SPE-169286-MS

IPR in Naturally Fractured Gas Condensate Reservoirs

Fuad Qasem, Kuwait University; Ridha Gharbi, SPE; Bodoor Baroon, Kuwait Oil Company

Copyright 2014, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Maracaibo, Venezuela, 2123 May
2014.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
Predicting the performance of individual oil wells is of great importance to petroleum engineering for
continuous production optimization in the field. This study proposes a new Inflow Performance Rela-
tionships (IPR) for naturally fractured gas condensate reservoirs. Existing IPR models are commonly used
for conventional solution gas drive reservoirs. The purpose will be to generate inflow performance
relationships (well flowing pressure vs. flow rate) for naturally fractured condensate reservoirs as a
function of the average reservoir pressure and fractured reservoir parameters including storage capacity
(fracture storativity) and inter porosity flow parameter (interporosity flow coefficient). A dual porosity/
dual permeability compositional equation of state simulator is used in this study. A regression program
is used to fit the IPR curves and to obtain the corresponding equations. As a result, rational functions have
been developed for the IPR curves for gas and oil phases. These correlations are functions of pressure
drawdown and reservoir depletion. Additional correlations for predicting future maximum gas and oil
rates were developed. The behavior of the future gas rate shows linear relationships between average
reservoir pressure ratio and the maximum gas rate ratio. However, a highly non-linear behavior was
observed for the oil phase. Additionally, fluid representing extreme types of condensates were also
considered. Condensates with high fraction of light composition shows a hump and three distinct regions
with different slopes in future maximum rate curves. In the other case where the composition of the
condensate contains heavy components has shown nonlinear curves.

Introduction
Inflow performance relationships have been considered for gas condensate reservoirs by several authors,
where virtually all of these studies have involved the use of compositional numerical simulator and
statistical correlation of the simulated results. This approach is necessary because gas condensate reservoir
is more complex due to the evolution of the condensate bank and multiphase flow, as well as the
continuous changes in gas and liquid composition as fluid flows towards the well. In 1955, ODell and
Miller1 presented the first gas rate equation using a pseudopressure function to describe the effect of
condensate blockage. They presented a simple method based on steady state flow concepts that can be
used to estimate quickly the deliverability from the well. Results obtained using this method indicate that
prediction of producing well rates will be pessimistic if the average reservoirs pressure is below the
2 SPE-169286-MS

