Improving the Accuracy of

Directional Wellbore Surveying in

the Norwegian Sea
I. Edvardsen, SPE, University of Troms, Baker Hughes; T. L. Hansen, University of Troms;
M. Gjertsen and H. Wilson, SPE, Baker Hughes
Summary
Time-dependent current uctuations in the Earths ionosphere
cause inaccuracies in wellbore directional surveying. These inac-
curacies increase at higher latitudes, and although monitoring and
correction are possible, they become less valid as the distance
between the monitoring site and the rigsite increases, which is a
particular problem for offshore drillsites. The characteristics of
the ionosphere currents indicate that the most favorable location
for monitoring stations is on the same geomagnetic latitude as the
drillsite. Such an arrangement has been used to monitor and cor-
rect directional surveys at the Haltenbanken area of the Norwe-
gian Sea over a period of approximately 2 years. Haltenbanken is
approximately 200 km west of the Norwegian coast at latitude
65

N, where magnetic-storm activity can have a signicant effect

on directional surveying. A monitoring station was set up on the
coast at the same geomagnetic latitude as Haltenbanken. To test
the idea that magnetic disturbances are similar along constant
magnetic latitude, an additional monitoring station was estab-
lished 200 km east of the main station. The data broadly con-
rmed the hypothesis, although isolated events were observed
when this was not the case. The challenges of surveying at off-
shore sites north of 62

N latitude are probably greater than the oil

and gas industry is accustomed tobut such challenges will
become more signicant if the Arctic Ocean is opened to drilling
operations. The technique described in this paper may contribute
to safer and more-productive offshore operations at high latitudes.
Introduction
Magnetic-measurement-while-drilling (MWD) systems, incorpo-
rating three orthogonally mounted magnetometers, are widely
used to steer directional wells and dene the as-drilled well path.
Knowledge of the local-magnetic-eld vector is required to oper-
ate such tools. Uncertainty in the reference-eld values translates
to uncertainty in recorded azimuth and in calculated position. The
basic estimates of the reference eld are usually obtained from a
global geomagnetic model. The uncertainty associated with the
modeled values can be signicantly reduced through geomagnetic
surveying of the area and subsequent corrections for local crustal
anomalies, commonly referred to as in-eld referencing (IFR). It
is possible to further reduce uncertainty by monitoring and cor-
recting for the time-dependent external eld that is generated by
electrical currents owing in the Earths upper atmosphere. How-
ever, monitoring of the external eld at an offshore location is dif-
cult and expensive, and is currently not performed. Instead,
onshore monitoring stations are used to predict what is happening
at the rigsite. The position of the stations relative to the rigsite has
a signicant bearing on the validity of the prediction. At low and
middle geomagnetic latitude, a monitoring station will yield use-
ful information even when 1000 km away. In the auroral and sub-
auroral zone, which is above 50

geomagnetic latitude in the

North Sea, the critical distance is much smaller. More impor-
tantly, it becomes strongly dependent on the direction. This asym-
metry is caused by the so-called auroral electrojet, an intense
current system owing mainly east/west in the ionosphere. A
method that requires land-based variometers to be placed on the
same geomagnetic latitude as the drilling site is being evaluated
to determine whether it will provide reliable results for distant off-
shore locations at high latitudes.
The Earths Magnetic Field
The importance of the earths magnetic eld as a reference for
directional drilling has been described in several earlier papers
(Zijsling and Wilson 1989; Russell et al. 1995; Williamson et al.
1998; Bang et al. 2009). The geomagnetic reference eld B is
commonly described as a vector sum of the main eld B
m
, the
crustal eld B
c
, and the disturbance eld B
d
:
B B
m
B
c
B
d
: 1
Williamson et al. (1998) state that the ability to estimate the
effect of the disturbance-eld effects at high latitudes is signi-
cantly less than in the UK region. This is explained by the rapidly
changing pattern and strength of the auroral electrojet. From being
able to estimate the external-magnetic-eld variations over a few
hundred kilometers in the North Sea area, the distance decreases to
tens of kilometers in the auroral zone. However, the study by Tor-
kildsen et al. (1997), by use of data from 60

