A New Wellbore Position
Calculation Method
C.R. Chia, SPE, W.J. Phillips, SPE, and D.L. Aklestad, SPE, Schlumberger
Summary
A method for combining multiple wellbore surveys to obtain a
single, composite, more accurate well position is described. Es-
tablished methods for defining the wellbore position and its asso-
ciated uncertainty rely on accepting the position obtained from the
most accurate survey instrument used in each section of the well-
bore. This position is then assigned an uncertainty based on the
information from this single survey-instrument run. When a mod-
ern wellbore is constructed today, each section may be surveyed
for position many times with one or more magnetic, gyroscopic, or
inertial survey instruments. By statistically combining the wellbore
positions obtained from all the survey instruments run in a given
section of the wellbore, a new position, designated the “most ac-
curate position” (MAP), is calculated. The main advantage of the
MAP is that its uncertainty is smaller than that of any of the
constituent surveys. The major benefits of this technique is facil-
itating drilling smaller targets at greater distances, allowing new
wellbores to be drilled in closer proximity to existing wellbores
while maintaining accepted safety clearance rules, and improving
reservoir delineation.
Describing Well Position
The wellbore trajectory is defined as a series of surveyed points in
3D space, typically described in a north, east, and down reference
system. These points are joined together to form a continuous
trajectory with a geometric calculation method.1 Most magnetic or
gyroscopic survey instruments in use today provide a survey point
that is referenced to measured (or along hole) depth obtained from
the driller’s pipe tally or a wireline spooling measurement. The
survey instrument provides inclination (hole angle) and azimuth
(direction) measurements. When these parameters are used to cal-
culate trajectory with an assigned survey depth, the horizontal
displacement (or north and east coordinates) and the vertical depth
(or down coordinate) can be derived from the origin and the el-
evation reference, respectively. Alternatively, some inertial survey
instruments measure displacement in 3D space from a known ini-
tialization point, from which all the previous parameters, including
depth, can be obtained to achieve the same purpose.
Wellbore Position Uncertainty
Wellbore survey requirements are typically driven by the need to
guide the well to a geological target, to avoid other wells, to ensure
that property boundaries are respected, and to record the position
of the wellbore for future reference. To visualize and quantify our
ability to hit a target or avoid colliding with another well, position
uncertainty is assigned to wellbore trajectories. This position un-
certainty represents our modeled knowledge of the collective er-
rors arising from both the intrinsic performance limitations of the
survey sensors and those induced by the operating environment.2
This uncertainty is defined as a statistical confidence region with
an associated confidence level. In 3D, the confidence region is
most often depicted as an ellipsoid3 because ellipsoids are the
constant value contours of the 3D Guassian probability density
function. Such a confidence region is commonly referred to as an
“ellipsoid of uncertainty” (EOU). The EOU is used in target analy-
Copyright © 2003 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 85111) was revised for publication from paper SPE 77221, first presented
at the 2002 IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology, Jakarta, 9−11 September. Original
manuscript received for review 7 October 2002. Revised manuscript received 14 April 2003.
Paper peer approved 22 April 2003.
September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion
sis by, for example, reducing the size of the geological target by
the size of the EOU to define a drilling target. In this fashion, the
geological target will be achieved if the wellbore penetrates the
drilling target. Likewise, EOUs are used to assess collision risk by
considering to assess collision risk by considering their proximity
to adjacent wells.
Survey Program
A detailed survey program may be prepared to verify that a well’s
position requirements will be achieved. The survey program is a
planned sequence of survey instruments to be used at different
phases of the well construction. It will normally be presented as a
listing indicating the survey depths for each survey tool to be used,
required survey frequency, running conditions (run in cased or
open hole or in drillpipe), and any special corrections or contin-
gencies to validate the tool error model to be used for each sur-
veyed interval. The survey program takes into consideration the
available drilling room based on the proximity of existing nearby
(object) wells and their respective EOUs, the expected EOU of the
(subject) well to be drilled based on the performance of the speci-
fied surveying tools, any spacing requirements for adjacent future
wells, a collision-avoidance safety clearance rule, the size and
location of the geological target, and any relief-well-planning po-
sitional-accuracy criteria.
Well Construction
Well construction is conducted in a number of drilling stages or
hole sections by drilling with decreasing drill-bit sizes, subse-
quently cementing a steel casing or liner into place in each hole
section. During this process, various survey instruments will be
run in different hole sections (through drillpipe) and casings (on
wireline) in accordance with the survey program to achieve well-
positioning objectives. It is not uncommon to have multiple sur-
veys in one or more hole sections. For the top section, for example,
we may have a measurement-while-drilling (MWD) survey ob-
tained during the drilling phase, a gyro survey obtained after reach-
ing the first casing point, and, perhaps, additional gyro surveys as
deeper hole sections are completed. The current practice is to
establish the final or “definitive” well position by using the most
accurate survey in each hole section and disregarding the rest of
the survey data.
Application of MAP
As the ability to drill directional wells has improved, making it
possible to reach targets many kilometers away from the drillsite,
and as the size of those targets has decreased, a need has developed
to survey the position of the wellbore more accurately. Likewise,
as fields mature and the density of wellbores in a given area
increases, the need to avoid these wells while drilling new ones has
also created a desire to lower wellbore positional uncertainty. The
MAP technique helps meet this need by using all available survey
data to calculate a composite survey with an EOU that is smaller
than the EOUs of any of the individual surveys.
Berger et al.4 previously described a method of averaging mul-
tiple inclination measurements within a single bottomhole assem-
bly (BHA) to reduce the uncertainty in true vertical depth (TVD).
The MAP technique is a more general means of combining survey
data that reduces positional uncertainty in all directions and can be
used to combine surveys from instruments that use completely
different measurement methods. For example, it could be used to
combine position coordinates calculated from a system that mea-
209
sures inclination and azimuth at stations with those of an inertial A sequence of these position measurements can be written in the
system, which measures position directly. following form.
ជr1 ␦rជ1

