SPE/IADC 92554
Implementation of a New Risk Based Well Collision Avoidance Method
G.A. McNair, SPE, and S.J. Lance, SPE, ChevronTexaco; J. Codling, SPE, Landmark Graphics; and R. Watson, SPE,
Sperry Sun
Copyright 2005, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference held in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 23-25 February 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC Program Committee following
review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the
paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the
International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the SPE, IADC, their
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in
print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied.
The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A.,
fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
A majority of industry operators and service companies have
adopted directional drilling collision avoidance rules based on
stringent controls to prevent surface collisions and consequent
human and environmental damage. These rules are found to be
severely restrictive for the optimal positioning of wells
through deeper reservoir zones where the level of damage
from collision can be contained.
A new method is proposed that retains existing rules for
avoidance of shallow (severe outcome) collisions and provides
the option for use of risk based rules in deeper sections of
wells where the outcome of a collision would not be as severe.
The risk level of collision with respect to any offset well is
calculated and then converted to a Risked Clearance Factor, an
established standard for evaluating different levels of collision
tolerance in wells.
Deep intersections have several characteristics which
require separate treatment from shallow intersections. They
have high convergence angles which minimize the physical
space and distance where a collision may occur and they have
lower economic risks of a collision relative to the cost of
corrective action.
This method has been implemented in a field area of rapid
prospect planning and development. The rules are designed to
be simple and practical in order to reduce planning and
drilling cycle time. A matrix of risk elements, specific to the
field area is presented for different depths of collision to help
to derive the level of tolerable risk. A case history is
presented that shows the clear benefit of utilizing the alternate
method.
Background
ChevronTexaco’s Thailand Business Unit (COTL) had
previously identified multiple instances where Asset teams
desired to position a development well close to an abandoned
exploration well in order access the maximum volume of
potential reserves. In many of these instances, the well
planning team in the Drilling group was unable to deliver a
well in the desired target location(s) due to constraints
imposed by the existing Collision Avoidance policy. In some
instances a significant decrease in Net Present Value was
realized due to the less than optimal reservoir position. Both
the Asset and Drilling teams identified the need to develop
alternate methods for placing a well in the most desired
location in order to access the most reserves while still
maintaining a safe working condition.
In addition to the above, it was also identified that the
existing Collision Avoidance policy included provisions for
closing in and depressurizing producing wells adjacent to
active drilling wells. While this practice (to varying degrees)
is standard throughout ChevronTexaco and the industry in
general, it was felt that a review of COTL’s current practices
was required in order to insure that the policy was not over
conservative. The upside of this analysis would be less shut-in
days for adjacent wells translating to fewer days of deferred
production.
With these drivers in mind, a project team consisting of
COTL and ChevronTexaco Energy Technology (ETC)
personnel was formed to investigate an alternative collision
avoidance methodology specific to the unique nature of the
COTL drilling environment.
COTL Drilling Environment
The general geological setting for ChevronTexaco’s fields
in Gulf of Thailand Basin is characterized by a series of
elongate, narrow, north south or northwest-southeast trending
Tertiary basins and collapse grabens. The Tertiary basins
formed as a result of extensional tectonics believed to have
been initiated during an Eocene oblique slip extension
structural event. Continued deposition associated with
extension has continued through the present, resulting in linear
collapse graben trends. Many faults in the collapse graben
trends are active today and are present to the surface, while
other faults remain “buried” deep in the section.
The reservoir section is an alternating sequence of sand
and shale with a few local coals. Most of the reservoir section
was deposited in a fluvial/costal plain environment, with
linear, discontinuous sands through laterally extensive
amalgamated sand sequences. Hydrocarbon accumulations
are generally associated with three-way dip closures formed
along normal faults. Stratigraphic closure in the strike
direction, at the depositional edge of fluvial sand, is also
2 SPE/IADC 92554
common. Wells are usually directionally drilled parallel to the
trapping fault and encounter multiple stacked pay sands.
Typically, only one well is required to recover the
relatively small amount of reserves contained in these small
closures.
The current well design consists of a short conductor string
(9-5/8”) to 1000’ TVD and surface casing (7”) set just above
the Shallowest Evaluation. The Shallowest Evaluation is the
highest known hydrocarbon, typically between 4000’ and
5500’ TVD. The surface hole is drilled with sea water and a
motor BHA. This hole section has very low compressive
strength and drills at rate up to 500 feet per hour, including
connections. On wells where the target alignment allows, all
the directional work is done in this surface hole section. Up to
8000’ MD of 7” surface pipe is run. A 6-1/8” rotary assembly
with adjustable gauge stabilizers is used to drill the reservoir
section to TD’s varying from 9000’ to 13000’ MD. A 2-7/8”
completion string is cemented in the open hole.
The survey program calls for MWD’s in each hole section
with a gyro run in the 7” casing prior to drilling out with the 6-
1/8” BHA. All wells are batch drilled and the overall process
is similar to an automobile assembly line. The current average
time from spud to rig release is six (6) days. An example
wellpath is shown in Figure 1.
Project Objectives, Work Scope
The primary objective of the study was to evaluate COTL's
Collision Avoidance policy from design and execution
standpoints, with the intention of developing a risk assessed
step change for improvement in overall well construction
efficiency, via the enabling of closer proximity drilling to
adjacent well bores. The key project driver was defined as
enabling the drilling of faster, lower cost wells, for more wells
per rig year, via improved well construction efficiency. The
following general work scope was developed to achieve this
goal.
Within Project Scope
1. Use the current survey policy as a given, with the
exception that gyro surveys will now be run in
exploration wells.
2. Review Collision Avoidance policies from other
ChevronTexaco business units, vendors and other
operators.
3. Develop a tabular list of collision scenarios, for use as a
design & execution guide, using the following criteria.
a. All scenarios that deviate from the current Collision
Avoidance guideline will undergo a facilitated risk
assessment, whereby the following will be
assessed; probability of collision occurrence, down
side potential of the occurrence, likelihood of
successfully remediating such an occurrence, and
potential cost impact. Recommended clearance
factors for each scenario will be assigned as well.
b. Each scenario will take into consideration the
various hole sections, depths, depth differential
between wells, and pore pressure differentials
between wells.
c. Risks will be categorized as impacting areas of
safety, financial, environmental, or combinations
thereof. Risk mitigations will be identified as well.
e. Comparisons with other industry policies (be they
prescriptive, probabilistic, etc.) will be made as
much as practical.
4. Perform a professionally facilitated risk assessment on
the list of scenarios. The risk assessment team would
consist of drilling professionals from various
ChevronTexaco entities, service companies and field
personnel.
Outside Project Scope