to 79

geographical
latitude, indicated that interpolation techniques can be used up to
200 km. To select the optimum location for monitoring stations in
the auroral zone, it is helpful to understand the physics behind the
electrojet. The sun emits plasma that spreads out through the solar
system as the solar wind. When the solar wind reaches the earths
magnetosphere it interacts with the geomagnetic eld, giving rise
to electric currents. Variations in solar activity result in uctua-
tions in these currents. During heightened solar activity, magnetic
disturbances normally observed in the auroral zone are experi-
enced much farther south. On the way from the sun to the Earth the
solar wind carries along some of the suns magnetic eld, called
the interplanetary magnetic eld (IMF) (Cowley 2007). The elec-
tric conductivity of the solar wind is high, and thus a magnetic eld
appears as being frozen into the plasma. This effect causes the
solar wind to compress the Earths magnetic eld on the day side
and drag it out on the night side, thereby shaping the so-called
magnetosphere. Furthermore, the IMF will couple to the Earths
magnetic eld when they are antiparalleli.e., IMF pointing
southward (Brekke 1997). The effect of this coupling is a transport
of magnetic ux from the dayside to the tail of the magnetosphere
at the nightside. This process continues for several hours before
the magnetic conguration in the tail breaks down and the eld
returns to its normal shape. This cyclic process was rst described
by Dungey (1961) and is illustrated by Fig. 1 (Johnsen 2011).
The solar wind owing past the Earths magnetic eld gives
rise to an electric eld in the magnetosphere. Because of high
conductivity along the magnetic-eld lines, the eld maps into the
polar regions of the ionosphere, driving a convection pattern ori-
ented along the dawn/dusk direction (lower part in Fig. 1). In the
upper ionosphere, this is only plasma convection, but in the lower
ionosphere (the E-layer), the electric conductivity is enhanced and
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Copyright VC 2013 Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper (SPE 159679) was accepted for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 810 October 2012, and revised for
publication. Original manuscript received for review 5 November 2012. Revised manuscript
received for review 28 February 2013. Paper peer approved 26 March 2013.
158 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
an electric current is generated along with the plasma circulation
(Prolss 2004). The return ow at lower latitudes gives rise to cur-
rent tracks known as convection or auroral electrojets, which ow
parallel to the lines of geomagnetic latitude (Fig. 2).
On the dusk side, there is an eastward electrojet, whereas a
westward current ows on the dawn side of the Earth (Campbell
2003). The directions of the currents are opposite to the convec-
tion pattern. During substorms, the electrojet current is consider-
ably larger and typically more concentrated around midnight than
during quiet times.
The Chain of Existing Monitoring Stations in
Norway and Denmark
Troms Geophysical Observatory (TGO) maintains long-term
geophysical observation series started by the Norwegian Institute
1 2 3 4
Solar Wind
6
1 2
3
4
5
6
Midnight
Dusk
Noon
7
7
5
Magnetopause
Fig. 1Illustration of the Dungey cycle in the Earths noon/midnight meridian plane. In the main illustration, the sun is to the left.
The IMF reconnects to the Earths dipole eld at (1), and the opened eld lines are peeled back (2 through 4) and reconnected in
the magnetotail (5). Closed ux is returned to the dayside (6 and 7). The magnetopause is indicated by a black dashed line. The
northern and southern polar caps are north and south of the red lines indicating the open/closed eld line boundary (OCB),
respectively. In the inset, the resulting two-cell ionospheric convection is shown. The blue dots correspond to numbered eld lines
in the main illustration. The auroral oval is represented by the green band and the OCB by the red dotted line.
electric field
auroral electrojet
substorm electrojet
magnetic field
convection cell
12.00 hr
24.00 hr
0
6
.
0
0

h
r
,

d
a
w
n
1
8
.
0
0

h
r
,

d
u
s
k
60
70
80
Fig. 2The convection pattern and electrojet system at high latitudes.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 159
of Cosmic Physics around 1930. Today, these tasks are the respon-
sibility of the University of Troms, which in 2000 established
TGO to carry them out. There are three geomagnetic observatories
that track the eld in absolute sense, Bjrnya (BJO), Troms
(TRO) and Dombas (DOB) and 11 variometer stations that con-
centrate on recording magnetic disturbances. TGO cooperates
closely with the geomagnetism group at DTU-Space in Denmark.
Adding one variometer and one geomagnetic observatory in Den-
mark (BFE), there are 16 magnetometers monitoring the mag-
netic-eld variations between 79

