Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This paper (SPE 173103) was accepted for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling DLS. First, we need to warn against confusing the tortuosity phe-
Conference and Exhibition, London, 17–19 March 2015, and revised for publication. Original
manuscript received for review 21 November 2014. Revised manuscript received for review
nomenon itself, as defined previously or by similar definitions,
11 June 2015. Paper peer approved 6 September 2015. with parameters used for characterization of the phenomenon.
92
HRCG
MWD
91.5
Inclination (degrees)
91
DLS (degrees/30 m)
Commonly used parameters are the DLS and its inverse, the ra- 10
dius of curvature (Sawaryn and Thorogood 2005). DLS is defined
as the angular change in wellbore direction over a certain MD
interval, divided by the interval (the course length). It is usually
expressed in units of (degrees/100 ft) or (degrees/30 m).
Survey-derived DLS, and more sophisticated parameters that 5
are derived from DLS, are widely used in the drilling-optimiza-
tion computer models mentioned previously (Samuel and Liu
2009; Brands and Lowdon 2012; Mitchell et al. 2015). However,
it has been realized that dogleg parameters alone are difficult to
0
use as reliable tortuosity indicators (Matthews and Dunn 1993; 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600
Oag and Williams 2000; Brands and Lowdon 2012). In particular, MD (m)
Matthews and Dunn (1993) pointed out that “… dogleg severity (b)
values provide a measure of only absolute curvature …”, imply-
ing that important information on the curvature’s orientation in Fig. 2—(a) Inclination data from a conventional MWD survey
3D space is not conveyed by the dogleg parameter alone. with resolution of 10 to 30 m (red curve), and a high-resolution
Another fundamental problem is the noisy character of DLS continuous gyro (HRCG) survey with resolution 0.3 m (black
for short course lengths. Surveyed DLS is traditionally based on curve). (b) DLS on the basis of inclination and azimuth data
directional data at MD intervals corresponding to one drill stand from the same two surveys.
(30 m) or one individual section (10 m). However, attempts to
evaluate DLS at shorter intervals (down to 1 m or lower) show needed for calculation of the wellbore position. However, high-re-
that it becomes unstable as the interval is decreased. An example solution surveys with continuous MWD or continuous gyro instru-
is shown in Fig. 2. This effect was also observed by Sugiura and ments were run for various reasons, such as improved wellbore
Jones (2008) and by Brands and Lowdon (2012); the latter authors positioning (Stockhausen and Lesso 2003), formation evaluation
compare DLS curves over course lengths of 3 and 30 m and con- (Bordakov et al. 2009), drilling-performance evaluation (Sugiura
clude: “Although it is possible to obtain survey data in shorter et al. 2013), and evaluation of load-induced drillstring buckling
(1–3 m) intervals today with continuous MWD surveys, it is diffi- (Menand et al. 2006; Weltzin et al. 2009; Mitchell and Weltzin
cult for engineers to interpret the presented hole curvature (DLS). 2011). In the latter of these applications, the development of
The reported hole curvature can vary significantly on listings of buckling was evaluated by comparing different surveys, not by
the same borehole depending on the reported survey interval.” analyzing a single survey, which is central to the methods
The noise is an intrinsic consequence of the DLS algorithm: described here.
On the basis of the directions at the wellbore section’s endpoints The high-resolution data presented in the papers mentioned
only, the direction difference may change significantly when cal- previously and in similar papers are typically limited to inclina-
culated over a slightly different length, and this change is ampli- tion and azimuth data, and no attempts are made to process tortu-
fied when divided by a short course length. This contradicts the osity characteristics from these data. To the authors’ knowledge,
behavior that should be expected by tortuosity as a physical phe- no comprehensive method for tortuosity analysis on the basis of
nomenon—namely, a smooth variation with length scale. high-resolution survey data was ever published.
