Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SPE-67616-PA - Accuracy Prediction For Directional - MWD
SPE-67616-PA - Accuracy Prediction For Directional - MWD
dent.
1. Error Model for Basic MWD. This is based on the current 䊉 There is a linear relationship between the size of each mea-
state of knowledge of a group of industry experts. There are sev-
surement error and the corresponding change in calculated well
eral reasons why directional MWD is the most suitable survey
position.
service to illustrate a new method of error modeling. The error 䊉 The combined effect on calculated well position of any num-
budget is dominated by environmental effects, so that accuracy
ber of measurement errors at any number of survey stations is
differences attributable to tools alone are minimal. It is the survey
equal to the vector sum of their individual effects.
tool of choice for most directional wells, where position uncer-
tainty is of greatest concern. The physical principles of its opera- No restrictive assumptions are made about the statistical distri-
tion, including the navigation equations, are in the public domain. bution of measurement errors.
2. Mathematical Basis. This is a rigorous description of the Error Sources, Terms and Models. An error source is a physical
propagation of errors in stationary tools. Fit-for-purpose error phenomenon which contributes to the error in a survey tool mea-
models using the same basis are in development for inertial and surement. An error term describes the effect of an error source on
continuous gyroscopic tools, although some simplification and a particular survey tool measurement. It is uniquely specified by
compromise are inevitable. A rigorous treatment of continuous the following data:
䊉 a name;
survey tools would probably have too restricted a cognoscenti to
䊉 a weighting function, which describes the effect of the error ⑀
be practical.
on the survey tool measurement vector p. Each function is re-
3. Standard Examples and Results. Despite the apparent sim- ferred to by a mnemonic of up to four letters.
䊉 A mean value, .
plicity of the Wolff and de Wardt method, different software
䊉 A magnitude, , always quoted as a 1 standard deviation
implementations generally give subtly different results. While an
effort has been made in this paper to provide a comprehensive value.
䊉 A correlation coefficient 1 between error values at survey
description of the new method, there will surely remain some
stations in the same survey leg. 共In a survey listing made up of
several concatenated surveys, a survey leg is a set of contiguous
Copyright © 2000 Society of Petroleum Engineers survey stations acquired with a single tool or, if appropriate, a
This paper (SPE 67616) was revised for publication from SPE 56702 first presented at the single tool type.兲
䊉 A correlation coefficient 2 between error values at survey
1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, 3–6 Oc-
tober. Original manuscript received for review 31 January 2000. Revised manuscript re-
ceived 26 July 2000. Paper peer approved 14 August 2000. stations in different survey legs in the same well.
Pin Box
Item RMS Pole Strength „Sample Size… Source
Drill collar 505 Wb 共8兲 Grindrod and Wolff 共Ref. 5兲
605 Wb 共11兲 435 WB 共11兲 Lotsberg 共Ref. 5兲
511 Wb 共4兲 McElhinney*
Stabilizer 177 Wb 共6兲 Grindrod and Wolff
396 Wb 共10兲 189 Wb 共10兲 Lotsberg
369 Wb 共5兲 408 Wb 共10兲 McElhinney
Motor 340 Wb 共12兲 419 Wb 共10兲 Lotsberg
Oddvar Lotsberg also computed pole strengths for 41 BHA’s value for the nonmagnetic spacing distance. Unfortunately, there
from the results of an azimuth correction algorithm. The RMS is no ‘‘typical’’ spacing used in the industry, and we must find
pole strength was 369 Wb 共micro-Webers兲. another way to estimate the magnitude of this error source.
These results suggest that 400 Wb is a reasonable estimate for A well-established industry practice is to require nonmagnetic
the 1 s.d. pole strength of a steel drillstring component when spacing sufficient to keep the azimuth error below a fixed toler-
further information is lacking. This is useful information for BHA ance 共typically 0.5° at 1 s.d.兲 for assumed pole strengths and a
design, but cannot be used for uncertainty prediction without a given hole direction. This tolerance may need to be compromised
in the least favorable hole directions. For a fixed axial interference
field, and neglecting induced magnetism, the azimuth error is
*Minutes of the 7th Meeting of the ISCWSA, Houston, 9 October 1997. strongly dependent on hole direction, being proportional to
222 H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000
sin I sin Am . Thus to model the azimuth error in uncorrected sur- gauge. Data comparisons by the author suggest a typical effi-
veys, we require a combination of error terms which predicts zero ciency of 60% for these corrections, leaving a post-correction re-
error if the well is vertical or magnetic north/south, predicts errors sidual sag error of 0.08°.
somewhat greater than the usual tolerance if the well is near hori- Assuming similar BHA’s throughout a hole section, all BHA
zontal and magnetic east/west or predicts errors near the usual sag errors may be classified as systematic.
tolerance for other hole directions. Radially Symmetric Misalignment. This is modeled as equally
These requirements could be met by constructing some artifi- likely to be oriented at any toolface angle. John Turvill made an
cial weighting function, but this would violate our restriction to estimate of its magnitude based on the tolerances on several con-
physically meaningful error terms. A constant error of 0.25° and a centric cylinders.
direction-dependent error of 0.6° sin I sin Am is perhaps the best 䊉 Sensor package in the housing. Tolerances on three compo-
we can achieve by way of a compromise. It is legitimate to con- nents are clearance, 0.023°, concentricity, 0.003°, and straightness
sider these values representative of 1 standard deviation, since the of sensor package, 0.031°.
pole strength values which underlie the nonmagnetic spacing cal- 䊉 Sensor housing in the drill collar. For a probe mounted in a
there is theoretical and observational evidence4 that this error is ance is 0.05°.
asymmetric, acting in the majority of cases to swing magnetic 䊉 Collar body in the borehole. The API tolerance on collar
surveys to the north in the northern hemisphere. Giving the straightness equates to 0.03°. MWD vendors’ specifications are
direction-dependent term a mean value of 0.33° and a magnitude typically somewhat more stringent.
of 0.5° reproduces this asymmetry 共with about 75% of surveys 䊉 The root sum square of these figures is 0.094°. Being based
being deflected to the north兲, while leaving the root-mean-square on maximum tolerances, it is probably an overestimate for stabi-
error unchanged. lized rotary assemblies.
