SPE/IADC 67715
Drilling with Rotary Steerable System Reduces Wellbore Tortuosity
P.Weijermans, J.Ruszka, SPE, Baker Hughes INTEQ, H.Jamshidian, M.Matheson, Shell U.K. Expro
Copyright 2001, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March 2001.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE or IADC, their
officers, or members. Papers presented at the SPE/IADC meetings are subject to publication
review by Editorial Committees of the SPE and IADC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or
storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes 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 where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Wellbore tortuosity can be defined as any unwanted deviation
from the planned well trajectory. As wells become more
complex, oil companies increasingly perceive wellbore
tortuosity as a concern in the process of drilling, completing
and producing wells. Tortuosity is a potential source of
additional torque/drag and can lead to problems while running
casing, liners and completions. In specific applications,
excessive tortuosity in horizontal wells can even impair
productivity.
Due to the conceptual difference in steering principle
between conventional directional drilling systems, utilizing
steerable bent housing motor technology, and rotary steerable
systems, it has been claimed that rotary steerable systems
produce a less tortuous wellbore. This effect has so far not
been quantified, mainly due to the absence of a sufficient body
of comparative data. In this paper, results of a tortuosity
analysis of a number of North Sea wells drilled with rotary
steerable systems, and offset wells drilled with steerable
motors systems is presented. Various mathematical definitions
of wellbore tortuosity and their implications are also
discussed.
The analysis shows that drilling with rotary steerable
systems significantly reduces tortuosity. In tangent sections
drilled with the rotary steerable system, superior inclination
hold performance was observed and in areas of the wellbore
where deviation changes were planned, more continuous curve
sections were drilled.
In order to illustrate potential benefits this may have with
respect to drilling conditions, results from the evaluation were
used to carry out torque/drag simulations. Levels of tortuosity
produced by steerable motor systems and rotary steerable
systems were calculated from the well data studied. These
values were superimposed on a generic well profile. It was
found that the torque reducing effect of the lower tortuosity
delivered by the rotary steerable system is quantifiable and in
some cases significant.
Introduction
The term wellbore tortuosity refers to the crookedness of an
"as-drilled" wellpath. It is not a measure of the complexity of
a three dimensional wellplan in itself - though the term is
sometimes used incorrectly in this context - but a measure of
the inevitable, unwanted undulations around it.
As directional wells become longer, deeper and more
complex, oil and service companies increasingly perceive
tortuosity as a concern in the process of drilling, completing
and producing wells. Tortuosity is a source of additional
torque and drag while drilling and may result in problems
while running casing, liners and completions. In addition, the
increase in drillstring-casing contact can add to drillstring and
casing wear. In specific applications, excessive tortuosity in
horizontal wells can even impair productivity.
In principle, wellbore tortuosity can be evaluated based on
the directional wellplan and the survey of a well or section of
a well. There is no industry standard for the numerical
evaluation of wellbore tortuosity. In this paper, various
mathematical expressions for tortuosity and their implications
are discussed. In addition, the tortuosity of a number of North
Sea wells has been evaluated in terms of these definitions,
focusing in particular on differences in tortuosity levels of
sections drilled with steerable bent housing motor technology
as opposed to sections drilled with a rotary steerable system,
the AutoTrak Rotary Closed Loop System. As an
illustration of the impact of tortuosity on drilling efficiency,
implications for torque/drag of the differences in tortuosity
levels found have been further investigated and quantified.
Origins of Wellbore Tortuosity
While drilling directional wells, it is often required to deviate
from the initial directional wellplan, for example as a result of
changed formation tops or to sidetrack round a fish. If we
define wellbore tortuosity as any deviation from the wellplan,
strictly speaking, this “macro-tortuosity” would be part of the
overall tortuosity. An alternative point of view would be to
