ISSN 1069-3513, Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 2022, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 420–434.

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2022.

Russian Text © The Author(s), 2022, published in Fizika Zemli, 2022, No. 3, pp. 136–152.

On the Need for Accurate Monitoring of the Geomagnetic

Field during Directional Drilling in the Russian Arctic
A. A. Solovieva, b, *, R. V. Sidorova, **, A. A. Oshchenkoa, and A. N. Zaitseva, c
a
Geophysical Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119296 Russia
b
Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 123242 Russia
c
Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio Wave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Moscow, 108840 Russia
*e-mail: a.soloviev@gcras.ru
**e-mail: r.sidorov@gcras.ru
Received February 8, 2021; revised August 3, 2021; accepted August 3, 2021

Abstract—The readings of well magnetometers used in directional drilling may be distorted by geomagnetic
storms and substorms. These distortions occur most often in auroral latitudes. The goal of this research is to
study how sporadic fluctuations of the magnetic field during geomagnetic storms impact the key parameters
of the drilling path during the Earth’s magnetic field navigation. This research covers the mechanisms of
devi- ations of well profile parameters during geomagnetic disturbances of various intensity in the range
from mid- dle to high latitudes, including for virtual deposits inside and outside the auroral oval. In
geographical lati- tudes the impact on geometrical parameters of the borehole becomes critical and results in
unacceptable devi- ations. Consequently, rapid magnetic field variations are measured in real time by
high accuracy magnetometric equipment as part of the high technology process of hydrocarbon production
in the Arctic. Thus, it makes as relevant as never before to deploy and maintain stationary geomagnetic
observatories in high-latitude areas and to develop intellectual methods of processing of geomagnetic
measurements.

Key words: drilling geomagnetic support, directional drilling, magnetic observatories, INTERMAGNET,
Arctic zone of the Russian Federation, magnetic field variations, drilling path modelling
DOI: 10.1134/S1069351322020124

INTRODUCTION Magnetic field navigation is broadly used in direc-

In order to grasp a general picture about the inner
structure of the planet and its evolution it is
necessary to gather data about the structure,
distribution and space and time variations of the
magnetic field of the Earth; such data is also used as
a key source of infor- mation for a number of
applications. For instance, data on the Earth’s
magnetic field is broadly used for navigation
purposes (Shockley and Raquet, 2014; Ogó rek et al.,
2015; Pasku et al., 2017). The main prin- ciple of
operation of navigational systems—that require
data about the magnetic field—is connected with the
fundamental property of the Earth’s Core Magnetic
Field (ECMF), which helps to determine the
orientation of an object in space and direction to
the North Magnetic Pole (NMP) of the Earth in any
given point. Due to the fact that the ECMF changes
(secular variations, changes in the Earth’s dipole mag-
netic moment) through decades or even thousands of
years, it can be considered almost permanent in time
when solving navigational tasks. In this way, informa-
tion about the magnetic field becomes valuable for
navigational purposes.
tional drilling of wells during development of mineral
deposits (Gvishiani and Lukianova, 2015). This tech-
nology implies drilling of extensive wells that enter
the oil reservoir almost horizontally and the borehole
of which may be from 4–5 to over 10 kilometres
long (Short, 1993). This process is believed to be
highly technological, largely due to a complex spatial
profile of the borehole in case of multihole and
cluster drill- ing. In Alaska, where this technology
was pioneered by Schlumberger, the densely grouped
extensive wells are kept at a distance of about one
hundred metres (Poed- jono et al., 2013). This
requires highly accurate posi- tioning and navigating
of the drill string to be achieved by geomagnetic
referencing. The earth stratum, in this regard, by no
means resists such a navigation in con- trast to the
Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS).
Obviously, this technology is widely applied in shelf
oil and gas production (including Arctic) with land-
based multihole drilling being away from mineral
deposits. For instance, during oil and gas production
on the shelf of the Sea of Okhotsk and laying there
subhorizontal wells of unprecedented length the tar-
geted point underground is hit with a tolerance of

420
 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 42
1
Observatory HRN Observatory SOD
12 15

10 14

8 13
Declination,

Declination,
12
6
11
4
10
2
9
0 8
October 29, 2003 October 30, 2003

Fig. 1. Magnetic declination variations recorded at observatories Hornsund (HRN, the Svalbard archipelago, Norway) and
Sodankylä (SOD, Finland). Black dots correspond to the data for the geomagnetic storm of October 29–30, 2003, white dots—
to the quiet period.

±3 metres at a distance of 15000 metres from the well 2018). The curve
head (Bogoyavlenskii, 2020).
The technology of correction of oil well boreholes
based on geomagnetic data originates from the
approach to correcting space platforms that dates
back to the 60s of the previous century (Meyers, 1990).
Read- ings of the magnetometer placed in the non-
magnetic part of the drill string are compared with the
readings of the ECMF model, and sometimes with
the readings of the magnetometer on the surface
(Buchanan et al., 2013; Gvishiani and Lukianova,
2015; 2018). This technol- ogy has surpassed the
traditional one that implies cor- recting the well path
by means of gyroscopic equip- ment, which requires
stopping the drilling process and extracting the drill
string from the well (Buchanan et al., 2013; Onovughe
and Otobong, 2016).
However, as the Earth’s magnetic field can be
impacted by external factors caused by solar f lares,
coronal mass ejections and subsequent geomagnetic
storms and substorms, geomagnetic based navigation
is harder to implement in such periods. And the
higher the latitude is, the more massive these impacts
are due to a dipole configuration of the Earth’s
magneto- sphere. Firstly, the disturbance fields in
subpolar areas are stronger than those in low
latitudes. Secondly, weaker horizontal intensity of
the core field in high latitudes results in a more
significant impact of the horizontal disturbance on
the declination than in low latitudes.
Figure 1 shows hourly average data of magnetic
declination variations obtained at high-latitude geo-
magnetic observatories of INTERMAGNET network
(St-Louis, 2012) Hornsund (IAGA-code HRN, the
Svalbard archipelago, Norway) and Sodankylä
(SOD, Finland) during a severe magnetic storm on
October 29– 30, 2003 (Gvishiani and Lukianova,
IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20
 4 SOLOVIEV et
for the specified period is overlaid with declination
variations obtained during a magnetically quiet
period. The figure shows that the amplitude can
reach 10 during excessive magnetic activity, while
the acceptable deviations of the well borehole
azimuth during direc- tional drilling should not
exceed 1–2 (Gvishiani and Lukianova, 2018). In
order to take account such strong and continuous
variations it is necessary to constantly monitor with
high accuracy the magnetic field at the drilling
location, so that to ensure the current refer- ence
values and permanent correction of readings of the
magnetometer installed on the drill string.
High accuracy monitoring is implemented at
geo- magnetic observatories of INTERMAGNET
stan- dard; they are equipped with magnetometers
record- ing the magnetic field changes much more
accurately than downhole inclinometers do.
Geomagnetic sup- port of the drilling process
requires that the observa- tory is located in close
vicinity to the deposit, but in practice it is far from
that. Today, the transpolar region of Russia has the
following observatories to conduct monitoring of
full values of three components of the magnetic
field: “White Sea” (IAGA-code WSE, the Republic of
Karelia) not far from the western border of the RF
and “Cape Schmidt” (IAGA-code CPS, the Chukotka
Autonomous District) in the far east. The last
decade has witnessed collaborative efforts of sci-
entific institutions of the Russian Federation that
have significantly contributed to the development of
geo- magnetic monitoring sites in high-latitude
areas. For instance, we speak about the quick
development of such observatories as
“Samoilovskii Island” (the Republic of Sakha) and
“Sabetta” on the Yamal Pen- insula by the efforts
of the Geophysical Centre of the Russian Academy
of Sciences, Institute of Oil and Gas Geology and
Geophysics n.a. A.A. Trofimuk of the Siberian
Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 42
3
and Schlumberger (Gvishiani et al., 2018). coordinate system x, y, z, where the x axis is directed
Neverthe- less, the number of magnetic observatories
in Arctic meeting the up-to-date requirements to the
registra- tion and transfer of data is still insufficient.
The main reasons why it is troublesome to develop high
accuracy monitoring sites in Arctic is the location
with tricky access, the lack of the required
infrastructure and the need for full-time personnel.
Besides, all along the Northern Sea Route of the
Russian Federation there is a number of magnetic sta-
tions of the Roshydromet network aimed at
measuring relative variations of the magnetic field.
Yamalo- Nenets Autonomous Okrug also
accommodates a cluster of four operational
magnetic stations main- tained by Pushkov Institute
of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radio
Wave Propagation of the Rus- sian Academy of
Sciences. However, this data is insuf- ficient for the
adequate geomagnetic support of direc- tional
drilling.
This paper contains our numerical experiments
allowing to assess the geomagnetic disturbance impact
on the key parameters of the well drilling paths
during the geomagnetic field navigation. Reference
data are real observations of the magnetic field
during several magnetic storms (2016–2018); these
observations are obtained from the observatories and
stations located in the range from middle to high
latitudes, including the ones inside and outside the
auroral oval. This research goes deeper into the topic
taking into consideration the results presented earlier
in the papers of (Gvishiani and Lukianova, 2015;
2018). The research also demonstrates some
features of the hardware and soft- ware complex
(HSC) MAGNUS (Monitoring and Analysis of
Geomagnetic Anomalies in the Unified System)
(Gvishiani et al., 2016) that contribute to the
correction of readings of the well magnetometer
during magnetic storms.

