SPE/IADC 140192

Improving the Quality of Ellipse of Uncertainty Calculations in Gyro Surveys

to Reduce the Risk of Hazardous Events like Blowouts or Missing Potential
Production through Incorrect Wellbore Placement

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
Roger Ekseth, SPE, Gyrodata; John Weston, SPE, Gyrodata; Adrian Ledroz, SPE, Gyrodata; Barry Smart, SPE,
Gyrodata; Astrid Ekseth, SPE, Gyrodata

Copyright 2011, SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference and Exhibition held in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1–3 March 2011.

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 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 does not
necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors, 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 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 SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
Wellbore position uncertainty estimation (error modeling)
is a key element in safe and cost effective drilling. The
quality of error modeling has improved a lot over the last
10 – 15 years through the publication of SPE papers like
SPE-67616, 90408, 103734 and 105558. These papers
taken together form a good framework for error modeling
calculations with one exception. None of these papers
supplies the drilling industry with realistic publicly
documented uncertainty estimates for gyroscopic survey
tools. It has been left to the gyro service providers
themselves to supply the rest of the industry with the
necessary gyro model inputs, mainly without any external
review/audit process. This is not an ideal situation, and
represents a potential safety hazard. The gyro service
providers do not only compete on price, but also on survey
accuracy. This paper is an attempt to start a process to
close this safety gap by presenting the actual derivation of
a brand new set of realistic uncertainty estimates for some
of the existing gyroscopic tools based on real downhole
data and guidelines given in the above mentioned SPE-
papers.
Introduction
The complexity of oil and gas well drilling has increased
significantly over the last 100 years. Basic shallow vertical
wells drilled in widely spaced grids have to a large extent
been replaced by complicated wells such as extended
reach, horizontal and multilateral wells, and so-called
designer wells, which are often drilled out of closely
placed template slots. This evolution would not have been
possible without a broad range of technological
improvements including the introduction of totally new
disciplines such as directional surveying.
Directional surveying became a necessary drilling aid
as soon as the drilling of deviated wells controlled through
whip-stocks and depth dependent weight-on-bit programs
became a reality. The whip-stock had to be mounted and
oriented downhole, a process that required the
measurement and display of its downhole horizontal
orientation (azimuth); and the vertical orientation
(inclination) had to be monitored to ensure correct tuning
of weight-on-bit relative to the desired build/drop rates of
the well trajectory. As a result of these demands, various
instruments that utilize the Earth’s gravity, magnetic and
spin fields to determine the inclination and azimuth at
given locations within the wellbore were developed, and
the directional surveying industry became a reality.
The main objective of the directional surveying
industry has, over the years, changed from providing the
drillers with inclination and azimuth information to
supplying both drillers and reservoir scientists with 3D
wellbore position data (north, east and vertical
coordinates). This evolution has been driven by the simple
fact that directional surveying instruments combined with
pipe tally or wireline depth constitute a downhole 3D
navigational system. Further, it would have been
impossible to satisfy the operator’s resource and profit
driven demand for more and more complicated wells and
well clusters, without the availability of high quality
wellbore position.
Real time 3D orientation and positional data of both
the drill-bit and drilled sections of the well under
construction is needed to steer the bit safely towards the
drilling target, and to avoid collisions with adjacent wells;
access to 3D positional data for such wells is of course
vital for collision avoidance. Losing a target or drilling
into an existing dry well might lead to large financial
penalties, while penetrating the reservoir “too early” or
drilling into a producer well, might result in blowouts,
with consequent environmental pollution and loss of
human life. Safe and cost effective drilling is therefore not
only reliant on access to wellbore positional data, but also
2 SPE/IADC 140192
on the quality of these data. Directional data including
depth measurements proved early on to be of variable
quality. Experience showed that the success rate of hitting
small size targets and avoiding wellbore collisions
depended on the choice of survey type and the level of
quality control applied. Tailoring of survey programs
based on cost, benefit and risk considerations became
more and more common, and the need for tools to quantify
and predict surveying uncertainties associated with the
different service types became obvious, and led to the
formation of a new scientific discipline, ”Wellbore
position uncertainty estimation”, which is frequently
referred to as “Error modeling”.
As a result of major contributions to the subject such
as Wolff and deWardt’s systematic error model concept1
and John Thorogood’s instrument performance models2,
the quality of the wellbore position uncertainty estimation
has, over the years, increased significantly, and today is a
key element in safe and economical drilling. State of the
art error modeling is to a large extent based on methods
and theories originating from collaborative work over the
last 10 – 15 years within the SPE WPTS (formerly the
ISCWSA), which has been made available to the
directional surveying industry through the publication of a
series of SPE papers; SPE 67616, 90408, 103734 and
1055583-6. The first paper by Williamson3 sets out a
mathematical framework for error modeling in connection
with magnetic surveying, and recommends numerical
uncertainty inputs to be used for basic MWD surveying.
The second paper by Torkildsen et al4 is the counterpart
for gyro surveying, but this gives only the mathematical
framework for gyro error modeling. The WPTS has
formed an Error Models Maintenance sub-committee to
perform regular updates and maintenance of the MWD
and gyro error models. It has been operational for some
years and therefore, the current recommendations differ
slightly from what is presented in the two error model
papers. The two last papers by Ekseth et al5,6 give
recommendations regarding the quality control of different
types of directional surveying that should be implemented
to satisfy the demand for gross error free data, which is
taken for granted in the MWD and gyro error model
papers.
MWD makes use of the Earth’s magnetic field as a
reference in its azimuth calculations. The sensor errors
present in modern MWD instruments are small in
comparison to typical variations in the Earth’s magnetic
field, which constitutes a rather unstable reference. The
MWD positional uncertainty is therefore, to a large extent,
a result of environmental errors originating from natural
fluctuations in the magnetic field and distortions caused by
adjacent magnetic material, and not variable sensor
quality. Knowledge and techniques on how to minimize
the effects of the unstable magnetic reference have been
known for many years, and the practical implementation
does not vary significantly between the major MWD
suppliers, who have focused on factors other than survey
accuracy in their marketing. It was therefore possible to
create an MWD error model3 which has been accepted as
an industry standard.
For gyro surveying, in which direction is determined
with respect to the Earth’s rotation vector, the situation is
quite the opposite. State of the art gyro instruments are far
less accurate than the stability of the Earth’s rotation rate.
Tool design and operational procedures vary significantly
between the different suppliers, and survey accuracy is
regarded as a competitive advantage. For these reasons,
the SPE WPTS decided to provide the drilling industry
with a framework for mathematical error modeling of
gyroscopic survey tools4, and not to supply numerical
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
error parameter inputs. It was left to the gyro service
providers themselves to supply the rest of the industry
with the necessary gyro model inputs, mainly without any
external industry accepted guidelines or review/audit
processes in place. Historically, many examples have
arisen of service providers of all kinds, compelled to
compete on accuracy, as well as price, coming under
pressure to skew their performance claims so as to present
an overly optimistic view of the service that they can
provide. Numerical error model inputs supplied to the
industry from the different gyro survey providers may
therefore be too optimistic and give an incorrect accuracy
rating. This is not an ideal situation, and represents a
potential safety hazard.
Operators and directional drillers might believe they
are operating within acceptable safety margins while, in
reality, they may operate with critically low safety
margins. This paper is an attempt to start a process to close
this potential safety gap by presenting the derivation of a
brand new set of realistic uncertainty estimates for some
existing gyroscopic tools based on statistical analyses of
real downhole data.
Layout and Scope of the Study
In order to provide a broad framework for the modeling of
gyro errors that can be adapted to the range of gyro survey
systems that are available to the industry, the SPE WPTS
gyro error model4 allows a large number of error terms to
be specified. For any given gyro survey, only a limited
number of the available error terms will be applicable,
depending on factors such as the type of sensors used and
the chosen sensor configuration. Some terms may be
inappropriate for the running gear used or the running
procedures adopted, while others may be insignificant in
the anticipated surveying environment. Furthermore, the
error model theory is based on the assumption that all
survey data are, or will be, free from gross errors. For the
purposes of this analysis, and the related studies, a
significance/confidence level of ±3σ has been chosen.
Therefore, errors which exceed the ±3σ tolerance level
defined by the error model (ERM) are treated as gross
errors and the quality control (QC) system in use must be
capable of identifying surveys where at least one
significant error source lies outside the ± 3σ interval.
The creation of dedicated error models for the
different services delivered by a gyro service provider
should start with a detailed examination of each of the
individual services offered. The main objective of this
examination is to establish which error terms are
significant and therefore need to be included in an error
SPE/IADC 140192
model, and whether the degree of significance may vary