account for all intentional changes to the initial directional
wellplan which are made while drilling, in an updated version
of the wellplan, which can in turn be compared to the survey
2 DRILLING WITH ROTARY STEERABLE SYSTEM REDUCES WELLBORE TORTUOSITY
to evaluate the remaining, small-scale tortuosity or “micro-
tortuosity”. As this paper is mainly concerned with tortuosity
in relation to the technology applied to directionally steer the
well, the main focus will be on the latter type of tortuosity.
So where does this micro-tortuosity (from this point
onwards just referred to as “tortuosity”) originate? The root
cause of tortuosity lies in the steering principle of the Bottom
Hole Assembly (BHA) used for directional drilling.
Conventional directional drilling utilising steerable bent
housing motors has been the most common method of
controlling wellbore deviation for the last 15 years.
Directional changes to the well trajectory are achieved by
orienting and “sliding” the drillstring without rotating the bent
housing motor BHA in the hole. The mud motor rotates the bit
utilising power from the drilling fluid flow. The bent housing
on the motor provides an axial offset to the bit such that, when
drilling in the sliding mode, the bit will drill ahead in the
direction of the bent housing offset, effecting a change in
wellbore direction.
One of the disadvantages associated with drilling in the
sliding mode is that it results in lower rate of penetration1 -
typically 50% lower than whilst drilling in the rotary mode. In
order to minimise the distance drilled in the sliding mode,
curved hole sections are generally drilled by alternately sliding
and rotating part of each stand (~90 ft). As the intervals drilled
in the rotating mode are straight (actually these intervals will
still be slightly curved due to bending of the BHA in the
curved wellbore) the local dogleg severity (DLS) of the
intervals drilled in the sliding mode needs to be much higher
than the average (planned) dogleg severity of the section. The
alternating high and low local dogleg severities induced in this
way result in a fragmented, tortuous curve (Fig. 1).
Tortuosity will be generated as well while drilling straight
(i.e. tangent) sections with steerable bent housing motor
systems. Ideally, a tangent would be drilled completely in the
rotary mode. However, a combination of formation effects and
gravity interacting with the BHA, will deviate the well from
the planned inclination and azimuth to some degree.
Directional drillers will tend to steer the well back on course at
the desired inclination and azimuth by frequent slide drilling –
sometimes legitimately for ‘collision avoidance’ reasons, but
other times because that is the way they believe a well should
be drilled. The frequent curves in the wellpath resulting from
this corrective steering action will contribute to the tortuosity
as well.
It can be concluded that from a conceptual point of view,
directional drilling with a steerable bent housing motor system
will inevitably result in wellbore tortuosity - in curved hole
sections as well as in tangent hole sections. The magnitude of
the tortuosity induced will depend on various factors,
including the difficulty of the planned well trajectory,
formation properties, bed orientations and drilling procedures.
“Rotary Closed Loop System” (RCLS) is the term given to
recently introduced technology which allows the wellbore
deviation to be automatically controlled in three dimensional
space whilst drilling entirely in the rotary mode (i.e.,
SPE/IADC 67715
continuously rotating the drillstring from surface). The RCLS
works through applying a controlled force to the formation in
a known, controllable direction, whilst continuously rotating
the entire drillstring from surface. The most advanced of these
systems allow complete, continuous control of both the
magnitude and direction of this steering force to the bit
through full, real time, two way communication from
downhole to surface and from surface to downhole2,3. In
addition, sensors built into the downhole tool provide real
time, near bit, formation evaluation data plus continuous near
bit inclination measurements that contribute to a high degree
of accuracy in positioning the wellbore, either within a
particular geological formation or at a particular geometric
position4.
From a tortuosity point of view, the constant vector force
applied to the formation when using the RCLS can be
expected to result in continuous and smooth curved hole
sections, thus reducing tortuosity. With respect to tangent
sections, a unique feature of the RCLS allows automatic and
instantaneous correction of any deviation from the
programmed inclination through closed-loop control without
interrupting drillstring rotation, again reducing tortuosity