1. Geological target sizes and shapes.
2. Redefinition of the existing COTL survey policy.
3. Overall directional planning and survey management.
4. Positional uncertainty of the seismic boat.
5. Errors in seismic acquisition and processing.
6. Interpretative creative license and or errors in drawing
the structure maps.
The exclusions noted above are mainly related to errors
associated with processes external to well bore positioning
practices. For the purposes of this study we assumed that
errors do exist for other processes that relate to definition of
any target set. Errors such as those associated with positional
uncertainty of a seismic vessel, seismic acquisition and
processing and interpretations in constructing the maps from
which the targets are based are just a few examples. It was
thought that inclusion of these error types into this study
would add another dimension of complexity that would dilute
the effectiveness of the main project scope.
For item 3 however, we found it necessary to perform a
perfunctory review of the process of planning and survey
management as they relate directly to one of the main tenets of
the recommended changes to the policy.
Review of Existing Collision Avoidance Practices
As part of the study, a complete review of pertinent industry
literature relating to Anti-Collision and Collision Avoidance
theory, history and practice and was performed. Significant
work in this area by Walstrom(1,2,3), Wolff and deWardt(4,5),
Thorogood(6,7), Burton(8), Brooks and Wilson(9) and
Williamson(10,11) were used as the basis for this effort. In
addition to the literature review we solicited several major
operators, service vendors and other ChevronTexaco business
units for their existing Collision Avoidance policies. The
purpose of this exercise was to gain some insight to past and
current industry collision avoidance practices, explore
potential improvements, select a collection of the most
effective, and propose a model that best fit the goals of this
study. Another invaluable source of information was data
gathered by Coker(12,13) in a survey to ISCWSA participants
regarding collision avoidance practices. In a survey of users of
his company’s software, Codling(14) shows the various AC
options used in Collision Avoidance planning (Figure 2). It
is interesting to note that the most frequently used AC option,
is not to use it at all, but leave it as is.
While performing the reviews mentioned in the previous
paragraph we found several models/procedures that existed
among the other major operators that could be used to meet
SPE/IADC 92554
the goals of the study. However, we also found that the
various models that existed were either too restrictive or too
liberal depending upon the location of the reference well to the
offset well in terms of true vertical depth. We believed that it
was necessary to tailor any modifications to the procedure so
as to align more closely with the majority of actual operations
scenarios present in COTL operations.
What follows is a review of the process that existed at the
time of the study, the proposed alternate process that met the
project goals and a description of the tools that have been
developed as a result of this review that aid the new process.
Previous Collision Avoidance Policy
COTL was using a conventional error ratio calculation method
to flag possible well interference problems during the well
planning process. The industry uses several descriptors for
error ratio, i.e., Proximity Ratio, Separation Factor and
Clearance Factor (CF as it will be referred to for sake of
continuity in this paper). This value is determined by dividing
the current calculated center to center distance between the
well being planned (reference well) and an existing offset well
by the sum of the positional uncertainties (calculated at two
sigma) of the two wells along the horizontal closest approach
distance between the two wells. The error model used for
planning the reference well is a good magnetic model which
provides an acceptable level of confidence for the error
ellipses. (Note that for all future planning exercises it was
recommended to incorporate the use of the ISCWSA error
models that have been developed for the tool assigned to the
well plan.)
The equation for this method is as follows:
D(Center to Center )
Clearance Factor = CF = …(1)
Er + Eo
Planning Rules
Prior to the study the practice for well design in COTL called
for the engineer (well planner) to plan the well trajectory so as
to intersect a certain target set provided by the Asset Team.
As the wellpath was developed, the well planner would run a
Collision Avoidance scan to determine if there were any
potential problems with adjacent wells, either existing or
planned.
As a guideline, a Clearance Factor of 1.5 was used as the
associated allowable approach distance for any well and is the
trigger for Collision Avoidance conflicts. If the Collision
Avoidance scan showed a conflict then an iterative process
was initiated that saw the well planner and Asset Team revise
targets and well plans until there existed a target set that
allowed for the drilling of the well without the existence of a
collision issue, i.e., a Clearance Factor of greater than 1.5. The
planning cycle for any new project would progress until a set
of wellpaths and their associated targets were produced that fit
the boundary conditions. It is important to note that this
iterative process was inefficient and created a significant
amount of unproductive time to the overall process.
In any planning cycle it is not uncommon to be working
three or more well platforms with 20 wells per platform. This
3
is needed to accommodate a normal drilling program of more
than 200 wells per year.
Execution Rules
The well paths generated during the planning exercise were
used in the drilling programs and executed by the offshore
drilling personnel. During the drilling process Clearance
Factors were calculated by from the actual surveyed position
(and tool specific error model) of the drilling well.
With the extremely high penetration rates seen in Gulf of
Thailand operations, it is not always possible to maintain the
programmed wellpath. The actual wellpath is drilled such that
the “spirit” of the plan is maintained so that collision problems
would not arise. As with any drilling operation, occasions do
arise where the drilling well may approach an offset well such
that the Clearance Factor drops below 1.5. For situations such
as these, a number of decision points (or rules) were set based
on the calculated clearance factor that governed what actions
were to be taken should a certain clearance factor be exceeded
while drilling the well.
The close approach rules (and their triggering clearance
factors) used while drilling were:
Stop Drilling 1.00
Drilling Manager Approval 1.25
Shut in Adjacent Wells 1.50
This method is appropriate for preventing intersections
where the consequences of a collision could lead to a
significant safety or environmental event or major financial
loss. In the majority of cases these problems occur in shallow
sections of the wellbore where it may not be possible to
maintain well control should a collision occur. Conversely,
the method is found to be severely restrictive for the optimal
positioning of deeper sections of a well where the magnitude
of outcomes from the intersection of two wells is not as great.
In the particular case where a development well is positioned
close to an exploration well whose reservoir characteristics are
understood, the current collision rules when applied at the
reservoir prevent a well being drilled within 200’ of an
existing well. This can result in a significant amount of
reservoir not optimally exploited.
A Risk Based Collision Avoidance Model
In order to meet the goals of this study we found it necessary
to develop a procedure that could use both the existing
Clearance Factor procedure for confidently avoiding shallow
(severe outcome) collisions, and a new, less conservative
procedure for use in deeper sections of wells where the
outcome of a collision would not be as severe. Through
analysis of the data referenced above and with some additional
research, we have developed a model that meets the stated
objectives. The methodology of this procedure is described
below.
Planning Matrix
Every nearby well detected by a clearance scan will be
classified into its associated scenario via use of the COTL
Planning Matrix. This matrix of scenarios was developed
specifically for use in COTL well planning operations and was
4 SPE/IADC 92554

