Anti Collision

Collision Avoidance
or
Drilling Close
Collision Avoidance Policy
What is Sperry Drilling Services Anti-Collision policy?

 Sperry Drilling Services does not provide a policy
for:
 Wellbore position uncertainty
 Scan Methods – Distance between Wellbores
 Error Surface – Calculating diameter or error
surfaces between wellpaths
 Shut-in Criteria
 Etc.

 Sperry Drilling Services only provides:
 Software to process Customer provided data regarding
offset well information verses reference well data i.e.,
Compass software
 Compass software will calculate and display:
 Scan Methods – Distance between Wellbores
 Error Surface – Calculating diameter or error surfaces
between wellpaths
 Etc.

 It must be fully understood that the customer is
responsible to provide and define all:
 Specifications for wellbore position error models
 Scan methods to determine distance between
wellpaths
 Separation factors
 Wellbore surveying procedures
 Project ahead criteria
 Warning methods and stop drilling criteria
 Shut-in criteria
 Etc.
Collision Avoidance Practices
It is important to reinforce the idea that Halliburton does

not provide or manage the anti-collision policy or
process. However, our staff need to recognize the
components and importance of the major elements of
such a policy.
In this Learning Module you will learn:
 The major considerations of an effective anti-collision

policy / process
Collision Avoidance Standards
Standards
 Geomagnetic Field Model
 Co-ordinate Reference Systems
 Target Definition – Geological and Drilling
 Trajectory Design Planning Inputs and Outputs
 Anti-Collision Criteria
 Survey Program Design
 COMPASS software
 BHA “SAG” Deflection Correction
 Reporting Requirements/Database Maintenance
Collision Avoidance Standards
Surveying Practices
 MWD Surveying Procedures
 Gyro Surveying Procedures
 Generic Survey Programs
 Isolated Vertical Well
 Deviated Platform Well, 45° inclination
 Deviated Platform Well, 65° inclination
Anti-Collision Monitoring Practices

 Shut In Criteria (Planned)
 Shut In Criteria (Offshore Monitoring)
 Plug-back Criteria (While Drilling)
 Offshore Anti-Collision Monitoring
 Onshore Anti-Collision Monitoring
Collision Avoidance Data reliability
Drilling and anti-collision policy /procedures should

contain:
An appropriate data set (database) of all actual and
planned well trajectories and project information.
 In order to avoid all previous wellbores, you must know

where they are.
 Studies of well collisions show a high percentage of
collisions are the result of a previously drilled well path
was not considered.
Studies of well collisions show a previously well path was not

considered. Reasons for this are:
The previous well was not surveyed at all. This is
not normally the case for modern wells but can exist
when:
The well was believed to be straight (vertical)
The well was a blind sidetrack around a fish
The well was an extremely old well (1930 – 1950s)
The previous survey was not performed in an accurate

manner.
 This can be a chronic problem with older wells
Studies of well collisions show a previously well path was not

considered. Reasons for this are:
Calculation errors were made in determining the well

position from survey data.
This tends to be a problem in older wells where
calculations were performed with a hand calculator
rather than modern computer generated well paths.
Errors were made in the initial reference information

for the wells surface location.
Collision Avoidance Examples
Let’s look at some of the standards and

procedures in a typical anti-collision
program
In the following examples, text shown in yellow

is used for example purposes, the actual
information and or standards / policies will be
provided by the customer
Collision Avoidance Example Standards
Anti-collision Standards examples

Geomagnetic Field Model
Typically three geomagnetic field models:
International Geomagnetic Reference Field – IGRF
IGRF is updated every 5 years, however the
coefficients do not encompass all aspects of the
earths field and as such is considered an imperfect
model.
World Magnetic Model – WMM
WMM is updated every 5 years, is used primarily by
military agencies
British Geological Survey Global Geomagnetic Model
- BGGM
Geomagnetic Field Model - continued
BGGM
 The Geomagnetic Field Model used by Halliburton is the
British Geological Survey Global Geomagnetic Model
(BGGM).
 This model estimates the values describing the earth’s
geomagnetic Field, i.e. the magnetic field strength, the Dip
angle, the corrections from Magnetic to True North and the
correction from True to Grid North.
 This model is updated each year, and the model for the
most recent year must be used.
 The geomagnetic field varies with time, and so should be
re-calculated if drilling resumes after a well has been
suspended for an extended period of time.
Co-ordinate Reference Systems
The following reference information is critical to trajectory
design and monitoring, and must be displayed in the Drilling
Program for each well.
North Reference - EXAMPLE

 The corrections from Mag->True North and True->Grid North must
be included in the Drilling Program
 All wellhead and target co-ordinates are to be referenced to Grid
North
 All survey azimuths and magnetic toolfaces are to be referenced
to Grid North
 For Example well#, the geodetic system is UTM zone 52 - central
meridian 129E
 the geodetic datum is Clark 1866
 the input file for magnetic values is BGGM2005 or more recent.
Primary Reference Point Definition
Isolated exploration/development wells use proposed location
as a primary reference point while drilling. This is the point from
which the well profile has been designed to hit the target.
 Any actual positional offset in the calculated surveys must

be incorporated to accurately represent the well path with
respect to the target.
 Vertical Section well plots are created using proposed
location. It is therefore inaccurate to use them to plot
surveys not calculated from the same proposed location.
 Once drilling is completed, all survey data must be
recomputed using actual location as the reference point
before data is stored as definitive.
Primary Reference Point Definition – continued
Isolated exploration/development wells use proposed location
as a primary reference point while drilling. This is the point from which
the well profile has been designed to hit the target.
 The actual wellhead position in UTM coordinates must be

entered onto the Compass database to effectively define the
wellpath with respect to a global reference.
 Platform wells in close proximity are referenced from a site