To overcome these limitations of DLS, this paper presents new
parameters for characterizing tortuosity—in particular, small-
scale tortuosity. Theory
Preprocessing. Raw Data Set. One basic implication of the defi-
High-Resolution Survey Data. The tortuosity analysis demon- nition of tortuosity used here is that tortuosity can, in principle,
strated in this paper was applied to real continuous gyro survey exist on any length scale. Small-scale tortuosity (on a length scale
data, sampled at intervals of typically 0.3 to 1 m (1 to 3 ft). How- smaller than traditional survey intervals of 10 to 30 m MD) will
ever, the methodology itself does not require any specific tool or be the primary subject of the analysis presented in this paper,
service. Any quality-checked survey data set with sufficiently although the methods can be applied on any length scale, as long
high resolution can be used as input, from measurement while as a sufficient number of data points is available.
drilling (MWD) gyro, inertial or other tools. High-resolution data It is assumed that the data are provided by a high-resolution
are not usually collected in standard surveys, because they are not wellbore survey [i.e., at intervals of typically 0.3 to 1 m (1 to 3
W Large-scale T Small-scale T
L S
Survey Fitted straight line
stations L
The straight line is used as a reference in the further where S is the along-hole length of the wellbore section being
processing. studied and L is the straight-line distance between the ends of the
The window W is shifted along the wellbore, and the previous section. T is thus the relative elongation of S with respect to L.
processing is performed at each location of the window. From one The situation is illustrated in Fig. 4. A nice feature of the modified
location to the next, W is shifted by the average survey interval. This definition is the favorable correspondence between the verbal
implies that, typically, one survey station is discarded at one end of expressions “no tortuosity” or “absence of tortuosity,” meaning a
the window, whereas a new station is included at the other end. perfectly straight section, and the numeric value T ¼ 0.
2
analyzed wellbore section, directly describe the geometry of the
0 section. Thus, features such as the local amount of small-scale tor-
tuosity, or the possible spiraling of the wellbore, can easily be
–2 detected and quantified. Furthermore, the displacements can be
6380
applied to 3D renderings of the wellbore section, giving a direct
–4 6360
visualization of the geometric shape. Examples are shown in Fig.
6340 5b and in the Results section. In all 3D renderings, we have
–6 6320 assumed circular cross section of the wellbore/the casing, and
MD (ft)
4 2 0 6300 diameters corresponding to nominal casing inner diameter.
–2 –4
Lateral (in.) Effective Diameter. The tortuous buckling of a wellbore or
(b) casing section will reduce the effective inner diameter of that sec-
tion, similar to the area of free sight that can be seen through a
Fig. 5—Transverse-displacement vectors calculated at 1-ft curved tunnel. The effective diameter is defined as the maximum
intervals over a 100-ft wellbore section, from real survey data diameter of a straight cylinder that can be inserted into the section
(cased hole). (a) Endpoints of displacement vectors plotted in without distorting it (i.e., just barely touching the inner walls). To
the plane transverse to the wellbore [reference line 5 z-axis,
perpendicular to the paper plane through (0,0)]. The endpoints yield a meaningful definition, the cylinder must have a length equal
indicate a certain amount of wellbore spiraling. (b) The same to or greater than the length of the wellbore or casing section. If the
displacement vectors show the real shape of a wellbore or cas- cylinder represents a physical downhole device, the processing
ing when applied to a 3D model. The color indicates the effec- window V should be chosen equal to the length of the device.
tive diameter value (refer to Fig. 8). As a result of irregular borehole washouts or drillstring or
BHA wear on the formation, the openhole wellbore may not have
Both S and L are calculated in 3D space, and are easily deter- a circular cross section. A deviation from circular cross section
mined from wellbore-position coordinates [the raw data set (Nr,j, may also be found on tubings and casings for various other rea-
Er,j, Vr,j), or the smoothed data set]. The steps necessary to deter- sons. Such effects are neglected here, and it is assumed that the
mine T are as follows: cross sections are perfectly circular.
1. Select S0 as the nominal length scale at which the analysis The reduction in diameter does not depend on the tortuosity of
is wanted. S0 might be the length of one particular down- the wellbore or casing section only. The diameter reduction will,
hole device. in general, also change with the orientation of the inserted cylin-
2. Apply an analysis window of length S0 at a certain well der. Fortunately, the cases that would occur most frequently, and
depth. also would need the most precise analysis, are expected to be
3. Adjust S0 slightly so that the window starts and ends on two nearly straight wellbore sections. In such cases, it is reasonable to
survey stations. let the cylinder’s axis (the line of sight) coincide with the refer-
4. Calculate S as the sum of all intermediate survey interval ence line established for processing of transverse displacements.
lengths between each pair of adjacent survey stations. For This implies that one can use the displacements directly in the cal-
raw data, this sum is equivalent to the original MD interval culation of the diameter reduction.
between the end stations. For smoothed data, each interme- Heavily bent sections can more easily be identified and judged
diate interval must be calculated. as problematic, without extensive analysis. However, the process-
5. Calculate L as the straight-line distance between the start ing of a reference line and transverse displacements may also be
and end stations. applied to these cases. Thus, a single formula for diameter
Inclination (degrees)
50 70 measured, for example, by a caliper, these values might be used
for Dnom; however, a diameter varying with MD or a noncircular
cross section would require a more sophisticated equation for
45 65
Deff. We did not pursue this further in this study; thus, all proc-
essed examples assume a nominal and constant value for Dnom.