METHOD OF CALCULATION
OF THE ACTUAL BOREHOLE PROFILE
During directional drilling it is primarily important
to correct the drill string direction. Implementing this
means monitoring the actual well path and its devia-
tion from the planned one. The picture of the actual
well profile is formed by constant measurements of the
magnetic field angular components taken during the
drilling process by the well magnetometer at the end of
the drill string. The taken measurements serve as a
reliable basis for determining the true geographical
azimuth  and the value of deviation of the well
axis from the vertical line (zenith angle ). Besides
the angle measurement, well-logging tools record the
ver- tical depth and total length of the well from its
head to measurement point L at an interval of every
tens of metres along the borehole.
As a coordinate system we will use the rectangular

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 4 SOLOVIEV et
towards the geographic north, the y axis—to the east coordinate increments at leg L in neighbouring
and the z axis—vertically downwards. In this way,
using the telemetric sensors on the drill string we
will study the coordinate changes in this rectangular
sys- tem connected with the well head.
Let us conduct a numeric experiment that will
show us how the actual drilling path will deviate
from the planned one during magnetic field
navigation in the periods of severe magnetic
disturbances. For this purpose, we assume that the
drilling process occurs in close vicinity to the chosen
observatory and the bore- hole inclinometer data
coincides with the observa- tory’s declination data.
We consider the following val- ues similar to the
real ones used in horizontal well drilling
(Kulchitskii et al., 2008):
(1) planned azimuth P of the bored well is
taken equal to the normal value of magnetic
declination DN according to IGRF model (Thébault
et al., 2015) for the chosen location and epoch;
(2) actual well azimuth  constantly measured by
the telemetric system coincides with hourly
averaged declination D continuously recorded at the
observa- tory in the given period;
(3) all measurements are taken from the well sec-
tion starting with its length L0 = 1020 m;
(4) the interval between measurement points is
20 m that are bored by the drill string per hour;
(5)zenith angle  changes evenly between the
mea- surement points at a pace of 0.5 of initial
value 0 = 15.0 at the depth of z0 = 1008 m.
Let us calculate initial coordinates x0 and y0
assum- ing that the well head is located in
coordinates x = 0, y = 0, z = 0. Initial zenith angle 
is assumed to be zero and increased later by 0.3
every 20 m until the required value of 15.0 is
achieved. These parameters are the ones we need to
get the required L0 = 1020 m,
0 = 15.0 and z0 = 1008 m in order to start the
exper- iment. The profile of such a well in vertical
section is shown in Fig. 2. J-shaped well presented
in the figure is the one more often used during
horizontal shelf cluster drilling. With this type of
well the borehole zenith angle constantly increases
until the planned depth or productive stratum is
reached (Bulatov et al., 2003).
The measurements are taken from a limited num-
ber of points, this explains why there are various
ways of obtaining drilling path coordinates between
these points. However, for a spatially deviated well
no matter how often the measurements are taken, it
is preferable in calculations to use the method of
minimal deviation as the one more accurately
describing the borehole path. This method is more
accurate that others that treat the well path as an
aggregate of legs of direct lines (Kondrov and
Shchevelev, 2017). According to this method
(Bliznyukov et al., 2014; Postroenie…, 2010), the

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 42
5
previous and subsequent measurement points i, i+1
along the borehole length are calculated as follows: The coordinate increments are used as a basis for
y  T (sin i sin i  sin i1 sin i1), the further calculation of current coordinates y, x, z
and geometrical parameters of the well: horizontal
x  T (sin i cos i  sin i1 cos i1), deviation A and deviation azimuth  for the ith point
of the well from its head:
z  T (cos i  cos i1),
F yi1  yi  y, xi1  xi  x, zi1  zi  z,
Ltan
where: T  2 and yi
A  x2  y2,   arc tan .
F i i i i
xi
F  arccos(sin i sin i sin i1 sin i1 The angle of the borehole spatial deviation  at
 sin i cos i sin i1 cos i1  cos i cos i1). interval (i, i+1) and borehole deviation intensity J
In these formulae, values  and  are specified at the interval between the measurement points are
in degrees, F value—in radians. cal- culated according to the following formulae:

i  arcsin [sin i1 cos i cos(i1  i )  sin i cos i1]2  sin2 i1 sin2(i1  i ),

Ji  10 i ,
L

where Ji is the deviation intensity at section L, support of institutions of the Russian Academy of Sci-
degree/10 m. ences and are members of INTERMAGNET interna-
All specified values are calculated in parallel for tional network, thus making the magnetic field obser-
the reference profile of the well during undisturbed vations more accurate. In real practice of drilling, only
period (P = DN) and the actual profile during these data complies with the acceptable deviations
disturbed field period ( = D) in order to assess and, therefore, can be used as reference ones during
their differences. In addition, each step i is magnetic field navigation. This research also involves
accompanied with an assess- ment of deviation of the data from CPS observatory developed by the Insti-
the actual position from the planned one: tute of Cosmophysical Research and Radio Wave
Propagation, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian
Si  (yi  yP,i )2  (xi  xP,i )2  (zi  zP,i )2. Academy of Sciences (Khomutov, 2018). All men-
tioned observatories are included in the Russian seg-
ment of geomagnetic observations (Gvishiani et al.,
SOURCE DATA OF GEOMAGNETIC The mentioned middle latitude observatories YAK,
OBSERVATIONS MGD, NVS, PET, IRT and KHB operate under the
In order to assess deviations of the actual well
from the planned one during drilling in the period of a
geo- magnetic storm an aggregate of data from
fourteen geomagnetic observatories and stations in
the RF ter- ritory has been analyzed (Table 1). Table
1 contains their list and the type of each
monitoring site: “О” stands for an observatory,
“С”—for a station. Each location is provided with
normal (undisturbed) value of declination DN for
2016–2018. The chosen set of monitoring sites
makes it possible to study the patterns of deviations in
well parameters in the broad spatial range from
middle to high latitudes (stations and observatories
in Table 1 are put in descending order of the
geographical latitude). It is worth-mentioning that
some stations in question are located within the auro-
ral oval, close to its equatorial and polar boundaries
and northward of its polar boundary (Fig. 3).
IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20
 4 SOLOVIEV et
2018) and ensure the transfer of data to the Shared
Research Facility “Analytical Geomagnetic Data
Center” of the Geophysical Centre of the Russian
Academy of Sciences (http://geomag.gcras.ru).
As latitude increases the impact of subpolar elec-
trojets on ground magnetic field variations becomes
stronger; this is why we also consider the data from
high-latitude magnetic stations VIZ, KTN, DIK,
TIK, PBK and AMD. Operation of these stations is
supported by Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute
of Roshydromet and the data is available via web-
portal of the SuperMAG network (https://super-
mag.jhuapl.edu/). We have also studied the data
from KHS station included in the cluster of
monitoring sites of Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial
Magnetism, Iono- sphere and Radio Wave
Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences
in the territory of Yamalo- Nenets Autonomous
Okrug (Salikhov et al., 2010; Zaitsev and Lobanov,
2018).
Observatory data consists of time series of full
val- ues of three components of the magnetic field
X (northern component), Y (eastern component)
and Z

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 42
7
(vertical component). Aiming at the absolute hourly 0
average values of the magnetic declination D we make
the following calculation:
D t   arctan Y t  X t ,
were t is the time stamp with an interval of 1 minute.
200
The task becomes more complicated when dealing
with the data from magnetic stations providing only
field component variations regarding some “floating”
baseline. This data can be used for deriving only
approximate full values of the field, including the
magnetic declination. In our study, for assessment of 400
relative deviations of the well profile from the refer-
ence one includes such approximate values are suffi-
cient; however, in real drilling practice requiring a
true azimuth value their accuracy is unacceptable.
Below we describe the procedure for deriving the 600
magnetic field approximate values based on intensity
compo- nent variations dH (along the direction to
the mag- netic north) and dE (along the direction
to the mag- netic east).

Depth,
Source data dH and dE minus the average daily 800
baseline taken for the studied day time intervals.
According to IGRF model (Thébault et al., 2015)
the
normal values of the horizontal component H0 and
magnetic field declination D0 are calculated for the 1000 L0 = 1020 m
geodetic coordinates (latitude, longitude and altitude)
of location of each monitoring site for the considered
epoch. In order to calculate the magnetic
declination variation dD(t) the following formula is
used:
 dE t   1200
dD t   arctan .
 
 dH t 
H 
Full magnetic declination is calculated as follows:
D t   D0  dD t  .
The hourly average values are obtained by averag- 1400
ing with the Gaussian filter coefficients used when
preparing the INTERMAGNET data (Jankowski and
Sucksdorff, 1996; St-Louis, 2012). During the averag-
ing we use values from minute 0 to minute 59 of an hour
and the filter coefficients are centred on minute 30: 1600
0 100 200 300
  30  t  
2
m
 
15.90062182 
f t   e 2 . Fig. 2. Vertical section of a model well profile. Black circles
are control points for assessing the drilling route parameters.
Filter coefficients are normalized against the per activity indices corresponding to them: planetary
cent of available data. If losses exceed 10% an hour,
then the corresponding hourly average value is
consid- ered absent.
We consider four magnetic storms that have
occurred at the stage of decline in activity of the
24th solar cycle from 2016 to 2018 as the disturbed
magnetic field periods. Information about the men-
tioned storms is presented in Table 2. The table also
includes the maximum values of two geomagnetic
IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20
4 SOLOVIEV et

index Dst characterizing the intensity of the ring cur-

rent and AE auroral electrojet index. Please mind
that all storms in question are moderate and not
extreme in nature.
Based on the source data of hourly average values
of declination for each monitoring site during each
studied storm a daily interval with maximum activity
has been singled out. The chosen intervals are given
in the right column of Table 2. In the case of high-
lati-

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 42
9

VIZ

AMD CPS
DIKKTNPBK

KHS
TIK

MGD
NVS PET
YAK

IRT
KHB

Fig. 3. Map of the considered observatories and stations marked with stars. Auroral oval is built according to OVATION empiric
model (Newell et al., 2014), the corresponding web service is available at http://aurora-forecast.ru/ (Vorobev et al., 2020). Oval
position is for December 24, 2020, 16:00 UT.

Table 1. Geomagnetic observatories and stations provided data for the research
Geographical coordinates, deg Geomagnetic coordinates, deg DN,
No. Code Type Name
latitude longitude latitude longitude deg
1 VIZ С Vize 79.48 76.98 74.7 156.12 44
2 KTN С Kotelny 75.94 137.71 70.98 –157.19 –16.2
3 DIK С Dikson 73.55 80.57 69.36 156.64 30.8
4 TIK С Tiksi 71.58 129 66.7 –161.29 –17.1
5 KHS С Kharasavey 71.16 66.83 63.02 152.27 29
6 PBK С Pevek 70.1 170.9 65.94 –128.74 –2.15
7 AMD С Amderma 69.5 61.4 65.85 138.2 26.7
8 CPS О Mys Shmidta 68.878 –179.37 64.41 –126.51 2.7
9 YAK О Yakutsk 60.02 129.72 54.88 –157.4 –20.2
10 MGD О Magadan 59.97 150.86 54.3 –139.32 –13.45
11 NVS О Novosibirsk 55.03 82.9 51.26 156.55 8.25
12 PET О Paratunka 52.97 158.25 46.73 –132.07 –6.1
13 IRT О Irkutsk 52.17 104.45 47.79 178.45 –3.55
14 KHB О Khabarovsk 47.61 134.69 41.44 –151.91 –12.75

