SPE/IADC-189408-MS

Effect of the Rotary Steerable System Steering Mechanism on Wellbore

Tortuosity in Horizontal Wells

Albaraa Alrushud and Muntasar Mohammad, Baker Hughes, a GE Company; Victor Oliveira and Bader Zahrani,
Saudi Aramco

Copyright 2018, SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 29-31 January 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE/IADC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors and are subject to correction
by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or the International Association of Drilling Contractors,
its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers or
the International Association of Drilling Contractors is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations
may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE/IADC copyright.

Abstract
This paper describes a new approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the rotary steerable system (RSS)
steering mechanism on wellbore tortuosity in horizontal wells. Wellbore tortuosity in drilling applications
is defined as any unwanted deviation from the planned well trajectory. As reservoir objectives become
more complex and exact, operators increasingly perceive the wellbore tortuosity as a serious concern in the
process of drilling, completing, and producing wells.
More than 700 wells were reviewed and analyzed in this study. Strict criteria were set during the
classification process; the studied wells have a common geology and trajectory, and they use a very similar
bottomhole assembly (BHA) design. The inclination values from the wireline tool are used to illustrate the
attainable benefits in terms of wellbore quality and measure wellbore tortuosity. In addition, the wireline
inclination data are compared with the actual measurement-while-drilling (MWD) survey to highlight the
existence of the micro-dogleg severity (DLS) that cannot be measured by standard surveys.
Due to the theoretical differences in the steering mechanism between the various types of RSS, it has been
claimed that utilizing one steering mechanism over another can produce a less-tortuous wellbore. These
steering mechanisms have previously been classified as either push-the-bit or point-the-bit mechanisms.
The relative merits of a push-the-bit steering mechanism vs. a point-the-bit steering mechanism is an over-
simplification; neither mechanism can deliver the premium wellbore quality the industry demands from
RSS. The present study introduces the continuous proportional steering method (CPSM), and demonstrates
how this mechanism can provide superior wellbore quality by reducing wellbore tortuosity. In addition,
a superior inclination hold performance is observed in horizontal sections drilled with the CPSM. Curve
intervals are more continuous and smoothly drilled through the planned directional changes.
The research becomes a useful reference to analyze the performance and efficiency of RSS steering
mechanisms across drilling and workover operations. Directional drilling service companies are encouraged
and challenged to improve the efficiency and accuracy of RSS mechanisms, improving the hole quality and
reducing micro-doglegs.
2 SPE/IADC-189408-MS

Introduction
Currently, the oil and gas industry seeks to improve operational efficiency and reduce drilling costs at the
same time. One of the main decisions during the planning of a new well, leading to a major financial
impact through drilling operations, is to select the right rotary steerable system (RSS) steering mechanism.
Considerations regarding drilling parameters and challenges (rate of penetration (ROP), well path, doglegs,
formation dip, losses and others) should be taken in consideration, and the correct decision on which drilling
system to use will be the key to the project success. So, it is extremely important to evaluate the performance
of each RSS steering mechanism in the market before deciding which one is the best for the project.
More than 700 wells were nominated for the study; although only eighteen wells passed the comparison
criteria based on geology, trajectory, and bottomhole assembly (BHA). The study focused on the horizontal
6⅛-in. and 5⅞-in. production sections, where the wellbore quality becomes more critical. These sections
typically require minimum changes in inclination for reservoir navigation, and any tortuosity resulting from
the steering mechanism can be easily identified.
In the present study, the author's effort is to evaluate the accuracy of RSS steering mechanisms available
in the oil and gas industry. The study was performed on wells drilled by different steering mechanisms, yet
was logged by the same wireline service provider. The analysis from the wireline data shows that drilling
with continuous proportional steering method (CPSM) significantly reduces 4-5 times in average tortuosity,
3-4 times in average dogleg severity, and 5-6 times in average angle change. The author observed that
intervals drilled with CPSM are more continuous and smooth compared with push-the-bit and point-the-
bit mechanisms.