compared to drilling with steerable bent housing motor
systems.
A tortuosity comparison of hole sections drilled with
steerable bent housing motor technology and RCLS under
similar conditions should show to what extent this assumption
is correct. As there is currently no industry standard for
assessing tortuosity, in the following section a review of the
various mathematical definitions of wellbore tortuosity in use
and their implications is provided.
Definitions of Wellbore Tortuosity
Average excess dogleg severity over plan. This definition
has been proposed in Ref. 5. The “average excess dogleg
severity over plan” can be calculated from the directional
wellplan and survey. The two profiles should be compared
over the same depth interval, so whichever is the longer of the
wellplan or the survey should be truncated back to the depth of
the shorter (the two start depths are assumed to be the same).
Denote the well plan listing of measured depth, inclination and
azimuth to be
0≤i≤M
[ MD Pi I Pi APi ]
and the as-drilled definitive survey listing to be
[ MD Sj I Sj ASj ] 0≤ j≤N
From the equations for minimum curvature, the angle change
over a single arc of the directional wellplan is given by
DLiP = cos −1 [sin I Pi −1 sin I Pi cos( APi − APi −1 ) + cos I Pi −1 cos I Pi ] .......... (1)
SPE/IADC 67715 P. WEIJERMANS, H. JAMSHIDIAN, M. MATHESON, J. RUSZKA
Similarly, the angle change between two survey stations on
the as-drilled well trajectory is given by
DL Sj = cos −1 [sin I Sj −1 sin I Sj cos( ASj − ASj −1 ) + cos I Sj −1 cos I Sj ] .....(2)
The tortuosity of the well (or section) is simply the difference
between the total planned and the total drilled dogleg, divided
by the length of the well or section:
∑ DLSj − ∑i =1 DLiP
N M
× 100 ........................................(3)
j =1
Taedls =
MDTD − MD0
The factor 100 derives from the fact that tortuosity is usually
expressed in degrees per 100 ft, consistent with the unit of
dogleg severity, rather than in degrees per ft.
Although the average excess dogleg severity over plan is a
measure of how the total drilled dogleg compares to the total
planned dogleg, the method does not account for the tortuosity
induced by drilling fragmented curved sections due to
alternately sliding and rotating. The individual doglegs
between adjacent survey stations are simply summed and then
averaged over the interval length, so if we have a highly
fragmented curve, the sum of the doglegs will be roughly the
same as when we have a smooth curve. This makes the
definition of limited use when evaluating tortuosity of curved
sections. The main application of this definition is to measure
the macro-tortuosity resulting from unplanned large-scale
deviations from the initial directional wellplan, such as
sidetracking round a fish. Although of limited application in
curved sections, the definition can give a measure of how well
tangent sections are kept along a straight line. In tangent
sections, the planned total dogleg is zero, so summing all
(drilled) doglegs between adjacent survey stations and
dividing by the measured depth gives a measure of the level of
undulation around this straight line.
Including the integrated dogleg severity deviation.
In order to overcome the limitations of the average excess
dogleg severity over plan definition in curved hole sections, a
refinement has been developed and by Shell Expro:
∑ DLSj − ∑i =1 DLiP
N M
× Mean Unwanted DLS × 100 .......(4)
j =1
Tmudls = deg (i.e. in tangent or “flat turn” sections), even though the
MDTD − MD0
The “Mean Unwanted DLS” is a measure of the “amplitude”
of the tortuosity. It is evaluated by integrating the absolute
value of the difference between drilled DLS and planned DLS
along the section and then dividing by the section length. This
ensure that local ‘peaks’ and ‘troughs’ in DLS are taken into
account. In practice, the Mean Unwanted DLS is evaluated
with the wellpath representation package RETORT. The value
of the Mean Unwanted DLS in itself can be considered as a
3
measure of the micro-tortuosity. When we use the full
equation including the average excess dogleg severity over
plan, a tortuosity measure is obtained which includes the
micro-tortuosity as well as the magnitude of larger scale
deviations from the originally planned well trajectory.
An alternative approach to quickly analyze the small-scale
variations in dogleg severity in curved sections is to obtain
statistics for the mean and standard deviation directly from the
data set with dogleg severities between adjacent survey
stations. Although the method does not take into account the
directional wellplan, in practice it can give the same type of
information as evaluating the Mean Unwanted DLS.
Average angle change criterion for horizontal wells. The
