The Design of BHA and the Placement of
Magnetometer Sensors Influence How
Magnetic Azimuth Is Distorted by the
Magnetic Properties of Drilling Fluids
Tor Inge Waag, SPE, Teknova A/S; Torgeir Torkildsen, SPE, Wellpos A/S; Per Amund Amundsen,
University of Stavanger; Erik Nyrnes, SPE, Statoil ASA; and Arild Saasen, SPE, Det norske oljeselskap ASA
and University of Stavanger
Summary
The magnetic property of drilling fluid is one of the substantial
error sources for the determination of magnetic azimuth for well-
bores. Weight material, cuttings, clay, and other formation mate-
rial in addition to metal filings from tubular wear may distort the
magnetometer readings. This effect is obviously linked to the
amount and kind of magnetic material that is in the drilling fluid,
and the development of corrective means has therefore highlighted
the drilling fluid. The problem has been studied by laboratory
experiments and analyses of downhole-survey data. However,
there are several inconsistencies in the results, and the phenom-
enon is not understood fully. We focus on the geometric properties
of the bottomhole assembly (BHA) and the magnetic directional
tool in this study.
The influence on directional measurement while drilling
(MWD) from drilling fluids has been studied using finite-element
modeling techniques. The simulations have been performed for sev-
eral cases with realistic representations of MWD-tool geometries
and varying location of BHA vs. the wellbore. One important result
is that for situations with perfect axial symmetry, the magnetometer
readings are attenuated proportionally to the square of the magnetic
susceptibility. Because the magnetic susceptibility is a small num-
ber, the effect on magnetometer readings is generally negligible.
However, if the symmetry is broken, the distortion on the magne-
tometer readings can be increased significantly. This means that
segregation of cuttings, metal filings, or weight material can have a
strong influence on the strength of the measured magnetic fields.
With a collar-based tool that is asymmetric by nature, the
model shows a complex distortion picture. The influence varies
with the tool-face angle and shows both attenuation and amplifi-
cation. The distortion maxima and minima for the two cross-
sectional magnetometers do not coincide. These findings underline
how difficult it will be to find a straightforward corrective action.
The results from the simulations give increased knowledge
about the influence from the magnetic properties of the drilling
fluid. This is essential for accuracy estimation and multistation
analysis of magnetic-survey data. Furthermore, the results demon-
strate the importance of considering the geometry of the BHA and
the tool and of the sensor placement when performing the me-
chanical design.
Introduction
Components and contamination in drilling fluids shield the Earth’s
magnetic field as recorded by the magnetic sensors in MWD
equipment used for directional surveying of oil wells. This shield-
ing can cause azimuth errors of 1 to 2 , and even larger errors may
occur for certain wellbore directions under unfavorable conditions
Copyright V
C 2012 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 151039) was accepted for presentation at the 2012 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, San Diego, California, USA, 6–8 March 2012, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 12 December 2011. Revised manuscript
received for review 29 June 2012. Paper peer approved 9 July 2012.
392
(Wilson and Brooks 2001; Torkildsen et al. 2004; Amundsen et al.
2006a,b). These effects reduce the borehole-position accuracy suf-
ficiently to increase the costs of hitting the planned target.
The magnetic properties of drilling fluid are known to depend on
such variables as the mineralogical composition of the material
used (Jiles 1991) and contamination of magnetic elements (e.g.,
steel) because of the mechanical wear of downhole and surface
equipment (Shook and Roco 1991; Wilson et al. 2006). Pneumatic
conveyance of mineral additives for drilling fluids will also contrib-
ute significantly to the presence of steel powder in the drilling fluid
(Saasen et al. 2001). This study was performed to examine the
attenuation of magnetic fields in a wellbore fully or partially filled
with magnetically contaminated drilling fluid and with MWD
directional sensors placed inside a tool located at a given position
in the wellbore. Wilson and Brooks (2001) addressed that the mag-
netic properties of drilling fluids may influence the magnetometer
readings and, consequently, the wellbore position, substantially.
The phenomenon was demonstrated in several ways, both by labo-
ratory experiments and analyses of magnetic directional-survey
data. Some operational procedures were recommended to reduce
the negative effects on the quality of wellbore positions. Torkildsen
et al. (2004) presented results from two independent methods for
measuring magnetic susceptibility of drilling fluids. It was a poor
agreement between the two determinations. Furthermore, magnetic
directional-survey data were analyzed. This analysis showed that,
in general, the effect from the drilling fluid was much higher than
that modeled for an ideal case by Amundsen et al. (2006a,b).
Because of the substantial methodological challenges in reli-
ably measuring the susceptibility of drilling fluids in the field, few
such measurements have been reported. The highest measured
value for a sample of used fluid known to us is v ¼
0.063 (Torkildsen et al. 2004). The fluid did not cause problems
for the magnetic surveying. This is just below the value of
v ¼ 0.1, which theoretically induces a damping of the measured
transverse magnetic field of 0.25% in the case of a symmetric dril-
ling geometry, and which would lead to a directional error of up
to 0.5 (Amundsen et al. 2006b). The magnetic contaminants are
obviously iron-containing compounds, but it is not yet clear which
of those compounds are most important in a typical field situation.
Some rather obvious candidates actually show negligible damping
effect. This issue is still under active investigation (Ding et al.
2010; Tellefsen et al. 2012). Tellefsen et al. (2012) showed that
the effect can be substantial in the presence of swarf, in which
case the maximum damping was approximately 25%. However,
in this case, the swarf concentration was anticipated to be unreal-
istically high compared with a normal drilling operation.
Torkildsen et al. (2004) addressed two cases that may increase
the influence from the drilling fluid substantially, compared with
an idealized symmetric case with an unbroken fluid shield:
 There is direct contact between the BHA and the formation rock
close to the location of the magnetic sensors because of high dogleg
severity of the wellbore and deflection of the BHA and stabilizers.
 The BHA is bearing against a layer of drill cuttings at the
lower side of the well. This indirect contact between BHA and
September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
 TABLE 1—FLUX-DENSITY ANOMALY FOR THE x- AND y-COMPONENTS OF THE MODELED MAGNETIC FIELD Bm AT THE
