USMS

023530 Three-Dimensional, Quasi-Static, Drill Ahead BHA Model

for Wellbore Trajectory Prediction and Control
P.A. Larson, Chevron USA Inc; J.J. Azar, U. of Tulsa

Copyright /99/ Society of Petroleum Engineers

This manuscript was provided to the Society of Petroleum Engineers for distribution
and possible publication in an SPE journal. The material is subject to correction
by the author(s). Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words. Write SPE Book Order Dept., Library Technician, P.O. Box 833836,
Richardson, TX 75083-3836 U.S.A. Telex 730989 SPEDAL.
 MAl ~ I 1:1:11
SPE 2353 0
,JtlE
Technical Publications
UNSOLICITED
THREE-DIMENSIONAL, QUASI-8TATIC. DRILL AHEAD BHA MODEL FOR
WELLBORE TRAJECTORY PREDICTION AND CONTROL

Paul A Larson and J. J. Azar, The University of Tulsa

ABSTRACT

A wellbore trajectory prediction model is developed based on a three-dimensional,

quasi-static finite element algorithm. A unique drill ahead routine quantitatively predicts

wellbore inclination and azimuth versus depth. Geological effects are accounted for by

an anisotropic rock model that utilizes formation dip and strike to adjust the bit reaction

forces. The trajectory prediction model operates on a personal computer and is interfaced

with a user friendly menu system to facilitate field application.

Twelve field assemblies have been tested and the predicted trajectories accurately
,
match field survey data. The equilibrium curvatures forecast by the drill ahead model

compare favorably to actual field wellbore curvatures. Radial clearance and formation

anisotropy are the most significant parameters influencing BHA behavior, in both the

inclination and azimuth directions.

INTRODUCTION

The variables that affect the design of drilling assemblies for directional wells can

be classified in two categories: those related to drill string mechanics and those related

now with Chevron, U.S.A

 SPE 2353 0

to area geology. To accurately simulate the drilling process and predict the trajectory a

BHA will follow both categories of factors must be taken into account. Most important is

the 200 to 300 feet of drill string just above the bit, referred to as the bottomhole

assembly (BHA). The BHA contains the deviation control elements (drill collars,

stabilizers, bent subs, measurement while drilling equipment, downhole motors, etc.) that

have the greatest influence on the direction the bit will drill.

Many analytical and numerical models exist which are designed to analyze

1 27
bottomhole assemblies and/or predict wellbore trajectories. - Many of the models and

programs serve their purpose qualitatively. To date there are few models capable of

accurately predicting hole deviation quantitativelybased on bothdrill string mechanics and

geology.

The following research addresses the design and field verification of a wellbore

trajectory prediction algorithm. The predictive model permits wellbore curvature

forecasting based on both BHA mechanical behavior and geological influences. To gain

wide field acceptance, the model is interfaced with a menu driven system. The menu

system facilitates input, output, and overall operation of the algorithm.

2
 SPE 2353 0

MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND THEORY

Finite Element Model

The finite element program utilizes three dimensional beam elements to represent

the BHA components. The force-displacement derivations for beam elements have been

detailed by several authors. 3 ,5,18,28-31 Most of the derivations are conducted in accordance

with the following assumptions:

linear elastic elements,

loads applied to nodes only,
small rotations,
negled transverse shear,
negled torsion-flexure coupling,
symmetry about the Y and Z axes (X being axial).

The equilibrium equation of a three dimensional rectilinear beam under axial. loading is

5
derived to be:

d4U d2U
El _ N = 0 ...(1)
2
dx4 dx

The solution to this fourth order differential equation is then shown to comply with the

following matrix notation:3 518

...(2)

where [Fe] is the element internal force vedor, [K" ] is the element stiffness matrix, [ Ue ]

is the element displacement vedor, and [Fg.] is the element geometric force vector. The

3
 SPE 2353 0

geometric forces are the nonlinear force tenns arising from element curvature, chord

rotation, and end shortening. Each element in the finite element structure can be

described in the local coordinate system by Equation 2. The equation represents six

degrees of freedom at each node with two nodes per element Figure 1 contains a

diagram of member notation.

For the assembled system in global coordinates, Equation 2 becomes:

...(3)

A Gaussian elimination with back substitution technique is employed to solve Equation

3 for node displacements. As the solution process proceeds2 &31, the quasi-static

algorithm applies external friction and contact forces along the BHA as node to wall

contact occurs. The quasi-static analysis permits three dimensional force-displacement

analysis while constraining the BHA within the circular rigid wellbore.

