IPTC 16545-MS

Field Implementation of Condensate Bank Removal Using Chemical Treatment

Bander N. Al Ghamdi, Bandar H. Al-Malki, Adnan Al-Kanaan, Zillur Rahim, and Hasan D. Al-Anazi, Saudi
Aramco Oil Company

Copyright 2013, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Beijing, China, 2628 March 2013.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme 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 International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference 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, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract
Productivity of gas-condensate wells decrease as bottomhole pressure drops below dew point and condensate starts
accumulating surrounding the wellbore. The deliverability of gas-condensate reservoirs is controlled by transport properties,
mainly capillary pressure and relative permeabilities between the fluids in a pore-scale. When condensate drops out in the
reservoir, the relative permeability to gas decreases and affects the flow rate.
The productivity of gas-condensate reservoirs can be effectively enhanced by creating hydraulic fractures to reduce drawdown pressure near wellbore. This helps maintaining the flowing bottom-hole pressure above dew point and consequently
delays condensate accumulation. In rich gas reservoirs where condensate to gas ratio (CGR) is high, it becomes challenging
to keep the pressure above the dew point. Other approach to enhance relative permeability to gas is by altering the system
wettability and making it preferential to gas flow. Recently, a chemical treatment was developed by 3M company (3M) in
collaboration with the University of Texas at Austin (UT) to remove condensate banking effect. The treatment fluid was
tested in the United States and showed promising results.
In this work, Saudi Aramco participated with 3M and the University of Texas Austin to implement a field trial of the
chemical treatment on one of Saudi Arabian gas wells that declined in productivity over its production life due to sever
condensate banking. The treatment aimed to enhance the relative permeability of the least-wetting phase of the fluids inplace and reduce the effect of condensate-banking was successfully pumped in the candidate well. The initial results of the
field implementation demonstrated a significant improvement of gas flow rate and a simultaneous increase in the flowing
wellhead pressure.
Key results were consolidated with a Pressure Build-up Test conducted six months later, proving effectiveness of chemical
treatment on reducing condensate saturation, increasing relative permeabilities to gas, and modifying wetting conditions to
make it preferential to gas, which significantly enhances recovery from such high CGR gas reservoirs.
Introduction
Gas-condensate fluids are mixtures of hydrocarbon molecules that are initially present as a gaseous phase at reservoir
conditions. During the depletion of the reservoir fluids as the reservoir pressure falls below the dew point pressure, the liquid
phase comes out of the single phase hydrocarbon. When the pressure crosses the dew point pressure, the bonding between
the light components and heavy components of the single phase fluid in the reservoir are weakened causing a split between
the light and heavy components (Ahmed, 2000). The result of the split enhances the bonding among the heavy components
and makes it stronger forming condensate. The condensate thereby keeps accumulating until a maximum liquid dropout is
reached. The condensate accumulation takes long time before it reaches the critical condensate saturation allowing the fluid
movement. During this time, reduction in gas flow is sensed and is directly reflected on the production performance.
For a typical gas-condensate reservoir, the water is the most wetting phase and the condensate is the least wetting phase,
while the gas is always considered the non-wetting phase (Fanchi, 2006). In most cases, the porous medium is considered to
be wetted by condensate and very little quantity of naturally occurring water film inside the pores. Once condensate appears

