SPE-197257-MS Successful Management of Collision Risk in An Extended Reach Well

SPE-197257-MS
Successful Management of Collision Risk in an Extended Reach Well
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEADIP/proceedings-pdf/19ADIP/4-19ADIP/D041S123R004/1120850/spe-197257-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
Manchukarn Naknaka and Praisont Prasertamporn, Mubadala Petroleum Thailand; Adrian Ledroz and Jayaneethe
Naranasamy, Gyrodata; Kesavan Ramasamy, Baker Hughes, A GE Company
Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 11-14 November 2019.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.
Abstract
Mubadala Petroleum planned to drill a complex Extended Reach Well (ERD) from an existing platform. To
reach the required geological targets, the preferred wellpath was required to pass within close proximity of
an adjacent oil producer that had a resultant separation factor (SF) of 0.70. A SF of less than 1.0 presents a
mathematical possibility of well collision due to overlapping Elipses of Uncertainties (EOU). As such there
was the likelihood of the inability to drill the well with a consequencial impact to the Mubadala business
plan. A novel solution was by implemented by utilizing High Inclination Drilling with Gyro (HIDWG) tool
to safely manage and mitigate the risk of well collision.
The Jasmine field is a mature, complex oil field containing multiple stacked sandstone reservoirs, largely
having individual oil and gas water contacts that have been on production since 2005. One of the major
challenges is safely and economically accessing the remaining bypassed oil. Wellpath collision is an ever
increasing risk as the ageing assets become more congested, which could lead to property damage and losses
of production. Collision avoidance is gauged with a SF that takes into account the well depth, toolface, and
the error model of the electronic survey tool.
A conventional Bottom hole Assembly (BHA) with Measurement While Drilling (MWD) tool was
initially considered, however the proximity calcuations yielded a SF of 0.7, and the well could not be drilled
according to the company's drilling standard. To manage the risk and safely drill the well, the survey error
uncertainty needed improvement. Instead of a conventional MWD, a High Inclination Drilling with Gyro
(HIDWG) tool was utilized to reduce the survey error uncertainty to yield higher precision drilling control
at depth in excess of 10,000 feet and at an inclination higher than 70 degrees.
As a result of the BHA upgrade, the SF was instantly improved from 0.70 to 1.0, the collision risk was
reduced to an acceptable level, and the well design was compliant with the drilling standard. Furthermore,
the HIDWG was utilized for the first time in the Gulf of Thailand.
Mubadala Petroleum successfully executed the ERD well utilizing the HIDWG, in combination with
an Advance Hybrid Rotary Steerable System (RSS). The HIDWG tool provided an all-inclusive real-time
surveying solution that delivered highly accurate surveys and with the Advance Hybrid Rotary Steerable
System (RSS)'s precise drilling control throughout the intervals of close proximity with other wells.
2 SPE-197257-MS
This paper explains how the HIDWG tool provided an inclusive surveying solution that could deliver
both high accuracy surveys and precision drilling control throughout the zones of anti-collision concern of
the ERD well. The chosen solution enabled the ERD well to be drilled to the required target successfully
and allowed production to be established as planned.
Introduction
Mubadala Petroleum faced significant challenges to plan and construct a well in an existing producing field.
The Jasmine field is a mature complex oil field containing multiple stacked sandstone reservoirs, largely
having individual oil and gas water contacts. The field has been on production since 2005.
The biggest challenge is to access remaining bypass oil by mitigating colliding risks with existing
active wells. In particular, new wells will be drilled close to existing producer wells in order to maximize
production. Moreover, because of platform slot limitations, the well had to be drilled from another platform,
leading to an ERD well profile that was complicated with collision risk with over 40 neighbouring wells.
The collision risk and extended reach well profiles need to be optimized in order to develop undrained oil
in challenging locations.
Directional drilling has been more challenging, leading to higher frequency of wells that have proximity
challenges. The collision risk is assessed based on the company's, contractors and international standards,
which are intended to control and reduce the high risk of a subsurface well collision. The consequence of a
subsurface well collision can be an underground blowout, loss of well integrity, loss of production as well
as the financial impact of costly workover operations.
In order to manage these ERD wells with well proximity challenges, the company elected to utilize the
High Inclination Drilling with Gyro (HIDWG) technique since 2017. This paper will describe details of
collision risk management using HIDWG in extended reach wells from planning and execution.
Figure 1—Jasmine platform, Gulf of Thailand
Statement of Theory
There are mainly two methods of determining the direction and subsequently the position of a wellbore. One
utilizes measurements of the earth magnetic field through the use of magnetometers. Another is based on
measurements of the earth rotation rate through the use of gyroscopes. Both principles, and the tools based
on those, have different drawbacks and advantages. For example, the earth magnetic field is not completely
static and quite complex to model, particularly downhole, resulting in an unstable reference.
Additionally, the presence of ferrous or magnetized material affects the accuracy of the readings. On the
other hand, rate gyroscopes measurements use a stable reference as the earth rotation, but movement or
vibration cannot be distinguished from the reference signal and can result in erroneous values. Furthermore,
gyroscopes, are not as rugged and reliable as the magnetometers and can experience changes in calibration.
SPE-197257-MS 3
High Inclination Drilling with Gyro Technology