CENTER OF THE CONCENTRIC CYLINDERS
B0 (nT)
50 000 0 45
Anomaly of x-component Bm,x – B0,x (nT)
v ¼ 0.05 28 20
v ¼ 0.10 110 78
formation is strongest when the hole is unclean and the fluid cir-
culation is stopped.
However, these results showed a clear trend—the magnitude
of magnetic susceptibility, and thereby potentially distorted mag-
netic azimuth, is correlated with the magnetic contamination of
the drilling fluid. It is therefore of interest to model the potential
influence of magnetic contamination on magnetometer readings
with realistic geometries of the sensor assemblies.
Theory and Analytical Results
In this paper, we will study a situation in which the z-axis of the
directional tool is oriented along a straight wellbore, and we will
consider only the magnetic fields transverse to this axis. Ferro-
magnetic materials will not be considered. Amundsen et al.
(2006a,b) have shown that a magnetic sensor placed at the center
of a cylindrical wellbore filled with a fluid with magnetic suscep-
tibility in SI units, v, will be reduced by a factor of (1–1=4v2) plus
higher-order terms. The expression (1–1=4v2) can thus be consid-
ered as a shielding factor. Johansen (2006) showed that the fields
off center in a cylindrical wellbore can be calculated analytically
using conformal mapping. For more-complex geometries, one
must resort to numerical modeling.
For a long, straight well, the fields along the well are not influ-
enced by magnetic materials inside the wellbore. In this study, it
is therefore sufficient to consider only the transverse magnetic
field in a plane, taken to be the xy-plane perpendicular to the well
axis. We have assumed the magnitude of the total nominal trans-
verse magnetic field B0 to be 50 000 nT for all models, and used
the finite-element method (FEM) to model the resulting magnetic
field Bm for susceptibilities of v ¼ 0.05 and v ¼ 0.10 to investigate
if the shielding as a function of v is close to quadratic, as claimed
by published theories. With our assumptions of the magnetic field
B0 ¼ 50 000 nT and susceptibilities v ¼ 0.05 and v ¼ 0.10, this
corresponds to an anomaly Bm – B0 of 28 nT and 113 nT,
respectively.
Numerical models have also been constructed of more-realistic
geometries such as collar- and probe-based tools, in which the
shielding material is distributed in a more-complicated manner.
Modeling
The wellbore, tools, and magnetic fields are modeled by FEM.
The wellbore is modeled as a perfect circular cylinder. The vari-
ous MWD tools are modeled as possibly eccentric cylinders
within the wellbore. The steel parts are assigned electrical con-
ductivity typical of high-strength steel. The steel qualities used
for nonmagnetic BHAs have magnetic permeabilities close to
unity, and magnetic permeability is therefore set equal to unity.
The drilling fluid is assigned variable magnetic susceptibility, typ-
ically v ¼ 0.05 and v ¼ 0.1 in the calculations.
The exterior “world” is modeled as a cube with edge lengths
of 20 m. This cube is given a main magnetic-flux density of vari-
able strength and direction by introducing currents to the cube
surfaces. For each model, the uniformity of the flux density was
checked near the cube corners and at random positions within the
cube to ensure that the modeling was good.
The simple models are chosen to represent idealized situations.
A semicircle represents segregated fluids in a horizontal wellbore,
September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
Angle h of B0 relative to the x-axis ( )
90 0 45 90
Anomaly of y-component Bm,y – B0,y (nT)
0 0 20 28
0 0 78 110
while slots represent shielding broken by struts or fasteners. The
MWD tools are placed eccentrically in the wellbore to represent
tools without centralizers, and the tools are allowed to touch the
wellbore walls to model broken shielding. This is done to high-
light how undesired situations may influence the MWD readings.
In real situations, the stabilizers will in most cases prevent the
tool from direct contact with the wellbore wall.
All the cases presented in this study are based on 2D FEM
modeling, representing cross sections of infinitely long tools and
well paths.
Results From Modeling of Symmetrical
Geometries
The shielding of the magnetometer readings resulting from drilling
fluids inside wellbores with circular cross sections has been studied
extensively with analytical methods (Amundsen et al. 2006a,b).
The influence of eccentric placement of sensors inside circular
boreholes can also be solved analytically using conformal mapping
(Johansen 2006). For more-complex situations without circular
symmetries, segregation of the shielding fluid, or other geometries
with broken shielding, we must resort to numerical modeling (e.g.,
with the shielding fluid present in a semicircle instead of a com-
plete circle). Simple methods of breaking the shielding were mod-
eled by introducing diametral slots in the shielding circles,
including crossed slots crossing at an angle of 90 .
Five different simple geometrical models were considered in
the analyses, including circles, semicircles, and circles with slots
in the x- and y-direction, to compare with the analytical results
presented in Amundsen et al. (2006a). All models are variations
of a drilling-fluid annulus with an air-filled measurement area in
the center. The radius of the drilling-fluid-filled area is 200 mm.
The slots and inner circles are 20 mm. The modeled semicircle
also has a radius of 200 mm but has 10 mm removed from its di-
agonal so that the measurement probe can be positioned exactly
in the center. The model is one-half of the slotted circle. The mag-
nitude B0 of the main magnetic-field vector is 50 000 nT, modeled
at three different angles h to the x-axis: 0, 45, and 90 .
For each geometry, the modeled magnetic field Bm (the mag-
netic field measured by the MWD sensors) is calculated at all
locations and tabulated for a position in the center of the circular
wellbore for two different magnetic susceptibilities: v ¼ 0.05 and
v ¼ 0.10. The values tabulated in Tables 1 through 5 are the dif-
ferences between the x- and y-components (Bm,x and Bm,y) of the
modeled magnetic-field vector Bm and the x- and y-components
(B0,x and B0,y) of the nominal magnetic exterior field B0, with no
magnetic contamination present (i.e., susceptibility set to zero).
All values refer to a position at the center of the wellbore.
Case 1—Completely Fluid-Filled Circular Cross Section. The
completely fluid-filled circular cross-section model consists of a
circular measurement area with a radius of 10 mm in the center
surrounded by an annular drilling-fluid-filled area with a radius of
200 mm. The resulting values for the magnetic shielding with this
geometry are 28 nT for susceptibility v ¼ 0.05 and 110 nT for
susceptibility v ¼ 0.10, a small and quadratic dependence in good
agreement with the theoretical values. With the field vector at
h ¼ 45 , we obtain shielding values for the x- and y-components at
393
 TABLE 2—FLUX-DENSITY ANOMALY FOR THE x- AND y-COMPONENTS OF THE MODELED MAGNETIC FIELD Bm AT THE
CENTER OF THE MODEL WITH CROSSED SLOTS