IPTC 16545-MS

in the reservoir, the condensate and gas will start to compete for flow paths. As two immiscible fluids come in contact with
each other, a discontinuity in pressure occurs at the interface resulting in imbalance forces (Ahmed, 2000). The difference in
pressure depends on the curvature separating the two fluids, and is referred to as the capillary pressure. Gomes et al. (1992)
confirmed that the capillary forces depend on the interfacial tension between gas-oil systems, and the geometry and
dimensions of the porous network.
In a reservoir with pressure above dew-point pressure the fluids-in-place are in its gaseous form; the situation is different near
the wellbore where pressure is low due to production. Figure 1, is a schematic of the near-wellbore region where multiphase
flow occurs as the bottom-hole pressure reaches below dew-point pressure. In this situation, the fluid distribution depends on
the wettability of the rock and the adhesiveness to a particular phase of fluid. Since liquids constitute the most wetting phase,
the gas flow highly depends on the amount of fluid filling the pore spaces and chemistry of that fluid.
Another fact about the near-wellbore region is the reduction in the relative permeability due to the condensate dropout, which
makes it difficult for the fluids-in place to flow. The condensate accumulates until it reaches the condensate critical
saturation before it starts moving at a flowing velocity that depends on viscosity and composition of the condensate. The
accumulation period usually is not known, and it depends on the size of the envelope below the dew-point curve of a typical
phase behavior chart, that represents the amount of liquid drop-out to be expected. This period could range from days to
several years depending on the concentration of heptane-plus components as opposed to the lighter components such as
methane and ethane. Generally, reservoirs are assumed to be stacked-matrices as shown in Figure 2, a concept that was
introduced by Warren and Root (1963), to depict the behavior of the complex system of the fractured reservoir. In this
model, the condensate will accumulate first in the edges of the stacked-matrices causing a reduction in the productivity of the
in-situ fluids. Between 40 and 80% of productivity could be lost because of this phenomenon (Ayyalasomayajula et al.
2003). Even in the cases of lean gases with liquid drop-out of around 1-2%, the flow performance near the wellbore could be
severely impacted due to the increase in condensate saturation (Boom et al, 1996).
The depletion is highly dependent on the thermodynamic behavior of the fluids in place and the exchange of energies
between the fluids. In addition, the deliverability of gas-condensate reservoirs is controlled by transport properties, the
relative permeabilities and capillary pressure, and the wetting characteristics. The overall recovery of such reservoirs is
highly dependent on the changes of compositions and the concentration of the heavier components.
Attempts to enhance the performance of gas-condensate reservoirs subject to condensate banking have been many; some of
which consist of gas cycling, hydraulic fracturing, drilling horizontal wells, and using methanol as a treating solvent. All of
these trials have had some success but sometimes limited. For example; pressure can be maintained about dew-point
pressure using gas-cycling but studies have indicated that many times it is economically not feasible especially in reservoirs
that are already below dew-point pressure (Aziz, 1983). Mohan (2005), Wang (2000), and Dhane (2000), suggest that
common approaches are to go with either hydraulic fracturing or drilling horizontal wells. These methods increase reservoir
contact and enhance flow area but at the same time create channels where pressure drops during to production and becomes
prone to condensate accumulation. In the case of using methanol as a solvent, researcher have found that methanol
reestablishes the production performance by increasing liquid vaporization rate but appeared to be effective only for a short
period of time (Al-Anazi et al., 2007).
Current studies have focused on changing transport properties and wettability characteristics since they are the primary
control factors of the flow of fluids in two-phase conditions. The use of chemical treatments to alter wettability and favor gas
flow over liquid has showed promising results (Li and Firoozabadi, 2000). Investigations continued to test various chemical
and the effect on improving transport properties. Using a synthetic gas-condensate fluid, Kumar et al (2006) found that using
a fluoromonomer such as fluorsurfactant can enhance relative permeability by a factor of 2.
In the absence of chemical treatment, reservoirs showing higher relative permeability meets either or both of the following
conditions; higher capillary number accompiend with higher permeability zones, and/or lower condensate critical saturation
(Kumar, 2006). Vital results, point out that lowering condensate effect is highly dependent on the reduction of condensate
saturation, increasing relative permeabilities, and favoring wettability toward gas-wetting conditions.
The goal of this paper is to review current implementation of condensate bank removal using flurosurfactant and
consequently increasing flow of gas and condensate by enhancing transport properties and altering rock wettability.

IPTC 16545-MS

Treatment Candidate
In the selection of a candidate for the trial treatment, several criteria were considered. Reservoirs with high CGR are the best
to evaluate the trial test, since most of these reservoir experience a reduction in production due to condensate blockage. The
study considered one of the fields containing high CGR of about 300-500 stb/MMscf. This field experiences production
impairment as a result of the condensate dropout and blockage.
The selection criteria for the well included the following:

Liquid-wet reservoir favoring liquid flow

Liquid drop-out above 10%
Permeable rock allowing injecting the treatment fluid
Limited number of layers
Mechanical integrity of the wellbore
Surveillance data