Axial interference errors are not modeled for surveys which 䊉 An analysis by the author of the variation in measured incli-
have been corrected for magnetic interference. nation over 46 rotation shots produced a root-mean-square mis-
Cross-Axial Interference. Cross-axial interference from the alignment of 0.046°. Simulations show that within this figure,
BHA is indistinguishable from magnetometer bias, and propagates about 0.007° is attributable to the effect of sensor errors.
in the same way. Anne Holmes** analyzed the magnetometer 䊉 An additional source of misalignment, collar distortion out-
biases for 78 MWD surveys determined as a by-product of a mul- side the vertical plane due to bending forces, may be estimated
tistation correction algorithm. Once a few outliers, probably due using three-dimensional BHA models and 0.04° seems to be a
to magnetic ‘‘hot spots’’ and hence classified as gross errors, had typical value. This error differs from those above by not rotating
been eliminated, the remaining observations gave a RMS value of with the tool. It should therefore strictly have its own weighting
57 nT. This figure is somewhat smaller than the 70 nT attributable function. Being so small, it seems justifiable on practical 共if not
to magnetometer bias alone. The conclusion must be that cross- theoretical兲 grounds, to include it with the other sources of radi-
axial interference does not, on average, make a significant contri- ally symmetric misalignment. This leaves us with an estimate for
bution to the overall MWD error budget, and may be safely left the error magnitude of 0.06°. This figure may be a significant
out of the model. underestimate where there is an aggressive bend in the BHA or a
probe-type MWD tool is in use. This error term may be consid-
Tool Misalignment. Misalignment is the error caused by the
ered systematic.
along-hole axis of the directional sensor assembly being out of
parallel with the center line of the borehole. The error may be Magnetic Field Uncertainty. For basic MWD surveys, only the
modeled as a combination of two independent phenomena: value assumed for magnetic declination affects the computed azi-
BHA Sag. This is due to the distortion of the MWD drill collar muth. However, conventional corrections for axial interference
under gravity. It is modeled as confined to the vertical plane and require estimates of the magnetic dip and field strength. Any error
proportional to the component of gravity acting perpendicular to in these estimates will cause an error in the computed azimuth.
the wellbore 共i.e., sin I兲. The magnitude of the error depends on
A study by the British Geological Survey and commissioned by
BHA type and geometry, sensor spacing, hole size and several
Baker Hughes INTEQ6 investigated the likely error in using a
other factors. Two-dimensional BHA models typically calculate
global geomagnetic model to estimate the instantaneous ambient
inclination corrections of 0.2° or 0.3° for poorly stabilized BHAs
magnetic field downhole. Five sources of error were identified:
in horizontal hole.6 For well stabilized assemblies the value is
modeled main field vs. actual main field at the base epoch, mod-
usually less than 0.15°. In the absence of better information, 0.2°
eled secular variation vs. actual secular variation, regular 共diurnal兲
共at 1 s.d.兲 may be considered a realistic input into the basic error
model. variation due to electrical currents in the ionosphere, irregular
Sag corrections, if they are applied, are calculated on the often temporal variation due to electrical currents in the magnetosphere
unjustified assumptions of both the hole and stabilizers being in and crustal anomalies.
By making a number of gross assumptions, and by considering
typical drilling rates, this author has distilled the results of the
**Minutes of the 8th Meeting of the ISCWSA, Trondheim, 19 February 1998. study into a single table.
Error Magnitude
Declination Dip Total Field Propagation
Error Source „deg… „deg… „nT… Mode
Main field model 0.012* 0.005 3 G
Secular variation 0.017* 0.013 10 G
Daily variation 0.045** 0.011** 11** R/S†
Irregular variation 0.110** 0.043** 45** R/S†
Crustal anomaly 0.476 0.195 120 G
H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000 223
The dominant error source is crustal anomalies caused by vary- errors may be considered globally systematic and summarized as
ing magnetization of rocks in the Earth’s crust. The figures shown the following.
are representative of those of the North Sea. Some areas, particu- Weighting Propagation
larly those at higher latitudes and where volcanic rocks are closer Error Source Function Magnitude Mode
to the surface, will show greater variation. Other areas, where Declination 共constant兲 AZ 0.36° G
sedimentary rocks dominate, will show less. Declination
In the absence of any other information, the uncertainty in an 共B H dependent兲 DBH 5000° nT G
estimate of the magnetic field at a given time and place provided Dip angle MFD 0.20° G
by a global geomagnetic model may be obtained by summing the Total field MFI 130 nT G
above terms statistically. There is one complication: some account
must be taken of the increasing difficulty of determining declina-
Along-Hole Depth Errors. Ekseth7 identified 14 physical sources
tion as the horizontal component of the magnetic field decreases.