B0 (nT) Angle h of B0 relative to the x-axis ( )

50 000 0 45 90 0 45 90

Anomaly of x-component Bm,x – B0,x (nT) Anomaly of y-component Bm,y – B0,y (nT)

v ¼ 0.05 7.7 5.5 0 0 5.5 7.7

v ¼ 0.10 27.4 19.4 0 0 19.4 27.4

TABLE 3—FLUX-DENSITY ANOMALY FOR THE x- AND y-COMPONENTS OF THE MODELED MAGNETIC FIELD Bm AT THE
CENTER OF THE MODEL WITH AN AIR-FILLED DIAMETRAL SLOT IN THE y-DIRECTION

B0 (nT) Angle h of B0 relative to the x-axis ( )

50 000 0 45 90 0 45 90

Anomaly of x-component Bm,x – B0,x (nT) Anomaly of y-component Bm,y – B0,y (nT)

v ¼ 0.05 1141 811 0 0 812 1142

v ¼ 0.10 2225 1587 0 0 1596 2236

approximately 71% of these values, also as expected with normal
vector decomposition [cos(45 ) ¼ 0.707]. The anomaly results
(magnetic shielding) for the center location calculated by FEM
modeling are shown in Table 1.
The modeled anomaly values are close to the theoretical result
from Amundsen et al. (2006b), which for B0 ¼ 50 000 nT gives
magnetic anomalies of 112.5 nT and 28 nT for susceptibilities of
v ¼ 0.1 and v ¼ 0.05, respectively. The full-field-anomaly plots
for all angles and field components are given in Appendix A,
Case 1—Completely Fluid-Filled Circular Cross Section.
Case 2—Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section With Air-
Filled Slots With 20-mm Width Crossed at 90º . The models
with one or more slots are chosen to represent broken magnetic
shielding caused by struts or fasteners displacing the drilling fluid
in parts of the wellbore. Symmetrically placed slots preserve most
of the shielding found in the completely fluid-filled wellbore in
the preceding example. However, small perturbations in the slot
or sensor positions provide significant variations in the modeled
field. The anomaly results (magnetic shielding) for the center
location calculated by FEM modeling are shown in Table 2.
The anomalies for this model are small and positive, and they
are compatible with a square dependency, with the susceptibility
as shown in Table 2. The shielding is broken, but in such a way
that it maintains a nonlinear dependency at the center point
because of the symmetry of the x-axis and the y-axis. The values
are reduced to approximately 25% of the theoretical values for the
circular case, which equal 28 nT for susceptibility v ¼ 0.1 and 7
nT for susceptibility v ¼ 0.05. The anomaly values are positive,
meaning amplification instead of shielding. The field anomaly in
the center is a saddle point with strong gradients. This means that
the magnetic field measured with a tool located near the center
will be sensitive to small position changes. The full-field-anomaly
plots for all angles and field components are given in Appendix A,
Case 2—Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section With Air-Filled
Slots With 20-mm Width Crossed at 90 . At locations away from
the exact center (i.e., the saddle point), the influence on the

TABLE 4—FLUX-DENSITY ANOMALY FOR THE x- AND y-COMPONENTS OF THE MODELED MAGNETIC FIELD Bm AT THE
CENTER OF THE MODEL WITH AN AIR-FILLED DIAMETRAL SLOT IN THE y-DIRECTION

B0 (nT) Angle h of B0 relative to the x-axis ( )

50 000 0 45 90 0 45 90

Anomaly of x-component Bm,x – B0,x (nT) Anomaly of y-component Bm,y – B0,y (nT)

v ¼ 0.05 562 398 0 0 408 578

v ¼ 0.10 1095 777 0 0 824 1180

TABLE 5—FLUX-DENSITY ANOMALY FOR THE x- AND y-COMPONENTS OF THE MODELED MAGNETIC FIELD Bm AT THE
CENTER OF THE MODEL WITH AN AIR-FILLED RADIAL SLOT IN THE y-DIRECTION

