Amoco - Directional Survey Handbook

Upstream
Technology
Group

ISSUE 1
SEPTEMBER 1999

BP Amoco
Directional Survey Handbook BPA-D-004
Contents
Authorisation for Issue

Preface
Amendment Summary
Section 1 Introduction
1.1 About this Handbook
1.2 Directional Survey and Value Addition
1.3 The Design-Execute Principle
Section 2 Policy and Standards
2.1 Drilling and Well Operations Policy
2.2 Policy Expectations
2.3 Standard Practices
Section 3 Theory
3.1 Surface Positioning
3.2 The Earth’s Magnetic Field
3.3 Position Uncertainty
3.4 Position Uncertainty Calculations
Section 4 Methods
4.1 Multi-Well Development Planning
4.2 Survey Program Design
4.3 Anti-Collision – Recommended Practice
4.4 Anti-Collision – Selected Topics
4.5 Target Analysis
4.6 Survey Calculation
4.7 In-Hole Referencing
4.8 In-Field Referencing
4.9 Drill-String Magnetic Interference
4.10 Survey Data Comparison
September 1999 Issue 1 i

BP Amoco
BPA-D-004 Directional Survey Handbook
Contents (cont’d)
Section 5 Survey Tools

5.1 Inclination Only Tools
5.2 Measurement While Drilling (MWD)
5.3 Electronic Magnetic Multishots
5.4 North-Seeking and Inertial Gyros
5.5 Camera-Based Magnetic Tools
5.6 Surface Read-Out Gyros
5.7 Dipmeters
5.8 Obsolete and Seldom Used Tools
5.9 Depth Measurement
5.10 JORPs
Section 6 Technical Integrity
6.1 What is Technical Integrity ?
6.2 Risk Assessment
6.3 Surface Positioning
6.4 The Directional Design
6.5 Executing the Design
6.6 Survey Data Management
6.7 Performance Review
Appendix A Mathematical Reference

Appendix B Approved Tool Error Models
Appendix C Data and Work Sheets
ii Introduction September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
Preface
This Issue 1 of the BP Amoco Directional Survey Handbook (BPA-D-004)
is applicable in all areas of the BP Amoco organisation.
In addition to the uncontrolled hard copies, this document is also

available online via the wellsONLINE and ASK websites, accessible on
the BP Amoco Intranet. The online document is to be considered the
master version, containing the most up-to-date information.
The distribution of this document is managed by the Upstream

Technology Group (UTG) and controlled and administered in Aberdeen
by ODL.
ODL may be contacted as follows:
UTG DCC or: UTG DCC

ODL ODL Mailbox
Buchanan House BP Amoco, Dyce (through internal mail)
63 Summer Street
Aberdeen AB10 1SJ
Scotland
Tel 44 (0)1224 628007

Fax 44 (0)1224 643325
Alternatively, contact the UTG Wells Document Controller,

Steve Morrison at BP Amoco, Dyce, Extn 3593 (44 (0)1224 833593
September 1999 Issue 1 v/vi

BP Amoco
Amendment Summary
Issue No Date Description
Issue 1 Sept 1999 First issue of document.
September 1999 Issue 1 vii/viii

BP Amoco
Section 1

Contents
Page

1-1
1-2
!" # 1-6
Figure
1.1 Well positioning process and associated files 1-7
September 1999 Issue 1 Introduction 1-i/ii

BP Amoco

Who this Handbook is for, and what

it’s about.
1

! "
# $%
& ' (

)*+(,-% .
/

.$ 0+

&

1 $ #

# # $ #
$ &1
$*$%) Reference to
#$" & another section
in the Handbook
$% #&' Reference to a

1 " " % technical paper
or publication
" &1
! # Indicates a BP
#$& 2 " Amoco Standard
Practice
# " $ &
September 1999 Issue 1 Introduction 1-1

BP Amoco
&#
1 &
" 3 "
)
% ) ' $ 1% 21/&
43 "

% ) ' $ 1% 21/&
1 ' &
&#
1% $ " " 5%
' "
)+.6'.* $ 7) *$$! 7

$!&
&(#
$$ " $ # #

% )
' $ 1% 21/& ' $ "
$$ $ $ 43 "%
" # 5 & 2 #
&
)
# " "
% % &

0 " 5
"#
$ & 1 $
% " %
" &
1-2 Introduction September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
* &
0 " # $ #
" & #%
" 8 #
"$ &
(*+& "$$,
The well’s surface position must be directly above or at a
known horizontal offset from the geological target located
by the seismic survey, often taken months or years before.
1 "#% % $
"" " 3 & '
$ "#% ""% %
# 3 $ &0
" # ## #
" #$" &0
#$ & . %
%" $&
(-(*+& "$$,
The wellbore must be drilled such that it intersects an often
small and distant geological feature.
# $$ $ "
" % # # #
$ & ) " "
# &
$#
$$
% #$ #$
" &1 " #
& 9 $ $$ "
"
#% 8 &+" %" $ "
$$ 3&

BP Amoco
$ " "
&' 3 "
# $$ $ " #
" $ "
$&) #$$
" % " "" : #
$ " $
"" : &)
% "
"" " &
&$..$,$,&
The wellbore must not hit any existing wells which lie
between it and the target.
" " #
; " 5 $ #% # "&

# $ $
# % ' $
# " &1 $
"# $%"
$ % $& 1
$ "# """
# &
&&
0 $ #! $ 8 : $
" : 5 5 &
$
3 $ " " $
$ & 1 $ $
$$ %$#& "
" &

BP Amoco
(* /"*$0*1&$

1 5 # # $
" $
& + $ % "
3$ $
$ &1 "0)

5 <, " $ #& ) $
" " #5 % "$
$$ 8 " " &
121,0*..,0*$$1
"# $
5 $# ##
& 1 "
% $ & )
% "" # %
$ "
"3 % % $
&'
$ & " ""
$ $ &
. )
'$$ %
# " " #$
$&
1 7$!$%$% $ $
$& 1 # #
=
• ' $ " " &
$ $ $ $
%" 5 $ #$
$$ # #$$
• ' & 4$ $ 1
"
# """$
3 % 5

BP Amoco

!

"
#

$
Examining any question or decision about well positioning
against this principle is almost guaranteed to help in its
resolution.
The purpose %
& '
and content of the

#
Directional Design
and Well Survey Files

(
))*
are explained in

Sections 6.4 and 6.6
$

!

#


BP Amoco
Directional Identify geological target(s)

Design File
Well Location
Memorandum

Formalise well objectives
and planned surface and Well Survey File
target locations
Well Data Pack

Figure 1.1
Final Well
or similar Position Memo Well positioning
Design directional plan Position rig at
and survey program surface location process and
associated files
Final proposed

trajectory and Survey reports
survey program
Acquire and validate
survey data per program
Defintive
well survey
Compile definitive well survey
and load to database
September 1999 Issue 1 Introduction 1-7/8

BP Amoco
Section 2
"
Contents
Page

3$# " 2-2
" !# 2-3
" 2-9
September 1999 Issue 1 Policy and Standards 2-i/ii

BP Amoco

"

What BP Amoco Policy says about
directional surveying and what it
means for your Business Unit.
1 "

"$&1 7 !
7$! " $
## &1"#$
$ &

5 3 "
$
) + 7
$ !&
1 " #&
1 "
$ ) 18
"% $
$ $ & $
3 # 7 3"

$0$!&13"

% 21/ )
' $ 1& # $
"" "

&15 "

$ &
September 1999 Issue 1 Policy and Standards 2-1

BP Amoco

7 ! 1 &

" & 1
3 " 8 " $ %
% 216&1
2 1 6 8 "
> #
" 21/1 &
1 4 &?
" $&
1

" " % "
# 2 3 5 "#&
) " #
8 $ % #
$ # " #%
&
$$ #
3 " 8 " " &'
# "
$&

3$#
"
1
$ ) +
7 !/
" 1 $ @ +
# " "
$&
2 " $ #
2 0$ % "
"" / & . % 2
# #
2-2 Policy and Standards September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
" " #

5 $$ # Getting
HSE Right&
" "

%21/)' $ 1%&
" !#

1 $ # $ 3 "

$ italics&* 3 "#
5 # &
1 " " 5
3 " # % #
5 5&9
5 #%# "
3 # &
$ " &

(12.5) A database of well trajectories (planned and actual)
and all project data (slots, targets, locations and
projections) shall be maintained in a form approved by a
qualified person appointed by BP Amoco Senior Drilling
Manager. This safety-critical database shall be the subject
of a written plan approved by BP Amoco that describes how
it shall be managed throughout the Business Unit life cycle.
,&, 1

0$ # $
"=
• )
• ) " $
"

BP Amoco
• ) " $ "

• 1$ #
$$ # 2
"
,&A $ # "
" " &
,&? " %
0 6 " 1
. / .
#"&
,& $ 8 # "
" " # % $
&
,&B $ # # $
" # %
#&
,&- " $
## $ # &
# " &
,&C # "
# &
'"
(8.4) The final position of all spud locations shall be
confirmed by a qualified surveyor.
(8.8) The rotary table elevation, relative to seabed at mean
sea level and water depth (offshore drilling units) or the
rotary table elevation relative to ground level (land drilling
rigs) shall be determined and formally recorded.

BP Amoco
A&, 9$ #% " #

# "
) 6
0&
A&A ' " # " 5 $ "5
% " "
# &' "
"
"
" &
A&? ) " $ 5
# " $
# Getting HSE Right
&
A& 1 " " # #
3" % " %
9) 0&
A&B 1 $ " " ##
#
" #&
A&- 1$; 41*%D* & =
• / $
#
• "" # #
%"


BP Amoco
")
(12.1) Survey programs for all wellbores shall be designed
such that the wellbore is known with sufficient accuracy to:
a) Meet local government regulations
b) Penetrate the geological target(s) set in the well’s
objectives
c) Minimise the risk of intersection with any nearby
wellbore
d) Drill a relief well
(12.2) The performance specification of all instruments
employed on operations shall be approved for the use by a
qualified person appointed by BP Amoco Senior Drilling
Manager.
?&, 1 $ $ # $
$8 &
?&A + "

#
$&
?&? 1 $ $ # "
" &
?& ) # $
$

&
?&B $ $ $
# " $$
$$ &
?&-
!1$ # #
# "# &

BP Amoco
?&C ' $

" $ " " #&
1 # "#
$
$;% "=
• 1# " "#$$
• 1 " $
• 1 " $ #!
$ $
"
?&E 1 $ # "" JORPs are
" " discussed in
Section 5.10
&

" ! F + $ 4 $
F+4&
4 &
(12.6) On multi-well operations a collision check shall be
performed on the planned well trajectory
(12.7) All procedures for assessing tolerable risks of
collision, defining minimum well separations and ensuring
compliance with such criteria while drilling shall be
approved by a qualified person appointed by BP Amoco
Senior Drilling Manager.
9 5 " $
&?&9 % 3 " &?
# #
&
&, $##
$&
&A # " # 8
# " $ "
"&

BP Amoco
&? 1# " #

# $ &
& * # #
" $ 080&
# 08 " #
# $"
& ' 0 "
"
#$$&
&B 1 # " 08
#=
?σ,GσAGH,GAG Sb G&,

I,
?σ,GσAGH,GAG Sb G,
J,
#
σ, K # ,&&
σA K ' "$# ,&&
, K ; #
A K $+
"$#
Sb K # "&

K
&
&- 1 # " #

# "=
 d + d2  1
σ 2 ln 1  + (d + d 2 ) + Sb
 Rσ 2π  2 1
#=
σ K σ12 + σ 22
R K 14

BP Amoco
&C 1 1 4 # "
" 3 "
" $ #
2 &
&E
$ #
$ $ #
&
&L * $# $
$&
&, " % "
## $&
&,, ) ""
# # &
&,A ' " $
% $ #
$ % $ #
"" ""&
"

5 " " %#
$$ # $& 9
%# " &
,& # # "
" # #
"

&
A& # # /
1. % ?&,&

BP Amoco
?& 0$
# "=
1 " /$
//$ 0//0%?&A%

" "%# #
$ '94%&E&
& 1$ # # #
; ; & 7 !
,A! &&
B& #0
&E&
-&
" # $
-&-&

BP Amoco
Section 3

Contents
Page

'" 3-1
51 + 3-17
" ( 3-21
4 " ( & 3-26
Figure
3.1 The Earth’s surface and the geoid 3-2
3.2 Globally and locally fitting ellipsoids 3-3
3.3 Dependence of latitude on choice of ellipsoid and datum 3-3
3.4 Relationship between geodetic heights 3-5
3.5 Geographical, mapping grid and drilling grid co-ordinates 3-7
3.6 Variation of grid scale factor across a mapping grid 3-8
3.7 Components of the magnetic field vector 3-18
3.8 The one dimensional normal distribution 3-23
3.9 A two dimensional distribution resolved in two directions 3-24
3.10 Principal directions and the standard error ellipse 3-25
September 1999 Issue 1 Theory 3-i

BP Amoco
Section 3

Contents (cont’d)
Table Page
3.1 Definition of the drilling grid in some
BP Amoco operation areas 3-9
3.2 The magnetic field in some of BP Amoco’s operating areas
(approximate values as of 1 July 1999) 3-19
3.3 Confidence intervals for the one dimensional
normal distribution 3-23
3.4 Confidence intervals for the two dimensional
normal distribution 3-25
3.5 Error term propagation modes 3-27
3-ii Theory September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco

An introduction to the science of well
surveying.
1

# # $"
#&' 5
8 % $ " "
" % %$ " &

'"
$ "6$
# # ! 5 "
""" $&1 $
$ " "
%21/ M 1%&
)0
0 $, .."$

1 * ! " $ % $
" $&
0 % $ $%
3 " $
&1#
&
September 1999 Issue 1 Theory 3-1

BP Amoco
Mountain Range
Geoid
Figure 3.1
The Earth’s surface The Earth
and the geoid
Ocean
1 $

$ 5 * ! " :

& / # "
"7 !" ;85K
7! " $ K 7,>"!& 1
% "
# "&
1 8"
&
1 # " &6 " $
" # $
" * !" &5 !
,E-- # $ . &1
,E--$ " #
$ 0! 4 D% $ .
AC
$ " &1"$
% " 5 % $
"" $ &
/ " $ 5 $
# * % " &
)/E $$ "
$$" $ )/E#
$ & ' / $
/&
3-2 Theory September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
globally fitting
geoid
ellipsoid
eg. WGS 84
Figure 3.2
Globally and locally
fitting ellipsoids
area of best
fit of ellipsoid
to geoid
locally fitting
ellipsoid
eg. Clarke 1866
1 $ " *

$$ "
&'" $ $%
# $ " & 1
$ " 3& 1
$% #3 #
$ &
grey ellipsoid Point
black ellipsoid perpendicular to

black ellipsoid
perpendicular to grey ellipsoid black

latitude Figure 3.3
grey Dependence of
EQUATOR latitude latitude on choice of
ellipsoid and datum

BP Amoco
5 % "#$ "
=
6 & B°!A&--,N. 6 & B°!AA&CA?N.
6$& ,°BL!?&A,?N) 6$& ,°BL!E&AL,N)
+/,L?-$ )/E$
,E? )/E
. )/E " &
0, 0* + * ,&
1$ " * !" % "
$$ % "
!" & $& 1 $
$ " $ & 1
##&
+%$ $ # 5
$ # & $
+
% .# +
. O
2DP . @
" ,LEE
.@
EEO 2P&
' % # #
5 " &1 "
$ 6# 1
61 0 6# ) $ 06)& *
"" " $
61 " $
& 1 $
$& $ $
# $ % $
5" # 5
$&2" $
# $&4$ " 0
6 $ # $
& $ &

BP Amoco
$ $"

& 1 $ 5 / #
% $$
)/ E & ' $ $
" / % " $
Q$ $ N "
& / $ "

& 0
/ $
$$ &#%$
5 /
& &
gravity-related
Geoid height (h)
ellipsoidal
Ellipsoid height (H)
geoid height
(N)
Figure 3.4
H=h+N Relationship between
geodetic heights
1## 0
$ "$ # ;
% $$ $
" "
& " " $ #
#&1 * !"
" $ 3 "
" $$ $
$ & 1 "

$
% $ "

BP Amoco

$

&)
" % 8
$ " #
# & 8
$ "#
8 # 8 % " 5
ED50 / UTM zone 31N . Nord Sahara
1959 / UTM zone 31N $& . $
$ " 8
$&210 ; ?, $ : $
"&
" " %
" # & 1 8
% $ " & 1
8 "
1 0 6
"% # " &
+ ""
" &
8 &
/% 8 #
$ $$
& % $&
1 $ $ 3
" # 8 8
&93 " %
$
& $ ;
210 210
2 0 " # $& 1
210 $ " 8 % -
-$"$ &1
10 8 # ""$
$$
&; 5 /%4
&

BP Amoco
mapping grid drilling grid lines of latitiude

and longitude
West of the East of the
Central Meridian, Central Meridian,
grid convergence grid convergence
is negative is positive
Figure 3.5
Geographical,
Cross-section
mapping grid
shown in and drilling grid
figure 3.6 co-ordinates
Central Meridian
& '
# . &' "
" 3 $
" 3 &
. $$
; " # &
( '
#" " $$
& ' " " 3
" 3
& /
&1$"
$ "
& '
#% $ $
#$ # " &1
# ?° G?°& $ ""
"" %# "&,° $ &
'" $ % $
$ # $ ""
" " $&1"%
When survey measurements are related to grid north it is
essential that the relevant map grid (projected co-ordinate
system, including geodetic datum) is identified.