saturation pressure of the in place fluid. In a later study, Kaniazeff and Naville2 were the first to
numerically model radial gas-condensate well deliverability. These studies show radial saturation and
pressure profiles as a function of time and other operational variables, confirming that condensate
blockage reduces well deliverability. The authors also studied the effect of non-Darcy flow (in the gas
phase) on well deliverability. Gondouin et al.3 made a significant contribution towards the fundamental
understanding of gas condensate well deliverability. Through radial black oil simulations, the authors
extended the work by Kniazeff and Naville, showing the importance of condensate blockage and
non-Darcy flow effects on backpressure performance. They also demonstrated experimental procedures
and measurements that quantify the effects of relative permeability and multiphase non-Darcy flow.
In his study, Fuessell4 presented Equation of State (EOS) compositional simulations of radial gas
condensate wells producing by pressure depletion below the dewpoint. He showed that the ODell-Miller
equation dramatically over-predicts the deliverability loss due to condensate blockage, compared with
simulation results. Xion y. et al.5 described the process of gas condensate for all flow periods and
discussed the effect of liquid drop out on non-Darcy flow by modifying the function of condensate
saturation and reservoir pressure. They presented a method to describe two-phase unsteady flow in
formation around condensate well by using phase equilibrium and theories of unsteady flow through
porous medium. The method can be used to predict the distribution law of condensate saturation, pressure
and relative permeability along radial direction as well as dynamic IPR curve. Sarfraz and Tiab6 proposed
a simple method of establishing inflow performance relationship for gas condensate wells. The proposed
method uses transient pressure test data to estimate effective permeability as function of pressure and then
use it to convert production bottom hole flowing pressure (BHFP) data into pseudopressure to establish
well performance. In the study by Dehane et al.7, the performance of horizontal wells and vertical wells
in gas condensate reservoirs was investigated under various depletion schemes. The low drawdown
pressure for horizontal well, compared to vertical well for the same flow rate considerably reduces
retrograde condensation. A reservoir simulator was used to compare liquid saturation profiles for
horizontal and vertical wells in gas condensate reservoirs.
Mott8 presented a technique for forecasting the performance of gas condensate wells using simple
techniques that can be used in a spreadsheet. The calculation used a material balance model for reservoir
depletion and a two-phase pseudopressure integral for well inflow performance. He used fine grid
numerical simulations to model the formation of the condensate bank and to account for the high velocity
phenomena such as non-Darcy flow and changes in relative permeability at high capillary pressure. The
paper by Du and Guan9 used multi-rate well testing data to calculate the production capacity at different
reservoir pressures in naturally fractured reservoirs. The oil production rate was shown to be not only
impacted by two phase flow and non Darcy flow as in conventional reservoirs but also by the variations
of fracture opening. Castelijns and Hagoort10 studied the flow behavior of retrograde condensate in
naturally fractured gas-condensate reservoirs and the possibility of recovering part of the condensate by
gravity drainage. The analysis is applied to calculate the potential for retrograde condensate recovery in
the Waterton reservoir. Two analytical flow models were presented that describe retrograde condensation
and subsequent condensate drainage within the fractures and within the matrix rock, respectively. Aguire
et al.11 (2004) showed a chemical stimulation study for improving well performance for naturally
fractured gas condensate reservoirs. They presented a case study and showed the stimulation treatment and
its modeling approach used in this naturally fractured gas condensate reservoir in order to solve the
damage and increase the performance of the reservoir.
Despite all these studies, the inflow performance relationships in naturally fractured reservoirs are no
yet to be fully investigated. Development of the inflow performance relationship (IPR) for naturally
fractured condensate reservoirs is the purpose of this study. Compositional dual-porosity / dual-
permeability reservoir simulator was used to model the naturally fractured gas condensate reservoirs. The
model incorporates rock and fluid properties to predict the dynamic influence of condensate blockage on
SPE-169286-MS 3

Table 1Reservoir Properties for all Simulated Cases.

7.65109 2106 3.38103 7.65109 2106 3.38103
Parameters 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02

# grids 100 100 100 100 100 100

rw 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Di, Dj, Dk Frac 12, 12, 12 5, 5, 8 2, 2, 4 12, 12, 12 5, 5, 8 2, 2, 4
m 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
f 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0051 0.0051 0.0051
km 0.001 0.01 1 0.001 0.01 1
kf 1000 100 100 1000 100 100

7.65109 2106 3.38103 7.65109 2106 3.38103

Parameters 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.1 0.1 0.1

# grids 100 100 100 100 100 100

rw 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Di, Dj, Dk Frac 12, 12, 12 5, 5, 8 2, 2, 4 12, 12, 12 5, 5, 8 2, 2, 4
m 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
f 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0277 0.0277 0.0277
km 0.001 0.01 1 0.001 0.01 1
kf 1000 100 100 1000 100 100

