Está en la página 1de 23

V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12)

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON VOGEL TYPE IPR MODELS FOR GAS CONDENSATE AND
SOLUTION-GAS DRIVE SYSTEMS

R.A. Archer ─ University of Auckland, Y. Del Castillo, and T.A. Blasingame ─ Texas A&M
University

Abstract
In this work we propose two new Vogel-type Inflow Performance Relations (or IPR) correlations for gas
condensate reservoir systems. One correlation predicts gas production the other predicts condensate
production. These correlations link reservoir rock and fluid properties (dewpoint, temperature, and
endpoint relative permeabilities) to the flowrate-pressure per-formance for the system.

The proposed IPR relationships for compositional reservoir systems are based on data from over 3000
compositional re-servoir simulation runs with various fluid properties and relative permeability curves.
The resulting IPR curves for gas condensate systems are quadratic in nature like the Vogel IPR trends
(the Vogel profile generally presumed for the case of a solution gas-drive reservoir system). However in
the gas condensate case the coefficients in the quadratic relationship vary significantly depending on the
richness of the condensate and the relative permeability. A model to predict these coefficients was
developed using an alternating conditional expectation approach (optimal non-parametric regression).

This work also includes a discussion of the Vogel IPR for solution-gas drive systems. The original work
proposed by Vogel is based on an empirical correlation of numerical simulations for a solution-gas-drive
system. Our work provides a critical validation and extension of the Vogel work by establishing a
rigorous, yet simple formulation for flowrate-pressure performance in terms of effective permeabilities and
pressure-dependent fluid properties.

The direct application of this work is to predict the IPR for a given system directly from rock-fluid
properties and fluid pro-perties. This formulation provides a new mechanism that can be used to couple
flowrate and pressure behavior for solution-gas-drive systems and it may be possible to extend the
concept to gas condensate reservoir systems.

Introduction — Solution Gas-Drive Systems


The first presentation of an inflow performance relationship (or IPR) concept was made by Rawlins and
Schellhardt1 in 1935. In Fig. 1 we provide a reproduction of this figure — where Rawlins and Schellhardt
used this plot to illustrate the effect of liquid loading on production performance.

Figure 1. Primitive IPR plot for a gas well experiencing liquid loading (circa 1935)
(after Rawlins and Schellhardt (ref. 1)).

In 1954 Gilbert2 introduced the concept of an "inflow performance relationship" (or IPR) for the purpose of
optimizing producing rates and flowing bottomhole pressures. In Fig. 2 we reproduce Gilbert's IPR
diagram for orientation.
In 1968 Vogel3 established an empirical relationship based on reservoir simulation results for a solution
gas-drive reservoir. Vogel used twenty-one reservoir data sets to generate a broad suite of cases. In this
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 2

work Vogel noted that the shape of the pressure (pwf) versus production (qo) curves were very similar at
various values of cumulative oil production. As such, Vogel defined the dimensionless inflow
performance curve by dividing the pressures and flowrates at each point by the intercepts on the
respective x and y-axes (i.e., the average reservoir pressure on the y-axis and the maximum oil flowrate
on the x-axis).

Figure 2. Primitive IPR plot for a gas well experiencing liquid loading (circa 1935) (after Gilbert (ref. 2)).

In performing this work, Vogel elected to produce a "reference curve" that is an average of the various
depletion cases for a given reservoir scenario. Vogel recognized that the liquid (oil), gas (dry gas), and
solution gas drive cases have distinct behavior trends and was simply trying to produce a mechanism for
predicting production performance with a relatively simple result. In Fig. 3a we present the Vogel plot
illustrating the liquid (oil), gas (dry gas), and solution gas-drive cases.

Figure 3a. IPR schematic plot for oil, gas, and solution gas drive systems (after Vogel (ref. 3)).

The "Vogel correlation" for IPR behavior in a solution gas-drive system is given by:
2
qo ⎡ pwf ⎤ ⎡ pwf ⎤
= 1 − 0.2 ⎢ ⎥ − 0.8 ⎢ ⎥ ....................... (1)
qo, max ⎣ p ⎦ ⎣ p ⎦

In Fig. 3b we reproduce the Vogel plot illustrating the IPR behavior for solution-gas drive systems at
various stages of depletion — the "reference curve" is the Vogel correlation.
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 3

Figure 3b. IPR behavior for solution-gas drive systems at various stages of depletion — the "reference
curve" is the correlation presented by Vogel (after Vogel (ref. 3)).

For wells producing below the bubblepoint pressure, Fetkovich4 derived the following generalized IPR
equation using pseudosteady-state theory and a presumed linear relationship for the liquid (oil) or gas
mobility functions (i.e., ko/(µoBo) or kg/(µgBg)):
n
⎡ ⎡p ⎤
2⎤
qo wf
= ⎢1 − ⎢ ⎥ ⎥ ............................................. (2)
qo,max ⎢ p ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎥⎦
An illustrative schematic plot of the Fetkovich concept for a linear mobility trend is shown in Fig. 4.

Figure 4. Mobility-pressure behavior for a solution-gas drive reservoir (after Fetkovich (ref. 4)).

Fetkovich considered the oil phase for a solution gas-drive system — but this concept has also been
extended to the gas phase. The most important aspect of Fig. 4 is the presumed linearity of the mobility
function for pressures below the bubblepoint.
Richardson and Shaw5 presented a generalized inflow performance relationship for solution gas
reservoirs as a function of the parameter, ν. For the Vogel case ν=0.2, and Richardson and Shaw propose
that the ν-parameter be optimized for a given case. Richardson and Shaw provide an interesting
schematic plot to illustrate the behavior of the IPR function above and below the bubblepoint pressure
(see Fig. 5 for a reproduction of this schematic plot).
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 4

Figure 5. Schematic IPR behavior for a solution-gas drive reservoir — note the "linear" and "quadratic"
characteristic regions (for p>pb and p<pb, re-spectively) (after Richardson and Shaw (ref. 5)).

Particular to this work, Richardson and Shaw discuss procedures for testing wells where the objective is
to use production data to solve for the ν-parameter directly — for example, using a two or three-rate test.

