

29

Pressure (psia)

103

40

FP

Pressure (psia)

Deconvolution

DST

FP29

10

102

103

104

54

derivative for a North Sea horizontal well

10

100

1000

10000

54

horizontal well

SPE 100993

13

wells, the only way to characterize the condensate bank is

through compositional simulation, which provides the

condensate saturation distribution in the reservoir (Fig. 27).

This in turn yields the bank radius, the contribution of the

bank to the total skin effect, and the wellbore skin coefficient.

The condensate saturation around the well in the final build up

of the second production test, FP65, is less than that in the first

production test. Therefore, the contribution of the condensate

bank to the total skin must be less. Yet, the total skin is higher

(Fig. 25). This means that the wellbore mechanical skin has

increased between the first and the second production test. In

this particular example, the condensate bank reaches the

boundary in the second production test, confirming that later

derivatives would go directly from the condensate bank to the

boundaries, never reaching the final radial flow stabilization.

2nd production

test

DST

FP12

pressure and rate history for a well in a multilayered reservoir

in the North Sea56. The pressure was below the dew point

pressure at all times. The wells productivity declined gradually

over time and a remedial massive hydraulic fracturing

operation was carried out which saw a sixty percent

improvement in the well productivity index.

5000

FP66 FP79

production

test

4000

FP50

40

2000

30

FP30

0

20

10

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

3000

2000

1000

FP28

10

104

FP50

2000

4000

6000

8000

102

10

1

10-3

Deconvolved

derivative

FP7

10-2

10-1

10

102

103

104

105

derivative for a hydraulically fractured well in the Middle East

derivatives for a fracture well in a low permeability Middle

East reservoir. In this example again, the pressure and rate

data include a DST (build ups FP 7 and 12, with FP7 above

the dew point pressure), and two production tests below the

dew point pressure (build ups FP30 and FP50, respectively).

FP7 exhibits a normal fractured well behavior, represented by

the model above the dew point pressure. All the other

FP59

103

Condensate bank

de

riv

at

ive

FP12

104

ve

d

FP30

FP28

FP70

FP66

De

co

nv

ol

Condensate bank

103

20

FP59 FP70

1st

Pressure (psia)

FP7

4000

6000

Pressure (psia)

8000

condensate bank, which appears as a composite behavior

superimposed on the fractured well behavior, as predicted by

forward composition simulation31 (Fig. 7). Although there is

no published solution for such a model either, a composite

model for wellbore storage and skin with CDe2S <0.5 (which is

a characteristic of an infinite conductivity fracture)55 can be

used. The gas rate is lower in the second production test,

which triggers re-vaporization and a smaller condensate bank.

The total skin effect increase must therefore be due to an

increase in the mechanical skin, as in the previous example.

Deconvolution indicates a reservoir of infinite extent.

FP79

102

Phase redistribution

10-2

10-1

10

Core permeability

102

103

104

56

derivative for a hydraulically fractured well in the North Sea

storage and skin two-region composite behavior even after

fracturing, instead of the fractured well composite behavior of

Fig. 28. This is due to the layering of the reservoir and is not

unusual in the North Sea. As a result, the fracture

14

SPE 100993

Before frac

decrease in well productivity.

Whereas fractured vertical wells and horizontal wells increase

productivity in dry gas systems, their performance is even

better in gas-condensate reservoirs below the dew point, where

they decrease pressure drawdowns and condensate blockage

compared to a vertical well. Fig. 31 shows that they are

equally effective in improving productivity in gas-condensate

reservoirs below the dew point. The optimum choice, when

both are technically feasible, can only be made from economic

considerations57.

% increase in total gas production over vertical well

flow stabilization coincides with that corresponding to the

core permeability, as expected. The deconvolved derivative

suggests the existence of multiple boundaries.

The behavior of the outer bank radius is hidden by phase

redistribution, so it is not clear whether it is growing or not.

On the other hand, the derivative stabilization level

corresponding to the condensate bank, and therefore, the

condensate saturation in the bank, decreases after fracturing in

the build ups FP59, FP66 and FP70 from the level before frac

(FP28), and then increases again in FP79. This is paralleled by

a decrease then an increase in the total skin.