reference point.
 Vertical depths are referenced to Subsea.
 Vertical Section is referenced to proposed wellhead.
Local Reference Points
 Local rectangular co-ordinates are referenced to the

primary reference point.
 Drilling depths (MD and TVD) are referenced to
Rotary Table.
 Rotary Table elevation above Subsea is rig
dependent and must be specified for each well and
each rig.
Wellhead Positional Uncertainty
It is important that the positional uncertainty of each
wellhead is recorded.
 This uncertainty is a function of the method used to
survey the position of the wellhead – e.g. GPS, radio
positioning, etc.
 The wellhead uncertainty must be entered into
Compass when the well is initialized, and is
subsequently incorporated into all survey errors
calculated for the well path.
 Existing exploration / appraisal wells have been
assigned a well head uncertainty of 15m radius.
 Planned platform wells have been assigned a well head
uncertainty of 0m radius.
Platform/Template Reference Point Uncertainty
In addition to wellhead uncertainty, there is an
uncertainty associated with the position of the
platform/template reference point.
 It is only taken into account when performing anti-

collision monitoring calculations for wells from
different platforms or templates.
 The XXX well site has been assigned an uncertainty of
5m radius.
Target Definition – Geological and Drilling
Geological Target
Each well has one or more proposed geological targets .
Each target must be defined in terms of target vertical depth

(TVDSS or TVDRT) and UTM co-ordinates, target shape, and
allowable accuracy uncertainties for lateral and vertical errors
at a specified level of confidence.
 Typically this is a 95% (2 sigma) level of confidence.
 It is preferable that wellhead and target co-ordinates are
given with the same origin, either UTM or local co-ordinates.
Drilling Target
Each well has one or more proposed geological targets.
The geological target is reduced in size dependent by the

actual wellbore survey program and associated survey
uncertainties.
 A small target may require more costly methods to control the
trajectory through increased use of directional drilling practices
and a more costly survey program.
 The time-cost implications must be balanced against the
potential upside whenever a small target size is specified.
 In general, target size should be kept as large as practicable
within the constraints of meeting well objectives.
Drilling Target
Each well has one or more proposed geological targets.
The driller’s bull’s eye
Driller’s target
Geological target Uncertainty

area
Landing point
Trajectory
Trajectory Design Planning Inputs and Outputs
Design Inputs
The trajectory design requires a number of critical
inputs. These inputs must be acquired by the Drilling
Engineer, and supplied to the person responsible for
the well profile design.
 The basis for well design is a source of some of this

information the Drilling Engineer must collate the remainder
in the Drilling Program.
Design Inputs
Most well plans /well planners use some form of
checklist to ensure that all the information is obtained.
The basic requirements are:
 Reference Points, definitions and values to be used,
including wellhead uncertainties
 Target definitions
 Formation tops
 Casing points
 Permissible doglegs
 Profile limitations – such as due to running wireline
 Offset well profiles that may require anti-collision analysis
Design Outputs
Design outputs include:

 Proposed well profile meeting all objectives
 Appropriate well plots
 Survey program including well bore accuracy uncertainties
at salient points in the well
 Anti-collision scans as appropriate
 Suggested BHAs to drill the well
 Torque and Drag analysis of the proposed profile and
BHAs
Anti-Collision Criteria
Effective collision avoidance begins with good pre-
planning initiated during field exploitation planning
and platform positioning.
 During well target allocation to specific slots or planned surface

well coordinates, potential conflicts with adjacent wells are
assessed and minimised
 The proposed wells are planned to allow maximum possible
separation between existing and future wells, and should be
drilled without encroaching into the planned path of a future well
 The locations and directional surveys of adjacent exploration and
appraisal wells must be included in the database used for
proximity calculations
Anti-Collision Criteria
2-sigma uncertainty / confidence level
This shows the 1 sigma and 2 sigma confidence intervals for the standard
normal distribution.

95.4%
Confidence
interval

68.3%
-2  -1  Confidence
1  2 
interval
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Anti-Collision Criteria - continued
Compass planning software automatically defaults to
the selection that was used when last run – this may
not be what is required.
 Wells included in the anti-collision scan must be checked every

time it is run.
 ALL anti-collision calculations and monitoring use 2-sigma

uncertainty levels for survey errors.
 No well shall be planned where the positional uncertainty ellipses

touch or overlap.
Anti-collision scan methods examples

Software planning considerations
Error System
Scan Method
 Distance between wellpaths
Error Surface
 Calculating dimension of error surfaces between
wellpaths
Collision Avoidance Compass Example
Error System
Wellbore position uncertainty
Cone of Error
 Systematic Ellipse (SPE 9223)

 also known as Wolff & de Wardt
 ISCWSA (SPE 56702)
 Industry Steering Committee for WellBore Survey
Accuracy
Collision Avoidance Error Models
Tool errors may increase with inclination for example -
Inclination Expansion
1 0 0 0ft 0° to 14.99° 7ft/1000ft

° 7ft / ft 15° to 24.99° 9ft/1000ft
. 9 9 0 0 ft
14 0
ft
t o t/1 0 25° to 34.99° 12ft/1000ft
t
00
f
80° to 89.99° 26ft/1000ft