Trajectory Prediction Model

After detennining the bit reaction force vectors from the quasi-static finite element

analysis, the trajectory model detennines the wellbore curvature at the bit corresponding

to a new depth. The wellbore is merely appended, maintaining the original curvature

above the new hole interval. This allows a portion of the BHA to remain under the

influence of the previous wellbore curvature. 24.2T Another quasi-static analysis is

4
 SPE 2353 0

perfonned, bit reaction force vectors calculated, and the wellbore incremented once again.

The process continues for a user specified number of intervals. In effect, the model

realistically simulates "drilling ahead".

A technique to account for geological conditions that requires minimal fonnation

data was incorporated into the program. The technique is based on a combination of two

1
models which rely on rock anisotropy indlces. ,28 If bedding plane dip and strike are

known the geological model separates the bit resultant force vector Into force vectors

acting parallel and perpendicular to the bedding planes of the fonnation in both the

inclination and azimuth directions. Using anisotropic indices the resultant bit force

magnitude and direction are re-computed; the wellbore is then incremented by the drill

ahead scheme accordingly.

Bent Subs and Housings

The application of finite element analysis to bent tools in a BHA requires a special

approach due to the free movement of the string constrained within a circular rigid

wellbore. After constructing the required coinciding BHA-wellbore mesh the program

32
enforces the desired bend in the assembly by computing local cantilever forces acting

on the bit and applying them as global moments acting on the bent element

The procedure allows for the bend to be imposed in the string after the solution

routine has commenced. In essence, the analysis begins with a series of straight BHA

5
 SPE 2353 0

elements conforming to the wellbore centerline. As the solution proceeds the applied

moments create a bend in the string at the desired location. The program can accept up

to two bends in the BHA, both oriented in the same direction, only sliding mode can be

modeled.

DISCUSSION

Model Verification Tests

The quasi-static drill ahead model was used to trajectory history match twelve field

assemblies under field operating conditions. Of the twelve assemblies tes~d and

compared to field survey data; eight are rotary assemblies and four are steerable

assemblies with bent tools. The BHA's were selected from wells drilled in four different

environments: Calgary, Montana, offshore California, and offshore Gulf of Mexico.

Wellbore trajectory was predicted over the entire field run for each BHA. During

the analyses the bit radial clearances were varied to obtain the best possible trajectory

match. If formation data was available, the radial clearance was held constant while the

anisotropic indices were manipulated as matching parameters. Slopes from the forecast

trajectories were then compared to the field wellbore curvatures. The field wellbore

curvatures were computed over the entire BHA interval.

6
 SPE 2353 0

Test Results

Inclination and azimuth response plots (Figures 2-25) show predicted and field

trajectory trend lines. The actual field survey points (MWD or MMS data) are represented

by asterisks. A best fit field trend line is displayed through the survey points for

comparison to the predicted trajectory.

The purpose of the trajectory response plots are to determine the most appropriate

wellbore curvature matches. Once a match is found, the predicted wellbore curvature,

radial clearance, and formation characteristics are quantified. The radial clearance and

formation characteristics can then be used for BHA optimization.

A Rbest matchRis established when a predicted trajectory trend line closely parallels

the field survey trend. The drill ahead model results are not expected to coincide or

match each and every field survey point; for this reason the predicted trend line may not

be concurrent with the field trend line.

Table 1 contains a summary of test results. The term RisotropicRindicates that the

geological model was not needed (anisotropic indices = 0.0), whether or not bed dip was

known. An RunknownR bed dip means no formation data was available.

CONCLUSIONS

A threEKiimensional, quasi-static drill ahead BHA model has been

developed and proved to quantitatively predict wellbore trajectory.

7
 SPE 2353 0

Trajectory history matching and wellbore curvature analysis of twelve field

assemblies with survey data verify the accuracy of the quasi-static drill

ahead algorithm.

Radial clearance and geological charaderistics (dip, strike, and anisotropy)

are the most sensitive parameters best suited for matching of field survey

data.

Radial clearance of 0.1 inch at the bit is the most accurate clearance tested.

If fonnation dip and strike are known, independent inclination and azimuth

anisotropy indices can be quantified for a particular fonnation.

