SPE-193252-MS

Optimized Isochronal Flow Tests

Francy Franco, Alexander Rincon, and Marcos Useche, Schlumberger

Copyright 2018, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 12-15 November 2018.

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
An Optimized Isochronal Test (OIT) is presented to evaluate the deliverability of a reservoir eliminating the
need of shut-in periods during a multirate well test, which represents an operational constraint for classical
isochronal tests and in some instances for modified isochronal tests.
The proposed technique is based on the effect of several consecutive and different production rates over
the well-reservoir model during both transient flow and pseudo-steady state flow; thus, it is possible to
estimate the reservoir pressure at different radius of investigation, and the ratio between production volume
and pressure drop. This method does not require stabilization of static reservoir pressure after a flowing
period since it is calculated using a mathematical procedure based on the transient pressure equation.
A reservoir simulation model with known petrophysical parameters, fluid properties, pressure and
temperature, is used as a reference to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed methodology. Two types of
fluids are tested, a low compressible black oil and a high compressible gas condensate, with the objective
to demonstrate the optimized isochronal test applicability with pressure, pressure squared P^2, and pseudo-
pressure Ψ(P) equations. The production deliverability is evaluated applying four different analysis: flow
after flow test, isochronal flow test, modified isochronal flow test and the proposed optimized isochronal
flow test; the results are compared and analyzed using the percentage of error found for every method.
The optimized isochronal analysis provides the option to avoid shut-in periods during a multipoint well
test and provide reliable production deliverability curves. OIT has a direct impact in reduction of costs and
deferred production for companies involved in oil and gas operations.

Introduction
Oil and gas wells deliverability defines the expected production rate, which is a key parameter during
the design process of technical aspects such as: artificial lift system, well completion, facilities, etc.
Additionally, it determines the profitability of a project, its life time, and provides information to commercial
commitments and contracts.
Deliverability curve is calculated with the data obtained from multi-rate tests. However, in some instances
there are limitations to obtain it, like the usually long stabilization for every production rate period in
reservoirs with low permeability. Another limitation is the need of shut in periods during well tests to reach
stable reservoir pressure generating deferred production.
2 SPE-193252-MS

This paper presents a procedure based on transient flow equations to calculate an effective reservoir
pressure that allows to eliminate the shut it periods required during a classical isochronal test or a modified
isochronal test. Thus, to propose and develop this theory, it has been considered an ideal cylindrical reservoir
with homogeneous properties, slightly compressible fluid and Darcy flow.

Comparison Between Transient Flow and Pseudo-steady (Pss) State Flow

Transient flow is defined as the flow regime on which the pressure wave propagated away from wellbore has
not reached any boundaries of the reservoir. Lee (1982), describes the solution for the diffusivity equation
of a well producing in the center of an infinite cylindrical reservoir (Transient conditions). The solution
assumes that, (1) the production rate is constant, qβ; (2) the well radius equal to zero; (3) the initial pressure is
uniform before production begins, Pi; (4) the well drains an infinite area. The solution becomes as described
in the equation below

(1)

Under Pseudo-steady state flow, the radius of investigation reaches the reservoir boundaries, and the
reservoir pressure, as function of time, changes at constant rate for a specific production rate. Lee (1982),
presents the solution for the diffusivity equation under Pseudo-steady state condition (Pss). The solution
assumes that: (1) the production rate is constant, qβ; (2) the initial pressure is uniform before production
begins, Pi; (3) the well, with radius rw, is centered in a cylindrical reservoir with radius re, and (4) there is
not flow across the outer boundary.

(2)

Solution of diffusivity equation for transient flow (eq.1) and pseudo-steady state flow (eq.2), take the
wellbore radius, (rw), as reference; however, the general form of these equations for any radius (r= rr) in
the reservoir, is:
Transient flow:

(3)

PSS flow:

(4)

For a constant production rate, a semi-log plot of reservoir pressure versus radius, for both transient and
pseudo-steady state flows, will be a straight-line with same slope ‘m’, as showed in Fig. 1(a).
The slope, m, is function of fluid properties (βμ), reservoir properties (kh), and production rate (q); thus,
for the same reservoir the slope depends only on production rate as represented in Figure 1 (b).

