Petroleum Engineering Department

Predicting Present and Future IPRs

(Standing Method)
Lecture #5
Barham S. Mahmood
[email protected]
16 November 2020
Standing’s Method

 The initial work of Vogel assumed a flow efficiency of

1.00 and did not account for wells that were damaged or
improved.

 Standing (1970) essentially extended the application of

Vogel's (Vogel did not consider formation damage)
proposed a companion chart to account for conditions
where the flow efficiency was not equal to 1.00, as
shown in figure 3.0
Figure 3.0: Inflow performance relation, modified by standing.
Standing’s Method (contd.)

 Figure 3.0 shows IPR curves for flow efficiencies between

0.5 and 1.5. Several things can be obtained from this plot:

 The maximum rate possible for a well with damage.

 The maximum rate possible if the damage is removed and 𝐹𝐸
= 1.0
 The rate possible if the well is stimulated and improved.

 The determination of the flow rate possible for any following

pressure for different values of FE.

 The construction of IPR curves to show rate versus flowing

pressure for damaged and improved wells.
Standing’s Method (contd.)

 Standing proposed a companion chart to account for

conditions where the flow efficiency is not 1.0,

 As shown in figure 4.0, the flow efficiency is defined as:

Ideal drawdown PR − P’wf

FE = = … Eq. 1.1
Actual drawdown PR − Pwf
 P’wf = 𝑃𝑤𝑓 + ∆𝑃𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛

 Rearranging Eq. 2.1

PR − Pwf − ∆𝑃𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛
FE = … 𝐸𝑞. 1.2
PR − Pwf
Standing’s Method (contd.)

 For a well draining from a cylindrical reservoir volume at

pseudo-steady state condition;
0.47 𝑟𝑒
𝑙𝑛
𝑟𝑤
𝐹𝐸 = … 𝐸𝑞. 1.3
0.47 𝑟𝑒
𝑙𝑛 + 𝑆ሖ
𝑟𝑤
 Where,𝑆ሖ is the dimensionless skin factor

 As shown in figure 4.0, an undamaged well would flow

at rate q for a flowing pressure 𝑃′𝑤𝑓 , while, the damaged
well must flow at the lower pressure of Pwf in order to
produce the same rate q.

 The ∆𝑃𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 is the difference between 𝑃′𝑤𝑓 and 𝑃𝑤𝑓.

Effect of Altered Permeability
Effect of Skin Factor
Standing’s Method

Figure 4.0: Pressure profile of damaged wells produced by solution gas drive.
Standing’s Method (contd.)

 Figure 5.0 shows the region of damaged wellbore and

its resistance to flow near the wellbore.

 There are many factors which cause or control this

situation:

 Invasion of the zone by mud of kill-fluids

 Swelling of shale
 Accumulation of obstacles around the perforation area
Standing’s Method (contd.)

Figure 5.0: Skin effect

Standing’s Method (contd.)
 The determination of ∆𝑃𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 is made by first determining 𝑆
(skin factor) from a standard pressure build up test on a
well as shown in figure 6.0

 ∆Pskin was defined by Van Everding as:

𝑄𝑜 𝜇𝑜 𝛽𝑜
∆𝑃𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 = 141.2 𝑆 … 𝐸𝑞. 1.4
𝑘𝑜 ℎ
 The standard equation for determining skin is:

𝑃1 ℎ𝑟 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝑘
𝑆 = 1.151 − log 2
+ 3.23 … 𝐸𝑞. 1.5
𝑚 ∅𝜇𝑐 𝑟𝑤
Standing’s Method (contd.)

From the S value we can find out that:

 S = 0 indicate no alteration.
 S = + ve indicates damaged well
 S = − ve indicates improvement and that values of -3 to -5 are
common for fractured reservoir.

