See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/200072829

Wellbore Path Estimation Using Measurement While Drilling Techniques: A

Comparative Study and Suggestions for Improvements

Article  in  Energy Sources Part A Recovery Utilization and Environmental Effects · April 2009
DOI: 10.1080/15567030802087502

CITATIONS READS

4 952

4 authors:

Abdennour C Seibi Ali Karrech

University of Louisiana at Lafayette University of Western Australia
121 PUBLICATIONS   603 CITATIONS    147 PUBLICATIONS   804 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fathi Boukadi Tasneem Pervez

University of Louisiana at Lafayette Sultan Qaboos University
56 PUBLICATIONS   224 CITATIONS    104 PUBLICATIONS   536 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Natural fracture reactivation and its impact on EOR View project

Special Issue on 'Mitigating the Impacts of Mining', International Journal of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdennour C Seibi on 25 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Seibi, A. C.]
On: 19 May 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 911408028]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713770930

Wellbore Path Estimation Using Measurement While Drilling Techniques: A

Comparative Study and Suggestions for Improvements
A. Seibi a; A. Karrech b; F. Boukadi c; T. Pervez d
a
The Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates b CSIRO Exploration & Mining, Bentley, WA,
Australia c University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA d Sultan Qaboos University, Al-
Khod, Oman

Online Publication Date: 01 January 2009

To cite this Article Seibi, A., Karrech, A., Boukadi, F. and Pervez, T.(2009)'Wellbore Path Estimation Using Measurement While Drilling
Techniques: A Comparative Study and Suggestions for Improvements',Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects,31:14,1205 — 1216
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15567030802087502
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030802087502

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Energy Sources, Part A, 31:1205–1216, 2009
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1556-7036 print/1556-7230 online
DOI: 10.1080/15567030802087502

Wellbore Path Estimation Using Measurement

While Drilling Techniques: A Comparative Study
and Suggestions for Improvements

A. SEIBI,1 A. KARRECH,2 F. BOUKADI,3 and T. PERVEZ4

1
The Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
2
CSIRO Exploration & Mining, Bentley, WA, Australia
3
University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, Louisiana, USA
4
Sultan Qaboos University, Al-Khod, Oman
Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

Abstract The complexity of wells being drilled has increased over the past few
years in order to fulfill the worldwide increase in energy demand. The existing
drilling technologies make it possible to construct boreholes with different directions.
However, the control of paths and trajectories within the operator requirement is a
non-obvious task, because of the data transmission time and the space discretization
for measurements. This article aims at reviewing the most common techniques of
curvature measurements and data transmission. It also compares them by outlining
their advantages and weaknesses.

Keywords comparative, drilling, estimation, measurement, study, wellbore path

Introduction
The increasing use of rotary steerable systems has made a wide range of wellbore
trajectories possible to realize (Stockhausen and Lesso, 2003). These complex trajec-
tories necessitate sophisticated data, proper transmission techniques, accurate sensors,
and extensive survey methods. Measurements while drilling (MWD) surveys have been
used for several decades to identify the borehole path, stability, as well as local borehole
curvatures; thereby, enhancing the drilling efficiency. Various techniques have been used
throughout the years yet field engineers are still searching for faster transmission data
systems and more reliable survey methods (Gabris et al., 1988; Killeen et al., 1995;
Lesso et al., 2001; Ngugi, 2002; Jellison et al., 2003; Brett et al., 2003; Heisig et al.,
2004; Matheson et al., 2004). Existing technologies ranging from the most commonly
used directional survey techniques to a recently developed technique based on “bending
dogleg severity” (Bending DLS) were summarized. The present article, therefore, presents
the concept of directional drilling with particular interest on the most popular techniques
of data transmission, and reviews the most common directional survey techniques. The
article also considers the borehole curvature deduction and borehole planning and presents
a comprehensive comparison between existing survey techniques. Sources of errors from
the various survey techniques are also described through real field cases gathered from
literature.

Address correspondence to A. Seibi, The Petroleum Institute, Mechanical Engineering

Department, P.O. Box 25633, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: aseibi@pi.ac.ae

1205
 1206 A. Seibi et al.