The ability to place a gyro system in the BHA and measure Earth rate as part of the drilling process was
developed more than 15 years ago. These early tools comprise three accelerometers and a single or dual-
axis gyro capable of measuring the traditional "XY" transversal axes of the tool. The main purpose of these
tools was providing azimuth and toolface orientation (gyro toolface) near vertical in areas of magnetic
interference, where magnetic tools were not able to provide reliable directional information.
Because of the advantages related to time savings and safety, both related to removing the need for
wireline gyros, operators started showing interest in the possibility of increasing the inclination capabilities.
Depending on the gyro technology, there are limitations that need to be overcome to achieve higher
inclination capability. For spinning mass gyroscopes, which has been the most commonly used type of
sensor, it is necessary to remove and control changes in the biases and mass unbalance (sometimes referred
to as gravity-dependent bias). The main component of the bias can be removed through an indexing
mechanism, but residual bias errors result in azimuth errors proportional to 1/cosine (inclination). Mass
unbalance changes, on the other hand, result in azimuth errors proportional to 1/ tangent (inclination),
Weston 2014. Clearly, both of these errors grow with the inclination and they need to be controlled in order
to increase the inclination limit.
Of course, the use of higher quality, rugged sensors allows for increasing the inclination range, but the
accuracy degradation with inclination will always be there. Also, there is an inherent limitation of a two
axes system concerning gyrocompassing. At horizontal, a 2-axis system is unable to compute azimuth and
QC parameters as one of the axes becomes perpendicular to the horizontal component used as a reference.
A gyroscopic survey system comprising three orthogonal gyros enables gyrocompassing at horizontal
and at any inclination, provides smaller azimuth uncertainty than the two axes counterpart (Figure 2) and,
delivers comprehensive quality control. The additional axis is aligned with the z-axis of the tool (axial) and
is also compensated by the indexing mechanism. The quality control (QC) is based on the comparison of
the theoretical values of the Earth rotation rate and Latitude with the ones computed by the gyro system. An
important aspect to consider is the robustness of the sensors. While the 3-axis allows enhanced QC, having
robust sensors permits drilling longer and under harsh environmental conditions without the need to pull
out of the hole and replace the survey tool.
Figure 2—Relative azimuth error comparison of two and three axes gyroscopic system. The two axes
systems azimuth error grows with inclination while the three axis system reaches a maximum value.
4 SPE-197257-MS
Method and Process
Description of the BHA. The HIDWG tool is incorporated inside a collar. The type of connections and
crossovers depend on an MWD company and its equipment. Usually, the HIDWG tool goes on top of the
mud motor and below the MWD tool, but because it is not affected by magnetic interference and has feed-
thru capabilities, the HIDWG tool allows a great level of flexibility related to placement in the BHA.
The HIDWG tool can be powered by batteries or power generated by a downhole turbine, or a
combination of both depending on the operations and the survey cycles; e.g. starting the gyros, sliding
operations, etc. The HIDWG sends the survey data, quality control words and tool status to the MWD
system is this one transmit the information to the surface. This is normally done using mud pulse telemetry,
although is possible to use EM transmission or wired pipe.
The stationary surveys are acquired during connections. This provides an environment with little or no
movement and minimized the survey time and impact on the rig operations.
The survey cycle starts when the MWD system detects no-flow and transmit that information to the
HIDWG tool. Depending on the inclination of the tool, the tool will initiate a gyrocompass process; at low
inclinations, the tool switches to sliding mode after the gyrocompass survey is completed.
HIGWD Tool Quality Control. The HIDWG tool is always run in either high-risk anti-collision situations
or when the wellbore position is critical in order to meet in order to achieve the well objectives, e.g.
extended reach and small reservoirs. Quality control and comprehensive planning are imperative so that
risk is managed and mitigated.
Each HIDWG tool is subject to a series of QC tests that form a cycle as shown in the figure 3. In
addition to the tool, procedures and processes are in place to assure the required service quality. The first
QC check is performed during the tool calibration, validation of information is obtained during the "Call
Out" Information, followed by Base Systems test, Rig Site Systems test, Rig Site Data Collection, Rig Site
Post Run, Base Post run and Base Equipment Return Maintenance and certification.
Figure 3—HIGWD Tool Quality Control
Detailed description. Stage 1 – Calibration: during the calibration process, the readings from the tools are
monitored over the temperature range and compared with the calibration stand position. A pass/fail criteria
based on the uncertainties of the error model is established. Only tools passing all QC are allowed to go
to the field.
SPE-197257-MS 5
Stage 2 – Call out sheet: all job details are captured on Call Out sheet and required to be verified and
signed by client representative; they include well profile, pressure, temperature, AC scan, etc.
Stage 3 – A standalone HIDWG test is performed to ensure tool functionality. Once that is finalized,
a complete system test (basket test) is performed between the host MWD system and HIDWG tool to
ensure communication and functionality. A base roll test is performed and all QC tolerances must be within
specification before loading out to rigsite.
Figure 4—HIDWG Basket Test
Stage 4 – Rig-site systems test: on arrival at rig-site, the survey specialist carries out at a thorough check
of all equipment and tool functionality check, verifies that all equipment is in good working condition before
survey begins. A pre-job roll test is performed. Additional checks include visible verification for obvious
Transit damage, function check for both electronics and mechanical running gear. A critical information
document (CID) is compiled and it must be signed by Operation support in town before BHA is made up.
Stage 5 – Rig-site data collection: as soon as the BHA is made up, a shallow hole test (SHT) is conducted
to ensure the tool HIDWG tool is communicating to MWD. Also, a basic gross error check is done before
tripping in or the start of the drilling. The HIDWG surveys processed downhole and together with the survey
QC and status words are sent to the MWD. Processes and procedures dictate that only valid (good) surveys
must be used as definitive.
Stage 6 – Rig-site post run: a comprehensive tool check is performed on similar to stage 4. Any
discrepancies on the tool reading exceeding tolerances or tool damage are reported to the office and the
tool is tagged for further action.
Stage 7 – Base Post run check: incoming tool system test performed to ensure tools are still within
tolerances. A post-job roll test is performed and used assurance and confirmation of sensor calibration.
Stage 8 – Base-Equipment return: upon confirmation of the roll test results, all equipment asset numbers
are verified against a pre-deployment inventory list and all red-tagged assets are quarantined in a red zone.
All other equipment is inspected, verified and rectified to be fit for purpose and put in a green zone for
the next deployment.
Of the various stages of tool quality control involved in carrying out on HIDWG surveys, each one
is considered as critical as any other. These full quality control processes provide a very high degree of
assurance that the survey data meets the performance specification for the tool.
Field Case History: Well C

