Harrys Error Uncertainty

Why do we need an error model?
n All measurements have errors.

n Errors that are not corrected for result in an uncertainty applicable to
the measurement.
n The uncertainty may exceed the allowable tolerance for a particular
application.
n Therefore there is a need for a valid quantification of the uncertainty.
n For a downhole survey tool, the uncertainty is calculated using an
“error model”.
© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

All rights reserved.
1
Types of error.
n Mistakes !
n Systematic.
n Random.
No error model will account for mistakes.
Current (‘98) error model does not account for random errors.

2
Mapping systems
n Wellhead and target will be defined in a global co-ordinate

system.
n Wellbore surveys are usually reported in local co-ordinates.
n Failure to ensure correct conversion and/or correlation
between mapping systems constitutes a gross error, and can
cause the target to be missed completely.

For drilling operations position is usually reported in local co-

ordinates, but at some time early in the planning phase it must be
ensured that the local wellbore co-ordinate system is related correctly
to the wider world. Similarly it must be ensured that all locations of
interest are referenced to a common mapping system.
Failure to get this right constitutes a gross error, that is an error that
is not included in planning presumptions, or in estimates of position
uncertainty.
Opportunities for error ocurr when data is transfered within the

operating company and between the operating company and
contractors such as seismic and directional.
The survey company is normally not a user or recipient of the

mapping data (other than convergence). It is normally the directional
contractor who must be aware, in order to correctly initiate its
database.
3
The effect of randomization.
A 10 per 100 error will grow as:

Depth Systematic Random
0 0 0
100 10 10
200 20 14
300 30 17
400 40 23
500 50 28
↓ ↓ ↓
1,000 100 32

4
Other positional errors
Our task is to drill from wellhead to target, but...
n The wellhead position will have some error.
n The target location will have some error.

How and when these uncertainties are be included depends on what

we are evaluating.
Both can affect the probability of hitting the target, but surface
location uncertainty much less so. It is more often associated with
anit-collision monitoring.
Many wells are drilled without taking either into account.
5
Benefits of More Accurate Surveys
n Closer drilling possible, less shut-ins

n Provides larger drilling target, cheaper drilling
n Greater chance of hitting target
n Better reservoir definition
n Easier relief well drilling

One approach to defining the target for the driller, is to shrink the
original geological target according to its uncertainty, then to further
shrink it based on wellbore survey uncertainty. This produces a
“driller’s target”. If the driller lands the well within it, we are confident
that the well has hit the actual target (with the specified degree of
confidence). This exercise demonstrates the benefits of accurate
surveys, giving a bigger target for the driller to hit, and therefore
reducing drilling time.
The design of a survey program that is “fit for purpose” in a strictly

limited sense can be a false economy. All factors must be
considered, including drillability and possible future requirements.
Better reservoir definition is not usually a consideration, but there is

surely an advantage in both improved validity of uncertainty
estimation, and in improved accuracy.
ie it is possible that position uncertainty may allow the target to be
intersected with sufficient confidence, but may be too large to allow
improved interpretation of the reservoir,
or, if the uncertainty is reported as being smaller than it actually is,
false interpretation of the reservoir model may ensue.
6
For directional survey data to be of real
use it must:
n be free from gross error.
n include a valid estimate of position uncertainty.

Unfortunately gross errors are not infrequent, and error models are
not always as valid as we would lke them to be.
The industry is working on improvements in both areas.
7
Development of an Error Model
• Develop model based on theory.
• Test for all conditions.
• Modify the model based on results.
• Retest.
• Enforce lab and field procedures so that

presumptions made in model apply to
operations.

8
Why an ellipse?
Error, or uncertainty, in one dimension.

9
Why an ellipse?
Error, or uncertainty, in a second dimension.
- +
X

10
Why an ellipse?
Two dimensional uncertainty?

_ +

11
Normal Distribution
-2σ -1σ 0 +1σ +2σ

12
Why an ellipse?
_
+

If the two eror sources are uncorrelated, it is unlikely that an extreme

error on new will coincide with an extreme error in the other.
13
Why an ellipse?

14
Why an ellipse?

15
The ellipse is a “contour”
drawn at a particular confidence level

16
The ellipse is not an area of even
probability
X X X O

There is a natural tendency to think that the well has equal probability
of being at any of the positions marked X, and zero probability of the
well being at point O, but this is not correct .
17
The ellipse is a “contour”
drawn at a particular confidence level
X X X O

18
Confidence levels.
1-D 2-D 3-D
1σ 68 39 20
2σ 95 86 74
3σ 99.7 98.9 97

19
Three Basic Directional
Measurements
n Measured depth errors affect vertical and radial uncertainty.
n Inclination errors affect radial and vertical uncertainty.
n Azimuth errors affect lateral uncertainty.