Directional Drilling
Directional wells are mostly performed using steerable system mud motors incorporating
a bent housing that may be stabilized similar to a rotary bottom hole assembly (Stock-
hausen and Lesso, 2003). Most of the time, directional drilling is achieved by combining
a series of rotary drilling followed by slide drilling using steerable motors. However, the
steerable system curve rate, which can be monitored through MWD sensors, changes with
differing formation material properties resulting in curvatures of 8ı/100 ft in moderately
competent sand and 5ı/100 ft in case of softer formation (Lesso et al., 2001).

Data Transmission
During measurements while drilling (MWD) physical properties such as wellbore trajec-
tory in three-dimensional space, are evaluated while extending a wellbore. This technique
has proved its viability through several field tests (Gabris et al., 1988). MWD is now
a standard practice in directional wells. Measurements are made downhole, stored in
solid-state memory, and later transmitted to the surface. The limitations and advantages
of the most commonly used data transmission techniques ranging from wireline steering
Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

tool, mud pulse telemetry, and electromagnetic telemetry can be found in the literature
(Jellison et al., 2003; Brett et al., 2003).

Directional Survey Techniques

Directional and consequently curvature survey is an integral part of all drilling operations.
The main objectives of the directional survey are to evaluate the dogleg severity along
the course of the wellbore and to monitor the actual well orientation in order to ensure
that the wellbore is being drilled according to the planned path. This section highlights
the most commonly used techniques in the field.

Magnetic Single-shot and Multi-shot Instruments

In the single-shot device, a compass and a camera mechanism are mounted on gimbals
with the bottom side weighted to maintain the gravitational vertical reference (i.e., as an
inclinometer) and moves freely in its housing (see Figure 1). In the multi-shot instrument,
an 8-mm film camera takes photos of the dip and azimuth readings at several measurement
depths during one trip in the hole. The film is advanced to the times (frames) that
correspond to the recorded measurement-depth/time data, and the dip and azimuth values
are read (Killeen et al., 1995). A tropari instrument similar to the magnetic single-shot
instruments where the camera is replaced by a clockwork is also used. The tropari clock
locks all the moving parts and is retrieved from the hole to read the dip and magnetic
azimuth value at a certain depth (Killeen et al., 1995).

Gyro Single-shot and Multi-shot

This instrument uses basically the same principle as the above-mentioned magnetic
instruments where the gyroscopic compass replaces the magnetic compass. Surveys can
be carried out inside metal pipe and in the presence of magnetic anomalies. The major
disadvantage of the above tools lies on their data transmission limitations, since they run
on wireline and drilling is generally interrupted while carrying out the survey. Therefore,
even though reliable, these instruments are rarely used today.
 MWD Techniques: A Comparative Study 1207
Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

Figure 1. Magnetic single-shot instrument (Cook et al., 1989).

Optical Instruments (Light Beam Methods)

This technique is based on a light source in one end of a long tube with the light beam
focused on a target in the other end of the tube to detect tube deflection (Killeen et al.,
1995). The technique is not affected by magnetic fields and can be used inside metal
pipe or drill rod. For best results, the probe should have a clearance of 1 mm with the
borehole for maximum sensitivity to the bending effect. This means that surveying inside
the drill rod is actually preferable since it is safer than logging in an open hole where
the chance of getting the probe stuck is greater.

MWD System
It is the preferred method of surveying and has a major advantage over other surveying
techniques as the tools are part of the bottomhole assembly (BHA) (Gabris et al., 1988;
Killeen et al., 1995; Lesso et al., 2001; Ngugi, 2002; Jellison et al., 2003; Brett et al.,
2003; Matheson et al., 2004). MWD uses a tri-axial magnetometer sensor to measure
the individual components of the magnetic field and a tri-axial accelerometer sensor to
measure the individual components of the gravity field (see Figure 2).

Gravity MWD (GMWD) System

This technique is newly developed in directional drilling and uses double tri-axial sets of
accelerometers in order to measure the gravity field at two separated points from which
the wellbore curvature can be estimated (Matheson et al., 2004), see Figure 3. This
technology is not susceptible to magnetic interferences and presents some limitations
related to (i) the GMWD azimuth is obtained after repeated additions of the azimuth
changes with respect to a reference, and (ii) the accuracy of the results at very low (<1ı )
and high (>70ı) inclinations. Matheson et al. (2004) reported a field case history located
 1208 A. Seibi et al.
Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

Figure 2. MWD instrument (Matheson et al., 2004).