BP Amoco
1 8 $

$ "
# "
$ " $ $
$& 1 " "
#&LLL ,&,&' "
"% $$
&
Central Meridian
grid scale factor > 1
grid scale factor < 1

e (Spheroid)
urfac
r th’s S
Ea
Figure 3.6
mapping projection
Variation of grid scale
factor across a
mapping grid
0

$ $ $ " #%
; "
$$ &1" #
%" "# # =
• 1

K
#
BP Amoco " $ " 5" $$&'
Standard Practice "
# $
$$$&)$ % 8
"
• 1 $ $ $ " " $
$& ' $
BP Amoco $ $ # "
Standard Practice


BP Amoco
3 " % "

" " $$# &
"#$ #%"""
" &
drilling grid north Structure Centred Referencing
(DGN) drilling datum Survey Reference = True North
A
(= rotary table)
TRUE
structure NORTH
Norway
ref. point UK - Forties
(MAPPING) UK - Magnus
GRID
NORTH UK - former Amoco
DGN Well Centred Referencing

B Survey Reference = True North
USA - Alaska
Table 3.1
Definition of the
drilling grid in some
BP Amoco operating
Structure Centred Referencing areas
DGN Survey Reference = Grid North
C
UK - former BP
(excluding Forties, Magnus)
Netherlands
DGN Well Centred Referencing

D Survey Reference = Grid North
USA - Gulf Coast

USA - Land
Colombia

BP Amoco
*..,00** &$11 ,$,

1 # "
$ / "
$ " "
$ " #
$& 9 # % "#$
=
Survey Reference Direction
• 1. .#
• /. " #
Drilling Grid Origin
• ) " $
• " $ " #
0 " )

1 / $ % /% "
"" $ $ " $ " #
& ' $ " "
$$
8 # /&
/ " AC $ A%
$ "
&
" " 3
" / & .
"% & 1
"
"5& " /
$ &
/ # $ $
""2 / $
$ #
&1 "

BP Amoco
$ / 5 R, R? " &

$ $# &
++ * ,.0"60"7

"" / $ #
/ &*
/$ $/
# 7" ! & 1
# #
" &1
"/
& 1 / "
/ "# &
1 ""
/ 3 &
" %
&
/ $
R,B
" % " " %
" $ "
/ &
$ *0" &,8(
3 $ / $
$ 3
$ &
1 3 %
3"#" $&
1 / 3 #
) % &* ( &1
/
" $
" RAB R,A & /
$ 3"41D
" "
,A5&

BP Amoco
1 4 # (

%
/& '
/ #
" $ & 3
" />/ &
/ # &&
1 3 "
# &1" "
# 1 ±,? &
. $,1 (* 1 ,
/ $
; &9 $
""% /
" $ " %
$ # &
+% /
& ' 5 " "
; RA, "
/& / $
)/ E
$ $ &
3" &
$'" )
" $ #
/ "& " / & ,LL "
$ # " "" $&
" &1
# $ $
"" & $
&
#& 6$
$ 0; $&
1 $ $ % +,&
$/ "
% /

BP Amoco
# $ & 1 #

$ " "#&

#
"/ " $ #"
# & 1
$ " " #
# &) ""5
%
& F 2 $
$ "5 8
8 & 1
$ &
+% # $ % #
$ $
& 2

/
" " $ #
"$/&
(%"
2# $ $
3& 4$ #
$ "
# & 1 "
$ # #
" $ "
& 1 #
$ $ "# % ""
% # $
" " & 1 # ""
$ "
$ S$66
26 &

BP Amoco
.$,0- ., &$(&6.-.7

1 66 $ "
$
$ $ # "
# "
% $
/& "
#" 5 $
# " &
) ""
%
$ $ #
&1
4+@% $% " #
% $&/%$

& '" " $
" $
3&
" $
" $
" " "3 &*5 $"3
$ " R&BA%
5$$" B&6#"3
$" ,
# " RAB& +
# 5 &

"
$
& '" $% "
$" "" %
$" $& "
#
/ %#
" &

BP Amoco
(.*$*- ., &$(&6(-.7

126
" $ &
1 "5 " "
& 4$
66
"" $
$ &
1 3 $
$% " $
# " & 26
$ # %

"& 1
&
1 26 #
&1 $" "
# &1$ $
" "> >
$" & 1 " 26
$ $ "
&'" #
: &BT " # & '"
$ 26 3%
26 " # &
$ " $ 21/
M 1&
# #
-%6%
26 5
&

BP Amoco
&.-*$,

&66 $
" &266
" $ "
$% & "
$ "# "
$ &
3" (

0 "
Section 3.3 $/&
/ "
explains the statistical ,B A & 1 ;
concepts behind
position uncertainty " / & 1 #
$ ; "" #
/ " "
$ & ""
$ "
"" & 0
" "
"" &
1 " " $
% $ "
% % $ & + #
" #
"±B, %$±AB &
1 " # # $
# &
Section 4.2 gives 9 # #% $ #
the surveying " # ""
requirements for relief
well contingency # & 1 ; "
#$ "" 3 "#&'
"" $ 3&

BP Amoco
) "" " #

3 # =
• 1 #

% "
& 1 " 8
"
"
• 0"

& 1 " $
"5# $" "
" "
1 3 "
" " # $ &
$ 3 % 3 "
% 3
$ & 1 $" &
" " $" #
& 9 5 "
% 21/ M
1&
51 +

1 * ! $ " " %
" # &' "
• .
% D δ% " $ # "
; 8 " $
" % #% $ "

#

BP Amoco
• . % I Θ% " $ "
; $ " %
##
• / % F B% # " $ "
"
1 $ "
% &
1 X%YZ&
True North
H
X
δ
Θ
Y
Figure 3.7
Components of the
magnetic field vector
1 ' " $ "5 1&

* ! $ " #%

& &" K
,1&

BP Amoco
1"#$ $ 5 " $

"" !8 $&1
$ " ; " % #
$"" "$ $&
Location Lat. Long. Declination Dip Field Horizontal

Angle Intensity Intensity
Vietnam 8°N 109°E 0° 0° 41,000 nT 41,000 nT
Abu Dhabi 24°N 54°E 1°E 36° 43,000 nT 34,000 nT
Egypt 28°N 33°E 3°E 41° 42,000 nT 32,000 nT
Kuwait 29°N 48°E 3°E 44° 44,000 nT 32,000 nT
Algeria 29°N 1°E 2°W 39° 40,000 nT 31,000 nT
Trinidad 10°N 61°W 14°W 34° 34,000 nT 28,000 nT

Table 3.2
Colombia 5°N 73°W 6°W 31° 33,000 nT 28,000 nT
The magnetic field in
Azerbaijan 40°N 50°E 5°E 58° 49,000 nT 26,000 nT some of BP Amoco’s
USA – Gulf Coast 28°N 88°W 0° 59° 48,000 nT 25,000 nT operating areas
(approximate values
Bolivia 17°S 62°W 9°W -11° 24,000 nT 23,000 nT
as of 1 July 1999)
Argentina – Austral 54°S 66°W 12°E -50° 32,000 nT 21,000 nT
UK – Wytch Farm 50°N 2°W 4°W 65° 48,000 nT 20,000 nT
UK – Central N. Sea 57°N 1°E 4°W 71° 50,000 nT 17,000 nT
Canada – Alberta 55°N 114°W 20°E 77° 59,000 nT 13,000 nT
Norwegian Sea 65°N 7°E 2°W 75° 52,000 nT 13,000 nT
USA – Alaska 70°N 147°W 29°E 81° 57,000 nT 9,000 nT
0) +

. * ! " % $ "
5 " =
1,+ .
1 " $ * !
" 5 LET " " $ * !
" & $ #
# & ' . % " $
" 1
"$ &

BP Amoco
01 &! /2!.

1 " &9
$ $$& 6
" #
& 1
" % # "
"#1&
. &1'02 /2!.
1 " "#$
$ %
$& ' " "
&
$$ %
" ""# 1
. % %$
"$$ &
1"" "$
$ " B&A"" $
$"" $&E&
0) 1
$ %" % "

&1
" "# "
: "
BP Amoco
" $&'
Standard Practice /$ / /$
0 (( " $ " $
"% & 1 //0
/ " "
&
'/49' /$ 4"
9% B %
!
&

BP Amoco
" (

$
" # & 1 "
# "$
# %
" &
1 " #
% %
3 &#%#
#
&95 %
• ) $ ; # %
" # " &
1
• ) $ $ $ & "
$ % " #
" $ " & 1
#
" $% #
&
( $ )
9 % #" =
1

&&σ%$"
" 3 " $ 3
"" # & 1
" " # $ #
",&C,&. "
" -ET " : "
&

BP Amoco
'" #(U$

% O(%UP 3

&5 %OBV?W%-VBWP$ LBT "
" 2& '
"5" "
" " & 1 Oσ%GσP OAσ%GAσP
# "$ ?&E& 1 ,
$A$,A " &1
" #
& ' "
$ % " -B&T
L-&-T&
$, 1 ,$,.,$*1.*-($,
9 $ % /
" &
1 # µ σ 2
" σ
" =
 − (x − µ ) 
2
1
f (x ) = exp  
σ 2π  2σ
2

1 "#$ "$ # , $ A $

" " &
1 -E&?T LB&T "
# " #
&

BP Amoco
f(x)
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25 95.4% Figure 3.8

confidence
0.2
interval The one dimensional
0.15 normal distribution
68.3%
0.1 confidence
interval
0.05 -2 σ -1 σ +1 σ +2 σ
0
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 +0.5 +1.0 +1.5 +2.0 +2.5 +3.0
x
LBT " " #
% 3
A $ & 1 " ? $
# % 5 " $T
# 5 &BT" $ $ &'
#% 3 7G>A
$ K LBT " !
3 5 &+
" "
=
confidence standard confidence standard confidence standard Table 3.3
level deviations level deviations level deviations
Confidence intervals
25% ± 0.32 80% ± 1.28 95% ± 1.96
for the one
50% ± 0.68 85% ± 1.44 98% ± 2.33 dimensional normal
75% ± 1.15 90% ± 1.65 99% ± 2.58 distribution

BP Amoco
f(x)
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25 95.4% Figure 3.8

confidence
0.2
interval The one dimensional
0.15 normal distribution
68.3%
0.1 confidence
interval
0.05 -2 σ -1 σ +1 σ +2 σ
0
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 +0.5 +1.0 +1.5 +2.0 +2.5 +3.0
x
LBT " " #
% 3
A $ & 1 " ? $
# % 5 " $T
# 5 &BT" $ $ &'
#% 3 7G>A
$ K LBT " !
3 5 &+
" "
=
Confidence intervals
25% ± 0.32 80% ± 1.28 95% ± 1.96
for the one
50% ± 0.68 85% ± 1.44 98% ± 2.33 dimensional normal
75% ± 1.15 90% ± 1.65 99% ± 2.58 distribution

BP Amoco
( % )

9$?&L " # ;
$ % $
"" # & $
" %
# $" $ &'
"$% " . *
&
North
Figure 3.9
A two dimensional
distribution resolved
in two directions
East
% # # "

5 & '
# # &1 #
5 # 3$
" $

,$ "
&1# "#$"$&

BP Amoco
direction
North of maximum
variation
σmax
standard
error Figure 3.10
ellipse
Principal directions
90
and the standard
error ellipse
σmin
direction
of minimum
East variation
' # Section A.2
" % " # includes more details
on the mathematics of
" & 9 position uncertainty,
" # %# including how to
" &9 % " $" calculate other values
for Table 3.4.
"$" " "
& 9 5 % A&B $
% # 5 3 A&Bσ max
A&B σ min % LBT " $ " &
+ =
Confidence
25% 0.76 75% 1.67 95% 2.45 intervals for the two
39.3% 1.00 86.5% 2.00 98.9% 3.00 dimensional normal
50% 1.18 90% 2.15 99% 3.03 distribution

BP Amoco
4 " (

&
1 # #
#&' % $"
# $ &A " #
"3$ &1
# # $
" " #
&
For a full "
description of the
method, see
"
&#% " $ "

&

)#
1 " "$
=
• * #
#
• " $
% ;
• * " ""

• 1 # ; "
$ $
#
• 1 "" # "
3 "
""

BP Amoco
'

#
&
""
" &'
" "#$ =
• %$&7 !
• #$ $ " % $ "" "

• ;%5 "
• $ 3
• "" ρ,% ρA ρ? $
# %
#% "
1 ""
!

: # !
"" # #&1" =
Propagation ρ1 ρ2 ρ3 mean
Mode
Random 0 0 0 0 Table 3.5
Systematic 1 0 0 0 Error term
Per-Well 1 1 0 0 propagation modes
Global 1 1 1 0
Bias 1 1 1 ≠0

" # " Appendix B
contains a list of the
$" $" # current BP Amoco
"" & approved error
models.

BP Amoco
& "
" 3
"#$ =
• " :
$$ $ "
• # 8 % & "

• # " 8 $%
$
•
"
Section A.2 @ , && "
describes the
interpretation and & 1
manipulation of $ " $ &1"
position covariance
matrices.
" %
?×? 5%
&
-
0 3
$ % # " ;& #
$ "#
# &
&
%" % 5&"#
;% $
$ % & *5
5 $ " #
; " ;
# $
&1 $ " #
% % $
" % #
% % $
"5 " &

BP Amoco
1"" " " #

# " # & 1
"#$"" =
• * #
•
! $ # $$ $

• + $ %$
"$#
#
1 ## "
#=
• 1

" #
& ' $
$ !
• 1 #
# $
$ & '
$ $
!
• 1 "" $
# % " % "

September 1999 Issue 1 Theory 3-29/30

BP Amoco
Section 4
1
Contents
Page
4
1 3#)" 4-1
4 ") 4-6
4 & 9*))" 4-17
44 & 9# 4-27
4: 4-34
4; & 4-39
4< *' 4-40
4= + *' 4-48
4> 1 ' 4-55
4
? &)# 4-59
Figure
4.1 A well planned development 4-3
4.2 A poorly planned development 4-5
4.3 Flowchart for survey program design 4-7
4.4 Schematic of a relief well 4-10
September 1999 Issue 1 Methods 4-i

BP Amoco
Section 4
1
Contents (cont’d)
Figure Page
4.5 The minimum separation rule for major risk wells 4-18
4.6 How a nearby offset well appears on a travelling cylinder 4-27
4.7 Travelling cylinder co-ordinates 4-29
4.8 Rules and conventions for drafting tolerance lines 4-30
4.9 Principle of single wire magnetic ranging 4-32
4.10 Calculation of the driller’s target 4-35
4.11 Calculation of the driller’s target (contd.) 4-36
4.12 Effect of hole angle on size of driller’s target (side-on view) 4-37
4.13 Driller’s target volume for a horizontal well 4-38
4.14 Pinched-out driller’s target – a case for geosteering 4-39
4.15 In-hole referencing – section drilled with multiple BHAs 4-42
4.16 In-hole referencing – section drilled with single BHA 4-45
4.17 The IIFR principle 4-48
4.18 Typical process sequence in an IIFR operation 4-51
4.19 Typical data flow in an IIFR operation 4-54
4.20 Estimating magnetic axial interference 4-56
4.21 The principle of simple axial interference corrections 4-57
4.22 A Survey T-Plot 4-60
4-ii Methods September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
Section 4
1
Contents (cont’d)
Table Page
4.1 Required competencies for anti-collision work 4-19
4.2 Calculation of in-hole reference corrections –
section drilled with multiple BHAs 4-44
4.3 Calculation of in-hole reference corrections –
section drilled with a single BHA 4-46
4.4 Maximum acceptable axial magnetic interference
corrections, by region 4-58
4.5 Forbidden hole directions for axial magnetic interference
corrections 4-58
4.6 Rules-of-thumb when using the error ellipse method 4-61
4.7 Quantitative interpretation of the error ellipse method 4-62
4.8 Example of a Relative Instrument Performance
analysis for azimuth differences 4-64
4.9 Rules-of-thumb for use with Relative Instrument
Performance analyses 4-65
September 1999 Issue 1 Methods 4-iii/iv

BP Amoco

1
4
Mathematical, logical and procedural
tools for optimum well positioning.
1 $

$$ "#
$& 0 " %
" " " " # %
5&
" 0 @
1 5 " % %
$ & A "
5 % " 5 #
#
$ &
4
1 3#)"
1
$ " #
$ " #%
$ *$ "
# "
" # #
% $ &*$
"" 3 $& 1
3 " $ "
# # " & 1 "
# " "
$&
September 1999 Issue 1 Methods 4-1

BP Amoco
1 # $ $ $ $

#% " $ %
" &)
" $ %
"5 $ # $
&
& 1 "
$ $ "$ &
&1 '"
* " 3 #
=
• *5 $" % $#
• /$ $
• 1 "$ $
•
# " % $
# $ $
• $ 3 % # "

"
1# $ =
• $% #$ $
$ %# $3 "
• #$ "
• $ #$ " # 8
1 $%
# # " &
" &
" 5
" # %
4-2 Methods September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
&1# #"

$"" $ " &
* " " "
& 1 "# " #
" # $ # #
"5"$&#%
# -
4

/ .

1 # #
" % #
#" &
0 ''"
1 " " $
$ 5 "5 &
9$&, #7 !" "
# &
Slot in use or planned for use
Spare slot
A-6 A-2
Well location at fixed depth
(say 500 ft bMSL)
Drilled well path
Planned well path
A-3
A-4 Figure 4.1
A well planned
A-1 development
A-9
A-8
A-5 A-7

BP Amoco
1 5 "#$ =

• " &) %
7 !% "
&1 "
# 5 $#
• ) " % $
# "
• &1
$5"5 " $
$ "
• ." $ # #"
% $ 5 #

• . " $ %
" $ &1 "
#
• . $ " % $
" & $%
# 5
• # " 8 & 1
$

" # # $
> $ % $ 8
=
• $ > ""
$$& $ #$
# " " $

• 1 # " ""
$ % % #
"

BP Amoco
• 1 " "

• / 8 # "

"#$"
# " % "$ &A #
# %# $
"#&
slot in use or planned for use
spare slot
A-1
A-5 well location at fixed depth
(say 500 ft bMSL)
A-4
drilled well path
planned well path
Figure 4.2
A poorly planned
development
A-3
A-2
1$ $#%$

# $ 3
" " #& % $
" $ ""& )
" %
"" &
# +% "

+ # # "
" %
$*$%)

"# &

BP Amoco
It may be necessary to incur extra cost to avoid the paths of

wells that have yet to be drilled, or to survey the top-hole
sections of wells more accurately than would be needed were
the well being drilled in isolation.
#" &
4 ")
3 #)@
1 $ " # 3 "
3 $ " $
&" " $#=
• / "" #
# #! $
8
• "" 3

• 3 >

Appendix C 1 $ " # $ -
contains a Survey
#
Program Data Sheet,
useful for inclusion in

& % " $
the drilling program & 1 $
$ & ' %
$ =
,& 1 &
A& %# " &
?& 4$ "$ $% #
&
& $ &
B& &
-& $ %"&
C& $ " "&

BP Amoco
' $ JORPs are
$ $ F+4 covered in
Section 5.10
5 # " # $&
"
1 " $ $
7" 8 % %
8 # !&9$&? # &
identify geological objectives identify drilling objectives

target tolerances while drilling anti-collision, economic target size
maximum uncertainty of external magnetic interference
definitive survey relief well contingency
regulatory requirements
select well trajectory,

survey casing program
sequence
check
approved
objectives error models
are met Figure 4.3
Flowchart for survey
program design
check program
robustness
standard
sufficient data redundancy
running
contingency for tool failure
procedures
check operational
impact / economics
adherence to “lessons learned”
survey equipment suitability specify program
for well conditions details
survey equipment availability station intervals
minimum depth ranges record in
impact on drilling process
(stationary pipe etc.) validation surveys drilling
best use made of market place contingency surveys program
minimum cost solution

BP Amoco
$$ $

-$
" # " $ $&
1 # 5 " 8 $
$ $ %
& 8 $
&
* '3&

$"# "# 3 $
$ # $ &1
# "" & ' "
$ # &
1 "#$ $ # " #
" $ $
;& 9 5 #%
" " " 3
" # # "
$$=
• ' # "
"
• 4 $# %
#
• " $ 8 %
$

BP Amoco
*..,0,"$$,,0* . +3 ..

. # " # %
$ $
=
,& 1" " $ ##
&# %
"" #% #
#$# &' %
# $ " $
&' "$#
" $ # "
# & ' " $
" $
" "##" $ #&
A& " $ "
$ ##55 &1#

"
# & 1
# 3 " "
#&
?& 1"##
7 ! : " $ $
" "#
$ & ' % #
$ # $
% # # # $$ : # #
$ $$ " $ #:
# " &15$
" "
% %" " %
$ 5 $ $
," ? &

BP Amoco
& 1 " " $ # $
" %
# "" ;& 1
# # " 5
5 " &
$ "
&
Target well
“cone of uncertainty”
around target well
Figure 4.4 Relie first approach
f we - above last
Schematic of a ll
casing shoe
relief well
last casing shoe

above reservoir
second approach
- at kill point
B& 1 " # # #
&'" $ #%
# $ # #
$$& '" # #
% " 3 "
% " # # %
% &

BP Amoco
3 .."$$,,0* 8(* 1 ,

1 "#$ # 5 " "
3 " # $ & 1 $
" # $
3 #& ) % )
1 "
8 " &1 "
# 5 #&
,& 9 #
$;%
$ " $
? ," A & 1
"=
2σ Absolute Uncertainty = √ [ (2σ surface uncertainty)²
+ (2σ surface-to-seabed uncertainty)²
+(2σ lateral wellbore uncertainty)² ]
Example: Offshore well in 800m of water.

2σ surface uncertainty = 5m (typical of DGPS)
2σ surface-to-seabed unc. = 8m*
2σ lateral wellbore unc. = 10m
2σ Absolute Uncertainty = √[ 5² + 8² + 10² ] = 13.7m
* See Section 3.1 for a discussion of USBL acoustic position uncertainty.

