2015 International Conference on Sustainable Mobility Applications, Renewables and Technology (SMART)
Validation of Directional Drilling Well Design Trajectory with a Case Study in
Kuwait
Biltayib M. Biltayib Sadeq Damrah
Email: Email:
B.Biltayib@ack.edu.kw S.Damrah@ack.edu.kw
Australian College of Kuwait.
September, 2015.
Abstract- From directional surveys, calculating the
well courses can generate errors due to the uncertainty of
the survey methods. These methods are analyzed and
discussed in terms of which of these models approximates
the real well course best, since all models yield different
results with the same given survey data. This paper
studies a real case of directional well design, which was
obtained from AI-Kafji Joint Operation Company (KJOC)
with the resulting data of the well path. Two common
directional drilling survey methods are applied on the real
case and the results have been compared and discussed.
Keywords - Directional Drilling; Survey
Methods; Validation; Error; Accuracy.
I. Introduction
Oirectional drilling undergoes 3 phases: 1) Planning
phase that engineers all the aspects of drilling operation to
[14l
create economical and safe wells. 2) Survey phase to
indicate the characteristics of the formation along with the
drilling parameters (WOB, Temperature, Pressure, etc) and
survey parameters (MO, inclination, and azimuth). 3)
Production phase; after reaching the target (oil) and start
[1 2 3l
extracting it. , ,
The wellbore must be planned before starting the
drilling process. Several methods are used to estimate the
trajectory of the wellbore and its specifications. Surveys are
made to obtain measured parameters such as MO,
inclination, azimuth, as these parameters will be used to
calculate the TVO, NS, EW, OLS, and BR needed to specify
the wellbore trajectory survey points.
The aim of this paper is to 1) Validate the company's
directional drilling well design survey method (Minimum
Curvature) with other different survey methods (Average
Angle and Radius of Curvature), 2) Compare between the
design data, which is calculated manually by using two
survey methods, with data calculated by the software using
the Minimum Curvature method, and 3) Compare between
the methods regarding their accuracy and the error.
97S-l-4673-9529-S/l5/$3l.00 mo 15 [EEE
Bushrah AI-Fakeh Ashwaq AI-Kanderi
Email: Email:
Eng.AlfaBus@gmail.com Eng.AlkanderiAshwaq@gmail.com
II. Background
The objective of steering in directional drilling is to
deviate the wellbore trajectory in the right direction and hit
the geological target downhole. As a result, it forced the
upstream industry to focus on technologies and
methodologies to identify wellbore location and its path
during drilling. In the early of drilling operation, it was
common to set the drilling rig right above the target and
drill a vertical well. After that, it became necessary to drill
wells to reach the target that were deviated from the
reference location at the surface. Throughout the years,
many tools and methods have been developed and
5 6l
deployed in directional drilling. [4, ,
The directional survey measurements are given in
terms of inclination, azimuth and surface coordinates, TVO,
northing and easting at the depth of the survey station. For
many applications, the accurate position and direction of
the wellbore should be determined at depths which may
not coincide with the depth of survey stations.
III. Well Path Calculations
There are several possibilities to calculate a well
course from azimuthal and inclination data in various
depths. The well course can be estimated by different
calculation survey methods, e.g.:
• Angle Average.
• Radius of Curvature.
• Minimum Curvature.
Having such a variety of calculation models, one may
ask, which of these models approximates the real well
course best, since all surveys yield different results with the
same given survey data. Before the calculation of the well
path, several measurements are required: surfaces
coordinates, target coordinates, true vertical depth of
target and KOP, and build-up rate. The choice of surface
coordinates depends on a number of factors including
target coordinates and depth, which is selected by the
geologist. The choice of KOP and build up rate has to be as horizontal producer in GN 83 - 60 deg direction from
made by the directional engineer. [13] new Jacket IWJ-6, located on the western flank of the
Khafji.
Obviously, the advantage of directional drilling is the
ability to direct the wellbore along a predetermined course Figure (1) shows the well location map. The well objective
to a desired objective. To calculate well course path, well is to produce oil from the First sand of Second Bahrain
known surveys are used, as the following equations appear reservoir. The 12 Y. " section was terminated at MD 5775 ft.
for each calculation survey method (Equations: 1, 2, and 3). @ 84 deg with 9 5/8"casing shoe at MD 5768 ft. In this
Note that, the Dogleg Severity and Build-up rate formulas section, development of First Bahrain sands was not very
of the methods are the same. [7,8,9] encouraging: its upper sand has a thickness of only 13 ft
(GR 12 API, average Resistivity 45 ohm m) whereas horizon
1) Minimum Curvature Method (M.C): 3 encountered OWC at TVDSS 4951 ft (MD 5178 ft), thereby
only about 18 ft pay thickness available.
MD
North = x[sin(Il)xcos(A1) +sin(I,J xcos(Az)]xRF
T The 8 Y, " section was drilled with the help of DDR., it
MD' entered First sand of Second Bahrain at TVDSS 5221 ft. (MD
East = x[sin{Jl) xsin(A1) + sin{J2)xsin(Az )]xRF
T 5935.5 ft.) @ 85.5 deg at VS 1175 ft showing resistivity of
MD 40-45 ohm-m. The inclination was raised to 87.5 deg at
TVD = X [COS{Jl) +cos(Iz)]xRF
T TVDSS 5234 ft (MD 6162 ft) @ at VS 1400 ft. However, at
1 this depth, a possible sub-seismic fault with -18 ft TVD
P = cos - [cos{I. - 11) - (sin(Jl)x sin{Jz)x (1- cosCAz -Ai))]
down throw was interpreted based on DDR inversion which
2 P
RF - xtan( -) correlates with the sharp changes on other measurements
2
=