(5)
SPE-193252-MS 3

Figure 1—(a) Pressure profile for transient flow and Pss flow with production
rate q1, (b) Pressure profile for transient flow and Pss flow with production rate q2

Effective Reservoir Pressure

Two scenarios are considered to define the effective reservoir pressure concept.
New wells: In this case the effective reservoir pressure is equivalent to the initial pressure as this value
is homogeneously distributed in the reservoir. Figure 2 (a)
Producing wells: At a constant rate q1, a producing well generates a pressure wave that reaches pseudo-
steady state (PSS) flow condition once all the reservoir boundaries are reached. When the production rate
changes to a new rate q2 (q2 ≠ q1) under PSS flow conditions, a new pressure disturbance is introduced in the
reservoir and after some time, t, the transient wave will reach the point "A". The radius of the investigation
corresponding to the point "A" can be estimated by the relation from eq. (6).

(6)

Figure 2—(a) Reservoir pressure for a new well, (b) Reservoir pressure for a producing well at Pss
4 SPE-193252-MS

Figure 3 shows a common pressure point A for a transient curve , when production rate q2 is lower
than q1 (q2<q1); a transient curve , when production rate q2 is greater than q1 (q2 > q1); and a pseudo-
steady State curve . This common point corresponds to the reservoir pressure at ri = rA). Analogically,
there is also a transient curve following the same profile of the pseudo-steady state curve .

Figure 3—Effect of a transient flow in the reservoir

The pressure in the common point A, represents the out bounded pressure for the new transient wave
traveling in the reservoir; between radius rA and the external boundary of the reservoir re. The pressure curve
is still following the pseudo-steady state behavior generated by the original production rate q1, and it has not
been affected by the transient pressure wave generated by the new rate q2, which means that the reservoir
pressure at radius beyond ri only has been affected by the initial production rate q1.
From the previous analysis it can be concluded that: (1) for a transient wave, the reservoir pressure (PA)
at radius of investigation (rA) is its effective reservoir pressure, (2) any pressure distribution curve at Pss
conditions has an equivalent transient curve which is defined by bottom hole pressure Pwfat the radius rw,
and the effective pressure Peff at radius of investigation rA. Thus, the transient equation in terms of effective
pressure and radius of investigation is:

(7)

Where Peff is the effective pressure, Pwf is the bottom hole pressure, rr is the radius of investigation and rw
is the wellbore radius; equivalent equations considering skin, non-Darcy flow and compressible fluid are:

(8)

or

(9)
SPE-193252-MS 5

Estimation of effective reservoir pressure

From Fig 3 and using the equation (8), the transient curves , and are described by:
Curve :

(10)

Curve :

(11)

According to a similar deduction presented by Franco, Rincon & Useche (2018), right term of equations
10 and 11 is the same for a specific time, so:

(12)

The equation 12 in terms of pseudo-pressure is:

(13)

So, using the equations 12 or 13, it is possible to estimate the effective pressure as function of radius of
investigation. While Darcy flow is considering in this investigation, the coefficient D is approximately zero.

Multi-rate tests
In this paper different multi-rate test methods to estimate the well deliverability are presented. Limitations
for each method were analyzed and finally a comparison with the proposed method was introduced

Flow after flow tests. Flow after the flow tests determine the deliverability of a well by measuring the
bottom hole pressure and production rate at Pseudo-steady state condition at each flow period to determine
the well IPR curve. The procedure to obtain the data is to fix a constant production rate until a stable
bottomhole pressure is achieved. This action is repeated for several flow rates as shown in Figure 4 (a); each
rate defines a pressure drop in the reservoir, Figure 4 (b). A limitation of this type of tests is that reaching
stable conditions can be significantly long particularly in low permeability reservoirs.
6 SPE-193252-MS

Figure 4—(a) Pressure vs rate for flow after flow test, (b) Pressure vs radius for flow after flow test.