Rotary Steerable System Mechanisms

Currently, three different steering mechanisms are considered, push-the-bit, point-the-bit, and continuous
proportional steering method (CPSM) systems. These terminologies are not the only aspect to be considered
as a key to delivering a good wellbore quality and what actually matters is the steering physics behind the
mechanism applied to achieve the directional control.
In a typical push-the-bit steering mechanism, a force is formed against the wellbore side wall, causing
the bit to push on the opposite side wall and leading to a direction change (Menand 2012). The multiple
pads mounted on the body of the RSS are activated one at a time by diverting some of the mud flow through
a controller valve. The controller will orient the valve into the desired direction. Therefore, each pad that
crosses against the valve will be activated, whereas the other pads will be deactivated. Consequently, the
pads will go into a continuous cycle of opening and closing to meet the directional plan.
While drilling tangent or horizontal intervals, the diverter valve will be closed because no directional
change is required. No mud flow will activate the pads, thereby deactivating the steering system. The
system deactivation will commonly cause the bottomhole assembly (BHA) to drop inclination caused by
the gravitation force and sometimes the formation tendency. At a certain threshold, the system will be re-
activated to the build angle and correct the inclination to remain within the desired value. Overshooting will
also commonly occur when passing the correct inclination angle. Therefore, the wellbore will continually
oscillate around the planned target well path until it reaches the well or section total depth (TD).
Alternatively, a typical point-the-bit steering mechanism causes the bit direction to change relative to
the rest of the tool by tilting the bit with an internal deflection running through the RSS (Schaff 2000).
Similar to the push-the-bit mechanism, the point-the-bit mechanism could be acceptable for a curve section.
Continuous bit tilt is not applied in tangent or horizontal sections, because no directional change is required.
Consequently, the BHA will tend to drop the inclination angle caused by the gravitation force and sometimes
the formation tendency. At a certain threshold, the system will be activated to again build angle and correct
the inclination to remain within the desired value. Consequently, overshooting the target inclination is likely
SPE/IADC-189408-MS 3

until the switch-off threshold is achieved. Therefore, the wellbore will continually oscillate around the
planned well path until the objectives of the run are achieved.
In contrast, the CPSM forms the directional control by pads mounted on a slow rotation sleeve to
ensure precise steering (Donati et al. 1998). Each pad is activated by a separate hydraulic motor controlled
by a downhole processor connected to a hydraulic actuator piston. The electronic processor ensures the
application of the exact proportional force magnitude to the pad relative to the desired bit direction vector.
The pressure to the three pads is continuously applied with no switched-off cycle so the effects of gravity and
formation tendency is eliminated in tangents and horizontal sections. In addition, a trigonal accelerometer
directional sensor package ensures continuous near-bit inclination measurements giving a high degree of
accuracy in positioning the wellbore within a particular geological target (Berger and Sele 1998).

Wellbore Tortuosity Origin

The term "wellbore tortuosity" has different definitions, and, until now, no commonly agreed definition
of this phenomenon existed. Subsequently, wellbore tortuosity can be generally defined as any unwanted
deviation from a straight line or the well plan.
Although the term is sometimes used incorrectly in this context, it is not a measure of the complexity of
a 3D well plan, but a measure of the inevitable, unwanted undulations around the well plan. Theoretically,
wellbore tortuosity can be evaluated by comparing the planned well path and the actual surveys that will
determine the actual well path. As of now, no industry standard has been set to numerically evaluate wellbore
tortuosity.
Deviating from the initial directional well plan is often required while drilling directional wells because
of changed formation tops or geosteering within the reservoir. A wellbore tortuosity definition of "any
deviation from the planned well path" implies that "macro-tortuosity" would be part of the overall tortuosity.
An alternative point of view would be to account for all intentional changes in the initial directional well
plan, which were made while drilling, in an updated version of the original trajectory. This updated well
plan can then be overlain with the highly detailed small-scale tortuosity or "micro-tortuosity" (Banks 1992).
This study is mainly concerned with tortuosity in relation to the steering mechanism applied to directionally
steer the horizontal wells. Therefore, the main focus will be on the latter type of tortuosity, and the term
"micro-tortuosity" will be referred to only as "tortuosity" from this point onward.