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 4 SOLOVIEV et
Table 2. Information about the studied geomagnetic storms and daily intervals chosen for the research
No. Storm period Dstmin, nT AEmax, nT Considered interval
1 March 6–8, 2016 –98 1428 AMD, CPS, PBK: March 6, 2016
The others: March 7, 2016
2 October 12–14, 2016 –104 1992 October 13, 2016
3 September 6–11, 2017 –124 2677 AMD: September 7, 2017
The others: September 8, 2017
4 August 25–28, 2018 –174 2200 TIK: August 27, 2018
The others: August 26, 2018

tude stations the main part of disturbances chosen for calcu- lated for each parameter and each
study is connected with intensification of auroral monitoring site:
elec- trojets at the time of substorm activity. As far as
middle latitude observatories are concerned, the
studied dis- turbance of the geomagnetic field is
largely related to the main phase of magnetic
storms.

ASSESSMENT OF DEVIATIONS
OF PARAMETERS OF WELLS
DURING MAGNETIC STORMS
DEPENDING ON THE LATITUDE
Figure 4 shows the most critical parameters spe-
cific for the directional drilling path. An example is
given in the form of results obtained during a
magnetic storm on September 6–11, 2017 (a daily
period is stud- ied for each monitoring site according
to Table 2). Fig- ure caption provides more details.
Similar data is obtained from all studied
monitoring sites for all four storms. Unfortunately, for
some of the storms the data sets from several
monitoring sites were incomplete. When comparing
the diagrams of actual path parameters of the well
with the planned ones for the undisturbed period, it
is clear that as latitude increases for the majority of
key parameters the differ- ence between the planned
and actual profiles becomes larger. Significant
deviations of the well path parame- ters as the
latitude increases are particularly visible for S, , , J
and less for dy.
It is worth mentioning that such differences are
demonstrated taking a small 500-m well section laid
during 1 day as an example. Due to an intense
variable nature of the magnetic field in high
latitudes both in time and in space, these deviations
can repeat while the well is being laid. These
differences are most criti- cal for the well azimuth
angle () and borehole devia- tion intensity at 10 m
(J). For instance, in high lati- tudes (where VIZ,
KTN, DIK, TIK, KHS and AMD are located) the
actual azimuth angles of the well reach unacceptable
values for the periods of all studied mag- netic
storms.
In order to make a comprehensive assessment of
the latitude influence on deviations of the studied
well parameters, the following statistical indices are
IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20
 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 43
norm L1, norm L2, the maximum deviation over 1
the studied period and standard deviation (SD).
Figure 5 presents the diagrams of distribution of
norm L1 for storm No. 1, norm L2 for storm No. 2,
maximum deviations for storm No. 3 and SD for
storm No. 4, put in descending order of the latitude.
On the diagrams with maximum deviations (Fig.
5c) a horizontal line shows maximum acceptable
deviations adopted in drilling practice for the
corresponding parameters of the well. Notably, a
common declining trend with the longitude
decrease is observed for each statistical index
related to almost all well parameters for all four
storms.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Norm L1 histograms drawn for storm No. 1 (Fig.
5a) show that values of the well path parameters
increase rather sharply (in some cases—by one
order) when moving from middle latitudes to high
ones in relation to such parameters as dy, S and ,
starting with the lat- itude of KHS station. In
relation to the same parame- ters, but for dy, a
similar sharp increase is observed in L2 norm
histograms showing the results for storm No. 2 (Fig.
5b). This regularity of latitudinal distribu- tion of
values can be explained by a significant differ- ence
between the level of geomagnetic disturbance in the
area of aurora (with ionospheric currents being the
main reason for creating this local disturbance) and
in lower latitudes. Norm L1 histograms do not
allow to define any clear regularities separately for
values in high- and mid-latitude areas. Norm L2
demonstrates a slightly declining trend when the
latitude decreases in relation to the values within the
mid-latitude range; however, there is no regularity
traced either in the high-latitude segment or in such
values of norm L1.
Unlike statistical indices of norms L1 and L2,
the latitudinal distribution of which is more stepwise
when crossing the auroral oval, the aggregate
latitudinal dependences of maximum deviations of
the well path parameters from the planned ones
during storm No. 3 (Fig. 5c) have a kind of
distribution with a well-shaped peak that
corresponds to the DIK station latitude. Almost all
of them are characterized with a decline having
exponential traits, extending to the mid-lati-

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

4 SOLOVIEV et
VIZ, September 8, 2017 (79.48, 76.98)
dY, m S, m , deg , deg J, deg/10 m
50 45.2
6 1.0 45.0 0.8
5 45 44.8 0.6
4 0.5 0.4
3 44.6
0 40 0.2
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
1500 1500 1500 1500
DIK, September 8, 2017 (73.55, 80.57)
6 8 45 32.5 3
5 6 40 32.0 2
4 4 35 31.5
3 2 30 31.0 1
2 0 25 30.5 0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
1500 1500
1500 1500
TIK, September 8, 2017 (71.58, 129.00)
–1.5 4 – – 1.
–2.0 3 14 17.0 0
2 – – 0.8
–2.5 1 16 17.2 0.6
0 – – 0.4
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 18 1100 1200 1300 1400 17.4 1100 1200 1300 1400 0.2 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
–20 –
1500 –22 1500 17.6 1500
1500
–
17.8
KHS, September 8, 2017 (71.16, 66.83)
5 3 30.0
32 0.8
4 2 29.5 0.6
30
3 1 28 29.0 0.4
2 0 26 28.5 0.2
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
AMD, September 7, 2017 (69.50, 61.40)
5 1.5 32 27.3 0.5
4 1.0 30 27.2 0.4
28 27.
3 0.5 1 0.3
26
0 27.0 0.2
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 26.9 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
1500 1500 1500 1500
CPS, September 8, 2017 (68.88, –179.37)
0.4 2.6 0.40
0.3 1.0 4 0.35
2.5
0.2 0.5 2 2.4 0.30
0.1 0 2.3 0.25
0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
1500 1500 1500 1500
YAK, September 8, 2017 (60.02, 129.72)
–1.5 0.8
–2.0 0.6 – –20.40 0.260
–2.5 0.4 18 0.255
–20.45
–3.0 0.2 –20
–20.50 0.250
–3.5 0 –22
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
1500 1500 1500 1500
NVS, September 8, 2017 (55.03, 82.90)
1.4 8.35
0.6 0.27
1.2 10 8.30
0.4 8.25
1.0 0.2 8 0.26
0.8 8.20 0.25
0 6 8.15
1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
1500 1500 1500 1500
IRT, September 8, 2017 (52.17, 104.45)
–0.3 0.15 –3.72
–0.4 –2 –3.74 0.254
0.10
–0.5 0.05 –4 –3.76 0.252
–0.6 0 –6 –3.78
–3.80 0.250
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
L, m L, m L, m L, m L, m