Table 2Hydrocarbon Analysis of Reservoir Fluid Sample12

gas and condensate production. The impact of the
Component Mol % Component Mol %
non-Darcy effect, the interporosity flow coefficient
Carbon dioxide 1.21 Nonanes 1.05 (), dimensionless fracture storage (), and dimen-
Nitrogen 1.94 Decanes 0.73
sionless reservoir pressure (Pr) on the IPR curves
Methane 65.99 Undecanes 0.49
Ethane 8.69 Dodecanes 0.34
are examined. Future forecasting of oil and gas
Propane 5.91 Tridecanes 0.26 production rates based on present reservoir condi-
Isobutane 2.39 Tetradecanes 0.20 tions is presented as functions of the above men-
n-Butane 2.78 Pentadecanes 0.13 tioned parameters. A radial model with a single well
Isopentane 1.57 Hexadecanes 0.11
n-Pentane 1.12 Heptadecanes 0.08
at the center of reservoir is considered in order to
Hexanes 1.81 Octadecanes 0.06 simulate the fractured gas condensate deliverability
Heptanes 1.44 Nonadecanes 0.05 of various gas-condensate reservoir systems.
Octanes 1.50 Eicosanesplus 0.15
Total 100% Modelling Approach
The reservoir simulator used in this study is Com-
positional Computer Modeling Group (CMG-GEM)
reservoir simulator in a fully compositional mode based on Peng Robinson Equation of State (PR-EOS).
Simulations include turbulent effect caused by the high velocity flow in the fracture channels and modeled
by the Forchheimer equation. A 2-D radial model was used to simulate the reservoir with various
combinations of, and Pwf. Dual porosity/dual permeability model was used with different fractured
spacing, matrix and fractured permeabilities (km, kf) and porosities (m, f). All simulation runs were
generated at constant bottom-hole pressure. The reservoir fluid compositions used in the course of this
study is listed in Table 2.12
The simulation cases were generated from an initial pressure Pi above the dew-point pressure of the
selected fluid. This means that initially, the only fluid in the reservoir was gas. Several cases with different
and . The selection of interporosity flow coefficient ()is based on the class of high (3.38* 103),
moderate (2.0*106), and low (7.65 *10 9). The fracture storativity () ranges from 0.01 (low
storativity), 0.02 0.04 (intermediate) to 0.1 (high storativity). In all cases, the initial average reservoir
pressure was assumed equal to 4000 psi, which is above dew point pressure. The stage of depletion varied
4 SPE-169286-MS

for each case from Pr/Pi 0.975 (early depletion)

to 0.125 (late depletion stage). For each combina-
tion of (, ), the flowing bottom hole pressure is
varied from initial reservoir pressure to atmospheric
pressure (Pwf 3900. . .200, 14.7), where in each
case the model is run 20 times based on well flow-
ing pressure Pwf.
Results and Discussions
As indicated earlier, the reservoir is initially at pres-
sure of 4000 psi and the dewpoint pressure, Ps, is at
3500 psi. Figures 1 to 12 show typical gas and oil
IPR curves for various simulated cases. Because of
the multi-phase flow and turbulent effects in NFRs,
Figure 1Gas IPR for case 0.01 and 3.38E-3. the IPR curves are non-linear. In NFR, most of the
flow occurs in high permeability fractures with low
porosity. This results in a very high flow rate, which
causes additional pressure drop due to turbulent
flow. The effect of turbulent and two phase flow is
clear inFigure 1. For example, 80% of the maximum
allowable rate is produced by 50% drawdown
whereas the additional 50% drawdown results in the
remaining 20% of qmax.
In condensate reservoirs that are initially above
dew point, the liquid phase appears near the pro-
ducing well where the pressure is lower than dew-
point pressure. As apparent in the IPR curves, the
plots behaved similar to Vogel IPR with some sig-
nificant differences. The shape of IPR curves varies
as a function of and , and the following obser-
Figure 2Oil IPR for case 0.01 and 3.38E-3.
vations are summarized based on the interpretation
of IPR curves:
1. For all cases at high Pr/Pi values, the IPR
curve is characterized by more non-linear-
ity than IPR at low Pr/Pi values.
2. For low fracture storativity ( 0.01), as
the inter-porosity flow () decreases the oil
IPR curve variations become larger with the
stages of depletion. This can be seen in
Figures 2, 4, and 6.
3. For 7.65 * 10 9, the variation of oil
IPR curves as a function of stages of deple-
tion increases with increase in storativity.
4. Low values of give smoother IPR curves
than those with high values of . As
decreases, the average pressure drop be-
Figure 3Gas IPR for case 0.01 and 2.0E-6. tween fracture network and matrix in-
SPE-169286-MS 5

