Methane 89 89 93 95 83
Propane 0 5 0 1 0
n-Butane 5 0 4 0 4
n-Heptane 2.5 2.5 0 1.25 7.2
n-Decane 2.5 2.5 2 1.25 4
n-Dodecane 0 0 0 0 1.8
n-Pentadecane 1 1 1 1.5 0
6000 35
Fluid-4
30
5000
Fluid-2 Fluid-3
Liquid Dropout, V/Vt%
25
4000
Pressure, psig
Fluid-1 20
Fluid-5 Fluid-5 (250°F)
3000 Fluid-1 (175°F)
15
Fluid-2 (175°F)
2000
10
Fluid-4 (279°F)
1000
5
0 Fluid-3 (275°F)
0
–200 –100 0 100 200 300 400 500
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Temperature, °F Pressure, psig
Fig. 2—Phase envelopes of synthetic gas mixtures calculated Fig. 3—Liquid dropouts of the synthetic fluid mixtures calcu-
using PREOS. lated using PREOS.
A nonionic polymeric fluorinated surfactant has been used in methanol) for material compatibilities, environmental concerns,
this work. The surfactant was obtained from 3M (St. Paul, Min- and flashpoint concerns.
nesota, USA) under the trade name Novec FC4430™.
The general chemical structure of the nonionic polymeric Coreflood Procedure. The single-phase gas permeability for each
fluorinated surfactant is dry core was first measured using methane or nitrogen. Initial
water saturation was then established, and gas relative permeabil-
R f − ( OCH 2 CHR⬘)x − OH; ity at initial water saturation was measured. A dynamic flashing
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) method (also called “pseudosteady-state method” in the literature)
R⬘ = H,CH 3 ,C2 H 5 ... was used to measure the steady-state gas and condensate relative
permeabilities. The upstream backpressure regulator was set at a
The surfactant contains a fluoroalkyl tail (Rf ) and alkylene pressure above the dewpoint pressure of the fluid, and the down-
oxide head group. The fluoroalkyl group in the surfactant provides stream backpressure regulator was set at a pressure below the
oil- and water-repelling characteristics. The head group consists of dewpoint pressure corresponding to the bottomhole flowing well
repeating units of pluronics, which consists of ethylene oxide and pressure. Therefore, the single-phase gas mixture flashes into two
propylene oxide terminating in primary hydroxyl groups. Alkylene phases (gas and condensate) as it flows past the upstream back-
oxides in the molecule associate with sandstone by means of hydro- pressure regulator. This dynamic flashing method is similar to the
gen bonding between the alkylene oxide units and hydrated silanols condensate-accumulation process around production wells. The
on the sandstone surface. The polymeric nature of the molecule mixture was injected until steady state was reached at a given flow
results in multiple contacts with the rock surface and, thus, results in rate, and the pressure drop was measured. The flow rate was then
a durable treatment. The interaction between this type of molecule increased, and the measurements were repeated at each flow rate.
and the rock is caused by adsorption out of solution, controlled 20–40 PV of the treatment solution was then injected. The core was
in part by the cloud point of the material. This type of interaction then shut in for 15 hours (unless specified otherwise), followed by
overcomes the limitations of alkoxysilanes used by others (Tang the post-treatment two-phase gas-condensate flood under the same
and Firoozabadi 2002; Fahes and Firoozabadi 2007; Kumar et al. conditions as the initial two-phase gas-condensate flood.
2006a), which form covalent bonds with the rock surface. The
reactivity of alkoxysilanes is accelerated by temperature, water, and Results and Discussion
salinity. Once the hydrolysis and subsequent condensation reactions Steady-state measurements were performed before and after the
start, it is very difficult to control them under the conditions found chemical treatment to investigate the improvement in gas and
in a reservoir. At this point, the species become promiscuous and condensate (oil) relative permeability. Parameters affecting the
not only react with the substrate but also with each other. Therefore, treatment such as temperature, water saturation, brine salinity, rock
when alkoxysilanes are subjected to reservoir conditions during type, surfactant concentration in the treatment solution, and types
treatment, they will undergo hydrolysis and self-condensation, of solvents were evaluated.
which could result in damage (reduced permeability) to the rock. At steady state, the ratio of gas and oil relative permeability can
be expressed as a function of the PVT ratio, if non-Darcy flow is
Treatment Solution. The selection of an appropriate solvent not significant (Chopra et al. 1986):
mixture is an important part of the chemical treatment. The most
important characteristics required for the solvent used to deliver krg fg g Vg g
the surfactant to the rock surface are = = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
• The surfactant should be soluble in solvent at reservoir con- kro f o o Voo
ditions.