Wellbore Tortuosity Estimation and Calculations

Average excess dogleg severity (DLS) over plan.
This definition was proposed by Weijermans (2001). The "average excess DLS over plan" can be calculated
from the directional planned well path and the actual well path derived from the survey. The two trajectories
should be compared over the same depth interval. Therefore, whichever is the longer of the planned well
path or the actual well path should be truncated back to the depth of the shorter one. The two start depths
are assumed to be the same.
The planned well path listing of the measured depth, inclination, and azimuth are denoted as:

The actual drilled well path listing is:

The angle change over a single arc of the directional planned well path is given as follows from the
equations for minimum curvature:
(1)
4 SPE/IADC-189408-MS

Similarly, the angle change between two survey stations on the actual drilled well trajectory is given as:
(2)
The tortuosity of the well or a specific section is simply the difference between the total planned and total
actual drilled dogleg divided by the length of the well or section:

(3)

Factor 100, which was derived from the fact that tortuosity is usually expressed in degrees per 100 ft, is
consistent with the unit of DLS, rather than with °/ft.
The average excess DLS over plan is a measure of how the total actual drilled dogleg compares to the
total planned dogleg. The tortuosity will be accurate because of the length interval reduction that was used
to analyze the tortuosity from the high-density wireline data with a 0.25-ft interval. Therefore, the method
with the wireline data is currently the most accurate way of measuring the wellbore tortuosity in the industry.
The wireline method is a better fit for the RSS, specifically in horizontal and tangent sections, where
the BHA should rotate continuously while drilling with a zero dogleg. The individual doglegs between the
adjacent survey stations are simply summed and averaged over the interval length. The accuracy of the
calculation increases as the length interval is reduced.

Average angle change criterion for horizontal wells.

The average angle change (AAC) criterion was used by Weijermans (2001) to evaluate the undulation around
a straight line in horizontal wells, in most cases, around an inclination of 90°:

(4)

Where:
AAC = average angle change
M = first survey point
N = last survey point
A = difference between the angle at a survey point and 90°
The AAC can be considered as the average of the absolute deviations from 90° of each individual
inclination measurement. The absolute deviation was obtained because the inclination can be above or below
90° caused by the poor directional control or was made on purpose for geosteering in a reservoir. The AAC
provides a weighted average in case surveys, which are not taken at equal distances. All the survey data used
in this study were taken in equal length interval (i.e., 0.25 ft) to optimize calculation accuracy. Normally,
the larger the AAC value, the more severe the wellbore undulations.
In some horizontal wells, inclination changes are made on purpose to geosteer up or down within the
reservoir. The inclination changes in most of the studied cases were unwanted and made by the steering
mechanism of the RSS. The use of the AAC criterion is not limited to horizontal wells but it can also be used
at any inclinations other than 90° (i.e., in tangent or flat turn sections, where keeping the same direction
is required).

Wellbore Tortuosity Evaluation by Steering Mechanisms

The expressions for the wellbore tortuosity previously discussed were applied to a number of directional
planned well paths and associated with actual drilled well paths. The data was used to compare the
performance of the sections drilled with the CPSM mechanism with those drilled with the push-the-bit and
point-the-bit steering mechanisms.
SPE/IADC-189408-MS 5