Figure 3. Gravity MWD instrument (Gabris et al., 1988).

 MWD Techniques: A Comparative Study 1209

Figure 4. Effect of magnetic anomalies on dogleg survey (Cook et al., 1989).

Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

in the Southern North Sea gas basin, where they showed the advantage of using GMWD
in order to avoid the magnetic interference (see Figure 4).

Bending Moment Measurement

This is a completely different borehole surveying technique. It is based on measuring
the BHA bending moment using strain gauges from which the borehole curvature is
deducted. Strain gauges are positioned and oriented orthogonally about the cylindrical
axis of the BHA to measure tube deflection and local curvature, which is converted into
borehole orientation survey data.

Curvature Deduction
The standard method of wellbore path characterization consists of following a trend
between points by connecting the data points by segments of a circle such that the
segments line up with each other smoothly. This method is used to plot out deviation
surveys based on a limited number of survey points to find the path of a wellbore.

Dogleg Survey
Over several years, the minimum curvature directional survey calculation method is
accepted as a standard for the calculation of 3D surveys and recognized as one of the
most accurate methods (Sawaryn and Thorogood, 2003). In MWD surveys, Heisig et al.
(2004) used the measured data consisting of inclination ˛i , azimuth angle ˇi , and depth
si at each station i are to estimate the borehole tendency based on the minimum curvature
method:
ar cos.cos.ˇi C1 ˇi / sin ˛i C1 sin ˛i C cos ˛i C1 cos ˛i /
i C1 D : (1)
si C1 si
This approach indicates that the curvature (dogleg) between two survey stations is
constant; thereby, the well path between two measurements is assumed to have a circular
 1210 A. Seibi et al.

arc. Development of this new directional technology made it possible to drill to a depth
interval of 90 ft which may lead to the inaccuracy of the collected data (Stockhausen
and Lesso, 2003; Heisig et al., 2004).

Bending Dogleg Survey

The first attempt to relate the borehole curvature to the bending moment measured on the
BHA was performed by Cook et al. (1989). A drilling mechanics sub was developed to
measure the dynamic collar forces, accelerations, and fluid pressures close to the bit while
drilling two directional wells in the Gulf of Mexico. The results showed that the measured
bending moment depends on the borehole inclination and increases with increase in
acceleration. Cook et al. (1989) also showed that the curvature obtained from bending
moment measurement allows the driller to identify local doglegs in a well trajectory.
Figure 5 shows that the variation of bending moment increases and that the spacing of
the two lobes in the bending moment log is consistent with the distance between two
doglegs created while making a course correction. Recently, a new technique known
as the bending dogleg survey (BDLS), based on strain measurements, relates wellbore
Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

curvature, , to bending moment which is given by (Hood et al., 2003; Heisig et al.,
2004):
M
D (2)
EI

Figure 5. (a) Rotary bottomhole assembly and (b) bending moment measurement for the well
(Heisig et al., 2004).
 MWD Techniques: A Comparative Study 1211

where E and I are respectively the elastic modulus and the moment of inertia of the
BHA.

Accuracy of the Survey Techniques and Effect on

Borehole Paths
Borehole planning takes into account the formation properties, casing size, targeted depth,
and several other factors in order to hit the target using the existing BHAs. Generally,
the planned tolerance is achieved properly. However, the accuracy of the estimations
depends on the mode of drilling as well as the refinement of measurement points and
data transmission time. Figure 6 shows that MWD presents significant deviations with
respect to the actual position measurement obtained after drilling. The stationary survey
is obviously much more inaccurate as compared to the MWD.

Comparison of the Survey Techniques and Sources of Errors

Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

The techniques introduced in the last section will be compared through field cases. The
data presented were recorded on different wells. It is worthwhile noticing that the accuracy
of downhole survey tools cannot be assessed easily. In fact, each technique is suitable
for a given configuration but becomes irrelevant in other situations. In addition, the use
of different tools in the same hole is not a common practice.
Example 1: Figure 7 shows a comparison of data obtained for a well in Casablanca
16, which is characterized by its horizontal length (4,000 m) and high drift angle
(66ı) using seven different tools (Gabris et al., 1988). It can be noticed that the
MWD is the most suitable measurement technique except in the tangent region (around

Figure 6. Comparison between MWD data and stationary inclination and continuous gyro
measurements.
 1212 A. Seibi et al.
Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

Figure 7. Comparison between six survey tools, suitability of the MWD.