with different sensor packages, correction methods and
factors including alignment equipment, platform types,
depth systems, running gear and operational procedures.
The examination should also determine which QC
alternatives exist in the different cases. Gyrodata Inc., one
of the major gyro survey companies (referred to as “the
company” throughout the rest of this paper), offers a range
of survey services which, among others, include the
following:
• Stationary surveys
- Multistation gyrocompassing on wireline
- Multistation gyrocompassing with battery tools
dropped into the well
• Continuous surveys
- Continuous survey on wireline in deviated wells
- Continuous survey on wireline in vertical wells
The scope of this study is limited to the analysis of
data from surveys of wells, or sections of wells, where the
main objective is to establish uncertainties associated with
the mathematical reproduction of longer 3D wellbore
(section) profiles, and does not incorporate single depth
angular uncertainties. The study of stand-alone angular
uncertainties, usually in connection with kick-off and
orientation surveys, requires a very special treatment,
since running procedures and QC could be quite complex
and are subject to many special conditions; these include
changing tools after a determined number of orientation
shots and tying together surveys produced by different
types of tool. The error modeling of Gyro While Drilling
(GWDTM) steering operations also requires special
treatment since the level of criticality of the operation may
well affect the running procedures and QC. As described
in SPE 1037345, QC of single shot gyrocompassing
surveys is not completely reliable and verification shots
are normally conducted as part of the standard procedures.
The fact that the QC is not straightforward makes these
services special cases. It is the intention of the authors to
produce a further paper which will address the error model
issues specific to these services.
The company operates instruments containing two or
three accelerometers and one or two dual-axis spinning
wheel gyros of different types. This study will focus on a
typical configuration containing two or three
accelerometers and one of the higher performance gyros
(gyro type 1) used in connection with high performance
wellbore positioning. Instruments referred to in the study
use an indexing technique which facilitates sensor bias
reduction.
Drop surveys are taken inside drill-pipe with the tool
resting in a fixed location in the BHA, while continuous
surveys are performed in conductors, casings and drill-
pipes. Casing surveys are run predominantly with spring-
bow decentralization, while drill-pipe surveys are run with
roller centralizers. The choice of centralization, along with
the tubular (drill-pipe, casing or conductor) in which the
survey is to take place affects the alignment accuracy of
3
the tool. Both alignment options, centralized and
decentralized, are used for casing surveys. All services are
offered on land rigs, platforms and semi-submersibles.
Misalignment related to casing inside conductor, drill-pipe
inside casing and tubing inside conductors etc. requires
special consideration. These misalignments, while
important for planning and collision avoidance near the
surface, have little or no contribution to the final bottom
hole wellbore position and have not been analyzed in this
work.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
Following the recommendations for quality control
given in SPE 1037345, the company has adopted a policy
of implementing Multistation Corrections and Continuous
Drift Corrections as appropriate. It is also required to run
Roll Tests in the field (before entering and after leaving
the hole) and at the base warehouse (before leaving and
after returning to the base). The application or absence of
these correction methods influences the choice of many of
the error model parameter values.
In summary, the error model that is applicable for a
particular gyro survey service, i.e. the relevant error terms
and the values assigned to each one together with the
propagation type, must be selected not only to be
representative of the sensors used and the configuration in
which they operate, but also in accordance with the type of
rig, running gear, well type and correction procedures
applied. The derivation of error parameter values for a
range of different gyro services is described in the Section
4 of this paper.
It must be stressed that the error model data that is
given here has been derived from survey data originating
from a limited number of services and tools produced and
operated by a single gyro company. The physical design of
gyro tools, operational practices, calibration and QC
procedures vary greatly between the different gyro
companies. For these reasons, the error models presented
in this paper are only applicable to the actual services
described in this study. All other services or tool
configurations, including extra services offered by the
study company, will generally be different, and this will
need to be reflected in the associated error models.
Statistical Analysis
The aim of the study was to determine the impact of all
error sources on the survey data. An important
consideration was to ensure that sufficient data was
available for the diverse range of services offered by the
company, taking account of the different tool operating
configurations for each service and some regional
variation in the requirements for different services; some
services are performed predominantly in one region of the
world (e.g. vertical continuous surveys in the Middle
East).
The examination of all survey jobs completed globally
over a set period of time (3 months) has allowed sufficient
data for all services and operating configurations to be
collected. A total of 484 survey jobs have been analyzed
for the study described here. All data has been used with a
view to reducing the occurrence of sampling biases.
4 SPE/IADC 140192
To ensure consistency in the data analysis across the
study, all surveys have been re-calculated using the most
recent field processing software.
The statistical analysis described in the following
section of the paper, which has been used to obtain
estimates of the various sources of error, assumes the data
available for each survey service to be distributed in
accordance with a zero mean Normal (Gaussian)
distribution. In practice, the data does not always conform
precisely to this assumption and alternative methods of
analysis have had to be adopted. The histogram shown
below is typical of the distribution of gyro bias estimates
derived for a particular survey service, showing a clear
departure from the theoretical Normal distribution that is
expected.
Figure 1: Example distribution of gyro bias estimates
In view of such issues, the error data generated for
each survey type has been subjected to ‘data snooping’, a
data qualification test commonly used in land surveying
and geodesy, to ensure data sets are free from gross errors.
Data snooping is an iterative process where the sample
furthest apart from the population based confidence
interval is removed; the process is repeated until all
remaining members lie within the confidence interval. A ±
3σ confidence level has been used on apparent Gaussian
distributed data sets corrupted by outliers, while a ± 2σ
confidence level has been used on data sets in which the
distribution was more uniform. The justification for this
action stems from the fact that such cases would be
detected as gross errors by the QC checks implemented by
the company, and the survey rejected.
The application of these procedures and details of the
error estimation process related to each survey service are
described in the following section.
Estimation of uncertainty parameters
The different error terms listed in the gyro error model
paper4 vary greatly, and it is almost impossible to find a
way of determining all terms at once. However, it is
possible to divide them into different groups based on
physical and/or operational conditions, and then to utilize
different calculation methods for terms in the different
groups. In this section, accelerometer errors, gyro errors
and environmental effects are examined separately, and
error terms applicable for both stationary and continuous
survey services are derived. The error estimation processes
applied makes extensive use of the field calibration
processes implemented by the company, outline
descriptions of which are given below.
Stationary surveys. The company has developed a
method for field calibration; Multistation Correction.
Since it is impossible to determine accurately all of the
calibration terms in the field, the goal of multistation
correction is to focus on those terms that are more likely to
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
change, namely gyro residual biases and gyro direct mass
unbalance. In addition, a multistation accelerometer test
has been included, thus XYZ accelerometer measurements
are checked throughout the survey.
Multistation correction is a very powerful tool that
updates the calibration values of the biases (GBX and
GBY), and the direct mass unbalance (M) for the gyro,
and also checks the performance of the accelerometer
package. Additionally, since multistation correction is
based on the least-squares adjustment technique, the
standard deviations of GBX, GBY and M are available
and can be considered as the residual values of these error
terms after the corrections have been applied. The
information generated by the multistation correction
process is used to determine values for the various error
terms as described in this section, each of which represents
a physical error process.
Continuous surveys. In contrast to the stationary error
model, but in accordance with the SPE gyro survey error
model4, the model adopted for continuous survey systems
is purely empirical; system imperfections are represented
by an initial azimuth error, a linear drift error and a
random walk term which together represent the combined
effects of the physical errors that may actually be present
in such a system.
The company has developed a method for the final
calculation of continuous surveys called Continuous Drift
Correction. It is logically equivalent to the averaging of in-
run and out-run surveys and uses the knowledge of survey
tool orientation at departure and return. The drift
correction method is used to calculate estimates for the
random walk effect and the linear drift correction for
survey accuracy prediction from field data. This is
achieved through least-squares adjustments of neighboring
in-run/out-run azimuth differences using data from
multiple continuous surveys.
In addition, continuous drift correction is used to
check for tool misalignments. This is possible provided
that the in-run and out-run high side toolface angles are
not the same throughout the survey. The misalignment
correction compensates for systematic misalignment for
the whole survey and provides additional quality control
of the data and the tool centralization.
Accelerometer errors
Stationary accelerometer measurements. The effect
systematic accelerometer errors (bias, scale factor, sensor
SPE/IADC 140192 5