Fig. 4. Model well trajectory parameters along the borehole length L (horizontal axis) while drilling during a magnetic storm on
September 6–11, 2017 (from the left to the right): coordinate increment y (dy, m), deviation from the planned coordinates (S,
m), well azimuth (, degrees), displacement azimuth (, degrees) and deviation intensity per 10 m (J, degrees/10 m). The
planned values of parameters are shown in white circles, the actual ones—in black. Horizontal lines on the well azimuth
diagrams are allowed deviation limits. The diagrams are ordered from the top to the bottom according to the decreasing latitude
of monitoring sites, whose data has been used to calculate the actual parameters of the well. Geographical coordinates (latitude
and longitude) are put in brackets. Each diagram shows the values obtained during one day and equivalent to about 500 m of
the laid well.

tude area and more clearly expressed for parameters S, per 10 m parameter starts exceeding critically above
 and J. Well azimuth histogram for storm No. 3 70 of northern latitude (TIK observatory).
shows that the acceptable level of deviation during geo- In a number of cases, peak values in the high-lati-
magnetic disturbance is exceeded as early as in the tude area are also typical for SD of the studied param-
lati- tudes above YAK observatory (60 of northern eters (Fig. 5d). SD peak values for the aggregate latitu-
latitude). Moreover, the borehole deviation intensity
IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20
 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 43
dinal dependences S and  are again attributed mostly 3
to KHS station latitude, while the SD peak values
for the aggregate latitudinal dependence of J
parameter are attributed to TIK station latitude.
Peak values of histograms are also likely to
correspond to the auroral oval boundary in the
studied period of time. SD of dy and  parameters
increases rapidly when approaching the high-latitude
segment, while in the mid-latitude area it decreases
to the minimum values and remains there practically
unchanged.
Studying all obtained histograms has revealed a
com- mon declining trend when the longitude
decreases for each statistical index in relation to
practically each well

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 4 SOLOVIEV et
Norm L1 (dY) (a) Norm L1 (S)
4.0 35

3.5 30
3.0
25
2.5
20
2.0
15
1.5
10
1.0

0.5 5
0 0
VIZ DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT VIZ DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT
Storm

KTN TIK PBK CPS MGD PET KHB KTN TIK PBK CPS MGD PET KHB

Norm L1 () Norm L1 () Norm L1 (J)

35 8 3.0

30 7
2.5
6
25
2.0
5
20
4 1.5
15
3
1.0
10
2
5 0.5
1
0 0 0
VIZ DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT VIZ DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT VIZ DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT
KTN TIK PBK CPS MGD PET KHB KTN TIK PBK CPS MGD PET KHB KTN TIK PBK CPS MGD PET KHB
Norm L2 (dY) Norm L2 (S)
1.0
(b) 7
0.9
6
0.8
0.7 5
0.6
4
0.5
0.4 3
0.3 2
0.2
0.1 1
0 0
VIZ TIK PBK CPS MGD PET KHB VIZ TIK PBK CPS MGD PET KHB
Storm

DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT

Norm L2 () Norm L2 () Norm L2 (J)

9 1.4 1.4
8
1.2 1.2
7
1.0 1.0
6
5 0.8 0.8

4 0.6 0.6
3
0.4 0.4
2
1 0.2 0.2
0
VIZ TIK 0 0
PBK CPS MGD PET KHB VIZ TIK PBK CPS MGD PET KHB VIZ TIK PBK CPS MGD PET KHB
DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT DIK KHS AMD YAK NVS IRT

Fig. 5. The aggregate statistical indices obtained for each parameter of the well (dy, S, , , J), monitoring site and storm: (а) norm
L1 for storm No. 1; (b) norm L2 for storm No. 2; (c) maximum deviations for storm No. 3 and (d) SD for storm No. 4.
Horizontally, monitoring sites are arranged according to the decreasing latitude. On the diagrams with maximum deviations (c)
a horizontal line shows maximum allowed deviations for the corresponding parameters of the well.

parameter for all four storms. Moreover, when or

entering the mid-latitude area all statistical indices are
character- ized by a trend change to a constant one
with minimum deviation values.
Practically in all cases, when latitudinal depen-
dences demonstrate a clearly shaped peak, the latter
is positioned in the latitudes of location of DIK, TIK

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 43
KHS stations, which approximately correspond to 5
the positions of the auroral oval. However, due to
certain variations of the oval position in time and
due to spa- tial and time variations of geomagnetic
disturbances caused by subpolar electrojets, the
latitudinal depen- dence peaks change not only for
different storms but also for different parameters
over a single storm (for

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

4 SOLOVIEV et
Max dev. (dY) Max dev. (S)
0.8 (c) 7

0.7 6
0.6
5
0.5
4
0.4
3
0.3
2
0.2

0.1 1
0
VIZ TIK AMD YAK 0
NVS IRT VIZ TIK AMD YAK NVS IRT
Storm

DIK KHS CPS MGD PET KHB DIK KHS CPS MGD PET KHB

Max dev. Max dev. Max dev. (J)

() 1.4 2.5
()
14
1.2
2.0
12
1.0
10 1.5
0.8
8
0.6 1.0
6
0.4
4 0.5
0.2
2
0
VIZ TIK AMD YAK 0 0
NVS IRT VIZ TIK AMD YAK NVS IRT VIZ TIK AMD YAK NVS IRT
DIK KHS CPS MGD PET KHB DIK KHS CPS MGD PET KHB DIK KHS CPS MGD PET KHB

SD (dY) SD (S)
0.14 (d) 2.0
1.8
0.12
1.6
0.10 1.4

0.08 1.2
1.0
0.06 0.8
0.04 0.6
0.4
0.02
0.2
0 0
VIZ KHS VIZ KHS YAK NVS
YAK NVS IRT IRT
Storm

TIK CPS MGD PET KHB TIK CPS MGD PET KHB

SD () SD () SD (J)

1.5 0.50 0.08
0.45 0.07
0.40
0.06
1.0 0.35
0.30 0.05

0.25 0.04
0.20 0.03
0.5
0.15
0.02
0.10
0.05 0.01
0 0 0
VIZ KHS VIZ KHS YAK NVS VIZ KHS YAK NVS
YAK NVS IRT IRT IRT
TIK CPS MGD PET KHB TIK CPS MGD PET KHB TIK CPS MGD PET KHB

Fig. 5. (Contd.).

instance, SD peak value for J parameter in Fig. 5d). location of this station from the auroral oval and,
Besides, in certain cases the deviations for the consequently, by a smaller impact of the ionospheric
latitude of location of VIZ, the most northern current magnetic field.
station of all studied ones, are smaller than those at
stations located in lower latitudes (DIK, TIK,
KHS…). This fact can be explained by quite a remote