Up 9 00
f
ft/1000
9 9 1
10
4. ft / 35° to 49.99° 14ft/1000ft
2 2
ft/
t o °1 50° to 79.99° 15ft/1000ft
15°
14
.9 9 80° to 89.99° 21ft/1000ft
4 9°
15
o3
.9
° t
49
79.99°
25
° to
35
50° to
Systematic Ellipse -Combines the following survey tool errors
Wolfe and de Wardt model
 Relative Depth Error
Error in measuring along hole depth e.g.
stretch in a wireline.
 Misalignment Error
Error due to instrument misalignment in the
wellbore
 True Inclination Error
Error in inclination reading
 Compass Reference Error
A constant error in direction due
misalignment e.g. gyro foresight error or
error in magnetic declination.
 Drillstring Magnetization
Magnetic interference cause by “hot
spots”
 Gyrocompass
Error due to gyro gimbal drift
Error System - ISCWSA
Dynamic Number of Error Sources, each defined by:
 Name (e.g. Accelerometer Bias)
 Vector (direction for error source)
Azimuth, Depth, Inclination, Lateral, Misalignment, Inertial, Bias
 Value (error value for the source of error)

 Tie-On (determines how an error source is tied onto sources)
Random, Systematic, Well, Global
 Formula (weighting for each error term)

 Range inclination range for error term
Collision Avoidance Error Surfaces
Separation Factor
The Error Surface determines the shape of the errors when relating
one wellpath to another in the anti-collision separation factor
calculation.
Center to Center Separation
Separation
=
Factor R1 + R2
Error Surface models are specified by Company policy for survey
accuracy and collision avoidance assessments.
Compass has 4 available error surface models:
 Elliptical Conic
 Circular Conic
 Combined Covariances
 Projected Vector
Collision Avoidance Separation Factor
Separation Factor
R1 R2
Center to Center
Center to Center
Separation Factor = -----------------------
R1 + R2
For example if Center to Center = 40, R1 = 10 R2 = 20 the Separation factor = 40 /
(10+20)
= 40 / 30 SF = 1.333
Collision Avoidance Separation Factor
Separation Factor > 1
Separation Factor = 1
Separation Factor < 1

Elliptical Conic
Radius Projected onto Error Ellipse as Intersected by Center to
Center Plane
Offset Well
Error Ellipse
Minor
Reference Well Major

R2
Error Ellipse R1
l ane
Minor
C P
C -
Major
Separation
= Center to Center Separation
Factor
R1 + R 2
Separation Factor Collision Avoidance Methods
To date the most common method for determining a minimum
separation is to add the projected ellipse radii of the offset well and
the reference well together. (Compass software)
S
SF 
( Er  Eo)
Reference Ellipsoid Offset Ellipsoid
Er Eo
S = Separation of Wellbore Centers

Minimum Separation = Er + Eo
Separation Factor
 Where Er is the error on the reference projected in the direction of closest approach.
 And Eo is the error on the offset similarly projected.
 The ellipse radii are taken at a specified confidence (sigma) level. 2 Sigma is most commonly
used and is roughly equivalent to 95% confidence in 1 dimension. Other higher levels have
been used
Circular Conic
Radius Projected onto Major Error Ellipse Dimension
Spheroidal Projection
based on Major Dimension
of Error Ellipse
Major
R2
R1 Pl ane
C- C
Major
Separation Center to Center Separation

=
Factor R +R 1 2
Major Axis
One conservative approach is to take the largest dimension of
the ellipsoid as the ellipse size to be used in the separation
factor formula. (Known in Compass as Circular Conic).
 In shallow intersections, the errors should be nearly
symmetrical so the difference is negligible.
 In deep intersections the errors are dominated by the azimuth
errors, so this method is overly conservative.
Reference Ellipsoid
Offset Ellipsoid
Er Eo
S = Separation of Centers
Combined Covariance
Combines the errors on the reference and offset by covariance addition before
any distance calculations are performed. Radius Projected onto Error Ellipse
as Intersected by Center to Center Plane
E1 R1
Separation Center to Center Separation – R1

Factor =
E1
R1 = Combined radii of both wells E1 = Combined error of both wells

Effective Casing + Hole diameters
To derive collision risk at depth the combined

diameters of the reference and offset wellbores must
be known.
 The drill bit size is used for the reference well and the
casing size is used for the offset wellbore
 The size is extracted from the casing program for the
depths of interest
 The formula for minimum separation shows the sum of the
reference hole diameter and offset casing diameter as “Dr +
Do”
Collision Avoidance Scan Methods
Casing Radii
Including Casing Radii in the Separation Factor calculation results in the
Center to Center distance being reduced by the sum of the Casing radii
assuming that Casing is centered in the Wellbore
Separation Center to Center Separation – Casing Radii

Factor =
R1 + R2
Center to Center
Distance
Without Casing
Radii
12-1/4” 8-1/2”
OH OH
With Casing
Radii
9-5/8” 7” Liner
Casing
Casings
Where Dr is the bit diameter on the reference wellbore at the depth
of interest. Do is the casing diameter on the offset wellbore.
S
Separation Factor SF 
( Er  Eo  ( Dr  Do) / 2)
The alternate and preferred method is to consider the casing radii as

a physical distance and subtract it from the center distance (S).
S  ( Dr  Do) / 2
Separation Factor SF 
( Er  Eo)
Scan Method
Distance between wellpaths
 Closest Approach 3D
 Travelling Cylinder
 Travelling Cylinder North
 Horizontal Plane
Scan Method Offset Well Reference Well
(Drilled well) (Drilling well)
 Closest Approach 3D
 Travelling Cylinder
 Travelling Cylinder North
 Horizontal Plane
Closest Approach 3D
Offset Well Reference Well
Advantages:
Always show the minimum
distance to an offset wellpath
sphere
Disadvantages:
Gives a distorted
impression of separation
on a travelling cylinder
plot.
Line is always
perpendicular
to the offset
well
Travelling Cylinder
Advantages:
True to the concept of a
traveling cylinder plot.
Disadvantages:
Difficult to understand, scans
from offset well back to
reference well disk
May miss a collision between
Line is always
wellpaths crossing
perpendicular to
perpendicular to each other
the reference
well
Travelling Cylinder North
Advantages:
The traveling cylinder plot is
oriented to Map North when the
reference well is at low angles.
Toolface angle to an offset well
is then reported as the angle
from the high-side of your
current Wellbore + the azimuth disk
of your current Wellbore
Line is always
Disadvantages:
perpendicular to
the reference
wellpaths crossing
well
perpendicular to each other.
Travelling Cylinder Plot - Near Vertical Wells
Travelling Cylinder Elevation Plan