High accuracy and high-density wireline data normally recorded over very short lengths (i.e., typically
0.25 ft) is the most accurate method to assess the wellbore tortuosity. The measurements while drilling
(MWD) surveys usually record over a long interval depending on well section requirements (i.e., typically
anywhere from 30 ft to 95 ft). Therefore, the apparent tortuosity from those measurements is inaccurate
because of the poor inclination hold within a long interval that is averaged over that interval. The novelty
of this approach is the ability to precisely evaluate the wellbore tortuosity because there are four data points
over 1 ft from the wireline tools and only one data point over 95 ft with the standard MWD surveys.
As has been noted, this study focuses on the horizontal sections. Typically, these sections require
minimum changes in inclination, so any deviation or tortuosity resulting from the steering mechanism can
be easily identified. It is also considered the most critical section in the well's construction process because
wellbore quality could be a serious issue for log quality, completion quality and well productivity.
The tortuosity analysis was performed on an interval of the section with a certain objective, that is, to hold
the inclination at the same true vertical depth (TVD) in the reservoir rather than on a complete section. This
approach enables a direct comparison of the intervals drilled with CPSM with those drilled with the push-
the-bit and point-the-bit steering mechanisms. Using wireline data in wells that were drilled with different
steering mechanisms in the same field and formation will ensure a more accurate comparison. Curve sections
were omitted from this study due to the complexity of the evaluation and because so many factors can affect
the wellbore tortuosity (e.g., formation change, required buildup rate, and curve profile).
The directional planned well path, as it is included in the initial drilling program, is often revised while
drilling the horizontal section mainly for geosteering purposes. Artificial tortuosity might be introduced if
the wireline continuous survey data are compared to the initial directional planned well path to evaluate
tortuosity. For example, if a 0°/100 ft DLS tolerance is initially planned for the horizontal section, the
DLS is changed while drilling to allow 1.5°/100 ft for geosteering purposes. This change would result
in a significant artificial contribution to the tortuosity if the survey would be compared against the "old"
directional planned well path.
The actual directional planned well path was back-calculated from each survey to account for this effect
by increasing the planned DLS to 1.5°/100 ft. Therefore, the planned DLS is assumed to be 1.5°/100 ft for
all the studied cases, where no geosteering of any kind is present in the studied intervals. The minimum
curvature arc between these points was calculated based on the wireline survey data using the appropriate
minimum curvature survey equations. The azimuth angle was assumed constant in the minimum curvature
equations, only the wellbore inclination was evaluated in this study.
All survey data were gathered from areas of mature directional drilling operations, ensuring the
elimination of the learning curve of the RSS BHA design experienced during the early phases of field
development. Where possible, the push-the-bit and point-the-bit steering mechanism surveys were obtained
from the same fields as the CPSM surveys. The study also considered the target reservoir or formation to
be the same within the same field to ensure a direct comparison. Fig. 1 shows an overview comparison
regarding the inclination from wireline tool against the MWD surveys plotted as a function of the measured
depth (MD) while utilizing CPSM as steering mechanism to drill the desired section.
6 SPE/IADC-189408-MS

Figure 1—A comparison of wireline inclination data against the

MWD survey stations while utilizing the CPSM drilling mechanism

Fig. 1 shows that the inclination received from a wireline tool matches with the MWD surveys,
demonstrating the accuracy of the CPSM mechanism while drilling a tangent section. Also, indicating the
absence of the local dogleg. Fig. 2 illustrates the comparison between wireline inclination and a point-the-
bit system used as a steering mechanism to drill the horizontal section.

Figure 2—A comparison between wireline inclination data and MWD

survey stations while utilizing point-the-bit steering mechanism

Fig. 2 shows there is a discrepancy between the inclination collected from wireline tool and the MWD
survey. The chart above indicates a poor inclination hold performance that the point-the-bit steering
mechanism tends to deliver while drilling a horizontal section. Also, a continuous variation in the inclination
is observed, revealing possible micro-doglegs all over the lateral sections; some can be translated to key
seats that it will impact in poor hole cleaning, increasing the chances of stuck pipe incident. Fig. 3 reveals
a comparison between wireline inclination data and MWD survey. In this case, a push-the-bit RSS steering
mechanism was used to drill the horizontal section.