Several wells were carefully selected based on condensate blockage, reservoir formation, permeability, water saturation,
reservoir pressure, fluids characterization, and dew point pressure. After thorough analysis, Well-A was Selected as the
candidate that met all the treatment criteria and reservoir conditions.
Well-A was drilled as a gas development well in January 2003 and worked over in the same year and completed as a vertical
Frac&Pack producer. The well was put on production in October 2003 with an initial gas rate of 20 MMscfd at a flowing
wellhead pressure (FWHP) of 4,535 psi. The well rate declined with time and later in 2009, an attempt to flow the well
through a test separator during a deliverability test failed. The well was experiencing severe rate and pressure loss due to
condensate blockage. Consequently, the well was chocked down and restrained at a producing rate of about 5 MMscfd.
Well-A was thoroughly analyzed and evaluated with proper data and simulation model. Analysis of pressure build-up (PBU)
tests on Well-A confirmed that a near wellbore treatment could be used although some data were masked by fluid
segregation. Experimental work on the selected core samples was conducted and used in the University of Texas laboratories
to confirm the applicability of the chemical treatment. The relative permeability of gas to liquid was measured before and
after the treatment. Results showed increase in gas relative permeability compared to condensate indicating that gas is
expected to move faster after the treatment. Simulations runs were performed that showed a significant increase of gas and
condensate flow.
Laboratory Experiments
Significant amount of work was done to design the apparatus and experimental procedures to pre-evaluate the chemical
treatment on a core sample from the selected well. The experimental procedures were designed to measure the change in
relative permeabilities of the fluids before and after the chemical treatment injected in the core. The aim of this approach is
to trigger the movement of the gas over the liquid by reducing the adhesiveness of the liquid to the rock. The experimental
treatment confirmed reduction of the condensate critical saturation. The condensate accumulation was lesser and both
condensate and gas flowed through the network much easier.
The experiment starts by obtaining a core sample from the selected well and injecting a pre-flush of methane until steady
state is reached to introduce initial water saturation and measure gas permeability. To mimic reservoir conditions, a synthetic
gas-condensate was injected in the core which was mixed to create a two-phase fluid. The condensate accumulates with time
and reduces the relative permeability to gas. After reaching steady state condition and collection of data, the pseudo pressure
method was applied to evaluate the relative permeabilities in the core at reservoir temperature and pressure.
Afterward, about 20 pore volumes of surfactant treatment solution injected into the core to alter the rock conditions, 24 hour
shut-in time was applied to assure complete interaction between the treating fluid and the rock. Subsequently, the synthetic
gas-condensate sample was injected in the core to measure the relative permeabilities after the treatment in order to estimate
effectiveness and evaluate changes in flow mechanism.
Field Implementation
The chemical treatment procedure designed in collaboration with 3M was to ensure the effective placement of the treatment
in the well. The procedure incorporates a low pressure pumping of the treatment fluid followed by nitrogen flush. PVT and
liquid samples were obtained to evaluate the effect of the treatment on the well performance. Based on the condition of the
candidate well, the treatment started with 253 bbls of 3M pre-flush fluid, 900 bbls of the main treatment fluid (isopropyl

IPTC 16545-MS

alcohol), and approximately 29,000 gal of N2 displacement fluid.

The chemical treatment was pumped at 1-2 bpm while not exceeding bottom-hole pressure. Detailed steps of the treatment
procedure are described next.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Obtained pre-treatment production data and fluid samples.

Pump 253 bbls of 3M pre-flush fluid at 1-2 bpm after ensuring no fluid in the wellbore.
Pump 900 bbls of 3M chemical treatment fluid (isopropyl alcohol) at 1-2 bpm.
Check to ensure the volumes were accurately injected by checking the tanks volumes.
Displace treatment from tubing to the perforations with nitrogen at pressure below fracturing pressure.
Shut in the well for 12 hrs. to allow the chemical interact with the formation.
Overflush with the treatment with nitrogen in order to displace the treatment further in the formation. A total of
29,000 gal of N2 was pumped in the well.
The well was shut-in for 12 hours after the second nitrogen overflush to allow further interaction with the formation.
Open the well for production.
Obtain fluid samples every day during the flow back period.
Gather production flow rates through separator.
Return the well to production after nitrogen content was out of gas stream.
Return the well to pre-treatment choke settings to compare performances.