B0 (nT) Angle h of B0 relative to the x-axis ( )

50 000 0 45 90 0 45 90

Anomaly of x-component Bm,x – B0,x (nT) Anomaly of y-component Bm,y – B0,y (nT)

v ¼ 0.05 556 392 0 0 417 587

v ¼ 0.10 1055 746 0 0 837 1177

394 September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion

 TABLE 6—COMPARISON OF THE SHIELDING AND ITS INFLUENCE ON MAGNETIC
ANOMALIES
Unbroken Shield, Cases 1, 6, and 7
Small field distortion
Quadratic dependence with magnetic
susceptibility
Uniform reduction only
Small or no angle dependence
Small, gentle variation with position change
magnetic-field anomaly is strong for this geometry (see Table 6
and the figures in the first and third subsections of Appendix A). It
is therefore classified as a broken-shield case with linear depend-
ence except for the saddle point at the exact center.
Results From Modeling of Geometries With
Broken or Simpler Symmetry
Case 3—Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section With Single
Air-Filled Diametral Slot With 20-mm Width. The models
with slots are chosen to represent broken magnetic shielding. A
single slot disturbs the field significantly more than two slots posi-
tioned at 90 ; therefore, the first-order terms in the shielding
become more significant. The anomaly results (magnetic shield-
ing) for the center location calculated by FEM modeling are
shown in Table 3.
The case with an air-filled slot is a simplified version of a bro-
ken magnetic shielding (e.g., from a strut or centralizer displacing
the drilling fluid). The results from FEM modeling (see Table 3)
show that the variation of the components of the anomaly Bm – B0
varies linearly with susceptibility, giving high anomaly values that
are both positive and negative. The values are close to 61=2vB0,
which equals 2500 nT for susceptibility v ¼ 0.1 and 1250 nT for
susceptibility v ¼ 0.05. Plots of the full-field anomaly for all angles
and field components are presented in Appendix A, Case 3—
Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section With Single Air-Filled
Diametral Slot With 20-mm Width. The relatively small differen-
ces in magnitude between computed anomalies at 45 in the x- and
y-components and between 0 in x and 90 in y are caused by the
gridding and numerical uncertainties inherent in FEM modeling.
Case 4—Semicircle (One-Half of the Diametrally Slotted
Circle). The semicircle model can be representative of segre-
gated fluids or particles filling one-half of a horizontal wellbore or
0.1
0.05
0
–0.05
–0.1 –0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Fig. 1—Cross section of a 43=4 in.-collar-based tool run in a 61=2-
in. hole. Anomaly Bm,x – B0,x of the flux-density x-component.
September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
Broken Shield, Cases 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8
Significant field distortion
Linear dependence with magnetic
susceptibility
Amplification as well as reduction
Large angle dependence
Large variation with position change
of other simplified situations with a breach of symmetry. This is
also a case in which the first-order terms in the shielding become
significant. The anomaly results (Bm,x – B0,x) and (Bm,y – B0,y) for
magnetic shielding at the center location calculated by FEM mod-
eling are shown in Table 4.
The results from FEM modeling of shielding materials present
in a semicircle are an example of linear variation of the compo-
nents of the anomaly Bm – B0, with susceptibility and high anomaly
values that are both positive and negative. The values are close to
61=4vB0, which equals 1250 nT for susceptibility v ¼ 0.1 and 625
nT for susceptibility v ¼ 0.05, with B0 ¼ 50 000 nT. The full-field-
anomaly plots as a function of the angle h and the x and y magnetic-
field components are given in Appendix A, Case 4—Semicircle
(One-Half of the Diametrally Slotted Circle). The relatively small
differences in magnitude between computed anomalies at 45 in
the x- and y-components and between 0 in x and 90 in y are
caused by the gridding and numerical uncertainties inherent in
FEM modeling. Also, the fluid-filled section to the right is not an
exact semicircle, but one-half of the slotted model in Case 3.
Therefore, the air-filled section to the left is larger by the amount of
the air-filled slot from Case 3 and will cause a slight asymmetry.
Case 5—Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section With Single
Air-Filled Radial Slot With 20-mm Width. The models with
slots are chosen to represent broken magnetic shielding caused by
struts or fasteners displacing the drilling fluid in parts of the well-
bore. This model represents a single support going from the center
to the wellbore wall. The field anomaly in the center is not a local
maximum or minimum; the influence from the slot introduces
strong gradients to the modeled field at this location. This means
that the magnetic field measured with a tool located near the center
will be sensitive to small changes in position. The anomaly results
(Bm,x – B0,x) and (Bm,y – B0,y) for magnetic shielding at the center
location calculated by FEM modeling are shown in Table 5.
The results from FEM modeling of shielding material present
in the entire wellbore except for an air-filled slot show a linear var-
iation of the components of the anomaly Bm – B0, with susceptibil-
ity and high anomaly values that are both positive and negative.
The values are close to 61=4vB0, which equals 1250 nT for suscep-
tibility v ¼ 0.1 and 625 nT for susceptibility v ¼ 0.05, with B0 ¼ 50
000 nT. The full-field-anomaly plots are given in Appendix A,
Case 5—Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section With Single
Air-Filled Radial Slot of 20-mm Width. The relatively small dif-
ferences in magnitude between computed anomalies at 45 in the
x- and y-components and between 0 in x and 90 in y do not have
any practical significance and are caused mainly by the gridding
and numerical uncertainties inherent in FEM modeling.
Summary of Results From the Simplified Models. For a circu-
lar symmetry, the modeled attenuation agrees well with earlier
published theoretical results (Amundsen et al. 2006a). When the
symmetry is broken, or the circle is opened along certain direc-
tions, the results can change from quadratic to linear dependence
of susceptibility and can change from attenuation to amplification
in certain positions. The linear dependence gives much higher val-
ues for the variation in the anomaly field components, with sus-
ceptibilities in the range that we expect to find in real drilling
395
 Total-Magnetic-Flux Density [nT]
Max: 5.12e4
×104