The "general" IPR model presented by Richardson and Shaw is given as:
2
qo ⎡ pwf ⎤ ⎡ pwf ⎤
= 1− v ⎢ ⎥ − (1 − v) ⎢ ⎥ ....................... (3)
qo, max ⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦ ⎣⎢ p ⎥⎦

We will note in advance that we will use the formulation given by Eq. 3 to derive our new IPR models for
gas and condensate behavior in gas condensate reservoir systems.
Another attempt to quantify the IPR behavior for solution gas-drive systems was presented by Wiggins, et.
al.6 — where this result is a polynomial series given in terms of qo/qo,max and p wf / p . The Wiggins, et. al.
result is given by:

2 3
qo ⎡ p wf ⎤ ⎡ p wf ⎤ ⎡ p wf ⎤
= 1 + a1 ⎢ ⎥ + a2 ⎢ ⎥ + a3 ⎢ ⎥ + ... (4)
qo,max ⎣⎢ p ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥ ⎢⎣ p ⎦⎥

Where the a1, a2, a3, ... an coefficients are determined based on the mobility function and its derivatives at
the average reservoir pressure ( p ). This is a relatively impractical approach because of the derivatives
involved — but, we must recognize that the IPR behavior can be related to fundamental flow theories.
As an aside, Wiggins, et al. (ref. 6) also present plots of oil mobility as functions of pressure (taken at
various flowrates) as a means of calibrating their proposed IPR model (i.e., Eq. 4). The purpose of
presenting these mobility-pressure profiles was to establish the "stability" of the mobility profile for a given
depletion level — which would confirm the use of an IPR model based on a "snapshot" of reservoir
performance. An example mobility-pressure profile taken from the Wiggins, et. al. reference is shown in
Fig. 6.
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 5

Figure 6. Oil mobility profiles as a function of pressure — various flowrates ("Case 2") (after Wiggins, et al.
(ref. 6)).

We will comment that the "double-linear" trend illustrated in Fig. 6 is consistent with other work produced
for solution gas drive systems, and is somewhat in dispute with the model proposed by Fetkovich (see
Fig. 4).
Introduction — Gas Condensate Systems
In this section we discuss methods to represent IPR behavior for gas condensate reservoir systems.
Analogs and references to the solution gas-drive system are common for the case of a gas condensate
system, but our goal is to isolate the important factors/elements that must be addressed in order to
correlate IPR behavior for gas condensate reservoir systems.
Inflow performance relationships have been considered for gas-condensate reservoir systems by several
authors. The case of a gas condensate reservoir is more complex because of the evolution of the
condensate bank as the reservoir is depleted. Fussell7 addressed this issue using a 1-D radial
compositional simulator. O'Dell and Miller8 presented results which show that even a minor region of
condensate blockage/banking can substantially reduce the deliverability of the well.
Fevang and Whitson9 presented a gas-rate flow equation for gas condensate systems, which employs a
pseudopressure function (in terms of conventional formation volume factors and gas-oil-ratios) as a
mechanism to account for the effect of condensate banking. This result is given by:

kh p ⎡ krg k ⎤

1
qg = ⎢ + Rs ro ⎥ dp …….. (5)
141.2 [ln(re / rw ) − 3/4 + s ] pwf ⎢⎣ µ g B g µ o Bo ⎥⎦

Fevang and Whitson suggested that the pseudopressure integral could be evaluated by expanding the
integral into three regions: (taken from ref. 9)
z Region 1: An inner, near-wellbore region where both gas and oil flow simultaneously (at different
velocities).
z Region 2: A region of condensate "buildup" where only gas is flowing.
z Region 3: A region containing single-phase (original) reservoir gas.
The producing GOR, PVT properties, and gas-oil relative permeabilities are required in order to calculate
the pseudo-pressure function (Eq. 5). While Eq. 5 is straightforward — i.e., an integral in terms of
pressure and saturation-dependent functions, these functions can not be known accurately in advance —
which renders Eq. 5 as a possible analysis relation, but not a predictive (or modelling) relation.
It is worthy to note that Fevang and Whitson (ref. 3) comment that critical oil saturation (Soc) has no effect
on gas condensate well deliverability. While it is not our intention to dispute this comment, we will note
that our work has addressed the influence of the following parameters on gas condensate well
deliverability: relative permeability, fluid composition, dew-point pressure, reservoir temperature, Soc, and
Sgr.
In this work, we provide a simple methodology to estimate IPR functions for wells in gas-condensate
reservoir systems — without the requirement of gas-oil ratio and saturation profiles in the reservoir as a
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 6

function of pressure. The new IPR approach will be developed using a large database of compositional
reservoir simulation cases. We use the form of the Richardson and Shaw model,5 but the parameter
will vary depending on the various properties of a given reservoir fluid (as noted by the group of
parameters we have identified as influential in the case of gas condensate reservoir systems -see above).

Method — Correlation of IPR Behavior for Gas Condensate Reservoir Systems


In this study we use compositional reservoir simulation as the mechanism to perform numerical
experiments in order to characterize the IPR behavior for gas and condensate liquid performance. This
section outlines the construction of the numerical model in terms of gridding and the selection of relative
permeability profiles and reservoir fluid properties.
Model Construction
A 1-D radial grid is used for the simulation model since our main purpose is to evaluate the productivity of
a single well in a gas condensate reservoir system. Bottomhole pressures and production rates are of
critical importance for IPR correlations — and as such, we used fine grid cells near the wellbore to
properly represent the well productivity losses due to the build up of condensate near the well, while
maintaining coarser grids for the remainder of the reservoir.
Malachowski et al.10 concluded that fine grids should be used for gas condensate reservoir simulation or
the predicted condensate saturation near the wellbore will be underestimated. As is customary, the sizing
of the radial grid cell sizes follows a logarithmic distribution with the ratio between two consecutive cell
sizes being 1.47. The maximum cell size is 500 ft.
The most convenient (and arguably the most appropriate) production constraint is that of a constant
bottomhole pressure. A small initial time step is used to address the onset of condensate banking. A
typical simulation is conducted for approximately 120 years in order to assess the effect of condensate
banking on ultimate recovery.
The grid cells have a uniform thickness of 30 ft and the reservoir model is considered homogeneous and
isotropic — with an absolute permeability of 5 md and a porosity of 20 percent. The simulation model
was initialized from an initial pressure equal to the dewpoint pressure of the selected reservoir fluid —
which means that initially, the only fluid in the reservoir is gas, as the water saturation is set to zero.
Relative Permeability Curves
Seven (7) different sets of relative permeability curves are used in this study in order to assess the
influence of relative permeability on the IPR character for gas condensate systems. Corey-type relative
permeability curves as well as other relative permeability curves are use to address a spectrum of relative
permeability behavior. The seven sets of curves are shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

Figure 7. Oil relative permeability data sets for the condensate reservoir simulation study.
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 7

The relative permeability curves have different endpoint saturations and different shapes. A set of
"straight line" relative permeability curves are included as an "extreme" case (Data Set 5). Data Set 4 is
designed to represent an "abrupt" change in oil relative permeability and is taken from another study of
gas condensate reservoir systems.