average angle change criterion has been used by Shell Gabon
to assess the undulation of horizontal wells round an
inclination of 90 degrees:
N −1
∑ (α 1
2 n +1 + α n )(MDn +1 − MDn )
................................... (5)
AAC = n= M
MDN − MDM
in which AAC = Average Angle Change
M = first survey point
N = last survey point
α = difference between the
angle at survey point and 90 deg
The AAC can be considered as the average of the (absolute)
deviations from 90 deg of each individual inclination
measurement. It provides a weighted average in case surveys
are not taken at equal distances.
In specific applications, the accuracy with which a 90 deg
inclination can be maintained has a direct impact on the
productivity of the well. Examples are horizontal wells where
liquid hold-up in local sumps can impair productivity6 and
reservoirs in which a certain optimum standoff from fluid
contacts needs to be maintained as accurately as possible to
reduce and/or delay coning7. In most horizontal wells
however, inclination changes are made on purpose in order to
(geo)steer up or down in the reservoir. Obviously, the average
angle change criterion is of not applicable in such cases. Use
of the average angle change criterion is not limited to
horizontal wells. It can be used at any other inclination than 90
inclination hold performance is then only of interest from a
drilling/completion point of view, and of no direct relevance
for well productivity.
4 DRILLING WITH ROTARY STEERABLE SYSTEM REDUCES WELLBORE TORTUOSITY
Tortuosity Evaluation of RCLS vs Steerable Motor
Drilled Sections
Data requirements and preparation. The expressions for
tortuosity discussed above have been applied to a number of
directional wellplan and associated survey data sets to
compare the performance of hole sections drilled with
steerable bent housing motor systems vs sections drilled with
RCLS. Measurement While Drilling (MWD) survey data is
most widely available for analysis. However, MWD surveys
are generally recorded over 90 ft (each stand drilled) with the
result that the tortuosity due to fractional orientation within a
stand is averaged out over the interval. High accuracy
gyroscopic survey data are normally recorded over shorter
course lengths, typically 20 ft. These surveys have the
additional advantage that they are more accurate than MWD
surveys. Gyroscopic survey tools are not normally run at high
inclinations (>70 deg) due to limits in their ability to get to
bottom, with the result that they are rarely run in lateral
sections. They are most frequently run in 12 1/4” hole sections,
inside the 9 5/8” casing. For this study, the preferred data to use
is high accuracy, high density gyroscopic surveys, but the data
was supplemented with MWD data sets to include some high-
angle tangent sections in the analysis. When considering the
extent to which the calculated dogleg severities between 20 ft
survey stations represent the real dogleg severities generated
while drilling, it should be kept in mind that on the one hand
random survey errors will artificially increase the tortuosity
while on the other hand the 9 5/8” casing will smoothing the
initial open-hole tortuosity to some degree.
The tortuosity analysis was carried out on individual
sections of wells with a certain objective (e.g. build-and-turn,
tangent) rather than on complete wells. This approach allows a
direct comparison of sections drilled with steerable bent
housing motor systems and sections drilled with RCLS, and in
addition a separate evaluation of curved and tangent sections.
The directional wellplan as it is included in the initial drilling
program, is often revised while drilling. If the survey is
compared to the initial directional wellplan to evaluate
tortuosity, there is a risk that artificial tortuosity is introduced.
For example if a 3 deg/100 ft build-up section is initiated 100
ft higher up the well than was initially planned, this would
result in a significant (artificial) contribution to the tortuosity,
if the survey would be compared against the “old” directional
wellplan. To account for this effect, the actual directional
wellplan was back-calculated from each survey, by picking the
start and end points of each section based on information in
the End of Well Reports together with visual observation of a
plot of survey inclination and azimuth versus measured depth.
The (minimum curvature) arc between these points was then
calculated using the appropriate (minimum curvature) survey
equations.
All survey data were gathered from areas of mature
directional drilling operations. This ensures elimination of the
“learning curve” of steerable motor BHA design experienced
during the early phases of field development. Where possible,
SPE/IADC 67715