Land and hydrographic surveyors will usually quote uncertainties at 2
standard deviations (2σ) by default. Check. In some high step-out
development wells, the above criterion may not be practically achievable. A
dispensation may be justified on several grounds:
• Knowledge and/or depletion of the reservoir makes a blowout very
unlikely
• Wellbore uncertainty is substantially less in the high-side direction that
in the lateral direction (this fact could be used by careful planning of the
relief well)
• The type of survey data to be acquired is amenable to further processing
and accuracy improvement, should it be necessary. IIFR is an example
• There is no practical means of improving the accuracy of the survey
program

BP Amoco
A& ' #
$ ;% $
3 $ 3" ;
& 1 $ 0)

% $ $
$ # $ &
Camera-based magnetic surveys are not adequate for this purpose, except
over short depth intervals (c. 300m or 1000ft).
?& 9""#"" $% "

; ""
# " "5& 1
"" 3 ,&'
"" ; " "
# # $
3 5 &
LBL acoustics There are a number of ways in which limits on the departure from verticality
are described in may be determined. Measuring the well inclination in the water column,
Section 3.1 probably with MWD, is among the simplest. Use of LBL acoustics is
probably the most accurate (but also the most expensive).
!1 '
0$ $ $ "
& ' $% "
=
,& 1 $$ "& 1 " #
$ & 3 "
" $ &C
" &
A&
$ " "&
$
"% $ " "$
$
$&L&

BP Amoco
?& *5 " "&

$ "
$##&' $
" % "
"" & 1 $ $
$ ; #
" 5 "&
*..,0$($+&,0$
$ % $ "
# $ $" $%
" $ % " 8 $!
$ &*5 # $ ;
- A" " $ & /
$% " "
& 5 #
# $ &

$ #
$" ""
# 1@
& ' %
% $; " &
*..,0$($+&.( *$*&,03,$3
1 # 8 $ $$"
"" $ ; " & '
$% $ 5 " # ?"
L " $% " #
B" ,B&
9 $ % $
$ $ "
" &5 #$
" % =
• 1 "" # ?" %
#
• 1 " #

BP Amoco
•
$ $
5 & 1

"
10, &, *+ * ,& &,
1 5 " # 5
$ " "
5 " $% %
$ " : ""
" #& 1 "
$ " $$
#&1#

$ " $ $&1 "
" #"#=
,& " $ " 5 $ #
,%XN $ # " &
#5 " """ #&
A& $ % d % # #%

" "" #% S1(di)
S2(di),…SN(di).
?& % d % 4
"
$ $ $=
1
−
 1  2
S equiv (d i ) =  
1 1
+ + ...+
 1( i ) 2( i ) S N (d i ) 
S d 2 S d 2 2
This formula is based on the simplistic but useful assumptions that (a) the
interfering field from each casing string is equal in intensity (b) the intensity
decreases with the square of the distance from the casing.
& 3 $ #
#&

BP Amoco
*..,0*$(,+
1"$ " #$
" $$ "
% "" # &
1 " $ # #
" " $
$ $ " &
" ( ''

1 # "$$ $ =
• # #
• 1 # " " #

1 " " 1$ &B&
1 %# $ "" 3 %
" " $% 3
% & . %
/$ # " # $
& 1 $ $ $
3 % "
$ "8 " #&
**A )'
1 3 " # $ #
$ $ 3
3 % " "
" & # 5 %
#
"" " "" 3 &
. % # $ # " %
$ " " 3
"# $ $% "
" &

BP Amoco
*
1 " $
# "8 "
$" $
&1
$ & 1 "
" 3 F+4
$$ %
"" &
1 #" "3
$ " " "" & '
% " %#
" % # "
"" " #&' "
$$ =
The precise the amount of corroborative data in the form of check shots,
interpretation of this multiple probe runs and the like must be sufficient at every
rule for MWD surveys
is described in stage to confirm the performance of each instrument run in
Section 5.2 the hole.

BP Amoco
4 & 9*))
"
1 " "
4 " %# #
2 5 & 0 $
" $ "
7 1 !&&
-
1 4 " 7(
4 !% # #
" (

& $" $
#&
1 4 # # #
#" ,LL-% # "
" #
! . %
"$ ##& 1 "
$" &
&,0 +*$1-"2* &$11 , "*$& (*
$ # ( 4
"# 5
"" =
,& 0 :084)
+(=
KA&BEσ,GσAGY&,B
%,BZGSb
+ .
/=
Kσ,GσAGd,G dAGSb
.# =
K?σ,GσAGHd,G dAGY&,
%,ZGSb

BP Amoco
#
σ, K # ,
&
σA K ' "$ # ,
& 1
" " "" #&
, K ; #&
A K $+
"$#&
Sb K # "&
1 # "% %
"" &
most likely position lesser of :

of interfering well a) 1% of drilled depth
b) 10m
M
IN
IM
UM
AL
Figure 4.5 LO
W
The minimum 3 σ error ellipse AB
LE
SE
separation rule for PA
major risk wells RA
TI
O
N
radius of
interfering well
most likely position

radius of 3 σ error ellipse of planned well
planned well

BP Amoco
A& 0 :04)

1 ( $ $ "
$ %
" #& 1 # 4
# " "$
% $ $
14"#&
0*A )
$ # "
&
Specifically, the following personnel must have been assessed by a directional
specialist as competent in the following skills:
Performing Drafting Using the anti-collision

anti-collision anti-collision diagram for decision
calculations diagrams making while drilling
Well Planners
Person responsible Table 4.1
for ‘signing-off’ wellsite
Required
drawings competencies for
anti-collision work
Directional Drillers and
DD Co-ordinators
BPA Person
responsible for
‘drill ahead’ decisions
)# " % ##

# &
$ # #
$&

" # 3
M 4 M4 " $""
216&

BP Amoco
'

" # "
8 &
1 # " " #
" # # "
8 &
1" # ""$
# &
&
# " # 8 #
" $ "
"&
For a database to be used for the definitive clearance scan, there must be a
process in place which ensures that it is, for practical purposes, identical to the
definitive drilling database. It need only contain a subset of the wells in the
definitive database, but must at least contain all the wells known to have been
drilled in the area of interest.
1 ))# &

1# " ##
$ $ $
#&
The separations are considered as distances measured perpendicular to the
planned well, so that they lie in the plane of the anti-collision diagram. ‘3D’ or
‘minimum distance’ separations are more conservative, but cannot be
adequately represented on the travelling cylinder plot and are therefore not part
of the Recommended Practice.

BP Amoco
&.+&$,$+3 ..

* # #
" $ 080&
1 " # "#$ "
" =
A nearby well presents a$
)if a collision with it would
carry a significant risk to personnel or the environment. It
presents a
) if the risk to personnel and the
environment in the event of a collision would be negligible.
The Major/Minor risk classification is preferable to the more prescriptive
Flowing/Shut-in classification because it forces the engineer to think through
the implications of collision in differing situations. For example, the
consequences of collision with an oil-producer just above a shut-in SSSV
should certainly be subject to a thorough risk assessment before the well is
classified as Minor risk. Conversely, a collision with the same well in the
perforated part of the reservoir section might well justify the Minor risk
classification. Used in this sense, ‘Minor’ is a relative term – a well may be
classified as Minor risk without implying that a collision with it would be of minor
importance.
) " $ # $ "
#% " $# &
A well may present a Major risk for only a part of its length. For example, below
the shut-in point, or more than a certain distance above the reservoir.
Calculations involving the mud weight, shut-in pressure and fracture gradient
may be required to establish at which depth the risk classification changes.
4 " #
$$
"$$,.(,& *,/
# #
$ %
" $ &

BP Amoco
1# $

" &1
&B " " #
# 21/ 1
&
1,1(1 "*$,91B$**C3 ..
1# "08#=
K?σ,GσAGH,GAGSb G&,
I,
K?σ,GσAGH,GAGSb G,
J,
#
σ, K # ,
Section A.5 &
explains how relative
surface position σA K ' "$ # ,
uncertainty is included
in the minimum
& 1
separation equation " " ""
#&
, K ; #&
A K $+
"$#&
Sb K # "&
Section A.5
K
& #
explains how survey
bias is included in the " ) 4" %
minimum separation $&
equation
Example: Planned well uncertainty at 1 std. dev. = σ1 = 8m
Interfering well uncertainty at 1 std. dev. = σ2 = 5.5 m
Hole size in planned well = d1 = 17.5" = 0.445 m
Casing OD in interfering well = d2 = 13.375" = 0.340 m
Allowance for survey bias = Sb = 0m
Drilled depth = DD = 650 m
Separation = 3(8+5.5) + H(0.445+0.340) + 0 + 0.01(650) = 47.4 m

BP Amoco
1,1(1 "*$,91,$**C3 ..

1# # "=
 d + d2  1
K σ 2 ln 1  + (d + d 2 ) + Sb
 Rσ 2π  2 1
#=
σ K σ12 + σ 22
R K 14

Example: σ1, σ2, d1, d2, Sb as above
Tolerable Collision Risk = R = 1 in 80 = 0.0125
σ = √ [8² + 5.5²] = 9.71 m

Separation = 9.71√ {2 ln [ (0.445+0.340) / [(0.0125)(9.71)(2.51)] ] }
+H(0.445+0.340) + 0 = 13.8 m
The risk-based separation equation exhibits some unexpected behaviour. For more on
In particular, it is meaningless when the behaviour of the
risk-based separation
d1 + d 2
< 1 equation, and its
Rσ 2π derivation, see A.5.
This occurs when the relative position uncertainty of the planned and interfering
wells is so large that the tolerable collision risk cannot be exceeded even if the
planned well is drilled straight at the interfering well. The minimum separation In
this case can be set to zero and no-go lines need not be drawn.
1 1 4 14 # " Section 4.4
" 3 " gives guidance on
determining Tolerable
" $ # Collision Risk
2 &
For convenience, a risk level may be used which is less than the value
determined from the cost-benefit analysis. Thus, for example, directional
software might present a pick-list of rules based on risks of 1/10, 1/20, 1/50,
1/100, 1/200 and 1/500. A calculated TCR of 1/57 would indicate that the 1/100
risk-based rule should be applied.

BP Amoco
1,1(1 "*$,9 *&C3 ..

9 #%
: " " #
# : #
$ #&
Even when this is done, it is sometimes impractical to apply the standard
minimum separations rules immediately below the kick-off point. In this case,
good judgement must be used to determine from what depth the standard rules
should be enforced.
& )

$ #
$ $ #
& ' 5 % # $
3 "%
#> &
It is occasionally possible to represent drilling tolerance lines adequately on plan
view or vertical section plots, eliminating the need for an anti-collision diagram.
For example, where there is no interference near surface, a single interfering
well is involved, and the interfering well remains either above, below, or to the
left or right of the planned well. Where there is any doubt that the drilling
tolerances can be represented accurately, clearly and unequivocally in this way,
an anti-collision diagram must be used.
1 $ # " #
# . $ ,AV &
1 # # $ #
" # #
&
Use common sense when it is clear that a particular no-go line cannot be
violated due to the presence of other, shallower drilling tolerances.

BP Amoco
& 3

* $# $
$&
$ # $ #
#" 3 " &
Where the only deviations from the survey program are altered start and end
depths to survey sections, it will usually be sufficient to recalculate the
uncertainty in the planned well and to decide if the consequent changes in
position uncertainty are significant. Eliminating surveys from the program,
changing instrument types, or radically changing depth intervals will always
require a full rework of the anti-collision calculations.
# > F

+ $4 $ F+4B&,&
" % "
## $&
,+*,0 1 ,$+$. *,& .,
) ""
# # &
' " $ %
$ # $
% $ #
"" ""&
When a tolerance line has been crossed, or is likely to be crossed if drilling
continues, the situation must be assessed by the onshore drilling team. Firstly,
the anti-collision diagram must be examined to confirm whether
either the tolerance can be relaxed without violating any no-go areas (for
example if the line has been drawn to smoothly join two no-go areas),
or the tolerance line protects only planned well(s) and there is sufficient
room to safely re-plan these at a later date.
In either case, an amendment to the anti-collision diagram with the tolerance line
moved to allow drilling ahead can be prepared. If only a small section of the
diagram is affected, it may be faxed to the rig.

BP Amoco
It is always better to provide the rig with a revision to the anti-collision diagram
than with verbal or written instructions. It will usually only be possible to relax a
tolerance line by a limited amount, over a limited extent of the diagram. This
information is difficult to convey in words.
If the tolerance line protects an existing well, the options to be examined include:
• Plug back and side-track
• Re-survey with a more accurate tool
• Perform a QRA analysis to justify drilling ahead
• Drill ahead with increased survey frequency and alertness (this may be
appropriate where a tolerance line is just being ‘grazed’)

BP Amoco
44 & 9#
&
11$ 8 " For more
&1 8 information on the
Travelling Cylinder
"% # and its uses, see
""" #&1"#$$##

"" # = !" ! #$
%
0 !
W
N
40’
&
0’ 20’

#
E
S 80’
60’
40’
40’ 992’ 20’
1000’ 992’ 20’
270
2910’
90
Figure 4.6
1976’
4779’ 3826’ How a nearby offset
20’ 40’
2000’ 1976’ well appears on a
60’
travelling cylinder
40’
20’
2910’ 180
3000’
80’
60’
40’
20’
3826’
4000’
5000’ 4779’
interfering well planned well
* + * ,& (* /
' $ BP Amoco
# 8 & 1 Standard Practice
" $ $ $&
" # # 8
&

BP Amoco
* + * ,& * &$,

BP Amoco ' $
Standard Practice % #;
# $ & 1
#. " $ %
7 . !& " # # # $
,A! &
1 $ " #$ # $
" $ $%
" &1 " . "
8 ## %#
$ # $ "
5 # $$ # " #& 1
$ " "$ #
$% # #$ " 3
&
* ..,0&/., *&$$*,
$ " #
& 1 "
" $& %
" # & 1
%# $
$& % $ #" #
$ # ; &) # %
% $ $ $ "
#&
$ $
# $ # 1
# #
" $ $ & 2 "
"
# &' %
%
" $#" &

BP Amoco
320
50
40
300
30
Relative
Bearing
= 96 deg
Figure 4.7
Radial Distance
= 31 m Travelling cylinder
co-ordinates
2347
2370 Relative
Depths
Interfering
Well
,$0$* ,$. *,& .,

1 $" $ $
8 ! $ &
"" #% #
# #
$ " &
$ $
# # % %

%#
$ &

#$ $ "" # For a step-by-
$ # 3 step guide to drawing
" & 9 %
# tolerance lines and
completing anti-
# " 7$! collision diagrams,
& ' $% see '( (
$ $ $ &
)&
$ * by Hugh
1 # & Williamson, UTG Well
Integrity Team

BP Amoco
*+,0$. *,& .,

1 "#$ "$ # " "
$$# &
Here, there is room to cross the 800 ft line

before reaching 1000 ft, whilst staying outside
the minimum tolerable separation. Separate
tolerance lines have therefore been drawn.
1000
900
1000 A separate 800 ft tolerance line
800
800 900
800 here would be pointless. It could
scarcely be crossed without drilling
Figure 4.8
within the minimum tolerable
Rules and separation at a greater depth.
conventions for
drafting tolerance
1000
lines
960 980
1000
Entering this area would violate the minimum

tolerable separation at 990 ft, even though
the no-go area has not been plotted
& *

1 14 "
# #
" # #& '
5 " "
& #
$ " "
The worksheet, # &
plus 3 completed
examples, is in 1 " "=
Appendix C.
1 " 3 " C
) &
1 " $ $
V ) &
1 " M4 $ &
. &

BP Amoco
"

14%" # %
# V/C& #% 2
# 3 %
# # " $
14 $ "
$ #$% 8
$& " " A 1
4 "" "
# & )
" % " M
F $ # "
# "#$ &
* 3 "" #8 "
14% 3
) & ' $% " #
=
• 1 " "$ # % # 8 %
$$ &
• 1 " " @%#" $
% &
• 1 "" $ "
3 "5 #
1 # $ $ "
$ $ % $ %
&' #
$$ &15 5
" # " $ " "
3 &&

BP Amoco
For more on the 5 )

-
$

practical limitations of ) & 1 " #$ "
QRA applied to " %
anti-collision see
+, ,
" "
!( & -&.) M4 # "
/& & ) #$
0 -& "
$" " 3&
3 1 *

For more )04 3 $ " $ "
information see "#%# " &'

++
& @ 0$ ' & " ' % .# U&

# 1&$ 1 2 B%EB%ELS B%B,B%L?,

$ B%-BC%EA-&*5 $ " $#
$ -$$
!"2 > &
3

&. "*,&".
$ " #
$ $ # #& 1
" 0)
$ #&
# 0)
"$
""&
" #&
well being
drilled
MWD
sensors
r
w
B
Figure 4.9
Principle of single
well to be
wire magnetic ranging avoided
wire inside
well carrying
current I
conductor
eletromagnetic electrically
field lines grounded

BP Amoco
'" "$ #
% $$$ &1
" #
# &'" %
?," "
"" & 1 "#%
"$ #
"#$ &
"5 "$ # " # 0)
% # $ #

&
"" $ $ $ " #
* ! $ " "
%$8 "%B,
#& 1 " % r% "
0)
"$
µ I
#% ! 6#% B = 0 2 (r × w ) # w
2π r
"$#&1 r
$ 8 " 3 =
µ0 I
r= ( w × B) &
2π B
2
"".&$,," *+$*1,&

)04 # # $
# #
&' "" # "$
# # # "
# 8 &
# "$# $$"
3 " " $
&

BP Amoco
1$ "

% # 5
# " % " 0)
& ) %
,A % " ± " , "
±,B" A " 5 % # 5 $ "
AB" &
' $ 21/
$#" &
4:
1 % $$ 8 "#"
"" # &'
"% " 3
# # "
$ &
" %#
,T $$ 8
&) "
' $ " $&
' $ $
! &
* " & #
$ " 5 $ "
$ & # 3 $
& 1
# $ $
$$ & 4 " $
3 &

BP Amoco
5
1 " $$ $ #
# "" "
6 &'"$&,
#
$$ $ #& /
%,
" # $
#"$&,&
(a) surveyed
(b)
well path
geological target
Figure 4.10
Calculation of the
driller’s target
apparent point
of penetration
2 s.d. error ellipse
*$ " , # # "$
$$ $ & ) $ "
$$ $
" LAT& $ $$
$ $ $
&,, &

BP Amoco
(c) (d) geological target
Figure 4.11
Calculation of the
driller’s target (contd.)
well inclusion probability

direction > 95% driller’s target at
90% - 95% 95% confidence
< 90%
9% # " " $$ $ #

# % % LBT%
7! $ LBT " !&1#
&,,%
$ &
' &' .
1$$# 2
$$ $
! $ % "
$ & '
%
" $$ $ % !
$ " $ " $ LLT%
# $ $ "" & 9
$$ $ % 5 #% ;
$ #% &
#% " $
;" ! $ $
"#$=

5 $ $$ $ #
$$ &
* $
&
$ # " $&

BP Amoco
$ " " $

# $$ &
" "LBTLT
" 3&
! $
" LT "
5 &'5 % " #
3 &
'''##
1 ; " ! $ 7 !
#! " $$ $ & 0 $
" ;
" # # %
#" $& 5 %
; $ #
; #&
Low angle well High angle well
(1) uncertainty is magnified

by foreshortening
Figure 4.12
Effect of hole
highside angle on size of
highside
uncertainty
uncertainty driller’s target
(side-on view)
(2) target is truncated at near and
far edge by magnified uncertainty geological target
driller’s target
# %" $$

$ " $
$"$ "" " $ $
& 1 5 % "
" =
amount of target truncated at front & back
= highside uncertainty / cos (incl)
9 3 # % #

$! $ LET " &

BP Amoco
& ' 5

The BP Amoco 0 $ #
algorithm and the
graphical method
" #& $
are described in " # " "
Section A.4 $ " $ &
%
! $ # " $
&1 $ 3
&
' D3

" " $"" # $ $
$% $ " ; # "
; & 1 "
$$ $ " " & 1 "
% 5
% 1
" #&
! $
" %
8%"$! $ #&
exit (or TD)

plane
Figure 4.13
direction
Driller’s target volume of well
for a horizontal well
entry plane
geological target volume
driller’s target volume
'" $ $%

"" ! $
7 !&% # #& 1
$$ $ $
& ' 8
$ $&

BP Amoco
Figure 4.14
direction Pinched-out driller’s
of well target – a case for
geosteering
“pinched-out” driller’s target geological target volume
4; &
1 5 The minimum
$ "# " $# curvature equations
are given in
. %* %1@
%" Section A.1
% %; &13 "
" 5 $
" % # $
% $ $
5% # $
' & 1 " % #
$ #
&
' BP Amoco
" # & Standard Practice
7 " !% 7$
$!7 $ ! " %
%
$& 1
% 8 # $
" # $
%
"# # &

BP Amoco
*&
1 " $$ %
; " #
% & '
%## 8
" &2" %
" 3
% &
%# $ $" %
&,&
4< *'
' " $ '4 $
3 $ # " 8
0)
& '
$ & $ %
5 . &
" #'*
' " $ # $ " 0)
$ " % $

; # 3
# 0)
&1 # 8
" 0)
; :
$ 5 $ " :
$ $
! $& 0)

" # #
# 0)
>
&

BP Amoco
## '*
' " $
#
• 1 #$ A°
• ; A"
# $ # '4
:#
• 1 $ ;
5
705$
!#
#

-

' %0)

" $ #
$ # $
&
' " $
$ 0)
&'
%#
&
)#&
' " $ 8 $ Survey data
& ' ! comparison is
described in
$ 3 $ : " Section 4.10
& $ "
# $ # # #
" # 0)
&
It is vital that all IHR corrections are checked for
reasonableness as well as numerical accuracy, and that
unusually large or highly correlated corrections are
investigated by a survey specialist.