Figure 8. Gas relative permeability data sets for the condensate reservoir simulation study.

It could be argued that we could have considered more cases of relative permeability behavior —
however, we believe that this set of relative permeability cases represents an appropriate suite of cases
that would typically be encountered in practice.
Reservoir Fluids
In this work we considered six (6) reservoir fluid samples — four (4) of these samples were synthetic
fluids and the remaining two samples were taken from studies for the Cusiana and Cupiagua gas
condensate fields in Colombia (South America). The composition of the synthetic fluids is shown in Table
1 and we note that these four fluids have varying degrees of richness.

Table 1. Composition of synthetic reservoir fluid samples (Fluids 1-4) (variations of fluids presented by
Roussenac (ref. 11)).
Mole Fraction
Fluid 1 2 3 4
C1 0.8963 0.8700 0.9561 0.8700
C4 0.0300 0.0300 0.0150 0.0150
C10 0.0737 0.1000 0.0289 0.1150
Initial Molecular Weight of the Fluid Mixture
Fluid 1 2 3 4
Mmix 26.0027 29.1026 20.0832 30.2393

Tables A-1 and A-2 describe the Cusiana fluid sample and are provided in the Appendix of this paper.
The sample
composition for "Fluid 5" is detailed in Table A-1 and it is clear that there are too many components for
practical reservoir simulation purposes.
Data from a constant composition expansion experiment (CCE) were matched to tune a version of the
Peng-Robinson equation of state (EOS) for this fluid. After tuning, the components were grouped (or
lumped) using Whitson's method12. The resulting groups are shown in Table A-3. In ref. 13, Jaramillo
presents further detail regarding the fluid characterization for this Cusiana sample.
The final reservoir fluid considered was based on a sample from the Cupiagua field ("Fluid 6"). This fluid
composition is given in Table A-4. Similar to the fluid sample from Cusiana field, data from a constant
composition expansion experiment were used to tune a Peng-Robinson EOS model. The pseudo-
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 8

components used to represent this fluid in the compositional simulation cases are given in Table A-5.
Additional detail and discussion of the fluid characterization for this sample is given by Guerra.14
Assumptions Used in the Simulation Model
The following assumptions are used in the development and execution of the reservoir simulation models
for this case:
z Interfacial tension effects and non-Darcy flow effects are not considered.
z Capillary pressure effects are not considered.
z Near wellbore effects (saturation, pressure, and mobility) are accurately represented by a refined
grid.
z Phase equilibrium is accurately calculated by the EOS.
z A reduced permeability zone (skin) is not considered.
z Gravitational segregation of the condensate is not considered.
z No compositional gradients are considered.
Strategies for the Development of the IPR Database
We first validated the simulation model and considered the following parameters/functions (or
combination of parameters/ functions) in order to generate the IPR database:
z Reservoir Temperature: T = 230, 260, 300 Deg F
z Critical Oil Saturation: Soc = 0, 0.1, 0.3
z Residual Gas Saturation: Sgr = 0, 0.15, 0.5
z Relative Permeability: 7 sets of kro-krg data
z Fluid Samples: 4 synthetic cases, 2 field samples
We note that temperature is the primary control variable for dewpoint pressure (i.e., a change in
temperature yields a change in dewpoint pressure). For each case (i.e., a particular combination of the
parameter/functions considered), 30 to 45 simulation scenarios were conducted using constant (but
different) bottomhole pressures. Each simulation was begun at the dewpoint pressure of the fluid at the
conditions selected — with our purpose being to evaluate only the phase behavior of the condensate fluid
in the two-phase region, where gas condensate and gas coexist together while encountering significant
changes in composition.
The maximum gas (G) and condensate (N) volumes were determined for each simulated case (with
respect to the separa-tor conditions) in order to evaluate the recovery of these fluids. For all cases the
pressure of the separator was set to a pressure of 14.7 psia and a temperature to 60 deg F.
Condensate (liquid) and gas production rates were recorded at eight selected "stages" of cumulative
condensate (liquid) and cumulative gas production (i.e., gas or condensate "depletion ratios" — and in
turn, these data were tabulated as a function of bottomhole flowing pressure. The deliverability curves for
condensate (liquid) and dry gas were constructed as follows:
z pwf versus qo for a given cumulative oil production (Np)
z pwf versus qg for a given cumulative gas production (Gp)
IPR Calibration (regression to obtain IPR trends)
Using the results from the database described above, we conducted a simultaneous regression of the
data for all of the depletion stages for a particular case in order to estimate the average reservoir
pressure and the maximum condensate or gas rate for each depletion stage. In this work we always
consider 8 (eight) depletion stages per case (see Table 2).

Table 2. Fixed values of condensate and gas cumulative production used to generate a particular IPR trend
(fraction or Np/N and Gp/G will vary accord-ing to initial reservoir conditions).
Depletion Np Gp
Stage (STB) (MSCF)
1 5.0x104 1.0x105
2 1.0x105 5.0x105
3 5.0x105 1.0x106
4 1.0x106 5.0x106
5 1.5x106 1.0x107
6 2.0x106 2.5x107
7 2.5x106 5.0x107
8 3.0x106 7.0x107
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 9

Our regression work also solves for the ν-parameter for a particular case (for clarity we note that νo and νg
are solved independently for a given case). In our regression formulation we define the following
variables:
(qθ ) i, j
y i, j = (θ is the oil or gas phase) ................... (6)
(qθ ,max )
j
( p wf ) i
xi, j = (pwf is constant for a given simulation)... (7)
( p) j

We cast the optimization problem into the following double summation form, where the SOLVER
algorithm in MS Excel15 is used to minimize the "residual function," Jθ for a particular phase:
( n) p
wf
8 ⎡ ⎡ 2 ⎤⎤
Jθ = ∑ ∑ ⎢ yi, j − ⎢1 − νθ xi, j − (1 − νθ ) x ⎥ ⎥ . (8)
⎣⎢ ⎣ i, j ⎦ ⎦⎥
j =1 i =1
We note that the 8 (eight) term in Eq. 8 is the number of depletion stages considered for a given
condensate or gas scenario — we have chosen to always use 8 depletion stages, regardless of the
scenario (condensate or dry gas). The (n)pwf variable is total number of simulations per case (i.e., the
number of individual pwf runs per case) — generally this number is between 30 and 45, depending on the
reservoir pressure at a given time.