冤冥冤冥 冤 冥
Mathematical Basis of the MAP I1
The MAP is based on the generalized linear regression model: rជ2 I2 ␦rជ2
= rជt + , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9)
⯗ ⯗ ⯗
yជ = X␤ជ + ␧ជ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) rជk Ik ␦rជk
in which yជ⳱an m by one vector of observations; ␤ជ ⳱a p by one in which each Ij is a 3 × 3 identity matrix and 1 ⱕ j ⱕ k.
vector of model parameters; X⳱an m by p matrix of regression The expression has the same form as Eq. 1 with:
variables, which establishes a linear relationship between the ob-
rជ1 ␦rជ1

冤冥 冤冥 冤冥
servations and the model parameters; and ␧ជ ⳱an m by one vector I1
of random errors that characterizes the uncertainty in the observa- rជ2 I2 ␦rជ2
tions. Assuming ␧ជ is zero mean and has a Gaussian probability yជ = ,X= , ␤ជ = rជt, and ␧ជ = . . . . . . . . . (10)
⯗ ⯗ ⯗
distribution, the probability density function for the random vari- rជk Ik ␦rជk
able yជ – X␤ជ is

冋 册
The covariance matrix, C␧ជ , may be written as:
1
exp − 共yជ − X␤ជ 兲T C␧ជ−1共yជ − X␤ជ 兲