BP Amoco
*"
1 #
$ # & )
" $ #
$ % " # "#
&
in-hole reference
interval
Figure 4.15
In-hole referencing – gyro multishot
section drilled with survey
multiple BHAs BHA #3
BHA #1
BHA #2 BHA #1
IHR MWD surveys BHA #2

BHA #3
MWD surveys
,& # B " ,B , " ? " $
# $ & 1
$ # #
5 " $
" #& )
% # $A"
3 & 1 0)
" $ # $

# $&

BP Amoco
A& $$ 1
"
& 1 3
# $ "$
$
$ "$ $ &
AB" , &
1 &
?& + #

"#
&1 =
" $ # $ ""
" $ " &
AB" CB &
A" -$ &
# ; " &B°
# &
1 > '4
% 705 $
!
#&
& " % # $ % 0)
# '4 & 1#

%# " $ # "
L°% $ ;
&
"" '4
&1 &1
" $
% " 0)
5
"$ &
B& ; #
3 0)
>
# $ &

BP Amoco
&.&(.$,$+*&$** &$,9

1(.". -
) $ % '4
" $ $
0)
; # " ;
&1"#$ 5 =
Measured Gyro MWD BHA # Interpolated IHR Corrected
Depth Azimuth Azimuth Gyro Correction MWD
Azimuth Azimuth
1250 271.62°
1275 271.81°
1300 271.77°
1325 272.04°
Table 4.2 1350 272.16°
Calculation of in-hole 1315* 272.7° 1 271.93° -0.77° 271.93°

reference corrections 1413 1
273.6° -0.77° 272.83°
– section drilled with
1508 274.1° 1 -0.77° 273.33°
multiple BHAs
1604 274.3° 1 -0.77° 273.53°
1255* 272.1° 2 271.66° -0.44° 271.66°
1699 274.2° 2 -0.44° 273.76°
1793 274.7° 2 -0.44° 274.26°
1300* 272.9° 3 271.77° -1.13° 271.77°
1886 276.1° 3 -1.13° 274.97°
1980 276.2° 3 -1.13° 275.07°
2073 276.5° 3 -1.13° 275.37°
* In-hole reference station
* *$" & &$** &$,$+13(* /

' ;
#
'4 &'" 0)

# '4 % ; "
$"$
" &

BP Amoco
1$+ "*$& (* +$*,0. - &$,

) $ #
# $%5
'4 =
Figure 4.16
In-hole referencing –
section drilled with
gyro multishot single BHA
survey
MWD surveys
rejected due to
external magnetic
MWD surveys used IHR corrected
interference
for calculating IHR MWD surveys
correction
,& ' " $ A" %

'4 " 0)
& 1 "#$ 0)

5 " =
• 0)
# # " 5
$ " 5 $

• 0)
# "
5 $; J&B° #

• 0)
# '4
# 3 "" $

BP Amoco
A& 1"

" $ $ 0)
%
$ &
?& 1 #
&
& " % '4
"#$ &
1"#$ ##$'4 =
Measured Gyro MWD Interp. Azimuth IHR Corrected
Depth Azimuth Azimuth Gyro Diff. Correction MWD
Azimuth Azimuth
6200* 83.23°
6300 83.06°
6400 82.69°
6500 82.24°
6600 82.38°
6700 81.60°
Table 4.3
6800 81.45°
Calculation of in-hole
reference corrections 6276 82.1° 83.10° 1.00°
– section drilled with a 6370 81.6° 82.80° 1.20°
single BHA 6467 81.3° 82.39° 1.09°
6562 82.2° 82.33° 0.13° reject †
6655 81.1° 81.95° 0.85° reject ‡
6749 80.7° 81.53° 0.83°
mean +1.03°
6842 79.9° +1.03° 80.93°
6936 79.1° +1.03° 80.13°
7030 77.9° +1.03° 78.93°
7125 78.0° +1.03° 79.03°
* For illustration only – reference survey interval should be 25 ft or

10 m.
† Rejected – statistical outlier.
‡ Rejected – azimuth change between reference survey stations
>0.5° (Azimuth change between 6600 ft and 6700 ft = 81.60° –
82.38° = -0.78°).

BP Amoco
121(1&,0 ,$. * &$,

'" $
; "" $0)
$
& 1 " $
% " 5 $
" $ $&
1 5 $
& 1 "#$ "
$ $
$" 0)
" &L
" =
Max. change in sin(Inclination)sin(magnetic Azimuth) ≤ ±0.25
Example A proposed IHR section starts at 65° inclination, 150° magnetic

azimuth, and finishes at 75° inclination, 130° magnetic azimuth.
Is this change in hole direction acceptable ?
Answer sin(65°)sin(150°) - sin(75°)sin(130°) = 0.45 - 0.74 = 0.29
The change in hole direction is too great, and IHR cannot be applied over the
whole section.
,$. * + * ,&,0$+ . &*$,&1(.$

* "
# 0)
# $ & ;
" #
" %" 5 $5 $
" &

BP Amoco
4= + *'
$ 3 " "
For a complete $ &
$
discussion of
interpolation in-field $ % 3 "
referencing, see $ $ " $ & .
+, - "$" $$
)/
& " /$ /
1 /$ 0 //0& #% $
!" $" $ " " & 1

00
4( " "
5*$ ) "" # $$
6 - $ "?&A&
!"2 and
,

00 '% $ #
0 ) $ " $ "
6 - $ # $ & 1
-*
7&" & 1 3 "
8& " " $ ''94
5 & ''94
"" " $$ " #

$ "
$ "&'"" 7 !$
% $ $ " $ 3
&
Measured Field Mean Offset Derived Calculated Field

Figure 4.17 at Observatory From Wellsite Survey at Wellsite
Observatory
The IIFR principle
Wellsite

BP Amoco
1 + 1

+% 7 !" $ "
$ 3:
3 # % $
$ 3&+""% %
$ "& 1
" $
3"$ 5 &
1$ "
"$ "$
# " $ & 1
" $ " "
$
& " " % "
$$$$ "&1$$
"" & 1
" "
"
$ " "&1 #
$=
1 " & 1
" "
" $ &
1 ; " &
$ """# #"
% 5 $; " &
1 # $
B B
&

BP Amoco
1 $ #

5 " $$ "
" " $" #
$ &) 5 %5 $
"
" $" &
+ *' $#

'94 & ' 3
" $3 %$
" 5 #$ ""& 1
$$ 5 &
.$,$+10, &+ ..(
$ " "
"
" %
3 & 1 $
''94 0)
# $ $
# $ & 1
%"# $"" =
• 4 $ " # # "
$ $5
• '" $ #% "
0)
%

• ''94 0)
; # "
0)
; &C
"".&$,$++*
% " ''94 3 &
1$ $ " &
1 # " ''94
#3&

BP Amoco

Real time

(rig site)

Figure 4.18
Typical process

sequence in an IIFR

operation

! Regular

turn-around

(office)
D#$" "

# #& 9 %
" $ $&1
"% $ "
##% "5 #"
8 "& %
" " $ $ #
$ 3 $&
0)
3 $ "
$ % &
* $
# $ & *5
$ $ % $ %
G>, "" %
0)
>$$
$& 9 3
55 $
" " $ 5 "
3&

BP Amoco
$"$,+$*"*$& ,0

1 " $ "
$ # #
''94& 1 $
3 5
&1 "" "
$ % 5 " $
$ 5 & 1 % #
# = "
$ $ %
" " " # & 1
"; "#&
OPTION 1 Correction for crustal field declination

1 $ "
$ "
" $
; & %
#3 $ "
& $ "& 1
$ & "" #
" "
%$ 3 "
&
OPTION 2 Correction for crustal field declination and
drillstring interference
"5$ " $
"$ " $ "
$ &1
# " $ $ "
# "
&+ # "#$";
# 5 & * " $ "
$ $
+ , " #&

BP Amoco
OPTION 3 Correction for tool sensor errors, field variation

and interference using near real-time data
1 "" " B&A #
" # 5 "
$ " "
$ "& / $%
" %
""" ""# $
&
+* 8( ,&/$+ . */
1 "3 " $
3
#=
• D $ $ " " #

• $ " " # ""
$
• 0$

$ " $ % "
3 % "
# " "
& ' " $ $ % #
#$ " # %
#3 " #
&'" " $
''94 " " # % "
$% $
$ &
0 $$ $
" &1#
# $
&

BP Amoco
*& 1,0 1 ,,&$11(,&$,

3 " ''94 "
$ & 1 % $ %
0)
" $
&4
$ &
1" "53
5 &
Observatory Data (bulk)

IIFR Data
Geomagnetic Processing Office
Data Centre
Figure 4.19
Typical data flow in an IIFR Processed
MWD surveys
RAW MWD
Observatory sensor data
IIFR operation Data (real-time)
Permanent
Magnetic Directional Logging
Observatory Engineer’s Office Unit
$3, *"," ,*0

1 " 7 $ ! #
% 8 1 $
2D . * 4
/$
)+LC,,?& ) $ $
" % / #
$ " " &
1 "$ "
$ " % $ " $ "
$ & '
"" $ "
# "21/&

BP Amoco
4> 1 '

0$ " " $
""$ &' #
=
• $ $5" %
$ &
" $ "
5
• 0
$ $ $5
" & ' "" "
# 7!
! '
1 " 5 " $
' " %
" &
-& $*/
0$ $
$ % # $
&1" % B%
" " $ %P% ! %z:
P
Bm =
4πz 2
Bm 1K,1%z %

" )µ)& $ "
µ)% ,&&
" " & '
5&

BP Amoco
1 5 "$ "% % "
" "" " &
9$ &A # # # " #
"$ &' " #
& 0$ % $
# &
magnetic
sensors
P1 P2
1  P1 P2 
Drill Collar Mud Motor Bax =  + 
4π  z12 z 22 
Figure 4.20 z1 z2
Estimating magnetic magnetic
axial interference P1 P2 P3 sensors
P4
1  P1 P2 P3 P4 
Drill Collar Stab. Mud Motor Bax =  + + + 
4π  z12 z 22 z 32 z 42 
z3 z4
z2
z1
1"&$,- 0,

1; %∆az% 5$ "
5" " % %
$ " " "$"&
) "$" # ;
" * ! "% "#$ 5
" 5 =
180 Bax
∆ az = . .sin( Inc).sin( Azi )
π BH
# BH ; $ " $
?&A " 5 % Inc Azi
$ ; &
'$%$
" 5 " $ &B°& 1
# " $
$ ,&&

BP Amoco
2., *+ * ,& &$** &$,

$ # " 5
" " & 1
# "$&A,=
Problem Solution
(1) we can measure
apparent this vector
magnetic
north (2) and we know the
axial interference vector
interference acts in this direction
vector
(3) and we know the Figure 4.21
(magnitude B + Bax
unknown) Earth’s field vector
is this long: The principle of
B + Bax simple axial
Bax
interference
corrections
magnetic north
(direction relative to (4) so we can work
drillstring unknown) out that magnetic
north is in this direction
1 "$ $$ "#$ "
=
• 1 #$ " * !
$ "& )
&"" $
"% #
$
• 1 " 5 "
5 " &L
• . " $ " * ! "
" "&
2" % # "" "5
" # : # #
; $ #

BP Amoco
• " % "#$

#$ =
• $ #

& 1 " $
&6
$ " 5
5 $ "
Table 4.4 Drilling Area Maximum

Acceptable
Maximum acceptable Correction
axial magnetic Gulf Coast, Middle East, Far East, Africa, South America, FSU 6°
interference North Sea, Northern Europe, Canada, Norway 8°
corrections, by region Alaska 10°
• # ,? " "

$ $ & ) %
5 " &
• 5$ "

# "
5
&LB& 1 "#$ " "
=
Azimuth of Well Forbidden Inclination Range

Table 4.5
Magnetic E or W ± 19° or more no restriction
Forbidden hole
Magnetic E or W ± 18° 87° – 93°
directions for axial
magnetic interference Magnetic E or W ± 15° 80° – 100°
corrections Magnetic E or W ± 10° 75° – 105°
Magnetic E or W ± 5° or less 72° – 108°
'$ % "

$" $&

BP Amoco
1(.$,,./

8 $ # The development
0)
# $ and validation of
5 " & 1 7 INTEQ’s method is
described in
! 3 0)
& ,
# #
00
" $& & 1 0) #
$
$ " """" $#
" "
$ "*
$&
0 "
$% $ "
" & 1
" $ 0)
% $ " "

$& 1
" &
4
? &)#
" $
#" $ " 3
$& 1
: 1 % %
#4 ' " 4'&
*A )'&)# 1

M 3%$
$" "" # &
7$" ! " 7
!&1=
• 1 $

# $" "
$ #

BP Amoco
) $" "" "% 5

% #
" &1=
• 1 $ $

" %# # "
. " ""
3 % "
&
"
1 $ #$ "
# & 1
" $ " 5=
40
35
30
Inclination
25
20 MWD
15
Gyro
10
Figure 4.22 5
MD
A Survey T-Plot 350 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
345
340
Azimuth
335
330
325
320
315
1 #" $

$ " & ""
% " & 1 #
$ " $ "
$&

BP Amoco
1 1

&,°> A°>&9 %1
EH[5,,[ " :5 $#
$" " 3 &
1 ## $"" #
$ # 5 $
" &13 "#$ &
#1

$" "
" &* %
" %" # %
# #
&)
3 " !$ &
9 % The equations for
# # calculating these
ellipses are in
& 1 ; % Section A.2
" $ 1@
& 9 $ $
; #%
# $ &
9 $"$ >$ $=
Overlap at 1 s.d. Good agreement. No further investigation

necessary.
Overlap at 1.5 s.d. Average agreement. No further

but not at 1 s.d: investigation necessary. Table 4.6
Rules-of-thumb when
Overlap at 2 s.d. Poor agreement. Recheck both surveys using the error ellipse
but not at 1.5 s.d carefully. method
No overlap at 2 s.d. Disagreement. One or other survey

almost certainly contains a gross error.
Investigate to resolve the discrepancy.

BP Amoco
2" % " " $

$ " " %
>" "& 1 #
73 !& #%
" " #
=
• 1 # & $
""
• 1 #
• 1 #
) % " #
& 1 # # %
"$ # % #
$ &1 %
$
$&. "
; " & " #
" #
&
Probability that 1 s.d. ellipses 1.5 s.d. ellipses 2 s.d. ellipses

ellipses will
not overlap
Ratio (R) of
ellipse sizes
Table 4.7 37 % 11 % 2%
Quantitative R=1
interpretation of the
error ellipse method
41 % 13 % 3%
R=2
45 % 16 % 4%
R=3

BP Amoco
* )"')

4' " 3 "
& ' ;
"" # # #
"" 5 " & 1
3 " "#=
•
$

•
=
∗ ' "
∗
-

$ " "

∗ , &&
" "
$
∗ , && "" #
" 3 "

∗
"" , &&
"" $

• 9 "
""
#
• 4 "; ""

BP Amoco
MD Comparison Interpolated Observed 1 std.dev. Normalise

survey reference survey azimuth azimuth d azimuth
azimuth azimuth difference difference difference
(ft) survey 1 s.d. survey 1 s.d. (std dev.)
A B C D E=A-C F = √ B²+C² G=E/F
1349 135.7° 0.78° 136.61° 0.35° -0.91° 0.85° -1.06
Table 4.8 1444 136.4° 0.78° 137.54° 0.35° -1.14° 0.85° -1.33
1538 136.9° 0.79° 137.81° 0.36° -0.91° 0.87° -1.05
Example of a Relative
Instrument 1632 137.2° 0.81° 138.45° 0.37° -1.25° 0.89° -1.40
Performance analysis 1727 136.9° 0.82° 138.59° 0.37° -1.69° 0.90° -1.88
for azimuth 1822 137.7° 0.82° 139.02° 0.37° -1.32° 0.90° -1.47
differences 1916 138.9° 0.83° 139.66° 0.38° -0.76° 0.91° -0.83
2011 138.1° 0.84° 140.45° 0.38° -2.35° 0.92° -2.55
2106 139.5° 0.84° 140.73° 0.38° -1.23° 0.92° -1.33
2200 141.6° 0.84° 141.75° 0.39° -0.15° 0.93° -0.16
2294 141.6° 0.85° 142.18° 0.40° -0.58° 0.94° -0.62
2388 142.7° 0.86° 142.89° 0.40° -0.19° 0.95° -0.20
mean 1.56 s.d.
std. dev. 0.65 s.d.
$ "

& $
" $ %
# $& $ " $
" &

BP Amoco
1 "#$ % 5 % #

=
Normalised Difference
(Incl. or Azim) Interpretation
Mean Std. Dev.
< ± 0.5 and < 0.5 Good agreement
± 0.5 to ± 0.75 or 0.5 to 1.0 Average agreement Table 4.9

Rules-of-thumb for
± 0.75 to ± 1.25 or 1.0 to 1.5 Poor agreement. use with Relative
Re-check both surveys carefully Instrument
Performance
> 1.25 or > 1.5 Disagreement. analyses
One or other survey almost certainly
contains a gross error. Investigate to
resolve the discrepancy.
September 1999 Issue 1 Methods 4-65/66

BP Amoco
Section 5

Contents
Page

5-1

5-4

5-11
! " #$%
& 5-13
'#(%
5-24
) *+%#& 5-26
, - 5-28
. /
%
% 0%
5-29
1 - 5-31
2 3+4 5-35
Figure
5.1 Sensor arrangement in Gyrodata’s Wellbore Surveyor
(large diameter tool) 5-15
5.2 Keeper tool configured for a 9-5/8" or 7" casing survey 5-19
5.3 The RIGS survey probe 5-23
September 1999 Issue 1 Survey Tools 5-i

BP Amoco
Section 5

Contents (cont’d)
Table Page
5.1 Position uncertainty for inclination only surveys 5-2
5.2 Quality measures for electronic magnetic
multishot surveys (generic) 5-13
5.3 Quality measures common to all Gyrodata surveys 5-17
5.4 Quality measures for Gyrodata gyrocompassing surveys 5-18
5.5 Quality measures for Gyrodata continuous surveys 5-18
5.6 Quality measures for Keeper multishot surveys 5-21
5.7 Quality measures for RIGS surveys 5-24
5.8 JORPs documents currently in use 5-37
5-ii Survey Tools September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco

The surface and subsurface
instrumentation used in wellbore
surveying.
"

Recommended Practices for tool selection and operation are
in italics.

!"

September 1999 Issue 1 Survey Tools 5-1

BP Amoco
5--

Their use should be restricted to near-surface sections of
isolated exploration wells or well-spaced development wells.
#$

"

Average Position Uncertainty at 1.s.d.
Measured (ft/1000ft or m/1000m)
Inclination
Table 5.1
0° 13
Position uncertainty 0.5° 22
for inclination only 1° 31
surveys 1.5° 39
2° 48
2.5° 57
3° 65
"

%& '
(

)

)
*
Inclination only sections near surface should normally be
resurveyed later in the drilling operation.
"

+ ,-.

5-2 Survey Tools September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco

-
"

" TOTCO

"

6 "'7" +
TOTCO
"

"

"

/TOTCO
) 0# #

"

6 "'7" +
"Teledrift 1
%
/
)

$ #

Anderdrift
#

2

" -3°

"
4°$-3°
53°$64°$


BP Amoco

5--

" 0# '#

% "

"
0# %7
• 8

9
%+92%.
(

• ( (

(

%

0#
" $

-
%

$

+
.
$ + ,:. "


BP Amoco

"

'

$

;$6<-=
!

$
+.

'$

!

,$><,=
55+5"57
%

"

"

$ 7

?

?

< #

%
"
$
# %

+
.
$

2


BP Amoco

%

$ 0

0#

"

+ '"57 "+
# %

2

2 )
)
(

2 )

"

(
"

(

-
1

"

!

"
$
$
785' 50+ "
%
0#

+

. " "

%

+ 36.
0# "

0#

%


BP Amoco
The determination of this offset is a safety-critical task, and

must be checked independently before the BHA is run
in hole.
% 0#

% " !

0#

& %

+ >°3°.
0#

+@4°
@6;4°
@-54° @:4°. "

9+5:; '40 55
%
(

!
"

Six-sensor ‘raw’ data should normally be transmitted to
surface, with inclination, azimuth and toolface (and
associated QA measures) being calculated from it.
<
5%;
%
All MWD surveys must pass a number of internal and
external validation checks. Details are below and in JORPs.
" +"57<057=50+5"'
"

/$) %

7
• A$

• $


BP Amoco
•

!
Section A.3
contains details of
how to calculate

these quantities
" $

%
(

B#+,:.
> +"5755;575"
2(

B#

"
Each MWD tool must pass a comparison with external data.
"
7
CHECK SHOTS
2 0# +,%
. (

!