We comment that we have cast this problem into an "absolute error" form, as opposed to the typical "least
squares" formulation. This is relevant — the SOLVER algorithm is completely general, and we believe
that this form yields better results than the least squares formulation — for this problem.

Results — IPR Trends and Correlations for Gas Condensate Systems


Base IPR Trends
We developed base IPR trends for each gas and gas condensate dataset (within a particular case) using
the regression procedure described in the previous section (there are a total of 62 cases).
After the simulation of each case, the rate and pressure results are plotted as "dimensional" IPR curves
(i.e., plots of the flow-rate of condensate or gas versus the flowing bottomhole pressure). Once the
regression procedure has been applied, we then present the "base" IPR curves in a "non-dimensional" (or
dimensionless) format — in the same manner as the Vogel IPR function. Examples of "dimensional" and
"non-dimen-sional" IPR trends for gas and gas condensate (Case 16) are shown in Figs. 9-12. We
consider Case 16 to be a "typical" gas condensate case (see Table A-6 for a complete inventory of all
cases developed in this work). In Fig. 9 (the dimensional gas IPR plot for Case 16) we note an excellent
correlation of the rate and pressure functions (including the extrapolated trends).

Figure 9. Example of a "dimensional" IPR trend (gas) (Case 16).


V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 10

Figure 10. Example of a "non-dimensional" IPR trend (gas) (Case 16)

In Fig. 10 we present the "non-dimensional" (or dimensionless) gas IPR trend for Case 16 — we note
good correlation of the "dimensionless" trends, and would comment there is a cluster of points in the low
pressure region (probably the least accurate portion of data). We are satisfied that this case is effectively
represented by the "Vogel" IPR model, and would suggest that this behavior is "typical" for a gas
condensate system.

Figure 11. Example of a "dimensional" IPR trend (conden-sate) (Case 16)

The "dimensional" condensate IPR trend for Case 16 is presented in Fig. 11 — we immediately note an
excellent correlation of the rate and pressure data with the proposed "Vogel" IPR model. In fact, the
correlation for this case is so strong that we could consider the Vogel IPR model to be the general model
for condensate (liquid) production performance. Obviously other cases must validate such a suggestion,
but we do note that virtually all cases in this work exhibit a similar performance (for the condensate
phase) as illustrated in Fig. 11.
In Fig. 12 we present the "non-dimensional" (or dimensionless) condensate IPR trend for Case 16, as
with the dimensional trend (Fig. 11), the correlation shown in Fig. 12 is extraordinary. One could argue
that such correlations might be expected due to the flexible nature of the general Vogel model (Eq. 3) —
however, we must recognize that the data in Fig. 12 represents the simultaneous regression of 8
depletion stages (from 30-45 individual simulation cases). Such performance should be considered both
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 11

relevant and unique — and should further validate the used of the general Vogel model for representing
the IPR behavior of gas condensate behavior (gas and liquid phases).

Figure 12. Example of a "non-dimensional" IPR trend (con-densate) (Case 16)

As noted above, the IPR base data (i.e., the νγ and νο parameters as well as the fluid and rock fluid
properties) are summarized in Table A-6 for all 62 cases considered in this work.

Global Correlations — IPR Behavior for Gas Conden-sate Systems


Orientation:
In the previous section we demonstrated that gas condensate behavior can be correlated using the
general Vogel model (Eq. 3). This is a significant contribution — however, it is our intention to provide a
general or "global" correlation of IPR behavior for gas and condensate production performance. A quick
check of Table A-6 confirms the intuitive concept that the parameters (νγ and νο) are not the same for a
particular case. The flow mechanisms and controlling factors are different for the gas and condensate
phases and must be accounted for separately. In other words, we must develop separate "global"
correlations for the gas and condensate cases.
Initial Efforts — Univariate Plots:
The starting point for a global correlation is to attempt to assess the influence of individual parameters —
as well as the influence of groups of parameters. Our approach is systematic in that our first effort is to
consider the behavior of the νγ and νο parameters with respect to the oil-in-place/gas-in-place ratio (N/G)
and the initial molecular weight of the fluid mixture (Mmix,i) (Figs. 13-16).
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 12

Figure 13. Correlation of the νg parameter as a function of the oil-in-place/gas-in-place ratio (N/G) (all data)

The correlation attempts shown in Figs. 13 and 14 (i.e., νγ and νο versus the oil-in-place/gas-in-place ratio
(N/G)) clearly show a "clustered" trend of data — however, we would no consider this to be particularly
useful since νγ and νο vary for each fluid sample. This indicates that more variables will be required.
The oil-in-place/gas-in-place ratio (N/G) would not be an ideal variable for correlation as we wish to
present a generalized correlation — using (N/G) would be "problematic" in that we would have to have
knowledge of this ratio, which in practice we typically do not. Our choice of using (N/G) is more of a
validation — we wanted to establish whether or not the (N/G) parameter exerts dominance on the νγ and
νο parameters. Figs. 13 and 14 suggest a strong, but not dominant influence.

Figure 14. Correlation of the νo parameter as a function of the oil-in-place/gas-in-place ratio (N/G) (all data).

Another "logical" comparison is that of the νγ and νο parameters with the initial molecular weight of the
fluid mixture (Mmix,i) — this comparison is shown in Fig. 15 for the gas cases and in Fig. 16 for the gas
condensate cases.
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 13

Figure 15. Correlation of the νg parameter as a function of the initial molecular weight of the fluid mixture
(Mmix,i) (all data).
In Figs. 15 and 16 we (again) note clustering of data — however, we also note that there are multiple
values of the parameters (νγ and νο) for a given value of Mmix,i. This suggests that the univariate
correlation of the IPR parameters νγ and νο with Mmix,i will not yield unique correlations. We recognize this
issue and move towards an attempt to generate multivariate correlations of the IPR parameters. For
example, we will segregate the most influential variables (T, pd, Soc, Sgr, Mmix,i, and the groups C1, C2,
C7+) then correlate νγ and νο simultaneously with all variables or with optimal groups of variables. We
establish the optimal grouping(s) of variables using non-parametric regression.16

Figure 16. Correlation of the νo parameter as a function of the initial molecular weight of the fluid mixture
(Mmix,i) (all data).