2 具␦rជ1␦rជ1T 典 具␦rជ1␦rជ2T 典 … 具␦rជ1␦rជkT 典
p共yជ;␤ជ 兲 = , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2)
共2␲兲m Ⲑ 2公det共C␧ជ兲
in which C␧ជ⳱the covariance matrix for the random vector ␧ជ .
For a given set of observations, yជ, p(yជ;␤ជ ) is a function of the
parameter ␤ជ and is known as the likelihood function. An estimate
of the unknown parameters can be obtained by finding the set
of parameters that maximizes the likelihood function. This tech-
nique is called the “method of maximum likelihood,” and the
resulting estimate, ␤ជ̂ , of the unknown parameters is known as the
“maximum likelihood estimate” (MLE).4 Maximization of Eq. 2
with respect to ␤ជ yields the following MLE estimate, ␤ជ̂ , and its
covariance,C␤ˆជ .
ˆ The error in each position measurement, rជ̂t , is the sum of many
␤ជ = 共XTC␧ជ−1X兲−1XTC␧ជ−1yជ, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3)
and C␤ˆជ = 共XTC␧ជ−1X兲−1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4)
MLE estimates are optimal in the sense that they are unbiased
and have a lower variance than all other unbiased estimators.5 In
the event that ␧ជ is not Gaussian distributed but remains zero mean,
Eq. 3 can still be used to estimate ␤ជ . The resulting estimate is no
longer the MLE estimate, but it is guaranteed by the Gauss-
Markov theorem6 to be unbiased and to have a lower variance than
all other unbiased estimators, which are linear in the observations,
yជ. However, it may not have minimum variance when compared to
all other unbiased estimators, including ones that are not linear in
the observations.
In the wellbore surveying application in which multiple mea-
surements of the same point in a wellbore have been recorded,
the position vectors are combined to get a better estimate of
the true wellbore placement. The position of any point in the
wellbore is typically specified by its north, east, and down coor-
dinates. Assume we have k measurements of the position of a
specific point in the wellbore. Each measurement can be written in
the following form.
rជi = rជt + ␦rជi, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5)
in which the position vector of the ith measurement is
冢 冣
具␦rជ2␦rជ1T 典 具␦rជ2␦rជ2T 典 … 具␦rជ2␦rជkT 典
C␧ជ = 具␧ជ ␧ជ T典 = . . . . . . (11)
⯗ ⯗ ··· ⯗
具 k 1 典 具 k 2 典
␦rជ ␦rជ T
␦rជ ␦ជ
r T …
具 k␦rជkT 典
␦rជ
Each term of the form 〈␦rជi␦rជTj 〉 is a 3 × 3 covariance matrix. The
diagonal terms (i.e., i⳱j) are simply the position covariance ma-
trices for each of the individual surveys and are, therefore, non-
zero. The off-diagonal terms Cij (i.e., i ⫽ j), are zero if the position
measurements are independent.
An estimate of the true position, rជ̂t, and its covariance matrix,
Cˆrជt, can be computed directly from Eqs. 3 and 4. The MAP is the
estimated true position, rជ̂t.
independent root sources of error, including sensor effects, like
bias and scale-factor drift, as well as environmental effects, like
misalignment of the surveying instruments with respect to the
borehole and drillstring magnetism. Consequently, the central limit
theorem7 ensures that the statistical distribution of each ␦ rជ̂t will be
approximately Gaussian and independent of the distributions of the
individual error sources, provided no single error source dominates
the error budget. In this case, as discussed previously, Eq. 3 yields
the optimum (minimum variance and unbiased) estimate for the
true position rជ̂t. Also keep in mind that even if the distributions for
the ␦ជrs are not Guassian, Eq. 3 still yields an unbiased estimator
with minimum variance within the class of estimators that are
linear in the observations (i.e., r1, r2, ⭈ ⭈ ⭈ rជk).
While the MAP technique does not require knowledge of the
exact nature of the statistical distributions of the sources of posi-
tional error, it is necessary that all significant error sources are
enumerated and quantified (i.e., the covariance matrix C␧ជ must be
known). Specifically, the method breaks down if one or more of
the position measurements used to calculate the MAP estimate
contains a significant error that is either not accounted for in C␧ជ or
is included in C␧ជ but the magnitude of which is much larger than
the typical value (three standard deviations or more, for example).
Examples might include measurements taken with survey instru-
ments that are out of calibration or data-entry errors, such as drop-
ping a minus sign when entering the grid convergence angle. Good

冋册ni quality control and operating procedures are designed to signifi-

cantly reduce the frequency of these incidents. Consequently, po-
rជi = ei , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) sition measurements used to calculate the MAP value must be
di executed according to applicable running procedures and pass ap-
the true position vector is plicable quality control checks.

冋册
Furthermore, we must remember that the error sources were
nt assumed to be zero mean. Any error source that is nonzero mean
rជt = et , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) will introduce a bias in the position measurement. To compensate
dt for this effect, we must subtract the bias from the affected position
measurement. A good example might be the vertical misalignment
and the error in the ith measurement is of the surveying tool with the borehole because of weight-induced

冋册
BHA bending (BHA sag). If a particular BHA consistently points
␦ni the survey tool below the centerline of the borehole, it will result
␦rជi = ␦ei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) in a positive bias in the vertical component of the calculated po-
␦di sition (i.e., the calculated position will be too deep). Consequently,

210 September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion

position measurements obtained with this BHA must have this bias
removed before the MAP calculation.

Theoretical Example of Results

While the following example is admittedly unrealistic, it is con-
structed to highlight the advantages of the proposed method of
combining multiple position measurements into a single MAP es-
timate and to develop some insight into the results. Suppose we
have three surveys with the following measured positions.

rជ1 = 冋 册 冋 册 冋 册
5000
4950
5050
rជ2 =
5050
5000
4950
rជ3 =
4950
5050 . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12)
5000 Fig. 1—Theoretical example showing how three 10 × 10 × 1
Furthermore, suppose these measured positions have the fol- ellipsoids are combined with the MAP technique to produce a
lowing covariance matrices. substantially more accurate position determination.