This can be achieved by splitting this error into two components: of drill-pipe depth measurement error, wrote down expressions to
one constant and one inversely proportional to the horizontal pro- predict their magnitude and, by substituting typical parameter val-
jection of the field, B H . For the purposes of the model, the split ues into the expressions, predicted the total error for a number of
has been defined somewhat arbitrarily, while ensuring that the different well shapes. He then proposed a simplified model of just
total declination uncertainty at Lerwick, Shetland (B H four terms, and chose the magnitudes of each to match the pre-
⫽15 000 nT) is as predicted by the BGS study 共0.49°兲. Being dictions of the full model as closely as possible. The results were
dominated by the crustal anomaly component, all magnetic field as follows.
For the purposes of the basic model, the values for the land rig Gross Errors. Any attempt at a comprehensive discussion of
共or, equivalently a jackup or platform rig兲 may be chosen. The MWD error sources must at least acknowledge the possibility of
stretch-type error, which dominates the other terms in deep wells, gross errors, sometimes called human errors. These errors lack the
models two physical effects, stretch and thermal expansion of the predictability and uniformity of the physical terms discussed
drill pipe. Both of these effects generally cause the drill string to above. They are therefore excluded from the error model, with the
elongate, so it may be appropriate to apply this term as a bias 共see assumption that they are adequately managed through process and
below兲. If this is done, a mean value of 4.4⫻10⫺7 m⫺1 should be procedure.
used, since Ekseth effectively treated his estimates of these errors
as 2 s.d. values.
Propagation Mathematics
Errors Omitted From the Basic MWD Model. Some errors The mathematical algorithm by which wellbore positional uncer-
known to affect MWD surveys have nonetheless not been in- tainty is generated from survey error model inputs is based on the
cluded in the basic error model. approach outlined by Brooks and Wilson.3 The development of
Tool Electronics and Resolution. The overall effect on accu- this work described here was carried out by the working group
racy caused by the limitations of the tool electronics and the reso- referred to in the Introduction.
lution of the tool-to-surface telemetry system is not considered A physical error occurring at a survey station will result in an
significant. Such errors will tend to be randomized over long sur- error, in the form of a vector, in the calculated well position. From
vey intervals. Ref. 3:
External Magnetic Interference. Ekseth7 discussed the influ-
dr p
ence of remanent magnetism in casing strings on magnetic sur- ei ⫽ i , 共1兲
veys, and gave expressions for azimuth error when drilling out of dp ⑀ i
a casing shoe and parallel to an existing string. Although certainly where ei is a vector-valued random variable 共a vector error兲, i is
not negligible, both error sources are difficult to quantify, and the magnitude of the ith error source, p/ i is its ‘‘weighting
equally difficult to incorporate within error modeling software. It function’’ and dr/dp describes how changes in the measurement
seems preferable to manage these errors by applying quality pro- vector affect the calculated well position. It is sufficient to assume
cedures designed to limit their effect. that the calculated displacement between consecutive survey sta-
Effect of Survey Interval and Calculation Method. The tions depends only on the survey measurement vectors at these
method presented in this paper relies on the assumption that an two stations. Writing ⌬rk for the displacement between survey
error-free measurement vector p will lead to an error-free well- stations k⫺1 and k, we may thus express the 共1 s.d.兲 error due to
bore position vector r. If minimum curvature formulas are used the presence of the ith error source at the kth survey station in the
for survey calculation, this assumption will only be true when the lth survey leg as the sum of the effects on the preceding and
well path between stations is an exact circular arc. The resulting following calculated displacements:
error may be significant for sparse data, but may probably be
neglected so long as the station interval does not exceed 100 ft.
Gravity Field Uncertainty. Differences between nominal and
ei,l,k ⫽ i,l 冉 dpk dpk 冊
d⌬rk d⌬rk⫹1 pk
⫹
i
, 共2兲
actual gravity field strengths will typically have no effect on where i,l is the magnitude of the ith error source over the lth
MWD accuracy since only the ratio of accelerometer measure- survey leg, and pk is the instrument measurement vector at the kth
ments is used in the calculation of inclination and azimuth. survey station.
224 H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000
The total position error at a particular survey station K in sur-
vey leg L will be the sum of the vector errors ei,l,k taken over all
error sources i and all survey stations up to and including K. The
uncertainty in this position error is expressed in the form of a
covariance matrix:
关 CK 兴 ⫽ 兺 兺 兺
errors k 1 ⭐K k 2 ⭐K
共 ⑀ i,l 1 ,k 1 , ⑀ i,l 2 ,k 2 兲 ei,l 1 ,k 1 •ei,l
T
2 ,k 2
, 共3兲
i
冋册
B x ⫽B cos ⌰ cos I cos A m sin ␣ ⫺B sin ⌰ sin I sin ␣
0
p ⫹B cos ⌰ sin A m cos ␣ , 共16兲
⫽ 0 , 共4兲
⑀ AZ
1 B y ⫽B cos ⌰ cos I cos A m cos ␣ ⫺B sin ⌰ sin I cos ␣
p
⑀ DBH
⫽ 冋 0
0
1/共 B cos ⌰ 兲
. 册 共5兲
⫺B cos ⌰ sin A m sin ␣ ,
B z ⫽B cos ⌰ sin I cos A m ⫹B sin ⌰ cos I.