Before proceeding to the task of multivariate regression we compare the νγ and νο parameters in Figs. 17
and 18 to esta-blish if these parameters are strongly correlated. Intuition suggests that if the νγ and νο
parameters are correlated, such a correlation may be coincidental as the νγ and νο parameters were
estimated in separate regressions. Regardless, correla-tion of the νγ and νο parameters would be useful,
and upon inspection of Fig. 17 (the Cartesian format plot of νγ versusνο) we find that an apparent
correlation exists (νγ ≈ 0.20 + νο). While this correlation is fairly weak — we conclude that the correlation
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 14

may be of sufficient accuracy to predict one variable (e.g., νγ) from the other — rather than to generate
two separate correlations for νγ and νο.

In Fig. 18 we present the log-log format plot of νγ versus νο. In this plot we note a similar "apparent"
correlation of these parameters and we provide an approximate relation to orient the reader to this
apparent correlation. We do not advocate using either the linear or power law relations presented on
Figs. 17 and 18 (respectively), but we do suggest that these apparent correlations by used to orient
future correlations.

Figure 17. Correlation of the νg parameter as a function of the νo parameter (Cartesian format plot).

Figure 18 . Correlation of the νg parameter as a function of the νo parameter (log-log format plot).

Non-Parametric Multivariate Correlation of νγ and νο


Table A-6 was used as input for a non-parametric algorithm that can be applied to univariate or
multivariate datasets.16 The specific version of the algorithm used in this work is called GRACE (see ref.
16) — where the GRACE algorithm is designed to perform a non-parametric regression. GRACE can
also be instructed to provide a "parametic" regression by fitting generalized functions (in this case
quadratic polynomials) to the non-parametric transform functions generated internally in the GRACE
algorithm.
From ref. 16 we have the following description of the functionality of the GRACE algorithm.
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 15

"The GRACE algorithm is based on the concept of developing non-parametric transformations of


the dependent and independent variables. Moreover, the transformations are constructed
pointwise based only on the data. The final result is a maximum correlation between the
dependent and multiple independent variables with a minimum error."
In cases where the only difference between runs was a differing set of relative permeability curves
(possibly with the only difference being the shape as opposed to the endpoint saturations), a single
representative simulation run was retained. This selection procedure reduced the total number of cases
for analysis to 54.
Several combinations of independent variables (e.g., T, pd, Soc, Sgr, Mmix,i, and the groups C1, C2, C7+.)
were used in the GRACE regression of the IPR parameter data. After considerable testing of variables
(and combinations of variables) we developed what we consider to be the most representative model for
νo. This model includes C1, Mmix,i, pd, Sgr, Soc, and T as independent variables. Using the GRACE
algorithm, the average error associated with the prediction of νo from this model is 9.23 percent (this is a
non-parametric correlation — it is the minimum error possible).

Figure 19. Correlation of the νo parameter using a parameterized correlation of the results of the non-
parametric regression.
In order to generate a correlation that can be of practical use, we must use the point-wise transform
functions constructed by the GRACE algorithm and fit these transform (data) functions with functional
forms (such as polynomials). Using quadratic polynomials to represent the individual transform functions,
the average error increased (as would be expected) to 12.40 percent. The results from this "parametric"
correlation is shown in Fig. 19. We note that the performance of this form of the correlation degrades at
the upper end of the νo scale.
The equations defining this model are:
C1Tr = 19.982 C12 − 25.312 C1 + 7.318
2
M Tr = 0.000402 M + 0.221 M − 7.833
2 − 0.0000879 p
pdew,Tr = −7.81E − 08 pdew dew + 2.117

S gr ,Tr 2 + 0.246 S − 0.0238


= −0.158 S gr gr

S oc ,Tr 2 − 2.82 S + 0.161


= 7.03 S oc oc
TTr = −8.9 E − 06 T 2 + 0.000781 T + 0.431
SumTr = C1Tr + M Tr + pdew,Tr + S gr ,Tr + S oc ,Tr + TTr
and finally,ν o is estimated using :
νo 2 + 0.206 Sum + 0.384
= −0.0486 SumTr Tr
.............................................................................................. (9)
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 16

Figure 20. Correlation of the νg parameter using a parameterized correlation of the results of the non-
parametric regression.

The same set of independent variables were also used in the model of the IPR parameter for gas. The
GRACE model achieved an average error of 3.87 percent. When quadratic functions were used to fit the
transform functions the average error increased to 4.51 percent. Unlike the model for the liquid case the
"parametric" model from GRACE matches the data for all ranges of the νg parameter. A comparison of
the predicted and actual νg data is given in Fig. 20.
As an overall comment we will note that the shape of the computed IPR trends is actually quite insensitive
to the actual values of νo and νg. For example, 25 percent variations in these values causes a relatively
small change to the shape of the corresponding IPR trends. We view the models proposed as having
definite qualitative value — but we would caution against the use of these models in cases where the
values of the independent variables are beyond the ranges of the variables used to develop the proposed
models.
C1Tr = 4.3 C12 − 0.736 C1 − 2.07
M Tr = 0.000656 M 2 + 0.190 M − 7.10
2 − .
pdew,Tr = −1.06e − 08 pdew 0 000231 pdew + 1.31
2
S gr ,Tr = 0.229 S gr − 0.622 S gr + 0.0709
2
S oc ,Tr = 6.92 S oc − 2.72 S oc + 0.152
TTr = −1.76e − 06 T 2 − 0.0065 T + 1.86
SumTr = C1Tr + M Tr + pdew,Tr + S gr ,Tr + S oc ,Tr + TTr
and finally,ν g is estimated using :
2
ν g = −0.0214 SumTr + 0.168 SumTr + 0.554
............................................................................................ (10)

Validation
In order to test the performance of our proposed IPR model we compared the performance of the
proposed model to two validation cases. The first case is a synthetic case based on rock, rock-fluid, and
fluid properties similar to those cases we constructed to generate the correlations. This approach was
used because we were unable to find a suitable field data case in the published literature for which to
compare our proposed IPR model. Both gas and condensate performance was compared for this
synthetic case.
We did find a single literature case with which we could compare our proposed IPR model —
unfortunately, only the gas performance data were available for this case (Xiong, et al.17).
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 17

For the synthetic case, sets of gas and condensate IPR curves were developed and correlated to obtain
the appropriate νo and νg values (along with the qg,max, qo,max, and pavg variables). For the synthetic oil
case the νo was determined to be 0.22, while the GRACE model (using quadratic transform functions)
predicted 0.28. For the synthetic gas the νg estimate was 0.54 while the GRACE model predicted 0.49.
These values are arguably a subset of the database used to generate the correlations — we should
therefore accept the model estimates as reasonable.
In order to estimate νg for the Xiong, et al.17 data it was necessary to fit Eq. 3 to this dataset. Upon
regression we obtained an estimate of 0.11 for νg. In comparison, the GRACE model predicted a νg
estimate of 0.13. We conclude that these (admittedly limited) cases validate the concept and encourage
utilization of the proposed IPR model for gas condensate systems.