N at Svalbard and 55

N in
Denmark (Fig. 3).
During the mid-1990s, the Norwegian/Danish magnetometer
chain was only half the number it is today. Since then, an increasing
demand for magnetic monitoring for offshore directional drilling
has made possible the expansion to todays number of stations. All
variometer stations are equipped with standard triaxes uxgate sen-
sors mounted on stable ground at magnetically undisturbed sites.
Electronics, data loggers, and communication equipment are placed
in separate nearby buildings. Short-term stability and temperature
drift are minimized, but some long-term drift is accepted. The eld
is sampled every 10 seconds and transmitted to Troms with inter-
vals of a few minutes. When a magnetometer is rst installed, abso-
lute measurements of the eld at the site are made to determine
sensor orientation and other constants necessary to transform its
output to declination, dip, and total eld. This procedure is repeated
when needed, usually with intervals of a few years. Variometer sta-
tions are simple and inexpensive compared with traditional geo-
magnetic observatories with frequent absolute calibration and high
stability. A good variometer is sufcient for monitoring the accu-
racy and stability of directional drilling; the high-precision observa-
tories mainly serve as regional points of reference.
Drilling operations in the southern part of the North Sea, at lat-
itudes between of 52

N and 56

N, are well covered by the magne-

tometers in Denmark along with the magnetic observatories in
Scotland and northern Germany. The external eld seldom creates
major difculties for directional-surveying operations in this area,
but monitoring is still important for quality-control purposes. The
effect of magnetic substorms increases in the north. Fig. 4 shows
Norwegian Stations, TGO
Danish Stations, DTU
Fig. 3The Norwegian/Danish magnetometer chain.
160 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
how the total eld is affected along the coast of Norway during a
strong geomagnetic substorm from Karmy at 59

latitude to
Nordkapp at 71

. In this region, continuous monitoring and, if

possible, correction for the disturbances are advisable. In the pres-
ent study, we will focus on the area around 66

N.
The Proposed TGOCorrection Method
Directional surveying with magnetic MWD in northern waters
will generally benet from being corrected for variations in the
Earths external magnetic eld. Correction would be straightfor-
ward if it were possible to set up a reference magnetometer within
a few kilometers of the drillsite. Because the magnetometer can-
not be mounted on the rig and seabed magnetometers are not eas-
ily available and tested in the area of interest, we are forced to
rely on magnetometers onshore. Along the coast of Norway that
means a distance of more than 100 km in most cases. The ques-
tion of how far away the reference instrument can be while still
providing useful information must be raised.
British Geological Survey offers a method known as interpola-
tion IFR (IIFR) (Shiells and Kerridge 2000). Here, a simple alter-
native procedure is described, for the time being called the TGO
Correction Method.
As pointed out previously, the magnetic eld at the drillsite
can conveniently be split into three components: the main eld
from Earths core, the crustal eld, and the external or disturbance
eld originating in the ionosphere and magnetosphere:
B B
m
B
c
B
d
: 2
For the present discussion, we merge the main eld and crustal
eld into a single quasistatic component, B
s
B
m
B
c,
subject
only to the slow (but not negligible) secular variation:
B B
s
B
d
: 3
Similarly, the eld observed at the reference site is denoted by
vector R:
R R
s
R
d
: 4
We now assume B
d
R
d
. This crucial assumption will be dealt
with in more detail later, but already a rough comparison of
neighboring stations along the coast of Norway (Fig. 4) points to
a coherence in the disturbances over at least 200 km. Thus, we
can write
B B
s
R
d
: 5
The undisturbed eld B
s
at the drillsite is not subject to direct
measurement; its value must be taken froma model of Earths eld,
which normally is adjusted with data from a magnetic survey of the
area (IFR). The disturbance eld R
d
R R
s
is derived from the
magnetograms at the reference site. Being a difference only, there
is no need for precise absolute observations. Thus, in contrast to
what is claimed for IIFR, there is no need for measurements of ob-
servatory standard; the approximate calibrated variometers sufce.
Let X
0
, Y
0
, and Z
0
be the components of Earths static eld
(B
s
or R
s
) in the standard Cartesian coordinate system of
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50265
1 2 3 4 5 6
<- Prev. day
Tromso Geophysical Observatory
To MENU Next day ->
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
D H Z I F Real time
kar
sol
rvk
don
jck
and
tro
sor
nor
200 nT
VTC
51032
51910
52375
52552
53218
53402
53096
53842
F component
06.aug 2011
nT.
Magnetometer
Fig. 4Total eld output from the Norwegian chain of magnetometers from 6 August 2011.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 161
geomagnetismX as north, Y as east, and Z as vertically down
and recall the expressions for
Total eld:
F
2
0
X
2
0
Y
2
0
Z
2
0
6
Horizontal eld:
H
2
0
X
2
0
Y
2
0
7
Dip (inclination in the parlance of geomagnetism):
tgI
0