100

LH (ft)

90

80

1000

xf=300 ft

70

xf =50

60

xf =10

0 ft

ft

xf =200

800

ft

50

600

40

30

20

400

10

0

0

production for horizontal and fractured vertical wells compared to

57

that from a vertical well below the dew point

Summary of Results

31

shown in Fig. 3031: a non-fractured well is produced until the

well bottomhole flowing pressure drops below the dew point

pressure and a condensate bank forms around the wellbore. A

hydraulic fracture is then created with a facture half-length

extending beyond the condensate bank and the well is

produced again at the same rate as before frac. The bottomhole

pressure is above the dew point pressure initially, and no

additional condensate is deposited in the reservoir. Instead, the

existing condensate is produced to the surface, decreasing the

condensate saturation and the size of the condensate bank. As

time increases, the bottomhole pressure fall again below the

dew point pressure and condensate drops out in the reservoir.

follows:

1. Condensate is deposited around the well when the

bottomhole pressure drops below the dew point during

production.

2. The corresponding impediment to flow is compensated by

capillary number effects.

3. Condensate deposit and capillary number effects yield a

two- or three region composite well test behavior when

single phase pseudo-pressures are used for analysis.

4. The final derivative stabilization corresponding to the

reservoir effective permeability in the composite behavior

is usually not reached in production tests. The

stabilization seen on the derivative is likely to represent

the condensate bank mobility.

5. The reservoir effective permeability is consistent with

core permeability in sandstone reservoirs. The core

permeability can be used to distinguish between

condensate bank and reservoir mobility if only a single

stabilization is seen on the derivative.

6.

The derivative stabilization corresponding to the

mobility of the condensate bank varies with the

SPE 100993

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

constant rate, its level increases with time until a

maximum level is reached.

The condensate bank decreases in size and saturation

when the production rate decreases.

The condensate saturation distribution in a build up is

approximately the same as that as the end of the preceding

drawdown.

Wellbore phase redistribution may dominate the entire

test.

It is often difficult to distinguish condensate bank effects

from layering, boundary or derivative calculation effects.

A series of tools must be used for identification, including

conventional well test analysis, deconvolution, forward

modeling with analytical and numerical models, and

compositional simulation.

Behavior often changes with time as the condensate bank

grows and reaches the boundaries. Successive drawdowns

and build ups must be analyzed together to understand

these changes (time-lapse well test analysis).

Capillary numbers often compensate for inertia effects.

As a result, the wellbore skin may increase, decrease or

remain constant as the gas rate increases.

Calculating the bank outer radius requires to know the

bank total compressibility, which is greater than the gas

compressibility above the dew point pressure.

Pseudo-relative permeabilities, absolute permeability and

base capillary number can be estimated using singlephase and two-phase pseudo-pressures together.

Fracturing vertical wells and drilling horizontal wells is

equally effective for improving productivity in gascondensate reservoirs below the dew point.

Acknowledgement

Portions of this study were conducted at Imperial College

London by Manijeh Bozorgzadeh30, Saifon Daungkaew44 and

Abdolnabi Hashemi32, Olalekan Aluko56 and Tariq Baig58 in

partial fulfillment of post-graduate degree requirements. The

authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of this

research by the members of the Imperial College Joint

Industry Project (JIP) on Well test Analysis in Gas Condensate

and Volatile Oil Reservoirs: the UK Department of Trade and

Industry, Anadarko, Burlington Resources, BHP Billinton,

Britannia Operator Ltd, ConocoPhillips, Gaz de France and

Total. They are also indebted to software vendors for allowing

them access to the software products required for this work,

respectively Kappa Engineering (SaphirTM), Paradigm

Geotechnology B.V (InterpretTM 2005) and Schlumberger

(EclipseTM 300 and PVTiTM). Dr Daugkaew and Dr Hashemi

further acknowledge partial financial support from Britannia

Operator Ltd. and the Royal Thai Government, and from

NIOC, respectively.