• Treatment solution (surfactant + solvent) should be com- where, Vg and Vo are the volumes of gas and liquid, respectively,
pletely miscible with reservoir brine at reservoir temperatures. obtained from constant-composition expansion measurements
Solubility of the surfactant in the solvents decreases with increas- expressed as a fraction of the total hydrocarbon volume. Thus,
ing water concentration and temperature and eventually reaches a the ratio of gas to oil relative permeability at a given core pressure
cloud point. This is typical of nonionic surfactants. is fixed and governed by the fluid properties only. Various authors
• The treatment solution should be able to dissolve the salts (Kumar 2006; Ayyalasomayajula et al. 2003; Bang et al. 2006;
present in the connate brine. Nagarajan et al. 2004; Mott et al. 2000; Donaldson et al. 1969) have
Solvents were screened on the basis of the phase behavior of the shown that steady-state gas and condensate relative permeability
treatment solution with the reservoir brine at reservoir temperature. data can be correlated with the ratio given in Eq. 3. In the data
Our results show that mixtures of a glycol such as 2-butoxyethanol presented in this paper, the non-Darcy flow was not significant;
or propylene glycol and an alcohol such as ethanol or isopropanol hence, the ratio of gas to oil relative permeability at a given core
are quite efficient in solubilizing brine and/or condensate from the pressure is controlled by the fluid properties only and will be same
near-wellbore region while also delivering the surfactant to the before and after the treatment. Therefore, the improvement in the
formation. Depending on the reservoir conditions, water satura- relative permeability of both the phases will be the same because
tion, and brine salinity, ratios of these solvents were varied for of the treatment. The improvement factor in this work is calculated
achieving maximum benefits of the chemical treatment. These as the ratio of gas relative permeability after the treatment to the
mixtures of solvents are more acceptable than other solvents (e.g., untreated gas relative permeability.
45
Post-Treatment
40 Pretreatment qcore=516 cm3 2.5
Pressure Drop, psi
Improvement Factor
35
krg=0.029 kro=0.066 2
30 kro=0.030 Nc=2.2 E–5
25 Nc=5.01 E–5 1.5
20
15 1
10
0.5
5
0
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00
150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Pore Volumes Injected
Temperature, °F
Fig. 4—Pressure drop before and after the chemical treatment Fig. 5—Effect of temperature on improvement in gas relative
at 175°F in Berea sandstone. permeability because of chemical treatment.
Treatment of Berea Sandstone Cores. Experiments on Berea surfactant or salt precipitation. Therefore, to treat rock with high
sandstone cores were conducted over a temperature range of 175 water saturations and high-salinity brines, a preflush with solvents
to 322°F. Fig. 4 compares the two-phase gas-condensate-flow pres- was implemented before the chemical treatment. The solvents mis-
sure drop before and after chemical treatment at 2,000 psig and cibly displace the brine from the rock or reduce the water saturation
175oF (Exp63). Chemical treatment reduced the steady-state two- in the rock, making it more favorable for the chemical treatment.
phase-flow pressure drop by almost a factor of two, which implies Results of the experiment (exp-W21) are summarized in Table 3.
that the gas and condensate relative permeabilities increased by the The results show that the treatment can also be used effectively
same factor after the treatment. Table 3 summarizes the effects to remove the damage caused by high water saturation along with
of chemical treatment on Berea sandstone cores under different condensate block around the wellbore. Thus, the treatment is an
conditions such as water saturation, temperature, and brine salin- effective means of reducing the combined damage because of
ity. Fig. 5 shows the effect of temperature on the improvement condensate and water blocking.