Z
0
H
0
8
Declination:
tgD
0

Y
0
X
0
: 9
The disturbance eld is always quite smallat most, a few
percent in strengthcompared with the static eld. Then, the
effects of the disturbance eld can be treated as perturbations of
the main eld. Differentiating the expressions for F
0
, I
0
, and D
0
,
we obtain the changes DF, DI, and DD in the observed eld result-
ing from the components X
d
, Y
d
, and Z
d
of R
d
:
DF
X
0
F
0
X
d

Y
0
F
0
Y
d

Z
0
F
0
Z
d
10
DI
H
0
F
2
0
Z
d

Z
0
F
2
0
X
0
H
0
X
d

Z
0
F
2
0
Y
0
H
0
Y
d
11
DD
X
0
H
2
0
Y
d

Y
0
H
2
0
X
d
: 12
This means that as long as the static eld (the subscript 0) is
approximately the same at the drillsite and the reference site, the
corrections DF, DI, and DD found at the reference site can be
applied directly to the eld at the drillsite. If that is not the case,
we have to calculate X
d
, Y
d
, and Z
d
and apply them to Eqs. 6 to
12, along with the appropriate values of the static eld
components.
The problem is now reduced to determining R
s
in the form
of F
0
, I
0
, D
0
or, if needed, X
0
, Y
0
, Z
0
from the recordings at the
reference station. At TGO this is achieved by an automatic pro-
cess by use of a least-square-root approximation. For each compo-
nent a, a quiet level a
s
is determined so that
X
i

ja
i
a
q
j
q
min: 13
The sum is taken over a 24-hour period, and the nal level is
the average over 10 subsequent days. Fig. 5 shows the output for
declination at Dnna from March 2011 to February 2013. The
blue dots are the mean values for quiet days, the horizontal red
lines are the quiet values, and the sloping red line is the trend line
for the whole period.
The slope reects mainly the secular variation, but may also
have a contribution from sensor drift. Whatever the cause, the dif-
ference DDD D
0
is not affected. Estimated uncertainties (3r
standard deviations) in corrections are 0.04

in declination, 0.02

for dip, and 7 nT in total eld.

The accuracy of MWD surveys is normally specied by an
uncertainty model that accounts for all signicant error sources. It
is common practice to consider measurement errors that exceed
the models 3-standard-deviation condence interval to be out of
specication.
It is desirable to identify surveys acquired when the magnetic-
eld disturbance level exceeds the error-model specication, and,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.40
mar apr may jun july aug sep oct nov dec jan
2012 2013
feb mar apr may jun july aug sep oct nov dec jan feb
0.30
0.20
0.10
3.7012
+0.10
+0.20
+0.30
+0.40
Deg.
Mean Values
QMN Values
MKM 14.3' year
Fig. 5Quiet days at Dnna from 2011 to 2013.
162 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
if possible, correct it to within the models tolerances. However,
although the models include terms that describe the uncertainty
associated with the magnetic reference eld, the contribution that
relates specically to the external eld is not well dened or
widely agreed upon within the drilling industry. The disturbance-
limit values given in Table 1 are derived from the Baker Hughes
MWD model.
With these gures in mind and by use of investigations and ex-
perience derived from data from the Norwegian magnetometer
network, the following recommendations are made for drilling
sites between 62