Taking the X-accelerometer bias (ABX) as an example,
共17兲
共18兲
冋 册
⫽ ⫽ ⫺ ⫽⫺ , 共19兲
0 G x sin I G x sin I G3 G
p
⫽ sin I , 共6兲 and, similarly,
⑀ SAG
0
A m 共 cos I sin A m sin ␣ ⫺cos A m cos ␣ 兲 tan ⌰⫹cot I cos ␣
冋 册
⫽ .
p
0 Gx G
⫽ 0 , 共7兲 共20兲
⑀ AM ID
sin I sin A m The appropriate weighting function is therefore
and for reference, scale and stretch-type depth errors they are p
p
⑀ DREF
1
冋册
⫽ 0 ,
0
共8兲
ABX
1
冋 0
⫺cos I sin ␣ 册
冋册
⫽ .
G
D 共 cos I sin A m sin ␣ ⫺cos A m cos ␣ 兲 tan ⌰⫹cot I cos ␣
p
⫽ 0 , 共9兲 共21兲
⑀ DSF
0 Effect of Axial Interference Correction. When a simple axial
冋 册
magnetic interference correction is applied, Eq. 12 is no longer
D.D V
p used, and different weighting functions are required for sensor
⫽ 0 . 共10兲 errors. The following analysis is by Andy Brooks.
⑀ DST
0 Details of the interference corrections differ from method to
Weighting Functions For Sensor Errors. Tool axes and tool- method, but since all such methods suffer from similar limitations,
face angle, ␣, are defined in Fig. 1. There are 12 basic sensor error it is reasonable to characterize them all with a single example.
sources 共a bias and scale factor for each of three accelerometers Methods which ignore the B Z measurement and find the solution
and three magnetometers兲 and each requires its own weighting which minimizes the vector distance between the computed and
function. These are obtained by differentiating the standard navi- expected values of the magnetic field vector will satisfy Eqs. 16
gation equations for inclination and azimuth: and 17 and
A m ⫽tan⫺1 冉 共 G x B y ⫺G y B x 兲 冑G 2x ⫹G 2y ⫹G z2
B z 共 G 2x ⫹G 2y 兲 ⫺G z 共 G x B x ⫹G y B y 兲
冊 , 共12兲
leads to
P sin A m ⫹Q cos A m ⫹R sin A m cos A m ⫽0, 共23兲
H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000 225
TABLE 1– ERROR SOURCE WEIGHTING FUNCTIONS NOT GIVEN IN THE TEXT
ABX
1
G 冋 0
⫺cos I sin ␣
共cos I sin Am sin ␣⫺cos Am cos ␣兲tan ⌰⫹cot I cos ␣
ASX 册 冋 0
sin I cos I sin2 ␣
⫺共tan ⌰ sin I共cos I sin Am sin ␣⫺cos Am cos ␣兲⫹cos I cos ␣兲sin ␣
册
ABY
1
G 冋 0
⫺cos I cos ␣
共cos I sin Am cos ␣⫹cos Am sin ␣兲tan ⌰⫺cot I sin ␣
ASY 册 冋 0
sin I cos I cos2 ␣
⫺共tan ⌰ sin I共cos I sin Am cos ␣⫹cos Am sin ␣兲⫺cos I sin ␣兲cos ␣
册
MBX 冋 0
0
共cos Am cos ␣⫺cos I sin Am sin ␣兲/共B cos ⌰兲
册
MSX 冋 0
0
共cos I cos Am sin ␣⫺tan ⌰ sin I sin ␣⫹sin Am cos ␣兲共cos Am cos ␣⫺cos I sin Am sin ␣兲
册
MBY 冋 0
0
⫺共cos Am sin ␣⫹cos I sin Am cos ␣兲/共B cos ⌰兲
册
MSY 冋 0
0
⫺共cos I cos Am cos ␣⫺tan ⌰ sin I cos ␣⫺sin Am sin ␣兲共cos Am sin ␣⫹cos I sin Am cos ␣兲
册
ABZ
1
G 冋 0
⫺sin I
tan ⌰ sin Isin Am
ASZ 册 冋 0
⫺sin I cos I
tan ⌰ sin I cos I sin Am
MBZ 册 0
0 冋
⫺sin I sin Am /共B cos ⌰兲
册
MSZ 冋 0
0
⫺共sin I cos Am⫹tan ⌰ cos I兲sin I sin Am
册
Sensor errors (with axial interference correction)
ABIX
1
G 冋 0
⫺cos I sin ␣
关cos2 I sin Am sin ␣共tan ⌰ cos I⫹sin I cos Am兲⫺cos ␣共tan ⌰ cos Am⫺cot I兲兴/共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲
册
ABIY
1
G 冋 0
⫺cos I cos ␣
关cos2 I sin Am cos ␣共tan ⌰ cos I⫹sin I cos Am兲⫹sin ␣共tan ⌰ cos Am⫺cot I兲兴/共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲
册
ASIX 冋 0
sin I cos I sin2 ␣
⫺sin ␣关sin I cos2 I sin Am sin ␣共tan ⌰ cos I⫹sin I cos Am兲⫺cos ␣共tan ⌰ sin I cos Am⫺cos I兲兴/共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲
册
ASIY 冋 0
sin I cos I cos2 ␣
⫺cos ␣关sin I cos2 I sin Am cos ␣共tan ⌰ cos I⫹sin I cos Am兲⫹sin ␣共tan ⌰ sin I cos Am⫺cos I兲兴/共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲
册
MSIX 冋 0
0
⫺共cos I cos Am sin ␣⫺tan ⌰ sin I sin ␣⫹sin Am cos ␣兲共cos I sin Am sin ␣⫺cos Am cos ␣兲/共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲
册
MSIY 冋 0
0
⫺共cos I cos Am cos ␣⫺tan ⌰ sin I cos ␣⫺sin Am sin ␣兲共cos I sin Am cos ␣⫹cos Am sin ␣兲/共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲
册
MBIX 冋 0
0
⫺共cos I sin Am sin ␣⫺cos Am cos ␣兲/关B cos ⌰共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲兴
册
ABIZ
1
G 冋 0
⫺sin I
关sin I cos I sin Am共tan ⌰ cos I⫹sin I cos Am兲兴/共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲
册
MBIY 冋 0
0
⫺共cos I sin Am cos ␣⫹cos Am sin ␣兲/关B cos ⌰共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲兴
册
ASIZ 冋 0
⫺sin I cos I
关sin I cos2 I sin Am共tan ⌰ cos I⫹sin I cos Am兲兴/共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲
册
Magnetic field errors (with axial interference correction)
MFI 冋 0
0
⫺sin I sin Am共tan ⌰ cos I⫹sin I cos Am兲/关B共I⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲兴
册 冋MDI
0
0
⫺sin I sin Am共cos I⫺tan ⌰ sin I cos Am兲/共1⫺sin2 I sin2 Am兲
册
226 H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000
Fig. 3–Vertical section plot of standard well profiles. Note the
different section azimuths.