Nomenclature

B

formation volume factor

(reservoir volume/standard volume)

15

ctc

c

h

k

Lh

m(p)

mn(p)

m2(p)

p

pref

Pdew

r1

r2

Rs

Rv

Sw

So

Sg

St

xf

Z

Greek

compressibility (psi-1)

reservoir thickness (ft)

permeability (mD)

horizontal well length (ft)

single phase pseudo-pressure (psi)

normalized single phase pseudo-pressure (psi)

two-phase pseudo-pressure (psi)

pressure (psi)

reference pressure (psi)

dew point pressure (psi)

condensate bank inner radius (ft)

condensate bank outer radius (ft)

solution gas /oil ratio

dissolved oil/gas ratio

wellbore skin effect; water saturation

condensate saturation, fraction

gas saturation, fraction

total skin effect

fracture half length (ft)

gas deviation factor

porosity, fraction

interfacial tension, (lb/ft)

viscosity (cp)

interstitial velocity, (ft/sec)

Abbreviation

Bu

build up

CCE

constant composition expansion

CVD

constant volume depletion

Dd

drawdown

DST

drill stem test

EOS

equation of state

FP

flow period

GOR

gas-oil ratio

IFT

interfacial tension

PVT

pressure-volume-temperature

WTA

well test analysis

Subscripts

Abs

absolute

Eff

effective

F

formation

G

gas

i

initial

o

oil

r

relative

ref

reference

t

total

w

water

Superscripts

Max

maximum

16

References

1. Gringarten, A. C., Al-Lamki, A., Daungkaew, S., Mott, R., and

Whittle, T.: Well Test Analysis in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs,

SPE 62920, paper presented at the SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, October 1-4,

2000.

2. Muskat, M.: Physical Principle of Oil Production, McGrawHill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1949, pp. 793.

3. Kniazeff, V. J., and Naville, S. A.: Two-Phase Flow of Volatile

Hydrocarbons, Society of Petroleum Engineering Journal

(March 1965), pp. 37.

4. Fussell, D. D.: Single-Well Performance Predictions for Gas

Condensate Reservoirs, Journal of Petroleum Engineering SPE

4072 (July 1973), pp. 860-870.

5. Barnum, R. S., Brinkman, F. P., Richardson, T. W., and Spillette,

A. G.: Gas Condensate Reservoir Behaviour: Productivity and

Recovery Reduction Due to Condensation, SPE30767, paper

presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition, Texas, October 22-25, 1995.

6. Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N. J., and Bette, S.: Production

Performance of a Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of

Arun Field, SPE 28749, paper presented at the SPE Asia Pacific

Oil and Gas Conference, Australia, November 7-10, 1994.

7. Favang, ., Whitson, C. H.: Modelling Gas Condensate Well

Deliverability, SPE30714, paper presented at the SPE Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Texas, October 22-25,

1995.

8. Gondouin, M., Iffly, R. and Husson, J.: An Attempt to Predict

the Time Dependence of Well deliverability in Gas-Condensate

Fields, Society of Petroleum Engineering Journal (June 1967),

pp. 112-124.

9. Boom, W., Wit, K., Schulte, A. M., Oedai, S., Zeelenberg, J. P.

W., and Maas, J. G.: Experimental Evidence for Improved

Condensate Mobility at Near-Wellbore Flow Conditions,

SPE30766, paper presented at the 70th Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers,

Dallas, TX, U.S.A., October 22-25, 1995.

10. Henderson, G. D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. H., Al-Shaidi, S., and

Peden, J. M., Measurement and Correlation of Gas-condensate

Relative Permeability by the Steady-State Method, SPE30770,

SPE Annual Technical Conference & Exhibition, Dallas, October

1995.

11. Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., Al-Kharusi, B.:

"The Relative Significance of Positive Coupling and Inertial

Effects on Gas Condensate Relative Permeabilities at High

Velocity," paper SPE 62933 presented at the 2000 SPE Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 Oct.

12. Ali J. K., McGauley, P. J., and Wilson, C. J.: "The Effects of High

Velocity Flow and PVT Changes Near Wellbore on Condensate

Well Performance," paper SPE 38923 presented at the 1997 SPE

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 5-8 Oct.

13. Blom, S. M. P., Hagoort, J., and Soetekouw, D. P. N.: Relative

Permeability at Near-Critical Conditions, SPE 38935, paper

presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition

held in Antonio, Texas, March 5-8, 1997.