validated via a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). The
QRA process is described in some detail later in the paper.
The left side of the matrix is used to identify the scenario that
most applicable to the type of collision that could occur
between the well being planned and the well identified in the
clearance scan. Table 1 shows this relationship.
This compilation of scenarios was developed to address the
majority of collision situations that could arise given the
current types of wells that are being and have been drilled in
COTL’s operating area. In the future, if a different collision
situation develops due to operational or area changes then this
portion of the matrix will require modification. The authors
stress that the QRA effort and resulting planning matrix output
is very specific to the operation in Thailand. We believe that
it is repeatable for other operations using the same process.
Table 1 – COTL Planning Matrix Well Scenarios
Collision
Location Pressure Regime
Description
MW >= BHP of Offset
Conductor
transition from the current method to a risk based method,
which is the basis of determining close approach tolerances for
wells at increasing depths. This risk based approach will be
discussed later in this section.
The four intervals of Clearance Factor and their relative
risk of collision are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 – COTL Planning Matrix Clearance Factors
Results Using Conventional Separation Factor
SF < 1.0 1.0 < SF < 1.25 1.25 < SF < 1.50 SF > 1.5
P < 400 400 < P < 5000 5000 < P < 90000 P > 90000
Note that Probability (P) represents the relative (e.g. 1 in
P) risk of collision given the worst case scenario. This is the
most conservative approach to the derivation of Probability as
it relates to Clearance Factor. This is for a situation where two
wells have equal ellipse sizes at a two sigma confidence level.