Angle From
Distance High Side
15 10°
10 20°
5 40°
5 220°
10 200
15 190° Appears to collide
High-Side Angle + Current Well Azimuth

Angle From Current Well
Distance High Side Azimuth
15 10° + 135° = 145°
10 20° + 135° = 155°
5 40° + 135° = 175°
5 220° + 315° = 175°
10 200 + 315° = 155°
15 190° + 315° = 145°
Horizontal Plane Offset Well Reference Well
Advantages:
Simple to understand.
Disadvantages:
Should not be used to scan
non-vertical wells.
horizontal & vertical wellpaths.
disk
Cannot be used to scan The horizontal
horizontal wells. distance between
two wells at a given
TVD
Minimum Separation Distance
In it’s simplest form the minimum allowable distance would be R1 + R2
Offset Well
Reference Well
actual separation
R1
R2
cente
r to ce
nter d
ista nce
S  3  1   2   1 / 2 d 1  d 2   Sb  min{0.01DD,10m}
Separation S  3  1   2   1 / 2 d 1  d 2   Sb  0.01DD (DD < 1000m)

S  3  1   2   1 / 2 d 1  d 2   Sb  10m (DD > 1000m)
Where:
 1 = Planned well positional uncertainty at 1 standard deviation
 2 = Interfering well positional uncertainty
d
at 1 standard deviation.
1
This must include any uncertainty in the relative surface positions

of the planned and offset wells.
d1 = Hole size in the planned well.
d2 = Casing OD in the interfering well
Sb = Allowance for survey bias
DD = Drilled depth (ie. The depth in the planned well measured
from the Well Reference Point, usually mudline or surface
reference point). From: BP BPA-D-004
S  3  1   2   1 / 2 d 1  d 2   min{0.01DD,10m}  Sb
Lesser of:
3  error ellipse a) 1% of drilled depth
Mi b) 10m
nim
um
All
o wa
ble
Se 3  error ellipse
Most likely position of p a ra
tio
interfering well n
Most likely position of

Radius of the
planned well
interfering well
Radius of the
planned well From: BP BPA-D-004
Where:
 1 = Planned well positional uncertainty at 1 standard deviation
 2 = Interfering well positional uncertainty at 1 standard deviation. This must include any uncertainty in the relative
surface positions of the planned and offset wells.
d1 = Hole size in the planned well.
d2 = Casing OD in the interfering well
Sb = Allowance for survey bias
DD = Drilled depth (ie. The depth in the planned well measured from the Well Reference Point, usually mudline or surface
reference point).
Example:
Planned well uncertainty at 1 std. dev. =  1 = 8m
Interfering well uncertainty at 1 std. dev. =  2 = 5.5m
Hole size in planned well = d1 = 17.5” = 0.445m
Casing OD in interfering well = d2 = 13.375” = 0.340m
Allowance for survey bias = Sb = 0m
Drilled depth = DD = 650m
Separation = 3(8+5.5) + ½(0.445+0.340) + 0 + 0.01(650) = 47.4m

From: BP BPA-D-004
Determine the minimum separation distance along the

vector between the two wells.
 This is the minimum allowable distance that a reference
well can approach an offset well.
 Hugh Williamson’s “Towards risk based separation rules”
SPE paper outlines a method for determining the minimum
safe distance a drilling well (reference) can approach an
offset well.
 Several analyses were attempted to compute a more refined
probability of intercept but when the results were compared
to this method the differences were negligible.
From: SPE 36484

“Towards risk based separation rules”
S =  2ln ds + do + ½ (ds + do) + B

 P 2
Where: s = minimum allowable center-to-center well separation,  = uncertainty in the relative
position of the two wells along a line perpendicular to the subject well and passing through the object
well, ds + do = the sum of the well diameters, P = maximum tolerable collision probability,
and B = allowance made for survey bias.
The method has two advantages

 It can be reversed to determine minimum separation
distance.
 It is conservative when it needs to be, this is when the
casing diameters are large and the combined survey errors
are tight.
 This is applicable for surface collision analysis.
From: SPE 36484
Separation Factor
The Separation Factor has become an industry

standard for analysing proximity situations. The
minimum separation distance can be converted to a
Separation Factor.
Separation Factor = Center to Center Distance (S) / Minimum Separation
 A Separation Factor is ratio based system very much like

casing design factors.
 A Factor of 1 means the material will yield, a factor of 1.25

allows a safety margin for variation in material quality and
for unexpected loads.
Separation Factor
Collision avoidance factors are very similar.
 A factor of 1 is used for the active drilling well as its position

or projected position is monitored.
 If the position is plotted or is expected to be less than 1 the
well is sidetracked.
 The projected position is then used to anticipate this by
steering the well away.
 A higher factor (1.25/1.5) is used for the planned trajectory
which allows the safety margin because it is difficult and not
cost effective to drill exactly on the planned line.
Collision Avoidance Warning Methods
Criteria for reporting separation
Error Ratio
 The separation factor is the distance between the wellbore
centers verses the sum of the survey errors between the 2
wellbores
Depth Ratio
 Expresses the distance between the 2 wells (minus the survey
error) as a ratio of the measured depth on the reference
wellbore
Risk Ratio
 The implementation here is on a project level where a depth is
chosen where collisions below this depth are allowable at a
given probability level. Above that depth the standard Error
Ratio calculation is used
Rules Based
 Combination of the three
Rules or Ratio based collision avoidance
(or Separation Factor vs. Minimum Separation)
Minimum separation is a distance that a drilling well (reference)
should not go closer to a drilled (offset) well.
Regard it as the minimum distance that a reference wellbore may

approach another well.
One viewpoint is that in planning you should use a conservative

(Major Risk Rule) distance to approach an offset well.
If this is not economically feasible, then a special dispensation is

applied (called Minor Risk Rule) to the offset well and will reduce
the minimum separation distance so it becomes feasible to drill.
This is the basis of rules based anti-collision.