P
and the density image. Inclination was dropped to 83 deg
to steer back to the sand.

Build - up Rate =
( Iz- 11
MD2 - MDl
) x 100
The trajectory encountered a good sand body of 25-30 ft
TVD thickness, at MD 6335 ft (TVDSS 5249 ft) with GR <15
gAPI and resistivity 70 ohm-m. The inclination was built to
Equation 1 Minimum Curvature Formulas with Dogleg Severity
with Build-up Rate [1]
88 deg and then to 92-92.5 deg. The well was drilled to TD
MD 7500 ft (TVDSS 5245 ft.) @ 91.4 deg at VS 2709 ft.,
2) Average Angle Method (A.A): thereby cutting 1165 ft. MD from the of sand with excellent
reservoir characteristic.

f!.No rth = f!.M Dxsi n C1 �. 11.) ( A1 �. A1.)

X c os
Figure (2) shows the plan well profile view and the plan top

f!. E ast = f!.M Dxsm

. (11 11.) . (A1 A z )
+
2 xsm
+
2
view based on the Minimum Curvature data.

Equation 2 Average Angle Formulas [1]

3) Radius of Curvature Method (R.C):

J DJ 'JJ bOO 800 ·ooum

.. IwwwI

MD x (sin]. - sinh) 180

TVV' = x (- )
(Iz - 11) IT
Figure 1 Well Location Map

Equation 3 Radius of Curvature Formulas [1]

IV. Case Study

As an introduction for the KJO Company well, the

following is a summary of the K-298H well. K-298H is drilled
 The only difference would be that in the Average
K-298 Well Plot
Angle, the graph won't be as accurate as the Minimum
Curvature due to using the tangential line between 2 survey
points and take their average (as seen in the formulas)
instead of using the real curve of the MD survey points as
the Minimum Curvature.

�.o:.:.."".-.
1m :.r�m�'.-" - ._ ••_ ••_ •• _ .• _ •• _ ••• Radius of Curvature Method shows more accurate
.._ :;.,.."", _ .._ ... results than the Average Angle method. Figures (5&6) show
:.�""" ..

the vertical section (well profile) and plan view (top)

respectively.

Plan Well Profile View {A.A}

Vertical Section ftl
d
-500 0 500 100 1500 2000

�
..s:
....
Q.
Q)
.......t'.!;.:, C . '�II R'� file
"iij
u
.';:;
....
Q)
Figure 2 The Plan Well Profile View and Plan Top View Based on >
"iij
the Minimum Curvature Method ....
0
l-

v. Directional Drilling Survey Analysis v

Figure 3 Vertical Section of Average Angle

Once a company has decided to drill a directional
hole, the first step is to draw a horizontal and vertical plan Plan Top View (A A)
of the course to be followed. Proper initial planning is
essential. There are common methods used to calculate
well trajectory. In this paper, the well trajectory is
calculated by three different methods which are: Minimum
Curvature, Average Angle, and Radius of Curvature, and
they are compared in terms of error and accuracy.