40 60 Deff is calculated with the length of the analysis window,
which represents the downhole device, as the only external pa-
rameter. By shifting the analysis window throughout the well and
35 55
calculating the effective diameter at each location, we obtain a
graph of Deff vs. MD, for the selected device length. This graph
30 50 may be plotted directly, or the results may be superimposed on a
2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 3300 3D visualization of the wellbore or casing shape. Examples are
MD (m) given in the following section.
(a)
55
Results
In all field cases, the tortuosity was analyzed from a high-resolu-
tion continuous gyro (HRCG) survey, which was run in cased
50
Azimuth (degrees)
×10–4 the coarse resolution of the conventional MWD data (100 ft) led
2.5 to the initial conclusion that 4,400 to 4,500 ft MD was the region
with lowest tortuosity. The HRCG data (interval ¼ 1 ft) indicated
that the low-tortuosity region actually is found at 4,300 to 4,400 ft
2 MD. This is confirmed by the effective-diameter plot (Fig. 10b),
which further shows that, at 4,500 ft MD, there is no free line of
sight over a length of 100 ft, and therefore this location should be
Tortuosity (T )
1.5
avoided. A new pump was placed near 4,300 ft MD on the basis
of this information. Fig. 11 shows the actual shape of the cased
1 wellbore at the two locations.
0.5
Field Case 3. A land well in the southern USA was surveyed
with conventional MWD methods. The profile is shown in
Fig. 12a. The well is vertical down to 6,300 ft MD and then builds
0 rapidly to horizontal, reaching 90-degrees inclination at approxi-
2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000 3100 3200 mately 7,500 ft MD and remaining close to horizontal thereafter.
MD (m) To achieve maximum drawdown, it was required to position an
(a) electrical submersible pump (ESP) in the near horizontal-well sec-
tion at the maximum true vertical depth at which pump placement
was physically possible.
Maximum Outer Diameter of Device (in.)
2500 8
2550
7
2600
2650
6
1900 2700
2750 5
Vertical (m)
2000 2800
2850 4
2100 2900
2950 3
2200
3000
700
3050 2
2300 800
3100
1000 900
1100 3150 1
1200 1000
1300 East (m)
1400 1100 0
North (m) 1500
Fig. 8—Field Case 1. Wellbore trajectory with superimposed transverse displacements over the whole HRCG survey interval 2500
to 3200 m MD. The analyzing window length is V 5 30 m. Transverse dimensions (wellbore diameter and displacements) were aug-
mented by a factor of 100 for clarity. The Deff curve (Fig. 7b) was added in terms of color coding, according to the color bar shown
on the right (blue 5 no diameter reduction from nominal 8.83 in.; red 5 diameter reduced to zero).
75 90
×10–4
5
60 75 4.5
4
Tortuosity (T )
Azimuth (degrees)
Inclination (degrees)
45 60 3.5
3
30 45 2.5
2
15 30 1.5
1
0 15 0.5
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
–15 0 MD (ft)
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
MD (ft) (a)
5 7
DLS (degrees/100 ft)
6
4
5
3 4
3
2
2
1
1
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
0
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 MD (ft)
MD (ft) (b)
(b)
Fig. 10—Field Case 2. Tortuosity curve T (a) and effective-diam-
Fig. 9—Field Case 2. Inclination and azimuth (a) and DLS (b) eter curve Deff (b) on the basis of HRCG data and a device
from conventional MWD survey (interval 100 ft). length of 100 ft. The nominal casing inner diameter is
Dnom 5 8.83 in.
sideways deviations from the straight line. The algorithms apply differences; however, this is outside the scope of this study. In all
data from a single survey and just one input parameter—length of field cases presented here, the HRCG survey was run in cased hole.
the analysis window, which effectively defines the length scale For cases such as Field Case 3, the feasibility of other device
of the tortuosity results. These features make the methodology dimensions can be evaluated easily by changing the length of the
simple, robust, and superior to established methods such as the Deff analysis window. However, this was not performed in the
DLS analysis. present case. Furthermore, in situations where the tortuosity leads
The accuracy of the results is considered to be good. Using all to bending of equipment, it would be possible to evaluate bending
information within the analysis window (from typically 30 sta- moments and final equipment shape by combining our detailed
tions), the parameters are virtually insensitive to small changes in tortuosity description with the geometry and the material (stiff-
the number of stations as the window is moved along the wellbore. ness) parameters of the device.