1,200 m) where the MWD and the inertial navigation platform showed good agreement.
Gabris et al. (1988) confirmed that this tool “outperformed all the tools.” Table 1
reports the performance and weaknesses of the above-cited survey tools using common
criteria.
Example 2: Since the depth interval between stations has increased recently from 30
to 90 ft, the interpolation between points does not reflect the actual wellbore trajectories
anymore (Stockhausen and Lesso, 2003). Figure 8 shows the discrepancy between con-
tinuous (circles) and stationary (rectangles) inclinations as well as continuous (points)
and stationary (triangles) azimuths. This discrepancy can induce an important error when
calculating the true vertical depth of the well. This positional difference originates from
the non-constant curvature between two stationary points. Stockhausen and Lesso (2003)
suggest a simple solution consisting of returning to the measurements with 30 ft depth
intervals. Although costly, this approach may reduce the true vertical depth (TVD)
positional differences by more then 90%.
Example 3: Figure 9 shows both survey of bending DLS recorded over a distance
of 850 m. The conventional DLS survey represents a step function with respect to the
borehole depth. This is due to the assumption of constant curvature between measurement
stations. However, the bending DLS displays high fluctuation as the bending moment
measurements deliver higher resolution than the minimum curvature method. Figure 10
provides readable curves obtained through interpolation of the measurements. It shows
that there is a shape agreement between the results but the quantitative difference is
very significant. Figure 11 shows that the difference between the two surveys can reach
more than 50% in some regions, which may be related to the assumption that the BHA
curvature coincides with the borehole curvature. Therefore, this assumption has to be
carefully reviewed.
 MWD Techniques: A Comparative Study 1213

Table 1
Summary of the comparison between tools used in Casablanca 16

Borehole
Tool Accuracy Cost Shape temperature Environment

A Very accurate High Large (outside Temp. max. 150ı —

diameter 10
3/800 )
B Less accurate than — — — —
tool A
D Accuracy Low Small (outside — —
deteriorated diameter of
slightly with 1 3/400 )
inclination
E Moderately accurate Inexpensive Small (outside — —
survey data diameter of
2 1/200 )
G Slightly erratic Inexpensive Simple, easily — —
Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

transported
M More accurate than — — High temperature Operates in real
W data given by time in hostile
D gyroscopic and environment
multi-shot tools

Figure 8. Differences between continuous (circles) and stationary (rectangles) inclinations and
differences between continuous (points) and stationary (triangles) azimuths.
 1214 A. Seibi et al.
Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

Figure 9. Measurements fluctuations cut off (Stockhausen and Lesser, 2003).

Figure 10. Field measurements.

Conclusions
This article focused on reviewing the most common techniques of curvature measure-
ments and data transmission and conducting a comparison study between them. Several
data transmission techniques can be found in the literature. Wireline steering tool, which
is the simplest technology, provides high transmission rates as compared to its wireless
counterparts. However, it requires complicated connections while drilling. In addition,
mud pulse telemetry is the current standard method for MWD information transmission
 MWD Techniques: A Comparative Study 1215

Figure 11. Differences in percentage between the two measurements.

Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

where its rate ranges from 8 to 10 bits/sec. Moreover, electromagnetic telemetry which is
a wireless transmission technique consists of propagating electromagnetic waves through
the formation and its rate is almost 100 bits/sec.
Nowadays, high-speed transmission from MWD tools provides surveys in a near real
time. Wellbore path can be available every 90 seconds while drilling. Transmitted data
related to wellbore consists of measuring the displacement azimuth and dip (inclination)
to estimate the dogleg severity while drilling. There are several techniques that allow
drillers to perform directional wells. The most common are the magnetic single/multi-
shot instruments, Tropari, Gyro single/multi-shot shot, optical instruments, MWD system,
gravity MWD system, and bending moment instruments. The major disadvantage of the
first three tools lies on their data transmission limitations, since data is transmitted through
wireline, which can be interruptive to drilling; thereby, they are rarely used these days.
The MWD instrument is the preferred method of surveying and has a major advantage
over other surveying techniques since the tools are part of the BHA. However, like other
magnetic instruments, MWD is susceptible to magnetic anomalies unless run inside costly
non-magnetic drill collars to isolate them from magnetic fields. All of these considerations
led to the development of non-magnetic systems. The gravity MWD, which is a derivative
of the MWD instrument and not susceptible to magnetic interferences, still has some
limitations related to the GMWD azimuth and its accuracy at very low (<1ı ) and high
(>70ı ) inclinations. Another alternative of the MWD termed “light beam methods” is
not affected by magnetic fields and can be used inside metal pipe or drill rod but still
needs further improvements. Finally, particular care was given to the emerging bending
moment measurement technique, which assumes that the borehole curvature coincides
with that of BHA. However, this assumption seems to be inaccurate where the curvature
obtained from bending moment measurement is at least twice the borehole curvature
determined from the borehole survey.
For future work, the authors suggest the development of an experimental set up which
simulates BHA traveling inside a complex borehole trajectory. A comparison between the
existing measurement techniques can be carried out first. Such a comparison will be very
useful for the directional drillers. Later on, new measurement instruments can be tested
on the same set-up. There are at least two possible ideas related to the use of an optical
 1216 A. Seibi et al.