creases. It is noted that there is an inversely

proportional relationship between and
pressure drop (P). This is shown for both
oil and gas phases. However, the effect is
more pronounced in the oil phase.
5. For 7.65 * 109, the increase in frac-
ture storativity causes the gas IPR curves to
behave similarly to the case of layered res-
ervoirs without cross-flow. In this case, we
observe a change in the direction of the
slope as a function of draw down (wig-
gling).
6. For intermediate storage capacity, the shape
Figure 4 Oil IPR for case 0.01 and 2.0E-6.
of gas IPR curves are more curved in the
middle for high and intermediate interpo-
rosity flow coefficients compared to those
of low interporosity flow coefficients,
where the curvature is located at the higher
draw down values (high rate).
7. For cases where the interporosity is very
low and storage capacity is very high, there
is not enough support from the matrix to
fracture. In the gas IPR curves, there are
few wigglings similar to those obtained in
layered IPR at the early stage as well as the
later stage. In the oil IPR curves with low
Pr/Pi, the curve is almost linear and at high
Pr/Pi, the curve is highly non-linear. The
reason of high non-linearity at early stages
Figure 5Gas IPR for case 0.01 and 7.65E-9. is due to the difference between the pres-
sure function near the well location than the
one in the deep reservoir and away from the
well. At later stage of depletion, the con-
trast between the two pressure functions
become lower which results in a linear be-
havior.
8. The turbulent flow has significant effect on
the curves linearity. Turbulent flow oc-
curred at the early stages of depletion where
the pressure drop and rate (qg) are high.
This adds more non-linearity to the IPR
curves of both phases. It is important to
know that there is a remarkable difference
in the shapes between oil and gas IPR
curves due to fluid properties and
mobilities.
Figure 6 Oil IPR for case 0.01 and 7.65E-9.
6 SPE-169286-MS
Figure 7Gas IPR for case 0.02 and
Figure 8 Oil IPR for case 0.02 and
Figure 9 Gas IPR for case 0.04 and
in Table 4. It is clear that, for a given interporosity flow coefficient, there is an increase in non-linearity
with increase in fracture storativity. Cases with intermediate and high interporosity flow coefficients (
Using regression analysis of the simulated data,
the following empirical IPR for both gas and oil
were obtained:
(1)
where a, b, and c are coefficients that vary with
, , and Pr/Pi. Based on the results, the ranges of
values a, b, and c were found to vary as a (0.9
to 1.026), b (0.64 to 0.79), and c (0.057 to
0.29). Equation (1) is physically correct since it
7.65E-9. models the IPR curves and it meets the limits set
for IPR curves [(0, 1) and (1, 0)]. Tables 3 and 4
show the values of a, b, and c as functions of
and for gas and oil phases, respectively.
Future Maximum Rate Curves
Future performance relationships are also developed
to allow estimates of future rate-pressure behavior
from current test information. Figures 13 to 18 show
normalized future gas and oil production rates for
some combinations of and . The normalized rate
is the ratio of future maximum production of a given
phase to the maximum present production at initial
reservoir pressure of the same phase. This normal-
ized rate is plotted versus the ratio of future reser-
7.65E-9. voir pressure to present reservoir pressure (initial
reservoir pressure). The figures for gas (show al-
most linear relationship between the two parame-
ters. The effect of oil phase on the future prediction
is not significant, since gas mobility in the reservoir
is very high. For high interporosity flow coefficient
( 3.38 * 103), the maximum future rate behaves
linearly with reservoir depletion. Using regression
technique, a model with the following form is pro-
posed:
(2)
where a measures the degree of linearity (a 1
is linear, a 1 represents the departure from lin-
7.65E-9.
earity). The variation of a with fracture storativity
() and interporosity flow coefficient () is shown
SPE-169286-MS 7