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 43
Horizontal wells with a large deviation radius 7
may be built for cluster drilling on land and offshore, as
well as for drilling single wells with a significant
length of the horizontal section. For such wells,
standard tech- niques and technology of directional
drilling are used, as they make it possible to ensure
the maximum devi- ation intensity (0.7–2 per 10 m
of laying). The gen- erally accepted deviation intensity
per 10 m should not

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

4 SOLOVIEV et
KLI (1-min pre)
13.95
13.90 X
13.85
X

13.80
13.75
Measure of anomalousness
0.5
mu_min_

0
–0.5

15 dB/dt
10
dbdt_h_

5
0
–5
–10
120
100 Hourly amplitude
amp_h_

80
60
40
20
0
6
5 Operational K index
4
k_3h

3
2
1
0
May 10, May 11, 2019 May 12, 2019 May 13, 2019 May 14, May 15, May 16, 2019
2019 00:00 00:00 00:00 2019 2019 00:00
00:00 00:00 00:00
Fig. 6. An example of multicriteria identification of the magnetic activity in real time based on the source observational
data (upper diagram) received by the Shared Research Facility “Analytical Geomagnetic Data Center”: Klimovskaya
observatory (Arkhangelsk region), event of May 11–15, 2019 (http://geomag.gcras.ru). Light gray stands for background
values of the initial magnetic record, gray for insignificant anomalies, dark gray for anomalies, black for strong anomalies.

600 (a)
KHS
E component,

400

200

Aug. 30, 2017 Aug. 31, 2017 Sept. 1, 2017 Sept. 2, 2017 Sept. 3, 2017
>1500 KHS (b)

1000
E component,

500

0
<–500
Sept. 7, 2017 Sept. 8, 2017 Sept. 9, 2017 Sept. 10, 2017 Sept. 11, 2017 Sept. 12, 2017
Fig. 7. Initial data marking (E component data) by the geomagnetic activity identification system HSC MAGNUS for KHS
sta- tion for (a) August 30–September 2 and (b) September 7–11, 2017. August 30, 2017 was defined by the system as the last
magnet- ically quiet day before the storm started on September 7, 2017 (in the rectangle). Colour markings correspond to the
anomalous- ness measure values and denote the same as in Fig. 6.
IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20
 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 43
9
4.5
4.0 0.4
0.3
3.5
dY,

0.2

S,
3.0 0.1
2.5 0
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
L, m L, m
32
29.10
30
29.05
,

28

,
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
26 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 29.00 L, m
L, m
0.254

0.252
J, deg/10

0.250

0.248
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
L, m

Fig. 8. Well model parameters based on the data from KHS station for a magnetically quiet period on August 30, 2017. The mark-
ings are identical to those in Fig. 4.

exceed 1.5/10 m of laying (Bulatov et al., 2003). The

studied examples demonstrate that the
corresponding values exceed the acceptable deviation
limits (marked by horizontal lines in Fig. 5c). In
high latitudes, the borehole deviation intensity per 10
m reaches the value of almost 2.5 degrees per 10 m,
which is unacceptable in practice. As mentioned
above, the other parameter having unacceptable values
in high latitudes is the actual azimuth of the well. In the
periods of all studied magnetic storms its values exceed
the limits practically at all high- latitude stations (for
instance, see Fig. 5c).
In order to record rapid variations of the Earth’s
mag- netic field covered by this paper, the Shared
Research Facility “Analytical Geomagnetic Data
Center” has implemented a set of mathematical
algorithms allow- ing to track magnetic activity based
on the initial data in an automatic mode and in real
time (Gvishiani et al., 2016, 2018). Figure 6 illustrates
an example of multi- criteria recognition on the
basis of for the data from Klimovskaya observatory
(Soloviev et al., 2016) and using the artificial
intelligence algorithms. The upper diagram shows the
initial data time series for X compo- nent for the
magnetic storm period, and the second diagram
demonstrates the developed measure of
anomalousness marking the anomalous fragments on
the initial record (Soloviev et al., 2016). The third,
fourth and fifth diagrams show additional geomag-
netic activity indicators: rate of geomagnetic field
change, maximum amplitude within the 1-hour win-
dow and the operational K-index of the geomagnetic
activity. The presented algorithms are part of HSC
MAGNUS that is the core of the analytical centre
(Gvishiani et al., 2016). The obtained information may
be used for the correction of readings during magnetic
storms for a magnetometer installed on the drill string.
The paper of (Soloviev and Smirnov, 2018)
describes the contemporary methods of automated
selection of magnetically quiet days both regionally
(for a separate observatory) and globally (for the whole
set of observatories worldwide). These methods are also
connected with the aforementioned algorithm of plot-
ting the measure of anomalousness (Oshchenko et al.,
2020) and make it possible to identify magnetically
quiet days with a delay of less than a day. Let us
demonstrate the work of the system combining these
algorithms of magnetic activity recognition and iden-
tification of magnetically quiet days, taking as an
example the data from KHS observatory for 2017, when
storm No. 3 occurred (Table 2). When the storm
began (September 7, 2017), the last magnetically
quiet day determined by the system was August 30
(Fig. 7a, square area). The picture shows that all
minute values

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 4 SOLOVIEV et
for that day were classified as background (light gray trajectory parameters of the well during storms and
colour). Later, all extremities of the magnetic are aimed at illustrating the impact of geomagnetic
storm, the main phase of which occurred on disturbances on
September 7–8, were successfully identified in the
initial data by the mag- netic activity recognition system
(Fig. 7b, dark gray and black colours). It was them that
gave rise to unaccept- able deviations of the actual
azimuth () of the well illustrated in Fig. 4 and Fig.
5. It means that at every moment of time the
operator has complete and updated information
about the current level of mag- netic activity and the
quiet level of magnetic field spe- cific for the region
and time. This data helps to make an immediate
study of the field deviations from its quiet level in
order to make further decisions. The cal- culated
parameters of the well as of August 30, 2017 are shown
in Fig. 8. The figure shows that the deviations from
the planned parameters in this case are minimal, and
this fact proves that (HSC) MAGNUS automated
recognition system is efficient.
In all our examples when we calculated the
planned parameters of the profile we used for the
sake of con- venience a quasi-constant IGRF model-
based value of normal declination and assumed
that all distur- bances were caused solely by space
weather events. And unacceptable values exceeding
the limits of acceptable deviations were those of
azimuth (Fig. 4, Fig. 5c). In practice, geomagnetic
data from well incli- nometer survey are also severely
impacted by failures of the measurement equipment,
external forces gener- ated by neighbouring
boreholes, magnetic minerals in the mud f lush,
magnetized rocks and other anomalies (Poedjono et
al., 2013). In such conditions it is of top priority to
control the quality of data received from the bore and
update the data in view of the specified anomalies.
Such work is done by means of incessant comparison
of the aforementioned data with the refer- ence ones
from the magnetic observatory located nearby. In
order to verify the geomagnetic measure- ments
received from the drill string and, as a result, to gain
more accuracy of geomagnetic referencing, decli-
nation data recorded at the observatory is used as
refer- ence ones, not semipermanent values, according
to gen- eral practice. In this case, maximum deviations
are calcu- lated on the basis of actual values variable in
time.