Several of the drill ahead trajedory predictions matched the field surveys

extremely well using isotropic rock conditions.

Overall, the quasi-static drill ahead model can accurately quantify BHA drill

ahead response enabling optimum BHA design for a given set of desired

operating conditions.

NOMENCLATURE

A =(left) element node (with axis subscript)

B =(right) element node (with axis subscript)
E =Young's Modulus
F =internal force
8
 SPE 2353 0

[Fe] =element internal force vector

[Fg.] =element geometric force vector
[ lG =global coordinate reference
h =anisotropy index
I =moment of inertia
[Ke ] =element stiffness matrix
[ ]L =local coordinate system reference
LHS =left of high side (tool face orientation)
M =internal moment (with subsaipts)
N =axial force
RHS =right of high side (tool face orientation)
u =displacement
[u e ] =element displacement vector
=angular displacement
x =axial position

9
 seE 2353 0

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the member companies of the Tulsa University Drilling Research

Projects: Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., Amoco Production Co., Baroid Corp., BP

Development LTD, Chevron Oil Field Research Co., Conoco, Inc., EIf/Aquitaine, Exxon

Production Research Co., Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo, Intevep, Japan National Oil

Corp., Marathon Oil Co., Milpark Drilling Fluids, Mobil Research and Development Corp.,

Pertamina, PetrobraslCenpes, Phillips Petroleum Co., Shell Development Co., Statoil of

Norway, Texaco USA, and Unocal Corp. for supporting this research effort. Phil Patillo

of Amoco Production Company deserves special recognition for all his help with the

construction of the finite element menu system.

10
 SPE 23530

REFERENCES

1. Lubinski, A: Developments in Petroleum Engineering, Gulf Publishing,

Houston, Vol 1, (1987).

2. Murphey, C. E. and Cheatham, J. B.: "Hole Deviation and Drill String

th
Behavior: paper SPE 1259 presented at the 40 Annual Meeting of the
SPE, Denver, CO, October 3-6, 1965.

3. Nicholson, RW., Jr.,: "Analysis of Constrained Directional Drilling

Assemblies: Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Tulsa, Department of
Petroleum Engineering, (1972).

4. Fischer, J. F.: "Analysis of Drillstrings in Curved Boreholes," paper SPE

th
5071 presented at the 49 Annual Meeting of the SPE, Houston, TX,
October 6-9, 1974.

5. Wolfson, L.: ~ree-Dimensional Analysis of Constrained Directional Drilling

Assemblies in a Curved Hole," M.S. Thesis, The University of Tulsa,
Department of Petroleum Engineering, (1974).

6. Millheim, K, Jordan, S., and Ritter, C.: "Bottom - Hole Assembly Analysis
st
Utilizing the Finite Element Method," paper SPE 6057 presented at the 51
Annual Fall Conference of the SPE, New Orleans, LA, October 3-6, 1976.

7. Sutko, A A: "Directional Drilling - A Comparison of Measured and Predicted

th
Changes in Hole Angle," paper SPE 8336 presented at the 54 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Las Vegas, NV,
September 23-26, 1979.

8. Millheim, K.: "Operators Have Much to Learn About Directional Drilling," Oil
& Gas J., Eight Part Series, (November 6, 1978 - February 12, 1979).

9. Toutain, P.: "Analyzing Drill String Behavior," Worfd Oil, Three Part Series,
(June, July, and September 1981).

11
 SPE 23530

10. Baird, J. A, et at: -GEODYN: A Geological FonnationJDrilistring Dynamics

th
Computer Program,- paper SPE 13023 presented at the 59 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Houston, TX, September
16-19, 1984.

11. Williamson, J. S. and Lubinski, A.: -Predicting Bottomhole Assembly

Perfonnance,- paper SPE 14764 presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX, February 10-12, 1986.

12. Rafie, S., Ho, H. S., and Chandra, U.: -Applications of a BHA Analysis
Program in Directional Drilling,- paper SPE 14765 presented at the 1986
IADC/SPE Drilling Conference, Dallas, TX, February 10-12, 1986.

13. Brett, J. F. et al.: -A Method of Modeling the Directional Behavior of

Bottomhole Assemblies Including Those With Bent Subs and Downhole
Motors,- paper SPE 14767 presented at the 1986 IADC/SPE Drilling
Conference, Dallas, TX, February 10-12, 1986.