2.0 * 106, 3.38 * 103), the maximum future

gas rate curves show similar behavior (similar val-
ues of a). A significant change in the behavior of
maximum future rate is observed for low interpo-
rosity flow coefficient ( 7.65 *10 9).
For low fracture storativity (0.01), lower
resulted in more non-linearity as measured by the
parameter a (1.066, 1.035, 1.229). Similar trends are
observed for intermediate fracture storativity (
0.02, 0.04) for all cases of interporosity flow coef-
ficients. However, a significant increase of non-
linearity is observed for the cases of high fracture
storativity ( 0.1) with a decrease in the interpo-
Figure 10 Oil IPR for case 0.04 and 7.65E-9. rosity flow coefficient, as indicated by the values of
parameter a. This is due to poor communication
between the matrix and the fracture network.
The maximum future rate for the oil phase show
significant future rate decline as a function of res-
ervoir pressure. This indicates that the future oil rate
is very low with respect to the stage of depletion. As
shown in many of the figures, 50% reduction in Pr
resulted in 90% reduction in oil production rate
compared to that of initial production rate. For high
and intermediate interporosity flow coefficient (
3.38 * 103, 2.0 * 106), the performance of
the maximum rate showed nonlinear behavior. For
low interporosity flow coefficient (7.65 *109)
Figure 11Gas IPR for case 0.1 and 7.65E-9.
and low and intermediate fracture storativity, the oil
rate behaved in a different way. For this combina-
tion of and , the oil production rates decrease
and then followed by an increase then finally a
decrease. This behavior is consistently repeated
with depletion for all three cases ( 0.01, 0.02,
0.04). This phenomenon was also observed by
Qasem13 for the case of solution gas drive in natu-
rally fractured reservoirs. In these cases, the oil rate
exhibits three distinct transient periods, followed by
a fourth stabilized period. Initially the flow rate is
high as fluid flows from fracture network (infinite
acting). This is followed by fracture depletion
(boundary dominated). In this period, the pressure
declines rapidly in the fracture until it reaches the
Figure 12Oil IPR for case 0.1 and 7.65E-9. minimum, where the third period (significant pres-
sure drop in the fracture network) begins between
the matrix and the fracture. In the third period, the
pressure in the fractures tends to stabilize. Finally, a fourth period is observed where the pressure is
stabilized in the entire drainage area. However, at high fracture storativity ( 0.1), the hump is not as
8 SPE-169286-MS

Table 3Average Parameters Obtained for Gas Phase

03.38 *103 2.0 *106 7.65 *109

0.01 a1.00335 a1.0029 a0.99927

b0.75803 b0.76549 b0.85067
c0.016919 c0.025579 c0.311452
0.02 a1.00249 a1.00213 a0.99901
b0.67705 b0.684 b0.78343
c0.03691 c0.02797 c0.289919
0.04 a1.00218 a1.006895 a0.99887
b0.77576 b0.78417 b0.83702
c0.059815 c0.069888 c0.464341
0.1 a1.00105 a1.00089 a0.99696
b0.79723 b0.8066464 b0.87748
c0.114495 c0.124403 c0.728501

Table 4 Average Parameters Obtained for Oil Phase

03.38*103 2.0 *106 7.65 *109

0.01 a1.00372 a1.00242 a0.99981

b0.76505 b0.76187 b0.87299
c0.014971 c0.026118 c0.29356
0.02 a1.007621 a1.0017 a0.99859
b0.69041 b0.68007 b0.8273
c0.03793 c0.0213 c0.274713
0.04 a1.007197 a1.00087 a0.99837
b0.78363 b0.79126 b0.85299
c0.051332 c0.091579 c0.341932
0.1 a1.00109 a1.00023 a1.00075
b0.81255 60.81115 b0.79788
c0.10505 c0.153233 c0.400076

Figure 13Gas future maximum rate for case 0.01 and Figure 14 Oil future maximum rate for case 0.01 and
3.38E-3. 3.38E-3.

clear. The reason of having the value of the dimensionless oil rate greater than 1 is due to reduction in
Pr below dewpoint pressure, which is resulted in oil condensation.
The following equations were obtained for the future IPR:
For gas phase:
(3)
SPE-169286-MS 9

Figure 15Gas future maximum rate for case 0.02 and

3.38E-3. Figure 17Gas future maximum rate for case 0.1 and 7.65E-9.

Figure 16 Oil future maximum rate for case 0.02 and

3.38E-3. Figure 18 Oil future maximum rate for case 0.1 and 7.65E-9.

where the values of a are listed in Table 4. For oil

phase:
(4)

Table 5 shows the variations of a, b, c, d, e, and/with and .

Decline Curves
The oil and gas decline rates are influenced by the presence of the oil phase in the reservoir as the reservoir
pressure falls below the dew point pressure. This results in the development of high oil saturation in the
reservoir and around the wellbore. Several curves were constructed by plotting gas and oil flow rates vs.
dimensionless reservoir pressure. Figures 19 23 show examples of these curves for gas and oil.