5.1
0.1

5.08

0.05 5.06

5.04

0 5.02

–0.05 4.98

4.96

–0.1
–0.1 –0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Min: 4.943e4

Fig. 2—Plot of the modeled total-magnetic-flux density Bm.

fluids with reasonable levels of contamination. In the models with
broken symmetry and linear dependence of the susceptibility v,
we also find that small perturbations away from the exact center
of the model provide significant changes in the modeled anoma-
lies, meaning that the readings from magnetometers placed in this
position may be affected by small position changes or rotation of
the tool.
Modeling of More-Realistic Tools
In order to model more-realistic tools other than simple concentric
cylinders, two principally different tool geometries (a collar-based
tool and a probe-based tool) were chosen for the FEM analysis
and are shown in Figs. 1 through 8. The two principally different
tool types are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 5, respectively. The mag-
netic sensors in a collar-based tool are mounted eccentrically with
respect to the center axis of the tool, as shown in Fig. 1, while the
magnetic sensors in a probe-based tool are located closer to the
centerline of the tool, as shown in Fig. 5.
Case 6—Model of a Collar-Based Tool. The particular FEM
analysis of a 43=4 in.-collar-based tool run in a 61=2-in. hole that
was used as an example is shown in Figs. 1 through 4. As can be
seen from Figs. 1 and 2, we have chosen a situation in which the
tool touches the wellbore wall at a contact point of 225 , assum-
ing the highside is 0 . For this model, we introduced a gradient of
magnetic permeability ranging from 1.5% (0.015) at the top to
3% (0.03) at the bottom as a simplified model of sedimentation or
segregation in horizontal wellbores.
A possible location for sensors is indicated by the small square
inside an annular area. The drilling-fluid-filled volumes are
shaded in Fig. 1, and the sensor position is indicated by the small
square inside. The external magnetic field is B0 ¼ 50 000 nT, and
the angle is h ¼ 70 .
Figs. 3 and 4 show that with a collar-based tool and a gradient
of magnetic permeabilities in the fluid-filled area, the magnetic-
flux-density gradients are significant in the center area where the
MWD sensors are located. The shielding is also broken at the

Magnetic-Flux-Density Anomaly [nT] Magnetic-Flux-Density Anomaly [nT]

300 300

0.03 0.03
200 200
0.02 0.02
100 100
0.01 0.01
y

0 0 0 0

–0.01 –100 –0.01 –100

–0.02 –0.02
–200 –200
–0.03 –0.03
–300 –300
–0.04 –0.03 –0.02 –0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 –0.04 –0.03 –0.02 –0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
x x

Fig. 3—Anomaly Bm,x – B0,x of the flux-density x-component. Fig. 4—Anomaly Bm,y – B0,y of the flux-density y-component.
The area shown is the annular air-filled area in Fig. 1, in which The area shown is the annular air-filled area in Fig. 1, in which
the magnetic MWD sensors are located. the magnetic MWD sensors are located.

396 September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion

 0.25 area where the MWD sensors are located. The result agrees with
the effect modeled by Amundsen et al. (2006a,b). The values for
0.2 Bm,x and Bm,y vary only by a few nanoTeslas in the entire mea-
surement area. The tool is closest to the wellbore wall at 225 ,
0.15 assuming the highside is 0 . This angle, together with the external
field angle h of 70 , influences the angles visible in the anomaly
0.1 patterns shown in Figs. 7 and 8.

0.05
0 Collar Run in a 61=2-in. Hole. In this section, we have modeled
–0.05
–0.1
–0.15
–0.25 –0.2 –0.15 –0.1 –0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Fig. 5—Cross section of a probe-based tool inside a 41=2-in. col-
lar run in a 121=4-in. hole. The drilling-fluid-filled volumes are
shaded.
point where the tool touches the wellbore wall. These effects in
combination give a variation in the values for Bm,x and Bm,y of
more than 6200 nT greater than values in the measurement area.
At a typical North Sea location (B0 ¼ 50 000 nT, dip angle ¼ 72 ),
a cross-axial magnetometer error of 200 nT may cause an azimuth
error of 0.7 for a horizontal wellbore. If the azimuth estimation
also comprises determination of axial magnetic interference, the
azimuth error rises to 2.2 at azimuth ¼ 70 .
Case 7—Model of 2-in.-Probe-Based Tool Inside 8-in. Collar
Run in a 121=4-in. Hole. In this subsection, we have modeled a 2-
in.-probe-based tool that is mounted inside an 8-in. collar. Fig. 5
shows the geometry of the fluid-filled annular volumes, and Fig. 6
shows a plot of the modeled total-magnetic-flux density Bm in the
wellbore and the different parts of the BHA. Figs. 7 and 8 show
that for a probe-based tool that has a more-symmetrical geometry,
the magnetic-flux-density gradients are insignificant in the center
Case 8—Model of Small Collar-Based Tool inside 41=2-in.
a small collar-based tool that is mounted inside a 41=2-in. collar.
Fig. 5 shows the geometry of the fluid-filled annular volumes, and
Fig. 9 shows a plot of the modeled total-magnetic-flux density Bm
in the wellbore and the different parts of the BHA. Figs. 10 and
11 show the results from modeling the magnetic fields inside the
measurement area of a small collar-based MWD tool, where the
drilling fluid channel is off center and the MWD sensor area is off
center in the opposite direction. The less-symmetrical geometry
of the collar-based tool gives high anomaly for the magnetic-flux
density in the sensor area, with a variation over the small square
area of up to 450 nT for a susceptibility of 0.1. With asymmetrical
geometry, the placement of the magnetic MWD sensors may
become more sensitive to magnetic-shielding effects, and small
position changes may result in significant errors in the measured
magnetic-field components, both attenuation and amplification.
At a typical North Sea location (B0 ¼ 50 000 nT, dip angle ¼ 72 ),
a cross-axial magnetometer error of 450 nT may cause an azimuth
error of 1.7 for a horizontal wellbore. If the azimuth estimation
also comprises determination of axial magnetic interference, the
azimuth error rises to 4.9 at azimuth ¼ 70 .
Summary of Cases
The findings in this study are summarized in Table 6, in which the
cases are grouped into unbroken and broken shield, with the
resulting influence of the shielding on the MWD directional-
sensor readings.
Conclusions
From modeling of simple and more-realistic geometries represent-
ing magnetic-surveying tools inside a wellbore filled with well