14. 14 Moore, T.F. and Slobod, R.L.:Displacement of Oil by WaterEffect of Wettability, Rate, and Viscosity On Recovery, SPE

paper 502, presented at the 30th Annual Fall Meeting of the

Petroleum Branch of the AIME, New Orleans, La., Oct. 2-5,

1955.

15. Bardon, C. and Longeron, D.G.:Influence of very low interfacial

tension on relative permeability, SPEJ (Oct. 1980)391-401.

SPE 100993

Modified Scaling Law and Parachor Method Approach for

Improved Prediction of Interfacial Tension of Gas Condensate

System, SPE22710, paper presented at the 66th Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineer

held in Dallas, TX, October 6-9, 1991.

17. Kalaydjian, F. J-M., Bourbiaux, B. J., Lambard, J-M., 1996,

Predicting Gas-Condensate Reservoir Performance: How flow

parameters are altered when approaching Production Wells.,

paper SPE 36715 presented at the 1996 SPE Annual Conference

and Exhibition, Colorado, 6-9 October, 1996.

18. Ali, J. K., McGauley, P. J., and Wilson, C. J.: Experimental

Studies and Modelling of Gas Condensate Flow Near the

Wellbore, SPE39053, paper presented at the Fifth Latin

American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference and

Exhibition, Brazil, 30 August - 3 September, 1997.

19. Economides, M. J., Dehghani, K., Ogbe, D. O., and Ostermann,

R. D.: Hysteresis Effects for Gas Condensate Wells Undergoing

Build-up Tests below the Dew Point Pressure, SPE16748, paper

presented at the 62nd Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Texas,

September 27-30, 1987.

20. Behrenbruch, P. and Kozma, G.: Interpretation of Results From

Well Testing Gas-Condensate Reservoirs: Comparison of Theory

and Field Cases, SPE13185, paper presented at the 59th Annual

Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas,

September 16-19, 1984.

21. Mott, R., Cable, A., and Spearing, M.: A New Method of

Measuring Relative Permeabilities for Calculating GasCondensate Well Deliverability, SPE56484, paper presented at

the 1999 SPE Annual Conference and Exhibition, Texas, 3-6

October, 1999.

22. Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H. J. Jr. and Crawford, P. B., "The Flow

of Real Gases through Porous Media", J. Pet. Tech., May 1966,

pp. 624-636.

23. Meunier, D. F., Kabir, C. S., and Wittmann, M. J., "Gas Well Test

Analysis: Use of Normalised Pressure and Time Functions",

SPEFE , Dec. 1987, p. 629.

24. Chu, W.C., and Shank, G.D.: A New Model for Fractured Well

in Radial Composite Reservoir, SPE20579, paper presented at

the 65th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Los

Angles, September 23-26, 1990.

25. Al-Shaidi, S. M.:Modelling of Gas-Condensate Flow in

Reservoir at Near Wellbore Conditions, Thesis Submitted for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Petroleum Engineering,

Department of Petroleum Engineering, Heriot-Watt University,

UK, August, 1997.

26. Eilerts, C. K., Sumner, E. F., and Potts, N.L.: Intergration of

Prtial Differential Equation for Transient Radial Flow of GasCondensate Fluids in Porous Structures, Society of Petroleum

Engineering Journal (June, 1965), pp. 141-152.

27. El-Banbi A. H., McCain W. D. Jr., and Semmebeck M. E.:

Investigation of Well Productivity in Gas-Condensate

Reservoirs, SPE59773, paper presented at the 2000 SPE/CERI

Gas Technology Symposium held in Calgary, Alberta Canada,

April 3-5, 2000.

28. Vo, D. T., Jones, J. R., and Raghavan, J. R., "Performance

Predictions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs", SPE Formation

Evaluation, 1989, vol. 4, no. 4, December.

29. Bozorgzadeh, M., and Gringarten, A. C., "New Estimate for the

Radius of a Condensate Bank from Well Test Data Using Dry Gas

Pseudo-Pressure", paper SPE 89904, presented at the SPE

Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas,

SPE 100993

30. Bozorgzadeh, M.:Characterisation and Determination of Gas

Condensate Dynamics from Pressure Transient Data and Fluid

PVT Properties, PhD thesis, Centre for Petroleum Studies,

Imperial College London, UK, Feb. 2006.