Separation Factor (SF) collision avoidance (ratio based)
Separation Factor (SF) collision avoidance (ratio based) uses the
ratio of the separation distance divided by the minimum
separation.
The different Separation Factors for a planned well (reference)
against an existing well (offset) should be correlated against
different levels of tolerance. Common levels of tolerance would
be:
 Less than 1.0 represents a zone that you must not drill into. If the
drilling surveys or projection indicates that a SF will be < 1.0, then
the well must be sidetracked at a shallower depth.
 Less than 1.25 means you must take avoiding action. If proximity
is planned to be less than 1.25 – then the close well(s) must be
shut in and pressure bled off (SSSV or cement plug).
Separation Factor (SF) collision avoidance (ratio based)
Continued from previous page…
Separation Factor (SF) collision avoidance (ratio based) uses the

ratio of the separation distance divided by the minimum
separation.
The different Separation Factors for a planned well (reference)
against an existing well (offset) should be correlated against
different levels of tolerance. Common levels of tolerance would
be:
 Less than 1.5 can be tolerated for real or projected surveys, but
not for plans unless special dispensation is allowed.
 Greater than 1.5 is allowable to plan and drill but close wells
must be monitored. Wells should not be planned with SF’s of
less than 1.5 because this allows a margin of tolerance for the
drilling well to drift away from the plan before correction.
Generic Survey Programs

The objective of designing a survey program is to
ensure that cost effective, fit for purpose surveys of
sufficient accuracy and quality are obtained to ensure
the well objectives are met.
The survey program design is the responsibility of the
Drilling Engineer, with input as required from the
Directional Drilling Coordinator / well planner.
 As a first point in choosing a survey program for a
particular well, the following generic wells have been
identified:
 Isolated vertical well
 Deviated (45 deg inclination) platform well
 Deviated (65 deg inclination) platform well
The following survey programs and associated survey

errors are indicative of what may be run for a typical
well type.
However, the survey program must reflect the actual

well objectives, including target size.
Generic Isolated Vertical Well
Based on a nominally vertical well (<5):

 Well surveyed with MWD from top to bottom, the
“MWD-ISCWSA” tool error model used
 Survey errors with this program are shown below.
They are calculated with COMPASS, and assume
acceptable survey quality to represent 2-sigma / 95%
confidence level for target sizing.
At 3000m TD,
Lateral +/- 20m
Vertical +/- 4.3m
Generic Deviated Platform Well, 45 deg inclination
Survey errors with this survey program are shown below. They are
calculated with COMPASS, and assume acceptable survey quality to
represent 2-sigma/95% confidence level for target sizing:
Well surveyed with Kick-off gyro to 350m followed by MWD to TD,
“survey error model” used for Kick-off gyro and the “MWD+Sag+SC”
tool error model used for MWD.
At 4250m TD
Lateral +/- 38m
Vertical +/- 8.3m
Well surveyed with Casing gyro to 3900m followed by MWD to TD,
the “survey error model” used for Casing gyro and the
“MWD+Sag+SC” tool error model used for MWD.
At 4250m TD
Lateral +/- 9m
Vertical +/- 5.0m
Generic Deviated Platform Well, 65 deg inclination
Survey errors with this program are shown below. They are
calculated with COMPASS, and assume acceptable survey quality to
represent 2-sigma / 95% confidence level for target sizing:
Well surveyed with Kick-off gyro to 350m followed by MWD to TD,
the “survey error model” used for Kick-off gyro and the
At 6090m TD
Lateral +/- 76m
Vertical +/- 16.1m
Well surveyed with Casing gyro to 5750m followed by MWD to TD,
the “survey error model” used for Casing gyro and the
At 6090m TD
Lateral +/- 14m
Vertical +/- 9.0m
COMPASS software
COMPASS software is used for Trajectory Control.
It is to be used for:
 Wellpath planning and plotting
 Project-ahead calculations
 Wellpath calculations
 Borehole positional uncertainty calculations
 Anti-collision monitoring
 Data storage
BHA “SAG” Deflection Correction
There are two MWD models in Compass:
 One with sag correction and one without

 MWD surveys are to be sag corrected in all deviated
wells
 MWD surveys are not to be sag corrected in vertical
wells
Reporting Requirements/Database Maintenance
Survey Printouts
All computed survey printouts and reports must specify the
following details as a minimum (dependent on the type of
survey tool):
 Wellhead co-ordinates used
 Survey tied on to information
 (North) correction applied to the data
 Axial interference correction (magnetic survey tools)
 Rotational shots information (magnetic survey tools)
 BHA SAG correction applied, and what value used
 Depth system used (gyroscopic surveys).
 It is important to specify what intervals any of the above corrections
have been used over, as surveys from each BHA may be processed
differently.
Surveying Practices
MWD Surveying Procedures - MWD Toolface Offset
1.Both the MWD Engineer and the Directional Drilling Supervisor shall
verify that the orientation offset between the mud motor and the
MWD tool (and/or orienting sub) is measured correctly
2.The MWD engineer is responsible for verifying that the internal
offset of the MWD tool is accounted for through deck roll tests
3.The MWD engineer is responsible for entering the measured offset
into the computer (Directional Drilling Supervisor verifies)
4.The MWD engineer is responsible for setting up the MWD computer
with the correct Magnetic-to-Grid North correction, the correct
geomagnetic field values (Directional Drilling Supervisor verifies)
 A worksheet covering (1), (2), (3) and (4) above, shall be used and
signed off before drilling commences. The MWD engineer shall fax
the worksheet to the MWD Supervisor as soon as practical after the
tool is BRT
Axial Interference Correction
Short Collar Correction will be used to correct for the