CONCLUSIONS
High-technology approaches to the development
of natural resources require up-to-date achievements
in the fields of metrology, mathematic modelling,
methods of processing of large volumes of data and
their interpretation. Directional drilling is largely
dependent on high-accuracy measurements of the
Earth’s magnetic field variations both in terms of
space and time, as well as on their further analysis.
The results of the numerical experiments
described in this paper are related to the modelling of

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 44
the directional drilling process. Practically for all laid path and to neighbouring wells in the case1of
storms we have studied, during the maximum distur- cluster drilling. Magnetic disturbances
bance with increasing geomagnetic latitudes the ana-
lyzed statistic values of the borehole parameters and
their deviations become more numerous. In some
cases a sharp increase is seen when crossing the auroral
oval boundary. Maximum and mean square
deviations of statistical characteristics of trajectory
parameters have clearly expressed peaks in the
latitude corre- sponding to the auroral oval position.
All studied cases show that the statistical values are
high in the high-lati- tude segment and much lower in
the range of middle lat- itudes.
Deviations of actual parameters of the well
from the planned ones are demonstrated taking as
an exam- ple a small 500-m well section laid during 1
day. Due to active variations of the magnetic field
in high lati- tudes both in time and in space, these
deviations can repeat while the well is being laid.
These differences are most critical for the well
azimuth angle () and borehole deviation
intensity at 10 m (J).
It has been shown that in high latitudes (where
the VIZ, KTN, DIK, TIK, KHS and AMD stations are
located) the actual azimuth angles of the well have
unacceptable deviations (exceeding 2 degrees from
the planned value) for the periods of all studied
magnetic storms. The given examples also prove that
in high lat- itudes the borehole deviation intensity
per 10 m reaches the value of almost 2.5 degrees
per 10 m, which is unacceptable in practice.
It is worth mentioning that the source data and
modelling results in all cases have been impacted
mainly by the magnetic declination variability level
during geomagnetic disturbances and such level may
be significant even when the total intensity of the
stud- ied magnetic storm is not high if compared,
for instance, with the strongest storms of a solar
cycle.
Consequently, directional drilling of wells
requires a tight control of the drill string direction
under- ground, and especially stringent control is
needed over drilling in the Arctic Region. Rapid
magnetic field variations are measured in real time
by high accuracy magnetometric equipment as part
of the high-tech- nology process of hydrocarbon
production in the Arc- tic Region. The key solution
to the problem of con- trolling the directional
drilling parameters is found in parallel independent
monitoring of geomagnetic vari- ations at
observatories located directly in the drilling area
with the involvement of modern mathematical
methods of data analysis in real time.
This paper has described the impact of
geomag- netic space weather on the data of
underground decli- nation survey. However, in the
real practice of drilling operations there exist other
sources substantially dis- torting the obtained
measurements. Among them high priority is given to
magnetized rocks that are always found along the

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 4 SOLOVIEV et
caused by them must be taken into account and the posvyashch. 90-letiyu so dnya rozhd. akad. N.P. Laverova
obtained measurements must be correspondingly (Proc. All- Russ. Conf. with Int. Particip. “Global
updated for correct magnetic field navigation. In this Problems of the
regard, the only possible solution is found in the mag-
netic field reference data that is recorded simultane-
ously at the magnetic observatory located nearby.
All these facts make it crucial to develop and main-
tain stationary continuous geomagnetic observations
in high-latitude areas. Another important aspect mak-
ing this problem actual is the need for high-quality
geomagnetic data for fundamental research of the
geo- magnetism and solar-terrestrial physics. From
this viewpoint, the task may be solved by active
scientific and technical cooperation among academic
research institutes and industrial organizations
working in the gas and oil field; such cooperation will
result in creat- ing a denser network of modern
geomagnetic observa- tories in the Arctic Region of
the Russian Federation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The results presented in this paper rely on data collected at
magnetic observatories. We thank the national institutes that
support them and INTERMAGNET for promoting high
stan- dards of magnetic observatory practice
(www.intermagnet.org), as well as to the Interregional
Centre of Geomagnetic Data of the Geophysical Centre of
the Russian Academy of Sciences (http://geomag.gcras.ru)
for the free distribution of the data. The authors of this
paper are also thankful to Super- MAG international
project for the free distribution of the data of the world
network of magnetic variational stations
(https://supermag.jhuapl.edu/). The authors express grati-
tude towards V.E. Chinkin and D.V. Kudin for their
assistance in preparing the source data, as well as towards
two reviewers who have made valuable comments to this
paper. This work employed data and services provided by
the Shared Research Facility “Analytical Geomagnetic
Data Center” of the Geo- physical Center of RAS
(http://ckp.gcras.ru/).

FUNDING
This paper is prepared under a state assignment of the
Geophysical Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences
approved by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education
of the Russian Federation.