The Minimum Curvature method is yet to be known

as the most accurate method of all other survey methods in
planning the wellbore trajectory. Therefore, different
.'ij . J �(,oo
methods are used (as mentioned above) to see the
differences between these methods and which one is more EW (ftl
accurate comparing to Minimum Curvature. Figure 4 Plan View of Average Angle

The Comparison between the Methods: The data Plan Well Profile View {R.C}
obtained from KJOC was calculated by the software using Vertical Section ftl
d
-500 0 500 100 1500 2000
the Minimum Curvature method. Each method has its own
formula that is used to calculate TVD, NS, EW, DLS, and the
BR. First, recalculate manually (excel) the well trajectory by �
..s:
Minimum Curvature and compare the results with the ....
Q.
Q)
software calculation by the company. The results from C
excel has proven the data obtained from KJOC to be exactly "iij
.�
qfFi file
u
:;:::;
....
the same. Q)
>
"iij
Average Angle survey method is a little accurate and it ....
0
I-
was used to calculate well trajectory. Figures (3&4) show
the vertical section (well profile) and plan view (top) of the
calculated data by Average Angle Method. It is very similar Figure 5 Vertical Section of Radius of Curvature

to the Minimum Curvature well views.

 Table 1 TVD Error Comparison
,"" ,n
Plan Top View (R.C)
I'-'rv Survey Minimum Average Radius of
Method: Curvature Angle Curvature

Mean: 3058.38 3058.45 3058.37

Standard
1723.00 1723.08 1723.00
Deviation:
Standard
207.425 207.435 207.425
ftJ:>�ilew Error:
Correlation 0.99999999924 0.99999999999
-----
.. Coefficient: 3 9

The error is being compared by 1) how close A.A or

-5
R.C is from M.C, and 2) which of the two methods is the
EW I t
least. Based on the table above, R.C is best to choose since
Figure 6 Plan View of Radius Curvature
it has less error (208.944) than the A.A (208.954) and much
closer to the M.C error, figure (7).
VI. Error and Accuracy Analysis

The Correlation Coefficient shows how close 2

In order to strengthen the calculations between the
variables lie along a line (-1 to 1). (0) Correlation means No
three survey method (Minimum Curvature, Radius of
relation between the 2 variables. (+) Correlation means
Curvature, and Average Angle); it is important to prove the
Variables are going in the same direction. (-) Correlation
calculated data mathematically with graphs.
means Variables are going in different direction.
Excel program will be used to find: 1) The Standard Error, 2)
In the table, R.C is very close to (1) which is a good
The Accuracy of both Average Angle and Radius of
indication of how close R.C with the M.C method.
Curvature methods calculated data (TVD - NS - EW); as the
two methods will be compared with the real data.
T VD Standared Error Comparison
A. TVD Error and Accuracy
A.A Error
207.435
To find the standard error for TVD, the following
values should be calculated for the three methods: 207.430

1- Find the TVD Mean or Average by the AVERAGE formula: 207.425

207.420
Mean = Sum of data I # data reading
207.415
2- Find the TVD Standard Deviation (Population) by STDEVP 1 2 3
formula:
Figure 7 TVD Error Comparison

1 As for the Accuracy, the following formula has been

STDEVP Sum (data - Mean)2
# data x used to calculate the accuracy for each of the two survey
0
methods: [1 ]
3- Apply the equation:
A ccuracy
-(
- 1 -
Real Value - Calculated ValUe ) * 100
Standard Deviation Calculated Value
Standard Error
-J(# data cells) After calculating the accuracy for the two methods, it
is shown that the closest method to 100% was R.C (by
4- Find the correlation coefficient by CORREl formula for
approximately 0.2xl0·\ which proves to be more accurate
the two manual methods (A.A & R.C) as they'll be
than the A.A method, figure (8). Regarding the bases of
compared with the M.e:
accuracy comparison, the methods are being compared in
n(I xy) - (I x)(I y) how far they are from M.C (100%).
CORREL =