14. Jogi, P. M., Burgess, T. M., and Bowling, J. P.: -Predicting the Build/Drop
Tendency of Rotary Drilling Assemblies,- SPE Drilling Engineering, (June
1988), pp. 1n-185.

15. Birades, M. and Fenoul, R.: -A Microcomputer Program for Prediction of

Bottomhole Assembly Trajectory,- SPE Drilling Engineering, (June 1988),
pp. 167-172.

16. Birades, M.: -Static and Dynamic Three-Dimensional Bottomhole Assembly

Computer Models,- SPE Drilling Engineering, (June 1988), pp. 160-166.

17. Ho, H. S.: "General Fonnulation of Drillstring Under Large Defonnation and
a
Its Use in BHA Analysis," paper SPE 15562 presented at the 61 Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, New Orleans, LA, October
5-8, 1986.

18. Brakel, J. D., and AzBr, J. J.: "Prediction of Wellbore Trajectory Considering
Bottomhole Assembly and Drill Bit Dynamics,- Ph.D. Dissertation, The
University of Tulsa, Department of Petroleum Engineering, (1986).

12
 SPE 23530

19. Birades, M. and Gazaniol, D.: "ORPHEE 3D: Original Results on the
Directional Behavior of BHA's With Bent Subs," paper SPE 19244
th
presented at the 64 Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition of the
SPE, San Antonio, TX, October 8-11, 1989.

20. Williams, J. B., Apostle, M. C., and Haduch, G. A: "An Analysis of Predicted
Wellbore Trajectory Using a Three Dimensional Model of a Bottomhole
Assembly With Bent Sub, Bent Housing, and Eccentric Contact
Capabilities," paper SPE 19545 presented at the 64th Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, San Antonio, TX, October 8-11,
1989.

21. Chenevert, M. E., and Gatlin, C.: "Mechanical Anisotropies of Laminated

th
Sedimentary Rocks," paper SPE 890 presented at the 39 Annual Meeting
of the SPE, Houston, TX, October 11-14, 1964.

22. McLamore, R T. and Gray, K E.: "A Strength Criterion for Anisotropic
Rocks Based Upon Experimental Observations," paper SPE 1721
th
presented at the 96 Annual AIME Meeting, Los Angeles, CA, February 19-
23, 1967.

23. Bradley, W. B.: "Factors Affecting the Control of Borehole Angle in Straight
th
and Directional Wells," paper SPE 5070 presented at the 49 Annual
Meeting of the SPE, Houston, TX, October 6-9, 1974.

24. Brown, E. T., Green, S. J., and Sinha, K P.: "The Influence of Rock
AniSOtropy on Hole Deviation in Rotary Drilling - A Review," Int J. Rock
Mech. Min. Sci. & Geomech. Abstr., Vol 18, (1981), pp. 387-401.

25. Cheatham, J. B. and Ho, C. Y.: "A Theoretical Model for Directional Drilling
Tendency of a Drill Bit in Anisotropic Rock," paper SPE 10642,
(Unsolicited), September 1981.

26. Xunyao, Y.: "An Equation of Formation Deviating Force and its Application,"
paper SPE 14850 presented at the International Meeting on Petroleum
Engineering, Beijing, China, March 17-20, 1986.

13
 SPE 23530

27. Ho, H. S.: Prediction of Drilling Trajectory in Directional Wells Via a New
Rock-Bit Interaction Model, paper SPE 16658 presented at the 6~ Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition of the SPE, Dallas, TX, September
27-30, 1987.

28. ~r. J. J.: Matrix Structural Analysis, Pergamon Press. New York, (1972).

29. Reddy, J. N.: An Introduction to the Finite Element Method, McGraw Hill,
New York, (1984).

30. Zienkiewicz. o. C. and Cheung, Y. K.: The Finite Element Method in

Structural and Continuum Mechanics, McGraw Hill, London. (1967).

31. Rao, S. S.: The Finite Element Method in Engineering, 2nd edition.
Pergamon Press. Oxford. (1989).

32. Shigley, J. E. and Mitchell, L. D.: Mechanical Engineering Design: McGraw

th
Hill Series in Mechanical Engineering, 4 edition. McGraw Hill, New York,
(1983).