This concept is discussed briefly below and in greater depth in

Section

MW < BHP of Offset Appendix A.

Combination of the classification types, with scenario
Collision with Producer

FG <NMW > BHP of Offset options on the left side and clearance factors at the top resulted
MW >= BHP of Offset
in what is called the COTL Planning Matrix. The complete
Matrix is seen in Figure 3.
Surface
Section

MW < BHP of Offset

Scenario Categorization Discussion
FG <NMW > BHP of Offset In an early model it was proposed to use two categories into
MW >= BHP of Offset which each scenario would be placed. These categories were
Production

called High Risk and Low Risk. Collisions whose outcome

Section

MW < BHP of Offset would carry a significant risk to personnel, the environment
and/or unacceptable financial risk would be classified as High
FG <NMW > BHP of Offset
and those that presented negligible risk to personnel and the
MW >= BHP of Offset environment in the event of a collision would be classified as
Conductor

Low. Some caveat for depth was also included that accounted
Section

MW < BHP of Offset for the fact that shallow collisions were not warranted under
Collision with Abandoned Well

FG <NMW > BHP of Offset

any circumstance.
There was however some confusion with this model in that
MW >= BHP of Offset it implied that any scenario could be addressed if the
Surface
Section

economics showed that a collision was acceptable. In order to

MW < BHP of Offset eliminate this perception a separate model was proposed that
FG <NMW > BHP of Offset provided a top down solution while being more suitable for
Qualitative Risk Ranking.
MW >= BHP of Offset The model outlined below meets these requirements with
Production
Section