misalignment) have on the wellbore position uncertainty is
not only dependent on the precision of the chosen
accelerometers, but also of the actual accelerometer
configuration, and if indexing of the sensors is used.
Three-axis systems, containing X, Y and Z
accelerometers, can measure the local gravity in addition
to the inclination and toolface. The company has
implemented a multistation based gravity error test in
accordance with the recommendation given in
SPE 1037345. This is purely a QC test, and the software
The physics indicates that a fixed zero expectation
should be used in the calculation of the standard deviation,
and the Z accelerometer bias uncertainty for a Z indexing
tool type can be calculated using equation 1:
∑
(1)
= mean gravity error from survey number i
= total number of used surveys

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
does not perform any corrections. It reports an average
From the viewpoint of wellbore position uncertainty,
gravity error and its standard deviation.
ABZ is the only accelerometer error term from the list
For a two-axis system, a gravity error test cannot be
given in the gyro error model paper4 that needs to be
conducted, and such systems will always have a singular
populated for Z indexed 3 axis systems. However, in
mathematical solution for the inclination when horizontal.
SPE 1037345, a one-to-one relationship between an error
This is the case even for instruments with Z axis indexing,
model and the associated QC is recommended. In this
which are designed to cancel the effect of X or Y biases.
situation, the tolerance for the multistation gravity error
The accuracy of indexing XY accelerometer systems is
test becomes zero for certain wellbore orientations and the
therefore a function of random noise and not of
QC test will always fail. This problem can be overcome if
accelerometer biases, which will be zero. SPE 904084
a random accelerometer uncertainty term (RA) is added to
gives weighting functions for the accelerometer biases, but
the model and the test. Such an error will propagate into
not for the random noise. The predicted inclination
the inclination and gravity in accordance with a weighting
uncertainty at horizontal will therefore be calculated as
function equal to the root-sum-square (RSS) of the
zero instead of infinity, which is the correct answer. This
associated ABX, ABY and ABZ weighting functions,
makes it impossible to fit Z indexing XY accelerometer
described in the SPE WPTS error model papers3, 4, but
systems directly into the current gyro error model
with propagation into the wellbore position being random
framework without adding a random component to the
rather than systematic. It should be noted that this
error budget.
approach is only valid when the same accelerometer type
A statistical analysis of the repeatability between two
is used for all three measurement axes. A random
or more consecutive calibrations conducted using data
accelerometer term derived for an indexing three
collected from sixty nine XY accelerometer tools indicates
accelerometer tool is also an excellent candidate for the
that accelerometer scale factors and accelerometer
random accelerometer uncertainty for indexing two
misalignments are relatively stable over time, and that
accelerometer tools with similar accelerometers. Since the
residual errors after calibration are usually insignificant.
gravity error test cannot be applied to these tools, any two
The standard deviation of the calibration to calibration
accelerometer error model will have to be accompanied by
scale factor stability was found to be 0.0001
an alternative quality control linked to the index based bias
(corresponding to a maximum inclination error of 0.006°)
correction.
and the XY misalignment stability to be 0.009°. Further,
A numerical input for a random accelerometer error
the bias stability was found to be 0.001 m/s2
term can be calculated as the square root of the average
(corresponding to a maximum inclination error of 0.006°).
sum square of estimated standard deviations of single
Although these figures easily can be transformed into error
accelerometer readings obtained from multiple
model inputs, it is not recommended. They are based on
surveys/wells/tools. However, the software used for the
data obtained under ideal conditions, and may be skewed
implementation of the g-total test does not report this
with respect to the more hostile downhole environment
quality control measure, but an alternative, namely the
From an error modeling point of view, it is acceptable
estimated standard deviation of the mean gravity error.
to set the accelerometer scale factor and sensor
This lumped quality control figure represents the
misalignment uncertainties to zero, and to let the biases
combined effect of the measurement noise, the
account for all discrepancies that may occur. Indexing
geometrical strength of the test and the statistical
about the Z axis, which is a company standard, cancels the
redundancy. Therefore, the contribution from the latter
X and Y biases that exceed the background noise, leaving
two effects must be removed from the lumped figure
the Z bias as the dominant contributor in any significant
before it can be used as a basis for the calculation of
mean gravity error result (absolute value greater than 3
random accelerometer uncertainty. Ideally, this should be
times its standard deviation). Therefore, the standard
done for each individual survey, but it is also acceptable to
deviation of the mean gravity error, calculated from a
make an approximation using equation 2, which focuses
population of different Z indexing tools of the same type
on the average behavior of the entire population instead of
and run in different wells with different surveyors, reflects
each individual survey.
the statistical spread in the Z accelerometer bias (ABZ) and
is an excellent candidate as an error model uncertainty
input. ∑
· (2)
6 SPE/IADC 140192
= standard deviation of the gravity error from survey number i
= total number of surveys
is a constant representing the average of the
combined redundancy/geometrical information contained
in all gravity error test design matrices from the entire
population of surveys. It can either be calculated directly
from the design matrices involved, or with simple
empirical models. For example: · / 1 as
used in this study. This model makes use of the following
three important population based average
redundancy/geometrical inputs:
= square root of the average number of surveyed depths
for all surveys within the population
= the average number of survey stations taken at each
depth for the entire population
= the average population based absolute extreme
correlation coefficient for the gravity tests
The gravity error data was divided into groups
dependent on survey methods (continuous, multishot or
drop), pipe type (conductor, casing and drill-pipe),
alignment method (blade centrollers, roller centrollers,
spring bow), and finally into platform types (land rigs,
jack-ups, platforms, semi-submersibles and drill-ships).
Each of these subsets, were analyzed independently to
identify operational and environmental factors that have a
significant effect on the accelerometer performance, but it
turned out to be difficult to establish any significant
difference between the different groups. The number of
available samples within a group was, in most cases, too
small, or the variation in calculated mean gravity errors
within a group too large to justify any quality rating. The
large spread in the mean gravity error for the two different
drop survey types shown in Figure 2, is a typical example
based on the latter observation, and may indicate that the
accelerometer performance is more dependent on non-
predictable factors such as the actions of the deck crew
(surveyor, wireline operator and rig crew) rather than the
physical environment.
Figure 2: Gravity error tests for drop surveys conducted on
land rigs – mean gravity error
Even though no significant difference was found
between the initial groups selected, the data indicated that
some correlation could be present. An iterative approach
of reuniting closely linked gravity error data sets without
significant difference was then implemented to test this
observation. This work resulted in a recommendation to
limit the number of stationary accelerometer error models
for three accelerometer systems to only two; one multishot
model, which should be used also in connection with
continuous initialization (discussed further in Section
4.2.1), and one drop model.
The same approach has been adopted for two axis