Summary and Conclusions


1. Vogel IPR Correlation Model: The generalized form of the Vogel IPR model (Eq. 3) can be used for
the performance prediction of oil, gas, and condensate systems. The validity of this model is well-
established empirically, and there are also semi-analytical validations of this model for solution gas-
drive systems.
2. IPR Behavior for Gas Condensate Systems: This work has validated the concept of correlating the
IPR behavior for gas condensate systems — for both the gas and condensate phases. This
"correlation" of behavior was based on the use of Eq. 3 as the base model. We were able to
generate representative "dimensional" and "non-dimensional" IPR trends for every case considered
in this work (62 cases total).
3. IPR Correlations for Gas Condensate Systems: In this work we used Eq. 3 as the IPR model and
correlated the resulting νγ and νο parameters using non-parametric re-gression to identify the most
influential parameters — in particular: T, pd, Soc, Sgr, Mmix,i, and the groups C1, C2, C7+.
Using the results of the non-parametric correlations, we were able to generate correlations (based
on fitting functional approximations to the transform functions generated by the non-parametric
regression algorithm) for both the gas and condensate phases. These correlations, while
somewhat cumbersome, are considered to be both representative and accurate.

Nomenclature
Bg = Gas formation volume factor, scf/rcf
Bo = Condensate formation volume factor, RB/STB
h = Formation thickness, ft
k = Formation permeability, md
krg = Relative permeability to gas, fraction
kro = Relative permeability to condensate, fraction
Jθ = Residual function for optimization, fraction
qg = Gas flowrate, MSCF/D
qg,max= Maximum gas flowrate, MSCF/D
qo = Condensate (oil) flowrate, STB/D
qo,max= Maximum condensate (oil) flowrate, STB/D
G = Original gas-in-place, MSCF
N = Original condensate (oil)-in-place, STB
pbar = Average reservoir pressure, psia (text and figures)
p = Average reservoir pressure, psia (text and figures)
pd = Dewpoint pressure, psia
pwf = Flowing bottomhole pressure, psia
re = Reservoir drainage radius, ft
rw = Wellbore radius, ft
Rs = Solution gas-oil ratio, scf/STB
So = Condensate saturation, fraction
Soc = Critical condensate saturation, fraction
Sgr = Residual gas saturation, fraction
T = Reservoir temperature, Deg F
s = Radial flow skin factor, dimensionless
µg = Gas viscosity, cp
µo = Condensate viscosity, cp
νg = Gas IPR parameter (for Eq. 3)
νo = Condensate IPR parameter (for Eq. 3)
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 18

References
1. Rawlins, E.L. and Schellhardt, M.A.: Backpressure Data on Natural Gas Wells and Their Application
to Production Practices, Monograph Series, USBM (1935) 7.
2. Gilbert, W.E.: "Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance," Drill. and Prod. Prac., API (1954) 126.
3. Vogel, J.V.: "Inflow Performance Relationship for Solution-Gas Drive Wells," paper SPE 1476
presented at the 1968 SPE Annual Fall Meeting, Dallas, October 2-5.
4. Fetkovich, M.J.: "The Isochronal Testing of Oil Wells," paper SPE 4529 presented at the 1973 SPE
Annual Fall Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, 30 September-3 October.
5. Richardson, J.M. and Shaw A.H: "Two-Rate IPR Testing-a Practical Production Tool," JCPT, (March-
April 1982) 57-61.
6. Wiggins, M.L., Russell, J.E., Jennings, J.W.: "Analytical Development of Vogel-Type Inflow
Performance Relationships," SPE Journal (December 1996) 355-362.
7. Fussell, D.D.: "Single-Well Performance Predictions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs," JPT (July
1973) 860-870.
8. O'Dell, H.G. and Miller, R.N.: "Successfully Cycling a Low Permeability, High-Yield Gas Condensate
Reservoirs," JPT (January 1967) 41-44.
9. Fevang, O and Whitson, C.H.: "Modelling Gas-Condensate Well Deliverability," paper SPE 30714
presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22-25 October.
10. Malachowski, M.A., Yanosik, M.A., and Saldana, M.A.: "Simulation of Well Productivity Losses Due to
Near Well Condensate Accumulation in Field Scale Simulations," paper SPE 30715 presented at the
1995 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 22-25 October.
11. Roussennac, B.: Gas Condensate Well Analysis, M.S. Thesis, Stanford University, June 2001.
12. Whitson, C.H., and Brule, M.R.: Phase Behavior, Monograph Series, SPE, Richardson, Texas (2000)
20, 47-65.
13. Jaramillo, J.M.: Vertical Composition Gradient Effects on Original Hydrocarbon in Place Volumes and
Liquid Recovery for Volatile Oil and Gas Condensate Reservoirs, M.S. Thesis Texas A&M University.
December 2000, College Station.
14. Guerra, A.: Analysis of the Dynamics of Saturation and Pressure Close to the Wellbore for
Condensate Reservoirs as a Tool to Optimize Liquid Production, M.S. Thesis Texas A&M University.
May 2001, College Station.
15. MS EXCEL (Office 10), Microsoft Corporation (2002).
16. Xue, G., Datta-Gupta, A., Valko, P., and Blasingame, T.A.: "Optimal Transformations for Multiple
Regression: Application to Permeability Estimation from Well Logs," SPEFE (June 1997), 85-93.
17. Xiong, Y., Sun, Le., Sun Li., and Li S.: "A New Method for Predicting the Law of Unsteady Flow
Through Porous Medium on Gas Condensate Well," paper SPE 35649 presented at the 1996 SPE
Program Conference, Calgary, Canada, 28 April- 1 May.

18. Del Castillo, Y.: New Inflow Performance Relationships for Gas Condensate Reservoirs, M.S. Thesis
Texas A& M University. May 2003, College Station.

19.Archer, R.A., Del Castillo, Y., and Blasingame, T.A.: "New Perspectives on Vogel Type IPR Models for
Gas Condensate and Solution-Gas Drive Systems," paper SPE 80907 presented at the 2003 SPE
Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma, OK, 23 –25 March.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge that this work was performed at Texas A&M University.
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 19

Appendix

Table A-1. Molar compositions for the Cusiana reservoir fluid sample (Fluid 5) (from ref. 13).