slight modifications to allow for economic assessment of a

MW < BHP of Offset
FG <NMW > BHP of Offset
Classification by Clearance Factor
Due to the preference of the drilling operations group,
additional classification of well scenarios were required to
imitate the current clearance factor rules based method used in
the execution phase. This was done to better align the
planning phase with the execution phase as the current method
does not accomplish this.
It was also necessary to develop a relationship between the
probability of collision and the current method of calculating
clearance factors. This was needed in order to allow an easier
close drilling solution.
Three Category Types
The classification of a collision scenario for any well
identified during a clearance scan will result in that well being
categorized as one of the three types as seen in Table 3. This
classification is based on definitions, interpreted for local
conditions as they apply to the well planning scenario. The
colors used to outline each category are significant in that they
represent a stop light approach to well planning.
SPE/IADC 92554
Table 3 – COTL Collision Avoidance Planning
Categories
QRA Risk
Resulting Action
Score
1 No action required.
Drillable well based on physical mitigation if required
(barriers below collision point, annulus pressure, etc.)
2
and/or validation by economic model. Requires
Drilling Manager approval.
Not drillable due to risk to personnel, facility or
3
reservoir damage or reputation
This categorization tool was developed with input from
COTL operations personnel. During its development it was
stressed that the final product could be used by Asset
Management personnel as a planning tool or guide and still
provide clear direction towards the safest path that is
ultimately supervised by and the responsibility of the Drilling
department. The following caveat was also put in place to
provide a clear path of responsibility for the overall planning
and execution phases.
In the course of evaluating well planning scenarios with
this tool a situation may arise where a classification conflict
occurs. An example would be a situation where an Asset
Team evaluates a scenario one way and the drilling
department another. In situations like this it is stressed that
the drilling department has the responsibility for safe
operations and is therefore the ultimate decision making
authority. They will have the final decision on any
classification conflict.
Each category is described in detail below.
Considerations Relating to Depth – Classifications 2 and 3
For the purpose of this study it is necessary to define an
acceptable vertical depth for each planned well where a
collision below that depth can be determined not to present a
significant risk of surface damage or escape of hydrocarbons.
This vertical depth may be at an intermediate casing point or
below where a SCSSV is set for producing or injection wells.
For the drilling well, it will be a depth where a reservoir (or
offset well) pressure kick can be safely detected and
controlled. Calculations involving programmed mud weight,
shut-in pressure and fracture gradients will be required to
establish at which depth the risk classification changes.
Above this depth the well would be classified into either
category 2 or 3 and the traditional Clearance Factor or no-go
type rules will apply. Clearly collisions above this depth could
potentially lead to blow-outs resulting in loss of property, life
and/or reputation. The traditional ‘no-go’ and ratio type
collision procedures where properly implemented have never
resulted in a collision to our knowledge. “Properly” means
that the procedures are followed and the correct survey
instrument error models are applied.
5
Category 2 captures two types of mitigation. The first
being physical, for example the interfering offset well has its
SCSSV closed and the well is depressurized. The second type
of mitigation would be economic such that below a certain
depth, risk of a deep collision can be understood from the
costs associated with the possible loss of the offset well plus
the costs to control and sidetrack the current well verses the
economic gain associated with drilling closer to the offset.
Even in this case it would be prudent to follow a standard
shut-in / bleed-off procedure for a close production or
injection well. The process for determining the economic
based minimum well separation is discussed below.
For the specific case of COTL, there are several other
mitigating factors that were determined that would not allow a
well to be identified as a Category 1 (Clearance Factor greater
than 1.5) well no matter the circumstance. These factors were
also verified during the QRA of the Collision Matrix. Firstly,
the very high penetration rates seen in the upper sections of
the wells would not allow ample time for categorization via
the economic risk based system. Secondly, the fact that
surveys may not be taken (while drilling) at each stand could
increase the potential for a collision should less conservative
clearance distances be used. Finally, it may be more efficient
from a well planning standpoint to use the error based rules
since the additional work associated with risk based planning
may not be cost effective.
Additionally, it could be the case where a well is classified
as category 3 along its entire length as a result of the analysis
described above.
Category 1 – No Action Required
This category is used for wells that require no additional
action as they are currently planned. Some examples of
collision scenarios with offset wells are:
An offset well that was identified during a clearance
scan but does not encroach with a Clearance Factor of
less than 1.5 at any depth.
An offset producing well where the closest approach is
in the reservoir section, the mud weight in the planned
well is greater than the mud weight in the offset well
and the Clearance Factor is greater than 1.25.
An offset abandoned exploration well where the closest
approach is in the surface section, the mud weights are
equal and the Clearance Factor is greater than 1.0.
Category 2 – Drillable Well with Mitigation
This category is used for wells that are deemed drillable based
on the presence of physical mitigation if required (barriers
below collision point, annulus pressure, etc.) and/or validation
by economic model. If the economic model is used then
approval from the Drilling Manager is required.
An example of a physical mitigation requirement would be
an interfering offset well where the SCSSV is closed and the
well is depressurized. As a result of the QRA analysis some
scenarios that required mitigation previously now do not
require it as long as the distinct Clearance Factor (and
associated distance) is maintained.
The second type of mitigation would be economic such
that depending on the scenario, the risk of a collision can be
determined through an analysis of the risk associated costs of
6 SPE/IADC 92554
drilling closer to an offset verses the beneficial economic gain
associated with drilling closer to the same well. The process
for determining the economic based minimum well separation
is discussed below.
Category 2 – Economic / Risk Based Separation
Minimum Separation Distance
A risk based separation distance must be determined along the
vector between the two wells of interest. (The appropriate
selection of this vector is discussed in Appendix B.) This is
the minimum allowable distance that a reference well can
approach an offset well. Williamson(10) outlines a method for
determining the minimum safe distance (S) a drilling well
(reference) can approach an offset well.
⎛ dr + do ⎞ dr + do
S = σ 2 ln ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + …(2)
⎝ ACRσ 2π ⎠ 2
Where:
σ = σ r2 + σ o2
Several efforts (entailing considerable analysis) were made
to devise a more refined probability of intercept but when the
results were compared to this method the differences were
negligible. This method has two advantages
a) It can be reversed to determine the probability of
collision based on actual calculated separation
distances.
dr + do ⎧ [S − (d r + d o ) / 2 ]2 ⎫
P= exp ⎨ − ⎬ …(3)
σ 2π ⎩ 2σ 2 ⎭ is it that they will recognize an encroachment and take
b) It is conservative when it needs to be, i.e., when the
casings are wide and the combined survey errors are
tight. This is necessary for collision analysis at
shallower depths.
Allowable Collision Risk
Allowable collision risk, ACR (also referred to as
Tolerable Collision Risk(10)) is the value of collision
probability which is used to determine the minimum well
separation for a close approach between wells. It represents
the maximum probability of collision considered acceptable
for a particular close approach. For example, the economic
risk of a deep collision can be understood from the loss of the
offset well plus the cost to control and sidetrack the current
well and potential loss of production. For rapidly drilled wells
and for ones that have a short lifespan, the level of purely
economic risk can be alarmingly low. Example calculations
for several scenarios in our area of interest showed risk values
of 1 chance in 4. At these levels of risk and dealing with the
position uncertainty below the transition depth it is possible to
drill right through the offset wellbore. Fortunately, most
drilling engineers are of the mindset that says “you must not
drill into another well” or one must at least actively take some
avoiding action. So there is a perceived level of risk higher
than the level of economic risk which is very difficult to
quantify.
In his paper, Williamson(10) also discusses the need for
consideration of ‘off-design’ events, or ‘gross’ errors, the
distribution of survey errors and the imprecision of the risk
assessment itself. While these are still unquantifiable, the
following points are provided as a qualitative guideline for the
user to aid in determining an overall weighting factor that is
applied to the pure economic assessment. Values for this
weighting factor, in practice, have ranged from 20 to 200
depending on the circumstance and the user.
Geometry of Collision. While a close approach 90
degree intersection may be more risky (more likely)
than a parallel one, it is also short lived in that once you
are past the well the risk is gone. Parallel and high
angle intersections present a greater window of
collision opportunities from an along the well depth
standpoint.
Consequences of a Collision. How would a collision
impact the current planned operations? Is there a
critical path for this well with regard to the drilling
program? Will a bad outcome affect the reservoir
management strategy? Basically, what is the intangible
effect on the overall operation?
Well Planning and Execution. What is the confidence
level in the definitive database? How could the
misapplication of survey references, corrections or
survey tool error model codes affect the outcome? Are
your survey management and quality control
procedures of good quality? How confident are you in
the people executing the work? What experience do
they have in situations of a similar nature? How likely
the proper action before a collision takes place or be
able to deal with the consequences of a collision if one
does occur?
Quality of QRA Analysis. How much confidence do
you have in the estimation of costs of collision, costs of
avoidance and overall value of the well?
Risk and Reward. What additional risk associated
cost are you willing to assume in order to achieve your
goals? What fraction of the value of the well are you
willing to forfeit in order to achieve them?
As a result of our study a worksheet was developed to aid
the Drilling Engineer (well planner) and Asset Team derive a