C11 = 具␦rជ1␦rជ1 典 = T
冉 1 0 0
0 100 0
冊 rជ
On the other hand, if we use Eqs. 3 and 4 to calculate rជt and C
, we get the following results.

冋 册
t
0 0 100

冉 冊
5000
100 0 0 r̂ជ = 5000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (17)
C22 = 具␦rជ2␦rជ2T 典 = 0 1 0 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13) 5000

冋 册
0 0 100

冉 冊
0.98 0 0
100 0 0 C rជ̂ = 0 0.98 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (18)
C33 = 具␦rជ3␦rជ3T 典 = 0 100 0 0 0 0.98
0 0 1
Plotting the 20% confidence EOU corresponding to Crជt in Fig. 2,
and that the terms of the form Cij are zero if i ⫽j. we see that rជt provides good estimates of all three coordinates
Each matrix in Eq. 13 defines a 3D Gaussian distribution with (north, east, and down). When we compare the EOU of rជt to the
a probability density function in the following form. EOUs of r1, r2, and r3, the advantage of statistically combining

冋 册
multiple surveys is clear.
1 Another special case for which the result can be easily com-
exp − 共 rជi − rជt兲T Cii −1共 rជi − rជt兲
2 puted is that of multiple independent surveys, each with a covari-
p共 rជi兲 = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (14)
共2␲兲3 Ⲑ 2 公det共Cii兲
ance matrix Crជ. In this case, the all the 3 × 3 diagonal blocks of
C␧ឈ are equal (i.e., C11, C22, . . . Ckk⳱Crជ). The resulting MAP
Ⲑ
k
Because the covariance matrices, Cii, are diagonal, the prob- estimate and its covariance are 兺 rជi Ⲑ k and C␤ˆ =Crជ k,respectively.
ability density function reduces to: i=1
The MAP estimate in this case is the simple average of the individual

p共 rជi兲 =
再 冋
exp −
1 共 xi − xt兲2 共yi − yt兲2 共zi − zt兲2
2 Ciixx
+
Ciiyy
+
Ciizz
册冎 . . . . . . (15)
position measurements, and the size of MAP EOU is smaller than
those of individual position measurements by a factor of (1/√k).
Combining just two surveys in this way reduces the EOU by a factor
共2␲兲3 Ⲑ 2 公det共Cii兲 of (1/√2), approximately a 30% reduction.
The constant value contours of Eq. 15 are a family of ellipsoids Practical Example of Results
defined by equating the quadratic expression in the exponent to
In practice, we normally get neither wellbore surveys with EOUs
a constant.
that differ so dramatically in shape, as in the first example, nor
共xi − xt兲2 共yi − yt兲2 共zi − zt兲2 ones that have equal size, as in the second. More commonly, we
s2 = + + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16) have a set of EOUs of similar shape but perhaps with differing
Ciixx Ciiyy Ciizz sizes, each of which represents the precision of the respective
For each ellipsoid, the length of the north, east, and down semi- surveying instrument and its operating environment.
major axes are: s⭈公Ciixx, s⭈公Ciiyy, and s⭈公Ciizz, respectively. For example, a typical survey program for a planned directional
well is given in Table 1.
As discussed previously, these ellipsoids, or EOUs, also rep- Fig. 3 shows a schematic of the well position and the EOU for
resent the confidence regions of the distributions and are an ex- each part of the survey program plotted in plan view, which figu-
cellent means of visualizing the distribution. The ellipsoid defined ratively provides an indication of the scale of the EOU at the
by setting s equal to one, for example, is an approximately 20%
confidence region.3 This means that there is a 20% probability that
the true position, rជt, is somewhere within the volume enclosed by
this ellipsoid. The s⳱1, or 20% confidence level, EOUs corre-
sponding to C11, C22, and C33 are shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1 makes the difference between the three measurements of
rជt quite obvious. Each measurement gives a good estimate of one
of the coordinates and poor estimates of the other two. The first
measurement, for example, gives a good estimate of the north
coordinate but poor estimates of the east and down coordinates,
while the second measurement gives a good estimate of the east
coordinate but poor estimates of north and down; similarly, the
third measurement provides a good estimate of the down coordi-
nate. It is also clear that if we simply choose one of the three Fig. 2—Theoretical example centroid expanded, showing the
measurements as the definitive estimate of rជt, we will not make approximate resultant position uncertainty as a 1 × 1 × 1 sphere
optimal use of all the available data. and the MAP location.