Mole Molecular
fraction weight
Components ži Mi Mi ži
N2 0.0052 28.0130 0.1457
C1 0.6897 16.0430 11.0649
CO2 0.0457 44.0100 2.0113
C2 0.0889 30.0700 2.6732
C3 0.0418 44.0970 1.8433
IC4 0.0099 58.1240 0.5754
NC4 0.0140 58.1240 0.8137
IC5 0.0071 72.1510 0.5123
NC5 0.0060 72.1510 0.4329
Benzene 0.0000 78.1140 0.0000
C6 0.0099 86.1780 0.8532
Toluene 0.0000 92.1410 0.0000
C7 0.0102 96.0000 0.9792
C8 0.0128 107.0000 1.3696
C9 0.0097 121.0000 1.1737
C10 0.0073 134.0000 0.9782
C11 0.0053 147.0000 0.7791
C12 0.0044 161.0000 0.7084
C13 0.0048 175.0000 0.8400
C14 0.0041 190.0000 0.7790
C15 0.0036 206.0000 0.7416
C16 0.0028 222.0000 0.6216
C17 0.0026 237.0000 0.6162
C18 0.0024 251.0000 0.6024
C19 0.0019 263.0000 0.4997
C20 0.0016 275.0000 0.4400
C21 0.0013 291.0000 0.3783
C22 0.0011 300.0000 0.3300
C23 0.0010 312.0000 0.3120
C24 0.0008 324.0000 0.2592
C25 0.0007 337.0000 0.2359
C26 0.0006 349.0000 0.2094
C27 0.0006 360.0000 0.2160
C28 0.0005 372.0000 0.1860
C29 0.0004 382.0000 0.1528
C30+ 0.0013 394.0000 0.5122
1.0000 Mmix 34.8463
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 20

Table A-2. Separator test data (254 deg F) for the Cusiana reservoir fluid sample (Fluid 5) (from ref. 13).

Gas Specific
Gravity
Pressure Temperature GOR (air = 1.0)
(psig) (oF) (scf/STB) γg
500 180 6696.5 0.7728
30 150 208.2 1.205
15 80 68.07 2.078

Table A-3. Pseudocomponents for the Cusiana reservoir fluid sample (Fluid 5) (from ref. 13).

Critical
Pseudo- Mole Molecular Pressure
Com- Fraction Weight pc
ponent Components ži Mi (psig)
CO2 0.0457 44.0100 1056.60
GRP1 N2-C1 0.6949 16.1330 651.77
GRP2 C2-C3 0.1307 34.5560 664.04
GRP3 IC4 to C6 0.0469 67.9640 490.47
GRP4 Toluene to 0.0400 112.5200 384.19
GRP5 C11 to C16 0.0250 178.7900 269.52
GRP6 C17 to C30+ 0.0168 303.6400 180.20

Critical Critical
Tem- Critical Com-
Pseudo- perature Volume pressibilit
Com- Tc vc Factor
ponent Components (deg F) (ft3/lb-mole) zi
CO2 88.79 1.51 0.27
GRP1 N2-C1 -117.46 1.57 0.28
GRP2 C2-C3 127.16 2.64 0.28
GRP3 IC4 to C6 350.28 4.68 0.27
GRP4 Toluene to 591.91 7.26 0.26
GRP5 C11 to C16 781.91 11.10 0.24
GRP6 C17 to C30+ 1001.10 17.67 0.22
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 21

Table A-4 . Molar compositions for the Cupiagua reservoir fluid sample (Fluid 6) (from ref. 14).
Mole Molecular
fraction weight
Components ži Mi Mi ži
N2 0.0025 28.0130 0.0692
C1 0.6171 16.0430 9.8998
CO2 0.0461 44.0100 2.0288
C2 0.0944 30.0700 2.8382
C3 0.0514 44.0970 2.2678
IC4 0.0136 58.1240 0.7934
NC4 0.0180 58.1240 1.0456
IC5 0.0098 72.1510 0.7085
NC5 0.0074 72.1510 0.5361
Benzene 0.0014 78.1140 0.1063
C6 0.0127 86.1780 1.0987
Toluene 0.0042 92.1410 0.3874
C7 0.0150 96.0000 1.4414
C8 0.0160 107.0000 1.7147
C9 0.0135 121.0000 1.6371
C10 0.0100 134.0000 1.3400
C11 0.0071 147.0000 1.0393
C12 0.0058 161.0000 0.9322
C13 0.0066 175.0000 1.1515
C14 0.0057 190.0000 1.0754
C15 0.0049 206.0000 1.0011
C16 0.0038 222.0000 0.8547
C17 0.0035 237.0000 0.8247
C18 0.0035 251.0000 0.8709
C19 0.0029 263.0000 0.7600
C20 0.0025 275.0000 0.6875
C21 0.0021 291.0000 0.6198
C22 0.0020 300.0000 0.5910
C23 0.0018 312.0000 0.5522
C24 0.0016 324.0000 0.5184
C25 0.0015 337.0000 0.4954
C26 0.0013 349.0000 0.4676
C27 0.0012 360.0000 0.4464
C28 0.0011 372.0000 0.4055
C29 0.0010 382.0000 0.3782
C30+ 0.0070 394.0000 2.7658
1.0000 Mmix 44.3503
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 22

Table A-5. Pseudocomponents for the Cupiagua reservoir fluid sample (Fluid 6) (from ref. 14).

Critical
Pseudo- Mole Molecular Pressure
Com- Fraction Weight pc
ponent Components ži Mi (psia)
GRP1 N2 - C1 0.6195 16.0880 725.83
GRP2 CO2 - C2 0.1405 34.6440 865.67
GRP3 C3 to NC4 0.0831 49.4400 615.11
GRP4 IC5 to 0.0356 84.4250 557.89
GRP5 C7 to C10 0.0546 125.3100 464.37
GRP6 C11 to C17 0.0373 212.3600 300.86
GRP7 C18 to C30+ 0.0295 394.4800 196.00

Critical Critical
Tem- Critical Com-
Pseudo- perature Volume pressibilit
Com- Tc vc Factor
ponent Components (deg F) (ft3/lb-mole) zi
GRP1 N2 - C1 -87.18 1.59 0.29
GRP2 CO2 - C2 34.65 2.09 0.29
GRP3 C3 to NC4 169.27 3.60 0.28
GRP4 IC5 to 399.51 5.62 0.27
GRP5 C7 to C10 574.61 7.81 0.26
GRP6 C11 to C17 771.16 12.80 0.23
GRP7 C18 to C30+ 995.39 21.14 0.21

Table A-6. IPR Correlation Results from Compositional Reservoir Simulation — Gas Condensate Reservoir Systems.