0#

$#

7
(
7 43°
(
!7 >4°
C

#


BP Amoco
%<0#

(

!7
(
7 4-3°
(
!7 63°

%

#

Whenever possible, MWD tools should be changed out
during bit trips.
"

%

ELECTRONIC MULTISHOT

(

+21. %
"
0#

$

%

0#

21
MULTI-STATION DATA ANALYSIS

% $

+ ,5.

$

+ ,:.
(

2( $

+

.
%


BP Amoco
4 "5"8+ > +"57;575"

2(
%

7
• " % 3°

$
• "%

$
5&" '0+(5"' "+"&
2

%

$

1

5
#

% # $
+ ,5. $ + ,;.

+,:.
#
!

"
0#

1

(

"
'#

+.


BP Amoco

2 +21.

"
$

+33.
5--

21 "%

21

%%

21
)

21

21
6444
1

+211.

"

%

-
21
64=-4=&
"

"

$
two probes should be run in tandem for all EMS surveys.
21 %

1

+

#
1 " .


BP Amoco

-
"

"
+
/TOTCO
). 0##

%

)
)

""#5&" '45'"&
MWD " $
non-magnetic spacing

requirements are
in Section 4.9
Non-magnetic spacing requirements for electronic
multishots are the same as for MWD, with the additional
requirement that neither sensor be within 1.5 m (5 ft) of a
tool joint.
+5"6
D

21 " ;$64

"

C
E&C'

+364.

BP Amoco
<
5
B#
%

21"
7
QA measure Tolerance Failure Possible cause(s) of failure

indicates
Divergence between < 5/1000 Systematic magnetic interference
probes – Lateral azimuth error
Divergence between < 2/1000 Systematic tool misalignment or BHA sag Table 5.2
probes – TVD inclination error
Quality measures for
Gravity Field < ±0.007g* Inclination and Faulty accelerometer or tool
Strength (G-total) azimuth error movement
electronic magnetic
(all surveys) multishot surveys
Magnetic Field < ±700 nT* azimuth error magnetic interference, large (generic)
Strength (B-total) (all surveys) crustal anomaly
Magnetic Dip Angle < ±0.7°* azimuth error magnetic interference, large
crustal anomaly
(all surveys)
* difference from modelled value
! " #$%
&
*
/ )
" *
2 #

( % $

2
"

("*
! 2 )

" * "

7
0! 2 C @Ω@634,6+Latitude.

<
"

$
2 )


BP Amoco
& %" #$&

A
) Wellbore Surveyor +GWS. $

54F 53F
"
(

" Battery/Memory
+RGS-BT.

"G +RGS-CT. $$
63°

5447'5"
" Wellbore Surveyor 7
• 1
• %

"

Continuous
7
• G <
• $
"Battery/Memory(
7
• 1
• +

.

BP Amoco
7 '+4"
"

" H +-4 . " &
--3=>H=

#
&
653=
accelerometer
(non-rotating)
Figure 5.1
Sensor arrangement
motor/stator
and bearing torquer in Gyrodata’s
Universal exciter/pick-
joints off coils assembly coils Wellbore Surveyor
(large diameter tool)
magnet assembly
for torquer coils
to force against
gyroscope
(rotating)
"

-$ (
-$ ( "

"
(

Wellbore Surveyor
Battery/Memory

$ + !
.
Continuous
+ 63° .

!

BP Amoco
4 +5"57 <0 "' ?'""00076

0+; =
% +

(
.
$
$

9 64°$63°

"

# 64°$63°
!

"
" >4
"
C$
64°$63°

9

/
)"


BP Amoco
4 +5"57 <0 "' ?+40+; =

%

Battery/Memory

(
+(

$

.
"
+
.

"
<

# B#

(
<057=50+5"'
"
7
QA measure Tolerance Failure may Possible cause(s) of

indicate failure
Field roll tests – < 0.4°/hr poor initial azimuth gyro calibration shift
mass unbalance reference
(if possible)
Field roll tests – < 0.00015 systematic accelerometer calibration
accel. scale factor inclination error shift
(if possible) Table 5.3
In/Outrun Csg: mn, inclination error depth error or running Quality measures
comparison – sd<0.3° gear.
inclination D/P: mn,
common to all
sd<0.3° Gyrodata surveys
In/Outrun Csg: m, sd<0.5° azimuth error depth error or poor gyro
comparison – D/P: m, performance
azimuth sd<0.75°
Final zero depth < 2.0/1000 systematic error, wireline slippage or
primarily inclination stretch – correct to CCL
Wireline stretch at < 1.5/1000 systematic error, tool lag on inrun –
TD primarily inclination correct to CCL

BP Amoco

indicate failure
Table 5.4
Single station test – < f1(Inc,Azi)°/hr* poor initial azimuth noisy data – reinitialise
Quality measures Earth rate reference deeper
for Gyrodata Single station test – mean<400 bits poor initial azimuth noisy data – reinitialise
gyrocompassing gyro drift & noise s.d.<400 bits reference deeper
surveys Single station test – mean<50 bits azimuth error poor gyro performance or
accel. drift & noise s.d.<50 bits tool movement
If (Inc,Azi) = 1/{cosInc√[(0.1°sinInc.sinAzi)²+(0.08°)²]}

1

indicate failure
Initialisation - s.d. Inc < 0.1° Tool movement or knock during tool
inclination calibration shift make-up
during tool
make-up
Table 5.5
Initialisation - s.d. Azi < 0.2° tool movement or knock during tool
Quality measures azimuth calibration shift make-up
during tool
for Gyrodata make-up
continuous surveys
Initialisation - < f2(Inc,Azi)°/hr* Tool movement or knock during tool
Earth rate calibration shift make-up
during tool
make-up
Drift tune – X gyro <0.2°, all invalid survey poor gyro performance
params
Drift tune – Y gyro <0.2°, all invalid survey poor gyro performance
params
If (Inc,Azi) = 1/{cosInc√[(0.1°sinInc.sinAzi)²+(0.08°)²/6]}
2

BP Amoco
*

" Keeper

Finder 1 ) $ Cablehead

Zener Sub
5447'5"
" J

7 Decentraliser
• G <
• $ Casing Collar
Locator
• 1 Gamma Sensor
%
6.35 m
Temperature
$ / 21 ft
Sensor Figure 5.2

Pressure Barrel Keeper tool

$ /Heatshield configured for
+

a 9-5/8 or 7
. Keeper Gyro casing survey
• 1$ +

).
"
/
)

Decentraliser
7 '+4"
"
J

" 3+6H.

$

3$64 +6H$>>.

$
"
& >=

$
653=<6;3=<-6-3=


BP Amoco
" +K

L.

+K
M. " K

$

! -4° "L

!

-4°
4 +5"57 <0 "' ?0760+; =
%
+

(
.

+ $ .

4°
>°

$

# - /
)

" /

)-4°

" " /

)
63 63°

# "

+

.
" (

/ )
% $


BP Amoco
4 +5"57 <0 "' ?"&7 60+; =

9

" !

*$

+N>°."

# $

)

#

>,
<057=50+5"'
"
7
indicate failure
Field calibration – DI < 0.6°/hr poor initial azimuth gyro calibration shift
mass unbalance reference
DS < 1.0°/hr
Field calibration – < 0.0033 v/g systematic accelerometer calibration
accel. scale factor inclination error shift
Initialisation – gyro < 0.017°/hr poor initial azimuth noisy data – reinitialise
bias uncertainty reference deeper
Initialisation – Earth < 0.07°/hr poor initial azimuth noisy data – reinitialise
rate horizontal reference deeper Table 5.6
Low angle Mode – < 0.8°/hr azimuth error poor gyro performance or
average G bias tool movement Quality measures for
High angle Mode – azimuth error poor gyro performance or
Keeper multishot
< 0.15°/hr
average G bias tool movement surveys
Final zero depth < 1/1000 systematic error, wireline slippage or stretch
primarily inclination – correct to CCL
Wireline stretch at < 1.5/1000 systematic error, tool lag on inrun – correct
TD primarily inclination to CCL
In/Outrun Csg: sd<0.2° inclination error depth error or running
comparison – gear.
D/P: sd<0.4°
inclination
In/Outrun Csg: sd<0.5° azimuth error depth error or poor gyro
comparison – performance
D/P:
azimuth
sd<0.75°

BP Amoco
($6" <

C A1
C $O A

5447'5"
!C A1

+H6= . "

$ $

"

"
644°G # ( +
. 634°G

( 6-44FGH

+ 5= .
(

" / $) 54°
;4°

#

!
#
GGO

$
/C A1P) "
C A1

C A1

"


BP Amoco
7 '+4"
" C A1 & Cable
Head
3-3=

6;4
+,44. D

3;53=
--3
+344. 1
>:3 +;54.

Roller
Centraliser
" D + D.

Pressure

Barrel
" D Figure 5.3

Electronics
The RIGS survey
probe
"

$

!
* 2
"8 $
Gyro/
Accelerometers
D 9 *1
C A1
$
) Roller
$ Centraliser

4 +5"57 <0 "'
C A12 Breech
Lock

"
"
H
6- +

.

BP Amoco
(
H,44< +-6444<.

"

"
BG

"

<057=50+5"'
*
G

)

"
7
QA measure Tolerance Failure indicates Possible cause(s) of
failure
Alignment < 0.1° Noisy Alignment Excessive ‘electrical’
summary noise
Tool movement.
st
Drift checks < 0.08 ft/min Tool movement, or Poor Alignment (1 check)
Table 5.7 invalid survey. Lost heading.
Quality measures for Sensor failure.
RIGS surveys Tool movement.
In/Outrun within tool- Out of spec Depth error.
comparison defined performance at some Sensor failure.
ellipses of stage in complete
uncertainty inrun/outrun survey. QC Lost heading.
flow chart will indicate
whether sufficient QC
parameters exist to
qualify survey as within
specification.
'#(%

G $
$
/
) %

"


BP Amoco
5--

G $

7
•

$
• "

(
• "

G $

$
1 + ,-.

$
2

Camera-based magnetic multishots are not a recommended
tool type.
# (
$

$

-
"

7
• #

#

It is strongly recommended that only units ranges between
0-10° and 0-24° be used.

BP Amoco
1

O

• #

! "

• # "
$

$

-

0# " $
1
%+,:.

"

<
5
1

OB#

) *+%#&
1

$

1CA

D $
$

"

BP Amoco
(

"

!

5--

$

$ "
$
0#
(

" $
(
$
SRGs must not be used:
• For multishot surveys
• Deeper than 450m/1500ft below rotary table
• In hole inclinations greater than 10°
"

- %-
1
$
1
+/1CA). 0 *"2B +/1 ).
1$1
+/1C&).
Due to its historically poor performance, use of the
Sperry-Sun SRO tool is not recommended.
"

$ #
#
D0&
0# #
$

$


BP Amoco
"

"

0+85' + 8 + "'"&5"+8'++ '"
1

#
Surface references must be established and checked by a
qualified land surveyor, and recorded with a detailed station
description. The survey engineer on the rig must have a copy
of this station description.
Drift corrections must be computed and applied
automatically by software. Reliance on hand computations
by the survey engineer is not acceptable.
, -
/)

1
!
5--

"

#

"

$ %


BP Amoco

- %-
"

0

"

"

<
5

"

9

7
Make sure a hard copy of the data is provided, with
sufficient header data to ensure its traceability.
Insist on all data being labelled with the azimuth reference
(magnetic, grid or true) and the correction, if any, applied.
Visually inspect the survey for spurious data points, often
indicated by large dog-leg severities.
. /
%
% 0%

'#

2
' #

1


BP Amoco

/
#
$

6::4) 1

( "

-#
# $
+

.

1

E&C'
($6" <

#$ $
/ )

$
1
*

E&C'
Engineers should seek advice from UTG before
programming the Seeker tool in their wells.
*

"Finder
1

Keeper"
Keeper’s L$ (
+ .
63F

"

" Finder

$

Keeper E&C'

BP Amoco
8
"
8
9 2 + *"2B.

6::464$><,=&

(6>$><;=

-#
#

D

'#(%&

#

#
$
+'A1
'A11. '

"# '

1

Engineers should seek advice from UTG before
programming Camera-based gyro tools in their wells.
1 -
# $

/
$ )


BP Amoco

4--
5447'5"
"

0#" 7
• %
• 2
$

• A <
•
4 +5"
"

0#

"

/ )

2

(

#

(

/ )

%
<057=50+5"'

A

Where possible, the MWD engineer should keep his/her own
independent depth tally, and seek to resolve any discrepancy
with the driller’s tally.

BP Amoco

-
5447'5"
1

7
• A
+(
FINDS.
•

A
Battery/Memory
1GKeeper

$
D

0#

<04 " '+4"
2
7 3<6H= +;.
5<6H= +66.
63<>-= +6-.
9 ;
64444

3444
"

"

%

" $

"


BP Amoco
1

"

#

#

-3644"
"

4 +5"
&

!

&

#"
/ )

"

" 63<6444 ( "

$!

<057=50+5"'
"

$!

1

E&C' 46Q 4-Q


BP Amoco
#

+%%&."

D
GGO

/ )
GGO

$ GGO

#

'
"

+ .

$
2 3+4
E&C'
E &
C '

'# "
E&C'

%

E&C' "

'# D"A

'
2 E&C'

(
"

7
• 2

•


BP Amoco
•

• &

()

*
D E&C'

$(

%+- /

E&C' C

'
&

0

D"A

E&C'
$

D

E&C'

"
+ .

September 1999 Issue 1
Directional Survey Handbook

BP Amoco
Service JORPs document Tool Coverage Remarks
Company
MWD Inertial North- Surface Camera- EMS Camera- Tele-
gyro seeking read-out based based drift
gyro gyro gyro magnetic
Anadrill Anadrill MWD Surveying Anadrill internal procedures

Procedures Manual* document. Adopted as
replacement to obsolete MWD
JORPs by BP Amoco.
Baker Hughes JORPs for Directional
INTEQ MWD
BPX and BHI JORPs
Halliburton / JORPs for SSDS A separate document
Sperry-Sun Directional MWD* describes Sperry-Sun’s
Interpolation in-field
referencing service
Surface Readout Covers the G2 and SRO gyros
Gyroscope Operations
for BPX
Gyrodata BP JORPs Manual*
Scientific Drilling BP JORPs* Additional and complementary
to SORPs, SDC’s internal
standard.
Under revision at time of writing
Survey Tools 5-37/38
Table 5.8 JORPs documents currently in use
BPA-D-004
BP Amoco
Section 6

Contents
Page
)
@ 6-1
) +$5 6-2
) *4 6-6
) !
6-8
) A 6-20
) ) 6-22
) , 4* +B 6-29
Figure
6.1 Generic failure mode and effects analysis for
missed target and well collision 6-4
Table
6.1 Generic classification of potential failures in the
directional and survey process 6-5
September 1999 Issue 1 Technical Integrity 6-i/ii

BP Amoco

)
How to minimise the risk of a gross
well positioning error and establish an
auditable trail from target definition to
definitive survey.
"

% & '

(

G 1

"

G 1

<

'

)
@
0

7
• #

•
September 1999 Issue 1 Technical Integrity 6-1

BP Amoco
#

7
•

+
.
•
+
(
/ ).
) +$5
" (
9 $
7
6
(

-

> % (

"/$) 7
• "
/ $
)
(
"
/

)
•

• "
/)
/$
)
6-2 Technical Integrity September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
8
%% **5
8 5
&

9

2# "

#

/ )
$ + .

9 H6
( 92#

/
)
/ )

* (

"

$


BP Amoco
wrong well plan used gross surface location or

root-cause failure for clearance scan survey error in drilled well
knock-on effect
wrong surface location or wrong input data
elevation used for planning for clearance scan
“on-design” event
geological target clearance scan clearance scan
location or software error results wrong
boundary wrongly
wrong input to target defined inappropriate error wrong input to a/c
tolerance calculations model in drilled well tolerance calcs
inappropriate error model in planned well
target tolerance a/c tolerance
badly designed error model
calculation error calculation error
target tolerance inappropriate separation rule a/c tolerance
print or plot error badly designed separation rule print or plot error
target tolerance wrong a/c tolerance wrong

or invalid on plan or invalid on plan
rig not at planned
location or elevation
target tolerance change in target anti-collision tolerance
invalidated while drilling approach direction invalidated while drilling
survey program

not followed
target tolerance ignored a/c tolerance ignored

or misunderstood or misunderstood

drilling well plotting error
target tolerace a/c tolerace
violated statistically extreme survey error
violated
insufficient or inaccurate projection ahead of bit
gross survey error in drilling well
inadequate survey survey running or

tie-in or north unpredictable
running or quality quality procedures reference error survey tool error
procedures mis-applied
Figure 6.1Generic failure mode and effects analysis for missed target and well collision

BP Amoco
' *4

8

" $

H6

"

A. DIRECTIONAL SOFTWARE / STANDARDS
1. Clearance scan software error
2. Badly designed error model
3. Badly designed separation rule
4. Target tolerance calculation error
5. Anti-Collision tolerance calculation error
B. DIRECTIONAL DATABASE
6. Missing data, surface location or survey error in drilled well
7. Inappropriate error model in drilled well
C. PLANNING DATA
8. Wrong surface location or elevation used for planning
9. Geological target location or boundary wrongly defined
D. DIRECTIONAL PLANNING Table 6.1
10. Wrong well plan used for clearance scan
Generic classification
11. Inappropriate error model in planned well of potential failures in
12. Inappropriate separation rule the directional and
13. Target tolerance printing/plotting error survey process
14. Anti-Collision tolerance printing/plotting error
E. RIG POSITIONING
15. Rig not at planned location or elevation
F. SURVEY OPERATIONS
16. Survey program not followed
17. Inadequate survey running or quality procedures
18. Survey running or quality procedures mis-applied
19. Unpredictable survey tool error
G. DIRECTIONAL DRILLING OPERATIONS
20. Change in target approach direction
21. Target tolerance ignored or misunderstood
22. Anti-Collision tolerance ignored or misunderstood
23. Drilling well plotting error
24. Insufficient or inaccurate projection ahead of bit
25. Tie-in or north reference error

BP Amoco
) *4

" 0

)
"
Section 3.1
describes some of the

theory and techniques $
"

of surface positioning
0

(

"

7 %

Appendix C " %O

includes an example

$

of a Well Location
Memorandum

)
"
7
• " +.

A<A
$
K$ $
$
"

• " $

G 1

• 1 <

1 2
2 (

• 1 <
$

G 1

2

%" O

" %O

1 D"A 1
B
1"

BP Amoco
8

4
< $

Appendix B

G 1 includes completed
9 % ' $
examples of a Final
Well Position Memo

" and a final Well
Location Data Form
D%

$
"

$

$

1 + , & + "
9 %'

1

8
%
' # %
*

$$
1R
D (
$

%

"

$

#

9

BP Amoco
) !

"
$

"

7
• '

• 1

• C

)
• %

• %$
&
0#

$

8

" 9
$

$

"

" 9

( $!

)


BP Amoco
' *

8

" 9

)

"

7
• G O 1 (
#
(G"

$%'

1 $#+.
& 7&'57(3 ';
• % '
D

D $
)

% '

+ $

.
• D
"

D $

(

• '

+ 8 + "' 55
• %O
+.
• % ' 1 1 (
#
(G "

D

&" 575""+0'"
• '
9 (

D$ )


BP Amoco
• #,+;3=(66=.

"

• 1 ' 1 1 (
#
(G
• # $G 1 1 (
#
(G
5"#'77"5"57=
• '( 1

•

• # " G C % + ,, G.

6 + &"5"57=
• #
)

Section 4.2 has • '
details of the relief well

0

drilling contingency
requirement

Section 4.2 has • G

details of this "

calculation
%

(
4 "5"
• C

' 1
( #
(G


BP Amoco
'$

" $
$

7
• #
•
•

6 &"#88506+=
"

1 $ # #
+ D .

(
" 1 $ #

' #)

0
" 1 $ #

'

<

1 $#

9

6 ; "80"5 "578+ '"57 &"
'6 'C"&
9 1 $
#

< 7
6 "

"

BP Amoco
"

7
- "

> "

, #

3 #

H "
$

$

5 "

(

%'$
# $

% ' +
.