Gas Decline Curves

For low interporosity flow coefficient ( 7.65*109) and in cases which have low and intermediate
fracture storativity ( 0.01, 0.02, 0.04), the curves show similar behavior and somehow linear in nature.
However, for high fracture storativity ( 0.1), the decline curves become very non-linear where a
10 SPE-169286-MS

Table 5Coefficient a for Gas Future Maximum Rate

00.01 0.02 0.04 0.1

3.38 *103 1.066 1.082 1.087 1.147

2.0 *106 1.035 1.0439 1.052 1.107
7.65 *109 1.229 1.348 1.527 4.6

Table 6 Coefficients for Oil Future Maximum Rate (Eq. 4)

3.38* 103 2.0* 106 7.65* 109

0.01 a 3.3874128 0.0078680135 0.010082526

b 24.54022 0.035438719 0.16800193
c 72.281002 0.035788469 0.018098172
d 517.50781 3.1470952 1.0291624
e 1065.7598 3.3578455 1.2499026
f 598.4925 1.2032261 1.4204531
0.02 a 2.4304636 0.00096250261 0.007153053
b 18.391122 0.056947359 0.22134711
c 61.892355 0.0479541 0.18002
d 475.70191 3.1543022 3.1366143
e 969.86792 3.3826393 2.567137
f 539.3424 1.2183989
0.04 a 1.9660589 0.0085571918 0.04962
b 14.814178 0.098237126 0.0235
c 58.684219 0.076798197 0.02375
d 493.6622 3.1211842 3.29053
e 1002.3885 3.3395403 3.721656
f 553.91228 1.205462 1.42875
0.1 a 1.0593653 0.0066083689 0.071166507
b 10.963575 0.15394109 0.14661117
c 49.372591 0.14499024 0.075926134
d 380.39317 3.0481306 2.7753089
e 744.16682 3.2481046 2.5482465
f 403.07012 1.1976395 0.7724419

Figure 19 Gas decline curve ( 0.01 and 3.38E-3). Figure 20 Oil decline curve ( 0.01 and 3.38E-3)

significant drop in the rate occurs through the early depletion stages. This rapid decline is caused by low
interporosity flow coefficient.
For high and intermediate interporosity flow coefficients ( 3.38*103, 2.0*106) and for all the ranges
of fractured storativity, there is a significant support and communication between the matrix and fracture.
SPE-169286-MS 11

Figure 21Gas decline curve ( 0.1 and 2.0E-6). Figure 22Oil decline curve ( 0.1 and 2.0E-6).

Initially, gas is depleted from the fracture then the

matrix support started to play a more significant
role. As depletion continues, the curves show more
and more linear behavior.
Oil Decline Curves
As shown in cases with poor matrix support to
fracture (low ), there is a significant change in the
shape and behavior of oil curves. At low interpo-
rosity flow coefficient ( 7.65*109) and low and
intermediate fracture storativity ( 0.01, 0.02,
0.04), the curve behavior can be described by three
stages. First, at pressure above dew point pressure
where there is only gas phase present in the reser-
Figure 23Oil decline curve ( 0.1 and 7.65E-9).
voir, the oil production is low and therefore large
drop in oil production rate is observed. Second,
further pressure drop resulted in more oil production
from the matrix, which feeds the fracture, and this in turn gave an increase in the oil production from the
fracture system. Third, after the oil production reaches a local maximum, the production of oil started to
decrease. This is due to the decline in the reservoir pressure.
Figure 23which shows a case with low interporosity flow coefficient ( 7.65 * 10 9) and high
fracture storativity ( 0.1) indicates significant drop in oil production rate with no transition stages. The
transitional zones (hump) are observed for 7.65 *109 and 0.01, 0.02, 0.04. However, in high
fracture storativity (0.1), this was not observed due to large capacity of the fracture system.
In the case of high and intermediate interporosity flow coefficient (3.38 * 10 3, 2.0 * 106) and
for all ranges of fracture storativity ( 0.01, 0.02, 0.04, 0.1), the oil decline curves behaved similarly.
The curves show a rapid decrease in the oil production at initial stages of production. Then, it is followed
by a period of production where the decline is slower because of the matrix support. Finally, the
production rate declines as the matrix support decreases. The oil accumulation is reduced by pressure
depletion.
12 SPE-169286-MS