 The value of ∆𝑃𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 is then calculated from:

∆𝑃𝑠𝑘𝑖𝑛 = 0.87 𝑆 𝑚 … 𝐸𝑞. 1.6
 𝑚 in both equations 1.5 & 1.6 is the slope, and
determined from the pressure build-up test (Horner Plot),
as shown in figure 6.0. Or is determined from the
following equation:
𝑄𝑜 𝜇𝑜 𝛽𝑜
𝑚 = 162.6 … 𝐸𝑞. 1.7
𝑘𝑜 ℎ
Standing’s Method

Figure 6.0: Horner Plot, build-up test

Standing’s Method (contd.)

 Standing plotted the dimensionless IPR curves for all the

reservoir cases as shown in figure 3.0 and arrived at the
following relationship between the above dimensionless
parameter:

𝐹𝐸=𝑗 2
𝑄𝑜 𝑃′ 𝑤𝑓 𝑃′ 𝑤𝑓
= 1 − 0.2 − 0.8 … 𝐸𝑞. 1.8
𝑄𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑃𝑅 𝑃𝑅

 Where 𝑗 = 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐹𝐸 and 𝑃`𝑤𝑓 is the ideal flowing pressure.

Standing’s Method (contd.)

 From Eq. 1.1 we can write:

𝑃¯𝑅 − 𝑃’𝑤𝑓 = 𝐹𝐸 × 𝑃𝑅 − 𝐹𝐸 × 𝑃𝑤𝑓

 Dividing both sides by 𝑃¯𝑅 :

𝑃’𝑤𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓
1− = 𝐹𝐸 − 𝐹𝐸 × ( )
𝑃𝑅 𝑃𝑅
𝑃’𝑤𝑓
⟹ 𝐵𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑣𝑒 𝑒𝑞𝑢. 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟
𝑃𝑅
𝑃’𝑤𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓
= 1 − 𝐹𝐸 + 𝐹𝐸 × … 𝐸𝑞. 1.9
𝑃𝑅 𝑃𝑅
 Standing’s Method (contd.)

𝑄𝑜 𝐹𝐸=𝑗
 Substituting equation 1.9 in equation 1.8; and work for , to get Eq.
𝑄𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑥

1.10 or 1.11 as follow:

2
𝑄𝑜 𝐹𝐸=𝑗 𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓
= 1 − 0.2 1 − 𝐹𝐸 + 𝐹𝐸 × − 0.8 1 − 𝐹𝐸 + 𝐹𝐸 × … Eq. 1.10
𝑄𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑃𝑅 𝑃𝑅

Or

𝑄𝑜 𝐹𝐸=𝑗 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2

= 1.8 𝐹𝐸 1− − 0.8 𝐹𝐸 1− … Eq. 1.11
𝑄𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑃𝑅 𝑃𝑅
Standing Procedure

1) Using test data (𝑃𝑤𝑓 and 𝑞𝑜 ) and the value of FE

existing when the test was conducted, calculate
𝑞𝑜−𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐹𝐸=𝑗 using equation 1.10 (or by using figure 3.0).

2) Assume various values of 𝑃𝑤𝑓 and calculate 𝑞𝑜 for each

𝑃𝑤𝑓 from equation 1.10.

3) Other values of FE may be used to determine the effect

of increasing FE by stimulation.
Example 1.0

 Using the following data, construct an IPR for this well at

present condition and for a value of FE=1.3.

 The present conduction data are :

 𝑃𝑅 = 2085 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑔, 𝑃𝑏 = 2100 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐹𝐸 = 0.7

From the test for 𝑞𝑜 = 202 𝑆𝑇𝐵

 ൗ𝑑𝑎𝑦 , 𝑃𝑤𝑓 = 1765 𝑝𝑠𝑖𝑔.
 Solution of Example 1.0

1. Determine 𝑞𝑜(𝑚𝑎𝑥) by using equation 1.11

𝑄𝑜 𝐹𝐸=𝑗
𝑄0(𝑚𝑎𝑥) =
𝑃𝑤𝑓 2
𝑃𝑤𝑓
1.8 𝐹𝐸 1− − 0.8 𝐹𝐸 (1 − )2
𝑃𝑟 𝑃𝑟

202
⇒ 𝑄0(𝑚𝑎𝑥) = 1765 1765 2
2
1.8 0.7 1 − − 0.8 0.7 1−
2085 2085
= 1100 𝑆𝑇𝐵/𝐷𝑎𝑦
Solution of Example 1.0 (contd.)