and 72

geographic latitude:
Corrections derived from a reference magnetometer can be
safely applied even under intense magnetic storms up to a dis-
tance of roughly 100 km (unfortunately, few elds are that close
to the coastline).
At distances more than 100 km, the asymmetry in the distur-
bances between geomagnetic east/west and north/south directions
should be taken into account. Generally, the spatial correlation is
clearly better east/west than north/south. Preferably, the reference
magnetometer and the drillsite should match within 61

in geo-
magnetic latitude.
Given that the geomagnetic latitude condition is fullled,
corrections can be applied satisfactorily out to distances of at least
500 km for weak and moderate magnetic storms (i.e., most
storms). During major storms (a few in every solar cycle), the cor-
rections cannot be trusted.
Skarv Case Study
The Skarv-Idun development lies in the Norwegian Sea, at
approximately 65.7

N latitude and 200 km west of the Norwegian

coastline. The Skarv-Idun development consists of the Skarv oil
and gas-condensate eld and the neighboring Idun gas eld. Skarv
is in the Haltenbanken area, and a total of 24 wells are either
drilled or planned to be drilled. From a geophysical perspective,
the Skarv eld is close to the Arctic auroral zone. The auroral
oval expands during severe magnetic substorms, causing an
enhanced auroral electrojet in the vicinity of the drilling site at the
Skarv eld. The external magnetic eld is therefore likely to
affect magnetic MWD measurements taken during drilling. To
manage the disturbance eld at Skarv, a new variometer station
was established onshore in Norway. The locations of available
variometer stations were not optimal with regard to the Skarv
eld. In 2008, the station was set up at the island of Dnna. Dnna
lies on the same geomagnetic latitude as the Skarv eld, and the
distance between the two locations is approximately 220 km. The-
oretically, the auroral electrojet ows along lines of geomagnetic
latitude. Therefore, the induced magnetic eld should be of simi-
lar character along a given geomagnetic latitude for hundreds of
kilometers, as long as the conductivity and strength of the electric
eld are homogeneous. To verify this simplied assumption, it
was decided to extend the chain of Norwegian calibrated vario-
meters into Sweden. An additional geomagnetic control station
was established at Jackvik in Sweden, approximately 220 km east
of Dnna. Jackvik was chosen because the spatial geomagnetic
variations between Jackvik and Dnna should be similar to those
between Dnna and Skarv.
The actual correlation between disturbances at onshore and
offshore locations is, in principle, affected by the difference in
electric conductivity between the land and the sea (Williamson
et al. 1998). The higher conductivity of the sea will tend to damp
out the higher frequencies in the magnetic eld at sea, with the
cutoff frequency decreasing with increasing water depth. By use
of the formulas and data of Filloux (1987), we nd that the 400 m
of water at Skarv will damp out periods shorter than approxi-
mately 2 seconds. Considering our magnetic data are one-minute
averages, the induction effect will be negligible in our case.
Fig. 6 illustrates how the disturbance eld B
d
is created by the
westward electrojet current I, in accordance with Ampe`res law
with Maxwells correction. The effect from the disturbance eld
B
d
on the main eld B
m
varies with both locality and distance
from which the electrojet ows. With the right-hand rule, we see
that locations north of the electrojet current I will experience an
increase in total eld intensity as the disturbance eld B
d
and
main eld B
m
point in the same direction. The effect will be oppo-
site at Rrvik, which is south of the current.
Variomometer Comparison
In this analysis, data from ve selected variometer stations in Nor-
way, Sweden, and Finland, acquired in 2011, have been compared.
The locations of the control stations are described in Table 2.
When recordings at Dnna exceeded at least one of the error-
model disturbance limits described in Table 1, data from all sites
were analyzed. Data for declination (DD), dip (DI), and total-
eld-intensity (DF) variations were analyzed separately. A total
of 56 days were recorded when Dnna exceeded any of these
three disturbance limits, approximately 15% of the days in 2011.
The results are presented in Table 3. The assumption of good cor-
relation between monitoring sites on the same geomagnetic lati-
tude is conrmed regarding dip angle and total eld intensity. The
conformity between Dnna and Jackvik is good. However,
Arctic
circle
Jckvik
B
d
B
m
B
d
Dnna
Rrvik
Skarv
I
Fig. 6Auroral electrojet.
TABLE 1DISTURBANCE LIMITS
jDDj (