Such small changes may occur because of the possible nonuni- It should also be emphasized that the methodology proposed
formity of the survey intervals. In particular, the ratio S/L in the T in this paper relates only to the geometric shape of the wellbore,
parameter will be even less sensitive to these changes than S or L and factors such as reservoir pressure, tubing stiffness, or dynamic
alone. Furthermore, the use of all information within the window processes are not considered. Thus, the results should be inter-
implies that the parameters increase or decrease smoothly if the preted as recommendations that are based on wellbore shape only.
window length is gradually changed. In early tests for both T and Factors other than tortuosity may be considered more important,
Deff, the results showed this smooth behavior, indicating reliable and may therefore become the major factors in decisions regard-
algorithm outputs, as long as the number of stations was typically ing equipment installation and operation.
>10. For survey report intervals of 0.3 m, for example, tortuosity
can therefore be analyzed on length scales down to 3 m. The reso- Further Work. The smoothed data set proposed in the Theory
lution interval of the output, on the other hand, is much smaller section has not been examined in detail in this study. It is believed
than the window length. According to the Shannon-Nyquist theo- that it can be used to separate between large-scale and small-scale
rem (Ifeachor and Jervis 1993), the highest possible resolution is tortuosity, along the lines suggested by Gaynor et al. (2002). The
twice the sampling interval (theoretical limit, for band-limited sig- reason for this is that tortuosity details can be processed with a
nals); this amounts to 0.6 m for the previous example. maximum resolution equaling approximately twice the survey
The tortuosity analysis can be applied to data from openhole interval from the raw data set, whereas the smoothing procedure
surveys, or from surveys inside drillstring, casing, or production will efficiently suppress tortuosity on length scales shorter than
tubing. The results should be expected to differ among all these the analysis window W, which typically is 10 to 30 times the sur-
cases because of possible buckling and misalignment of drillstring vey interval.
or tubing inside the hole/casing, and changes to borehole-wall As mentioned in the Theory section, Dnom in Eq. 5 is assumed
roughness and undulations caused by insertion of the casing. One to be the nominal inner diameter of a wellbore or casing with a
application of the methodology may therefore be to analyze such constant and circular cross section. On the basis of the field
400 90
350 75
Azimuth (degrees)
Inclination (degrees)
15
300 60
10
High Side (in.)
250 45
5
200 30
0
4,550
–5 150 15
4,500
–10 100 0
10 MD (ft) 6,000 6,200 6,400 6,600 6,800 7,000 7,200 7,400 7,600 7,800 8,000
5
0 MD (ft)
–5 4,450
Lateral (in.) –10 (a)
(a)
6 4
4 3
High Side (in.)
2
2
0
1
–2
–4 7,550 7,600 7,650 7,700 7,750 7,800 7,850 7,900 7,950 8,000
4,350 MD (ft)
–6 4,300 (b)
6 4 2 0 –2 MD (ft)
–4 4,250
Lateral (in.)
Maximum Outer Diameter of Device (in.)
4
(b)
3.5
Fig. 11—Field Case 2. Wellbore shape computed from trans- 3
verse displacements over 100-ft sections at two depths: (a)
4,500 ft MD (high-tortuosity region with Deff 5 0 in.) and (b) 2.5
4,300 ft MD (low-tortuosity region with Deff 6.7 in.). The nomi-
nal casing inner diameter is Dnom 5 8.83 in., and the colors indi- 2
cate the calculated Deff values (refer to Fig. 8). 1.5
Wellbore Shape (local) Relative Elongation, T = (S–L)/L Span of Displacements Effective Diameter, Deff
0 0 Dnom (=max)
Table 1—Response of tortuosity parameters T and Deff to various local shapes of the wellbore. The wellbore trajectories may be 3D.
example, if T is large, as shown in the lower two lines of the table, W ¼ analysis window for establishing reference
the value of Deff may help to determine whether the elongation is line
caused by a single “long” curve (still within the analysis window), xi, yi, xj, yj ¼ coordinates of displacement vectors i and j in
or caused by several microbends. A “shape parameter” derived plane transverse to reference line, in.