2. Using the equation 1.11 and working for 𝑞𝑜 :

2
𝑃𝑤𝑓 2
𝑃𝑤𝑓
𝑞0 = 1100 1.8 𝐹𝐸 1− − 0.8 𝐹𝐸 1−
2085 2085

3. For both FE=0.7 and FE=1.3 assume various 𝑃𝑤𝑓 , and

put in equation of step 2, from there calculate the
corresponding 𝑞𝑜 .
Solution of Example 1.0 (contd.)

Table of series of 𝑃𝑤𝑓 versus 𝑞0 at FE=0.7 & FE=1.3

𝑷𝒘𝒇 𝒒𝒐
𝑷𝒘𝒇 𝟏−
ഥ𝑹
𝑷 𝑭𝑬 = 𝟎. 𝟕 𝑭𝑬 = 𝟏. 𝟑
2085 0 0 0
1800 0.137 181 324
1765 0.153 202 360
1600 0.233 300 518
1300 0.376 461 758
1000 0.520 604 937
700 0.664 730 1054
300 0.856 871 1114
0 1.000 955 1224
Plot the IPR for the Two Flow Efficiencies

FE = 0.7
FE = 1.3
2500

2000
Pressure, (Psi)

1500

1000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Flowrate, (STB/day)
 RESERVOIR
PERFORMANCE
Predicting Future IPR
Standing's Method for Future
IPR
Standing Method

 Standing (1970) essentially extended the application of Vogel’s

to predict future inflow performance relationship of a well as a
function of reservoir pressure. He noted that Vogel’s equation.
 Vogel’s Equation can be rearranged as (H.W):

𝑄𝑜 𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓
= 1− 1 + 0.8 … 𝐸𝑞. 1.12
(𝑄𝑜 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑃¯𝑅 𝑃¯𝑅

 The productivity index of a well can be defined by Eq.1.12

 Standing introduced the productivity index 𝐽 into Eq. 1.12 as
follow:
(𝑄𝑜 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑃𝑤𝑓
𝐽= 1 + 0.8 … 𝐸𝑞. 1.13
𝑃𝑅 𝑃¯𝑅
Standing Method (contd.)
 If we assume fluid saturation to be the same everywhere
in the reservoir, which is analogous to ''zero drawdown''
then:
𝐽∗ = lim 𝐽
𝑃𝑤𝑓 →𝑃¯𝑅

 Standing then defined the present (current) zero

drawdown productivity index as:
1.8 (𝑄𝑜 )𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝐽∗
𝑃 = … 𝐸𝑞. 1.14
𝑃𝑅
 Where,𝐽∗ 𝑃 is Standing’s zero-drawdown J.

 The 𝐽∗ 𝑃 is related to the productivity index by:

𝐽 1 𝑃𝑤𝑓
= 1 + 0.8 … 𝐸𝑞. 1.15
𝐽∗ 𝑃 1.8 𝑃¯𝑅
Standing Method (contd.)

 𝐽∗ can also be arrived from the following equation:

−3
∗
7.08 10 𝑘𝑜 𝑆𝑜, 𝑆𝑔 ℎ
𝐽 =
𝑟
𝜇𝑜 𝑃¯𝑅 𝐵𝑜 𝑃¯𝑅 ln 𝑒 − 3ൗ4
𝑟𝑤
 To arrive to the final expression for predicting the desired IPR
expression, Standing combines equation 1.14 with equation
1.12 to eliminate (𝑄𝑜 )max to give:

𝐽∗ 𝑓 (𝑃𝑅 )𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2

𝑄𝑜 = 1 − 0.2 − 0.8 … 𝐸𝑞. 1.16
1.8 𝑃𝑅 𝑃𝑅
𝑓 𝑓

 Where, the subscript f refers to future condition.