Figure 3—A comparison between wireline inclination data and MWD

survey stations while utilizing push-the-bit steering mechanism
SPE/IADC-189408-MS 7

Fig. 3 shows a disparity regarding the inclination provided from the wireline tool and MWD survey,
exposing the inability of the push-the-bit mechanism to hold the inclination along the horizontal section.
Also, a huge fluctuation between survey stations were observed. Figs. 2 and 3 clearly demonstrate the
existence of the micro doglegs in the actual well path that cannot be detected with the MWD survey
while drilling with point-the-bit or push-the-bit steering mechanisms. Table 1 shows the results of all
calculations for the CPSM, push-the-bit, and point-the-bit steering mechanisms across the selected wells.
Also, a comparison between tortuosity and average angle change (AAC) data was performed to ensure the
accuracy of each mechanism across different fields.

Table 1—A comparison of Three RSS steering mechanisms.

Well Field Steering Principle Tortuosity °/100ft AAC °/ft Average DLS °/100ft

WELL-1A A Continuous 5.65 0.0165 3.8

Proportional

WELL-2A A Point-the-Bit 22.91 0.223 12.35

WELL-3A A Push-the-Bit 19.01 0.94 10.45

WELL-4A A Point-the-Bit 24.11 0.234 13.927

WELL-5A A Point-the-Bit 7.19 0.269 4.5

WELL-6A A Point-the-Bit 18.97 0.13 10.44

WELL-1B B Continuous 0.05 0.01 1.02

Proportional

WELL-2B B Point-the-Bit 23.15 0.303 12.52

WELL-1C C Continuous 4.531 0.176 3.25

Proportional

WELL-2C C Point-the-Bit 22.85 0.479 12.37

WELL-3C C Push-the-Bit 16.54 0.257 7.84

WELL-1D D Continuous 3.628 0.024 2.8

Proportional

WELL-2D D Push-the-Bit 14.51 0.117 8.22

WELL-1E E Continuous 5.43 0.044 3.7

Proportional

WELL-2E E Continuous 1.64 0.069 1.8

Proportional

WELL-3E E Point-the-Bit 6.01 0.267 3.9

WELL-4E E Push-the-Bit 18.39 0.156 10.15

WELL-5E E Push-the-Bit 5.77 0.181 3.8

Table 1 shows a comparison between the three different RSS steering mechanisms that have been
performed. For business reasons, the name of the fields were altered and letters were used to indicate each
field as well as the name of each well. The tortuosity, AAC, and DLS were carefully analyzed. The values
displayed in Table 1 are calculated as an average using the inclinations acquired with wireline tool across
lateral section in each well selected.
In the field A, six wells were selected and investigated, one well was drilled with CPSM steering
mechanism, four wells used a point-the-bit system and one used a push-the-bit system. The study discovered
that a push-the-bit steering mechanism was not able to keep a good constant inclination while drilling a
lateral section, compared with another two systems studied. The steering mechanism delivered an average
tortuosity of 19.01°/ft, AAC of 0.94°/ft and doglegs of 10.45°/100 ft. The point-the bit system came in
8 SPE/IADC-189408-MS