Fig. 2–Plan view of standard well profiles.
冋 册
not,’’ the second by careful software design.
0 The sign convention for position bias is from survey to most
p likely position 共i.e., opposite to the direction of the error兲. Since
⫽ sin ␣ , 共27兲
⑀MX the drill pipe generally elongates downhole, most likely depths are
⫺cos ␣ /sin I
冋 册
greater than survey depths and bias values are positive. For axial
0 drillstring interference, most likely azimuths are greater than sur-
p vey azimuths when the weighting function, sin I sin Am , is posi-
⫽ cos ␣ . 共28兲
⑀MY tive, so bias values are again positive 共at least in the northern
sin ␣ /sin I hemisphere兲. The additional mathematics required to model sur-
Table 1 contains expressions for all the weighting functions not vey bias is included in Appendix A.
cited in this section which are required to implement the error
models described in this paper. Calculation Conventions. The calculation of position uncertainty
requires a wellbore survey consisting of discrete stations, each of
Calculation Options which has an associated along-hole depth, inclination, azimuth,
The method of position uncertainty calculation described here ad- and toolface angle. Clearly, these data will not be available in
mits a number of variations. It can still claim to be a standard, in many cases, and certain conventions are required whereby as-
that selection of the same set of conventions should always yield sumed values may be calculated. The following are suggested.
the same results. Along-Hole Depth. For drilled wells, actual survey stations
should be used. For planned wells, the intended survey interval
Along-Hole Depth Uncertainty. The propagation model de- should be determined, and stations should be interpolated at all
scribed above is appropriate for determining the position uncer- whole multiples of this depth within the survey interval. Typi-
tainty of the points in space at which the survey tool came 共or will cally, an interval of 100 ft or 30 m should be used. For well plans,
come兲 to rest. These may be called uncertainties ‘‘at survey sta- the way points should be included as additional stations.
tions.’’ Inclination and Azimuth. For drilled wells, measured values
Thorogood2 argued that it is more meaningful to compute the should be used. For planned wells, the profile should be interpo-
position uncertainties of the points in the wellbore at the along- lated at the planned survey station depths using minimum curva-
hole depths assigned to the survey stations. These may be called ture.
the uncertainties ‘‘at assigned depths.’’ This approach allows Toolface. If actual toolface angles are available, they should be
computation of the position uncertainty of points 共such as picks used. If not, several means of generating them are possible.
from a wireline log兲 whose depths have been determined indepen- 䊉 Random number generation. Possibly close to reality, but re-
dently of the survey. Thorogood made this calculation by defining sults are not repeatable and will tend to be optimistic.
a weighting function incorporating the local build and turn rates of 䊉 Worst case. Several variations on this idea are possible, but
the well. The approach described in Appendix A achieves the each will require some additional calculation. The principle is
same result without the need for a new weighting function. questionable, and the computational overhead is probably not jus-
The results of the two approaches differ only in the along-hole tified.
component of uncertainty. The along-hole uncertainty at a survey 䊉 Borehole toolface 共i.e., the up-down left-right change in bore-
station includes the uncertainty in the station’s measured depth, hole direction兲. This angle bears little relation to survey tool ori-
while the uncertainty at an assigned depth does not. entation, but is at least well defined, and may be computed di-
The correct choice of approach depends on the engineering rectly from inclination and azimuth data. This approach will tend
problem being tackled, in many cases it is immaterial. The user of to limit the randomization of toolface dependent errors, giving a
well-designed directional software need not be aware of the issue. conservative uncertainty prediction. This is the convention used in
H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000 227
TABLE 2– STANDARD WELL PROFILES
the examples which follow. Formulas for borehole toolface are Example Results
given in Appendix B.
The error models for basic and interference-corrected MWD have
been applied to the standard well profiles to generate position
Standard Profiles uncertainties in each well. The results of several combinations are
At the Eighth Meeting of the ISCWSA participants were set the tabulated in Table 3.
task of designing a number of well profiles suitable for testing Examples 1 and 2 compare the basic and interference-corrected
software implementations of the error models and propagation models in well ISCWSA No. 1. Being a high inclination well
mathematics, studying and highlighting the behavior of different running approximately ENE, the interference correction actually
error models 共magnetic and gyroscopic兲 and individual error
degrades the accuracy. The results are plotted in Fig. 4. Examples
sources, demonstrating to a nonspecialist audience the uncertain-
3 to 6 all represent the basic MWD error model applied to well
ties to be expected from typical survey programs.