tools. Since both the two and three axis tools use the same
accelerometer type, the random noise values derived for
the three axis tool are applicable for both tool types. In
accordance with the two axis accelerometer model
proposed in the gyro error model paper4, the Z
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
accelerometer bias term (ABZ) is substituted with a gravity
error term, which should be based on the accuracy of the
gravity model that is used. A latitude error of one degree
gives a gravity error of ca 0.0006 m/s2, while a depth error
of 1000 meters (typical if the surface gravity is used
throughout the survey) gives an error of 0.003 m/s2, the
recommended figure.
Numerical inputs for the necessary four different
accelerometer error models are given in Table 1. It should
be pointed out that these models are only valid for Z
indexing tools, and that they can be used regardless of
running gear and platform type.
Table 1: Accelerometer errors – 2 and 3 axis
survey tools
Survey Gravity
Survey ABZ RA
tool error
type (m/s2) (m/s2)
type (m/s2)
Multishot 3 axis 0.0022 0.0012 N.A.
Drop 3 axis 0.0019 0.0007 N.A.
Multishot 2 axis N.A. 0.0012 0.003
Drop 2 axis N.A. 0.0007 0.003
Continuous accelerometer measurements. A
continuous survey is of course conducted while the survey
tool traverses the path of the wellbore. However, such a
process uses gyrocompassing/stationary measurements to
initialize the periods of a continuous surveying and to
conduct bias updates at intervals along the well. All such
stationary updates are adjusted using the same multistation
correction procedure as adopted for conventional
gyrocompass surveys. The application of this procedure
when employed to initialize a continuous survey is
referred to as ‘advanced initialization’, and is an integral
part of the continuous surveying process. The
gyrocompassing accelerometer dependent error model
parameters used to model continuous surveys can
therefore be defined in the same way as described above
for the stationary accelerometer measurements.
It is noted that continuous inclination can be obtained
using accelerometer measurements alone, or through a
combination of accelerometer and gyro measurements.
The tool types used in this study are all of the latter type.
The recommended structure for the continuous error
model given in the gyro error model paper4 is to model the
accelerometer errors with the same parameters, weighting
functions and station to station propagation as would have
been used in a similar stationary survey.
SPE/IADC 140192
Gyro errors
Stationary gyro measurements (Gyrocompassing).
For the purpose of stationary azimuth determination,
indexed X and Y gyro measurements are the sole source of
data, regardless of system type. For the two and three axis
tools considered here, this is the only option since such
tools are equipped only with an XY gyro.
In addition to the gyro random noise, the following
important error sources for gyrocompassing with XY gyro
systems are specified in the gyro error model4: gyro bias,
mass unbalance, gyro scale factor errors and gyro
misalignments. These highly significant gyro error sources
are measured and corrected for at least once at master
calibration facilities for all gyro survey instruments
operated by the company. The company in fact goes a step
further as part of the master calibration procedure by also
correcting for the following less severe, but still
significant, sources of error: input axis g-sensitive error
(quadrature effect), spin sensitivity and anisoelastic
effects.
While most of these terms remain constant, the mass
unbalance and the X and Y gyro biases are known to
change with respect to the master calibration and may
produce large survey errors if left uncorrected. The
company operating the tools and services analyzed here
has developed a number of methods to control the time
dependent errors, by embedding the following processes
into the standard operational software and practices:
• Z axis indexing
• multistation correction
• pre and post job field roll tests
• pre and post job base roll tests
These correction methods can be looked upon as
simplified recalibrations of the survey tool. The Z axis
indexing is designed to remove X and Y biases on
individual survey station basis. However, many years of
experience has shown that part of the biases, or bias-like
lumped residual errors, may not be removed through the
indexing process, and form apparent bias errors which
tend to be systematic within a given survey and random
between surveys (independent).
The company has implemented a horizontal Earth rate
based multistation correction algorithm to measure and
correct for the two apparent biases and the direct mass
unbalance. The drawback with this correction method is,
as indicated in the quality control paper SPE1037345, that
it is not applicable for all wellbore geometries and running
configurations. The multistation correction quality
depends on latitude, the amount of inclination and toolface
variation over the well section surveyed, and on the
dominant horizontal direction of the well. The dependency
is quite complicated, and it is often difficult to decide
whether a multistation result can be trusted or not without
some kind of numerical geometrical evaluation. An
automatic test based on the actual latitude, the calculated
correlation coefficients and the percentage of stations
7
within an east/west sector, has therefore been integrated
within the software. As a result of this procedure, the
multistation correction will not usually work in connection
with spring-bow surveys (no tool rotation), tangent section
surveys and surveys of wellbores that lie predominantly in
an east or west direction. Geometrical tests are conducted
to identify these cases, and such surveys are recalibrated
with an alternative method utilizing the pre and post job
roll tests as described next.
Roll test data will be needed in addition to the
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
downhole data to produce a result with the multistation
correction software when the geometrical tests fail. Roll
tests obtained at the drill site a short time prior to and
immediately after a survey (field roll tests), are generally
more consistent than roll tests conducted over a larger time
span, tests performed at the warehouse prior to shipment
and after return (base roll tests) for example. Field roll
tests are therefore preferred, but experience shows that
acceptable field roll tests may be difficult to achieve on
floating drill-rigs like semi-submersibles, and that it often
is necessary to recalibrate with base roll tests when
operating from these types of rig.
Regardless of which recalibration method is used, it is
concluded from the discussion above that error models for
all tools used in this study require only the following four
sensor dependent gyro errors from the list of options given
in the gyro error model paper4: the apparent gyro bias
errors (GBX and GBY), the direct mass unbalance error
(M) and the random gyro noise (RG). Nevertheless, it is
necessary to populate these terms with numbers derived
independently for each of the recalibration methods. Both
the multistation correction and the different roll tests
provide estimates of GBX, GBY and M, their standard
deviations (σGBX, σGBY and σM), and the random noise
(RG). The necessary numerical error model inputs can
therefore be derived through statistical analysis of
multistation correction results from the different surveys
and tools.
The multistation corrected/uncorrected error models
are most simple to derive since a one to one relationship
exists between the test output and the input values required
for these model inputs. A multistation uncorrected model
must not be misinterpreted as an error model that can be
used regardless of quality control level. As described
above, multistation corrections will not usually be applied
to surveys of east-west wells and tangent sections, or
where the toolface does not vary significantly without the
use of roll test data in the test. The uncorrected systematic
parameters (GBuc, Muc) are given as the zero mean
standard deviation of the actual corrections given in
equations 3 and 4, and the corrected systematic parameters
(GBco, Mco) are given as the root-sum-square of the
estimated standard deviation of the actual corrections
given by equations 5 and 6. In both cases, the random
noise parameter (RG) is given as the root-sum-square of
the actual random output as defined in equation 7. It must
be noted that only results passing the internal correlation
coefficient and east/west tests should be used in these
equations.
8 SPE/IADC 140192