September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion 211


various drilling and casing survey stages. As shown in the example
survey program, the first two drilling stages (26- and 17.5-in. hole
sections) are completed before a casing gyro is run in the surface
casing string. Typically, the resultant gyro survey could show a
significant shift in well position from the drilling surveys, but,
provided the EOUs at least touched, statistically this would be
accepted as having been confirmed by the MWD, and the gyro
then would be used to update the current well location before
drilling ahead with the 12.25-in. hole section. The next hole-
section drilling surveys then are tied onto the surface casing gyro
until the section has been drilled, at which time the 9.625-in.
casing-gyro survey is carried out to confirm and update the well
position. Similarly, the same situation may arise, and a large
change in surveyed well position may result, but provided there is
at least some EOU overlap, this would statistically confirm the
well position, which would be updated from the drilling-surveyed
position to the last gyro-surveyed position, and drilling would then
continue (in the 8.5- and 6-in. sections) until the target is reached.
What this example shows is that despite several sections of the
well having been surveyed more than once, only the single most
accurate survey has been used to update the well position. This is
clearly a less technically robust alternative to the incorporation of
all surveys being used to describe the best well position possible.
Fig. 4 shows a schematic for the same planned directional well,
the first series of drilling surveys, and the first casing-gyro survey.
In this case, with the MAP technique, each of the overlapping
surveyed datasets is used in combination to provide the most sta-
tistically correct well position and a reduced position uncertainty at
this stage of drilling the well. Instead of tying onto the gyro survey
to continue drilling progress, the MAP position (MAP Part 1) is
used as the MAP of the updated, surveyed wellpath, and the EOU
used is smaller than the gyro survey provided in isolation.
Drilling progress continues, as shown in Fig. 5, whereby the
MAP and a reduced EOU are once again obtained from the com-
bination of the intermediate casing-gyro survey and the MWD
surveys, both of which had been tied onto and had continued from
the position of MAP Part 1 to provide a new tie-on point at MAP
Part 2.
The final two hole sections are drilled and surveyed with MWD
surveys to complete the survey program. In this example, the final
Fig. 3—Schematic plan view of an example survey program for
a planned directional well depicting figurative ellipses of uncer-
tainty. Multiple surveyed sections of the well make use of the
most accurate survey instrument run for each overlapped section.
212
Fig. 4—Schematic for the same planned directional well for the
first series of drilling and casing gyro surveys in which the MAP
technique is used to obtain a more accurate updated well-path
position from which drilling progress will continue.
well position is obtained, as shown in Fig. 6, and can now be
contrasted with our traditional approach shown in Fig. 3. Clearly,
this is a much more robust response to the well-positioning prob-
lem, in which all survey data obtained from the entire survey
program has been used. Fig. 7 shows the final section and the end
of the example well in closer detail, indicating an overall change
in well position and a significantly reduced position uncertainty as
a result of employing the MAP technique.
Conclusions
1. The MAP technique is a new wellbore position calculation
method for combining multiple wellbore surveys to obtain a
single, composite, more accurate well position.
2. The uncertainty in this composite MAP position is less than that
of any of the constituent surveys.
3. This technique allows for a full description of the statistical
weighting for each survey instrument run by operating at the
error-source level, as described by the covariance matrix for
each survey obtained.
4. Using the MAP technique to combine just two independe
nt surveys with equal covariance matrices yields a compo-
site survey with an EOU 30% smaller than that of the constitu-
ent surveys.
Nomenclature
Cii ⳱ covariance matrix of the ith position measurement
Cij ⳱ cross-covariance matrix of the ith and jth position
measurements
Crជ ⳱ position covariance matrix
Cˆrជ ⳱ covariance matrix of the MLE of the true position
vector
C11 ⳱ covariance matrix of position measurement number
one
C22 ⳱ covariance matrix of position measurement number
two
C33 ⳱ covariance matrix of position measurement number
three
Fig. 5—The MAP and a reduced EOU are once again obtained
from the combination of the intermediate (9.625-in.) casing gyro