20
Position Uncertainty (2 sigma, half axes)
LAT 60, KO 800’, BUR 3/100, Hold 60, TD 13,900’md
MWD type hole direct’n 20 ° hole direct’n 70 °
lateral vertical lateral vertical
MTC 243’ 73’ 278’ 73’
MTC + sag 243’ 37’ 278’ 37’
MTC + sag 261’ 37’ 593’ 37’

+ mag
21
Position Uncertainty (2 sigma, half axes)
LAT 60, KO 800’, BUR 3/100, Hold 60, TD 13,900’md
TOOL Azimuth 20 ° Azimuth 70 °

Lateral / Vertical Lateral / Vertical
“Good Mag” 279 82 281 82
“Poor mag” 606 168 1495 168
NaviTrak 243’ 73’ 278’ 73’
NaviT + sag 243’ 37’ 278’ 37’
NaviT + sag + 261’ 37’ 593’ 37’

mag

22
Drillstring interference
The effect of axial interference increases,

generally, with:
n higher latitude
n higher inclination
n higher azimuth (towards east/west)

Axial interference is the magnetic interference caused by the

magnetic field that exists in the steel drillstring components.
Magnetic survey tools are positioned in non magnetic drill collars to
reduce this effect. Increasing non magnetic spacing to reduce the
effect increases cost and moves sensors further back from the bit
which makes steering the well more difficult.
23
Drillstring interference corrections
The uncertainty associated with such corrections tends to

increase with:
n higher latitude
n higher inclination
n higher azimuth (towards east/west)

It is possible to correct for drillstring interference. This allows

reduced NMDC length, and allows the sensor to be placed closer to
the bit, but the algorithms used have error (or uncertainty) inherent in
them. This error is a function of tools accuracy and of the accuracy
with which we know the local magnetic field.
The error model includes a term for drillstring interference, or for the
residual error from correction. At high angle, approaching east/west it
can be the dominant azimuth error term.
24
MAGCORR uncertainty
Azimuth uncertainty, North Sea Region

90
Azimuth Error (degrees) - 2 Sigma

10
80
5
70
Azimuth (degrees from N-
60
2
50
S)
40
1
30
20 0.5
10 0.25
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
All rights reserved. Inclination (degrees from vertical)
This chart indicates the azimuth uncertainty contribution from

applying our drillstring interference correction algorithm. Second
generation algorithms are now being deployed which might improve
on this performance.
The big advantage of such corrections is that they allow the sensor to
be placed much closer to the bit than would normally be the case.
They do not necessarily improve accuracy.
The residual error after correction can be significantly reduces if the

magnetic field parameters are obtained from a more accurate source
than a global model, eg aeromagnetic survey, site survey,
interpolated in-field reference, etc.
25
Separation Factor
r1 r2
C
SF =
r + r2
1

26
Separation Factor
c
SF =
c−e
27
Separation Factor
c
SF =
c−e

28
PROXIMITY CALCULATIONS

Maersk TS - 10/98 - 29
A combination of “while drilling” surveys (used to monitor and correct

drilling progress), and “multishot” surveys (used to update or confirm
the while drilling surveys).
“Geometric” used here to differentiate from geologic positioning.
29
PROXIMITY CALCULATION
n The customer must quantify risk (outcome).
n Based on risk, customer will specify acceptable

probability of intersection.
n Contractor plans and steers well accordingly.

30
n In the beginning there was centre to centre distance (c).

n Then we included position uncertainty and calculated
“ellipse to ellipse” separation (e).
n Then we introduced Separationn Factor (SF), a ratio of c and
e.
n The final goal is calculation of “probability of intersection”.

31
Separation Factor
r1 r2
C
SF =
r + r2
1

32
Separation Factor
c
SF =
c−e
33
Separation Factor
c
SF =
c−e

34
“C” 50 100
50 100

35
“E” 50 100
10 30

36
“SF” 50 100
1.25 1.43

37
Proximity Calculations.
Value Well 1 versus 2 Well 2 versus 3

C 50 100
E 10 30
SF 1.25 1.43

Maersk TS - 10/98 - 38
38
n BP pioneered the use of probability of intersection - QRA.
n They have now backed of its use in critical situations

because:
– “Mistakes” are too common for uncertainty distributions to be

sufficiently valid.
– Differences between the actual and calculated unceratinty

distributions give rise to large dimensional differences at small
probabilities.

39
Target versus survey uncertainty
Survey program A Survey program B
Target Target

Survey program B may cost several thousand $ more than program

A, and since program A appears to be fit for purpose, there is no
need to incur the additional cost of specifying program B.
40
Driller’s target
Survey program A Survey program B
Target
Target

Reducing the geological target by the dimensions of the survey

uncertainty generates a “Driller’s target”. This is what the driller must
hit to ensure that the geological target is hit with the required degree
of confidence.
The additional cost of program B may be deemed worthwhile when
the drilling cost (predominately rig time) of hitting the smaller driller’s
target generated by program A is taken into account.
41
Survey Tool Performance
can be Sensitive to:
n Location
n Inclination
n Azimuth
n Dogleg
n Time
n Duration
n Tempeature
n Etc.