The ideas generated at the meeting were used to devise a set of ISCWSA No. 2. They differ in that each uses a different permu-
three profiles: tation of the survey station/assigned depth and symmetric error/
ISCWSA No. 1: an extended reach well in the North Sea, survey bias calculation options. The variation of lateral uncer-
ISCWSA No. 2: a ‘‘fish-hook’’ well in the Gulf of Mexico, with tainty and ellipsoid semimajor axis, characteristic of a fish-hook
a long turn at low inclination, and well, is shown in Fig. 5. Finally, example 7 breaks well ISCWSA
ISCWSA No. 3: a ‘‘designer’’ well in the Bass Strait, incorporat- No. 3 into three depth intervals, with the basic and interference-
ing a number of difficult hole directions and geometries. corrected models being applied alternately. This example is in-
Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate the test profiles in plan and section. cluded as a test of error term propagation.
Their full definition, given in Table 2, includes location, gravity The results in Table 3 were computed by the author, and have
and magnetic fields, survey stations, toolface angles and depth been independently verified by Anne Holmes, Steve Grindrod,
units. and Andy Brooks. Exact duplication of these results is a powerful
228 H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000
TABLE 3– CALCULATED POSITION UNCERTAINTIES „AT 1 s.d.…. UNCERTAINTY AT THE TIE LINE „MDÄ0… IS ZERO; STATIONS INTERPOLATED AT WHOLE MULTIPLES
OF STATION INTERVAL USING MINIMUM CURVATURE; WELL PLAN WAY POINTS INCLUDED AS ADDITIONAL STATIONS; INSTRUMENT TOOLFACEÄBOREHOLE TOOLFACE
Sensors
vestigating error models, and a set of results for testing software I ⫽ wellbore inclination, deg
implementations. A ⫽ wellbore azimuth, deg
The future work which these standards were designed to facilitate A m ⫽ wellbore magnetic azimuth, deg
includes ␣ ⫽ toolface angle, deg
䊉 establishment of agreed error models for other survey ser- ␦ ⫽ magnetic declination, deg
vices, including in-field referencing and gyroscopic tools and ⌰ ⫽ magnetic dip angle, deg
䊉 interchangeability of calculated position uncertainties among B ⫽ magnetic field strength, nT
survey vendor, directional drilling company, and operator. G ⫽ gravity field strength, ms⫺2**
Useful though this work is, it is only a piece in a large jigsaw X,x,Y,y,Z,z ⫽ tool reference directions; see Fig. 1
puzzle. Taking a wider view, the collaborative efforts of the ex- *Adopted by ISCWSA participants as a standard for all technical
tended survey community should now be directed towards stan- correspondence.
dardization of quality assurance measures, strengthening the link **The international standard value for G of 9.806 65 ms⫺2 was
between quality assurance specifications and error model param- used in the calculation of the results in Table 3.
eters, and better integration of wellbore position uncertainty with
the other aspects of oil field navigation. Special Nomenclature
b ⫽ component of wellbore position bias vector
Nomenclature
B̂ ⫽ estimated magnetic field strength
ISCWSA Nomenclature* B H ⫽ horizontal component of magnetic field
D ⫽ along-hole depth, m, ft strength
230 H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000
†C‡ ⫽ wellbore position uncertainty covariance matrix 4. Dubrule, O. and Nelson, P.H.: ‘‘Evaluation of Directional Survey
e ⫽ 1 s.d. vector error at an intermediate station Errors at Prudhoe Bay,’’ SPEDE 共September 1987兲 257.
e* ⫽ 1 s.d. vector error at the station of interest 5. Grindrod, S.J. and Wolff, J.M.: ‘‘Calculation of NMDC Length Re-
quired for Various Latitudes Developed From Field Measurements of
E ⫽ sum of vector errors from slot to station of in-
Drill String Magnetisation,’’ paper 11382 presented at the SPE 1983
terest IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, 20–23 February.
⫽ particular value of a survey error 6. Macmillan, S. et al.: ‘‘Error estimates for geomagnetic field values
H,L ⫽ used in calculation of the toolface computed from the BGGM,’’ British Geological Survey Technical
m ⫽ bias vector error at an intermediate station Report No. WM/93/28C 共1993兲.
m* ⫽ bias vector error at the station of interest 7. Ekseth, R.: ‘‘Uncertainties in Connection with the Determination of
M ⫽ wellbore position bias vector Wellbore Positions,’’ PhD dissertation, Norwegian U. of Science and
⫽ mean of error value Technology, Trondheim, Norway 共1998兲.
⫽ standard deviation of error value, component of
wellbore position uncertainty
p ⫽ survey measurement vector (D,I,A)
P,Q,R ⫽ intermediate calculated quantities Appendix A: Mathematical Description of Propagation
r ⫽ wellbore position vector Model
⌬rk ⫽ increment in wellbore position between stations The total position uncertainty at a survey station of interest, K 共in
k⫺1 and k survey leg L兲 is the sum of the contribution from all the active
⫽ correlation coefficient error sources. It is convenient computationally to group the error
⌰
ˆ ⫽ estimated magnetic dip angle sources by their propagation type and to sum them separately.