14
 seE 2 J 530

3.00 3.10 0.30 0.36 I isotropic I 0.10 I geology

not needed
11'llllllllllllllllllllll;
2.30 2.20 0.80 0.76 I isotropic I 0.10 I for
these
-0.85 -0.80 0.20 0.25 I isotropic 0.30 tests
1lll,;lllliilllllllll
:l il~I:l lijl:':il,'1 -2.00 -1.90 1.20 1.30 2 East 0.40 incl. h =0.005, azim. h =0.005
:11:!:11:111:,:I:) 1.40 1.87 0.25 0.71 unknown 0.10 poor match without geology
-0.19 -0.15 0.02 0.24 unknown 0.10 poor azimuth match without geology

1:~I::'.lli:l:i:: 1.10 0.90 0.31 0.35 isotropic 0.05 geology not needed

11111111'11:::::1 -0.60 -0.55 0.08 0.10 I 4SO NE 0.10 incl. h =0.004, azim. h =0.000
l~jif~:ll:i::i:I'I:i 3.50 3.00 -0.60 -0.50 I isotropic I 0.10 I 2.3 bent sub, oriented 20 LHS

II 1.20 1.30 na na I isotropic I 0.10

I 0.10 I
I formation interface 4200 ft. no azim
match, good match 4000-4200 ft.

II -1.0 -1.1 -2.40 -2.30 I 1r NW

I 0.10 I
1 bent housing, oriented 2SO RHS
= =
incl. h 0.006, azim. h 0.009

II 2.50 2.00 7.00 6.50 I 14 NW 1.SO bent housing, oriented 40 RHS

= =
incl. h 0.002, azim. h 0.002
 SPE 2353 0

y
L

W
1
t M
A2'
W
A2 1
t M
B2 ' B2

FB2'
1 FA2 , U A2
1 U
B2

XL
MA1' WA1
~1 ' U A1
- -.... -+ - -.... -+
F U MB1' WB1
F B1' B1

B3 ' U B3
/
1/
M
B3
,WB3
z L

FIGURE 1: Three Dimensional Member Notation

 seE 2353 0

BHA #R3: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
60 ~'~~~~~---------------I'

56

52

48

Predicted
44

40

36

32

28
1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200
Depth (ft)

FIGURE 2: BHA #R3 Inclination Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #R3: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)
190

185 -

Predicted
180 -
-

- "'I'
*
~
* *
175
-* * * W
/f'

* * * Field Trend

170 -
*

165 -

160 I I I I I I I

1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 3: BHA #R3 Azimuth Vs. Depth

 seE 2 J 53 0

BHA #R5: INCLINATION RESPONSE

. Inclination (de g)
34.0 T ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 71

32.0

30.0

Predicted
28.0

26.0

24.0

22.0

20.0 I I I I I I

4950 5050 5150 5250 5350 5450

Depth (tt)

FIGURE 4: BHA #R5 Inclination Vs. Depth

 seE 2353 0

BHA #R5: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)
94.0 j i

Predicted

92.0

Field Trend
90.0

88.0 * *

86.0

84.0 I I I I I

4950 5050 5150 5250 5350 5450

Depth (fl)

FIGURE 5: BHA #R5 Azimuth Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #R6: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
62.50 I i

61.25

60.00
Predicted

58.75

57.50

56.25

55.00 I I I I I I

6200 6300 6400 6500 6600

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 6: BHA #R6 Inclination Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #R6: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)
186.00 I I

185.50

185.00
* * Field Trend *
184.50

184.00
*
183.50

183.00 I I I I I I

6200 6300 6400 6500 6600

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 7: BHA #R6 Azimuth Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #R7: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
50.0 r:L;::--~--------------------i

48.0

46.0

44.0

42.0

40.0

38.0
Field Trend
36.0

34.0

32.0

30.0 I i I I I I I I I i " I I

8200 8300 8400 8500 8600 8700 8800 8900 9000 9100 9200
Depth (ft)

FIGURE 8: BHA #R7 Inclination Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #R7: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)
208.00 I I

206.00

204.00

202.00 Predicted

200.00
*
198.00

196.00

194.00 I I r I I I I I I I I

8200 8300 8400 8500 8600 8700 8800 8900 9000 9100 9200
Depth (ft)

FIGURE 9: BHA #R7 Azimuth Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #R15: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
28.0
Field Trend
27.0

26.0
*
25.0

24.0

23.0

22.0

21.0

20.0

19.0
, ,

18.0
5080 5180 5280 5380 5480 5580 5680
Depth (ft)