factor. Table 3 gives the different solvents used to deliver the
surfactant to the rock surface under different conditions. Mixtures Treatment of Reservoir Cores. These experiments were per-
of 2-butoxyethanol (EGMBE)/ethanol and propylene glycol/iso- formed on reservoir cores from a gas-condensate field in North Sea.
propanol (PG/IPA) gave better results compared to other solvents. The experiments were conducted at the reservoir temperature and
Visual inspection of effluent samples during the treatment flood pressure using Fluid Mixture 1. Figs. 6 and 7 show the improve-
showed that treatment solution made up of these solvents displaced ment in gas and condensate relative permeabilities after chemical
both brine and condensate effectively from the core. The optimum treatment on reservoir core from the gas-condensate Field A at core
ratio of solvents used in the treatment solution was determined by pressures of 1,930 and 460 psi. The krg /kro ratio of the fluid is 0.96
the phase-behavior studies and varied within a small range with at 1,930 psig and 2.37 at 460 psig. The core was treated with a
experimental conditions. treatment solution made of 2% FC4430, 69% 2-butoxyethanol, and
These results show that the chemical treatment improves the gas 29% ethanol. Approximately 2,000 pore volumes of gas mixture
and condensate relative permeabilities by a factor of approximately was flowed though the core after the treatment, and the pressure
two across a wide range of temperatures and water saturations. This drop for the post-treatment two-phase flow was essentially constant
is a very important result because most of the gas/gas-condensate over the time period of the coreflood test. This shows that the treat-
reservoirs have a temperature in the range of 150 to 350°F in which ment is very durable and does not show any degradation with time
the thermal stability of the surfactant molecule can be an important and volume of gas flowed through it. The final gas permeability
issue. These results confirm the stability of this chemical treatment measured using methane was 71.7 md, compared to initial perme-
at such high temperatures. ability of 58 md at Swi. The initial permeability was measured at
Many gas/gas-condensate reservoirs are associated with high connate-water saturation (because the cores were received at initial
water saturation and very-high-salinity brines; treating such res- water saturation). Thus, the treatment did not damage the core.
ervoirs becomes more challenging because of problems such as Table 4 summarizes the results of chemical treatment performed
Fig. 6—Pressure drop before and after the chemical treatment Fig. 7—Pressure drop before and after the chemical treatment
at 175°F in Reservoir Core A for PVT ratio of 2.37. at 175°F in Reservoir Core A for PVT ratio of 0.95.
Reservoir B Reservoir A
on different reservoir cores varying over a wide range of perme- micelle concentration (CMC) of the surfactant. Surfactant adsorp-
abilities. The improvement factor varied from 1.55 to 2.1. tion also depends on temperature, solvent composition, the surface
characteristics of the substrate, and other variables.
Effect of Surfactant Concentration on Chemical Treatment. Adsorption of this surfactant was measured by measuring the
The cost of the fluoro-surfactant is a significant part of the total cost concentration of surfactant in the effluent exiting the core during
of a field treatment, so the effect of surfactant concentration on the the injection of treatment solution. Effluent samples were collected
effectiveness of chemical treatment was evaluated by decreasing at intervals of 0.1 to 0.3 pore volumes during the treatment flood.
the surfactant concentration by more than an order of magnitude. The surfactant concentration was then measured in the effluent
Surfactant concentration in the treatment solution was varied samples either by drying off the solvents or running the samples
from 0.1 to 2% on a mass basis, while keeping the other variables through a high-pressure liquid chromatograph. From the differ-
such as temperature, core pressure, rock type, water saturation, ence between the mass of surfactant injected into the core and that
brine salinity, PVT ratio, capillary number, and solvent the same.