Isochronal tests. Initially proposed by Cullender (1955), Isochronal flow tests determine the deliverability
of a well by measuring the bottom hole pressure for several production rates at transient condition at the
same radius of investigation. The last production rate is maintained until Pseudo-steady state flow is reached,
Figure 5 (a). A production rate generates a transient pressure flow in the reservoir with the same slope,
, Figure 5 (b). The limitation of this type of tests is that after each flowing period the well is closed
until it reaches the average reservoir pressure, which it can take a long time particularly in low permeability
reservoirs.

Figure 5—(a) Pressure vs time for isochronal test. (b) Pressure vs radius for isochronal test.

Modified Isochronal tests. Originally proposed by Katz (1959), Modified isochronal flow tests maintain
the methodology of the classical isochronal tests where the bottom hole pressure is measured for several
production rates at transient condition at the same radius of investigation, but it differs that shut in periods
are maintained for the same time as flowing periods; the last production rate is maintained until Pseudo-
steady state flow is reached, Figure 3(a).
During the shut-in periods, the measured bottom hole pressure does not build up until the average
reservoir pressure although it is accepted as an approximation of it. As illustration of this process, Figure
SPE-193252-MS 7

6(b) shows an initial pressure profile for production rate, q1, and its investigation radius, rA. Figure 6(c)
shows the subsequent shut in period with the same time duration, and finally Figure 6(d) shows a second
pressure profile for production rate, q2; the shadow area represents that pressure at the radius of investigation
is not the steady reservoir pressure. The main limitation of these tests is that closing periods are required.

Figure 6—(a) Pressure vs time for modified isochronal test, (b)

Pressure vs radius for modified isochronal test, initial flowing period.

Figure 6—(c) Pressure vs radius for modified isochronal test, shut in period, (d) Pressure vs radius
for modified isochronal test, second flowing period and assumed approximation of this method.

Optimized Isochronal tests. Isochronal tests and modified isochronal tests require the average reservoir
pressure after every flowing period because it is necessary to estimate the pressure drop between the radius
of investigation and the bottom hole pressure as function of time for each constant production rate. A relation
is established where , and Δx is function of Log r; however, Figure 7 illustrates that a
transient pressure wave, generated for a production rate, q1, has the same slope independently of
the magnitude of pressure drop boundaries.
8 SPE-193252-MS

Figure 7—Pressure vs radius, Transient pressure slope

The Optimized Isochronal Test (OIT) is based on the calculation of effective pressure as a function of the
radius of investigation, and the relation is calculated by , and Δx as function of Log r.
In this case the average reservoir pressure is not required, eliminating the need of shut in periods. The last
flowing period is maintained until pseudo-steady state condition is reached, Figure 8(a). Under Darcy flow
conditions in the reservoir, this technique allows to calculate the correct slope ‘m’ for each flowing period
thus the productivity of the well can be calculated, Figure 8(b)

Figure 8—(a) Pressure vs time for optimized isochronal test, (b) Pressure vs radius for optimized isochronal test.

Optimized Isochronal Tests Calculation

There are two different cases to apply OIT: at initial conditions when the reservoir pressure is the same and
homogenous across the reservoir Figure 9 (a), or when the reservoir is already under pseudo-steady state
flow Figure 9 (b).
SPE-193252-MS 9

Figure 9—(a) new well, (b) producing well at Pss.

In a new well or a well that has been closed for enough time to reach a constant pressure value at any
point in the reservoir, Figure 9 (a), the procedure is:
1. Fix the first production rate, q1, for a time, t. At the end of this period register the Pwf1, and
calculate .
Where:
pres = Reservoir pressure at initial time of the test.
Δy = pres- Pwf1 (for slightly compressible fluids); or Δy = Ψres - Ψwf1 (for
compressible fluids). for simplicity, this explanation assumes an uncompressible fluid.
Δx = Log r1- Log rw
r1= Radius of interest reached for the production rate, q1
2. Fix the second production rate, q2, for a time, t. At the end of this period register the Pwf2, and calculate
.
Where:

r1= Radius of interest reached for the production rate, q2

r2= Radius of interest reached for the production rate, q1
3. Repeat the step two for every subsequent production rate, calculating .
Where:

4. Fix the final production rate, qn, for a time enough to reach Pseudo-steady state conditions and register
the Pwf. For this rate is not necessary to calculate .
10 SPE-193252-MS

Notice that r1, r2,r3,…,rn-1, are not function of rate but time, fluid and reservoir properties, thus Δx's can
be estimated prior to the test. The Table 1 contains the information collected during the test that allows to
calculate Peff-Pwf for each production rate.