31. Baig, T., Droegemueller, U. and Gringarten, A.C.:Productivity

Assessment of Fractured and Non-Fractured Wells in a

Lean/Intermediate Low Permeability Gas Condensate Reservoir,

paper SPE 93136 presented at the 14th Europec Biennial

Conference held in Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.

32. Hashemi, A.:Evaluation of Horizontal Gas-Condensate Wells

Using Pressure Transient Analysis and Compositional

Simulation," PhD Thesis, Centre for Petroleum Studies, Imperial

College London, UK, Feb. 2006.

33. Raghavan, R.:"Well test Analysis for Multiphase Flow," paper

SPE 14098 presented at the 1986 SPE International Meeting on

Petroleum Engineering, Beijing, China, 17-20 March.

34. Bozorgzadeh, M. and Gringarten, A.C. "Application of Build-Up

Transient Pressure Analysis to Well Deliverability Forecasting in

Gas Condensate Reservoirs Using Single-Phase and Two-Phase

Pseudo-Pressures", paper SPE 94018, presented at the 14th SPE

Europec Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Madrid,

Spain, 13-16 June 2005.

35. Forchheimer, P.: "Wasserbewegung durch Boden" ZVD1, (1901)

(45) 1781.

36. Geertsma, J.: "Estimating the Coefficient of Inertial Resistance in

Fluid Flow through Porous Media," SPEJ (Oct. 1974) 445.

37. Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H. and Al-Kharusi, B.:

"Generating Reliable Gas Condensate Relative Permeability Data

Used to Develop a Correlation with Capillary Number," Journal

of Petroleum Science and Engineering (2000) (25), 79.

38. App, J.F. and Mohanty, M.: "Gas and Condensate Relative

Permeability at Near Critical Conditions: Capillary and Reynolds

Number Dependence," Journal of Petroleum Science and

Engineering , (2002) (36) 111-126.

39. Henderson, G. D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D. H. and Al-Kharusi, B.:

"Effect of Positive Rate Sensitivity and Inertia on Gas Condensate

Relative Permeability at High Velocity," Petroleum Geoscience,

(2001) (7) 45-50.

40. Jamiolahmady, M., Henderson, G. D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H.

and Al-Kharusi, B.: "Variation of Gas-Condensate Relative

Permeability with Production Rate at Near Wellbore Conditions,"

paper SPE 83960 presented at the 2003 Offshore Europe,

Aberdeen, UK, 2-5 Sep.

41. Mott, R., Cable, A. and Spearing, M.: "Measurements and

Simulation of Inertial and High Capillary Number Flow

Phenomena in Gas-Condensate Relative Permeability," paper SPE

62932 presented at the 2000 the SPE 75th Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition of the Society of Petroleum Engineers

held in Dallas, TX, 1-4 Oct.

42. Mott, R.: "Engineering Calculations of Gas-Condensate-Well

Productivity," SPEREE (Oct.2003) 298-306.

43. Gringarten, A.C.:From Straight-lines to Deconvolution: the

Evolution of the State-of-the-Art in Well Test Analysis, paper

SPE 102079 presented at the 2006 SPE Annual Technical

Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A.,

2427 September 2006.

44. Daungkaew, S.:" New development in Well Test Analysis," PhD

Thesis, Centre for Petroleum Studies, Imperial College London,

UK, October 2002.

17

Pet. Cong., E. J. Brill, Leiden (1951) II, 503-521. Also, Reprint

Series, No. 9 Pressure Analysis Methods, Society of Petroleum

Engineers of AIME, Dallas ( 1967) 25-43.

46. Daungkaew, S., Hollaender, F., and Gringarten A. C.: Frequently

Asked Questions in Well Test Analysis, SPE 63077, paper

presentatedt the 2000 SPE Annual Technical Conference and

Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, October 1-4, 2000.

47. von Schroeter, T., Hollaender, F., Gringarten, A.:"Deconvolution

of Well Test Data as a Nonlinear Total Least Square Problem,"

SPE Journal (Dec., 2004)375-390.