effects of drill string interference.
The accuracy of this methods may be adversely affected
by the use of inaccurate geomagnetic field data (Dip and
Magnitude), and use at inclinations over 80deg and within
+/-20 deg of magnetic east/west.
 The most recent data from BGGM is considered the best

possible, reasonably available, geomagnetic data.
 In wells with inclination above 80 degrees and azimuth
within 20 degrees of due east or west, the survey program
must be designed in each case.
Survey Evaluation Techniques
To ensure adequate survey performance, the MWD
engineers at the rig site should use the following
tools and techniques:
Raw MWD data for QC
 Raw survey data and corrections used are saved in Excel
workbook and saved as part of the job file. Each run shall be
saved in one work sheet within the workbook.
 Each survey line shall contain: Time, date, depth, Bx, By, Bz, Gx,
Gy, Gz, calculated Btot, calculated Dip, measured Gtot, long
collar GRID azimuth, short collar GRID azimuth, raw Inclination,
sag corrected inclination.
 Each work sheet shall contain: Magnetic to GRID correction
applied, sag correction applied, geomagnetic values used (Btot,
Dip).
Checkshots
A checkshot is a comparison of the MWD data against

previously recorded data. (If the previously recorded
data is high accuracy gyro, it is called a benchmark).
The purpose is to demonstrate the tool is performing

properly and consistently with the results of previous
tools.
The new survey data should agree with the previous

survey within the quality control criteria specified - see
section below.
Checkshots
Checkshot Procedures
Running into a well:
 Each time the BHA is run in to the well, a checkshot is taken to
ensure the MWD is recording data correctly
 The checkshot survey should be at a point at least 30m (100 ft) from
the previous casing shoe, not affected by magnetic interference
from adjacent wells
 The dogleg severity should if practicable be less that 0.5deg/30m
(100 ft)
 The purpose of this survey is to identify any problems with the
directional sensors before the MWD is tripped all the way to bottom
 Obviously there can be no checkshot for the first run in each hole
section
Checkshots
Checkshot Procedures
Pulling out of a well if MWD data has become suspect over the
course of the run:
 A checkshot survey is taken at the checkshot station
previously established. This is to establish the integrity of the
directional data acquired immediately prior to pulling out.
 All checkshots shall be taken with the MWD sensors within  1
meter (3 ft) M.D. of the previous checkshot or survey station.
Checkshot and Benchmark Accuracy Criteria
 All checkshot and benchmark data shall be

submitted to the Representative on the rig
 If the MWD readings are outside specification (see
below), the Representative is responsible for
deciding whether the MWD survey sensors have to
be changed out.
 The MWD engineer must be on hand to advise him
of the possible reasons why the MWD data is out of
tolerance and to help him assess whether the
sensors are working correctly or should be
changed out.
MWD Check-shot Tolerances

When comparing data with different survey systems
or MWD tools, all MWD surveys taken at the same
point must fall within the following ranges, unless
specifically calculated on a case-by-case basis to
reflect the actual well profile and tools being
compared.
Inclination +/- 0.25 deg (>10 deg inclination)

Azimuth +/- 1.5 deg (>10 deg inclination)
+/- 2.0 deg (5 – 8 deg inclination)
+/- 5.0 deg (2 – 5 deg inclination)
+/- 8.0 deg (<2 deg inclination)
Gyro Surveying Procedures
Gyro Single Shot
For Gyro Single Shot orientation in top hole, a UBHO (Orientation)
Sub must be included in the BHA, above the MWD.
It is the responsibility of the Survey Engineer and the Directional
Drilling Supervisor to ensure that the mule-shoe key in the UBHO
sub is aligned with the motor bent housing scribe line and the
tightening of the locking grubscrews.
The following QA procedures shall be implemented:
 Pre-run calibration check against QC parameters
 Pre-run highside alignment of the gyro with the muleshoe stinger
 Just prior to running in the drillpipe, lean the probe out of the V-
door and check that direction is approximately true to pre-
established V-door direction
 Probe is then rotated by hand through ± 90o increments to check
toolface response
Gyro Surveying Procedures - continued
Gyro Single Shot
 Ensure probe is fitted with "telltale" to confirm seating in UBHO
sub
 Run in hole and seat probe in UBHO two or three times to the
satisfaction of the Directional Drilling Supervisor and Surveyor
that repeatability of toolface is evident. Take survey
 Pick up probe to approximately last survey station and take full
survey for correlation
 A multishot gyro survey of the conductor/surface casing should
be conducted when retrieving the tool after the first orientation
singleshot
 Check telltale on outrun for evidence of probe seating
 Two gyro tools must be available on the rig and these tools
should be changed out as frequently as possible given the ROP
of the section
Gyro Surveying Procedures
Gyro Multishot
 Pre-run calibration check against QC parameters.
 The primary survey should ideally be taken on the outrun,
where the wireline must always be in tension.
 The survey program should be carefully managed to keep the
tool within its normal operating temperatures.
 Depth is a critical measurement for gyro multishot surveys
run on wireline. Depth errors in high inclination wells may be
significant.
 In these cases, depth control and correlation can be
improved through use of gamma pip tags, or a CCL.
Generic Anti-Collision Monitoring Practices