∑ ∑ been used in these calculations. The bias errors and the

(3) random noise are given in units of degrees/hour while the
mass unbalance terms are in degrees/hour/g.
∑ The corrected model should always be employed
(4) provided that all QC requirements are satisfied; standard
operating procedures dictate that the gyro measurements
∑ ∑
are always corrected using the multistation estimates of
(5) gyro bias and mass unbalance under such conditions. The
uncorrected values serve purely to define the corrections
applied (1σ values) following the successful
∑

(6)
∑
(7)
= systematic X bias correction applied to survey number i
= systematic Y bias correction applied to survey number i
= systematic mass unbalance correction applied to survey
number i
= standard deviation of systematic X bias correction applied to
survey number i
= standard deviation of systematic Y bias correction applied
tosurvey number i
= standard deviation of systematic mass unbalance correction
applied to survey number i
= standard deviation of one gyro measurement - survey number i
= total number of surveys
After pre-examination of the data, and based on a
general knowledge on the physics of the actual gyroscopes
and the running procedures used, it has been decided to
make corrected and uncorrected parameters for each of the
following scenarios:
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
implementation of the multistation correction QC
procedure. It is noted that gyro biases propagate randomly
for operation in a rotating survey tool, while bias
propagation is systematic if the tool is not rotating. Mass
unbalance always propagates as a systematic error,
regardless of the running conditions.
Verification of downhole data. Following completion
of the analysis of downhole surveys presented above,
additional advanced initialization data became available,
providing an opportunity to confirm the results given in
Table 2. A further 10 sets of data for surveys run with
roller centrollers have been analysed and the results are
presented here in graphical form. Figure 3 shows the
corrected gyro biases and mass unbalance values obtained
together with the parameter ERM, which is the RRS of the
associated angular error model values. Figure 4 shows the
corresponding noise values.

• Multistation correction applied to drop

gyrocompassing data.
• Advanced initialization – gyrocompass shots on
continuous surveys for tools running on roller
centrollers.
• Advanced initialization – gyrocompass shots on
continuous surveys for tools running decentralised.
• Multishot surveys run on wireline for tools on roller
centrollers.

The results obtained through the application of

equations 3 to 7 to these four data sets are given in Table Figure 3: Gyro biases and mass unbalance – verification data
2. Only results from surveys with adequate geometry have