reasonable and defendable value of this probability depending
on the specific circumstances of each operation.
Use of the Model in Commercial Well Planning Software
The well planning program that is used by COTL has been
modified to calculate values of P as defined in equations (2)
and (3). Inputs to the program include ACR, minimum TVD
from which to apply the rule (transition depth) and a default
distance should the separation distance drop below a
calculable level.
The software’s Collision Avoidance report shows the
calculated values of Minimum Separation Distance, actual
SPE/IADC 92554
center to center distance, and calculated probability of
intersection at each interpolated depth as specified by the user.
The program also calculates a Risked Clearance Factor that is
defined as:
D(Center to Center )
RCF = …(4)
Minimum Separation Distance ( S )
where D, is the center to center distance between the two
wells along the line of closest approach.
The Risk Based Clearance Factor is the distance between
the two wellbore centers divided by the Minimum Separation
at that depth on the reference wellbore. The wells should not
be allowed to approach closer than a RCF of 1.0. This method
does provide for the application of different safe drilling rules
(for used defined levels of RCF greater than 1.0) similar to the
previous policy, but has not been implemented at this time.
For example, if the determined level of acceptable collision
risk (ACR) is 1:100, then for each depth below the stated
TVD, a Minimum Separation Distance will be calculated and
displayed corresponding to the acceptable risk of 1 in 100. In
other words, the Minimum Separation Distance represents the
closest distance that the reference well can approach the offset
well without exceeding the value of 1 in 100. This Minimum
Separation Distance will always be the limiting value. As
long as RCF is greater than 1 then the ACR is never exceeded.
The Risked Clearance Factor method can be adapted for
relief well blowout well planning. The casing size on the
offset well must be changed to the working range of the
magnetic ranging tool (estimated 150’). The wellplans can
then be manipulated by optimizing the approach direction and
intersection depth to increase the probability of intersection.
(Minimize the RCF).
Category 3 – Not Drillable as Planned
Wells classified into this category present an unacceptable risk
to personnel or facilities and/or could cause severe reservoir
damage resulting in an unacceptable economic loss. Wells
classified as Category 3 must be re-planned so that the
resulting Clearance Factor is acceptable for the specific
scenario identified in the COTL Planning Matrix.
The formula for calculation of a Clearance Factor is
calculated as follows:
D(Center to Center )
Clearance Factor = …(5)
(E r + Eo ) + 1 * (d r + d o )
2 each scenario, a list of references is provided that corresponds
This equation can also be used to calculate the Minimum
Center to Center Distance based on the Clearance Factor.
Min Center to Center Distance =
1
CF * ( E r + Eo ) + * (d r + d o ) …(6)
2
The well radii have been added to the equation for continuity
sake with the calculation of the risk based separation distance
described in the previous section.
7
Quantitative Risk Assessment
A Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) performed by a team
of company and directional drilling service personnel was
used to populate the Planning Matrix. The team used a
modified “What-If?” analysis tool to review each collision
scenario, determine a risk ranking, and then populate the
corresponding Clearance Factor box with one of the three
categories. A brief description of this process follows.
QRA Risk Ranking Methodology
For each scenario the team identified the most severe
consequence (usually the highest cost, though non-cost factors
were considered). A severity value was then assigned to this
consequence. The team then assessed the likelihood this most
severe consequence will occur, given that a collision has
occurred. A likelihood value was assigned to the
consequence.
In a normal risk ranking exercise the values of severity and
likelihood would be used to assign a risk value, found on the
risk ranking. For this exercise an additional step was required
in order to accommodate the ranking of scenarios for each
category of Clearance Factor. It was necessary to mentally
combine the likelihood (as described above) with the
probability (driven by the Clearance Factor) that a collision
will occur, together with the severity value, to come up with
an initial risk ranking. Once this initial risk ranking was
established, the team weighed this initial ranking value against
the information outlined above (Considerations Relating to
Depth). Based on this additional step the team then assigned
the red, yellow, or green traffic light category to the risk
matrix cell. It should be noted that it is possible to populate
one of the scenarios with a category that did not correspond
directly to the risk ranking.
This method is quite unique in that it provides for the
additional step of using the experience of the group along with
their various perceptions of risk to validate the original risk
ranking. The first few cells in the risk matrix were difficult to
assess. It took some time to develop a shared perception of
acceptable risk between the various team members. The team
captured comments concerning actions to mitigate the risk or
consequence of collision, for use by COTL drilling personnel.
These were incorporated into the final Collision Matrix.
Planning Matrix Notes
During the development of the Planning Matrix and during the
QRA exercise, certain questions arose regarding how
assumptions could be incorporated into the Matrix. A separate
Notes section was established to address this concern. For
to the format of the Notes section. The main purpose of this
exercise was to provide a prospective well planner the ability
to consider the same factors and assumptions as those who
created the Matrix. The Notes are seen in Table 4.
8 SPE/IADC 92554
Table 4 – Planning Matrix Notes
Notes
1 New Mud Weight required in new well at collision point to
control Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP) on offset well
exceeds last shoe test in new well.
2 The following factors should be used to determine if the
classification (2) is valid for the specific collision issue.
a What is the confidence level of the data from the
offset well in question? If it is an abandoned
well, was it drilled by COTL?
b What is the actual Probability of Collision as
calculated by the Well Planning Software?
c What is the collision geometry? Is it a sharp
approach where there is only a brief chance of
collision or are the wells near each other
providing a prolonged chance of collision?
d Is there a method other than well surveying that
can validate the position of the two wells? I.e.,
Lithology.
e If the offset well has been abandoned or shut-in,
what methods, barriers etc., were installed above
and below the targeted collision point.
f Is the offset well cased at the targeted collision
points?
g If collision with the offset well would require
increasing the mud weight, what is the feasibility
of increasing the mud to the desired weight?
h The shoe design of the current well is sufficient
to handle a kick
3 Evaluation must consider the potential additional costs
a Costs associated with setting physical barriers in
this hole section
b Costs associated with not being able to retrieve a
plug from an offset well
c Costs for added drilling complexity to achieve a
desired SF
4 Assumes that current mitigation policies as outlined in
Section 1 of the Collision Avoidance procedure are
followed regarding physical barrier placement and
depressuring requirements for offset wells.
5 Classification is driven by economic understanding rather
than physical mitigation
Minimum separation distance to facilitate execution is
based on a calculated acceptable risk tolerance
6 Special mitigation methods are required if close approach
drilling is chosen
COTL Drilling Operations is responsible for developing
these methods
7 Collision Avoidance with respect to Abandoned wells is
only for valid for open water wells
Wells abandoned on platforms have many variations and
need to be addressed on case by case basis and are not
in the scope of this template.
Case History
During a typical platform site well planning exercise, the well
planner identified a potential conflict between a planned and
an abandoned exploration well. The exploration well had
been drilled by a previous operator in 1994. The collision
scan showed a Clearance Factor of 1.25 occuring in the
surface section of the well. Using the matrix (Figure 3), a
scenario was identified as follows; collision with an
abandoned well in the surface section with the possibility that
the mud weight used in this section could be less than the
bottomhole pressure in the abandoned well. The matrix
guideline indicated that the well could be drilled (Category 2,
with mitigation) as designed if the risk analysis supported it.
Based on this categorization, the drilling group proceeded with
the analysis.
Fortunately, the previous operator had kept good records
which allowed for good confidence in performing a risk
analysis on the situation. The well history indicated that 7”
casing had been run and cemented to TD, and that 9’5/8”
casing had been set where we the current operator would
normally set 7” casing. DST data indicated that none of the
zones of interest were above expected pressures. The
abandonment program was sound with cast iron retainers and
cement plugs. A 500’ cement plug had also been set across
the 9-5/8” shoe, below our potential collision point. Given
this data it was deemed that the only exposure at the closest
approach point of 3930’ TVD would be economic, i.e, risk to
people, environment, or reputation was not expected.
The planner had produced two wellplans that could
intersect the desired target sets. One required an extra trip in
the 6-1/8” hole for directional work, estimated at $100,000.
This well path maintained a CF of 1.0. The preferred well
plan accomplishes all the turn in the 8-1/2” hole, and had a CF
of .4. The cost of collision was estimated at $500K,
accounting for plug back & sidetrack if realized.
Uisng a risk factor of 50 the team arrived at an Allowable
Collision Risk of 1 chance of collision in 250. This value was
then input into the well planning software and run again for
validation.
The results of the analysis showed that at the closest point
of approach, the actual distance between the two wells was
150 feet, and the minimum separation allowed (given the
bounds of 1:250) was 82 feet, indicating a Risked Clearance
Factor of 1.83. Instructions were then inserted into the
wellplan that guided the close drilling rules (and allowable
approach distances) for this particular instance.
Study Results & Conclusions
1. As a result of the study, the current planning and
execution guidelines for wells with respect to
Collision Avoidance considerations have been
modified. The revised method provides for more in-
depth analysis of a unique potential collision scenario
based on the following parameters; collision type,
potential collision location (TVD), pressure regime
and Clearance Factor determined in an initial
Collision Avoidance scan. Depending on the
combination of these parameters a well is placed into
one of three categories outlined in Table 3. The
colors used to highlight each category are significant
in that they represent a stop light approach to well
planning. The outline for the new Survey and
Collision Avoidance Policy is seen in Table 5.
SPE/IADC 92554 9