Examples
Anti-Collision Monitoring Practices
These procedures are for drilling in close proximity to

live wells, i.e. either producers or injectors.
 During batch drilling of 36”, 26”, 17 ½” sections these

procedures may not apply
 Anti-collision monitoring will be done to avoid drilling

into and damaging other casings
 The Drilling Manager must be informed and approve

drilling ahead when the SF is equal to or less than 1.
Shut In Criteria (Planned)
Where a potential collision risk exists (ie. SF<2.5), this
shall be documented in the Drilling Program.
 If the planned SF is less than 1.5 between the well to be
drilled and an adjacent live well, then the relevant adjacent
wells must be shut-in and bled down above the subsurface
safety valve or deep plug before drilling begins.
 It is the responsibility of the Senior Drilling Engineer to
ensure this occurs.
 This applies where the potential intersection point falls
above the sub-surface safety valve or deep-set plug.
 Drilling cannot commence if the potential intersection
point is below the valve or plug.
Shut In Criteria (Offshore Monitoring)
 Where wells have been shut-in, the annulus pressure of
every well shall be monitored and recorded frequently by
production staff.
 Should a notable pressure change occur on a critical well's
annulus, drilling must be halted and the situation reviewed.
 For surface casing depths on platform wells, a stethoscope
should be used to monitor the casing string of adjacent
wells.
 Drilling parameters including rotary torque, vibration, RPM
and ROP shall be closely monitored.
 If excessive torque, abnormally slow ROP, erratic RPM, or
abnormal rotary/axial vibration is encountered, drilling shall
cease until the situation is reviewed.
Shut In Criteria (Offshore Monitoring)
 If casing has been set, mud returns shall be continuously
monitored for cement or metal cuttings and abnormal gas
readings.
 Ditch magnets shall be run for improved observation of
metal cuttings.
 If cement or metal cuttings are observed or gas readings
change, drilling must halt immediately and the situation
reviewed.
 For each of the above situations, the decision to drill ahead
can only be given by the Drilling Manager in consultation
with the Drilling Supervisor.
Plug-back Criteria (While Drilling)
 Project 60m (180 ft) ahead of the bit and use the extrapolated
survey information before calculating the minimum distance
to the adjacent well(s).
 If the calculated separation factor is greater than 1 and the
potential collision is above the sub-surface safety valve or
deep plug (and the valve is closed and the well bled off, etc.),
drilling may continue.
 If the separation factor is between 1 and 1.5, and the
potential collision depth is below the sub-surface safety
valve, there are two possible ways forward to allow drilling to
continue:
 Set a plug deeper than the potential collision depth in the
adjacent well.
 Resurvey either well with a more accurate survey tool to
reduce the ellipses of uncertainty and hence improve the
Separation Factor.
 Drill ahead using jetting technique.
 If none of the methods are practical or effective, the well
must be plugged back and sidetracked.
 When the separation factor is less than or equal to 1, the

positional uncertainty ellipses are touching and the risk of
collision is significantly increased.
 Setting a deep plug in the adjacent well and bleeding down
may reduce the immediate danger should collision occur but
the existing well will be badly damaged.
 Only jetting can be used to drill ahead, if that is not desired,
then the drilled well must be plugged back and sidetracked.
 Drilling must stop and the Drilling Superintendent must be
advised if the survey information indicates that the separation
factor is between 1 and 1.5 and the intersection point is
beneath the plug, or less than or equal to 1 for any depth.
Offshore Anti-Collision Monitoring
 Where a collision risk exists (i.e. SF<2.5), this shall be
documented in the Drilling Program.
 If the planned SF<1.5 to a live well, the adjacent well must
be shut in.
 Once drilling begins, the Directional Drilling Supervisor
shall continually monitor the well trajectory.
 If the well follows the intended course, no additional shut-
ins shall be required, nor shall a plug-back be required.
 The Directional Drilling Supervisor and Drilling Engineer
shall independently verify that:
 Correct survey data has been received from the survey
/MWD engineer.
 Calculated wellbore positions agree, based on minimum
curvature method.
 All azimuth and magnetic toolface data are referenced to
grid north.
 Whenever the well being drilled approaches an adjacent

well and the Separation Factor is less than 2.5, the
Directional Drilling Supervisor shall inform the Drilling
Supervisor of distance and separation factor for each
survey point, and inform him how the projections will be
calculated.
 If the SF<1.5, a survey shall be taken at a minimum
frequency of every 9m (30 ft) with a gyro. The following
procedure shall be followed at every survey station:
 The well path shall be projected 60m (180 ft) ahead of the
bit on both a straight-ahead and predicted steered course.
 Using these two situations, well center-to-center distance
and separation factor shall be calculated for the
extrapolated station.
 Drilling shall cease until the survey and separation factor
calculations have been confirmed by the Drilling
Supervisor.
 Assuming plug back criteria are not met, drilling can
proceed within shut-in criteria.
Onshore Anti-Collision Monitoring
The Directional Drilling Coordinator shall maintain a
parallel onshore database of surveys using the same
system and database as used offshore.
 The Directional Drilling Coordinator must verify that the
slot coordinates and elevations are correct, that the targets
and intended well profiles are correct, and that all surveys
used for proximity calculations are the definitive ones.
 During top hole drilling, the Directional Drilling Coordinator
shall liaise with the Directional Drilling Supervisor in
providing modified well plans and anti-collision
calculations as required.
Onshore Anti-Collision Monitoring
 During drilling operations, the Directional Drilling
Coordinator shall provide Operator with up-to-date survey
printouts and horizontal and vertical plots as required.
 During drilling operations with clearance factors of less
than 1.5 to a live well, the Directional Drilling Coordinator
shall provide 24 hr watch onshore.
Adequacy of a Collision Avoidance Plan
In spite of the best planning, wellbore collisions may still
occur. An analysis of collisions indicate:
 Some were clearly detectable prior to significant