Table 2: Gyro errors – stationary surveys with multistation correction

Survey type Running configuration GBuc Muc GBco Mco RG
Drop Rotating pipe 0.06 0.18 0.01 0.02 0.07
Advanced initialization Roller centrollers 0.07 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.06
Advanced initialization Decentralised 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.06
Multishot Roller centrollers 0.04 0.13 0.01 0.03 0.09
SPE/IADC 140192
Figure 4: Gyro noise – verification data
The gyro biases, mass unbalance and noise values are
seen to be comparable or smaller than the 1σ error model
values, and well within the 3σ tolerances defined by the
model.
Roll test analysis. The changes in estimated mass
unbalance and bias offsets between consecutive roll tests
are usually small, compared to the size of the estimates
themselves, indicating almost full correlation between
consecutive roll tests. With this in mind, equations 8 to 11
have been derived for calculation of the systematic error
model parameters for surveys that have to rely on roll test
inputs.
∑ , , ∑ , ,
(8)
∑ , , The gyro random noise reported by the roll test
(9)
∑ , , ∑ , ,
(10)
∑ , , remove all measurements that exceed a standard
(11)
= field pre-job roll test X bias estimate for survey number i
,
, = field post-job roll test X bias estimate for survey number i
……
= total number of field based pre-job/post-job differences
, = base pre-shipment roll test X bias estimate for survey number i
, = base post-shipment roll test X bias estimate for survey number i
……
= total number of pre- shipment /post-shipment differences
Roll test quality is generally not dependent on the type
of survey, but on the actual type of instrument used and
the design of the indexing. The tools used in this study
have the same index design, and make use of the same
type of gyroscope (type 1). It was therefore decided to add
9
roll test data from a lower quality gyroscope (type 2) to
illustrate the model degradation that can be expected when
using lower quality gyroscopes.
The ability to perform a successful field roll test is
also dependent on platform type, and a study of roll tests
conducted on a large number of different drilling rigs has
confirmed the expected variation in the results. However,
based on an appraisal of the results obtained for the
various types of drilling rig, it has been decided to limit
the roll test calculation to two groups of platforms; a
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
combined land rig/platform group and a floater group.
Base and field roll test results for both gyro types (1 and 2)
have been derived using equations 8 to 11 and are given in
Table 3.
Table 3: Gyro errors – stationary surveys with roll
test correction
Field roll tests
Base
Gyro Land Floating
roll tests
type rigs/platforms rigs
GBbr Mbr GBfr Mfr GBfr Mfr
1 0.06 0.23 0.06 0.16 0.09 0.21
2 0.11 0.42 0.08 0.40 0.19 0.41
The quality of the data available for roll tests
conducted on floating rigs is, as expected, generally of
lower quality and the number of such data sets available is
very limited. In practice, field roll tests would most
commonly be replaced by base roll tests for surveys
conducted from floating platforms. Comparison of base
and floating rig results reveals some improvement in the
quality of the gyro bias estimates extracted from the base
roll tests.
routine is corrupted by test induced errors not present
downhole, and is therefore not suited for error modeling
purposes. However, the random noise from the different
multistation corrections will also be valid as error model
inputs for the roll test based models. The standard
procedure during multi-shot gyrocompassing is to pre-scan
the gyro measurements during the indexing process, and to
acceptance limit obtained through historical performance.
Continuous gyro measurements. Continuous azimuth
readings can be obtained through the integration with
respect to time of the XY gyro measurements, through
integration of Z gyro measurements, or through a
combination of both methods, as described in the gyro
error model paper4. This study covers two different
continuous services. A standard continuous service
utilizing XY gyros for wellbore azimuth determination for
sections with sufficient inclination to avoid singularity
problems (typically 10° or more), and a vertical
continuous service utilizing Z gyros for gyro toolface
measurement near the vertical where the gravity based
high-side toolface is close to singular (typically 0 to 3°).
10
The inclination range for the vertical continuous service
has been recently extended to 10° through suitable
modification of the error model.
Standard continuous. A full physical error model of a
continuous survey system based on the time integration of
XY gyro measurements, is quite complex, and the gyro
error model paper4 recommends the use of an empirical
model in which the following error contribution terms are
used: an initialization error, a linear drift error, and a
random walk error.
Initialization is accomplished using the
gyrocompassing methods for continuous systems
discussed in the previous section, and the accuracy of
initialization varies depending on the application of the
advanced initialization process. Where the advanced
initialization process has been implemented successfully,
the error will be governed by the terms , and
given in Table 2. In the absence of a successful advanced
initialization process, the terms and , or
and (from Table 3) derived from pre and post job roll
tests should be used.
As part of standard operating procedure, the company
has implemented a drift correction algorithm for all
continuous surveys; an enhanced version of the continuous
azimuth drift test given in SPE 1055586. The algorithm
first reduces the effect of short period (compared to the
length of the survey) harmonic oscillations, which from a
wellbore position uncertainty point of view are without
significance. The next step is to estimate the average in-
run/out-run azimuth drift, and to apply a correction to both
the in-run and the out-run surveys. The last step is the
creation of a final survey by averaging corrected in-run
and out-run results at the same depths. The software
reports the standard deviation of the average amplitude of
the short term oscillations, the average in-run/out-run drift,
and the associated random walk.
The continuous error model parameters,
(uncorrected linear drift) and (uncorrected random
walk) for an uncorrected quality controlled single direction
(in-run or out-run) survey, can then be created by
statistical analysis of the reported drift and random walk
values from multiple continuous drift corrections
according to equations 12 and 13.
∑
(12)
∑
(13)
= estimated linear drift from survey number i
= estimated random walk from survey number i
= total number of surveys
Pre-analysis of the data has revealed that it is
necessary to treat casing surveys and drill-pipe surveys
separately. Figure 5 shows the increased spread in the
random walk estimates for casing surveys compared to
drill-pipe surveys.
SPE/IADC 140192
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
Figure 5: Comparison of random walk estimates for
continuous surveys in drill-pipe and casing
While statistical analysis of in-run/out-run azimuth
differences from multiple continuous azimuth drift
analyses, as discussed above, is an excellent method to
establish numerical error model inputs for basic
continuous surveying, it is not the case for surveys which
are corrected based on the same type of individual drift
analysis. The statistical method is based on the assumption
that, on average for a population of surveys, the azimuth
difference observed on return to the initialization point is
caused solely by the empirical linear drift term in the error
model. However, this is not the case for a given survey,
where the return azimuth difference is caused by the
combined effect of a number of integration errors,
including semi-systematic terms and errors that are not
normally distributed. In contrast to the statistical error
analysis that is applicable to the basic continuous survey
error model, a drift correction involves a stand-alone
analysis, and can result in the over or under compensation
of the errors that may be present.
The company introduced a continuous drift correction
as an integral part of its standard operational practices
almost a decade ago, and it became necessary at that time
to find a way of to quantify the expected residual errors
after drift correction for error modeling purposes. A
review of the current error model for drift corrected
surveys has been conducted recently. Experience has
shown that large differences between drift corrected
continuous azimuths and independent multistation
corrected gyrocompassing azimuths are far less frequent
than predicted by the current model. The motivation for
revising the model and the method used to quantify the
error terms is outlined in the following paragraphs.
A linear drift correction will not only remove the true
linear drift, but also part of the random walk drift, a fact
that was ignored in the first model derivation due to its
complexity and as part of a cautious and somewhat
conservative approach. A closer theoretical examination of
the problem has shown that the linear drift correction will,
on average, remove as much as 75% of the random walk
effect if only normal distributed integration errors are
present. This figure can be verified easily by using basic
calculus to find the maximum error by substituting a
bounded square-root function (same shape as a random
walk curve) with a straight line passing through the same
end points.
SPE/IADC 140192 11

Examples of typical in/out-run difference plots are
given for deviated wells in Figure 6 and for extended
reach wells in Figure 7. Survey 1 is an example of a low
drift/low noise survey where most of the in-run/out-run
drift will be removed through the drift correction. Survey
2 is a common example of a high drift survey with almost
exponential growth in the in-out azimuth differences. Most
people will find such graphs disturbing, and probably do
not trust the results, not even the corrected surveys.
However, there is no reason for such a concern. The non-
The field data used in the derivation of the new
uncorrected model described above, indicates non-normal
distributed random integration errors and/or non-linear
drift like errors. Ekseth7 shows through his recursive
continuous azimuth error equations that a drift pattern
close to a 2nd order drift should also be present. A special
mathematical phenomenon causes second order and linear
drifts to be lumped together, causing linear corrections to
be applied erroneously to second order drift terms. The
residual error will, according to basic calculus, be 25% or

linearity is caused by an inverse-sine-inclination azimuth
dependency in the rate integration, which will be
recognized and accounted for by the drift correction
process. Survey 3 is a low drift survey that is exposed to
an environment that is generating harmonic gyro
oscillations. In this case, the accuracy of the drift
correction can be severely compromised depending on the
amplitude and phase of the harmonic content at the point
of return, and it will be necessary to expand the list of
quality control parameters to include the average
amplitude of any oscillatory behavior. Survey 4 is an
example of a survey with almost no in/out-run difference
at the point of return, and with large differences in
between. The drift correction applied in this case will give
little or no accuracy improvement. The survey is therefore
an important reminder of the importance of having
tolerances on both the applied correction and the random
walk based on the uncorrected error model, even if a drift
correction has been applied. Finally, survey 5 is a
moderate noise/moderate drift survey which, like survey 1,
removes most of the drift through the drift correction
process.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
less.
The improvement between the uncorrected and the
corrected linear drift error in the original error model
version is only 21%. This is far less than the 75%
indicated above. 21% and 75% are extremes, and it can
easily be concluded that the statistical expectation has to
be somewhere in between. However, the selection of the
true correction factor is not so straight forward. The
market for multiple same well continuous gyro surveys is
very limited, and it was impossible to find a sufficient
number of cases with three or more overlapping drift
corrected surveys to calculate a reduction factor through
statistical analysis of real downhole data. Therefore, it was
decided to establish the factor through a simulation of the
process with artificially generated data.
A purpose built simulator designed to generate a
multiple set of semi-random wells with semi-random
continuous surveys, was used to calculate the square root
of the average sum square of the linear drift and random
walk for both the uncorrected and the corrected surveys,
and finally to use these numbers to calculate the
percentage improvement to be gained by the application of
the drift correction. The results from four such
simulations, with up to 100% variation in population size,
in gross error tolerances and in random number generation
limits, are given in Table 4.