Jasmine A platform's drilling slots have been utilized to maximum capacity. As it is not physically possible
to add more slots, it was decided that a long reach well be drilled from Jasmine C platform to access
resources in the Jasmine A block. Drilled from the congested Jasmine C platform, "Well C" was planned
in the environment with high collision risks.
6 SPE-197257-MS
The new well C trajectory was designed with the trajectory closing to one of the previously drilled
exploration / appraisal wells. The existing offet well did not have sufficient accurate survey data available
to model the ellipse of uncertainty that meets a level of accuracy required to drill an ERD well safely. In
particular, magnetic interference could affect survey results, causing an increased risk of well collision. Such
risk was not accepted by the company, and the well could not be drilled without thourough risk assessment
and mitigation.
Figure 5—2D, 3D view of Well C from platform C to platform A
Design
Appraisal of collision situation was scanned along with the convergence of two wellbores. The relative
positions between the wells were calculated. A separation result of well C to offset wells is shown in the
Table 1 below.
Table 1—Well C anti-collision scan
Well C
Well Slot SF C-C Well Status Depth
A1 N/A 0.17 586 Exploration – P&A 3844-10266
A2 N/A 0.71 101 Exploration – P&A 7044 – 7344
A3 14 0.69 216 Live, Producing 8844 – 9044
Initially, the sub-1.0 SF between the subject well and the ‘A3’ oil producer infringed on company drilling
standards (as well as contractor regulations and standard oilfield practise). The low SF provides an alert of
an abnormal risk of well collision, so the well may not be drilled. Moreover, the risk amplitude is leveraged
due to high inclination of both wells, which are up to 78 degrees inclination.
To solve such problems and allow drilling, a decision was made to utilize the HIDWG tool code model
to reduce position uncertainty and reduce collision risk. Particularly, the HIDWG reduced the position
error and increased the accuracy using a surveying solution that delivers both high accuracy surveys in
combination with advance Hybrid Rotary Steerable System (RSS) for precision drilling control at the depth
of the collision zone of Well C and A3. As a result, HIDWG improved SF from 0.69 to 1.00, mitigating the
risk and allowing the well to be safely drilled.
SPE-197257-MS 7
Table 2—Well C anti-collision scan
Offset Well Survey Methods
2.8 Sigma 3 Sigma 3 Sigma