REFERENCES
Bliznyukov, V.Yu., Povalikhin, A.S., and Kein, S.A., Ra-
schet i korrektirovanie traektorii skvazhiny pri burenii. Metod-
ologicheskiye ukazaniya (Calculation and Adjustment of the
Well Drilling Route. Methodological Guidelines), Ukhta:
UGTU, 2014.
Bogoyavlenskii, V.I., Fundamental problems of prospect-
ing, exploration, and management of fossil fuel resources in
the Arctic and Sub-Arctic Regions of Russia (plenary
pre- sentation), Sb. mater. Vseross. konf. s mezhdunar.
uchastiyem “Global’nyye problemy Arktiki i Antarktiki,”
IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20
 ON THE NEED FOR ACCURATE MONITORING OF THE GEOMAGNETIC FIELD 44
Arctic and Antarctica” on the 90th Anniv. of Birth of https://doi.org/10.1002/2014sw001056 3
Acad. Ogó rek, I., Grzegorzewski, M., and Maciejowski, M., The
N.P. Laverov), Nov. 2–5, 2020, Arkhangelsk, pp. 20–25. use of magnetic field and magnetometers in supporting the
Buchanan, A., Finn, C.A., Love, J.J., Worthington, air nav- igation, Annual of Navigation, 2015, vol. 22, pp. 21–
E.W., Lawson, F., Maus, S., Okewunmi, S., and 29. https://doi.org/10.1515/aon-2015-0018
Poedjono, B, Geomagnetic referencing—the real-time
compass for direc- tional drillers, Oilfield Review, 2013, vol.
25, no. 1, pp. 32–47.
Bulatov, A.I., Proselkov, Yu.M., and Shamanov, S.A.,
Tekhni- ka i tekhnologiya bureniya neftyanykh i gazovykh
skvazhin: Uchebnik dlya vuzov (Technique and Technology
of Drilling Oil and Gas Wells: Textbook for Universities),
Moscow: Nedra–Biznestsentr, 2003.
Dorovskikh, I.V., Zhivaeva, V.V., and Vorobiev, S.V., Pos-
troenie proektnogo i fakticheskogo profiley skvazhiny.
Metodolo- gicheskie ukazaniya (Plotting of the Planned
and Actual Profiles of the Well, Methodological
Guidelines), Samara: Samara State Technical University,
2010, p. 50.
Gvishiani, A.D. and Lukianova, R.Yu., Estimating the in-
fluence of geomagnetic disturbances on the trajectory of
the directional drilling of deep wells in the Arctic
region, Izv., Phys. Solid Earth, 2018, vol. 54, no. 4, pp.
554–564.
Gvishiani, A.D. and Lukianova, R.Yu., Geomagnetic
field analysis and directional drilling accuracy problem
in the Arctic region, Gorn. Zh., 2015, no. 10, pp. 94–99.
https://doi.org/10.17580/gzh.2015.10.17
Gvishiani, A., Soloviev, A., Krasnoperov, R., and
Lukiano- va, R., Automated hardware and software
system for moni- toring the earth’s magnetic
environment, Data Science Journal, 2016, vol. 15, p.
18.
https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2016-018
Gvishiani, A.D., Soloviev, A.A., Sidorov, R.V.,
Krasnope- rov, R.I., Grudnev, A.A., Kudin, D.V.,
Karapetyan, D.K., and Simonyan, A.O., Successes of the
organization of geo- magnetic monitoring in Russia and
the near abroad, Vest. Otdel. Nauk o Zemle RAN, 2018,
vol. 10, no. NZ4001.
https://doi.org/10.2205/2018NZ000357
Jankowski, J. and Sucksdorff, C., Guide for magnetic mea-
surements and observatory practice, Warsaw: IAGA, 1996.
Khomutov, S.Y., International project INTERMAGNET
and magnetic observatories of Russia: cooperation
and progress, Proc. IX International Conference “Solar-
Terrestri- al Relations and Physics of Earthquake
Precursors,” E3S Web of Conferences, 2018, vol. 62.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20186202008
Kondrov, N.S. and Shchevelev, A.A., Directional
drilling calculation methods review, Mod. Probl. Sci.
Educ., 2017, no. 22 (104), pp. 24–29.
Kulchitskii, V.V., Grigashkin, G.A., Larionov, A.S., and
Shchebetov, A.V., Geonavigatsiya skvazhin. Uchebnoye poso-
bie (Well Geosteering. Educational Guidance), Moscow:
MAKS Press, 2008.
Meyers, H. and Davis, W., A profile of the geomagnetic
model user and abuser, J. Geomag. Geoelectr., 1990, vol.
42, pp. 1079–1085.
Newell, P.T., Liou, K., Zhang, Y. et al., OVATION
Prime- 2013: Extension of auroral precipitation model
to higher disturbance levels, Space Weather, 2014, vol.
12, no. 6,
pp. 368–379.

IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID Vol. No. 20

 4 SOLOVIEV et
Onovughe, E. and Otobong, T., Geomagnetic referencing
techniques as vital directional reference in hydrocarbon
drilling, JMESS, 2016, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 836–841.
Oshchenko, A.A., Sidorov, R.V., Soloviev, A.A. and Solo-
vieva, E.N., Overview of anomality measure application for
estimating geomagnetic activity, Geofiz. Issled., 2020,
vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 51–69.
https://doi.org/10.21455/gr2020.4-4
Pasku, V., De Angelis, A., De Angelis, G., Arumugam,
D.D., Dionigi, M., Carbone, P., Moschitta, A., and
Ricketts, D.S., Magnetic field based positioning systems,
IEEE Communi- cations Surveys & Tutorials, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2017.2684087
Poedjono, B., Beck, N., Buchanan, A., Borri, L., Maus, S.,
Finn, C., Worthington, E.W., and White, T., Improved
geo- magnetic referencing in the Arctic environment, SPE
Arctic and Extreme Environments Technical Conference and
Exhibi- tion, October 15–17, 2013, Moscow, Russia. Paper
Number: SPE-166850-MS.
https://doi.org/10.2118/166850-MS
Salikhov, Z.S., Arabskii, A.K., Kuznetsov, V.D., Zaitsev
A.N., Petrov V.G., Fomichev, V.V., Troshichev, O.A., and
Yan- zhura, A.S., System of space weather control for
measuring technological risks in Yamal, Science and
Technology in the Gas Industry, 2010, no. 4, pp. 39–47.
Shockley, J.A. and Raquet, J.F., Navigation of ground ve-
hicles using magnetic field variations, NAVIGATION: Jour-
nal of the Institute of Navigation, 2014, vol. 61, no. 4.
https://doi.org/10.1002/navi.70
Short, J.A., Introduction to directional and horizontal drill-
ing, Tulsa: PennWell Books, OK, USA, 1993, p. 239
Soloviev, A., Agayan, S., and Bogoutdinov, S., Estimation
of geomagnetic activity using measure of anomalousness,
IZVESTIYA, PHYSICS OF THE SOLID
Annals of Geophysics, 2016, vol. 59, no. 6,
G0653. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-7116
Soloviev, A.A. and Smirnov, A.G., Accuracy estimation of
the modern core magnetic field models using DMA-
meth- ods for recognition of the decreased geomagnetic
activity in magnetic observatory data, Izv., Phys. Solid
Earth, 2018, no. 6, pp. 872–885.
https://doi.org/10.1134/S1069351318060101
Soloviev, A.A., Sidorov, R.V., Krasnoperov, R.I., Grud-
nev, A.A., and Khokhlov, A.V., Klimovskaya: a new
geo- magnetic observatory, Geomagnetism and Aeronomy,
2016, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 342–354.
St-Louis, B., INTERMAGNET Technical Reference
Manual. Version 4.6., 2012
Thébault, E., Finlay, C. C., Beggan, C. D., Alken, P.,
Ju- lien, A., Barrois, O., Bertrand, F., Bondar, T.,
Boness, A., Brocco, L., Canet, E., Chambodut, A.,
Chulliat, A., Coïs- son, P., Civet, F., Du, A., Fournier, A.,
Fratter, I., Gillet, N., Hamilton, B., Hamoudi, M., Hulot,
G., Jager, T., Korte, M., Kuang, W., Lalanne, X., Langlais,
B., Léger, J.-M., Lesur, V., Lowes, F. et al., International
geomagnetic reference field: the 12th generation, Earth,
Planets and Space, 2015, vol. 67, p. 79.
Vorobev, A.V., Pilipenko, V.A., Krasnoperov, R.I., Vo-
robeva, G.R., Lorentzen, D.A., Short-term forecast of
the auroral oval position on the basis of the “virtual
globe” technology, RJES, 2020, vol. 20.
https://doi.org/10.2205/2020ES000721
Zaitsev, A.N. and Lobanov, A.M., Magnetometric facility
in Yamal as the basis of the regional system of control over
the Earth’s magnetic field’s state, Mat. konf. Geofizika i
MGRI. 100 let vmeste (Proc. Geophysics and MGRI. 100
Years Together), November 15–18, 2018.
Vol. No. 20