+(.
" 1 $ # <

#

4+4 +53 '+=656 '++ '
0+85' D5+& "+=5"7'5"
Section 6.6
discusses the
• G

relationship between

7
directional databases.
∗ "

+ %O

9 % ' $

.

BP Amoco
∗ "

∗ "

+J2 C"2

.
• G

9

( 7
∗ G % '

∗ C

∗ G

•
+. % '

$

"8

! +J2C"2.
• G + .
+.

0+; =4+&+5088' "" + '
5+& 5" 6 +& 7&'57
+ <0+ "
•

9
•

%
'


BP Amoco
• C +

.

7
∗ "
∗ "

+
.

∗ #

+ ::Q :3Q :4Q

D
.
•

% '

9

2( 7
∗
∗ O
"8

∗ O
"8
∗ $
+C8+77"&5"0"0'' 807+ 7 8 77
"
Relief well • G

contingency
requirements are

in Section 4.2
• G

D


BP Amoco
5"=&+ +++" 5'60+; ="+0 "

77( '
• G

"

7
∗ &
∗ G

∗ D
+
$

%

.
5"5 <05 8"; 0+; =77(
(5"
• G

56 + "' 5"#'77""+0'"77
4+ ; ";75"8"0 77 45+5"
+07
• G (
7
∗ %

∗ #

∗ %

• G

+

.


BP Amoco
• G

7
∗ %

∗ %
• C
$
"GC +
.D 7
∗ "

∗ 9

• 9 7
∗ C
∗ G

$

+
.
• 9
$
7
∗ #

∗ G

∗ G $

$

77 "+0'"5"+5"&5+ '7 5+D
5''0+5 5"088' "
• G

"

$

BP Amoco
• G )

7
∗ " $

∗ "

∗ " + .
∗ "

" '
1
+.7
•
+.

$

• G

7
∗ "
∗ "

∗ "
+" A

.
∗ "

+ % '
1
A1

+>-.
∗ "
! +

.
• 1

1

+ )

.

BP Amoco
• G

)

+.

• G
+

.

+.

• G
+.

' %#**

' 9

R%

%'

%

%'
1 $#

$(

9(
$ $

%

1 $ #

9
% 7
• "

' #
1 $ #R

• "

• " 9


BP Amoco
(05--
D 1 $#D

(

#
+

.
7
• "
$

"
%
' 1
• "

• "

<

+

.
4 "5"8++ ' " 4+5''

8
% & '
( D
"

0

0
D$

%

7
• "

Appendix C

contains an example
dispensation form
"

∗ C %
∗ '
<1

"

9( 7

BP Amoco
∗ 1 '

< 1

"

*

∗ C
"

(

∗ E #

∗ # G

• 2

• 1

D%
) A
G
$$

"
(

"


BP Amoco
77 506+=75"
"

Certain rules (such as not crossing anti-collision tolerance
lines and following JORPs) are inflexible.
1

+ .

77 0+; =;575"
"

"B#

$ $
1
$

7
When in doubt, re-survey.
65"7"&""#'"8+5"'
# $

) * $
7
• 9
• 9

• 1 $$
• 8

(
(
$

BP Amoco

7
6 * $

Appendix C -

contains a

Non-Conformance
Report form suitable > #
)
for this

, C

7
. #

)
. 1

$
) )

8

"

(

1

(
"

%19

"

7
• " +

.
• #


BP Amoco
• B

B#
Survey data

comparisons are
discussed in
• "
Section 4.10
+-

"

%

"

#

" %

%

$
#%

"

7
• "

• #

+.

• 9
0#

•

• #

%1B#1

BP Amoco
•

;
%
#

"

(

"

/
)
9

(

"
$

#

)
"
unvalidated survey data should never be loaded on the
definitive directional database

)

"

9

"

+,64.

9

B#

BP Amoco
77 0+; =<56

"

< "

E&C'

"

'
#

%19
*
"
BP Amoco
)

Standard Practice

" 1

'

7
6

"

- "
(
%C
' +

$ .
)

> 1

, %

# $ "$ + ,64.

(

3 #

H 1 (

)
# (


BP Amoco
40(76"&6 55

#
$
$

%

/

"
& '

$$
+ --.

"

'#
55'+'57=
"

#

G ) 7
• 1
$ $

•
*(

7
•

• "

• C<<<
• 1

• '


BP Amoco
9

7
•
• 8

• 0#

8"; 55(5
& (

%

"

"

9 (

1

1
*

#

5'' + +'"

D

7
•

•


BP Amoco
%

"

65+#'4=55(5'C#04

1)

"

+ '"5755(5 '45+"
'

$

' #

"

( )

' #

"
(

#

2#'
'
"

7
• %

• % +

.
-
• % +

"8.
3

BP Amoco
1

$

0 +;&75"'
%

# ( $ "

(

+ (

.
) , 4* +B
%

*

$$
"

4 +8+5"' 50+
$
1

/ ) +

D
.
#

G
%

<
1( 7
• '
∗ *

BP Amoco
∗ " $

∗ *$

• &
∗ 164444
∗ *
∗ *0#
•
Calculation of ∗ %
tortuosity is explained
in Section A.6 ∗ "

∗

(
'6"'57"; &5"
&

$ $

#

2

#

% 1 9 #

C"7 & (5
'#

" 7
• JORPs
#

E&C'

BP Amoco
• Approved survey error models

"

(
• This Handbook
" $$
1 1 D"A % " 1

E&C'

September 1999 Issue 1 Technical Integrity 6-31/32

BP Amoco
Appendix A

+*
Contents
Page
5 ''

A-1
5 4 ' %
- A-3
5
'

A-8
5 ! 5
'

A-9
5 5#'
'

A-17
5 ) A-22
Figure
A.1 Reverse survey calculation A-2
A.2 Geometrical construction of the pedal curve A-7
A.3 The pedal curve and uncertainties in the
north and east directions A-7
A.4 Naming convention for sensor axes A-8
A.5 A ‘bit’s-eye-view’ of the target: the basis of the
BP Amoco target analysis method A-10
A.6 Graphical method of target analysis A-16
A.7 Calculating a no-go area on the travelling cylinder diagram A-18
September 1999 Issue 1 Mathematical Reference A-i

BP Amoco
Appendix A

+*
Contents (cont’d)
A.8 Derivation of the risk-based separation rule A-20

A.9 Behaviour of the risk-based separation rule at
low positional uncertainty A-21
intermediate positional uncertainty A-21
high positional uncertainty A-22
A-ii Mathematical Reference September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
5--%A

+*
5
Some of the equations and formulae
underlying the methods described in
the main part of the Handbook.
"

(

(

5 '
'

"
7
∆MD
∆N =
2
[ ]
sin I 1 cos A1 + sin I 2 cos A2 . RF
∆MD
∆E =
2
[sin I1 sin A1 + sin I 2 sin A2 ]. RF
∆MD
∆V =
2
[cos I1 + cos I 2 ]. RF
2  DL 
C
9

RF =
DL
tan
 2 


$
DL@+I I . I I S6+A A .T
September 1999 Issue 1 Mathematical Reference A-1

BP Amoco
"

RF@6 DL (
X

( DL
(
Y7
DL2 DL4 17 DL6
RF = 1 + + +
12 120 20160
(
XN446°
YN6>°
6 64
5 68++ ; + 0+; ='57'075"
A similar method, 1

also based on

!

interpolating the hole "

direction, can be
found in

u01 P1
u0 u1

u02
World Oil, April 1986 P0 r01
r12 u12
r02
Figure A.1
P2
Reverse survey
calculation
α12 u2
" ' '

'
+ ."

' (

7
r r
u1 = 12 u 01 + 01 u12
r02 r02
A-2 Mathematical Reference September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
'

7
1 
u 0 + u1 = 2u 01 cos ∠P0 CP1  = 2u 01 cos(∠P0 P2 P1 ) = 2u 01 (u12 . u 02 )
2 
u 0 = 2u 01 (u12 . u 02 ) − u1
O' u 2 = 2u12 (u 01 . u 02 ) − u1
"

+ .

9

>

α12 α 
∆D12 = r12 csc 12  α12 = sin −1 u1 × u 2
2  2 
5 4 ' %

-
' $

>(> (7

 σ n2 σ ne σ nv 
 
> (@ Cnev @ σ ne σ e2 σ ev 
σ σ ev σ v2 
 nv
A

(


BP Amoco
* (

#+*%5A
" $
( + .

"
$

(+
$T$
$
(7
 σ h2 σ hl σ ha 
 
C hla =  σ hl σ l2 σ la  = Thla C nev Thla
T
σ
 ha σ la σ a2 
cos I cos A cos I sin A − sin I 

 
Thla =  − sin A cos A 0 
 sin I cos A sin I sin A cos I 
#
IA
!
6 E
4 0
" !
7 + . ! $

+.

+ .

+.

0"' +5"=854""6 77
"
>

!
"

-
(7
 σ n2 σ ne 
Cne @  
σ ne σ e2 

BP Amoco
0"' +5"=55&; "; +'57 46

"
$
$
>
( (7
σ n*2 * 
σ ne
C*ne =  * * *T
*2  = Tne C nev Tne
σ ne σ e 
1 0 − tan I cos A
Tne
*
=  
0 1 − tan I sin A 
'57'075"86+F"57 +++ 774

"

!

7
1$ (@ σ max @

σ n2 + σ e2 + (σ n2 − σ e2 )2 + 4σ ne2
2
1$ (@ σ min @

σ n2 + σ e2 − (σ n2 − σ e2 )2 + 4σ ne2
2
" ! ( ψ

ψ

7
2σ ne
tan 2ψ = $:4°
P:4°
σ n2 − σ e2
"

7
σ n2 > σ e2 $,3°N ψ maj NP,3°

σ n2 < σ e2 $,3°N ψ min NP,3°
"

( C*ne (


BP Amoco
' *%7
*
-%
- %
" >,

+-
.

" (

>

/G0 1" )
/G0 *8 )
2( %
G$1
7
χ p,
2
ν
p

ν

χ p,2
ν $
+ν @-.
+ν @>.

p.
Example. Find the number of standard deviations at which a 3D error ellipsoid
must be drawn to represent a 95% confidence region, assuming the well position
errors follow a trivariate normal distribution.
Setting p = 0.95 and ν = 3, we find from tables that χ 02.95,3 = 7.81. The 95%
confidence region is therefore represented by a 2.79-sigma error ellipsoid.
4%
' 98 -:
"

!
!#7
σ 2 σ ne  cos A
σA = [cos A ]
sin A  n
σ ne
  = σ n cos A + σ ne sin 2 A + σ e sin A
σ e2   sin A 
2 2 2
"

#
(

/ )

$

9#-


BP Amoco
pedal curve
Figure A.2
Geometrical
construction of the
standard pedal curve
error
ellipse
9 #> + .

North
standard
error pedal curve
ellipse or
“footprint”
σ north Figure A.3

The pedal curve and
uncertainties in the
north and east
directions
σ east
East

BP Amoco
5
'

* %
+ 1. "
7
X-axis Gravity
Highside
Figure A.4 τ Y-axis
Naming convention
for sensor axes
Z-axis
τ = instrument (down hole)
toolface angle
" Gx, Gy, Gz
Bx, By, Bz

+ . !

7
   G x2 + G y2 
Inclination = I = cos −1  Gz  − 1  
 sin  
 G2 + G2 + G2   G2 + G2 + G2 
 x y z   x y z 
Magnetic Azimuth = Am = tan −1  (

 G B −G B
x y y x )
G x2 + G y2 + Gz2 
 ( ) ( ) 
 Bz G x2 + G y2 − Gz G x B x + G y B y 

 
Instrument toolface = τ = tan −1  G x 
 Gy 

BP Amoco
"

7
G x = − G sin I sin τ
G y = − G sin I cosτ
Gz@GI
B x = B cos Θ cos I cos Am sin τ − B sin Θ sin I sin τ + B cos Θ sin Am cos τ
B y = B cos Θ cos I cos Am cos τ − B sin Θ sin I cos τ − B cos Θ sin Am sin τ
Bz = B cosΘsin I cos Am + B sin Θ cos I
G, B
Θ

"

7
Gravity Field Intensity@ G x2 + G y2 + G z2
Magnetic Field Intensity@ B x2 + B y2 + Bz2
Magnetic Dip Angle@ sin − 1  G x B x + G y B y + Gz Bz 

 G. B 
5 ! 5
'

"
)
"'#

"

!

BP Amoco
(45 %
A

(
+

.

"

Exclusion probability is integrated
over the part of each sector
lying outside the target...
…then summed
over all sectors
φi+1− φi
Ns
Figure A.5 PX φi+1 hij
φij Ui
b φi
A ‘bit’s-eye-view’ of σl
the target: the basis of lij
as-surveyed point
the BP Amoco target of penetration Vi
analysis method PY
geological target σh Yi
reference point
standard error
ellipse
Xi
geological target
boundary
1

+! .δ

!+ !
$

. α

K$ ( ! ! α − 90°
M$ (
$


BP Amoco
1

N v
$
X i Yi

x =  X i 
i
 Yi 
1 $

p =  PX 

 PY 
$
(
+
. $
b
9(:# = ; :86 5+& (0"5+=
" (
xi − p
" $

+*28. $

(
 sin α − cosδ cosα 

 
Ttp =  − cosα − sin α cosδ 
 
 0 − sin δ 
# (

(

Ttp (x i − p ) + b
9 (

 cos I cos A cos I sin A − sin I 
Ttc =  
 − sin A cos A 0 
(

(

$
7
 U i   highside
  =
 Vi   lateral 
[
 = Ttc Ttp (x i − p) + b ]

BP Amoco
4886 +0 (4"

" (

+
.

$

(
" (

$
7
σ 2 σ hl 
C tc =  h  T
2  = Ttc C nev Ttc
 σ hl σl 

1  1 
pdf ( t) = exp − t T C − 1t
2π det (C tc )  2 tc 
 2 2 
1  − h σ l + 2hlσ hl − l 2σ h2 
=
( )
exp
2π σ h2σ l2 − σ hl
2  2 σ h2σ l2 − σ hl
2 
 
t =  h

 l

"'70"4+(5(7=
"

 h →  r cos φ 

 l  r sin φ 
 ∂ (h, l ) 
pdf (r , φ ) =
1
2π σ h2σ l2 − σ hl2
(
exp − r 2 f (φ ) det  ) 
 ∂ (r , φ )
=
2π
r
σ h2σ l2 − σ hl2
(
exp − r 2 f (φ ) )
f (φ ) = σ l cos φ − σ hl sin 2φ + σ h sin φ
2 2 2 2
2 2 2
(
2 σ h σ l − σ hl )

BP Amoco

N s

(
7
 φ = φ + j φi +1 − φi 
r =∞  i
Ns 
 
I ij ≈
∫ 


∫pdf (r , φ ) dφ
φ −φ
r = hij + lij  φ = φ + ( j − 1) i +1 i
 dr


2 2

 i
Ns 
 hij  $
 lij 

(

$

φ = tan −1  U i 
i
 Vi 

(

(
$ (
(

$
r =∞
∫ ( )
φi + 1 − φi
I ij ≈ pdf r , φij dr
Ns
r = hij2 + lij2
φij = φi +  j − 1  φi +1 − φi
 2 Ns
"

( 7
r =∞
∫ ( ( )) dr
φi + 1 − φi 1
I ij = r exp − r 2 f φij
N s 2π σ 2σ 2 − σ 2
h l hl
r = h ij2 + lij2

BP Amoco
( ( )) 
r =∞
 − exp − r 2 f φ
φi + 1 − φi 1  ij
=
Ns 2 
2π σ h2σ l2 − σ hl  2 f φij ( )  r = hij2 + lij2
=
2 2
{(
φi +1 − φi exp − hij + lij f φij ) ( )}
Ns ( )
4πf φij σ h2σ l2 − σ hl2
" hij2 + lij2

 hij  7
 lij 
+ . $ 7 h = l tan φij
+. i
7 l − Vi V −V
= i +1 i
h − U i U i +1 − U i
1 l Vi (U i +1 − U i ) − U i (Vi +1 − Vi )

lij =
(Ui +1 − U i ) − (Vi +1 − Vi ) tan φij

2
lij2  Vi (U i +1 − U i ) − U i (Vi +1 − Vi ) 
hij2 + lij2 = lij2 tan 2
φij + lij2 = =  
cos2 φij  (U i +1 − U i ) cos φij − (Vi +1 − Vi ) sin φij 
"

(

7

Nv Ns
p @ 1− ∑∑ I

i =1 j =1
()
ij p

BP Amoco
&-
%
"

)

! "

( :;Q+

)

:;Q. 9
(

4
G $

+ bH σ H .

+ bL σ L .1

! A
4

4
*

!

(2σ H − bH ) cos Inc ! A
Inc
4!

!

(2σ H + bH ) cos Inc !AP6;4F
4

!

2σ L − bL !AP:4F
4)

!

2σ L + bL !A$:4F

BP Amoco
4,
"
)

9#H (
step 6
geol
ogic
a l targ
et
drille step 3
r’s ta
rget
Figure A.6
2σL + bL
Graphical method of 2σH - bH
target analysis cos Inc
planned well 2σH + bH 2σL - bL

azimuth, A
cos Inc
step 4
step 5

BP Amoco
5 5#'
'

- '

0+85' 4"0"' +5"=

"

7
σ2 = σ surf
2
+ σ hole
2
σ surf @ C

6

σ hole @
+
. 6

5775"' 8+0+; =(5
"

# (
+

. =

=+ ."
(

7
Sb @MaxU4+$.V
@

@


BP Amoco
* + $ .

+ .

'

*" #& 5
"
$ β
+
6- )

.
7
.

>$ 7
cos I cos A cos( β − A) − sin A sin( β − A)
 
@ cos I sin A cos( β − A) + cos A sin( β − A)

 − sin I cos( β − A) 

7
I @

"G
A@ #!

"G
0
interfering
well
Figure A.7
Calculating a no-go u
β
area on the travelling
cylinder diagram
minimum
allowable
separation
no-go
area

BP Amoco
.

7
σ 1 @ uT C1u σ 2 @ uT C2 u + σ surf
2
7
C1 @ '
(
C2 @ (
σ surf @ C

6

.

+,>.
+$#(%- +

" $

 d 1 + d 2  d1 + d 2
S = σ 2 ln  +
 Pσ 2π  2

" G

9
#;
O S
$$

σ R

+

. %

z 7
1  (z − S)2 
f ( z) = exp − 
σ 2π  2σ 2 

BP Amoco
#

d1 + d 2
2
P =
∫ f (z)dz
d1 + d 2
−
2
+

#;. %
(

+ $
.1
 d1 + d 2 
P ≈ (d1 + d 2 ) f   =
d1 + d 2

exp −
[ ]
 S − (d1 + d 2 ) / 2 
2

 2  σ 2π  2σ 2 
 
S (

d2 d1
S
interfering planned
Figure A.8 well well
Derivation of
the risk-based
separation rule σ
f(z)
z=0 z=S
d + d2 d1 + d 2
z= _ 1 z=
2 2
" ( #

(


BP Amoco
% + 6.

Actual Collision Risk
Case 1 Collision Risk (low position uncertainty)
d +d Figure A.9
σ <
1 2
0.242 Collision Risk (higher position uncertainty)
P Behaviour of the
Tolerable Collision Risk rule at low positional
uncertainty
σb σa Sa S b Minimum Separation
increases as Combined
Position Uncertainty increases

#

+ -. "

Case 2
d +d d +d
0.399
1 2
> σ > 0.242
1 2 Figure A.10
P P Behaviour of the
Tolerable Collision Risk
rule at intermediate
positional uncertainty
σb σa Minimum Separation
decreases as Combined
S b Sa Position Uncertainty increases
2

(

+ >.


BP Amoco
Case 3
d +d
σ > 0.399 1 2
Figure A.11 P
Behaviour of the
Tolerable Collision Risk
rule at high positional Tolerable Collision Risk is
never exceeded - no
uncertainty Minimum Separation exists
σb σa Sa
5 )
"

D"A
the average excess dogleg severity over plan

#

"

DTD +

D0 ."

!7
[D i
P I Pi APi ] 0≤i ≤ M

$

[D S
j
I Sj ASj ] 0≤ j ≤ N

BP Amoco
9 +#6.