) jDIj (

) jDFj (nT)
0.45 0.18 147
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 163
regarding declination, the correlation is approximately half of the
disturbance limit, but slightly poorer than the numbers from Rr-
vik, which is south of Dnna. These numbers will be more reli-
able when data from the coming years are included in the
analysis.
Figs. 7 through 9 show a comparison between the relative dis-
turbances at Dnna and the variometer stations at Jackvik and
Rrvik. The correlation reported for a given disturbance at Dnna
is the average absolute difference recorded whenever Dnna
exceeds that same disturbance. This also means that data quantity
used in the analysis is larger at lower disturbances. The red dotted
lines show the error-model disturbance limits at Dnna. Differen-
ces greater than the limit values are recognized as out-of-speci-
cation conditions. The green-shaded area indicates that the
magnetic disturbance measured at Dnna is within the error-
model disturbance limit.
When the declination disturbances measured at Dnna are
greater than 0.45

, the average differences of both Rrvik and

Jackvik to Dnna are approximately 50% of the error-model dis-
turbance limit. At disturbances larger than 0.9

measured at
Dnna, the average difference to Jackvik exceeds the error-model
disturbance limit. At Rrvik, this occurs at disturbances larger
than 1.7

measured at Dnna.
The dip-variation comparison clearly indicates homogeneity
along geomagnetic latitude. The average difference between Dnna
and Jackvik is only 0.04

when exceeding the error-model disturb-

ance limit. Pello, which is more than 500 km east of Dnna, shows
an average difference of less than 0.10

.
The gure for total intensity also shows a good correlation
between Dnna and Jackvik. Disturbances at Dnna up to approx-
imately 6700 nT can be corrected with the use of Jackvik data
and still be within the error-model disturbance limit of 147 nT.
Fig. 10 shows the variations in total intensity DF, declination
DD, and dip angel DI for the calibrated variometer stations at
Dnna, Jackvik, and Rrvik from 0100 to 0400 UTC (Universal
Coordinated Time) on 6 August 2011. In that time interval, the
variometer stations recorded disturbances in the geomagnetic eld
caused by electrojet currents. From 0100 to 0130 UTC, the DF
gure shows that the main eld is affected by a positive disturb-
ance eld. The electrojet current is then moving northward and
the DF changes sign, rst at Rrvik and then at Dnna and Jack-
vik. In the period from 0130 to 0230 UTC, the current is directly
overhead with respect to the area of interest, causing a uctuating
magnetic eld. Regarding DF and DI, there seem to be some time
shifts between the different locations, but the correlation between
Dnna and Jackvik is quite good. However, DD seems to have the
best correlation between Dnna and Rrvik. This can be ex-
plained by a discontinuity effect, caused by the substorm electro-
jet that is the dominant current in the border area around magnetic
midnight. In this period, the direction of the current is directed
from north to south before it splits into the westward and eastward
auroral electrojets.
To illustrate how the TGO correction method will work in
practice, the moments for three imaginary survey stations are
shown in Fig. 10. Earlier in this paper, we showed that
BB
s
R
d
.
TABLE 2LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE FOR STATIONS
Station
Geomagnetic
Latitude
Geographic
Latitude
Geomagnetic
Longitude
Geographic
Longitude
Skarv 63.3 65.7 91.7 7.6
Dnna 63.4 66.1 95.8 12.5
Jackvik 63.5 66.4 99.5 17.0
Pello 63.6 66.9 105.4 24.1
Rrvik 62.2 64.9 93.2 11.0
Solund 58.5 61.1 86.1 4.8
TABLE 3COMPARISON WITH DNNA DURING DISTURBED
PERIODS
Station
Average Values
jDDj (degrees) jDIj (degrees) jDFj (nT)
Ja ckvik 0.23 0.04 41
Pello 0.44 0.08 84
Rrvik 0.19 0.11 63
Solund 0.50 0.30 182
0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
D
3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2 5.6 6.0 6.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