Fig. 8 shows the effect of surfactant concentration on improvement
in relative permeabilities after chemical treatment. The results 3
show an improvement by a factor of two and greater across the
wide range of surfactant concentrations tested, with the highest
Improvement Factor
1.2
2
1
0.4
0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Surfactant wt% in Treatment Solution
Pore Volumes Injected
Fig. 9—Effect of surfactant concentration on the adsorption of
surfactant on rock surface. Fig. 10—Surfactant concentration profile in the effluent while
treating a Berea rock at 175°F.
produced from the core, the amount of surfactant adsorbed on the saturation followed by forced-imbibition and secondary-drainage
rock surface was determined. curves. The detailed procedure of measuring the capillary pressure
Fig. 9 shows the surfactant concentration profile in the effluent cycle has been described by Sharma and Wunderlich (1985). The
samples during a treatment flood on Berea core at 175°F with a USBM wettability index is determined by taking a logarithmic
treatment solution containing 2% surfactant. Most of the adsorp- ratio of the area under the secondary-drainage and forced-imbibi-
tion took place in the first 4 pore volumes of injection. However, tion curves. A positive wettability index indicates water-wet rock,
this changes with surfactant concentration, and it takes more pore and a negative wettability index indicates an oil-wet rock. Wettabil-
volumes as the surfactant concentration decreases. It took approxi- ity index of 0 indicates neutral- or mixed-wetting characteristics.
mately 9 and 25 pore volumes of injection for 1 and 0.1% surfac- Figs. 13 and 14 show the capillary pressure curves measured on
tant concentrations, respectively, to reach maximum adsorption. treated reservoir cores from Reservoirs A and B, respectively. The
Fig. 10 shows the adsorption of the surfactant on the Berea USBM wettability index for the cores was 0.05 and 0.08, respec-
sandstone rock measured for different surfactant concentrations. tively, indicating that the cores were made neutral- or mixed-wet
As expected, the results show an increase in surfactant adsorption by the chemical treatment.
with an increase in surfactant concentration in the treatment solu-
tion. Fig. 11 shows the effect of temperature on surfactant adsorp-
tion. The result shows that adsorption is not significantly affected 4
by temperature in the range of temperatures studied. Fig. 12 relates 3.5
the adsorption of surfactant to the improvement in relative perme-
abilities because of chemical treatment at 175°F on Berea cores. 3
Improvement Factor
4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Adsorption on Rock Surface, mg/g
3.5 200.00
3 150.00 Forced_Imbibition
Secondary Drainage
Capillary Pressure, psi
2.5 100.00
2 50.00
1.5 0.00
1
–50.00
USBM Wettability Index=0.05
–100.00
0.5
–150.00
0
150 170 190 210 230 250 270 –200.00
Temperature, °F Water Saturation, Fraction
Fig. 11—Effect of temperature on surfactant adsorption on rock Fig. 13—Imbibition and drainage capillary pressure data meas-
surface for treatment solution containing 2% FC4430. ured on a treated Bruce Reservoir Core A.
0
Reservoir temperature (°F) 230
–50
USBM Wettability Index =0.08
and oil production is shown in Figs. 16 and 17, respectively. Fig.
–100
18 shows the effect of treatment radii on improvement factor. For
–150 the studied case, the critical treatment radius was 2.72 m, for which
–200
the productivity index increased by a factor of 1.43. This result
Water Saturation, Fraction shows the potential for significant benefits from treating only a
small pore volume around the wellbore.
Fig. 14—Imbibition and drainage capillary pressure data meas-
ured on a treated Reservoir Core B. Summary and Conclusions
A successful chemical treatment using a nonionic polymeric flu-
oro-surfactant in a mixture of organic solvents has been developed
Numerical Simulation to reduce the damage caused by condensate and water blocking
Numerical simulations were performed to assess the potential of in gas-condensate wells. A major part of developing a success-
the treatment of a gas-condensate well on the basis of the labora- ful chemical treatment is the selection of appropriate solvents to
tory data. Computer Modelling Group’s compositional simulator deliver the surfactant to the rock surface in the presence of water,
GEM™ was used for this purpose. The main input data and the including high water saturations and high-salinity brines. A screen-
properties of the simulation model are listed in Tables 5 and 6, ing test based upon phase-behavior studies of treatment solutions
respectively. Logarithmically distributed radial grids were used and brines was found to be effective in the selection of solvents
to model the effects of condensate and water blocking on well for different reservoir temperatures, water saturations, and brine
deliverability. The effect of chemical treatment was simulated by salinities. Steady-state gas and condensate relative permeabilities
changing the relative permeability curves for the treated zone to were measured on several outcrop and reservoir cores with con-
account for the improvement in gas and condensate relative per- nate-water saturation under reservoir conditions to evaluate the
meability by a factor of 1.9 after chemical treatment, as observed effect of chemical treatment.