Total-Magnetic-Flux Density [nT] Max: 5.07e4

×104

0.25 5.07

5.06
0.2
5.05
0.15
5.04
0.1
5.03
0.05
5.02
0
5.01
–0.05
5

–0.1 4.99

–0.15
4.98
–0.25 –0.2 –0.15 –0.1 –0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Min: 4.972e4

Fig. 6—Plot of modeled total-magnetic-flux density Bm. The external magnetic field is B0 5 50 000 nT. The angle is h 5 70º . The mag-
netic susceptibility of the drilling fluid is v 5 0.1.

September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion 397

 Magnetic-Flux-Density Anomaly [nT]

0.02

0.015 47

0.01
46
0.005

0
y

45

–0.005

44
–0.01

–0.015
43
–0.02

–0.025 –0.02 –0.015 –0.01 –0.05 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
x

Fig. 7—Anomaly of flux-density x-component Bm,x – B0,x in the center area where the MWD sensors are located. The external mag-
netic field is B0 5 50 000 nT. The magnetic susceptibility of the drilling fluid is v 5 0.1.

fluid with two different magnetic susceptibilities, we found that
in symmetrical situations, the attenuation of the field follows the
theoretical predictions presented in Amundsen et al. (2006a,b),
which means small values for magnetic anomalies inside the mea-
surement area because of the quadratic dependence on magnetic
susceptibility. For asymmetrical situations (e.g., with segregated
drilling fluid, broken shielding, or an eccentrically placed return
channel inside a collar-based tool), the effects become significant.
The variation can be several hundred nanoTeslas greater than a
small position change, and the effect is linearly dependent on
magnetic susceptibility. The linear dependence gives much higher
magnetic-flux anomalies, which may help explain some real-field
observations. In the models with broken symmetry, we also find
that small perturbations away from the exact center of the model
provide significant changes in the modeled anomalies. These
results mean that the placement of magnetometer sensors inside
the BHA may influence how magnetic azimuth is distorted by the
magnetic properties of drilling fluids.
In highly asymmetric situations with broken shields, the influ-
ence varies with the tool-face angle, showing both attenuation and
amplification; therefore, it will be difficult to develop algorithms
or methods for correction of such effects.

Magnetic-Flux-Density Anomaly [nT]

0.02
–121
0.015

0.01
–122

0.005

–123
0
y

–0.005
–124
–0.01

–0.015 –125

–0.02

–126
–0.02 –0.015 –0.01 –0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
x

Fig. 8—Anomaly of flux-density y-component Bm,y – B0,y in the center area where the MWD sensors are located. The external mag-
netic field is B0 5 50 000 nT. The magnetic susceptibility of the drilling fluid is v 5 0.1.

398 September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion

 Surface: Magnetic-flux density, norm [T] Max: 5.487e–5
×10–5

0.1
5.4

5.3
0.05

5.2

0
5.1

5
–0.05

4.9

–0.1
4.8
–0.1 –0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Min: 4.757e–5

Fig. 9—Plot of the total-magnetic-flux density for a small collar-based tool with eccentrically placed drilling-fluid channel. The sen-
sor area is the small square (25 mm). The external magnetic field is B0 5 50 000 nT, and the angle is h 5 45º . The magnetic suscepti-
bility of the drilling fluid is v 5 0.1.

Nomenclature h ¼ angle of the nominal magnetic-field vector B0, with

B0 ¼ magnitude of the nominal exterior magnetic field (flux
density)
B0,x ¼ component of the nominal exterior magnetic field along
the x-axis
B0,y ¼ component of the nominal exterior magnetic field along
the y-axis
Bm ¼ magnitude of the modeled magnetic field (flux density,
measured by the magnetic sensors)
Bm,x ¼ component of the modeled magnetic field along the x-
axis
Bm,y ¼ component of the modeled magnetic field along the y-
axis
respect to the x-axis
v ¼ magnetic susceptibility in SI units
1  v2 ¼ shielding factor
Acknowledgments
The results and examples presented in this paper are taken from a
study funded by Statoil ASA. The authors wish to thank Statoil
for permission to publish this paper. The authors also wish to
thank Aust- and Vest-Agder counties, the Competence Develop-
ment Fund of Southern Norway, and Det norske oljeselskap ASA
for financial support in presenting this paper.