d
i
f
f

[
d
e
g
]
Disturbance at Dnna [deg]
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Jckvik Rrvik
Fig. 7Declination-variation comparison.
164 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
The results are presented in Table 4. Note that the reference
eld is corrected for all parameters for Survey Station 2, even
though only the variation for the dip angle is outside the disturb-
ance limit. Survey Station 3 remains uncorrected.
Operational Procedure for Handling Disturbances
in the External Magnetic Field
The Dnna variometer will be used manage external eld distur-
bances at Skarv. Any disturbance outside the error-model limit
(Table 1) will involve a correction for all three magnetic-eld ele-
ments. For directional surveying at Skarv, this means that drilling
may continue even during disturbed periods. However, in cases
when the electrojet current is directly overhead with respect to
Dnna, a reliable correction may not be available. These periods
can be identied from the magnetogram.
Conclusions
These conclusions apply to drilling locations in the Scandinavian
auroral and subauroral zones.
Analyses of magnetogram data from several locations support
the theory of similar, and nearly simultaneous, magnetic distur-
bances occurring along geomagnetic latitude for several hun-
dreds of kilometers.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
I
0.4
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

d
i
f
f

[
d
e
g
]
Disturbance at Dnna [deg]
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
Jckvik Rrvik
Fig. 8Dip-variation comparison.
0
0
3
0
6
0
9
0
1
2
0
1
5
0
1
8
0
2
1
0
2
4
0
2
7
0
3
0
0
3
3
0
3
6
0
3
9
0
4
2
0
4
5
0
4
8
0
5
1
0
5
4
0
5
7
0
6
0
0
6
3
0
6
6
0
6
9
0
7
2
0
50
100
150
200
F
250
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