42
Depth Control
lGyro survey.
Measured depth error 0.5/1000.
Cumulative undertainty at 5000 = 2.5
lMWD.
Measured depth error 2.0/1000.
Cumulative uncertainty 5000 to 10000 = 10.0

43
Depth Control
Cumulative uncertianty at 10000:
• Random summation (EC*TRAK) = 10.3
• Systematic summation = 12.5
• Actual uncertainty in real time = 20.0

44
Wellbore Uncertainty Estimates
Clearance Factor
n Purely geometrical computation
n Relies entirely upon ‘100%’ assumption
n Untenable with ‘100%’ ellipses
n Cannot be used for QRA
n Require alternative to CF for QRA

45
Definition of EC*Trak error term
n Type
n Mean asumed to be zero
n Variance
n Station to station correlation asumed to be 1
(ie systematic)

46
Definition of an error term
n Type
n Mean
n Variance
n Correlation station to station
n Correlation survey to survey
n Correlation well to well

47
Example horizontal well.
Program 4000m MD 6000m MD

Lateral / Vertical Lateral / Vertical
MWD 69 22 105 36
MWD sag 69 11 104 17
MWD sag/spaced 80 11 163 17
MWD sag/mag 76 11 619 17
Seeker+MWD 42 6 142 11
1
RIGS+MWD 36 5 141 10
2
RIGS+MWD 32 5 135 10
RIGS+MWD3 32 5 132 10

Well is at latitude 61N, profile has large azimuth turn out of 13 3/8”
shoe, horizontal section is almost due east.
4000m is approx heel of the horizontal, 6000m is the toe.
Casing shoe at 3000m is taken as deepest gyro survey.
Uncertainty values are at a 2 sigma confidence level.
MWD1 = MWD with correct spacing input and sag corrected

MWD2 = MWD magnetic interference and sag corrected
MWD3 = MWD with correct spacing input, sag corrected, and
declination improved by eg, aeromagneic survey.
MWD4= MWD with correct spacing input, sag corrected, and
declination improved by eg, in-field referencing.
The uncertainty values, relative to each other, are not intuitive. this is
typical of more complex wells. A different profile may indicate much
greater benefit from switching Seeker for RIGS, or may indicate that
mag correcting the MWD is a viable option.
48
Geometric versus Geologic position.
n Both estimates of position are of value.
n A combination of both should be used to best define the position of

the wellbore.
n Uncertainty relative to wellhead and to geological markers are both of

interest.
n We may provide more than one estimate of wellbore position, tailored

to the end use.

Geometric data can be tied to geological markers to reduce

uncertainty relative to the target.
At present we tend not to evaluate both sets of data together. We
need to get better at understanding how to combine the two. Better
communication between the Survey/Directional company and G&G
departments is required.
49
The Future?
n Industry Steering Committee on Wellbore Survey Accuracy.
n BP, INTEQ, STATOIL, Sysdrill consortium.
n Sysdrill “Director”.

50

Harrys Error Uncertainty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harrys Error Uncertainty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Why do we need an error model?

n All measurements have errors.

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

No error model will account for mistakes.

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

n Wellhead and target will be defined in a global co-ordinate

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

For drilling operations position is usually reported in local co-

Opportunities for error ocurr when data is transfered within the

The survey company is normally not a user or recipient of the

A 10 per 100 error will grow as:

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

Our task is to drill from wellhead to target, but...

n The wellhead position will have some error.

n The target location will have some error.

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

How and when these uncertainties are be included depends on what

n Closer drilling possible, less shut-ins

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

The design of a survey program that is “fit for purpose” in a strictly

Better reservoir definition is not usually a consideration, but there is

n be free from gross error.

n include a valid estimate of position uncertainty.

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

• Develop model based on theory.

• Test for all conditions.

• Modify the model based on results.

• Enforce lab and field procedures so that

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

Error, or uncertainty, in one dimension.

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

Error, or uncertainty, in a second dimension.

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

Two dimensional uncertainty?

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

-2σ -1σ 0 +1σ +2σ

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

If the two eror sources are uncorrelated, it is unlikely that an extreme

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

1-D 2-D 3-D

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

n Measured depth errors affect vertical and radial uncertainty.

n Inclination errors affect radial and vertical uncertainty.

n Azimuth errors affect lateral uncertainty.

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

MWD type hole direct’n 20 ° hole direct’n 70 °

lateral vertical lateral vertical

MTC 243’ 73’ 278’ 73’

MTC + sag 243’ 37’ 278’ 37’

MTC + sag 261’ 37’ 593’ 37’

TOOL Azimuth 20 ° Azimuth 70 °

“Poor mag” 606 168 1495 168

NaviTrak 243’ 73’ 278’ 73’

NaviT + sag 243’ 37’ 278’ 37’

NaviT + sag + 261’ 37’ 593’ 37’

© 1998 Baker Hughes Incorporated

The effect of axial interference increases,

n higher azimuth (towards east/west)