-J [n I x2 - (I x)2 ] [n I y2 - (I y)Z ]
Where n= number of data cells, x= data 1, and y =
data 2. [11,12] The following table will sum up the results for
the three methods.
 T VD Accuracy Comparison between NS Accuracy Comparison between
A.A & R.C with M.C A A & R.C with M.C

i!!I
100 120

-5
c. 80
100
QJ
...
C ..c

-5 60
• c.
QJ
80
';: M.C
C ::� IAkC.tlI� cy
...
..c 60
g',,40
:;:(; �G�UI: cy
'f'>. f'>.
c
!II

is 20
� ';:
QJ
b.D
40
� (f-A(- Gl:1 acy
R.C C
!II
..c 20
� u

0.00% 50.00%
Accuracy %
100.00%
0 ,
0% 100% 200% 300%
Accuracy %0
Figure 8 TVD Accuracy Comparison
Figure 10 NS Accuracy Comparison

VII. North/South Error and Accuracy

VIII. East/West Error and Accuracy

Similarly to the TVD, to find the standard error for NS,

As for the EW standard error, by using the previous
the equations mentioned before are used and the result
equations; the result data will be:
data will be:
Table 3 EW Error Comparison
Table 2 NS Error Comparison
Survey Minimum Average Radius of
Survey Minimum Average Radius of
Methods: Curvature Angle Curvature
Methods: Curvature Angle Curvature
Mean: 261.57 261.36 261.23
Mean: 22.89 20.96 21.64
Standard
Standard
388.96 388.81 388.70
Deviation:
37.24 36.43 36.69
Deviation: Standard
Standard
46.826 46.807 46.793
Error:
4.483 4.385 4.417
Error:

Correlation
-----
Correlation
Coefficient:
----- 0.99999957955
3
0.999999623223
0.999433821 0.999767566
Coefficient:

From table (3), R.C error is still close to the M.C, and
Based on table (2), it is shown that the error of R.C is the Correlation Coefficient is also the closest to 1; proving
still closer to the M.C than the A.A (Fig. 9). In the case of NS that the R.C is very similar to M.e. So ultimately, R.C is still
and EW, due to dealing with many Trigonometric functions, better to use than A.A, see figure (11).
the results may differ. However, the Correlation coefficient
still proves that the R.C is the closest to M.e.
EW Standared Error Comparison
46.830
NS Standared Error Comparison
46.820
4.500
46.810

4.450 46.800
R.C Error
.1 46.790
4.400
.2 46.780
4.350
.3 46.770
4.300 1 2 3
1 2 3 Figure 11 EW Error Comparison

Figure 9 NS Error Comparison

The Accuracy of R.C is close to M.C as expected to be,
see figure 12.
After calculating the accuracy for the two methods
(Fig. 10), it was shown that there are accuracy variations
between the methods. However, the closest method to
100% was still R.C, which proves to be more accurate than
the A.A method.
 Survey Minimum Average Radius of
EW Accuracy Comparison between Method Curvature Angle Curvature
A.A & R.C with M.C TVD 5352.78 ft 5353.07 ft 5352.76 ft
NS 172.83 ft 169.31 ft 170.51 ft
..r: 100 EW 1506.89 ft 1506.51 ft 1506.06 ft
....
a.
� 80 \.. ----- .)
..r:
V
....
.� 60 The Closest values between Minimum Curvature and
OJ "J'S.. J:i:: A'w racy
� 40 Radius of Curvature. Yet the M.C is the most accurate and
!U
..r:
RC1lW racy
u least error.
20 racy