survey and the 12.25-in. hole section MWD surveys, both of
which had been tied onto and had continued from the position
of MAP Part 1 to obtain Part 2.
September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion
 Subscripts
i ⳱ one of a sequence of position measurements
j ⳱ an integer between 1 and k that designates the jth
member of a set of k measurements
k ⳱ the kth member of a set of k measurements
t ⳱ a tag used to designate the true bottomhole location
xx ⳱ the (1,1) element of the position covariance matrix
(i.e., the covariance of the x coordinate)
yy ⳱ the (2,2) element of the position covariance matrix
(i.e., the covariance of the y coordinate)
zz ⳱ the (3,3) element of the position covariance matrix
(i.e., the covariance of the z coordinate)
References
Fig. 6—The final sections of the well are drilled from the up- 1. Bull. D20, Directional Drilling Survey Calculation Methods and Ter-
dated MAP Part 2 position and the contrast between the use of minology, first edition, API, Washington DC (1985).
the MAP technique. The traditional approach can be seen in 2. Williamson, H.S.: “Accuracy Prediction for Directional Measurement
comparison with Fig. 3. While Drilling,” paper SPE 67616 first presented at the 1999 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 3−6 October.
3. Wolff, C.J.M. and de Wardt, J.P.: “Borehole Position Uncertainty—
C␧ជ ⳱ covariance matrx of ␧ជ Analysis of Measuring Methods and Derivation of Systematic Error
C␤ជ ⳱ covariance matix of ␤ជ Model,” JPT (December 1981) 2339.
d ⳱ vertical component of a position vector 4. Berger, P.E. and Sele, R.: “Improving Wellbore Position Accuracy of
e ⳱ east component of a position vector Horizontal Wells by Using a Continuous Inclination Measurement
i ⳱ an integer between 1 and k that designates the ith From a Near Bit Inclination MWD Sensor,” paper SPE 50378 pre-
member of a set of k measurements sented at the 1998 SPE International Conference on Horizontal Well
I⳱ the 3 × 3 identity matrix Technology, Calgary, 1−4 November.
5. Montgomery, D.C., Peck, E.A., and Vining, G.G.: Introduction to Lin-
j⳱ an integer between 1 and k that designates the ith
ear Regression Analysis, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York City
member of a set of k measurements (2001) 195, 52.
k⳱ the number of position measurements included in the 6. Kay, S.M.: Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Prentice-
MAP estimate Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey (1993) 141.
m ⳱ the number of columns in the vector yជ 7. Stark, H. and Woods, J.: Probability, Random Processes, and Estima-
n ⳱ north component of a position vector tion Theory for Engineers, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jer-
p ⳱ probability density sey (1986) 143.
rជi ⳱ ith measurement of position vector Appendix
ជ̂r t ⳱ MLE of the true position vector
The mathematical basis of the MAP technique can be summarized
rជt ⳱ true position vector by restating the basic formula in the following formats.
s ⳱ normalized length of the semimajor principal axes of
the confidence region ellipsoid MAP = 关共HnTCovn−1Hn兲−1HnTCovn−1兴 ⳯ V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-1)
X ⳱ matrix of regression variables The covariance matrix of the MAP (CovMAP) is given as:
XT ⳱ transpose of X
yជ ⳱ vector of observations CovMAP = 共HnTCovn−1Hn兲−1, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (A-2)
␤ជ ⳱ vector of regression parameters in which H⳱I, V ⳱yជ, and Covn C␧ជ , as described by the Nomen-
␤ជ̂ ⳱ MLE of ␤ជ clature in the paper.
␦rជi ⳱ uncertainty in the ith measured position vector
␧ជ ⳱ vector of random observation errors
SI Metric Conversion Factor
in. × 2.54* ⳱ cm
*Conversion factor is exact.

Chris Chia is currently the drilling planning and surveying prod-

Fig. 7—The MAP is shown in an expanded view to indicate the
final well trajectory and a significantly reduced position uncer-
tainty, as shown.
uct champion for Schlumberger Drilling and Measurements
in Houston. e-mail: cchia1@slb.com. He has 25 years of
experience in navigation and well-positioning systems and
is the author of Schlumberger’s well surveying and anticolli-
sion policy. Chia is a qualified navigator and holds a BS degree
in mathematics and computing from the Open U. in the
U.K. Wayne Phillips is the surveying project manager at
Schlumberger’s Sugar Land Product Center in Houston. Phillips
holds a BS degree in physics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst.
and a PhD degree in applied physics from Cornell U. Darren
Aklestad has 12 years of experience in well planning and is
currently a senior engineer with Schlumberger working on
drilling planning software at the Sugar Land Product Center
in Houston.

September 2003 SPE Drilling & Completion 213