from T and Deff, or from T and the span of transverse displacements,
could be presented as a graph vs. MD, which may be more conven-
ient than 3D renderings over large wellbore sections. Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Gyrodata and SandRidge Energy for
permission to publish this work, and for providing field data. Fur-
Conclusions thermore, Rob Shoup, Gyrodata, is thanked for stimulating
This paper has presented a novel methodology to analyze well- discussions.
bore tortuosity, in particular, tortuosity on a length scale shorter
than conventional survey report intervals (30 m). The input data
are provided by a single high-resolution directional survey, which References
may use any surveying tool or procedure capable of delivering API D20. 1985. Bull. on Directional Drilling Survey Calculation Methods
such high-resolution data. By applying a user-defined data win- and Terminology. Washington, DC: API.
dow as a single external parameter, the method quantifies tortuos- Bordakov, G. A., Kostin, A. V., Rasmus, J. et al. 2009. Improving LWD
ity on any length scale greater than approximately 10 times the Image and Formation Evaluation by Using Dynamically Corrected
survey-data interval, and with a maximum resolution that equals Drilling-Derived LWD Depth and Continuous Inclination and Azi-
twice the data interval, in terms of muth Measurements. SPE Res Eval & Eng 12 (1): 137–148. SPE-
• Tortuosity parameter; the relative elongation of along-hole 109972-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/109972-PA.
length with respect to straight-line length. Brands, S. and Lowdon, R. 2012. Scaled Tortuosity Index: Quantification
• Transverse displacements of the wellbore trajectory from a of Borehole Undulations in Terms of Hole Curvature, Clearance, and
locally established reference line. Pipe Stiffness. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and
• Effective inner diameter of wellbore or casing as a result of Exhibition, San Diego, California, USA, 6–8 March. SPE-151274-MS.
small-scale bending. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/151274-MS.
The outputs can be presented individually or in combination, Chen, D. C.-K., Gaynor, T., and Comeaux, B. 2002. Hole Quality: Why It
either as graphs vs. MD or in 3D renderings showing the actual Matters. Presented at the SPE International Petroleum Conference and
geometry of the wellbore. The results are easily visualized, inter- Exhibition, Villahermosa, Mexico, 10–12 February. SPE-74403-MS.
preted, and communicated to operating personnel, and represent a http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/74403-MS.
significant improvement from traditional tortuosity analysis meth- Davis, J. C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, second edition,
ods on the basis of DLS. 527–531. New York, NY, USA: Wiley & Sons.
The methodology was applied to various field cases in which Ekseth, R., Weston, J., Ledroz, A. et al. 2011. Improving the Quality of
the results demonstrate the identification of highly tortuous Ellipse of Uncertainty Calculations in Gyro Surveys to Reduce the
regions that were unnoticed or poorly quantified by traditional Risk of Hazardous Events Like Blowouts or Missing Potential Pro-
methods. This information has direct relevance to decisions duction Through Incorrect Wellbore Placement. Presented at the
regarding the installation of equipment in the completion and pro- SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 1–3
duction phases. March. SPE-140192-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/140192-MS.
The tortuosity analysis may thus contribute to more efficient Gaynor, T. M., Chen, D. C.-K., Stuart, D. et al. 2001. Tortuosity versus
operations and improvements to equipment functionality, eventu- Micro-Tortuosity—Why Little Things Mean a Lot. Presented at the
ally leading to reduced workover frequency and considerable cost SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 27 February–1 March.
savings. The possible applications of the methodology range from SPE-67818-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/67818-MS.
evaluation of the drilling process to the installation of completion- Gaynor, T., Hamer, D., Chen, D. C.-K. et al. 2002. Quantifying Tortuosi-
and-production equipment. ties by Friction Factors in Torque and Drag Model. Presented at the
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio,
Texas, USA, 29 September–2 October. SPE-77617-MS. http://
Nomenclature dx.doi.org/10.2118/77617-MS.
dNr,j, dEr,j, dVr,j ¼ raw data position increments in N, E, V at sta- Ifeachor, E. C. and Jervis, B. W. 1993. Digital Signal Processing. A Prac-
tion j, ft or m tical Approach, reprinted 1999, Chap. 2. Harlow, England: Addison-
Dnom ¼ nominal inner diameter of casing or wellbore, Wesley.
in. Liu, X., Liu, R., and Sun, M. 2004. New Techniques Improve Well Plan-
Deff ¼ effective diameter; maximum-allowed outer ning and Survey Calculation for Rotary-Steerable Drilling. Presented
diameter of downhole device, in. at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and
L ¼ straight-line distance (between start and end Exhibition, Kuala Lumpur, 13–15 September. SPE-87976-MS. http://
stations of a section), ft or m dx.doi.org/10.2118/87976-MS.