o ••
0% 100% 200%
Accuracy %
Figure 12 EW Accuracy Comparison
IX. Results Discussion
After re-calculating the data obtained from KJO
Company via Average Angle method and Radius of
Curvature method, and proving the data by Minimum
Curvature method, it was shown that the results of the
Average Angle method are a little bit different from the
Radius of Curvature Method.
However, the Radius of Curvature method is more
accurate and less error than the Average Angle method due
to considering the measured depth of the wellbore to be as
the shape of an arc close to the actual well path, although
in the Average Angle method, the wellbore course is taken
as the average of a straight line (tangential) between the
upper and lower survey points. This is why the radius
curvature is more accurate than the Average Angle method.
In addition, based on the correlation coefficient that
was calculated between the two manual methods with
respect to the M.C, it was proven that the R.C is the very
relatable to M.e.
Moreover, the Minimum Curvature came to be the
most accurate and the least error method (regarding the
similarity of the planned data to the actual one) of all
X. Conclusion
300%
In conclusion, a real case scenario has been analyzed
with a comparison between "Minimum Curvature data"
obtained from KJOC, and "Average Angle and Radius of
Curvature" methods that has been calculated manually.
The data obtained from the company has been proved by
calculation with Minimum Curvature method. Moreover,
the Average Angle and Radius of Curvature methods have
been used to re-calculate the data manually through
Microsoft Excel program. Based on this comparison, it was
shown that the Radius of Curvature method is more
accurate and less error than the Average Angle method. On
top of that, the Minimum Curvature methods proved to be
the most accurate, effective, and least error method up to
day in calculating the wellbore trajectory; giving exact
values needed to reach the target efficiently.
References
1- Jamieson, A. (2012). Introduction to Wellbore
Positioning. University of the Highlands and Islands.
2- Technology gains momentum. (1998, December 21).
Retrieved July 6, 2015, from Oil & Gas Journal:
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-96/issue-51/in­
this-issue/drilling/technology-gains-momentum.html
3- Haugen, J. (1998, February 3). Rotary steerable system
replaces slide mode for directional drilling applications. Oil

methods yet. That is due to several reasons: & Gas Journal.

1) Because of using the inclination and hole direction 4- Graser, F. A. (1949). The Fundamental Mechanics of
measured at the upper and lower ends of the course length Directional Drilling. Los Angeles: Cleveland Oil Co.
to generate a smooth arc representing the well path.
5- Warren Tommy, B. H. (2003). Directional Drilling with
2) It uses the Dogleg Severity (DLS) to calculate Casing. Amsterdam: SPE.
displacement in both planes; unlike the Radius of Curvature
6- A. Calderoni, M. e. (2015). A New Generation Of Fully
that uses the inclination change for the course length to
Automated Drilling Rig Forward Designed To Meet Highest
calculate displacement in horizontal plan; thus having many
HSE Standards and Drilling Efficiency. Ravenna, Italy: SPE.
angles in calculation; causing the R.C to be less accurate
than M.e. 7- G. De Grandis, A. M. (2015). The Successful Application
of a Hybrid Rotary Steerable System Allowed To Drill a
So, the final results would be (at depth 6255 ft):
Sidetrack Well with a Record Build-Up Of 13 o/30m and a
Tangent Section To Increase The Reservoir Exposure.
Ravenna, Italy: SPE.
8- R. Berto, M. B. (2015). Drilling Risk Management and
Reservoir Characterization with Deep Directional Resistivity
Logging While Drilling. Ravenna, Italy: SPE.

9- Siddhartha F. Lunkad and Gaute Grindhaug, S. H. (2015).

Innovative Drilling Technologies Contribute in
Implementing New Gas Lift Well Design on Statfjord Field,
North Sea. Bahia, Brazil: SPE.

10- Calculating Accuracy Within Excel. (2013, April).

Retrieved August 30, 2015, from Stackoverflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16116451/ca Iculating­
accuracy-within-excel

11- Correlation Coefficient. (2015). Retrieved August 30,

2015, from MathBits:
http://mathbits.com/MathBits/TISection/Statistics2/correla
tion.htm

12- Weisstein, E. W. (n.d.). Correlation Coefficient.

Retrieved August 30, 2015, from Wolfram Mathworld:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CorrelationCoefficient.htm

13- A.T. Bourgoyne Jr. (Louisiana State U., B. R. (1974,

August ). A Multiple Regression Approach to Optimal
Drilling and Abnormal Pressure Detection. OnePetro , 14.

14- Str(llmhaug, A. H. (2014). D irectional D rilling -

Advanced Trajectory Modelling. Department of
Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Retrieved October 15, 2015, from http://www.diva­
portal.org/smash/get/diva2:746157/FULLTEXT01.pdf