Bm,x – B0,x [T] Max: –3.018e–8 Bm,y – B0,y [T] Max: 3.997e–7
×10–7 ×10–7
–0.5
–0.01 –0.01
3.5
–1
3
–0.015 –1.5 –0.015
2.5
–2
2
y

–0.02 –0.02
–2.5
1.5
–3
–0.025 –0.025 1
–3.5 0.5
–0.03 –4 –0.03 0
–4.5 –0.5
–0.01 –0.005 0 0.005 0.01 –0.01 –0.005 0 0.005 0.01
x Min: –4.703e–7 x Min: –5.96e–8

Fig. 10—Magnetic-flux-density anomaly Bm,x – B0,x in the sen- Fig. 11—Magnetic-flux-density anomaly Bm,y – B0,y in the sen-
sor area (i.e., the 25-mm square in Fig. 9). The maximum anom- sor area (i.e., the 25-mm square in Fig. 9). The maximum anom-
aly variation over the area is approximately 450 nT. aly variation over the area is almost 450 nT.

September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion 399

References
Amundsen, P.A., Torkildsen, T., Saasen, A. et al. 2006a. Shielding of
directional magnetic sensor readings in a Measurement While Drilling
tool for oil well positioning. UiS Paper No. 8, Department of Mathe-
matics and Natural Science, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Nor-
way (June 2005), http://www.ux.uis.no/per-am/pap/UiS_pap_8.pdf.
Amundsen, P.A., Torkildsen, T., and Saasen, A. 2006b. Shielding of
Directional Magnetic Sensor Readings in a Measurement While Dril-
ling Tool for Oil Well Positioning. J. Energy Resour. Technol. 128
(4): 343–345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2358151.
Ding, S., Datta, B.K., Saasen, A. et al. 2010. Experimental Investigation
of the Magnetic Shielding Effect of Mineral Powders in a Drilling
Fluid. Part. Sci. Technol. 28 (1): 86–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02726350903500781.
Jiles, D.C. 1991. Introduction to Magnetism and Magnetic Materials. Lon-
don: Chapman & Hall.
Johansen, C. 2006. Skjerming av magnetfelt i borehull. BS thesis (unpub-
lished), University of Stavanger (UiS), Stavanger, Norway.
Shook, C.A. and Roco, C.M. 1991. Slurry Flow: Principles and Practice.
London: Heinemann Series in Chemical Engineering, Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Saasen, A., Hoset, H., Rostad, E.J. et al. 2001. Application of Ilmenite as
Weight Material in Water Based and Oil Based Drilling Fluids. Pre-
sented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, 30 September–3 October. SPE-71401-MS. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/71401-MS.
Tellefsen, K., Ding, S., Saasen, A. et al. 2012. The Effect of Drilling Fluid
Content on Magnetic Shielding of Downhole Compasses in MWDs.
Presented at the SPE Deepwater Drilling and Completions Conference,
Galveston, Texas, USA, 20–21 June. SPE-150548-MS. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/150548-MS.
Torkildsen, T., Edvardsen, I., Fjogstad, A. et al. 2004. Drilling Fluid
affects MWD Magnetic Azimuth and Wellbore Position. Presented at
the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, 2–4 March. SPE-87169-
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/87169-MS.
Magnetic-Flux-Density Anomaly [T]
y (m)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
–0.1
–0.2
–0.3
–0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1 0 0.1
Fig. A-1—Example of flux-density-anomaly plot for circular cross section with a 200-mm radius with air-filled slots with 20-mm
width crossed at 90º (Case 2). Shown is the anomaly Bm,x – B0,x for an angle h 5 0º and susceptibility v 5 0.1. Color scale from
22500 nT (blue) to 0 (light turquoise) to 14000 nT (red). All subsequent plots in the appendix use the same scales. The arrows rep-
resent the direction of the nominal external magnetic field.
400
Wilson, H. and Brooks, A.G. 2001. Wellbore Position Errors Caused by
Drilling Fluid Contamination. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30 September–3 October.
SPE-71400-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/71400-MS.
Wilson, K.C., Addie, G.R., Sellgren, A. et al. 2006. Slurry Transport
Using Centrifugal Pumps, third edition. New York: Springer Scienceþ
Business Media.
Appendix A—This appendix presents the plots of the field anoma-
lies from the FEM modeling of the simple-geometry models. All
models have the same scales: color scale ranges from 2500 nT
(blue) to þ4000 nT (red). Zero anomaly is represented by the
color light turquoise. Fig. A-1 presents a magnified version of the
first subplot of Case 2—Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section
With Air-Filled Slots of 20-mm Width Crossed at 90 : the anom-
aly Bm,x – B0,x at h ¼ 0 . Arrows indicate the direction of the nom-
inal magnetic-field vector B0.
Fig. A-1 shows a complex magnetic-field pattern in the center
of two air-filled slots crossing at 90 (Case 2). In the slot parallel
to the x-axis and the external field, the field is generally attenuated
but shows a saddle point at the center, where the result is a small,
positive anomaly with high gradients, meaning that it is not a
good location for a magnetic sensor.
Case 1—Completely Fluid-Filled Circular Cross Section. Fig.
A-2 shows a simple situation in which the external magnetic field
B0 is shielded by uniformly distributed drilling fluids that fill the
entire wellbore. The shielding in the center is the same for all
directions of the external-field vector and for both the x- and y-
components.
Case 2—Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section With Air-
Filled Slots With 20-mm Width Crossed at 90º . Fig. A-3 shows
a complex magnetic-field pattern in the center of two air-filled
Max: 4.00e–6
×10–6
4
3
2
1
0
–1
–2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
x (m) Min: –2.50e–6
September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
 θ Bm,x – B0,x
0°
45°
90°
Fig. A-2—Flux-density-anomaly plots: full circle; susceptibility is 0.1; color scale from 22500 nT (blue) to 0 (light turquoise) to
14000 nT (red).
slots crossing at 90 . In the slots parallel to the external-field vec-
tor (arrows), the field component in the same direction is gener-
ally attenuated but shows a saddle point at the center, where the
result is a small, positive anomaly with high gradients, meaning
that it is not a good location for a magnetic sensor. For other
angles h, the resulting field pattern is even more complex.
Case 3—Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section With Single
Air-Filled Diametral Slot With 20-mm Width. Fig. A-4 shows
the magnetic-field pattern in the center of a single air-filled slot.
With the slot parallel to the external-field vector B0 (arrows), the
field component in the same direction is attenuated. With the slot
normal to the external-field vector, the field component in the
same direction as the external-field vector is amplified. The attenu-
ation and amplification effects are strong and show a linear varia-
tion with the magnetic susceptibility v. For a general angle h, the
resulting field pattern shows a gentle sinusoidal angular variation.
Case 4—Semicircle (One-Half of the Diametrally Slotted
Circle). Fig. A-5 shows the magnetic-field pattern in the center
of a wellbore where the cross section consists of an air-filled and
September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
Bm,y – B0,y
a fluid-filled nearly semicircular area, with an air-filled slot for
sensor placement. With the base of the semicircle parallel to the
external-field vector B0 (arrows), the field component in the same
direction is attenuated. With the base of the semicircle normal to
the external-field vector, the field component in the same direction
as the external-field vector is amplified. The attenuation and
amplification effects are strong and show a linear variation with
the magnetic susceptibility v. For a general angle h, the resulting
field pattern shows a gentle sinusoidal angular variation.
Case 5—Circular (200-mm Radius) Cross Section With Single
Air-Filled Radial Slot With 20-mm Width. Fig. A-6 shows the
magnetic-field pattern in the center of a single radial air-filled
slot. With the slot parallel to the external-field vector (arrows),
the field component in the same direction is attenuated. With the
slot normal to the external-field vector, the field component in the
same direction as the external-field vector is amplified. The
attenuation and amplification effects are strong, with values close
to one-half of the values for the full diametral slot shown in Fig.
A-4, and show a linear variation with the magnetic susceptibility
v. For a general angle h, the resulting field pattern shows a gentle
sinusoidal angular variation.
401
 θ Bm,x – B0,x Bm,y – B0,y