Table 5 – Survey & Collision Avoidance Policy f = is a scaling factor

1. Survey Requirements σr = well positional uncertainty for reference well (at
1.1. General Requirements one standard deviation)
1.2. Magnetic Survey Requirements
1.3. Gyro Survey Requirements
σo = well positional uncertainty for offset well (at one
1.4. Survey Quality Control And Reporting
standard deviation)
2. Well Planning Requirements
2.1. General Requirements ACR = Allowable Collision Risk
2.2. Well Planning Process
2.3. Category 3 – Not Drillable at Clearance Factor Acknowledgments
2.4. Category 2 – Drillable Well with Mitigation The authors wish to thank ChevronTexaco, Landmark
2.5. Category 1 – No Action Required Graphics and Halliburton/Sperry Sun for permission to publish
2.6. Exceptions this paper.
2.7. Well Plot Requirements
3. Definitions References
3.1. Clearance Factor 1. Walstrom, J. E., Brown, A. A. and Harvey, R. P.: “An Analysis
3.2. Minimum Separation Distance of Uncertainty in Directional Surveying”, JPT 2181 pp. 515-523
3.3. Risked Clearance Factor (April, 1969) pp. 515-23.
4. Well Execution Requirements 2. Walstrom, J.E., Harvey, R.P. and Eddy, H.D. “A Comparison of
4.1. General Policy Requirements Various Directional Survey Models and an Approach to Model
4.2. Suspension of Wells Requiring Mitigation Error Analysis”, JPT 3379 (August, 1972) pp. 935-43.
4.3. Suspension of Drilling Well – All Categories 3. Walstrom, J.E., Harvey, R.P. and Eddy, H.D.: “A Mathematical
5. Drilling and Survey Procedure Guidelines Analysis of Errors in Directional Survey Calculations”, JPT
5.1. General Guidelines for Drilling with Proximity 3718 (November, 1971) pp. 1368-74.
to Other Wells 4. Wolff, C.J.M. and de Wardt, J.P.: “Borehole Position
5.2. Drilling Procedure Uncertainty – Analysis of Measuring Methods and Derivation of
5.3. Special Procedure: Drilling out of Conductor Systematic Error Model,” JPT 9223 (September 1980) pp. 2339-
50.
Casings of “Splitter” Wellhead Systems
5.4. Tool Face Offset Procedure 5. Grindrod, S.J. and Wolff. C.J.M. “Calculation of NMDC Length
5.5. Tool Face Offset Check List Required for Various Latitudes Developed from Field
Measurements of Drillstring Magnetization”, paper 11382
presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans,
2. A hazard review of this proposed classification 20–23 February 1983.
process was performed in order to validate each
6. Thorogood, J.L., Tourney, F.G., Crawley, F.K., and Woo, G.:
specific collision scenario (in the context of COTL “Quantitative Risk Assessment of Subsurface Well Collisions”,
operations) and determine the appropriate paper SPE 20908, presented at Europec 90, The Hague, 22-24
categorization. The results show that the current October 1990.
requirement to maintain a separation factor of 1.5 at 7. Thorogood, J. L., Hogg, T.W., and Williamson, H.S.:
all depths within a drilling well in some situations “Application of Risk Analysis Methods to Subsurface Well
may be relaxed, while at the same time maintaining Collisions”, SPEDE 23941 (December, 1991) pp. 299-304.
safe operating conditions. 8. Burton, R.C.: “Development of Drilling Close Rules for Dubai
Petroleum Co.”, paper SPE 22546, presented at the SPE Annual
Nomenclature Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, 6-9 October
B = allowance made in well separation for survey 1991.
bias 9. Brooks, A.G. and Wilson, H.: “An Improved Method for
FP(x) = a probability density function Computing Wellbore Position Uncertainty and its Application to
Collision and Target Intersection Probability Analysis”, paper
P = probability of collision
36863 presented at the SPE European Petroleum Conference,
S = planned separation between wells Milan, Italy, 22–24 October 1996.
D = calculated separation between wells
10. Williamson, H.: “Towards Risk Based Separation Rules”, paper
x = a dummy variable SPE 36484, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
Er = well positional uncertainty for reference well at and Exhibition, Denver, CO, 6-9 October 1996.
two standard deviations 11. Williamson, H.: “Accuracy Prediction for Directional
Eo = well positional uncertainty for offset well at two Measurement While Drilling,” paper SPE 56702, presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston,
standard deviations TX, 3-6 October 1999.
dr = hole/casing diameter in reference well 12. Minutes of the Various Meetings of the ISCWSA.
do = hole/casing diameter in offset well 13. Coker, O.: “A Review of Industry Practices For Directional
Drilling Collision Avoidance”, Unpublished (November 2002).
Et = combined error ellipsoid. 14. Codling, J: “Anticollision and all of those options”, presentation
to the ISCWSA, February 2003.
10 SPE/IADC 92554

Appendix A – Discussion on conversion of Figure A.3 – Probability from Tail of Distribution

Separation Factor to Risk Illustration
To date the most common method for determining a minimum
separation is to add the projected ellipse radii of the offset well
and the reference well together.
The ellipse radii are taken at a specified confidence (sigma)
level. Two-sigma is most commonly used and is roughly
equivalent to 95% confidence in 1 dimension. Other higher
levels have been used for greater confidence.
In order to obtain a real assessment of the survey error
between the reference well and the offset well, the Ellipsoids
of Uncertainty (EOU’s) must be combined by root sum square
summation. This is done by adding the elements of the Ellipse
of Uncertainty covariance matrices together. The significance
of this method is that the statistical combination of errors takes
place before the calculation. One sigma ellipses are used in
this exercise.
Figure A.2 – Combination of EOU’s Illustration Risk formulae use a function which is an integration of the
normal probability distribution. The function FP(x) is used as
an abbreviation. (There is an equivalent Excel function called
NORMSDIST(X)).

x
ε − x2 / 2
FP ( x ) = ∫
−∞ 2Π
dx …(A.2)

Where x = CF (Clearance Factor).