48. Bidaux, P., Whittle, T. M., Coveney, P. J. and Gringarten, A. C.:

"Analysis of Pressure and Rate Transient Data From Wells in

Multilayered Reservoirs, SPE paper 24679 presented at the 67th

Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of SPE,

Washington, DC, Oct. 4-7, 1992. Implemented in InterpretTM

2005, well test analysis software from Paradigm Geotechnology

B.V.

49. Bourdet, D.:pressure Behavior of Layered Reservoirs with

Crossflow, paper SPE 13628, presented at the Annual California

Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, California, march 27-29, 1985.

50. Saphir, well test analysis software from Kappa Engineering

51. Tang, T., and Firoozabadi, A.:" Relative Permeability

Modification in Gas-Liquid Systems Through Wettability

Alteration to Intermediate Gas-Wetting" SPE paper 62934, Proc.

2000 SPE Ann. Tech. Conf. Exh., Soc. Pet. Eng., Dallas (2000).

52. Fahes, M. and Firoozabadi, A.: Wettability Alteration ro

Intermediate Gas-Wetting in Gas/Condensate Reservoirs at High

Temperatures, paper SPE 96184 presented at the 2005 SPE

ATCE, Dallas, Texas,9-12 October.

53. Marokane, D., Logmo-Ngog, A.B., Sakar, R.: Applicability of

Timely Gas Ingection in Gas Condensate Fields to Improve Well

Productivity, paper SPE 75147 presented at the SPE/DOE

Improved Oil Recovery Symposium, Tulsa, Oklahoma13-17 April

2002.

54. Hashemi, A., Nicolas, L. and Gringarten, A.C.:Well Test

Analysis of Horizontal wells in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs,

paper SPE 89905 presented at the 2004 SPE ATCE, Houston,

Texas, 26-29 September 2004; SPE Reservoir Engineering and

Evaluation Journal, Feb. 2006.

55. Gringarten, A. C., Bourdet, D. P., Landel, P. A., and Kniazeff, V.

J.: "A Comparison Between Different Skin and Wellbore Storage

Type-curves for Early-time Transient Analysis," paper SPE 8025

presented at the Fifty-fourth Annual Fall Technical Conference

and Exhibition of SPE, Las Vegas, Nevada, Sept. 23-26, 1979.

56. Aluko, O.:Well Test Analysis of a North Sea Gas Condensate

Reservoir, MSc thesis, Centre for Petroleum Studies, Imperial

College London, UK, Sept. 2003.

57. Abdolnabi Hashemi and Alain C. Gringarten: Comparison of

Well Productivity between Vertical, Horizontal and Hydraulically

Fractured Reservoirs in Gas Condensate Reservoirs paper SPE

94178 presented at the 14th Europec Biennial Conference, Madrid,

Spain, 13-16 June 2005.

58. Baig, M.T.A.:Productivity Assessment of Fractured and NonFractured Gas Condensate Wells, MSc thesis, Centre for

Petroleum Studies, Imperial College London, UK, Sept. 2003.

- 2011 02 01-EIA World Shale Gas Resources-Australia+Cooper Basin ExtractCargado porsaladinayubi1234
- SPE-178368-MS (August, 2015)Cargado porlulut fala
- Dynaflodrill User GuideCargado porJesusMamaniMamani
- 1.1- Petroleum GeologyCargado porShalini Singh
- SPE-21221-MSCargado porkapereshem
- Field InformationCargado porLeni Nuril
- TORRES-VERDIN Salt Saturation in-SutCargado porRonald Landry
- Thesis on ICDs - Gimre, JeanetteCargado porJawad Farid
- bybee2009Cargado porElias Glz Vega
- SPE-100710- BSP- An Evolution From Smart Wells to Smart FieldsCargado porTiago Oliveira
- 1. Doust & Noble, 2008,petroleum systCargado porDavid Karel Alfons
- Model Multi-Layered Reservoirs with Horizontal Drilling – Multiple Producing ZonesCargado porAlfonso R. Reyes
- Analisis Nodal Chapter 07Cargado porRosa K Chang H
- PCB3013 HW#6 SolutionsCargado porChai Cws
- 2016-3 Characterization of Tight and Shale Unconventional Reservoirs From Logs SPE 180961-MS (Crain) EtalCargado porpot
- Tecnlogías Claves.-expansion ReservasCargado porAnonymous 9lckaf9st6
- almurayri2018Cargado porAndreaBohórquez
- 1110201-4343 IJET-IJENSCargado porShakerMahmood
- SPE-35385-PACargado porre_alvaro
- 7023-15360-1-PB (1)Cargado porAdanenche Daniel Edoh
- Reservoir Simulation Khaled-Aziz 26Cargado porThe PieonicBritz
- SPE-15765-MS.pdfCargado porrarahaha
- 27-e112633-p770 herring boneCargado porRatih HSAI
- LAB 5Cargado porkhairi
- 1-s2.0-S0016236116312868-main.pdfCargado porTabish Haider
- SPE22755-Teufel1991_unlocked.pdfCargado porZarahy De La Rosa
- TOR _KHOST_REVISED.pdfCargado porEjaz Ul Haq Kakar
- OJFD_2013032912584288Cargado porAlexandre Trevizani
- Method for Seismic Monitoring OfCargado porYongki Andita Aiman
- geo9Cargado porHcene Hcen