To capture the effectiveness of the treatment, data were collected to verify the change in performance and compositional
content of the return fluid. The most important data needed for the evaluation are production rate and fluid samples before
and after the treatment. A 3-phase test separator was connected to collect flow data before the test. In addition, gascondensate samples were collected daily before and after the treatment to conduct PVT and chromotogrophical analysis.
These samples also served as an indicator for the presence of the active chemical and solvent in the samples to prove the
absorption of treating chemical in the formation.
Results
Table 1 shows the relative permeability parameters before and after the treatment. These values were measured to indicate
the change in relative permeability of the fluids as a result of the chemical treatment. Comparing the pre and post values
indicated that the relative permeability values of both the gas and condensate have increased, indicating that both fluids will
have more tendencies to flow. Figure 3 shows an increase in gas relative permeability by a factor of 2. It is apparent that the
wettability and the adhesiveness of the rock to the liquid have been reduced, favoring gas over liquid phase. Figure 4
presents a schematic of the effect of the condensate treatment inside the pores. The treating chemical consists of an active
chemical (treatment solution) and carried by a solvent. The active chemical is a non-ionic polymeric fluorinated surfactant
that is non-reactive, but interacts with the medium under reservoir conditions to alter the wettability of the surface. The
solvent (isopropyl alcohol) influences the bonding to the surface of the rock. Once the treating chemical settles inside the
pores, it ties itself and creates a flow tunnel to ease the flow of gas and condensate by reducing the wettability and the critical
saturation of the condensate.
The reduction in the critical condensate saturation is represented by Figure 5 suggests less blocking of condensate.
Moreover, the effect of the treatment is also proven by the increase in the productivity index shown in Figure 6.
Influenced by the promising results of the experimental treatment, a field implementation was carried on after the verification
process has been proven by Saudi Aramco using cores from the candidate well. As per the designed protocol, the treatment
started with 253 bbls of 3M pre-flush fluid, 900 bbls of the main 3M treatment fluid (isopropyl alcohol), and approximately
29,000 gal of N2 displacement were pumped into the well in order to assure the displacement of chemical treatment further
inside the formation.
After the final 12 hours shut-in period, the well was opened to flow while monitoring the flowing wellhead pressure (FWHP),
bottom-hole pressure (BHP), gas rate, and condensate rate. The well was opened to choke size 16/64 and beaned up until
FWHP reached around 2000 psi. The well was then connected to a test separator to capture actual flowing rates to assess the
success of the treatment.
Figure 7 shows the performance of the well after the treatment. The increase of FWHP at the beginning is the result of the
shut-in period after pumping the final N2 behind the treatment. The two following spikes in the FWHP are a result of the
capillary effect between the fluids flowing toward the production channels; the pressure increases when liquid pushes gas,
and reduces when liquid is pushing liquid. At the two-phase flow period, a steep increase in the gas and condensate rate due

IPTC 16545-MS

to beaning up the choke size. Once stabilization was reached and the well was connected to the test separator, stable rates
and FWHP were measured. Table 2 shows the flow rates and FWHP before and after the treatment. A significant
improvement in the gas and condensate rates and the FWHP was observed. There was a gain in gas rate by 75%, condensate
rate by 300%, and FWHP by 90%.
Separator and liquid samples were collected every day to preform PVT analysis and study the gas and condensate reservoir
fluids. Figure 8 reflects the gas-chromatography (GC) from the PVT analysis. It indicates an increase in the content of N 2
since a great amount was pumped after the treatment as flush fluid. Overall, the recovered samples indicate an increase in the
composision of the heavy components. This means the treatment caused the heavy components flow instead of staying
behind.
The chemical treatment was analyzed to verify the presence of the treatment solution in the samples retrieved. The report
analyzes how much of the solvent has been retrieved compared to how much of the active chemical was left behind in the
formation. The report indicated the following:
1.
2.
3.

A large portion of the treatment solvents were quickly produced back within the first 3 days after the treatment.
Around 97% of the active ingredient remained in the formation after the first days.
The results are consistent with 3Ms experience in other treated wells, where more than 85% of the active ingredient
remained in the formation after the treatment.