Table 4: Simulated continuous drift correction

results
Uncorrected Corrected
Improvements
std. dev. std. dev.
LD RW LD RW
LD RW
(°/hr) (°/√hr) (°/hr) (°/√hr)
Set
0.37 0.22 0.09 0.11 77% 51%
Figure 6: In/out azimuth differences for three deviated wells 1
Set
0.47 0.29 0.11 0.14 77% 51%
2
Set
0.41 0.12 0.09 0.06 77% 53%
3
Set
0.35 0.22 0.09 0.11 76% 51%
4

Table 4 shows a significant variation in both the

Figure 7: In/out azimuth differences for two extended reach
wells
population based standard deviation of the linear drift
(LD) and the associated random walk (RW). This is as
expected, and proves the validity of the simulator.
However, the table also shows a more surprising fact. The
ratio between individual uncorrected and drift corrected
continuous error model parameters seems to be constant,
12
and not to be affected by the magnitude and nature of the
underlying errors.
In the absence of suitable field data, it should be
acceptable to use these findings to create the new drift
corrected error model by simply down scaling the new
uncorrected model in accordance with the following
equations:
0.23 · (14)
0.49 · (15)
The results from applying equations 12 to 15 to the
two data sets relating to continuous surveys in casing and
drill-pipe are given in Table 5.
Table 5: Error model parameter values –
continuous surveys
Survey type
Casing 0.21 0.25 0.05 0.12
Drill-pipe 0.25 0.21 0.06 0.10
It is important to notice that only results from surveys
that have passed the advanced initialization correlation
coefficient test have been used in the calculations leading
to Table 5. This to ensure against underestimation of the
linear drift uncertainty by avoiding the use of data from
constant or near constant toolface surveys, that may well
mask some of the linear drift effects in in-run/out-run
differences.
Vertical continuous. Vertical continuous, as described
previously, is a configuration in which measurements of
tool turn rate about the Z axis, provided by the Z-axis
gyroscope, are integrated to create continuous estimates of
the gyro toolface. This information, combined with high-
side toolface, can be used to compute azimuth as the well
orientation deviates from true vertical, and the process is
usually initialized using gyro compassing information.
As with regular continuous surveys, the SPE error
model paper4 recommends the use of an empirical azimuth
error model consisting of an initialization error, a linear
drift error and an angle random walk error. However, to
model well position uncertainties with these terms at or
near to the vertical is not trivial, and it was decided to
develop an alternative empirical model with a circular
horizontal position uncertainty.
Sample plots showing north position versus east
position for two vertical continuous surveys are shown in
Figures 8 and 9. In one case the well inclination increases
steadily in a south easterly direction, while the second well
remains close to vertical and follows a spiraling trajectory.
It is much easier to fit surveys with such differing error
performance into a circular error model than a lateral
model.
SPE/IADC 140192
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
Figure 8: Vertical continuous survey 1 – northing vs. easting
Figure 9: Vertical continuous survey 2 – northing vs. easting
Toolface errors, for example, maybe too large for the
assumption of uncorrelated inclination and azimuth errors
to remain valid, and result in a circular combined
inclination/azimuth error response, in contrast to the
along-hole response predicted using the empirical model.
A circular error model will of course only be valid at or
near to the vertical. The operational demand is for a model
valid up to ca 10° inclination, a demand that cannot be
fulfilled without additional QC to the standard error model
linked tolerances used elsewhere, in the form of tolerances
on the initialization and the gyro drift.
Initialization is obtained using gyrocompassing
methods, the accuracy of which depends on whether
multistation correction methods can or cannot be applied.
Owing to the lack of geometrical variation seen in vertical
and near vertical wells, multistation correction results
frequently show high correlations and therefore the
corrections should not be trusted. Therefore, the gyro
toolface initialization tolerances are selected in accordance
with the gyrocompassing tolerances that arise in the
absence of multistation correction.
Examination of the available data indicates that linear
drifts and random walk, which are believed to be present,
are hard to model dependably. Figure 10 shows that there
is no clear relationship between depth (or length) of the
run and gyro toolface drift. In the particular case of gyro
toolface for vertical or near vertical wells, drift is a
function of several variables, including running speed, the
temperature profile of the well, drill pipe characteristics
and the rotational speed and acceleration of the tool while
tripping in or out of the well.
SPE/IADC 140192
Figure 10: Gyro toolface drift vs. depth.
The effect of the drift is the main contributor to the
positional error in this type of service. Current software
calculates and removes the overall drift; however, non-
linearities and their effects must be quantified. Analytical
study of linear drift fused with random walk shows that
removal of the combined linear effect leaves a residual
error of up to 25% of the non-linear effect (Figure 11).
Another point to take into consideration is related to the
fact that gyro toolface is an auxiliary parameter. The effect
of gyro toolface errors on azimuth, and furthermore, on
position, is not straightforward and is one of the main
reasons for choosing an alternative method to determine
positional uncertainties.
Start depth
Figure 11: Residual gyro toolface errors after linear drift
correction
As already mentioned, an alternative to the error
model described in the gyro error model paper4 has been
established linked directly to the QC procedure that has
been devised specifically for the vertical continuous
service. The data must of course be free from gross errors,
as with any other error model. Gyrocompassing stations
are checked for gross errors using single station tests;
gravity test for the accelerometers and Earth rate test for
the gyros. Once the initialization data has been classified
as being free from gross errors, the continuous data must
be examined.
The coordinate different test (CDT) introduced in SPE
1055586 can be used to detect gross errors and also to
13
establish tool performance. Normal running procedures for
the vertical continuous tool require the collection of both
in-run and out-run data. These are usually run with the
same tool and the same running configuration. Whilst
systematic gyro errors will not be detected when
comparing in-run and out-run data, drift on the Z-axis gyro
can be checked and corrected during the run. Random
gyro errors and random errors in the inclination are
checked by comparing in-run and out-run data, and
performance values can be established.
Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
Lateral errors in position (north and east errors) are
expected to increase with both the depth and the
inclination of the wellbore. An empirical model has been
adopted in which the lateral position errors grow in
accordance with an assumed random inclination error, the
magnitude of which has been selected following a trial
implementation of the CDT along with a visual inspection
of the in/out-run positional differences over a sample set
of vertical continuous surveys for varying depths of well.
The use of random error propagation in continuous mode,
or with high density data, may give rise to variable results
as a result of changes in the depth sampling frequency. To
overcome this concern, an apparent inclination error
proportional to the square root of depth has been
introduced. The size of the north and east errors are made
equal, and so give rise to a circular error probability in the
horizontal plane. The uncertainty value for the
misalignment error propagation has been chosen to be
0.0033°/√m, with north and east weighting functions of
cos ·√ and sin ·√
respectively. These are scaled versions of the type 3 and
type 4 misalignment weighting functions given in the gyro
error model paper4.
In general, the positional errors that arise may become
excessive if the depth interval or the inclination change
between successive gyrocompassing updates exceed 1000-
1500 meters or 3° respectively. Operational procedures for
the vertical continuous system have been selected in
accordance with these restrictions.
Survey tool misalignment
As part of the continuous drift correction process
described above, and used for the determination of drift
and random walk errors that may be present in continuous
surveys, the estimation of misalignment terms can also be
achieved by a similar least squares estimation process; the
in-run/out-run misalignment test described in detail in
SPE 1055586. This process forms an integral part of the
continuous QC procedures implemented by the company.
The procedure relies on the availability of both in-run and
out-run survey data for the entire survey section, and
makes use of the in-run/out-run inclination differences
taken at the same depths as the fundamental QC
measurements. It is possible to derive error model inputs
through statistical analyses of such QC results obtained
from a large number of surveys originating from different
sources and locations. However, it is important to
remember that the accuracy of most of these methods is
dependent on wellbore geometry and/or operational
conditions.
14 SPE/IADC 140192