0°

45°

90°

Fig. A-3—Flux-density-anomaly plots: circle with crossed slots; susceptibility is 0.1; color scale from 22500 nT (blue) to 0 (light
turquoise) to 14000 nT (red).

402 September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion

 θ Bm,x – B0,x Bm,y – B0,y

0°

45°

90°

Fig. A-4—Flux-density-anomaly plots: circle with diametral slot; susceptibility is 0.1; color scale from 22500 (blue) to 0 (light tur-
quoise) to 14000 nT (red).

September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion 403

 θ Bm,x – B0,x Bm,y – B0,y

0°

45°

90°

Fig. A-5—Flux-density-anomaly plots: semicircle; susceptibility is 0.1; color scale from 22500 (blue) to 0 (light turquoise) to 14000
nT (red).

404 September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion

 θ Bm,x – B0,x
0°
45°
90°
Fig. A-6—Flux-density-anomaly plots: circle with radial slot; susceptibility is 0.1; color scale from 22500 (blue) to 0 (light tur-
quoise) to 14000 nT (red).
Tor Inge Waag is a senior scientist at Teknova A/S in Kristian-
sand, Norway, working with modeling of electromagnetic
fields, signal processing, and sensor physics. Previously, he
worked at SINTEF Petroleum Research and Sensorlink in Trond-
heim, Norway. Waag holds MS and PhD degrees in physics
from the Norwegian Institute of Technology [now Norwegian
University of Science and Technology (NTNU)].
Torgeir Torkildsen is an independent consultant in wellbore
positioning. Previously, he worked with Statoil, SINTEF Petroleum
Research, and NTNU. Torkildsen holds a PhD degree in geodesy
from the Norwegian Institute of Technology (now NTNU).
Per Amund Amundsen is a professor of physics at the University
of Stavanger, Norway. Previously, he worked at the University
of Bergen, the University of Oslo, the University of Copenha-
September 2012 SPE Drilling & Completion
Bm,y – B0,y
gen, and the Technical University of Munich. His research inter-
ests are general theoretical physics, astrophysics, and petro-
leum physics. Amundsen holds a doctoral degree in
theoretical physics from the University of Bergen.
Erik Nyrnes works at Statoil in Norway in the areas of well posi-
tioning and position accuracy. He holds a PhD degree from
the Norwegian Institute of Technology (now NTNU).
Arild Saasen is an advisor with Det norske oljeselskap ASA and
holds a position as adjunct professor in the Department of Pe-
troleum Engineering at the University of Stavanger. Previously,
he worked as a specialist in fluid technology at Statoil. Saasen
holds a degree in fluid mechanics from the University of Oslo,
Norway, and a PhD degree in rheology from the Technical
University of Denmark, Lyngby.
405