Table 1—OIT for a new or closed well.

In a well flowing at Pseudo-steady state conditions, Figure 9 (b), there is already a pressure distribution
in the reservoir function of a constant production rate, q1, thus a steady Pwf1 is available before of the test,
but the reservoir pressure is not. In this case, the procedure is:
1. Fix a second production rate, q2, for a time, t. At the end of this period register the Pwf2, and
calculate and .
Where:
Peff = Effective pressure calculated by equation (11)
, Δy = Ψeff- Ψwf1 in case of compressible fluid)
Δy1 = Peff- Pwf2
Δx = Log r1- Log rw
r1= Radius of interest reached for the production rate, q2
2. Fix the third production rate, q3, for a time, t. At the end of this period register the Pwf3, and calculate
.
Where:

r1= Radius of interest reached for the production rate, q3

r2= Radius of interest reached for the production rate, q2
3. Repeat the step two for every subsequent production rate, calculating .
Where:
SPE-193252-MS 11

The Table 2 contains the information collected during the test and allows to calculate Peff-Pwf for each
production rate.

Table 2—OIT for a producing well.

This procedure provides the information to plot vs. production rate, which allows to calculate
the required parameters in the equation (8); additionally, the plot (pres-Pwf) vs. production rate in log-log
scale, gives the parameters ‘c’ and ‘n’ for the deliverability method presented by Cullender [1955]

Validation of OIT Methodology

To evaluate this methodology a commercial reservoir simulator was used to test two different single well-
reservoir models described in the appendix C. The production deliverability was calculated applying flow
after flow test, which was taken as the reference, isochronal flow test, modified isochronal flow test and
the proposed optimized isochronal flow test.

Case 1
A flow after flow test was simulated to evaluate the deliverability of a well in a reservoir with an initial
pressure of 2638.7 psia, and a fluid gravity of 18 API. The results are presented in the Table 3:

Table 3—Flow after flow results

A slope of 0.4221 and a potential coefficient of 1.0451 are estimated (Figure 10). These coefficients
correspond to ‘1/C’ and ‘1/n’ according with the empirical equation formulated by Cullender (1955)
(14)
During transient flow the coefficient ‘C’ changes with time, but coefficient ‘n’ does not. Thus coefficient
‘n’ will be used as reference for comparison with results from isochronal test, modified isochronal test and
optimized isochronal tests. Using Eq. 14 the coefficient ‘n’ for this reservoir is equal to 0.9568.
12 SPE-193252-MS

Figure 10—Delta pressure (Psi) vs production rate (bopd), Flow after flow test.

The results from the isochronal test are presented in the Table 4.

Table 4—Isochronal test results

From these values, the coefficient ‘n’ is equal to 1.0122, Appendix B Figure 13, and the difference with
flow after flow test is 5.8%.
The results for modified isochronal test are presented in the Table 5.

Table 5—Modified Isochronal test results

From these values, the ‘n’ coefficient is equal to 1.0756, Appendix B Figure 14, and the difference with
flow after flow test is 12.4%.
The results for optimized isochronal test, when the reservoir pressure was homogenous, are presented
in the Table 6.
SPE-193252-MS 13

Table 6—Optimized Isochronal test results

From these values, the coefficient ‘n’ is equal to 0.9977, Appendix B Figure 15, and the difference with
flow after flow test is 4.2%. Table 7 shows the detailed calculation for this case

Table 7—Application of OIT for a new or closed well.