Using this function we can get the result of the following

D − (d r + d o ) / 2
Clearance Factor = CF = …(A.1)
f * Et
Et is the combined error ellipsoid.
f is a scaling factor to increase the confidence level to an
acceptable level. A common value would be 2.8 which would
scale the 1 sigma ellipse size to the equivalent of 2 by 2 Sigma
ellipses used in more traditional methods.
Converting Separation Factor to Risk
This Separation Factor can be converted into a probability by
integrating the tail of the normal probability distribution as
shown below in Figure A.3.
integrations of the tail of the distribution which gives us the
Probability of Collision.
⎡ ⎛ d + do ⎞ ⎤
Ptail = FP ⎢ D − ⎜ r ⎟ Et ⎥ …(A.3)
⎣ ⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎦
The tail of the distribution is included in order to address all
the eventualities if a well spaghettis itself around the offset,
which is not the case in deep intersections.
For the case of the current error ratio based system using
an ellipsoid confidence level of 1 sigma, the corresponding
risks for SF=1.0 and SF=1.5 are approximately 1 in 400 and 1
in 90,000 respectively. They do not account for the impact of
unplanned events or inaccurate modeling of survey error
distributions. They do, however, provide a significant degree
of confidence that a collision with another well can be
avoided.
SPE/IADC 92554 11

Appendix B - Projected Vector Discussion
This study diverged from the standard techniques used in
determining the Projected Vector between wells. An alternate
method for computing the survey error in the direction
between the two wellbores and used in the probability
calculation is proposed here.
It was found that the standard Direct Vector method (also
commonly known as Pedal Curve method) for bisecting the
ellipsoid of uncertainty gave misleading results on a crossing
of wells before and after the closest point. The Direct Vector
method is used to extract the ellipse dimension in the same
direction as the closest approach vector between the two
wellbore points.
The alternative method is called the Projected Vector. In a
normal crossing of wells the shortest line connecting the 2
wellbores will be perpendicular to both. The Projected Vector
method takes the direction to bisect the ellipsoid as the vector
perpendicular to both wellpath directions at the points of
interest seen in Figure B.1.
Figure B.1 – Projected vs. Direct Vectors Illustration
The Direct Vector method assumes that there is no
confidence in the direction of the two wellbores relative to
each other. Generally the directions are normally known to
better than 1 degree (1 sigma), while the position uncertainties
are commonly worse than 100ft (30m) for a deep collision
scenario.
The Projected Vector method (for ellipse bisection) that
gives the most consistent results is the cross (vector) product
of the two wellbore vectors at the two points of interest. A
limitation with this method is that singularity problems are
encountered where the two wellbores are nearly parallel. This
is solved by using the direct vector where the angle of
convergence between the two wells is less than 5 degrees.

Combined EOU
Direct Vector takes a tangent in the on Reference Well
direction between points of interest

Projected Vector takes a tangent in

the direction of projected closest
approach

Offset well position & direction

relative to the reference

An example of the problem is shown below (Figure B.2).

In this case the reference well passes above the offset well to
take advantage of the survey error being less in the inclination
direction (high side).

Figure B.2 – Sum of Error Comparison

Reference Well

Direction of
Travel
Offset at 5100 Offset at 5400
Offset at 5300

Sum of
Error
Using Direct Vector

Using Projected Vector

12 SPE/IADC 92554

Figure 1 – Typical wellpath for accessing fault stacked hydrocarbon accumulations in Gulf of Thailand.
SPE/IADC 92554 13

Component Option 1 % Option 2 % Option 3 %

Procedure TC Plot 30 Scans & Other 70
Survey
Programmed 20 Linear 80
Program
Error Models ISCWSA 30 Systematic 60 Cone 10
Use Bias Yes 30 No 70
Use Casings Yes 20 No 80
Scan Methods TC 20 Closest Approach 70 Horizontal 10
Ellipse
Pedal (both) 70 Major Axis 20 Covariance 10
Dimensions
Collision
Ratios 60 Rules 30 Depth Ratios 10
Criteria
Confidence
2 Sigma 50 3 Sigma 30 1 Sigma 20
Levels
Figure 2 – Summary of Industry Collision Avoidance Planning and Execution Practices – 2003

COTL Planning Matrix

Results Using Conventional Separation Factor
Collision
SF < 1.0 1.0 < SF < 1.25 1.25 < SF < 1.50 SF > 1.5
Description Location Pressure Regime Notes
MW >= BHP of Offset No Plausible Occurences
Conductor
Section

MW < BHP of Offset 2 2 2 2 2,3,4,6

Collision with Producer

FG <NMW > BHP of Offset No Plausible Occurences

MW >= BHP of Offset No Plausible Occurences

Surface
Section

MW < BHP of Offset 3 2 2 1 2,3,4

FG <NMW > BHP of Offset 3 2 2 1 1,2,3,4,6

MW >= BHP of Offset 2 2 1 1 2,3,4,5

Production
Section

MW < BHP of Offset 2 2 1 1 2,3,4,5

FG <NMW > BHP of Offset 3 3 2 1 1,2,3,5,6

MW >= BHP of Offset No Plausible Occurences

Conductor
Section
Collision with Abandoned Well

MW < BHP of Offset No Plausible Occurences

FG <NMW > BHP of Offset No Plausible Occurences

MW >= BHP of Offset No Plausible Occurences

Surface
Section

MW < BHP of Offset 2 1 1 1 2,3,4

FG <NMW > BHP of Offset 3 2 2 1 1,2,3,4,6

MW >= BHP of Offset 2 1 1 1 2,3,5

Production
Section

MW < BHP of Offset 2 1 1 1 2,3,5

FG <NMW > BHP of Offset 2 1 1 1 1,2,3,5,6

QRA Risk
Resulting Action
Score

1 No action required.

Drillable well based on physical mitigation if required (barriers below collision point, annulus pressure, etc.) and/or validation by economic
2 model.
Requires Drilling Manager/Operations Manager approval.

3 Not drillable due to risk to personnel, facility or reservoir damage or reputation

Figure 3 – COTL Planning Matrix