from the coreflood results. The major conclusions of this work are
Effect of different treatment radii on the improvement in gas • Reservoir and outcrop sandstone rocks with connate water
and oil productivity was studied. The productivity index increases were treated successfully with FC4430 delivered in a 2-butoxyeth-
with the increase in treatment radius, but there is a critical treat- anol/ethanol and PG/IPA mixtures. Chemical treatment increased
ment radius after which increasing the treatment radius shows no the relative permeabilities of both gas and oil by a factor of almost
significant improvement. Fig. 15 shows that the improvement in 2. The improvement factor was constant even after flowing large
the gas production after chemical treatment for different treatment pore volumes of gas through the cores. No damage was caused to
radii is by a factor of approximately 1.4–1.5. The incremental gas the rocks by the chemical treatment.
1500
Incremental Cumulative Gas Production,
12.00
Treatment_1.69m Treatment_2.17m
1250
10.00 Treatment_2.72m Treatment_4.2m
Gas Rate, MMSCF/day
Time of 1000
Treatment
8.00
MMSCF
750
6.00
500
Time of
4.00 No_Treatment Treatment_2.72m Treatment
Treatment_4.2m Treatment_2.17m 250
2.00 Treatment_1.69m
0
4750 4800 4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100 5150 5200
0.00
4500 4600 4700 4800 4900 5000 5100 5200 Time, days
Time, days
Fig. 16—Effect of chemical treatment on incremental gas
Fig. 15—Effect of chemical treatment on gas-production rate. production.
PI Improvement
20000 1.4
STB
15000 1.3
1.2
10000 Time of
Treatment
1.1
5000
1
0
4750 4800 4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100 5150 5200
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time, days Treatment radius, m
Fig. 17—Effect of chemical treatment on incremental oil pro- Fig. 18—Effect of treatment radius on productivity-index im-
duction. provement.
• Chemical treatment showed an improvement factor of greater Bang, V., Kumar, V., Ayyalasomayajula, P., Pope, G.A., and Sharma, M.M.
than 2 for surfactant concentrations ranging from 0.1 and 2%. 2006. Relative Permeability of Gas-Condensate Fluids: A General Cor-
• Adsorption of the surfactant on the rock surface has been relation. Paper SPE 102741 presented at the SPE Annual Technical
measured successfully. The results show that the retention of sur- Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24–27 Septem-
factant on the rock surface is on the order of 1–3 mg/gm of rock, ber. doi: 10.2118/102741-MS.
depending on surfactant concentration in the treatment solution. Bang, V., Yuan, C., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Baran, J.R., Skildum, J.D.,
• The centrifuge test data show that the USBM wettability index and Linnemeyer, H.C. 2008. Improving Productivity of Hydraulically
for the treated cores is close to zero, implying that the chemical Fractured Gas Condensate Wells by Chemical Treatment. Paper OTC
treatment makes the cores neutral- or mixed-wet. 19599 presented at the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 5–8
• Numerical simulations show that by treating just 2–3 m around May. doi: 10.4043/19599-MS.
the wellbore, the well productivity can be increased by 40–50%. Barnum, R.S., Brinkman, F.P., Richardson, T.W., and Spillette, A.G.
1995. Gas Condensate Reservoir Behavior: Productivity and Recovery
Acknowledgments Reduction Due to Condensation. Paper SPE 30767 presented at the SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 22–25 October.
We would like to thank Harold Linnemeyer, Tony Bermudez, Glen doi: 10.2118/30767-MS.
Baum, and Bob Savicki for their help with the experimental appa- Donaldson, E.C., Thomas, R.D., and Lorenz, P.B. 1969. Wettability Deter-
ratus. We would also like to thank the sponsors of the gas-conden- mination and its Effect on Recovery Efficiency. SPE J. 9 (1): 13–20.
sate research project in the Center for Petroleum and Geosystems SPE-2338-PA. doi: 10.2118/2338-PA.
Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin: Chevron, Saudi Engineer, R. 1985. Cal Canal Field California: Case History of a Tight and
Aramco, BP, Shell, PDO, 3M, Schlumberger, Total, and Petrobras. Abnormally Pressured Gas-Condensate Reservoir. Paper SPE 13650
presented at the SPE California Regional Meeting, Bakersfield, Cali-
References fornia, USA, 27–29 March. doi: 10.2118/13650-MS.
Afidick, D., Kaczorowski, N.J., and Bette, S. 1994. Production Performance Fahes, M. and Firoozabadi, A. 2007. Wettability Alteration to Intermediate
of a Retrograde Gas Reservoir: A Case Study of the Arun Field. Paper Gas-Wetting in Gas-Condensate Reservoirs at High Temperatures. SPE J.
SPE 28749, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, 12 (4): 397–407. SPE-96184-PA. doi: 10.2118/96184-PA.
Melbourne, Australia, 7–10 November. doi: 10.2118/28749-MS. Ham, J.D. and Eilerts, C.K. 1967. Effect of Saturation on Mobility of Low
Al-Anazi, H.A. 2003. Experimental measurements of condensate blocking Liquid-Vapor Ratio Fluids. SPE J. 7 (1): 11–19; Trans., AIME, 240.
and treatments in low and high permeability cores. PhD dissertation, SPE-1498-PA. doi: 10.2118/1498-PA.
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA (December 2003). Haniff, M.S. and Ali, J.K. 1990. Relative Permeability and Low Tension
Al-Anazi, H.A., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., and Metcalfe, R.S. 2002. Fluid Flow in Gas Condensate Systems. Paper SPE 20917 presented
Laboratory Measurement of Condensate Blocking and Treatment for at the European Petroleum Conference, The Hague, 21–24 October.
Both Low and High Permeability Rocks. Paper SPE 77546 presented doi: 10.2118/20917-MS.
at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Henderson, G.D., Danesh, A., Tehrani, D.H., and Al-Kharusi, B. 2000. The
Texas, USA, 29 September —2 October. doi: 10.2118/77546-MS. Relative Significance of Positive Coupling and Inertial Effects on Gas
Al-Anazi, H.A., Walker, J.G., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., and Hackney, Condensate Relative Permeabilities at High Velocity. Paper SPE 62933
D.F. 2005. A Successful Methanol Treatment in a Gas-Condensate presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition,
Reservoir: Field Application. SPE Prod & Fac 20 (1): 60–69. SPE- Dallas, 1–4 October. doi: 10.2118/62933-MS.
80901-PA. doi: 10.2118/80901-PA. Hoier, L., Cheng, N., and Whitson, C.H. 2004. Miscible Gas Injection in
Ayyalasomayajula, P., Silpngarmlers, L., Berroteran, J., Sheffield, J., and Undersaturated Gas-Oil Systems. Paper SPE 90379 presented at the
Kamath, J. 2003. Measurement of Relevant Gas Condensate Relative SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 26–29
Permeability Data For Well Deliverability Predictions for a Deep September. doi: 10.2118/90379-MS.
Marine Sandstone Reservoir. Paper SCA2003-33 presented at the 2003 Kumar, R. 2000. Productivity Improvement of Gas-Condensate Wells by
SCA International Symposium, Pau, France, 22–25 September. Fracturing. MS thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas,
Ayyalasomayajula, P., Silpngarmlers, N., and Kamath, J. 2005. Well Deliv- USA (August 2000).
erability Predictions for a Low-Permeability Gas/Condensate Reservoir. Kumar, V. 2006. Chemical Stimulation of Gas Condensate Reservoir: An
Paper SPE 95529 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference Experimental and Simulation Study. PhD dissertation, University Of
and Exhibition, Dallas, 9–12 October. doi: 10.2118/95529-MS. Texas At Austin, Austin, Texas, USA (May 2006).
Bang, V. 2007. Development of a successful chemical treatment for gas Kumar, V., Bang, V., Pope, G.A., Sharma, M.M., Ayyalasomayajula, P.S.,
wells with condensate or water damage. PhD dissertation, University and Kamath, J. 2006a. Chemical Stimulation of Gas-Condensate
of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA (December 2007). Reservoirs. Paper SPE 102669 presented at the SPE Annual Technical