second place with an average tortuosity of 18.29°/ft, AAC of 0.214°/ft and doglegs of 10.30°/100 ft. Despite
this, CPSM steering system demonstrated the best performance with an average tortuosity of 5.65°/ft, AAC
of 0.01°/ft, and doglegs of 3.8°/100ft.
Moving forward the analyses, only two wells were identified with similar characteristics in the field B.
The first well was drilled using CPSM steering mechanism and carried an average tortuosity of 0.05°/ft,
AAC of 0.01°/ft and doglegs of 1.02°/100ft. The second well was drilled using a point-the-bit system as a
steering mechanism and has an average tortuosity of 23.15°/ft, AAC of 0.30°/ft and doglegs of 12.52°/100 ft.
In this field, it was not possible to evaluate the push-the-bit system because no well had the same previously
selected characteristic.
Three wells were carefully chosen in the field C. Each well was drilled with a different steering
mechanism. The CPSM had an average tortuosity of 4.531°/ft, AAC of 0.176°/ft and doglegs of 3.25°/100
ft, showing a better inclination hold performance when compared with another systems. Alternatively, the
point-the-bit mechanism presented the worst performance between all three wells, with an average tortuosity
of 22.85°/ft, AAC of 0.47°/ft and doglegs of 12.37°/100 ft, followed by a push-the-bit system with an
average tortuosity of 16.54°/ft, AAC of 0.257°/ft and doglegs of 7.84°/100 ft.
As happened in the previous field, only two wells were selected in the field D. One more time, the CPSM
demonstrates better accuracy compared to push-the-bit system. The CPSM was able to deliver a well with
an average tortuosity of 3.62°/ft, AAC of 0.02°/ft and doglegs of 2.8°/100ft, compared with push-the-bit
system that had an average tortuosity of 14.51°/ft, AAC of 0.117°/ft and doglegs of 8.2°/100 ft. Therefore,
no point-the-bit system was selected in this field.
Finally, in field E, five wells were chosen, but the push-the-bit system was not able to keep a good
performance to hold the inclination while drilling horizontal section; revealing an average tortuosity of
12.08°/ft, AAC of 0.168°/ft and doglegs of 6.97°/100 ft, followed by point-the-bit system with an average
tortuosity of 6.01°/ft, AAC of 0.267°/ft and doglegs of 2.75°/100 ft. Nevertheless, the wireline survey
showed that CPSM steering mechanism had an average tortuosity of 3.53°/ft, AAC of 0.056°/ft, and doglegs
of 2.75°/100ft.
Due to alternate results between push-the-bit and point-the-bit mechanisms in all the five fields, a different
approach was chosen to compare the hold inclination performance such as tortuosity, AAC, and dogleg
averages across all five field (18 wells) investigated. The behavior in each steering mechanism while drilling
a tangent section can be clarified by plotting them on an enlarged scale plot. Fig. 4 illustrates the behavior
of the CPSM, point-the-bit, and push-the-bit, respectively.

Figure 4—Average tortuosity vs. steering principle

SPE/IADC-189408-MS 9

Fig. 4 shows the CPSM revealed an average tortuosity of 3.49°/ft across all wells (18) analyzed. The
push-the-bit system came with second-best performance with an average tortuosity of 14.84°/ft, followed by
the point-the-bit system with 17.88°/ft. Based on the results above, the CPSM mechanism is able to deliver a
better hole quality and avoid micro-doglegs. Regarding tortuosity, the CPSM mechanism had an impressive
4.25 times improvement when compared with the push-the-bit mechanism. Also, when compared with the
point-the-bit mechanism, the performance increased to 5.12 times. Fig. 5 illustrates an AAC comparison
between all steering systems.

Figure 5—Average AAC vs. steering principle

Regarding AAC versus steering mechanisms in all 18 wells studied, the CPSM mechanism was able to
keep the accuracy to hold the inclination with a performance of 5.5 and 4.5 times better than push-the-bit
and point-the-bit system, respectively. Instead of the tortuosity analysis, the AAC showed that push-the-
bit mechanism had the worst performance, followed by point-the-bit with an average AAC of 0.33°/ft and
0.27°/ft correspondingly. Fig. 6 illustrates a DLS comparison versus steering mechanism across all 18 wells.

Figure 6—Average DLS vs. steering principle

10 SPE/IADC-189408-MS

The CPSM mechanism delivered wells with an average dogleg severity of 2.73°/100 ft. The result is
2.96 times better than the push-the-bit system that had an average dogleg of 8.09°/100 ft. Also, the CPSM
steering mechanism was able to deliver wells 3.66 times more efficient than the point-the-bit system that
had an average dogleg of 10°/100 ft. The behavior of each steering mechanism while drilling a tangent
section can be clarified by plotting them on an enlarged scale plot. Fig. 7 illustrates the behavior of the
CPSM, point-the-bit, and push-the-bit, respectively.