MWD Tool Code MWD Tool Code HIDWG Tool Code
A1 N/A 0.17
A2 N/A 0.71
A3 0.74 0.69 1.00
Note: The exploration well A1 & A3 were considered low risks of collision.
Therefore, based on the improved accuracy model of HIDWG, the risk of collision was minimized, with
the requirement for the well to be drilled on the well plan line. The plan was, then, approved for further
execution.
Execution
Initially, risk assessment was conducted before execute the challenging ERD well with all parties. The risk
assessment provided integral plan for further execution of the project. Examples of risk and mitigation plan
of well C were shown in Table 3 below;
Table 3—Risk & Mitigation Plan
Risk Mitigation Plan
Collision with A1 (min SF 0.71, min c-c 101.22ft) Actions/circumstances that might be assumed to reduce the probability of
Collision with A2 (min SF 0.17, min c-c 586.88ft) penetration:
Note: The collsion risk with the A1 and A2 delineation wells are low risk ▪ Multiple casing strings protect the production tubing
as those wells have been plugged and abadoned and any collision would be ▪ Rotary drilling instead of motor drilling
slight equipment damage to the drill bit and BHA only. ▪ Drilling at a controlled rate during approach to the nearby well.
▪ Monitoring the shakers for cement/swarf
Collision with A3 (min SF 1.0, min c-c 216.51ft)
▪ Monitoring offset wellhead vibration
▪ Monitoring offset casing annular pressure
▪ AC monitoring with High Inclination Drilling with Gyro (HIDWG)
▪ Review the Offset Wells List and communicate concerns to office as
early as possible before drilling starts.
▪ Clear communication lines shall exist, DD / DSV shall not execute
wellpath changes from subsurface without Wells Delivery Manager or
Drilling Team leader approval.
▪ Confirm the survey program with the MWD/HIDWG engineers,
including the survey maximum course length and the possibility of
taking more frequent surveys than called for by the program.
If unexpected drilling parameters are observed, a well collision must be
considered as a possible cause.
If the observation is of concern, exercise your Stop Work Authority.
Immediately stop drilling. Report the observation and concern to
Mubadala's Office.
Additionally, Team developed a collision monitoring flow chart, which were utilized in the execution
phase of the project. This flow chart eliminated a risk of miscommunication while drilling the well.
8 SPE-197257-MS
Figure 6—Collision monitoring flow chart
Subsequently, an 8-1/2" BHA was designed as combination of RSS, MWD, LWD and HIDWG collar as
shown in Figure 7. The process of HIGWD tool quality control cycle described in Figure 3 was performed
to ensure no failure while drilling.
Figure 7—8-1/2" BHA of Well C
The HIDWG was run to drill the well to measured depths (MD) of around 10,000 feet. The HIDWG was
operated in two intervals below:
From 2,700ftMD to 6,900ftMD to avoid anti-collision with A1.
SPE-197257-MS 9
From 7,500ftMD to 8,900ftMD to avoid anti-collision with A2 and A3.