FIGURE 10: BHA #R15 Inclination Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #R15: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)
95.0 I I

94.0
Field Trend
93.0
*
92.0

91.0
* Predicted

90.0~
89.0

88.0

87.0
5080 5180 5280 5380 5480 5580 5680
Depth (ft)

FIGURE 11: BHA #R15 Azimuth Vs. Depth

I
 seE 2 J 53 0

BHA #R17: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
35.0 , ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I

34.5

* Predicted
34.0 Field Trend
*
33.5

33.0

32.5

32.0 I I I I I , I

6714 6814 6914 7014 7114 7214 7314

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 12: BHA #R17 Inclination Vs. Depth

 , SPE 2' 53 0

BHA #R17: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)
97.0 i I

96.5

*
96.0
*
95.5

* *
95.0 *- :>~ I
Predicted
*
94.5
*
94.0 I I I I i I I

6714 6814 6914 7014 7114 7214 7314

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 13: BHA #R17 Azimuth Vs. Depth

 SPE 2 J53 0

BHA #R28: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
36.0 T'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - I

35.5 Field Trend

35.0

34.5

34.0

33.5

33.0

32.5

32.0 I I I I

10756 10856 10956 11056

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 14: BHA #R28 Inclination Vs. Depth

 SPE 23530

BHA #R28: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)
110.0 I I

109.5 -

109.0 Field Trend *

108.5
* * *
108.0

107.5

107.0

106.5

106.0 I I I I

10756 10856 10956 11056

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 15: BHA #R28 Azimuth Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #R59: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
40.0 * "'= I

*
Field Trend

Predicted
39.0

38.0 I I I

14300 14400 14500

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 16: BHA #R59 Inclination Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #R59: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)
222.00 I I

221.50-
Predicted *
* * *Field Trend *
r-

* *
221.00 I
* I I

14300 14400 14500

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 17: BHA #R59 Azimuth Vs. Depth

 SPE 2:3 53 0

BHA #B2: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
45.0 I "' I

40.0

Field Trend
35.0

30.0

25.0

20.0

15.0 I I I I I I I I

3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 18: BHA #B2 Inclination Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #B2: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (de g)
3.00 T'----------------------~i

2.00
*
1.00 *
0.00 I -....... ....... -....... ..... ' I

-1.00 Field Trend

*
-2.00
*
-3.00
*
- 4.00 I I I I i
*
i i I I

3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3500 3600 3700 3800

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 19: BHA #B2 Azimuth Vs. Depth

I",
 SP.E 2353 0

BHA #B3: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclinat ion (deg)
13.0 T'- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ,

12.0

Predicted
11.0

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0 I
* I I i i I I i '

4000 4050 4100 4150 4200 4250 4300 4350 4400

Depth (It)

FIGURE 20: BHA #B3 Inclination Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #B3: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

110.00 I~imuth (deg) I

*'
* *
105.00

Predicted
100.00

95.00

90.00 * *
Field Trend

85.00 I I I I I I i I I

4000 4050 4100 4150 4200 4250 4300 4350 4400

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 21: BHA #B3 Azimuth Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #B23: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
24.0 I I

23.0 -

22.0 -

21.0 -

20.0 -

i','
19.0 -
f - Predicted
I I

~
I

Field Trend
18.0 -

17.0 I I I I I '

8900 8920 8940 8960 8980 9000

Depth (11)

FIGURE 22: BHA #B23 Inclination Vs. Depth

 SPE 2 J 5~ 0

BHA #B23: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)
230.0 i I

227.0 -

224.0 Field Trend

Predicted
221.0 -

218.0 -

215.0 I I I I I I

8900 8920 8940 8960 8980 9000

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 23: BHA #B23 Azimuth Vs. Depth

 SPE 2353 0

BHA #B26: INCLINATION RESPONSE

Inclination (deg)
24.0 li--~---------------------~i

23.0

22.0 Predicted

21.0

20.0

19.0

18.0

17.0 I I I I I I

9100 9120 9140 9160 9180 9200

Depth (It)

FIGURE 24: BHA #B26 Inclination Vs. Depth

t
 SPE 2353 0

BHA #B26: AZIMUTH RESPONSE

Azimuth (deg)

238.0

236.0

234.0

232.0

230.0

228.0

226.0 I I I r I I

9100 9120 9140 9160 9180 9200

Depth (ft)

FIGURE 25: 8HA #826 Azimuth Vs. Depth