7
{ [
DLiP = cos −1 cos( I Pi − I Pi−1 ) − sin I Pi−1 sin I Pi 1 − cos( A Pi − A Pi−1 ) ]}

7
M
1
DLS P =
DTD − D0
∑ DL
i =1
i
P
O $

7
N
1
DLS S =
DTD − D0
∑ DL
j =1
j
S

{ [ ]}
DLSj = cos −1 cos( I Sj − I Sj −1 ) − sin I Sj −1 sin I Sj 1 − cos( ASj − ASj −1 )
"

7
Wellbore Tortuosity = DLS S − DLS P
September 1999 Issue 1 Mathematical Reference A-23/24

BP Amoco
Appendix B

Contents
Page

!

"#$
%
&

$
'
(
&

'
)
*

'
+
(

,
September 1999 Issue 1 Approved Tool Error Models B-i/ii

BP Amoco

An inventory of the survey tool error models
approved for use in BP Amoco.

!
"
"#$%
&
• '

(

•

(

)
#

• (

The standard
)

* format for survey

# tool error models
is described in
+

September 1999 Issue 1 Approved Tool Error Models B-1

B-2 Approved Tool Error Models
BPA-D-004

MWD - Standard MWD MWD MWD with no (or no known) special The model allows for the fact that axial
corrections interference may marginally exceed the upper
limit specified in Section 4.9 when the well is
near to horizontal east/west
MWD + Sag correction MWD+SAG MWD+SG MWD with a BHA deformation Covers all BHA corrections, from simple 2D to
correction applied finite-element 3D models
MWD + Short Collar correction MWD+SCC MWD+SC MWD with single station axial “Short Collar” is the name of Sperry-Sun’s

interference correction applied correction, but the error model covers all such
( 4.9)
MWD + Sag + SC corrections MWD+SAG+SC MWD+SS MWD with both BHA sag correction
and single station axial interference
correction applied
MWD + IHR correction MWD+IHR MWDIHR In-hole referenced MWD ( 4.8). Assumes a BHA sag correction is applied to
enhance inclination accuracy
In-field referenced MWD ( 4.7),

MWD + IFR correction MWD+IFR MWDIFR Assumes a BHA sag correction is applied to
with time-varying field applied. Model enhance inclination accuracy.
is applicable whether or not Short
Collar type correction is applied.
Table B.1 Approved Survey Tool Error Models – MWD (Part 1 of 2)
BP Amoco

BP Amoco

MWD + IFR [Alaska] MWD+IFR:AK MWDIAK In-field referenced MWD in Alaska Model takes account of increased violence
of magnetic field disturbances in Alaska.
Assumes a BHA sag correction is applied
to enhance inclination accuracy
MWD + IFR [Wytch Farm] MWD+IFR:WF MWDIWF In-field referenced MWD at Wytch Model takes account of observed low
Farm levels of axial low level interference using
Anadrill BHA components and design.
Assumes a sag correction is applied to
MWD + IFR + Multi-station MWD+IFR+MS MWDIMS In-field referenced MWD with multi- Assumes a BHA sag correction is applied

station analysis and correction to enhance inclination accuracy
( 4.9) applied in post-processing
MWD + Crustal Anomaly corrn MWD+crust MWD+CA MWD where local magnetic field has Assumes a BHA sag correction is applied
been measured (or derived from to enhance inclination accuracy
aero-magnetic data) and corrected
Approved Tool Error Models B-3
for, but short-term time variations are

not applied.
MWD + Crustal + SC corrections MWD+CA+SC MWD+CS Same as MWD + Crustal Anomaly Assumes a BHA sag correction is applied
correction but with single station axial to enhance inclination accuracy
interference correction applied
Table B.1 Approved Survey Tool Error Models – MWD (Part 2 of 2)
BPA-D-004
BPA-D-004

EMS - Standard EMS EMS Electronic multishot with no (or no Includes ex-BP “Electronic Single Shots”
known) special corrections model. Assumes large axial interference
errors have been corrected.
EMS + Sag correction EMS+SAG EMS+SG Electronic multishot with a BHA Covers all BHA corrections, from simple 2D to
deformation correction applied finite-element 3D models. Assumes large axial
interference errors have been corrected.

EMS + IHR correction EMS+IHR EMSIHR In-hole referenced electronic Assumes a BHA sag correction is applied to
multishot ( 4.8). enhance inclination accuracy.
multishot ( 4.7), with time-varying

EMS + IFR correction EMS+IFR EMSIFR In-field referenced electronic Assumes a BHA sag correction is applied to
enhance inclination accuracy.
field applied. Model is applicable
whether or not Short Collar type
correction is applied.
EMS + IFR [Alaska] EMS+IFR:AK EMSIAK In-field referenced electronic in Model takes account of increased violence of
Alaska magnetic field disturbances in Alaska.
Assumes a BHA sag correction is applied to
EMS + Crustal Anomaly corrn EMS+crust EMS+CA Electronic multishot where local Assumes large axial interference errors have
magnetic field has been measured been corrected.

(or derived from aero-magnetic data)
and corrected for, but short-term time
variations are not applied.
Table B.2 Approved Survey Tool Error Models - Electronic Magnetic Multishots
BP Amoco

BP Amoco

BHI RIGS multishot RIGS RIGS INTEQ RIGS multishot surveys
BHI Seeker multishot Seeker MS SKR MS All INTEQ Seeker ( 5.8) multishot
surveys
Ferranti FINDS multishot FINDS FINDS All Ferranti FINDS ( 5.8) surveys
Gyrodata - gyrocompassing m/s GYD GC MS GYD GC Older Gyrodata gyro multishots, plus Replaces ex-BP “Gyrodata multishot into
all battery/memory tool surveys open hole” model.
(RGS-BT)
Gyrodata - cont. casing m/s GYD CT CMS GYD CC Gyrodata multishot surveys with
continuous tool (RGS-CT) in casing.
OD 13-3/8” or less.
Gyrodata - cont. drillpipe m/s GYD CT DMS GYD CD Gyrodata pump-down multishot
surveys with continuous tool (RGS-
CT) in drill-pipe.
Gyrodata - large ID casing m/s GYD LID MS GYD LC Gyrodata multishot surveys Includes an increased misalignment term
(gyrocompassing or continuous tool)

in larger size casing strings (greater
than 13-3/8” OD).
Gyrodata – bat/mem drop m/s GYD BM MS GYD BM Gyrodata multishot using
Battery/Memory tool in any
configuration.
Table B.3 Approved Survey Tool Error Models - North Seeking and Inertial Gyro Multishots (Part 1 of 2)
BPA-D-004
BPA-D-004

Schlumberger GCT multishot GCT MS GCT GCT surveys in casing or open hole. GCT = “Gyro Continuous Tool” ( 5.8)
SDC Finder - multishot Finder MS FDR MS Finder multishots in casing or drill Replaces ex-BP “Inrun” and “Outrun” models
pipe
SDC Keeper - casing m/s KPR csg MS KPR CM Keeper multishot surveys in casing.
OD 13-3/8” or less.
SDC Keeper - drillpipe m/s KPR d/p MS KPR DP Keeper pump-down multishot surveys
in drill-pipe.
SDC Keeper - large ID csg m/s KPR LID MS KPR LC Keeper multishot surveys in larger Includes an increased misalignment term
size casing strings (greater than
13-3/8” OD).
Sperry-Sun G2 multishot G2 gyro MS G2 MS
G2 ( 5.8) multishots in casing, drill Replaces ex-BP “Static” and “Dynamic”
pipe or open hole models

Table B.3 Approved Survey Tool Error Models - North Seeking and Inertial Gyro Multishots (Part 2 of 2)
BP Amoco

BP Amoco

Inclinometer (Totco/Teledrift) INC INC Inclination only surveys in near-
vertical hole, including TOTCO,
Teledrift and Anderdrift.
Inclinometer + known azi trend INC+trend INC+TR Inclination only surveys in near- Replaces ex-BP “Inclinometer (azimuth in
vertical hole, where formation dip and known quadrant)” model
experience enables direction of drift
to be predicted.
Table B.4 Approved Survey Tool Error Models - Inclination Only Surveys
BPA-D-004
BPA-D-004

Camera-based mag single shot CB mag SS CBM SS Traditional (mechanical) magnetic Assumes tandem probes are run and that
single shot ( 5.5) both are adequately magnetically spaced.
Replaces ex-BP “PMSS”.

Conventional SRG single shots SRG SRG Optically-referenced gyro single shots Tool types include SRG and MSRG
( 5.6) Includes SDC Keeper when (scientific Drilling), Sigma (INTEQ) and
used in “siteline reference mode”. SRO (Sperry-Sun).
Camera-based gyro single shots CB gyro SS CBG SS Traditional surface referenced gyro Replaces ex-BP “PGSS” model.
tool run on wireline, including “level
rotor” gyros and Sperry-Sun SU3.
Gyrodata - gyro single shots GYD SS GYD SS Gyrodata gyro orientation surveys
SDC Keeper - gyro single shots KPR SS KPR SS Keeper gyro orientation surveys Excludes siteline (ie. surface) referenced
surveys
SDC Keeper – surface ref s/s KPR SR SS KPR SR Keeper gyro orientation surveys,
where azimuth alignment is achieved
by optical referencing at surface.
SDC Finder - gyro single shots Finder SS FDR SS Finder gyro orientation surveys
NS Gyro single shots NS gyro SS NSG SS North seeking gyro orientation Note Gyrodata, SDC Keeper and SDC

surveys taken with unspecified tool. Finder have their own models, which
should be used if the tool type is known to
be one of these.
Table B.5 Approved Survey Tool Error Models - Other Single Shot Types
BP Amoco

BP Amoco

Camera-based gyro multishot CB gyro MS CBG MS Traditional optically referenced gyro Replaces ex-BP “PGMS” model.
surveys run on wireline, including

“level rotor” gyros and Sperry-Sun
SU3 ( 5.8).

Camera-based magnetic multishot CB mag MS CBM MS Traditional (mechanical) magnetic Assumes adequate magnetic spacing.
multishot ( 5.5) Replaces ex-BP “PMMS”.

Dipmeter or other wireline log Dipmeter DIPMTR Wireline conveyed logging tools with Schlumberger OBDT, BGT are examples
directional survey capability ( 5.7).

Sperry-Sun BOSS gyro multishot BOSS gyro BOSS Sperry-Sun BOSS multishot surveys
( 5.8).
Table B.6 Approved Survey Tool Error Models - Other Multishot Types
BPA-D-004
BPA-D-004

Blind drilling Blind n/a Hole intervals where no surveys are Model assumes well direction deviates
taken from last known survey at a constant rate.
Errors grow with square of distance drilled.
Unknown survey Unknown n/a Any survey data of unknown or Replaces ex-BP “unknown multishot”
dubious type model.
Zero Error model Zero Error n/a Used to set position uncertainty to
zero down to a given depth (eg. side-
track point).
Table B.7 Approved Survey Tool Error Models - Special Models

BP Amoco
BP Amoco
Appendix C

Contents
Page
C-5
C-8
C-9
C-10

C-12
C-14
C-16
! C-18
" #" ! C-20
$ % !

C-22
&%
! ' C-27
September 1999 Issue 1 Data and Work Sheets C-i/ii

BP Amoco
(

Checklists and proformas to facilitate
auditability and quality assurance.
#

!! "#$%& #
'(&' )* &
+% , + ,

# )*
! '
) "
September 1999 Issue 1 Data and Work Sheets C-1

BP Amoco

)*$*")*!"+
The function of #
the Well Location -
Memorandum is #
discussed in more
#

detail in Section 6.3

")*$*")*,*)$))-).
& ! -
#

")*$*"$*!,*)$)
)-).
DGPS and other $ .
surface positioning $*!/ -
systems are -
described in #
Section 3.1

#
! 0 % * #

-
.12/
!)$*")/"$&))$
3 )"

#

C-2 Data and Work Sheets September 1999 Issue 1

BP Amoco
!)$*")/"&)0$
%*

0
- 4.56/
+!1)2!*/!$&))$
3 !
4 % ! 4
%*
"$**""$!+$*"&))$
- 7 -

# 3
0!
4 %*
)"$*"!*!)*)")!$)
$
8 #

% *
"*"*")##"*"*"*!")!)*!$
7
&
9
1
8
.+'-,/
:

.+'-,/
& -
. 5;/
4%!4

BP Amoco
*
$*)!3)**"!0*!0&))$

" -

0 . 62 66/
<
-
!)$*"+!1)2&"3**0&"/)!)4+)$
" =
8 #
8

BP Amoco
WELL LOCATION MEMORANDUM

LOCATION DESIGNATION
This WLM supersedes the following previous locations:
(NB: Any change in shotpoint location must have a new location designation)
Country: Prospect/Field:
Region/State: Lease/PSC/Block:
1. WELL LOCATION DEFINITION (To be completed by Buisiness Unit subsurface and/or reservoir team)
SURFACE LOCATION:
PRIMARY DEFINITION: 3D, 2D, HR Seismic Survey or OTHER* (* Circle appropriate definition)
Survey name: Survey mnemonic:
3D Inline bin, or
Database type & name: 2D/HR line number:
3D Xline bin, or
Acquisition contractor & year: 2D/HR shot number:
3D bin size (Inline x Xline):
Processing contractor & year: or 2D/HR shotpoint interval:
OTHER DEFINITION (eg: template & slot No.):
SECONDARY DEFINITION: 3D, 2D or HR* Seismic Survey (* Circle appropriate definition)

3D Inline bin, or
3D Xline bin, or
PRIMARY DRILLING TARGET LOCATION (for non-vertical wells):

PRIMARY DEFINITION: 3D, 2D or HR* Seismic Survey (* Circle appropriate definition)
3D Inline bin, or
3D Xline bin, or
Section 1 completed by: Section 1 approved by:
Signature: Signature:
Date: Date:
Name: Name:
Position/Job Title: Position/Job Title:

BP Amoco
Well Location Memorandum - Page 2 LOCATION DESIGNATION
2. SUBSURFACE DATA (To be completed by Business Unit Subsurface Team)

Attach a separate map sheet to this WLM showing seismic lines and geological structure around target location
Describe below in words and diagramatically the surface location and it's constraints (give dimensions):
Proposed Location
TOLERANCE Define Surface Location Tolerance(s)
Surface Location Area Diagram

Illustrate shape and size of the zone within which a surface location
would be acceptable and indicate constraints which limit rig
anchoring or manoevring (eg: shallow gas, obstructions, pipelines).
For location(s) derived from workstation provide:

Coordinates of surface and primary target locations and two other bins remote from the primary target
(one bin with same Inline and one with same Xline bin number as primary target)
Location 3D Survey Name Bin Size Inline Xline Eastings Northings
Surface:
Primary Target:
Same Inline:
Same Xline:
For surface and target locations based on 2D or HR seismic provide:

Location 2D/HR Survey Name Point* Line No. Shotpoint Eastings Northings
Surface:
Primary Target:
* Mapped point type (SP, CDP, etc)
Attach extract of relevant 2D and/or HR line from database listing shotpoint coordinates values for
2km either side of proposed location

BP Amoco
Well Location Memorandum - Page 3 LOCATION DESIGNATION
3. WELL LOCATION COORDINATES (To be completed by UTG SURVEY GROUP)

LOCATION COORDINATES
SURFACE LOCATION (Vertical or Deviated well) PRIMARY TARGET LOCATION (Deviated well)
Latitude: Latitude:
Longitude: Longitude:
Eastings: Eastings:
Northings: Northings:
Surface Positioning Tolerance: True azimuth from surface location: degrees
Water depth: Horizontal offset distance: m ft
Ground Elevation:
Geodetic Information:
Datum name: Datum mnemonic:
Ellipsoid name: Ellipsoid mnemonic:
Projection name: Projection mnemonic: Zone:
Data source of coordinates (eg: database name, report, etc):

Surface Location:
Primary Target Location:
Seismic survey positioning systems and horizontal accuracy estimates:

Surface Location Primary Target Location
Positioning System Accuracy Positioning System Accuracy
3D Seismic:
2D Seismic:
HR Seismic:
Other positioning information:
Section 3 completed by: Section 3 approved by:
Signature: Signature:
Date: Date:
Name: Name:
Position/Job Title: Position/Job Title:
Circulation:
D.S. / S.D.E. / D.E. Site Investigation Specialist
Subsurface Team Leader Data Administrator (load to database)
Asset Geoscientists Head of Survey

BP Amoco
")*$*")*)-)

! " # # $%&'$%(#%)* ##%+,

!
"
" #$ %& '(%)* +,- . /0%(
1
2 " ($ -& --'0)

2 " (0 %'# +34 5 64 $ 1
*2 " # #70 %/' *

'8#
2 ('78$ %(9%:/ + #1'

;
<
! '

/

!

'%-
'

! '
(#'-$ (-'-$

=9: ,2
2

!
-'-° '
-. )+/ "- !0 !
12+ !0 ! 0 . 3" 4.

#)
2 2
=9: '%

2 2 !
/'-
'

:

2
6 >
'
0 5 6 4

?' %-78
, " 4 /007

!
"
##
$$ %%& $
'()



BP Amoco
Country: Area:
Well Number:

Prospect/Field: Submit to BP Amoco Survey for checking/approval Location designation:
Date Completed:
Ac c e p t e d S u r f a c e P o s i t i o n Secondary Positioning System Contractors report no.
(Geogs: 2 dec places, Grid: 1 dp (m) 0 dp (ft)) (Geogs: 3 dec places, Grid: 2 dec places) Geodetic Parameters
Lat: ° Long:
°

Geodetic Datum Projection and zone: !
Ref.Stn.1: Name/Country: Associated Ellipsoid "!#!#$ !%

Easting:
&& Northing: & & Lat. Long. Semi-major axis & '
Radius of error: ( ' Primary Positioning System Easting Northing Semi-minor axis
(Geogs: 3 dec places, Grid: 2 dec places) Dist to Ref.Stn. km Reciprocal flattening 1/
System/method for Names of Reference Station(s) used for Ref.Stn.2: Name/Country: Datum Shift
accepted position )*+$, -. Primary Position Lat. Long. From WGS84 to Local Datum
Easting Northing dX: ' dY: ' dZ: (

'
Secondary positioning Dist to Ref.Stn. km rX: rY: rZ: (
&
system: %#+$, -. Antenna Position: WGS84 Datum Ref.Stn.3: Name/Country: Scale Factor:
//'
Lat: °

Lat. Long. Useful Information / Notes
Rig positioning contractor: 0112 Long:
°

Easting Northing
Job number: Sph. Ht. Dist to Ref.Stn. km 3$4 + ' '/$%5 6* 7 83 9$%%$'4 ! 4 !
Site survey date: Antenna Coords: Network Solution $%% 4##$ ! + #3 $#$ !% :*
Contractor: Offset: Antenna to rotary WGS84 Datum 7!56 ) # %% 5$!#4 43 ;!
Report number: (Relative range/bearing) Lat. °

correct.
Rig name: ! 0 3 & ' <
° Long
°
Sph.Ht.
Coords of rotary: Local Datum
Type of rig: Lat: ° S.D. X: Y: Z:
Vertical datum: Long:
° & Offset: Antenna to rotary (Rel. range/bearing)
! 2:% Ellip. Ht. ' <

°
B.M.S.L. Easting:
&& Coords of rotary: Local Datum
Water or stated
' Northing: & & Lat. °

depth Vert Datum Long
°
Data and Work Sheets C-9
B.L.A.T.
' S.D. X: Y: Z: Easting:

& S.D.
RTE A.M.S.L && ' Northing & & S.D.
Diagram Diagram
GPS Antenna GPS Antenna
42 Completed by:
56
.3 m
.55
m (block caps) 1"7
Rig Hdg
Rig Hdg
309.7 deg T 309.7 deg T Checked by:
=>
m
(block caps)
.4
m
17
1. 0
R/T R/T
BPA-D-004
BP Amoco
WELL PLAN DATA SHEET * delete as appropriate
Rig / Platform / Drill Site* Well
Sheet completed by Date
SURFACE LOCATION planned / actual* Datum/Ellipsoid Projection
Structure reference Description

Lat. N / S* Easting
Long. E / W* Northing
Well reference point Description

Lat. N / S* Easting
Long. E / W* Northing
Offset from structure ref. N / S* E / W*
Elevation (land rig) Elevation (offshore)

Drill datum RT / KB* Drill datum RT / KB*
Drill datum to well ref. pt. Drill datum to MSL
Well ref. pt. to MSL Drill datum to well ref. pt.
TARGET #1 TARGET #2 TARGET #3

Name Name Name
Easting Easting Easting
Northing Northing Northing
Depth TVDss Depth TVDss Depth TVDss
Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance
Survey reference True / Grid* North arrows (diag.)