In view of that, the initial results, PVT analysis, and the reservoir fluid evaluation, indicate an improvement in the gascondensate production and FWHP. Close monitoring of the well performance was essential to examine the lastability of the
effect of chemical treatment.
Six months later, a pressure build-up (PBU) test was carried on the well at different rates with a test separator. The results as
indicated by Figure 9, reflects an improvement in reservoir response in oppose to a pre-treatment PBU, which indicates that
the condensate banking was partially removed. It is very difficult to compare the post and pre PBU tests thoroughly, since
the quality of data for the earlier PBU was quite unreliable due to the constant variation in rate, which is attributed to the high
condensate banking effect resulting in frequent changes in bottom-hole pressure.
The results still indicate skin damage due to the condensate blockage suggesting another chemical treatment for further
enhancement. However, the initial results were maintained at the same gain rate in comparison to the pre-treatment
performance proving the success of the 3M chemical treatment. Thus, it is highly encouraged to implement the same
technology on other wells suffering condensate blockage.
Conclusion
In gas-condensate reservoirs, the release of condensate near the production channels and wellbore region impairs the
productivity and reduces the overall flow of fluids to the surface. The accumulation of condensate reduces the relative
permeability to gas.
Recent techniques to enhance relative permeabilities of the fluids in-place by altering the wettability to increase the flow rate
of fluids have been studied. A chemical treatment was developed by 3M in collaboration in collaboration with Saudi Aramco
and the University of Texas at Austin to remove condensate banking effect, which was tested in the United States and
showed good results.
In this work, Saudi Aramco has participated with 3M and the University of Texas Austin to implement a field trial of the
chemical treatment on one of the development wells with high CGR. The initial results of the field implementation were
reported in this paper which demonstrated a promising improvement in gas flow rate and an increase in the flowing wellhead
pressure.
Key results indicate the following:

An increase in transport properties of both oil and gas (Kro and Krg)
A decrease in Sor and Sgr.
Promising results showing the effectiveness of treatment, with favorable gas flow.
An increase in gas rate by 75%, condensate rate by 300%, and FWHP by 90% was obtained.

Close monitoring of the well while flowing through a test separator was carried at the end of 6 months period after the
treatment which assured the higher gas rate is sustainable. In addition, the PBU results indicated improvement of near