the steerable motor surveys were obtained from the same
fields as the RCLS surveys.
Tortuosity evaluation results. Results of all calculations for
RCLS and steerable bent housing motor (SBHM) systems can
be found in Table 1. As outlined above, a quick way to
visualize and compare the tortuosity in curved sections of
drilled with RCLS and steerable motor systems is to calculate
the statistical mean and standard deviation of the set of
individual dogleg severities between adjacent survey stations.
Fig. 2 is such a plot, representing all curved section data with
linear trend lines. For both systems the variation round the
mean increases with increasing mean (=planned) dogleg
severity, but as expected the standard deviation is significantly
lower when the RCLS is used. When we compare the results
for Mean Unwanted DLS for curved sections of RCLS and
steerable motor drilled sections, the same trend can be
observed (an average of 0.54 deg/100 ft vs. 0.79 deg/100 ft
respectively). As expected, the improved performance of
RCLS does not show up in the average excess dogleg severity
over plan definition. Including the macro-tortuosity using
Equation (4) gives little extra information in our case, as the
macro tortuosity had effectively been removed as a result of
the procedure applied to back-calculate the wellplan from the
survey.
The difference in inclination hold performance can be
illustrated visually by plotting up the inclination of all tangent
sections analyzed as function of measured depth (Fig. 3). Note
that the measured depths have been normalized to start at zero
for convenience of plotting, and furthermore some of the lines
have been shifted a few degrees up or down in order not to let
the various lines overlap each other. As the number of RCLS
tangent sections where high-density gyro surveys were
available was rather limited, the data set has been augmented
by MWD surveys (~90 ft survey interval). The plot clearly
shows the superior inclination hold performance of the RCLS.
The “saw-tooth” pattern seen on some steerable motor drilled
sections is a result of the natural build or drop tendencies of
the BHA while rotating ahead, requiring correction by sliding
back to the desired trajectory. In horizontal well applications
where the objective is to maintain a certain TVD as accurately
a possible, the inclination hold performance of the RCLS
directly translates into excellent TVD control, an example of
which has been described in Ref. 8. The performance
improvement achieved with RCLS shows up with each
tortuosity definition. The difference in average angle change
by almost a factor five shows the difference is largely due to
the automated inclination hold performance.
Implications for Torque and Drag
Excessive torque or drag can be critical limitations for
“designer wells” with complex three dimensional profiles, and
in Extended-Reach Drilling (ERD). Excessive drag can lead to
the inability to transfer weight to the bit. In terms of general
drag reduction, rotation is virtually a “cure-all”. Excessive
torque is also a potential limiting factor, depending on the
SPE/IADC 67715 P. WEIJERMANS, H. JAMSHIDIAN, M. MATHESON, J. RUSZKA
capabilities of the rig (i.e. top-drive). Where limits are being
approached, the use of rotary steerable systems in general (and
RCLS in particular) can be of benefit, in addition to standard
methods of torque reduction such as optimization of mud
lubricity and the use of low-friction drillpipe protectors.
Firstly, tortuosity control can limit contact loads between the
drillstring and casing or open-hole, and reduce frictional
torque5,9. Furthermore, the continuous drillpipe rotation
provided by rotary steerable systems reduces sources of
mechanical torque such as cuttings beds10 and borehole
ledges11. Finally, wellbore profile optimization for torque/drag
can be pursued without practical limits on the length of curved
hole sections as there are no penalties such as low ROP
involved.
The overall impact of rotary steerable systems on torque
would ideally be investigated means of a torque data
comparison of two identical wells, one of which drilled with a
rotary steerable system and the other with a steerable bent
housing motor system. As no two wells are identical, the data
would need to be normalized for any differences in other
parameters influencing torque - well profile, drillstring design,
bit aggressiveness, WOB and rotary speed, use of torque
reducing tools and lubricants, mud properties, formation
effects and drilling procedures. Clearly, this challenge makes
any conclusions drawn from such an analysis rather
subjective. As the main topic of the study was wellbore
tortuosity, the analysis was limited to the impact of tortuosity
on drilling torque as predicted by a torque/drag simulator.