Grid convergence (T to G) E / W*
Magnetic declination (T to M) E / W*
Magnetic model Date
Correction (magnetic to survey ref.)
Correction (true to survey ref.)
Curved conductors
Drill datum to well reference point
MD TVD North East
N / S* E / W*
Incl. at w.r.p. Azim at w.r.p.

BP Amoco
WELL PLAN DATA SHEET * delete as appropriate
Rig / Platform / Drill Site* Well

Sheet completed by Date

SURFACE LOCATION planned / actual* Datum/Ellipsoid Projection
!"# $%% &' ()*
Structure reference Description +
Lat. $°,-%$. N / S* Easting / 0 ,$1
Long. $$°%-. E / W* Northing 0 ,$%1$1
Well reference point Description + $ (+! 23*
Lat. $°,-%. N / S* Easting / 0 ,$$
Long. $$°%-%. E / W* Northing 0 ,$%1%
Offset from structure ref. %- N / S* 1%- E / W*
Elevation (land rig) Elevation (offshore)
Drill datum RT / KB* Drill datum RT / KB*
Drill datum to well ref. pt. Drill datum to MSL 1-
Well ref. pt. to MSL Drill datum to well ref. pt. $%-
TARGET #1 TARGET #2 TARGET #3
Name Name Name
Easting / 0 ,$$ Easting / 0 , Easting
Northing 0 ,,1 Northing 0 ,,$ Northing
Depth TVDss %%- Depth TVDss - Depth TVDss
Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance
- " ,% 4 ,1
- 4! ,$ 4 ,,$
- 5 ,$ 4 ,,
- +6 ,% 4 ,,
Survey reference True / Grid* North arrows (diag.)
Grid convergence (T to G) ,1° E / W* G
Magnetic declination (T to M) ° E / W* M
Magnetic model 77' Date 8
Correction (magnetic to survey ref.)
,° decl. = +0.11
Correction (true to survey ref.)
,1° conv. = +2.34
Curved conductors
Drill datum to well reference point
MD TVD North East
$- $%- %1- N / S* - E / W*
Incl. at w.r.p. 1° Azim at w.r.p. %$$°

BP Amoco
DIRECTIONAL DESIGN CHECK LIST
Rig / Platform / Drill Site Well
Date
Sheet completed by
Checked by
/ Comment
Well Objectives
Document from BU sub-surface team
Updates to well objectives
Well Location Memorandum
Planning File
Well Plan Data Sheet
Survey Program Data Sheet
Proposed well trajectory
BU sub-surface approval of trajectory
Target analysis (1 per target)
Offset well data (surveys, completion diags. etc.)

Initial clearance scan (global scan)
Tolerable Collision Risk Worksheet(s)
Minimum separation calculations
Anti-Collision Instruction Sheet
Magnetic interference prediction
Relief well contingency calculation
Dispensations from Recommended Practice
Wellsite Drawings
Plan view drawings
Vertical section drawings
Structure (spider) plots
Travelling cylinder - global clearance scan

Travelling cylinder - working drawing(s)
Travelling cylinder - wellsite plots

BP Amoco
DIRECTIONAL DESIGN CHECK LIST

Date
Sheet completed by
,
Checked by
+9:
/ Comment
Well Objectives
Document from BU sub-surface team 5 !! !#; <=; ,
Updates to well objectives !" !=
<=
9!:
Well Location Memorandum 5::!9;
Planning File
Well Plan Data Sheet
Survey Program Data Sheet
Proposed well trajectory 8":= %
BU sub-surface approval of trajectory <=
9!:
Target analysis (1 per target)
Offset well data (surveys, completion diags. etc.)
9:= 3:!"!9 !!3
Initial clearance scan (global scan)
Tolerable Collision Risk Worksheet(s)

Minimum separation calculations + +> ":=6
Anti-Collision Instruction Sheet
Magnetic interference prediction + +> ":=6
Relief well contingency calculation

Recommended Practice Dispensation Form(s) !" =):3= 8
Wellsite Drawings
Plan view drawings
Vertical section drawings ?
Structure (spider) plots "@6:"3
Travelling cylinder - global clearance scan

Travelling cylinder - working drawing(s)
Travelling cylinder - wellsite plots ?

C-14 Data and Work Sheets
BPA-D-004
SURVEY PROGRAM DATA SHEET
Rig / Platform / Drill Site Well Program version Sheet completed by Date
Survey Tool / Error Model Hole Casing Depth interval Comments / Contingency
Size Size from to

BP Amoco

BP Amoco
SURVEY PROGRAM DATA SHEET
Rig / Platform / Drill Site Well Program version Sheet completed by Date

Survey Tool / Error Model Hole Casing Depth interval Comments / Contingency
Size Size from to

!" "# $ %&%' '

!" "# %
$ ' ' "( () * "* !+, * ,
! "/ ), ", ()#" ! #," *

-.
!! %
$ ' ' )) #+) / (
-. 0 1 !+ " ,"

$ ' '
2 "!!
!#+ -()#"
&$ %&%' '
Data and Work Sheets C-15
! "/ ), ", ()#" ! #," *

-. 0 1 !+ " ," &
$ ' ' )) #+) / (
BPA-D-004
BP Amoco
ANTI-COLLISION INSTRUCTION SHEET

Date
Sheet completed by
BU authorisation
The instructions given in this sheet are based on: 999

Well plan no. Date Survey program no. Date
and are not otherwise valid.
Wells to be Shut In
Minimum Shut-in Interval
Well name Slot MD from MD to Comment
Minor Risk Wells

Well name TCR* Key Assumptions
*Tolerable Collision Risk
Travelling Cylinder Plots

Plot no. Depth from Depth to Date Comment
Contingency Plans / Special Instructions

BP Amoco
ANTI-COLLISION INSTRUCTION SHEET


Date
Sheet completed by

BU authorisation
A:9 2" ,
The instructions given in this sheet are based on:
Well plan version no. Date
1
Survey program version no. Date
1 ,
and are not otherwise valid.
Well Shut-ins
Minimum Shut-in Interval
Well name Slot no. MD from MD to Comment

% $- -
# ?! !6 :) . !:=

, $- ,- : !B
Minor Risk Wells

Well name TCR* Key Assumptions

*Tolerable Collision Risk
Travelling Cylinder Plots

Plot no. Depth from Depth to Date Comment
$- ,1- 1
,1- 1
Contingency Plans / Special Instructions
5 ! 2= !==3 !B B

( * "9!:= )B:= ::= )" =:==
6
:= 2 !#= 2C > "::= !9 = !38: ) :":=! ":" B: := . !:=
!"! (-* D B
! ,- ' :! "!6:= " !8:3!=
9!6" =!"C :":=! ":" 9!# ": !9 !B!" ) 9! "2!2::C ) ::=

BP Amoco
DISPENSATION FROM RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
To be used for recording planned violations of standard directional and survey procedures and recommended practices
Date
Sheet prepared by
Recommended Practice Document
Procedure / Standard to be violated
Details of Dispensation Requested
Justification
Attachments
Technical Assessment / Recommendation Signature / Date / Comment
BU Authorisation

BP Amoco
DISPENSATION FROM RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
To be used for recording planned violations of standard directional and survey procedures and recommended practices

Date
Sheet prepared by
=3C +9:
Recommended Practice Document
:"C 89= :":=! !: ) :=
Procedure / Standard to be violated

!" !=!C: =):3= 8 (E*
Details of Dispensation Requested
":"- !" )" !" 2 !6!3 ! $E =):3=
Justification
"!:! 9:=:969 :F )" 3":"- !" !#= ! - !"
)):8 := )"
62!=:!C "36:= ::= 6="!:=C " =!":= :! !" 363 =):3= 8
!"3 B: <= =
Attachments
* !" !=!C: ":=

6 ! E; $E !=3 $E =):3=
* < =
9!:;
Technical Assessment / Recommendation Signature / Date / Comment
A =:3" :=
):3 ")"=:= )" )66" B
!C"; >7
5; %
BU Authorisation
"83
=; :"C 5 &; $

BP Amoco
NON-COMPLIANCE / NON-CONFORMANCE REPORT

To be used for reporting unplanned violations of standard directional and survey procedures
or unplanned deviations from directional plan or survey program
Date
Sheet prepared by
Procedure / Standard / Plan / Program document
Procedure / Standard / Plan / Program violated
What happened
Most serious likely consequence
Contributory causes
Action Responsible Date

BP Amoco
NON-COMPLIANCE / NON-CONFORMANCE REPORT

To be used for reporting unplanned violations of standard directional and survey procedures
or unplanned deviations from directional plan or survey program

Date
Sheet prepared by
=3C +9: % %
Procedure / Standard / Plan / Program document
"::= ""!9 := %
+6"8C:= ""!9
Procedure / Standard / Plan / Program violated

1. :=
'5G < +! "":= +6"8C
What happened
'5 6"8C :=
1. := B" = ""3 )" < ! := "!
:9 :":=!
":" (7 "B=* 6 +> )B!" !:3 "":= !69!:!C '5 =:="
(+ 7"=* !3 = = 6"8C ""!9
Most serious likely consequence

= : B; """ 63 !8 "@6:"3 ?"! 3:":=! B"# := $
. := = " :"C
B; B"
$. C" : = "6=; !" 63 !8 2= 9:3 ::2 :="! :=
!=:
::= ":#
Contributory causes
:":=! ":" B! 6=)!9::!" B: +> )B!"; !=3 63 : B= '4 )B!" )"
6"8C !6!:=
'5 9!=C !3 = 2= 3 ) "@6:"9= )" ! "":=
Action Responsible Date
3 )" ! "":= 2 =3 = +6"8C ""!9 !! +9: H66" B
+ B" !"":!
:":=! 9!=C !9=3 @6!:C "36" I
4=6" ! - "!:=3 = +> 3!! ="C
+=3 C ) +6"8C ""!9 !! + ! 6"8C +9: %
9!=C "!:= +6"8:" ":" 63

BP Amoco
Scenario Name:
Tolerable Collision Description: (Be specific. Include all factors which affect either
Risk Worksheet the cost of collision or the cost of reducing the risk)
Use this sheet to justify classifying a well as Minor risk and to

establish the Tolerable Collision Risk for use in risk-based
well separation rule.
Ref. BPA-D-004 (Dir. Svy. H’book) Sections 4.2, 4.3
Prepared by:
Authorised by:
Do the
consequences yes Are the STOP
no consequences no
of collision include a risk Use
to personnel or the of collision Conventional
environment predictable rule - Major
? ? risk
List all the consequences
of collision and the yes
necessary remedial action
Key Assumptions (Elements of the drilling program which are critical to the above analysis)
How could the probability of collision or the Estimate the total

severity of the consequences be reduced ? cost of collision C=
How might this impact the drilling operation ?
Is there a
practical way to Estimate the value
yes substantially reduce either no of the planned well
the probability of collision or to the BU
the severity of the
consequences V=
?
Accepting a finite risk of collision will reduce the

value of the planned well. What reduction, as a
fraction of the total value, are you prepared to
tolerate ? (guideline = 0.05)
Estimate the total
F=
cost of substantially V=
reducing the risk
VF
Tolerable Collision Risk = =
Given the uncertainty in the above estimates, by C
how many times must the savings made from not
reducing the risk outweigh the risk itself ? VF
> 1 : close approach tolerances need not be set
(guideline = 20)
C
M= 1 VF Tolerable C
F= = < 1 : Collision Risk = 1 in = 1 in
M C VF
H.Williamson, UTG Well Integrity

BP Amoco
Scenario Name: Marnock A01Y Parallel S/T in Reservoir

Use this sheet to justify classifying a well as Minor risk and to Sidetracking an existing well (A01Z) by paralleling it through the
establish the Tolerable Collision Risk for use in risk-based reservoir section. Original well is sidetracked below the 13 3/8”
well separation rule. casing drilling 12 1/4” and 8 1/2” hole sections. The original well,
under conventional rules is classed as MINOR risk as it is closed
Prepared by: Stuart Telfer (Directional Engineer) in and abandoned. Interference occurs in 8 1/2” hole from
4060m to 4590m.
Authorised by: Richard Harland (Ops Superintendant)
Do the
no consequences no
of collision Conventional
to personnel or the
predictable rule - Major
environment
? risk
?
1. Estimated treatment due to contamination from original wellbore and potential mud loss £ 50k
Mud loss is not expected, merely contamination through barite sag in the original hole
requiring treatment to the sidetrack hole system.
2. Potential well control due to reservoir fluid on the highside of the original wellbore £ 200k
(est. 2 days rig time @ £100k/day)
3. Plugback and sidetrack well (est. 6 days rig time @ £100k/day) £ 600k

severity of the consequences be reduced ? cost of collision C= 850k
Moving South edges of the drillers target North
by 10m at entry and 63m at TD would result in:
Is there a
1. Increased directional control to achieve practical way to Estimate the value
smaller targets, cost in extra rig time = 8 days yes substantially reduce either no of the planned well
2. Increased risk of sticking by 25% through the severity of the
greater sliding requirement, potential impact consequences V=
of becoming stuck, 12 days rig time. ?
0.25 x 12 days = 3 days

Total = 11 extra days @ £100k/day value of the planned well. What reduction, as a
Estimate the total
F=
cost of substantially V = £ 1.10 m
reducing the risk
VF
Tolerable Collision Risk = = 0.065
(guideline = 20)
C
M= 20 1 VF Tolerable C
F= = 0.05 < 1 : Collision Risk = 1 in = 1 in 15
M C VF
H.Williamson, SPR Well Design

BP Amoco
Scenario Name: Niakuk Segment 3/5 Development Wells

Use this sheet to justify classifying a well as Minor risk and to New development wells drilled to segment 3/5 locations
establish the Tolerable Collision Risk for use in risk-based encountering interference with adjacent wells. Shallow
well separation rule. nudges and varying KOPs used to move the interference
depth below the surface casing.
Prepared by: Larry Wolfson 12/6/96
Authorised by: Adrian Clark 15/6/96
Do the
no consequences no
? ? risk
• Collision with a producer/injector results in a side-track of that well: $2-$2.5 million (based on P2-50B)
• Plug back and side-track the drilling well: $200k - $500k
• The cost of delayed production/injection from both wells is estimated at $60 per bopd. NK-10 is a significant
injector that supports 12,000 bopd and the average production from the producers is 3,000 bopd. The cost of
a collision includes delayed production for both wells: - Injector: $900k - Producer: $360k
• Estimated total cost (range): $2.56 - $3.90 million.
Surface casing set above start of zone of interference (6,600 ft MD)

severity of the consequences be reduced ? cost of collision C = $3.9 million
Is there a
practical way to Estimate the value
yes substantially reduce either no of the planned well
the severity of the
consequences V = $8.0 million
?

Estimate the total
F = 0.05
cost of substantially V =
reducing the risk
VF
(guideline = 20)
C
M= 1 VF Tolerable C
F= = < 1 : Collision Risk = 1 in = 1 in 10
M C VF

BP Amoco
Scenario Name: Mungo 22/20-A09(169)[W12]

Interference with previous exploration and development wells

Use this sheet to justify classifying a well as Minor risk and to
establish the Tolerable Collision Risk for use in risk-based
when achieving W12 target. Well plan must pass between the
well separation rule. two wells to achieve W12 target. Both wells are suspended.
Ref. BPA-D-004 (Dir. Svy. H’book) Sections 4.2, 4.3 The development well is awaiting abandonment. The section of
Prepared by: James O’Connor
greatest collision risk with the development well has high
percentage casing wear and is of no future use to the asset.
Authorised by: Liam Cousins (Ops Superintendant)
Do the
no consequences no
? ? risk
Collision with either well would provide a conduit for reservoir pressure to into the 12 1/4” section of the planned
well. However as the reservoir pressure is c.1.3sg and drilling fluid is 1.65sg the risk of a well control incident is no
greater than when Top Reservoir Target is reached in 12 1/4” section.
Estimated costs:
1. Plugback and sidetrack well (estimate 4 days rig time @ £140k/day) £ 560k
2. Bit damage (estimate £50k) £ 50k
Programmed FIT achieved at 13 3/8” casing shoe (the drilling programme calls for revision of risks if the FIT
is not achieved).

severity of the consequences be reduced ? cost of collision C= 610k
Is there a
Collision risk would be reduced if the wellpath practical way to Estimate value of
accessed the area via a much more tortuous yes substantially reduce either no the planned well
path. the probability of collision or to the BU
the severity of the
•250mMD extra -> £150k consequences V=
?
•increased risk of stuck pipe -> £150k
•increased risk of not setting casing -> £300k Accepting a finite risk of collision will reduce the
Estimate the total
F=
cost of substantially V = £600k
reducing the risk
VF
(guideline = 20)
C
M= 20 1 VF Tolerable C
F= = 0.05 < 1 : Collision Risk = 1 in = 1 in 20
M C VF

BP Amoco
#

BP Amoco
DIRECTIONAL SURVEY HANDBOOK (BPA-D-004) - CHANGE REQUEST

Forward to the Directional & Survey Specialist, UTG Well Integrity Team
Request made by: Date:
Business Unit / Organisation:
Job Title:
Tel: E-mail:
Section Title: Page(s) affected:
Details of Change
UTG / ODL Action
September 1999 Issue 1 Data and Work Sheets C-27/28

Amoco - Directional Survey Handbook

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Amoco - Directional Survey Handbook

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Upstream

Authorisation for Issue

September 1999 Issue 1 i

Section 5 Survey Tools

Appendix A Mathematical Reference

ii Introduction September 1999 Issue 1

In addition to the uncontrolled hard copies, this document is also

The distribution of this document is managed by the Upstream

ODL may be contacted as follows:

UTG DCC or: UTG DCC

Tel 44 (0)1224 628007

Alternatively, contact the UTG Wells Document Controller,

September 1999 Issue 1 v/vi

September 1999 Issue 1 vii/viii

      1-2

   !"  # 1-6

September 1999 Issue 1 Introduction 1-i/ii

Who this Handbook is for, and what

1   

$% #&'    Reference to a

September 1999 Issue 1 Introduction 1-1

1-2 Introduction September 1999 Issue 1

September 1999 Issue 1 Introduction 1-3

1-4 Introduction September 1999 Issue 1

(* /"*$0* 1&$

September 1999 Issue 1 Introduction 1-5

1-6 Introduction September 1999 Issue 1

Directional Identify geological target(s)

Well Data Pack

September 1999 Issue 1 Introduction 1-7/8

  "  !#  2-3

  "  2-9

September 1999 Issue 1 Policy and Standards 2-i/ii

1        "   

September 1999 Issue 1 Policy and Standards 2-1

2-2 Policy and Standards September 1999 Issue 1

 "   "    # 

  "  !# 

September 1999 Issue 1 Policy and Standards 2-3

• )       "   $ "

2-4 Policy and Standards September 1999 Issue 1

A&, 9  $  #%  " #  

September 1999 Issue 1 Policy and Standards 2-5

2-6 Policy and Standards September 1999 Issue 1

?&C '        $ 

September 1999 Issue 1 Policy and Standards 2-7

&? 1  #   "   #

&- 1    #     "    #

2-8 Policy and Standards September 1999 Issue 1

September 1999 Issue 1 Policy and Standards 2-9

2-10 Policy and Standards September 1999 Issue 1

   51 +  3-17

  " (  3-21

 4 " ( &  3-26

September 1999 Issue 1 Theory 3-i

3-ii Theory September 1999 Issue 1

1            

0 $ , .."$

September 1999 Issue 1 Theory 3-1

1 $             

3-2 Theory September 1999 Issue 1

1    $  "     *  

black ellipsoid perpendicular to

1-2

!" # 1-6

1

$% #&' Reference to a

( /"$0*1&$

" !# 2-3

" 2-9

1 "

" " #

" !#

• ) " $ "

A&, 9$ #% " #

?&C ' $

&? 1# " #

&- 1 # " #

51 + 3-17

" ( 3-21

4 " ( & 3-26

1

0 $, .."$

1 $

1 $ " *

$ $"

1 8 $

• 1

3 " % "

..,00* &$11 ,$,

0 " )

$ / 5 R, R? " &

1 4 # (

# $ & 1 #

.$,0- ., &$(&6.-.7

(.*$*- ., &$(&6(-.7

&.-*$,

3" (

) "" " #

• 1 #

• 0"

51 +

1 ' " $ "5 1&

1"#$ $ 5 " $

0) +

01 &! /2!.

" (

1

'" #(U$

1 "#$ "$ # , $ A $

( % )

% # # "