- downloadNTNU_co2Cargado porJhonatan_Valdi_8987
- Ikon Science SGreen Hydrodynamics AAPG2014Cargado porJhonatan_Valdi_8987
- 1. Well Testing Res Des Concepts[1]Cargado porSBELK140210
- W3V15 - Flow Assurance - HandoutCargado porJhonatan_Valdi_8987
- W1V1 - Energy Scene - Handout.pdfCargado porDanilson Paulo Melicio
- PETSOC-76-02-06Cargado porJhonatan_Valdi_8987
- Sharma ThesisCargado porJhonatan_Valdi_8987
- FLYER Flow Simulation for Geomodeler Asnul BaharCargado porJhonatan_Valdi_8987
- 02_RCM_A3Cargado porJhonatan_Valdi_8987
- 00285551_reservoir Flow PerformanceCargado porJhonatan_Valdi_8987

- 10.3 MomentsCargado porashtigosine
- Cdn.intechopen.com Pdfs-wm 46442Cargado porAnna Colun
- Cams Design II-DefinitivaCargado porAnonymous 1VhXp1
- Polychain CARBON DesignCargado porHabtamu Bekele
- NCP Risk for InfectionCargado porPaul Cubacub
- Muther Vol 2Cargado porancuta
- day 3 midwest lesson plan and content notes 1028 copyCargado porapi-269401169
- Archetype of Wholeness: Jung and the Mandala — the Mandalazone Archives…Cargado porPaola Lopreiato
- OBAT-OBAT KARDIOVASKULER.pptxCargado porMuhammad Iqbal
- Total Tundish Technology (T3)Cargado pordebjit123
- LASER_U·3 Ligth AmplificationCargado porElcan Diogenes
- Hesse--Racialized Modernity_An Analytics of White MythologiesCargado porEric Cheuk
- MATLAB Meets LEGO MindstormCargado porGrupoMecatrónica
- 3GPP LTE Downlink System PerformanceCargado porXiaolin Cheng
- JS1K Demo - The Making of — AckoCargado porAnkit
- Depresion DolorCargado porJuan Guerra del Peso
- B3_SeriesCargado porBhalchandra Kudlikar
- Energy Recovery VorTeq BrochureCargado porjohnny0257-1
- BarometerCargado porupendra35
- Retail Supply Chain Management BasicsCargado porAmit Kumar Garg
- Cutaneous Drug ReactionsCargado pornicewan
- The One Lillian DeWatersCargado porBurmese2
- NCERT Physics Class XII Solution of Chapter 5 - Magnetism and MatterCargado porRamnaresh Sharma
- 2014-MUSTANG-SHELBY-GT-500-Supplement-ava-avto.ru.pdfCargado porava-rez
- Characterization of Fault Zones in the Gullfaks FiCargado porAntonio Solís
- DapsoneCargado porcarolalbert2
- dmrc_pptCargado porDishant Khaneja
- Chapter 1.1 Points Lines and PlanesCargado porKathleen Alangan
- Appendix a9Cargado porPusspa
- So, You Think You Can Cook?Cargado porNatalie Gillis