Conclusions
There has been a significant amount of effort and analysis done in order to obtain a high level of
understanding of the mechanisms and performance of gas condensate naturally fractured reservoirs. The
following conclusions are drawn from this work:
A method was presented in this study to model the IPR curves in NFR gas condensate from the
initial reservoir pressure to limiting reservoir condition.
The IPR equation obtained for gas condensate in naturally fractured reservoir for the three different
types of fluid compositions for both gas and oil is represented by:

The parameters (a, b, and c)in the above equation vary with the reservoir and fluid properties and
stage of depletion.
The interporosity flow coefficient (), the fractured storativity (), and stage of depletion,
have a significant impact on the shape of the IPR.
A future performance relationship for vertical well in naturally fractured gas condensate reservoir
has been presented based on regression analysis of the simulated data, and the result gives the
following future equations:

Nomenclature
kf Fracture permeability (md).
km Matrix permeability, (md).
Pavg Average reservoir pressure, (psi).
Pp Reservoir pressure, (psi).
Ps Dew point pressure, (psi).
Pi Inititai reservoir pressure, (psi).
Pavg, f Future average reservoir pressure, (psi).
Pr Reservoir pressure, (psi).
Pr, f Future reservoir pressure, (psi).
Pr, p Present reservoir pressure, (psi).
Pwf Well-bore flowing pressure, (psi).
q Flow rate, (bbl/d, scf/d).
qg, max,, f Gas future maximum flow rate, (scf/d).
qg, max,, p Gas present maximum flow rate, (scf/d).
qmax Maximum flow rate, (bbl/d, scf/d)
q0, max, f Oil future maximum flow rate, (scf/d).
q0, max, p Oil future maximum flow rate, (scft/d).
rw Well-bore radius, (ft).
SPE-169286-MS 13

Greek Symbols:
Inter-porosity flow coefficient.
Dimensionless fracture storage.
p Pressure difference, (psi).
m Matrix porosity.
f Fracture porosity.

References
1 ODell, H.G. and Miller, R.N. (June 1955). Successfully Cycling a Low Permeability, High-Yield
Gas Condensate Reservoir. SPEJ., 141152.
2 Kniazeff, V.J., and Naville, S.A. (March 1965). Two Phase Flow of Volatile Hydrocarbon. SPEJ
17; Trans.
3 Gondouin, M., Iffly, R., and Husson, J. (June 1967). An Attempt to Predict the Time Dependence
of Well Deliverability in Gas Condensate Field. SPEJ 112; Trans., AIME, 240.
4 Fussell D.D. (July 1973). Single Well Performance Predictions for Gas Condensate Reservoirs.
JPT, 860 870.
5 Xion Y., Sun Lei, Sun Liangtian, Li Shilun. (May 1996). A New Method for Predicting the Law
of Unsteady Flow through Porous Medium on Gas Condensate Well. SPE35649.
6 Sarfaraz, A.J., and Tiab, D. (May 2002). Establishing Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR)
For Gas Condensate Wells. SPE75503.
7 Dehane, A., Tiab, D., and Osisanya, S.O. (October 2000). Comparison of The Performance Of
Vertical And Horizontal Wells In Gas Condensate Reservoirs. SPE 63164.
8 Mott, R. (July 2003). Engineering. Calculation of Gas Condensate Well Productivity. SPE
86298.
9 Du, Y. and Guan, L. (November 2004). Variation of Fracture Opening With Pressure-Key to
Well Productivity In Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. SPE 91789.
10 Castelijns, J.H.P., and Hagoort, J. (December 1984). Recovery of Retrograde Condensate from
Naturally Fractured Gas Condensate Reservoirs. SPE11199.
11 Aguirre Hector, Bonilla Ricardo, and Leal Jairo. (October 2004). Chemical Stimulation Experi-
ence on a Naturally Fractured Gas Condensate Reservoir, Field Case. SPE 88789.
12 Douglas E. Kenyon, and Alda Behie, G. (1987). Dynamic Reservoir Systems, Third SPE
Comparative Solution Project: Gas Cycling Of Retrograde Condensate Reservoirs. SPE12278.
13 Qasem, F. (1996). Performance and Recovery Prediction in Heterogeneous Naturally Fractured
Reservoirs Under the Solution Gas Derive Process. PhD dissertation, University of Southern
California, USA.