MV ¼ number of survey stations covered by V window Marck, J., Detournay, E., Kuesters, A. et al. 2014. Analysis of Spiraled
MW ¼ number of survey stations covered by W Borehole Data Using a Novel Directional Drilling Model. Presented at
window the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Fort Worth, Texas,
N, E, V ¼ position coordinates: Northing, Easting, Verti- USA, 4–6 March. SPE-167992-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/167992-
cal depth, ft or m MS.
N0, E0, V0 ¼ average (arithmetic mean) of N, E, V over a Marck, J. and Detournay, E. 2015. Spiraled Boreholes: An Expression of
subset of survey stations, ft or m 3D Directional Instability of Drilling Systems. Presented at the SPE/
Nr,j, Er,j, Vr,j ¼ raw data position coordinates N, E, V of sta- IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition, London, 17–19 March.
tion j, ft or m SPE-173156-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/173156-MS.
P ¼ matrix used in principal-component analysis Mason, C. J. and Chen, D. C.-K. 2006. The Wellbore Quality Scorecard
S ¼ along-hole distance; actual value of S0, ft or m (WQS). Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Miami, Flor-
S0 ¼ analysis window for tortuosity parameter; ida, USA, 21–23 February. SPE-98893-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
length of this window, ft or m 98893-MS.
T ¼ tortuosity parameter (Eq. 4) Matthews, C. M. and Dunn, L. J. 1993. Drilling and Production Practices
TKC ¼ tortuosity parameter in petrophysics (Eq. 3) to Mitigate Sucker-Rod/Tubing-Wear-Related Failures in Directional
V ¼ analysis window for effective-diameter Wells. SPE Prod & Fac 8 (4): 251–259. SPE-22852-PA. http://
analysis dx.doi.org/10.2118/22852-PA.
Matyka, M. and Koza, Z. 2012. How to Calculate Tortuosity Easily? Sugiura, J. and Jones, S. 2008. The Use of the Industry’s First 3-D Mechan-
American Institute of Physics (AIP) Conference Proceedings 1453, ical Caliper Image While Drilling Leads to Optimized Rotary-Steerable
Potsdam, Germany, 17–22 June. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4711147. Assemblies in Push- and Point-the-Bit Configurations. Presented at the
[or arXiv:1203.5646v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 26 Mar 2012]. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, 21–24 Sep-
Menand, S., Sellami, H., Tijani, M. et al. 2006. Buckling of Tubulars in tember. SPE-115395-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/115395-MS.
Actual Field Conditions. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Con- Sugiura, J., Bowler, A., Hawkins, R. et al. 2013. Downhole Steering Auto-
ference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 24–27 September. mation and New Survey Measurement Method Significantly Improve
SPE-102850-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/102850-MS. High-Dogleg Rotary Steerable System Performance. Presented at the
Menand, S., Sellami, H., Bouguecha, A. et al. 2009. Axial Force Transfer SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, 30
of Buckled Drill Pipe in Deviated Wells. Presented at the SPE/IADC September–2 October. SPE-166165-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
Drilling Conference and Exhibition, Amsterdam, 17–19 March. SPE- 166165-MS.
119861-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/119861-MS. Weltzin, T., Aas, B., Andreassen, E. et al. 2009. Measuring Drillpipe
Mitchell, R. F. and Weltzin, T. 2011. Lateral Buckling—The Key to Buckling Using Continuous Gyro Challenges Existing Theories. SPE
Lockup. SPE Drill & Compl 26 (3): 436–452. SPE-139824-PA. http:// Drill & Compl 24 (4): 464–472. SPE-115930-PA. http://dx.doi.org/
dx.doi.org/10.2118/139824-PA. 10.2118/115930-PA.
Mitchell, R. F., Bjørset, A., and Grindhaug, G. 2015. Drillstring Analysis
With a Discrete Torque/Drag Model. SPE Drill & Compl 30 (1): 5–16. Jon Bang has been a development engineer at Gyrodata
SPE-163477-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/163477-PA. since 2013. Previously, he was with SINTEF Petroleum Research,
Oag, A. W. and Williams, M. 2000. The Directional Difficulty Index—A Norway, working on wellbore-position uncertainty analysis.