Set-up of the torque and drag model. Rather than an
extensive torque/drag analysis, this example should be
regarded as a simple illustration of the degree to which the
observed differences in tortuosity levels observed between
RCLS and steerable bent housing motor systems might impact
drilling torque. A generic directional wellplan and a typical set
of input parameters were selected, and tortuosity levels
representative of RCLS and steerable bent housing motor
systems were imposed on the directional wellplan. Apart from
the tortuosity, all model parameters (drillstring design, friction
factors, bit torque etc.) were kept constant. Note that no
attempt was made to optimize the profile for torque; this is a
separate topic, which has been covered elsewhere (e.g. in
Refs. 5 and 12).
The directional wellplan is a simple 2D build-and-hold
profile. The kick-off point is set at 3000 ft. The build-up
section builds up to 30 deg inclination at 4500 ft MD / 4432 ft
TVD with a dogleg severity of 2 deg/100 ft, and is followed
by a very long tangent section to 17000 ft MD / 15250 ft
TVD. A small variation of this wellplan was also studied, with
a DLS of 5 deg/100 ft in the build-up section. The vertical and
build sections are assumed to be cased with 9 5/8” casing; the
tangent section is 8 ½” open hole. Note that for North Sea
standards, a 15,000 ft TVD may seem extreme, but in other
areas around the world, such as the Caspian, this can be a
realistic case.
5
In all cases, depth-in/out calculations were carried out along
the 8 ½” tangent section. The impact of tortuosity in the build-
up section and tangent section were evaluated independently..
In case tortuosity was imposed on the build section, the
tortuosity in the tangent was kept zero (i.e. a perfectly straight
tangent) and in case tortuosity was imposed on the tangent, the
tortuosity in the build-up section was kept zero (i.e. a
minimum curvature build-up section). In addition, a base case
was run with zero tortuosity in the build-up section as wells as
the tangent section.
Tortuosity levels representative of RCLS and steerable
bent housing motor systems were then imposed on the
directional wellplan, and the artificial “surveys” thus
generated were loaded into the model. The procedure applied
to generate these artificial surveys was different for curved
sections and for tangent sections. For the curved sections, the
correlation found between average and standard deviation of
the dogleg severity was used. A normally distributed data set
in random order of which the average corresponds to the
planned dogleg severity of the curved section, and the
standard deviation to the value estimated from the trend line
was generated. From this data set, inclination values along the
curve were then back-calculated at 20 ft intervals. A survey
interval of 20 ft was used, as this was the interval of the
survey data sets which had been used for the correlation in the
first place. Back-calculating inclination change between two
survey stations with know interval from the dogleg severity, is
straightforward for a two-dimensional wellplan:
DLS
∆I = ∆MD .................................................(6)
100
Note that the actual distribution of dogleg severities round the
average is not normally distributed, but using a normal
distribution as a basis to generate the data set was considered
to be acceptable approximation.
Imposing tortuosity on the tangent section of the generic
wellplan was achieved by directly imposing deviations from
the desired inclination observed in typical tangent data sets of
RCLS and steerable motor drilled sections on the wellplan.
Again, a survey interval of 20 ft was applied. Note that the
inclination hold performance of the steerable motor example
picked to “copy” over the tortuosity was one of the worst
cases of inclination control.
Torque modeling results. The calculations were carried out
in a standard torque/drag simulator. The results of the depth-
in/out calculations are presented in. The results showed that
imposing typical tortuosities representative of RCLS as well
as steerable bent housing motor systems in the build-up
section, has negligible impact on torque. In case of a 5
deg/100 ft build-up section, the difference was found to be
larger, but still less than a percent. However, tortuosity in the
tangent section may increases torque significantly (Fig. 4).
Furthermore, a difference in torque between the RCLS and the
steerable motor cases develops along the tangent. At TD the
6 DRILLING WITH ROTARY STEERABLE SYSTEM REDUCES WELLBORE TORTUOSITY
steerable motor torque is 28% higher than the RCLS torque. It
can be concluded that - within the limitations of the torque and
drag model – the tortuosity reductions achieved with a RCLS