d
i
f
f

[
n
T
]
Jckvik Rrvik
Disturbance at Dnna [nT]
Fig. 9Total-intensity-variation comparison.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 165
The locations of monitoring stations, relative to the drillsite, are
important for the effective monitoring of electrojet currents.
Variations in declination are well correlated north/south, up to
approximately 200 km.
Placing the monitoring station on the same geomagnetic lati-
tude as the drillsite provides better correlation of total intensity
and dip angle, and allows useful correlation of all three mag-
netic-eld elements at distances up to 500 km from the rigsite.
Corrections for external-eld variations on the basis of remote
monitoring may be less valid within two to three hours of mag-
netic midnight because of the effect from substorm electrojet.
During this period, the distance for good correlation between
the rigsite and monitoring station is reduced to 100 km.
In cases when the electrojet current uctuation is directly over-
head with respect to the rigsite and monitoring station, a reli-
able correction may not be available.
The method described for the remote monitoring of the Earths
external magnetic eld can be usefully applied to distant off-
shore drillsites at high latitudes, improving directional control
and increasing wellbore-survey accuracy.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank BP, the University of Troms, and
Baker Hughes for their permission to publish this paper.
600
450
300
150
0
150
300
450
Dnna
Jackvik
Rrvik
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
Dnna
Jackvik
Rrvik
1.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
0.40
0.80
1.20
1.60
2.00
2.40
2.80
3.20
3.60
D [deg]
I [deg]
F [nT]
Dnna
Jackvi
Rrvik
Survey Station 1 Survey Station 2 Survey Station 3
00:00 00:30 01:00 01:30 02:00 02.30 03:00 03:30 04:00 04:30 05:00 05:30
00:00 00:30 01:00 01:30 02:00 02.30 03:00 03:30 04:00 04:30 05:00 05:30
00:00 00:30 01:00 01:30 02:00 02.30 03:00 03:30 04:00 05:00 05:30 04:30
Fig. 10Magnetogram comparison from 6 August 2011.
TABLE 4DECLINATION, DIP, AND TOTAL INTENSITY FOR SURVEY STATIONS
Survey
Station
Time,
UTC
Declination, D (degrees) Dip, I (degrees) Total Intensity, F (nT)
B
S
R
D
B B
S
R
D
B B
S
R
D
B
1 0111 3.52 0.89 4.41 76.13 0.79 76.92 52,383 230 52,613
2 0245 3.52 0.47 3.99 76.13 0.42 76.55 52,383 123 52,260
3 0430 3.52 0.31 3.52 76.13 0.02 76.13 52,383 77 52,383
166 June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion
References
Bang, J., Torkildsen, T., Brun, B. T., et al. 2009. Targeting Challenges in
Northern Areas Due to Degradation of Wellbore Positioning Accuracy.
Paper SPE 119661 presented at the SPE/IADC Drilling Conference
and Exhibition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1719 March. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/119661-MS.
Brekke, A. 1997. Physics of the Polar Upper Atmosphere, rst edition.
Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Campbell, W. H. 2003. Introduction to Geomagnetic Fields, second edi-
tion. New York City, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cowley, S. W. H. 2007. Magnetosphere of the Earth. In Encyclopedia of
Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism, eds. D. Gubbins and E. Herrero-
Bervera, 656664. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
Dungey, J. W. 1961. Interplanetary Magnetic Field and the Auroral Zones.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 6 (2): 4748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47.
Filloux, J. H. 1987. Instrumentation and Experimental Methods for Oce-
anic Studies. In Geomagnetism Vol. 1, ed. J. A. Jacobs, 143248. New
York City, New York: Academic Press.
Johnsen, M. G. 2011. The Dayside Open/Closed Field Line Boundary,
Ground-Based Optical Determination and Examination. PhD disserta-
tion, University of Troms, Troms, Norway (September 2011).
Prolss, G. W. 2004. Physics of the Earths Space Environment, An Intro-
duction. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Russell, J. P., Shiells, G. and Kerridge, D. J. 1995. Reduction of Well-
Bore Positional Uncertainty Through Application of a New Geomag-
netic In-Field Referencing Technique. Paper SPE 30452 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, Texas,
2225 October. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/30452-MS.
Shiells, G. M. and Kerridge, D. J. 2000. Borehole Surveying. US Patent
No. 6,021,577; UK Patent No. 2305250.
Torkildsen, T., Sveen, R. H. and Bang, J. 1997. Time Dependent Variation
of Declination. Geomagnetic Reference, Report No. 1. IKU Report
No. 32.0897.00/01/97.
Williamson, H. S., Gurden, P. A., Kerridge, D. J., et al. 1998. Application
of Interpolation In-Field Referencing to Remote offshore Locations.
Paper SPE 49061 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference
and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, 2730 September. http://
dx.doi.org/10.2118/49061-MS.
Zijsling, D. H. and Wilson, R. A. 1989. Improved Magnetic Surveying
Techniques: Field Experience. Paper SPE 19239 presented at Offshore
Europe, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 58 September. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2118/19239-MS.
Truls Lynne Hansen is the head of Troms Geophysical Observ-
atory. Since 1976, he has worked on radar observations of the
ionosphere, geomagnetism, space weather, and the history
of science. Hansen holds the Cand.real degree in astronomy
at the University of Oslo.
Harry Wilson is currently a technical adviser working in the
companys drilling services technical support group. He joined
Baker Hughes as a directional surveyor in 1981, and since then
has held a variety of wellbore-positioning-related posts within
operations, technical support, and marketing. Wilson qualified
as a survey engineer in the British Army.
Morten Gjertsen is currently a wellbore positioning-applications
engineer working in the Baker Hughes drilling-services techni-
cal support group. He joined the company in 2001 as a drilling-
system engineer and worked from 2004 in the survey-manage-
ment department. Gjertsen was educated in petroleum tech-
nology at the University of Stavanger.
Inge Edvardsen is pursuing a PhD degree in cooperation
between Baker Hughes, the University of Troms, and the Nor-
wegian Research Council. He joined Baker Hughes in 2002 as a
survey-management engineer and is still working part time in
the survey-management department in Norway. Edvardsen
holds aSivilingenir degree in geodesy andcartography at the
Norwegian University of Science andTechnology in Trondheim.
June 2013 SPE Drilling & Completion 167