damage occurring.
 Others may not be so obvious, (at least according to
the morning report data).
We are not disregarding deeper collisions, however it
is important to note that most wellbore collisions
occur during or shortly after the kick off of the well.
 This is the most crowded portion of the overall platform
and well geometry
 The wells have not diverged very much, if at all at this
point
 Survey instruments are not as accurate at low angles
 Corkscrewing can occur without clear evidence that it has
happened
 Orientation, where the reactive torque effect is difficult to
define / control, can be a problem
We are not disregarding deeper collisions, however it is important to note
that most wellbore collisions occur during or shortly after the kick off of
the well… continued
 The hole can enlarge in soft formation, causing downhole

tools such as stabilizers to work through the formation
toward an adjacent well
 This may not be obvious when the surveys taken when the
well was initially drilled showed that everything was all
right
In short, during the kickoff, everyone on the rig should
exercise extreme vigilance for possible intersections
Possible indications of Collisions are discussed below:
Rough, erratic, or high torque drilling, especially where

the field drilling is typically smooth.
 This should be investigated at once by circulating

bottoms up and examining cuttings.
 If the examination is inconclusive, one might consider
a trip to examine the downhole hardware and bit.
A sudden change in penetration rate, especially where
field conditions are known and this does not ordinarily
happen, should be investigated immediately.
 An increase in penetration rate could be that the new

well has drilled into a soft cement sheath of an
adjacent wellbore
 Or a rotten shale section caused by the mud exposure
on the previous well
 A decrease in penetration rate could be the new well
has drilled into either a hard cement sheath or is
actually contacting the casing of an adjacent well
Any unusual cuttings coming over the shaker may

indicate an imminent or occurring collision.
 These might be pieces of cement from a previous well

 Weak or rotten formation weakened by long term
exposure to mud in the adjacent well
 Shards of metal
 Do not assume the metal is from casing wear
 Thoroughly investigate the source before proceeding
Magnetic interference as indicated by MWD equipment

could (and usually does) signal an adjacent wellbore
 This should be investigated at once if interference has

not been indicated before
 Do not ignore this, especially when it occurs
unexpectedly
Listen, literally to an adjacent wellbore.
 A person listening with a stethoscope to the adjacent

wellbores can typically hear when collisions are
imminent or have already occurred
 Detection at the moment of contact can prevent the
collision from becoming far worse
Remember, an effective collision avoidance program

will include design and decision elements such as:
 Specifications for wellbore position error models

 Scan methods to determine distance between
wellpaths
 Separation factors
 Wellbore surveying procedures
 Project ahead criteria
 Warning methods and stop drilling criteria
 Shut-in criteria
 Etc.

Anti Collision

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

Anti Collision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collision Avoidance

What is Sperry Drilling Services Anti-Collision policy?

What is Sperry Drilling Services Anti-Collision policy?

What is Sperry Drilling Services Anti-Collision policy?

It is important to reinforce the idea that Halliburton does

In this Learning Module you will learn:

 The major considerations of an effective anti-collision

Anti-Collision Monitoring Practices

Drilling and anti-collision policy /procedures should

 In order to avoid all previous wellbores, you must know

Studies of well collisions show a previously well path was not

The previous survey was not performed in an accurate

Studies of well collisions show a previously well path was not

Calculation errors were made in determining the well

Errors were made in the initial reference information

Let’s look at some of the standards and

In the following examples, text shown in yellow

Anti-collision Standards examples

North Reference - EXAMPLE

 Any actual positional offset in the calculated surveys must

 The actual wellhead position in UTM coordinates must be

 Platform wells in close proximity are referenced from a site

 Local rectangular co-ordinates are referenced to the

 It is only taken into account when performing anti-

Each target must be defined in terms of target vertical depth

The geological target is reduced in size dependent by the

The driller’s bull’s eye

Geological target Uncertainty

 The basis for well design is a source of some of this

Design outputs include:

 During well target allocation to specific slots or planned surface

 Wells included in the anti-collision scan must be checked every

 ALL anti-collision calculations and monitoring use 2-sigma

 No well shall be planned where the positional uncertainty ellipses

Anti-collision scan methods examples

 Systematic Ellipse (SPE 9223)

1 0 0 0ft 0° to 14.99° 7ft/1000ft

80° to 89.99° 26ft/1000ft

 Value (error value for the source of error)

 Formula (weighting for each error term)

Separation Factor > 1

Separation Factor < 1

Reference Well Major

S = Separation of Wellbore Centers

Separation Center to Center Separation

Separation Center to Center Separation – R1

R1 = Combined radii of both wells E1 = Combined error of both wells

To derive collision risk at depth the combined

Separation Center to Center Separation – Casing Radii

The alternate and preferred method is to consider the casing radii as

Travelling Cylinder Plot - Near Vertical Wells

Travelling Cylinder Elevation Plan

High-Side Angle + Current Well Azimuth

Separation S  3  1   2   1 / 2 d 1  d 2   Sb  0.01DD (DD < 1000m)

This must include any uncertainty in the relative surface positions

Most likely position of

Separation = 3(8+5.5) + ½(0.445+0.340) + 0 + 0.01(650) = 47.4m

Determine the minimum separation distance along the

From: SPE 36484

S =  2ln ds + do + ½ (ds + do) + B

The method has two advantages

The Separation Factor has become an industry

 A Separation Factor is ratio based system very much like