IPTC 16545-MS

wellbore reservoir characteristics. Based on the results of the evaluation period, implementation of the chemical treatment
will be considered to mitigate condensate-banking problems on other candidate wells with high CGR and declining
productivity.
Nomenclature
Krg = Gas relative permeability
Kro = Oil relative permeability
Sor = Residual oil saturation
Sgr = Residual gas saturation
Acknowledgments
We would like to extend our gratitude to our counterparts in 3M and the University of Texas for their extended support and
research work to make this project a successful one. Our sincere appreciations goes to Gas Production Engineering
Department, EXPEC-ARC, and Well-Services Operation of Saudi Aramco for their excellent and safe execution of the
designed trial-test.
References
Ahmed, Tarek H. 2000. Reservoir Engineering Handbook. Second edition, Gulf Professional Publishing Co.
Ayyalasomayajula, P., Silpngarmlers, L., Berroteran, J., Sheffield, J., and Kamath, J. 2003. Measurement of Relvant Gas Condensate
relative Permeaility Data For Well Deliverability Predictions for a Deep Marine Sandstone Reservoir. Paper SCA2003-33
presented at the 2003 SCA International Symposum, Pau, France, 22-25 September.
Al-Anazi, H.A., Xiao, J.J., Al-Eidan, A.A., Buhidma, I.M., Ahmed, M.S., Al-Faifi, M.G., and Assiri, W.J., 2007. Gas Productivity
Enhancement by Wettability Alteration of Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. SPE Paper 107493 presented at the European Formation
Damage Conference held in Scheveningen, The Netherlands, 30 May1 June 2007.
Al-Anazi, H.A., Solares, J.R., and Al-Faifi, M.G., 2005. The Impact of Condensate Blockage and Completion Fluids on Gas Productivity
in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. SPE Paper 93210 presented at the Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition held in
Jakarta, Indnosia, 5-7 April 2005.
Aziz, R.M., 1983. A 1982 Critique on Gas Cycling Operations on Gas-Condensate Reservoirs. SPE Paper 11477 presented at the Middle
East Oil Technical Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 14-17 March.
Boom, W., Wit, K., Zeelenberg, J.W., Weeda, H.C., and Maas, J.G. 1996. On the Use of Model Experiments for Assessing Improved GasCondensate Mobility Under Near-Wellbore Flow Conditions. SPE Paper 36714 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, 6-9 October.
Dehane, A., Tiab, D., Osisanya, S.O., 2000. Comparison of the Performance of Vertical and Horizontal Wells in Gas-Condensate
Reservoirs. SPE Paper 63164 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October.
Fanchi, John R. 2006. Principle of Applied Reservoir Simulation. Third edition, Gulf Professional Publishing Co.
Gomes, Hamilton P., and Correa, Antonio Claudio F. 1992. Fully Implicit Compositional Modeling of Gas Condensate and Volatile Oil
Reservoirs. SPE Paper 23700 presented at the Second Latin American Petroleum Engineering Conference held in Caracas,
Venezuela, March 8-11.
Kumar, V., Pope, G., and Sharma, M.M., Ayyalasomayajula, P.S., and Kamath, J., 2006. Chemical Stimulation of Gas/Condensate
Reservoirs. SPE Paper 102669 presented at SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 24-27
September.
Kumar, V., Pope, G., and Sharma, M.M., 2006. Improving the Gas and Condensate Relative Permeability Using Chemical Treatments.
SPE Paper 100529 presented at SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Canada, May 2006.
Kumar, V., 2006. Chemical Stimulation of Gas Condensate Reservoirs: An Experimental and Simulation Study. PhD Dissertation, The
University of Texas at Austin, May 2006.
Li, K., and Firoozabadi, A., 2000. Experimental Study of Wettability Alteration to Preferential Gas-Wettness in Porous Media and its
Effect. SPEREE, p. 139-149.
Mohan, J. 2005. Modelling of Gas Condensate Wells with and Without Hydraulic Fractures. MS Thesis, The University of Texas at
Austin.
Mohan, J., Pope, G.A., and Sharma, M.M., 2009. Effect of Non-Darcy Flow on Well Productivity of a Hydraulic Fractured GasCondensate Well. SPE Reservoir Evaluation and Engineering, p. 576-585. August 2009.
Warren, J. E. and Root, P. J. 1963. The Behavior of Naturally Fractured Reservoirs. SPE Journal, p. 245-255, Trans. AIME, v. 234.
Wang, X., Indriati, S., Valko, P.P., 2000. Production Impairment and Purpose-Built Design of Hydraulic Fractures in Gas-Condensate
Reservoirs. SPE Paper 64749 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October.
Zoghbi, B., Fahes, M.M., and Nasrabadi, H., 2010. Ideyntifying the Optimum Wettability Conditions for the Near-Wellbore Region n GasCondensate Reservoirs. SPE Paper 134966 presented at SPE Tight Gas Completions Conference held in San Antonio, Texas, 2-3
November 2010.

IPTC 16545-MS

Table 1Parameters of treatment

Relative Permeabilities & Saturations
Pre-treatment

Post-treatment

Swr

Sor

0.3

0.15

Sgr

0.25

0.1

Kro

0.3

0.55

Krg

0.45

0.7
Fig. 2Representation of stacked-matrices (after Warren
and Root, 1963)

Table 2Table of results

Pre-Treatment

Post-Treatment

Gas Rate
(MMscfD)

1.5

2.7

+ 75 %

Condensate
(Bbl)

240

1030

+ 300 %

FWHP
(psig)

1700

3196

+ 90%

Fig. 3Gas relative permeability improvement

Fig. 4Schematic of the effect of chemical treatment on the

pores integrity

Fig. 1A schematic of the near-wellbore region flow

Fig. 5Critical oil saturation improvement

IPTC 16545-MS

Fig. 8Gas chromotographical analysis

Fig. 6Productivity index improves significantly

Gas potential [psi2/cp]

1E+8

1E+7

1E+6

0.01

0.1

Time [hr]

10

Fig 9PBU test results after the treatment

Fig. 7Performance of the well throughout the treatment

100

1000