Standing Method (contd.)

 Standing suggested that J*f can be estimated from the

present value of J*p by the following expression:

𝑘𝑟𝑜
𝜇𝑜 𝛽𝑜
𝑓
𝐽∗ 𝑓 = 𝐽∗ 𝑃 ൚ … 𝐸𝑞. 1.17
𝑘𝑟𝑜
𝜇𝑜 𝛽𝑜
𝑃
 where the subscript 𝑃 refers to the present condition.

 If the relative permeability data is not available, J*𝑓 can be

roughly estimated from:
2
(𝑃𝑅 )𝑓
𝐽∗ 𝑓 = 𝐽∗ 𝑃 ൘
(𝑃𝑅 )𝑃
… 𝐸𝑞. 1.18
Standing's methodology from predicting a future
IPR is summarized in the following steps:

1) Using the current time condition and the available flow

test data, calculate ( 𝑄𝑜max ) from Vogel’s Equation or
Equation (1.12).

2) Calculate J* at the present condition, i.e., J*p, by using

equation (1.14).

 Notice that other combinations of equations (1.12) through (1.15)

can be used to estimate J*p.
Standing's methodology from predicting a future
IPR is summarized in the following steps:

3) Using fluid property, saturation and relative

𝑘 𝑘𝑟𝑜
permeability data, calculate both 𝑟𝑜 and
𝜇𝑜 𝛽𝑜 𝑓 𝜇𝑜 𝛽𝑜 𝑃

4) Calculate J*f by using equation (1.17). Use equation

(1.18) if the oil relative permeability data is not
available.

5) Generate the future IPR by applying equation (1.16)

Example (Future IPR)

A well is producing from a saturated oil reservoir that exists at its

saturation pressure of 4000 psig. The well is flowing at a stabilized rate
600 bbl/day and a Pwf = 3200 psig. Material balance calculations
provide the following current and future predictions for oil saturation
and PVT properties.

Present Future
pr 4000 3000
µo, cp 2.4 2.2
Bo, bbl/STB 1.2 1.13
kro 1 0.66

Generate the future IPR for the well at 3000 psig by using Standing's
method.
Solution

Step 1: Calculate the current (Qo)max from equation (1-12).

𝑄𝑜 𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓
= 1− 1 + 0.8
(𝑄𝑜 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑃¯𝑅 𝑃¯𝑅

600 3200 3200

= 1− 1 + 0.8 → (𝑄𝑜 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1829 𝑆𝑇𝐵/𝑑𝑎𝑦
(𝑄𝑜 )𝑚𝑎𝑥 4000 4000

Step 2: Calculate J*p by using equation (1-14).

1.8 (𝑄𝑜 )𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝐽∗ 𝑃 =
𝑃𝑅

1.8 𝑥 1829
𝐽∗ 𝑃 = = 0.823
4000
Solution

Step 3: Calculate J*f by applying equation (1-17)

𝑘𝑟𝑜
𝜇𝑜 𝛽𝑜 𝑓
𝐽∗ 𝑓 = 𝐽∗ 𝑃 ൚
𝑘𝑟𝑜
𝜇𝑜 𝛽𝑜 𝑃

0.66
2.2𝑥1.15 𝑓
𝐽∗ 𝑓 = 𝐽∗ 𝑃 ൚
1
2.4𝑥1.2 𝑃

𝐽∗ 𝑓 = 0.618
Solution

Step 4: Generate the IPR by using equation (1-16)

𝐽∗ 𝑓 (𝑃𝑅 )𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓 𝑃𝑤𝑓 2

𝑄𝑜 = 1 − 0.2 − 0.8
1.8 𝑃𝑅 𝑃𝑅
𝑓 𝑓

Pwf Qo
3000 0
2000 527
1500 721
1000 870
500 973
0 1030
Solution

IPR Curve
3500

3000
Pressure, (Psi)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Flowrate, (bbl/day)