An additional scenario was run to demonstrate applicability of optimized isochronal test, when the
reservoir was at Pss condition. For this, an initial long production period was given to ensure Pss flow
period is reached. The results for optimized isochronal test, when the reservoir was at Pss condition, are
presented in Table 8:

Table 8—Isochronal test results at Pss Condition

From these values, the ‘n’ coefficient is equal to 1.0012, Appendix B Figure 16, and the difference with
flow after flow test is 4.6%. the Table 9 shows the detail calculation for this case

Table 9—Application of OIT for a producing well.

14 SPE-193252-MS

In this case, optimized isochronal test method provided comparable results to the classical isochronal
test, and better results that the modified isochronal test.

Case 2
Application of isochronal tests is more common in gas reservoirs instead of oil reservoirs, thus this case
tests the new theory in a reservoir with an initial pressure of 4574 psia, and 0.68 specific gravity of natural
gas. For gases, the concept of pseudo-pressure was introduced by Al-Hussainy, Ramey & Crawford (1966),
then, the equation 14 can be written as:
(15)
The simulated flow after flow test results, for this gas reservoir, are presented in Table 10:

Table 10—flow after flow test results for a gas reservoir

The plot of these values, Figure 11, shows a slope of 48929 and a potential coefficient, (1/n), of 1.0138,
thus for this reservoir the ‘n’ coefficient is equal to 0.9864. The function pseudopressure was calculated
and its plot is presented in the Appendix A Figure 12.

Figure 11—Delta pseudopressure (Psi/cp) vs production rate (Mscfd), Flow after flow test.

The results from the isochronal test are presented in Table 11

SPE-193252-MS 15

Table 11—Isochronal test results for a gas reservoir

From these values, the ‘n’ coefficient is equal to 1.01564, Appendix B Figure 17, and the difference with
flow after flow test is 5.8%.
The results for modified isochronal test are presented in Table 12

Table 12—Modified Isochronal test results for a gas reservoir

From these values, the ‘n’ coefficient is equal to 1.05957, Appendix B Figure 18, and the difference with
flow after flow test is 5.95%.
The results for optimized isochronal test, when the reservoir pressure was at homogenous, are presented
in Table 13:

Table 13—Optimized Isochronal test results for a gas reservoir

From these values, the n coefficient n is equal to 1.0119, Appendix B Figure 19, and the difference with
flow after flow test is 2.29%. the Table 14 shows the detail calculation for this case

Table 14—Application of OIT for a new or closed well.

The results for optimized isochronal test, when the reservoir was at Pss condition, are presented in Table
15:
16 SPE-193252-MS

Table 15—Optimized Isochronal test results for a gas reservoir under Pss conditions

From these values, the ‘n’ coefficient is equal to 1.0372, Appendix B Figure 20, and the difference with
flow after flow test is 5.15%. the Table 16 shows the detail calculation for this case

Table 16—Application of OIT for a producing well.

In this case, optimized isochronal test provided comparable results to the classical isochronal test, and
better results that the modified isochronal test.

Conclusions
This paper proves that OIT concept resembles similar results than flow after flow analysis and isochronal
tests.

• OIT enables to estimate the deliverability of a well without shut-in periods, which has a significant
impact in reduction of deferred production and well test costs.
• Further investigation may extend OIT application to reservoirs which exhibit non-Darcy flow

• OIT can be applied for a flowing well with pseudo-steady state flow at the reservoir, since it takes
advantage of this condition to estimate the data for an extended flowing period.
• Testing and validation of OIT methodology from actual well test data could be the next step forward
of this study

Acknowledgment
The authors thank to Schlumberger for supporting the development of this theory and for giving permission
to publish this paper.

Nomenclature
β = Formation Volumetric factor.
(Bμ)1 = Fluid properties correspond to average condition between Pwf1 and Peff.
(Bμ)2 = Fluid properties correspond to average condition between Pwf2 and Peff.
ct = Total compressibility factor.
D = Non-Darcy flow coefficient
h = Thickness.
K = Permeability.
K1 = Permeability of zone without damage.
SPE-193252-MS 17

K2 = Permeability of zone with damage.