New Approach to Performance Benchmarking. Presented at the IADC/ Bang’s current research interests include error modeling, qual-
SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 23–25 February. SPE-59196- ity control, and data processing related to wellbore surveying.
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/59196-MS. He holds an MSc degree in electronics and a PhD degree in
laser physics, both from the Norwegian University of Science
Reid, L. C., McDonald, C., Baker, T. et al. 2013. Pump-Friendly Wellbore
and Technology. Bang is a member of SPE, and an active
Design and Case Study From Mississippian Play of Oklahoma/Kansas. member of the Industry Steering Committee on Wellbore Sur-
Presented at the SPE Unconventional Resources Conference, Calgary, vey Accuracy (ISCWSA).
5–7 November. SPE-167156-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/167156-
MS. Onyemelem Jegbefume is a research and development engi-
neer at Gyrodata. Previously, he worked for 3 years as a systems
Samuel, G. R., Bharucha, K., and Luo, Y. 2005. Tortuosity Factors for
engineer for Rockwell Collins. Jegbefume’s current research
Highly Tortuous Wells: A Practical Approach. Presented at the SPE/ interests include algorithms for wellbore surveying, communi-
IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, 23–25 February. SPE-92565- cation systems, and signal processing for oilfield applications.
MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/92565-MS. He holds a PhD degree in electrical engineering from the Uni-
Samuel, R. and Liu, X. 2009. Wellbore Tortuosity, Torsion, Drilling Indi- versity of Texas at Dallas. Jegbefume is a member of SPE.
ces, and Energy: What Do They Have to Do With Well Path Design?
Adrián Ledroz is the Vice President, Survey Technologies, Tech-
Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, nical Services for Gyrodata. He has worked with gyroscopes
New Orleans, 4–7 October. SPE-124710-MS. http://dx.doi.org/ for the last 15 years, and his research interests include inertial
10.2118/124710-MS. sensors, data processing, quality control, and error modeling
Samuel, R. and Gao, D. 2013. Horizontal Drilling Engineering–Theory, related to wellbore surveying. Ledroz holds a BSc degree in
Methods and Application, first edition, Chap. 9. Houston: biomedical engineering from Universidad Nacional de Entre
SigmaQuadrant. Rı́os, Argentina, and an MSc degree in electrical engineering
Sawaryn, S. J. and Thorogood, J. L. 2005. A Compendium of Directional from the University of Calgary, Canada. He is a member of
Calculations Based on the Minimum Curvature Method. SPE Drill & SPE, and an active member of ISCWSA.
Compl 20 (1): 24–36. SPE-84246-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/ John Weston is the Global Adviser Gyro Technology for Gyro-
84246-PA. data, and his research interests are in inertial systems and their
Skillingstad, T. 2000. At-Bit Inclination Measurements Improves Direc- application to wellbore surveying. He holds a BSc degree in
tional Drilling Efficiency and Control. Presented at the IADC/SPE electrical engineering from the University of Wales and an
Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 23–25 February. SPE-59194-MS. MSc degree in information and systems engineering from the
University of Birmingham, UK. Weston is coauthor of the text-
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/59194-MS.
book Strapdown Inertial Navigation Technology. He is a mem-
Stockhausen, E. J. and Lesso, W. G. 2003. Continuous Direction and Incli- ber of the Institution of Engineering Technology and SPE, and
nation Measurements Lead to an Improvement in Wellbore Position- is an active member of the ISCWSA.
ing. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam,
19–21 February. SPE-79917-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/79917- John H. (Jay) Thompson is the Artificial Lift Specialist with San-
dRidge Energy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. He has been
MS.
with SandRidge for 3 years but has been in the pumping indus-
Stuart, D., Hamer, C. D., Henderson, C. et al. 2003. New Drilling Technol- try, both surface pumping and downhole, for more than 26
ogy Reduces Torque and Drag by Drilling a Smooth and Straight years. Thompson’s interests include the effects of wellbore
Wellbore. Presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference, Amster- design and how it affects ESP pumps, root-cause failure analy-
dam, 19–21 February. SPE-79919-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/ sis, and how the longevity of downhole equipment can be
79919-MS. improved. He is a member of SPE.