Reservoir Engineering - General - Comparison Between the Predicted and Actual Production History of a Condensate Reservoir

This paper presents comparisons of data obtained from a laboratory reservoir study and from a calculated behavior prediction with the actual production history of a condensate reservoir. A small non-commercial discovery was depleted under closely controlled conditions and the well fluids were sampled at frequent intervals. Data on the reservoir and production variables were accumulated on a fixed schedule. A laboratory reservoir study war made using the initial well fluid samples as charging stock. The production procedures and operating conditions were held constant throughout the study wherever possible and in general paralleled the field work. The well fluid compositions and the cumulative recoveries ar a function of the reservoir pressure were also calculated using conventional flash vaporization procedures and equilibrium constants. Comparisons based on the composition of the well fluid show good agreement, the laboratory study agreeing within experimental accuracy with the field work and the calculated data comparing equally well. The gas-oil ratios are also in good agreement, but with somewhat greater deviations at the higher pressures. In the overall picture, it is believed that a model st,~tiy can predict within experimental accuracy the production history of a condensate reservoir. Better equilibrium constants for the heavier hydrocarbons are needed in order to attain improved composition accuracy by calculation. INTRODUCTION In Aug., 1955, a gas condensate well was completed in San Juan County, Utah, that was initially thought capable of good commercial production. These conclusions were derived principally from core data and electric logs, which indicated good permeability, porosity and gas content. However, after the usual series of potential tests it was found that the reservoir pressure had declined some 22 per cent, and it was obvious that the zone tapped was but a small pocket or trap. It became apparent that, with a controlled depletion of a small reservoir, a unique opportunity was available to compare laboratory and calculated studies with an actual field depletion and to further the present knowledge of condensate reservoirs. FIELD WORK The Coalbed Canyon Well No. 1 was conventionally completed in the Paradox limestone formation to a total depth of 5,912 ft. The producing zone from 5,762 to 5,806 ft was perforated with four jet shots per ft. The wellhead and field equipment were also conventional, the major items consisting of a two-pass indirect fired line heater, a high- and a low-pressure separator with the necessary controls and accessories, gas meters, back-pressure regulators, flare stacks and condensate stock tanks. The initial testing of this well con-sisted of a series of flow potential and pressure build-up tests during which some 30 MMcf of gas was produced. The reservoir pressure declined from an estimated 2,300 to 1,782 psig during this period, from which it was concluded that the reservoir was very small. In order to approach steady-state conditions in the reservoir and so provide optimum conditions for making comparisons, the field depletion was programmed to approach, if possible, constant production conditions. Bi-hourly readings were taken of the tubing pressure, the pressure and temperature of the separators, oil and gas rates, and other pertinent operating data. The gas rate, as indicated by the orifice meter, was held constant by the adjustment of the choke in the line heater. The temperature of the first stage separator was held constant by adjustment of the line heater jacket temperature. Practical considerations of production made the maintenance oi a constant gas rate impossible. The test started with a gas rate of 4 MMcf/D and a separator pressure of 250 psig. This rate was maintained until the choke was fully opened. The gas rate then declined with the falling tubing pressure and production was continued until the rate was about 2