Peff = Effective pressure.
Pi = Initial reservoir pressure.
Pr = Reservoir pressure at radius, r.
Pwf1 = Bottom hole pressure at Pss conditions.
Pwf2 = Bottom hole pressure at transient conditions, function of time.
Pws = Buildup pressure as function of time.
= Average reservoir pressure.
q1 = Initial production rate that originates Pss flow.
q2 = Production rate that originates a pressure transient wave.
qgsc = Gas production rate at standard conditions.
rA = Radius at the point A.
re = External radius of the cylindrical reservoir.
ri = Radius of investigation.
rr = Radius at any point, r.
rw = Wellbore radius.
t = Time.
T = Temperature.
μ = Viscosity.
ΔPskin = Pressure drop due to skin.
Ψi = Pseudo pressure at initial reservoir pressure.
Ψwf = Pseudo pressure at bottom hole.
Ψwf1 = Bottom hole Pseud pressure at Pss conditions.
Ψwf2 = Bottom hole Pseudo pressure at transient conditions, function of time.
Ψeff = Effective Pseudo pressure.
Ψws = Buildup Pseudo pressure as function of time.

References
Al-Hussainy, R., Ramey, H.J., and Crawford, P.B. 1966. The Flow of Real Gases Through Porous Media. Journal of
Petroleum Technology. SPE-1243-A-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1243-A-PA.
Lee, J. 1982. Fluid Flow in Porous Media. In Well testing. Richardson, Texas: Textbook Series, SPE.
McCain, W. 1990. Properties of Black Oils. The Properties of Petroleum Fluids. Tulsa, Oklahoma: PennWell.
Franco, F., Rincon, A., and Useche, M. 2018. Alternative Method for Pressure Transient Analysis. SPE Formation
Evaluation. SPE-193261-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/193261-MS.
Cullender, M.H. 1955. The Isochronal Performance Method of Determining the Flow Characteristics of Gas Wells. SPE
Journal. SPE-330-G. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/330-G.
Katz, D.L. 1959. Development and Operation of Gas Fields. In Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
18 SPE-193252-MS

Appendix A

Figure 12—Pseudo pressure function (psia/cp) vs pressure (psia)

SPE-193252-MS 19

Appendix B

Figure 13—Delta pressure (Psi) vs production rate (bopd), isochronal test.

Figure 14—Delta pressure (Psi) vs production rate (bopd), modified isochronal test.
20 SPE-193252-MS

Figure 15—Delta pressure (Psi) vs production rate (bopd), optimized isochronal test - new well

Figure 16—Delta pressure (Psi) vs production rate (bopd), optimized isochronal test - producing well
SPE-193252-MS 21

Figure 17—Delta pseudopressure (Psi/cp) vs production rate (Mscfd), isochronal test.

Figure 18—Delta pseudopressure (Psi/cp) vs production rate (Mscfd), modified isochronal test.
22 SPE-193252-MS

Figure 19—Delta pseudopressure (Psi/cp) vs production rate (Mscfd), optimized isochronal test - new well

Figure 20—Delta pseudopressure (Psi/cp) vs production rate (Mscfd), optimized isochronal test - producing well
SPE-193252-MS 23

Appendix C
Reservoir description
Single well - radial model: Inner radius (wellbore) 0.1 ft; Outer radius = 5,000 ft
Porosity = 20 %
Kx=Ky=Kz = 20 mD
Top: 4,200 ft TVDSS
h = 900 ft
Cr = 6.68 e-6 1/psi @ 2,300 psi (reference Pressure)
Cw = 3.29 e-6 1/psi @ 2,100 psi (reference Pressure)
SwL = 20%
Pc = 0
Case 1 (Oil)
Oil Surface Density = 56.751 lb/ft3
Pb = 1,340 psi
Rsb = 400 scf/stb
Bo = 1.187 rb/stb at average reservoir pressure (2,590 psi)
Oil viscosity ~6.6 cP at average reservoir pressure (2,590 psi)
2,800 psi @ 5,100 TVDSS datum (bottom of reservoir)
OWC = 5,200 ft (Full oil column)
GOC = above reservoir top
Case 2 (Gas)
Gas density 0.044 lb/ft3
4,600 psi @ 5,100 TVDSS datum (bottom of reservoir)
GWC = 5,200 ft (Full gas column)
GOC = above reservoir top