can reduce drilling torque. The effect would be rather limited
for typical North Sea wells, but can be significant in cases
such as the generic wellplan studied, with a long tangent
section in combination with poor inclination hold performance
of steerable bent housing motor systems is poor.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be derived from this work:
1. There is no industry standard to assess wellbore
tortuosity. In order to bring some clarity in this field, various
definitions and methods to evaluate tortuosity and their
implications have been discussed in this paper.
2. An analysis of North Sea wells shows that drilling with
a Rotary Closed Loop System significantly reduces wellbore
tortuosity. In tangent sections drilled with the RCLS, superior
inclination hold performance was observed and in hole
sections where deviation changes were planned, more
continuous curve sections were drilled.
3. Torque/drag simulations on a generic example well
show that the torque reducing effect of the lower tortuosity
delivered by a RCLS is quantifiable and can be significant.
Nomenclature
I = borehole inclination, deg
A = borehole azimuth, deg
T = tortuosity, deg/100 ft
Abbreviations
AAC = Average Angle Change
BHA = Bottom-Hole Assembly
DL = Dog Leg
DLS = Dog Leg Severity
ERD = Extended-Reach Drilling
MD = Measured Depth
MWD = Measurement (Survey) While Drilling
RCLS = Rotary Closed Loop System
ROP = Rate Of Penetration
TD = Total Depth
TVD = True Vertical Depth
WOB = Weight-On-Bit
Subscripts
P = Plan
S = Survey
aedls = average excess dogleg severity
mudls = mean unwanted dogleg severity
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Baker Hughes INTEQ and Shell
Expro for permission to publish the material contained in this
paper. The assistance of the INTEQ survey and well
SPE/IADC 67715
engineering departments - in particular Phil Gurden, Paul
Winter, Jonathan Blair, Alec Scott, David van Santen and
Andrew Moncur - is gratefully acknowledged. Also thanks to
Peter Elias, Ray Newton and Pete Dadswell from INTEQ and
Ian Park from Shell Expro for their contributions. Finally, we
acknowledge the contribution of Jamieson Technical Services,
who developed RETORT for Shell Expro.
References
1. Warren, T.M.: “Trends toward rotary steerable directional
drilling system,” World Oil, May 1997, pp. 43-47.
2. Donati, F. et al.: “Innovative Rotary Closed Loop System –
Engineering concept proved by extensive field application in the
Adriatic Sea,” paper IADC/SPE 39328 presented at the 1998
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, March 3-6.
3. Calderoni, A. et al.: “Automated steering systems applied to
complex horizontal well in south Italy,” paper SPE 50379
presented at the 1998 SPE International Conference on
Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Nov. 1-
4.
4. Berger, P.E., and Sele, R: “Improving wellbore positioning
accuracy of horizontal wells by using a continuous inclination
measurement from a near bit inclination MWD sensor,” paper
SPE 50378 presented at the 1998 SPE Annual Technical
Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, Nov. 1-4.
5. Banks, S.M. et al.: “Increasing extended-reach capabilities
through wellbore profile optimization,” paper IADC/SPE 23850
presented at the 1992 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New
Orleans, Feb. 18-21.
6. Joshi, S.D.: Horizontal well technology, PennWell Books,
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1991.
7. Allan, D. et al.: “Integrated technologies exceed well placement
challenge,” paper IADC/SPE 39328 presented at the 1998
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, March 3-6.
8. Johnstone, J.A, and Allan, D.: “Realizing true value from rotary
steerable drilling systems,” paper SPE 56958 presented at the
1999 Offshore Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, Sept. 7-
9.
9. Payne, M.L., and Abbassian, F.: “Advanced torque and drag
considerations in extended-reach wells,” paper IADC/SPE
35102 presented at the 1996 IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
New Orleans, March 12-15.
10. Sanchez, R.A. et al.: “The effect of drillpipe rotation on hole
cleaning during directional well drilling,” paper SPE/IADC
37626 presented at the 1997 SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, March 4-6.
11. Berger, P.E. et al.: “FE-MWD logging in a different
environment induced by drilling with a rotary steerable system,”
paper SPE 56451 presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Oct. 3-6.
12. Sheppard, M.C.: “Designing well paths to reduce drag and
torque,” paper SPE 15463 presented at the 1986 SPE Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana,
Oct. 5-8.
SPE/IADC 67715 P. WEIJERMANS, H. JAMSHIDIAN, M. MATHESON, J. RUSZKA 7