tool with long flexible tube with discrete sequences, and multi-strain measurements along
the BHA can be studied for improvement of MWD.

References
Brett, P., Weisbeck, D., and Graham, R. 2003. Innovative technology advances use of electromag-
netic MWD offshore in southern North Sea. SPE paper #81628. IADC/SPE Underbalanced
Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, March 25–26, 2003.
Cook, R. L., Nicholson, J. W., Sheppard, M. C., and Westlake, W. 1989. First real time mea-
surements of downhole vibrations, forces, and pressures used to monitor directional drilling
operations. SPE paper #18651. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana,
February 28–March 3, 1989.
Gabris, P. M., Hansen, R. R., and Bartrina, J. 1988. A field comparison of the directional accuracy
of MWD in comparison with six other survey tools. SPE paper #17214. SPE/IADC Drilling
Conference, Dallas, Texas, February 28–March 2, 1988.
Heisig, G., Cavallaro, G., Jogi, P., Hood, J., and Forstner, I. 2004. Continuous borehole curva-
ture estimates while drilling based on downhole bending moment measurements. SPE paper
#90794. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, Texas, September 26–29,
Downloaded By: [Seibi, A. C.] At: 07:01 19 May 2009

2004.
Hood, J., Hovden, J., Heisig, G., Ernesti, K. D., and Knipper, A. 2003. Real-time BHA bending
information reduces risk when drilling hard interbedded formations. SPE paper #79918.
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, February 19–21, 2003.
Jellison, M. J., Prideco, G., Hall, D. R., Howard, D. C., Hall, H. T., Long, R. C., Chandler, R. B.,
and Pixton, D. S. 2003. Telemetry drill pipe: Enabling technology for the downhole internet.
SPE paper #79885. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, February 19–
21, 2003.
Killeen, P. G., Bernius, G. R., and Mwenifumbo, C. J. 1995. Surveying the path of boreholes: A
review of orientation methods and experiences. Proceedings of the 6th International MGLS
Symposium on Borehole Geophysics for Minerals, Geotechnical, and Groundwater Applica-
tions, Santa Fe, New Mexico, October 22–25.
Lesso, W. G., Rezmer-Cooper, I. M., and Chau, M. 2001. Continuous direction and inclination
measurements revolutionize real-time directional drilling decision-making. SPE paper #67752.
SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, Netherlands, February 27–March 1, 2001.
Matheson, E., McElhinney, G., and Lee, R. 2004. The first use of gravity MWD in offshore drilling
delivers reliable azimuth measurements in close proximity to sources of magnetic interference.
SPE paper #87166. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, March 2–4, 2004.
Ngugi, P. K. 2002. Technical economic and institutional evaluation of adopting directional drilling
by Kengen, Kenya. Report N 9, Geothermal Training Programme, The United Nations Uni-
versity. New York, NY: United Nations.
Sawaryn, S. J., and Thorogood, J. L. 2003. A compendium of directional calculations based on
the minimum curvature method. SPE paper #84246. SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, October 5–8, 2003.
Stockhausen, E. J., and Lesso, W. G. 2003. Continuous direction and inclination measurements lead
to an improvement in wellbore positioning. SPE paper #79917. SPE/IADC Drilling Conference,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, February 19–21, 2003.

View publication stats