Figure 7—Zoomed scale comparison of the inclination hold performance vs. the steering principle in field "A"

In Fig. 7, field A was used to illustrate the accuracy of CPSM mechanism to hold the wellbore inclination
while drilling tangent sections, avoiding micro-doglegs and increasing the quality of the wellbore. The
sinusoidal wave pattern seen on most push-the-bit and point-the-bit drilled sections is a result of the natural
behavior of such on-and-off steering mechanisms. This is due to the drop tendency of the BHA while trying
to hold the inclination, requiring correction by activating the system to build back to the desired inclination.
These well paths are similar to the behavior of a bent housing mud motor in drilling tangent sections with
alternate rotate and slide modes.

Figure 8—CPSM behavior while drilling a tangent interval in field "A"

SPE/IADC-189408-MS 11

Figure 9—Push-the-bit steering mechanism behavior while drilling a tangent interval (continuous build and drop) in field "A"

Figure 10—Point-the-bit steering mechanism behavior while drilling a tangent interval (continuous build and drop) in field "A"

Figure 11—Comparison of the inclination hold performance vs. the steering principle in field "A"
12 SPE/IADC-189408-MS

Figure 12—Zoomed scale comparison of the inclination hold performance vs. the steering principle in field "A"

Figure 13—Comparison of the inclination hold performance vs. the steering principle in field "C"

Figure 14—Zoomed scale comparison of the inclination hold performance vs. the steering principle in field "C"
SPE/IADC-189408-MS 13

Figure 15—Comparison of the inclination hold performance vs. the steering principle in field "D"

Figure 16—Zoomed scale comparison of the inclination hold performance vs. the steering principle in field "D"

Conclusions
The authors conclude that a CPSM mechanism can lead to high-quality wells that effectively hold the
inclination while drilling lateral sections in horizontal wells. In addition, the analysis of the wireline
inclination revealed that the CPSM significantly reduces the wellbore tortuosity by 4-5 times, the AAC
by 5-6 times, and micro-doglegs by 3-4 times compared to point-the-bit and push-the-bit mechanisms. In
horizontal well applications, where the objective is to maintain a certain TVD as accurately as possible, the
inclination hold performance of the CPSM directly translates into excellent TVD control. Such performance
reduces the cost of completion equipment due premature failures originated as micro-doglegs. In addition,
the wireline high-density data represents a real DLS generated because of the continuous survey reading
while logging the horizontal section.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Saudi Aramco Drilling Technicla Department, Baker Hughes Drilling
Services, Wireline Services, and Geoscience for supporting the present research.

Nomenclature
A = azimuth, °
aedls = average excess dogleg severity
AAC = average angle change, °/ft
DLS = dogleg severity, °/100ft
I = inclination, °
14 SPE/IADC-189408-MS

mudls = mean unwanted dogleg severity

P = plan
S = survey
T = tortuosity, °/100 ft

References
Banks, S. M., Hogg, T. W. and Thorogood, J. L. 1992. Increasing Extended Reach Capabilities through Wellbore Profile
Optimization. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, 18-21 February. IADC/
SPE-23850-MS.
Berger, P. E. and Sele, R. 1998. Improving Wellbore Positioning Accuracy of Horizontal Wells by Using a Continuous
Inclination Measurement from a Near Bit Inclination MWD Sensor. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1-4 November. SPE-50378-MS.
Donati, F., Oppelt, J., Trampini, A. et al: 1998. Innovative Rotary Closed Loop System Engineering Concept Proved by
Extensive Field Application in the Adriatic Sea. Presented at the IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, Texas, 3-6
March. IADC/SPE-39328-MS.
Georgi, D. 2000. The Benefits of Truly Horizontal Wells. Paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/Petroleum
Society of CIM International Conference on Horizontal Well Technology, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 6-8 November.
Menand, S. 2012. PDC Bit Steerability Modeling and Testing for Push-the-Bit and Point-the-Bit RSS. IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference and Exhibition, San Diego, California, 6-8 March.
Schaaf, S. 2000. Point-the-Bit Rotary Steerable System: Theory and Field Results. Presented at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October.
Weijermans, P. 2001. Drilling with Rotary Steerable System Reduces Wellbore Tortuosity. Presented at the SPE/IADC
Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27 February–1 March.