The continuous misalignment parameters, MX and
MY, can be determined through statistical analysis of the
reported misalignment values reported from multiple
continuous drift corrections according to the following
equation:
∑ ∑
(16)
, = x and y misalignment estimates for survey number i
= total number of surveys
Error model example: for a continuous wireline
survey of a deviated well in drill-pipe, the trajectory of
which is not predominantly in an east-west direction, the
following sets of error terms should be chosen to form the
appropriate error model: A1 + B2 + C2 + D2. It is noted
that gyro error terms from both B and C should be used in
this case; B2 denotes the error terms needed to obtain the
correct initialization and C2 contains the errors for
continuous parts of the planned survey.
These error model inputs are derived from survey data

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
The results from applying equation 16 to the two data originating from a limited number of services and tools
sets relating to continuous surveys in casing and drill-pipe produced and operated by a single gyro survey company.
are given in Table 6. The in-run/out-run misalignment test As pointed out earlier in the paper, the physical design of
is not suited in connection with multishot and drop gyro tools, operational practices and QC procedures vary
surveys. The specification of misalignments based on real greatly between the different gyro companies, and the
downhole data is difficult for such surveys at the present error models given are therefore limited to the services
time, but should, as a result of newly completed and described here. All other services will generally be
on-going special projects, be possible within one to two different. For example, the simple step of removing the
years time. index mechanism, without other changes, will lead to quite
different error models.
Table 6: Misalignment errors
A. Accelerometer errors
Misalignment (X/Y) Bias Random error Gravity
Survey type Restrictions/
(°) (Z) (XYZ) error
comments
Casing survey 0.06 (m/s2) (m/s2) (m/s2)
3 axis tool
Drill-pipe survey (not drop survey) 0.04 A1 0.0022 0.0012 N.A. Wireline
Drop survey TBD services
3 axis tool
A2 0.0019 0.0007 N.A. Drop survey
Summary of error model results services
The error models described in this paper for a range of
2 axis tool
survey services are summarized in the following tables,
A3 N.A. 0.0012 0.003 Wireline
each table focusing on a particular type of error, viz.
services
A. Accelerometer errors 2 axis tool
B. Gyro errors – stationary surveys A4 N.A. 0.0007 0.003 Drop survey
C. Gyro errors – continuous surveys services
D. Misalignments
E. Vertical continuous surveys B. Gyro errors – stationary surveys
Gyro Gyro mass Gyro
A complete set of error model parameter values, Restrictions/
bias unbalance noise
applicable for a particular service type, may be formed by comments
(°/hr) (°/hr/g) (°/hr)
selecting the appropriate set of error terms from the
appropriate row in each of the tables; values from table C B1 0.01 0.02 0.07 Drop MSC-QC
should only be selected where a continuous survey error Continuous advanced
model is to be defined. The right hand column in each B2 0.02 0.02 0.06 initialization MSC-QC
table indicates where a set of error values is only Roller centralization
applicable to a particular type of service or a particular Continuous advanced
running configuration. The comments in table B further B3 0.05 0.04 0.06 initialization MSC-QC
highlight those cases in which the multistation correction Decentralised tool
QC process undertaken for stationary surveys can be
completed successfully; denoted MSC-QC. In the cases of B4 0.01 0.03 0.09 Multishot MSC-QC
east-west wells or tangent sections and where survey Non MSC
operation from a floating rig is to be undertaken, where the B5 0.06 0.16 0.09 Field roll test on land
MSC-QC process is expected to fail, it is necessary to rigs/platforms
make use of roll test QC procedures. In such cases, for Non MSC, non field
survey operations from land rigs or platforms and from B6 0.06 0.23 0.09 roll test
floating rigs, data sets B5 and B6 respectively should be Base roll tests
chosen.
SPE/IADC 140192 15

C. Gyro errors – continuous surveys The paper illustrates the procedures adopted by one
Linear gyro Random gyro survey service company for the extraction of realistic
drift walk Restrictions/comments error model data, resulting in the derivation of a new set of
(°/hr) (°/√hr) uncertainty estimates for some existing gyroscopic tools.
The effort and resource commitment needed to
C1 0.05 0.12 CDC* – wireline generate error models of the type described in this paper
should not be underestimated. Many man years of effort
C2 0.06 0.10 CDC* – drill-pipe have been expended in the generation and justification of
the error model values given here.
C3 0.25 0.21 No CDC*

Downloaded from http://onepetro.org/SPEDC/proceedings-pdf/11DC/All-11DC/SPE-140192-MS/1690139/spe-140192-ms.pdf by University of Trinidad & Tobago user on 07 May 2021
* continuous drift correction Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Gyrodata for permission to
D. Misalignment publish this paper.

Misalignment (X/Y) References

Restrictions/comments
(°) 1. Wolff C.J.M. and de Wardt J.P. (1981) ‘‘Borehole
Position Uncertainty–Analysis of Measuring Methods
D1 0.06 Casing survey and Derivation of Systematic Error Model,’’ JPT,
December 1981.
Drill-pipe survey
D2 0.04 2. Thorogood J.L. (1990) “Instrument Performance
(not drop survey)
Models and their Application to Directional
D3 TBD Drop survey Surveying Operations”. Paper SPE 18051, SPE
Drilling Engineering 5 (4), December 1990.
3. Williamson H.S. (2000) “Accuracy Prediction for
E. Vertical continuous surveys
Directional Measurement While Drilling”. Paper SPE
Apparent inclination error 67616, SPE Drilling and Completion 15 (4),
Restrictions/comments December 2000.
(°/√m)
4. Torkildsen T. et al. (2008) “Prediction of Wellbore
E1 0.0033 Casing survey Position Accuracy When Surveyed With Gyroscopic
Tools”. Paper SPE 90408, SPE Drilling and
Completion 23 (1), March 2008.
5. Ekseth R. et al. (2006) “The Reliability Problem
Concluding remarks Related to Directional Survey Data”. Paper SPE
This paper draws attention to the vital need for 103734, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology
representative and justifiable error model inputs in the Conference and Exhibition, Bangkok, Thailand, 13-15
quest for safe and reliable surveying when using November 2006.
gyroscopic tools. 6. Ekseth R. et al. (2007) “High Integrity Wellbore
Individual service companies can and should provide Surveys: Methods for Eliminating Gross Errors”.
error model data based on the statistical analysis of real Paper SPE 105558, IADC/SPE Drilling Conference,
downhole data for each type of tool and service on offer. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 20-22 February 2007.
Simulation and theoretical analysis should be used 7. Ekseth R. (1998) “Uncertainties in connection with
wherever possible to support this process and so add the determination of wellbore positions”. ISBN 82-
credence to the statistical derivation. 471-0218-8, doctoral thesis 1998, Norwegian
Error models for a particular gyro survey service are University of Science and Technology, 1998:24 IPT-
specific to that service, being influenced not only by the rapport
choice of sensors and their configuration, but by factors
including the tool running configuration, choice of
centralisation adopted and the detailed operating/QC
procedures applied when running the tool.