Drilling parameters of running HIDWG surveys in a tangent section of over 3,700 feet with 78° of
inclination were utilized. There was no compromize of drilling parameters because of the tool. Directional
control was done without any concern. Moreover, the ROP was good throughout the hole section.
Results
Well C was drilled succefully with the following highlights;
• This job is the first well in Thailand to utilize HIDWG in combination with advance Hybrid rotary
steerable system (RSS).
• The HIDWG provided reliable surveys up to a TVD of 8,900 feet at over 10,000 feet MD without
any failure.
• The HIDWG provided surveys in maximum 78° inclination, over an interval of 3,800 feet, in the
tangent section.
In brief, the well met objectives of safely penetrating multiple targets without any collision. This allowed
the company to mitigate the risk and safely drill a well that was placed at the optimum location for maximum
production.
Summary and Conclusion

The successful management of collision risk in an ERD well proves capability of HIDWG in complex
environment and ability of well collision monitoring.
The application of this technique benefited the company not only in extending ERD well profile but also
in HSE well collision risk mitigation. Also, introduction of HIDWG application was accomplished due to
the close collaboration of with the company and service contractors. Key operation challenges identification,
job planning, and rigorous execution led to the successful well. HIDWG's Technology in the ERD has
become a proven solution for drilling more wells in a fully developed field to extend the field life in a safe,
timely and cost efficient manner. By seeing the benefit on how HIDWG opens the door for new opportunities
to optimize non-drillable wells or high collision risks well drillable. Mubadala Petroleum (Thailand) has
also implemented this technology in the other wells, Total 4 wells in 2017-2018 drilling campaign. It is the
success story of Mubadala Petroluem (Thailand) for "making impossible wells drillable".
Acknowledgement
Authors would like to thank Mubadala Petroleum (Thailand), Baker Hughes (Directional Drilling and
Measurement While Drilling Services) and GYRODATA (HIDWG tool's Product) for granting permission
to publish and present this paper. The work and dedication of on-site professionals on both companies that
conducted the work cannot be overstated and it is greatly appreciated. This paper reflects the views of the
authors, and does not necessary reflect views of the owner company.
References
i. Weston, J. L., Ledroz, A. G., & Ekseth, R. (2014, September 1). New Gyro While Drilling
Technology Delivers Accurate Azimuth and Real-Time Quality Control for All Well Trajectories.
Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/168052-PA
ii. Beattie, K., Shoup, R., Weston, J., & Burke, P. (2015, March 17). All-Attitude Gyro While
Drilling Technology Provides Accurate Surveys in High Angle East/West Directional Wellbores
Delivering Reduced Costs and Increasing the Length of the Producing Zone. Society of Petroleum
Engineers. doi:10.2118/173081-MS
10 SPE-197257-MS
iii. Iain, O., Paul, P. (2015, March 3) Mubadala DRILLING and WELL ENGINEERING
STANDARD (Rev03). Doc number: DMS-STD-001
iv. Wilson, Harry F, (2016, Febuary). BHGE Wellbore Positioning - Collision Avoidance Standard.
Doc number: OPS-GLB-En-102971

SPE-197257-MS Successful Management of Collision Risk in An Extended Reach Well

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-197257-MS Successful Management of Collision Risk in An Extended Reach Well

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPE-197257-MS

Successful Management of Collision Risk in an Extended Reach Well

Copyright 2019, Society of Petroleum Engineers

Figure 1—Jasmine platform, Gulf of Thailand

High Inclination Drilling with Gyro Technology

Method and Process

Figure 3—HIGWD Tool Quality Control

Field Case History: Well C

Table 1—Well C anti-collision scan

Well Slot SF C-C Well Status Depth

A1 N/A 0.17 586 Exploration – P&A 3844-10266

A2 N/A 0.71 101 Exploration – P&A 7044 – 7344

A3 14 0.69 216 Live, Producing 8844 – 9044

Table 2—Well C anti-collision scan

Offset Well Survey Methods

2.8 Sigma 3 Sigma 3 Sigma

Table 3—Risk & Mitigation Plan

Risk Mitigation Plan

Figure 7—8-1/2" BHA of Well C

From 7,500ftMD to 8,900ftMD to avoid anti-collision with A2 and A3.

Summary and Conclusion

You might also like