v ⫽ along-hole unit vector
w ⫽ factor relating error magnitude to uncertainty in Vector Errors at the Station of Interest. Recall that the vector
measurement error due to the presence of error source i at station k is the sum of
the effect of the error on the preceding and following survey dis-
Subscripts and Counters placements:
hla,HLA
i
⫽
⫽
borehole referenced frame
a survey error term
ei,l,k ⫽ i,l 冉 d⌬rk d⌬rk⫹1 pk
dpk
⫹
dpk i
. 冊 共A-1兲
k ⫽ a survey station
K ⫽ survey station of interest Evaluating this expression using the minimum curvature well
Kl ⫽ number of stations in the lth survey leg trajectory model is cumbersome. There is no significant loss of
⫽ accuracy in using the simpler balanced tangential model:
冋 册
l a survey leg
L ⫽ survey leg containing the station of interest sin I j⫺1 cos A j⫺1 ⫹sin I j cos A j
nev ⫽ earth-referenced frame D j ⫺D j⫺1
⌬r j ⫽ sin I j⫺1 sin A j⫺1 ⫹sin I j sin A j . 共A-2兲
2
cos I j⫺1 ⫹cos I j
Superscripts
The two differentials in the parentheses in Eq. A-1 may then be
dep ⫽ at the along-hole depth assigned to the survey expressed as
station
rand ⫽ random propagation mode
svy ⫽ at the point where the survey measurements
d⌬r j
dpk
⫽ 冋
d⌬r j d⌬r j d⌬r j
dD k dI k dA k 册 共 j⫽k,k⫹1 兲 , 共A-3兲
冋 册
were taken
syst ⫽ systematic propagation mode sin I k⫺1 cos A k⫺1 ⫹sin I k cos A k
well ⫽ well by well or global propagation mode d⌬rk 1
⫽ sin I k⫺1 sin A k⫺1 ⫹sin I k sin A k , 共A-4a兲
dD k 2
cos I k⫺1 ⫹cos I k
冋 册
Acknowledgments
The author thanks all participants in the ISCWSA for their enthu- ⫺sin I k cos A k ⫺sin I k⫹1 cos A k⫹1
d⌬rk⫹1 1
siasm and support over several years and in the review of this ⫽ ⫺sin I k sin A k ⫺sin I k⫹1 sin A k⫹1 , 共A-4b兲
dD k 2
paper. ⫺cos I k ⫺cos I k⫹1
冋 册
Particular contributions to the MWD error model were made by
John Turvill and Graham McElhinney, both now with PathFinder 共 D j ⫺D j⫺1 兲 cos I k cos A k
d⌬r j 1
Energy Services, formerly Halliburton Drilling Systems; Wayne ⫽ 共 D j ⫺D j⫺1 兲 cos I k sin A k 共 j⫽k,k⫹1 兲 , 共A-5兲
dI k 2
Phillips, Schlumberger, Paul Rodney and Anne Holmes, Sperry- ⫺ 共 D j ⫺D j⫺1 兲 sin I k
冋 册
Sun Drilling Services; and Oddvar Lotsberg, formerly of Baker
Hughes INTEQ. ⫺ 共 D j ⫺D j⫺1 兲 sin I k sin A k
d⌬r j 1
Participants in the working group on error propagation were ⫽ 共 D j ⫺D j⫺1 兲 sin I k cos A k 共 j⫽k,k⫹1 兲 . 共A-6兲
David Roper, Sysdrill Ltd.; Andy Brooks and Harry Wilson, dA k 2
0
Baker Hughes INTEQ; and Roger Ekseth, formerly of Statoil.
The author also wishes to thank BP for their permission to For the purposes of computation, the error summation terminates
publish this paper. at the survey station of interest. Vector errors at this station are
therefore given by
References d⌬rK pK
1. Wolff, C.J.M. and de Wardt, J.P.: ‘‘Borehole Position Uncertainty– * ⫽ i,L
ei,L,K . 共A-7兲
dpK i
Analysis of Measuring Methods and Derivation of Systematic Error
Model,’’ JPT 共December 1981兲 2339. * indicates that a measurement error at this sta-
The notation ei,L,K
2. Thorogood, J.L.: ‘‘Instrument Performance Models and Their Appli- tion affects only the preceding survey displacement. In what fol-
cation to Directional Survey Operations,’’ SPEDE 共December 1990兲
294.
lows we reserve the notation ei,l,k for vector errors at intermediate
3. Brooks, A.G. and Wilson, H.: ‘‘An Improved Method for Computing stations, which affect both the preceding and following displace-
Wellbore Position Uncertainty and Its Application to Collision and ments.
