These types of result are normally limited to tests conducted in low permeability reservoir

1.3523 modified isochronal tests

Fetkovich noted that in very low permeability reservoirs it may require days to obtain a final
buildup pressure even after relatively short periods of flow (2 to 3 hrs). in an attempt to shorten testing
time, the modified isochronal test was proposed. It is conducted with shut in periods equal to the flow
periods. The unstabilized shut in pressures are used to calculate the difference in pressure relationship
used with the next flow rate. Fetkovich noted that this method of testing has never been adequately
justified either theoretically or by field comparisons with true isochronal test.

What little discussion published justifying this method theoretically has been based on the
assumption that flowing pressure justifying this method theoretically has been based on the assumption
that flowing pressure behavior with time (superposition) is a function of the log of time p = f (in t).
however, most low permeability wells where the modified test would be practical require stimulation
(hydraulic or acid fracs) to be commercial. In these cases pressures are more likely to be a function of
the square root of time p =f (t). modified tests under these conditions can have flowing pressure
behaviors as functions of t, transitional, or in teach for different flow rates.

For maximum reservoir information purposes, fetovich does not recommend the modified
isochronal test, nor any other method that depends on the applications of superposition techniques to
shorten test tomes for low permeability formations, one can conduct one long duration flow period
(being certain to be out of wellbore storage, t, and transitional period prior to in t behavior) and
assuming a back pressure curve slope (n) of one. Better still, the two flow method of carter, miller and
riley would be preferred. Two isochronal point.

1.3524 conventional well test analysis (Pr < 2500 psi)

Gas well analysis can be divided into two pressure regions: low medium pressure, and high
pressure wells, much of the basic theory of testing and analysis was developed from well test with
reservoir pressure back pressure curve plotting of log q vs log p2 and pressure build up and drawdown
analysis using p2 vs log rumus plot and p2 vs log t, respectively.

With the advent of deeper drilling, gas wells have been discovered with reservoir pressures
approaching 10.000 psi. in these cases, and down to about 2.500 psi, the conventional methods of
analysis break down and the real gas potential theory approach must be used.

1.353 testing of oil wells

Fetkovich presented a method of analyzing “isochronal” and “flow after flow” multipoint back
pressure tests on oil wells. He conducted test over a wide range tests on oil wells. He conducted tests
over a wide range of conditions including permeabilities from 6 md to 1.000 md to 1.000 md, and
different types of reservoirs. Depending upon type of reservoirs, a different interpretation method is
required.

He also noted that a constant rate test was not necessary. It is only necessary to have the rates
and pressures at the end of each test for isochronal and flow after flow test. This simplifies the testing
procedure since a constant choke size can then be used for each flow rate. The rate should be checked
over the last few minutes of the test.

Fetkovich moted also that the q0max as obtained by vogel differed considerably from that of
fetkovich, and further considerably form that of fetkovich, and further that the q0max as determined by
vogel can be different depending upon the flow rate and corresponding flowing pressure at which the
test was taken. This, he concludes, is due to the rate dependent skin effect. Neither vogel nor standing’s
extensions of vogel work takes into account the rate dependent skin effect.

Another contribution by fetkovich is his procedure for generalizing IPR curves without any
flowing tests at all on the well. In other words it is possible just to start with the reservoir parameters
and prepare complete IPR curves for a well at different time periods that is, decreasing static pressures.

In studying the work of vogel, fetkovich noted that wells producing below the bubble point
pressure should actually behave more like a gas well. This means (Pr2 – Pwf2) vs Q0 should plot a
straight line on log-log paper with an exponent near unity. The oil well back pressure curves were found
to follow the same general form as that for gas wells :

RUMUS

Where J0 = productivity index (back pressure curves coefficient) in bpd/psi

In examining some 40 oil well test the exponent was found to be between 0,568 and 1.000. this
checks very closely with the values found for gas well testing. He then found the customary plot of q0 vs
log delta p2 plot to be as good for oil wells as gas wells.

Fetkovich presented fig. 1,63 which shows vogel reference curve whit the corresponding
equations for isochronal flow.
1.354 basic equations and pressure functions presented by fetkovich

The basic flow equation given by evinger and muskat for steady state flow is applicable for
either oil or gas flow :

RUMUS

Where f (p) can be any function of pressure A typical pressure function is given in fig.

The total integral can be evaluated in two parts as follows :

RUMUS

Where s = skin effect (dimensionless)

For flow above the bubble point (single phase liquid flow), and assuming kro = 1,0 and evaluating u0 bo
at the average pressure of RUMUS the equation is written as follows:

RUMUS

The single phase steady state flow equation result from integration of equation 1.59 since the pressure
function is a constant.

RUMUS

Fetkovich considered the entire pressure function from Pe to 0 and he noted that f (p) could be
represented approximately by two separate straight line segments and that q could be expressed as

RUMUS

Where:

J = regular PI (bpd/psi)

J’ = PI (bpd/psi2n)

He noted that for drawdowns both above and below the bubble point pressure plot would
appear as two straight line segments and as a matter of fact the bubble point pressure could be
determined from the intersection of these two lines.

He also noted that if the degree of under saturation is slight, the two line segment may not be
definable. Also he found that non darcy flow can exist even for all pressure above the bubble point for
all drawdowns below the bubble point pressure J(pe – pb) of equation 1.63 is a constant while all other
terms vary non linearly with flow pressure pwf

The overall effect results in an equation of the form :

RUMUS
Where fetkovich defined C as J’o = b/d/psi2n equation 1.64 indicates that either a gas well or an oil well
can have a slope less than 1.00 on log q vs, log delta (p2) plot without non darcy flow existing. This was
reported by rowan and clegg for gas wells.

As Pe decreases to Pb, n – 1.0 and C- J’ such that for the oil well case, only the two phase flow
term remains. He then obtained the basic equation suggested from vogel results for Pe> pb:

RUMUS

Fetkovich noted that equation 1.65 could be further generalized with an exponent, n, as follows:

RUMUS

This equation was verified with numerous backpressure tests on oil wells. Slopes much less than
1,00 were consistenly obtained on wells in saturated reservoirs. This lead to the suspect of near well
bore effects. Handy made a study of the effect on PI of two phase flow in the vicinity of the well bore.

Muskat also flow studied the effect of two phase floe around the well bore for gas condensate wells. For
constant rate transient gas flow the gas well back pressure equation can be written as follows:

RUMUS

Units for equation 1.67 can be found in the example problem of section 1.3573.

Other than unique fluid properties or a pressure dependent permeability effect, the non darcy
flow term is required to obtain an exponent, n, less than 1.00. in terms of pseudo pressure m(p).

RUMUS

Where m(p) can include a pressure dependent permeability

RUMUS

Appendix A.2 shows the complete set of equations presented by fetkovich. By selecting the
proper equation, all possible flow conditions can be described.