Survey Station

L S
g eD
e ra
LS Av
al D
Loc

LS
lD
ca
Lo

Slides
Survey Station

Rotating/sliding produces a tortuous hole.

Fig. 1
8 DRILLING WITH ROTARY STEERABLE SYSTEM REDUCES WELLBORE TORTUOSITY SPE/IADC 67715

TABLE 1 - TORTUOSITY ANALYSIS RESULTS

Section Objective Avg DLS St Dev DLS Tort AEDLS MUDLS Tort MUDLS AAC
(-) (deg/100ft) (deg/100 ft) (deg/100 ft) (deg/100 ft) (deg/100 ft)^2 (deg)
RCLS-1 build & turn 1.67 0.51 0.10 0.35 0.03 N/A
RCLS-2 turn 3.41 1.06 0.07 0.77 0.06 N/A
RCLS-3 build & turn 3.97 0.99 0.32 0.59 0.19 N/A
RCLS-4 build & turn 5.21 1.05 0.23 0.76 0.18 N/A
RCLS-5 drop & turn 2.96 0.78 0.33 0.41 0.14 N/A
RCLS-6 build & turn 3.63 0.83 0.23 0.50 0.11 N/A
RCLS-7 build & turn 2.55 0.89 0.12 0.65 0.08 N/A
RCLS-8 turn 1.99 0.76 0.44 0.45 0.20 N/A
RCLS-9 drop & turn 2.51 0.51 0.06 0.30 0.02 N/A
RCLS-10 drop & turn 3.02 0.61 0.05 0.36 0.02 N/A
RCLS-11 build & turn 2.49 0.93 0.10 0.66 0.06 N/A
RCLS-12 build & turn 3.17 0.95 0.35 0.72 0.26 N/A
RCLS Average Curved Sections 0.20 0.54 0.11
SBHM-1 build 2.38 1.12 0.06 0.74 0.04 N/A
SBHM-2 drop & turn 2.65 1.33 0.27 0.93 0.25 N/A
SBHM-3 build & turn 2.52 1.12 0.04 0.73 0.03 N/A
SBHM-4 buil & turn 2.70 1.53 0.57 1.02 0.58 N/A
SBHM-5 build & turn 2.77 1.19 0.09 0.73 0.06 N/A
SBHM-6 turn 1.98 1.36 0.06 0.55 0.04 N/A
SBHM-7 drop & turn 2.42 1.50 0.35 0.89 0.31 N/A
SBHM-8 build & turn 2.42 1.53 0.07 0.71 0.05 N/A
SBHM-9 build & turn 2.75 1.42 0.20 1.06 0.21 N/A
SBHM-10 turn 1.60 0.75 0.13 0.44 0.06 N/A
SBHM-11 build & turn 3.28 1.66 0.18 1.16 0.21 N/A
SBHM-12 build & turn 2.92 0.82 0.09 0.51 0.05 N/A
SBHM-13 build 3.03 1.03 0.05 0.52 0.03 N/A
SBHM-14 build & turn 2.06 1.26 0.41 1.03 0.42 N/A
SBHMS Average Curved Sections 0.18 0.79 0.17
RCLS-1 tangent 0.36 0.21 0.34 0.33 0.11 0.03
RCLS-2 tangent 0.73 0.45 0.49 0.33 0.16 0.10
RCLS-3 tangent 0.86 0.54 0.73 0.57 0.42 0.21
RCLS Average Tangent Sections 0.52 0.41 0.23 0.11
SBHM-1 tangent 0.84 0.60 0.80 0.63 0.50 0.88
SBHM-2 tangent 0.64 0.50 0.58 0.46 0.27 0.44
SBHM-3 tangent 0.54 0.56 0.51 0.43 0.22 0.42
SBHM-4 tangent 0.63 0.54 0.47 0.41 0.19 0.55
SBHM-5 tangent 0.67 0.49 0.62 0.27 0.17 0.22
SBHM-6 tangent 0.60 0.61 0.59 0.51 0.30 0.64
SBHM-7 tangent 0.76 0.42 0.71 0.49 0.35 0.31
SBHMS Average Tangent Sections 0.61 0.46 0.28 0.49
SPE/IADC 67715 P. WEIJERMANS, H. JAMSHIDIAN, M. MATHESON, J. RUSZKA 9

2.5

y = 0.488x
Dogleg Severity Standard Deviation

Drilled with Steerable Motor BHA

2
Drilled with RCLS
(deg/100 ft)

1.5
y = 0.2588x

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Dogleg Severity Average (deg/100 ft)

Tortuosity comparison of RCLS and steerable motor drilled curved sections in terms of standard
Fig. 2
deviation round the average (=planned) dogleg severity.

90

80

70
Inclination (deg)

60

50

40

30

Drilled with RCLS

20
Drilled with Steerable Motor BHA
10
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Normalized Measured Depth (ft)

Comparison of inclination hold performance in tangent sections between RCLS and steerable
Fig. 3
motor drilled sections.
 10 DRILLING WITH ROTARY STEERABLE SYSTEM REDUCES WELLBORE TORTUOSITY SPE/IADC 67715

30,000

Tortuosity imposed on tangent - Steerable Motor BHA

25,000
Tortuosity imposed on tangent - RCLS
Base case (zero tortuosity)
Drilling Torque (ft lbs)

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000
Measured Depth (ft)

Fig. 4Torque/drag simulation results showing the impact of tortuosity in a long tangent section on
drilling torque; typical levels of tortuosity observed in RCLS and steerable motor drilled sections
were imposed on a generic wellplan.