Target Intersection Probability Analysis,’’ paper 36863 presented at
the SPE 1996 SPE European Petroleum Conference, Milan, Italy, Undefined Weighting Functions. For some combinations of
22–24 October. weighting function and hole direction, one component of the mea-
H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000 231
TABLE A-1– ERROR VECTORS IN VERTICAL HOLE WHERE WEIGHTING FUNCTION
IS SINGULAR
MX ei , l , k ⫽
i , l 共 D k ⫹1 ⫺ D k ⫺1 兲
2 冋 sin共A⫹␣兲
⫺cos共A⫹␣兲
0
册 MY ei , l , k ⫽
i , l 共 D k ⫹1 ⫺ D k ⫺1 兲
2 冋 cos共A⫹␣兲
sin共A⫹␣兲
0
册
k⫽1
ei,l,k "
Kl
k⫽1
ei,l,k
T
, 共A-12兲
Vertical Hole. In this case, dr/dp is zero but the vectors ei,l,k and the total contribution over all survey legs is
* are still finite and well defined. They may be computed
and ei,L,K
L⫺1
by forming the products of Eqs. A-1 and A-7 algebraically and
evaluating them as a whole. Take as an example the weighting
syst
关 C兴 i,K ⫽ 兺 关 C兴
l⫽1
syst
i,l
function for an X-axis radially symmetric misalignment. Substitut-
ing the expression for p/ M X , Eq. 27, and the well trajectory
model equations, Eqs. A-3 to A-6, into Eqs. A-1 and A-7, and
setting I equal to zero gives
⫹ 冉兺 K⫺1
k⫽1
ei,L,k ⫹ei,L,K
* " 冊 冉兺 K⫺1
k⫽1
ei,L,k ⫹ei,L,K
* 冊 T
. 共A-13兲
冋 册
sin共 A⫹ ␣ 兲 Well by Well and Global Errors. Each of these error types is
i,l 共 D k⫹1 ⫺D k⫺1 兲 systematic among all stations in a well. The individual vector
ei,l,k ⫽ ⫺cos共 A⫹ ␣ 兲 共A-8兲
2 errors can therefore be summed to give a total vector error from
0 slot to station:
and L⫺1
兺 兺e 冉 Kl
冊 K⫺1
兺
冋 册
Ei,K ⫽ i,l,k ⫹ ei,L,k ⫹ei,L,K
* . 共A-14兲
sin共 A⫹ ␣ 兲 l⫽1 k⫽1 k⫽1
i,L 共 D K ⫺D K⫺1 兲
* ⫽
ei,L,K ⫺cos 共 A⫹ ␣ 兲 . 共A-9兲 The total contribution to the uncertainty at survey station K is
2
0
well
关 C兴 i,K ⫽Ei,K "Ei,K
T
. 共A-15兲
There are similar expressions for Y-axis axial misalignment and
X- and Y-axis accelerometer biases. These are given in Table A-1. Total Position Covariance. The total position covariance at sur-
Equivalent expressions may be used for evaluating bias vectors in vey station K is the sum of the contributions from all the types of
* , i,l and i,L substituted for
the vertical hole, with mi,l,k , mi,L,K error source:
* and i,l and i,L , respectively.
ei,l,k , ei,L,K
Other Hole Directions. Some error sources really are un- 关 C兴 Ksv y ⫽ 兺 关 C兴
i苸R
i,K ⫹
rand
兺 关 C兴
i苸S
i,K ⫹
syst
兺
i苸 兵 W,G 其
well
关 C兴 i,K , 共A-16兲
bounded in certain hole directions. The examples in this paper are
sensor errors after axial interference correction in a horizontal and where the superscript svy indicates the uncertainty is defined at a
magnetic east/west wellbore, a so-called ‘‘90/90’’ well. In such survey station.
cases, the assumptions of linearity break down, and computed
position uncertainties are meaningless. Software implementations Survey Bias. Error vectors due to bias errors are given by expres-
should include an error-catching mechanism for this case. sions entirely analogous with Eqs. A-1 and A-7:
l⫽1
Kl
k⫽l
mi,l,k ⫹ 冊 K⫺1
兺
k⫽1
mi,L,k ⫹mi,L,K
* . 冊 共A-19兲
rand
关 C兴 i,K ⫽ 兺 关 C兴
l⫽1
i,l ⫹
rand
兺 共e
k⫽1
i,L,k 兲 "共 ei,L,k 兲
T
Position Uncertainty and Bias at an Assigned Depth. Defining
the superscript dep to indicate uncertainty at an assigned depth, it
* 兲 "共 ei,L,K
⫹ 共 ei,L,K * 兲T. 共A-11兲 may be shown that
Systematic Errors. The contribution to survey station uncer- ei,L,K * s v y ⫺ i,L w i,L,K vK ,
* de p ⫽ei,L,K 共A-20兲
tainty from a systematically propagating error source i over sur-
vey leg l 共not containing the station of interest兲 is
de p
ei,l,k ⫽ei,l,k
svy
, 共A-21兲
232 H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000
Relative Uncertainty Between Wells. When calculating the un-
certainty in the relative position between two survey stations
(K A ,K B ) in wells 共A,B兲, we must take proper account of the cor-
relation between globally systematic errors. The uncertainty is
given by
冋 册
these expressions into Eqs. A-12 to A-16 yields the position un- where
certainty at the along-hole depth assigned to each survey station. cos I K cos A K ⫺sin A K sin I K cos A K
Survey bias at an assigned depth is calculated by substituting
the following error vectors into Eq. A-19: 关 T兴 ⫽ cos I K sin A K cos A K sin I K sin A K 共A-28兲
⫺sin I K 0 cos I K
is a rotation matrix. Uncertainties and correlations in the principal
borehole directions are obtained from
H ⫽ 冑关 C兴 hla 关 1,1兴 etc., 共A-29兲
关 C兴 hla 关 1,2兴
HA ⫽ etc. 共A-30兲
H L
Appendix B: Calculation of Toolface Angle
The following formulas may be used to calculate borehole tool-
face angle from successive surveys:
H K ⫽sin I K cos I K⫺1 ⫺sin I K⫺1 cos I K cos共 A K ⫺A K⫺1 兲 , 共B-1兲
L K ⫽sin I K⫺1 sin共 A K ⫺A K⫺1 兲 , 共B-2兲
⫺1
if H K ⬎0, ␣ K ⫽tan 共 L K /H K 兲 , 共B-3兲
⫺1
if H K ⬍0, ␣ K ⫽tan 共 L K /H K 兲 ⫹180°, 共B-4兲
if H K ⫽0, ␣ K ⫽270°, 0° or 90° as L K
⬍0, L K ⫽0 or L K ⬎0. 共B-5兲
H. S. Williamson: Accuracy Prediction for MWD SPE Drill. & Completion, Vol. 15, No. 4, December 2000 233