N/G Mole Fraction Mmix


+
kr Fluid Soc Sgr pdew T (STB/ C1 C2-C3 C4-C6 C7 ρinit (lbm/ vo vg
3
Case set set (frac) (frac) (psi) (deg F) MSCF) (frac) (frac) (frac) (frac) (lbm/ft ) lb-mole) (dim-less) (dim-less)

1 1 1 0.10 0.00 4278 260 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.431 26.00 0.18 0.42

2 2 1 0.10 0.00 4278 260 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.431 26.00 0.19 0.42

3 3 1 0.10 0.00 4278 260 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.431 26.00 0.15 0.43

4 4 1 0.10 0.50 4278 260 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.431 26.00 0.19 0.25

5 5 1 0.00 0.00 4278 260 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.431 26.00 0.27 0.45

6 1 2 0.10 0.00 4575 260 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 18.705 29.10 0.19 0.49

7 1 3 0.10 0.00 2845 260 0.0388 0.956 0.000 0.015 0.029 12.551 20.08 0.20 0.28

8 1 4 0.10 0.00 4814 260 0.1800 0.870 0.000 0.015 0.115 19.833 30.23 0.21 0.51

9 1 5 0.10 0.00 5015 260 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 24.352 34.85 0.25 0.50

10 4 5 0.10 0.50 5015 260 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 24.352 34.85 0.29 0.48

11 5 5 0.00 0.00 5015 260 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 24.352 34.85 0.34 0.56

12 4 5 0.10 0.50 5040 230 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 25.791 34.85 0.31 0.49

13 4 5 0.10 0.50 4925 300 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 22.570 34.85 0.26 0.45

14 4 6 0.10 0.50 5113 260 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 30.635 44.35 0.64 0.75

15 4 6 0.10 0.50 5084 230 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 33.289 44.35 0.65 0.73

16 4 6 0.10 0.50 5117 300 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 36.078 44.35 0.61 0.72

17 1 5 0.10 0.00 5040 230 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 25.791 34.85 0.26 0.52

18 2 5 0.10 0.00 5015 260 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 24.352 34.85 0.25 0.49

19 3 5 0.10 0.00 5015 260 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 24.352 34.85 0.26 0.51

20 2 5 0.10 0.00 5040 230 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 25.791 34.85 0.26 0.51

21 3 5 0.10 0.00 5040 230 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 25.791 34.85 0.25 0.52

22 1 5 0.10 0.00 4925 300 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 22.570 34.85 0.24 0.48

23 2 5 0.10 0.00 4925 300 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 22.570 34.85 0.24 0.47

24 3 5 0.10 0.00 4925 300 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 22.570 34.85 0.24 0.47

25 5 5 0.00 0.00 4925 300 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 22.570 34.85 0.34 0.53

26 1 6 0.10 0.00 5113 260 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 30.635 44.35 0.55 0.77

27 5 6 0.00 0.00 5113 260 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 30.635 44.35 0.66 0.80
V INGEPET 2005 (GAS-1-RA-12) 23

28 1 6 0.10 0.00 5084 230 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 33.289 44.35 0.58 0.81

29 5 6 0.00 0.00 5084 230 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 33.289 44.35 0.68 0.83

30 1 6 0.10 0.00 5117 300 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 36.078 44.35 0.52 0.73

31 5 6 0.00 0.00 5117 300 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 36.078 44.35 0.62 0.74

32 4 2 0.10 0.50 4575 260 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 18.705 29.10 0.23 0.45

33 5 2 0.00 0.00 4575 260 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 18.705 29.10 0.33 0.51

34 5 3 0.00 0.00 2845 260 0.0388 0.956 0.000 0.015 0.029 12.551 20.08 0.16 0.39

35 4 4 0.10 0.50 4814 260 0.1800 0.870 0.000 0.015 0.115 19.833 30.23 0.27 0.48

36 5 4 0.00 0.00 4814 260 0.1800 0.870 0.000 0.015 0.115 19.833 30.23 0.35 0.53

37 1 1 0.10 0.00 4512 230 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 17.613 26.00 0.14 0.44

38 4 1 0.10 0.50 4512 230 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 17.613 26.00 0.18 0.43

39 5 1 0.00 0.00 4512 230 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 17.613 26.00 0.28 0.49

40 1 1 0.10 0.00 3864 300 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.469 26.00 0.22 0.40

41 4 1 0.10 0.50 3864 300 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.469 26.00 0.22 0.29

42 5 1 0.00 0.00 3864 300 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.469 26.00 0.26 0.39

43 1 2 0.10 0.00 4755 230 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 19.778 29.10 0.17 0.52

44 4 2 0.10 0.50 4755 230 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 19.778 29.10 0.25 0.47

45 5 2 0.00 0.00 4755 230 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 19.778 29.10 0.34 0.55

46 1 2 0.10 0.00 4249 300 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 17.428 29.10 0.26 0.45

47 4 2 0.10 0.50 4249 300 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 17.428 29.10 0.24 0.43

48 5 2 0.00 0.00 4249 300 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 17.428 29.10 0.31 0.45

49 6 1 0.30 0.00 4278 260 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.431 26.00 0.19 0.41

50 6 2 0.30 0.00 4575 260 0.1541 0.870 0.000 0.030 0.100 18.705 29.10 0.18 0.49

51 6 5 0.30 0.00 5015 260 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 24.352 34.85 0.26 0.52

52 6 6 0.30 0.00 5113 260 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 30.635 44.35 0.52 0.76

53 6 6 0.30 0.00 5084 230 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 33.289 44.35 0.57 0.82

54 6 6 0.30 0.00 5117 300 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 36.078 44.35 0.50 0.72

55 6 1 0.30 0.00 3864 300 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.469 26.00 0.24 0.41

56 6 5 0.30 0.00 4925 300 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 22.570 34.85 0.26 0.45

57 7 1 0.30 0.15 4278 260 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.431 26.00 0.26 0.39

58 7 1 0.30 0.15 3864 300 0.1094 0.896 0.000 0.030 0.074 15.469 26.00 0.26 0.42

59 7 5 0.30 0.15 5015 260 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 24.352 34.85 0.25 0.46

60 7 5 0.30 0.15 4925 300 0.1578 0.690 0.131 0.047 0.082 22.570 34.85 0.28 0.41

61 7 6 0.30 0.15 5100 260 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 30.635 44.35 0.57 0.79

62 7 6 0.30 0.15 5117 300 0.2655 0.617 0.146 0.067 0.121 36.078 44.35 0.52 0.74