IADC/SPE 135910

Gyro-While-Drilling TechnologySolution for Directional Tophole Drilling

Ruslan Kasumov, SPE, Schlumberger; Joris Houvet, SPE, Gyrodata Inc.; Timur Kasumov, Sakhalin Energy
Copyright 2010, IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition
This paper was prepared for presentation at the IADC/SPE Asia Pacific Drilling Technology Conference and Exhibition held in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 13 November 2010.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IADC/SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not
been reviewed by the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any
part of this paper without the written consent of the International Association of Drilling Contractors or the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is
restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of IADC/SPE copyright.

Abstract
A new borehole surveying technology, gyro while drilling
(GWD), provided benefits for Sakhalin Energy
Investment Company Ltd. (Sakhalin Energy) when used
on two multiwell offshore platforms with only 2.5 to 3 m
spacing between well slots. Such narrow slot spacing
makes it impossible to get good MWD surveys while
drilling top hole because nearby casing magnetic
interference results in extremely high collision risk.
Conventionally, this risk is mitigated by using wireline
single-shot gyro and drop gyro, but both of these methods
have drawbacks, such as extra personnel involved in
wireline operations, additional rig time, and higher risk of
stuck pipe. GWD was used to survey 30-in. conductors,
already driven in place at the start of the campaign, and to
survey 17.5- to 24-in. tophole sections. To date, 15 top
holes have been successfully drilled and surveyed with
this technology, with significant savings in rig time and
reduced personnel on board (POB) due to the lower
number of personnel needed in comparison with
conventional wireline gyro surveys.
This paper intends to raise the awareness of the oil
and gas industry about the new GWD borehole surveying
technology, which has been proven to be reliable and
which requires much less rig time and fewer POB for the
job.
The overall results after 15 top holes drilled are:
12.6 rig days saved due to reduction of surveying time,
reduced HSE exposure by eliminating wireline
operations, improved platform POB while drilling top
holes, and increased precision of the BHA steering by
bringing the direction and inclination (D&I) package
closer to the bit.
In this project, GWD technology has proven its
ability to reduce rig time while providing close-to-the-bit
and accurate D&I measurements, which is essential for
drilling directional top holes in offshore environments. A

full field data analysis details the significant rig time

reduction and reduced POB when using GWD technology
versus conventional wireline single shot and drop gyros.
GWD technology can be applied as a solution to any
offshore project where using gyro surveys is inevitable
because of a crowded well setting that makes the use of
conventional MWD tools impossible.
Introduction
Sakhalin Energy began drilling Phase 2 development
wells as part of Sakhalin-2 project, offshore Sakhalin
Island, Russia, in the summer of 2007. There are two out
of three offshore platforms drilling simultaneously. To
date, 15 top holes have been successfully drilled and
surveyed with GWD technology. GWD technology
service was deployed for the first time in May 2008 for
drilling 24-, 22-, and 17 20-in. tophole sections and
surveying 30-in. conductors on both offshore platforms.
Project Overview. Sakhalin-2 was conceived as a
project to produce oil and gas from the PiltunAstokhskoye (PA) and Lunskoye fields in the Sea of
Okhotsk, offshore Sakhalin Island, and sell it into the
rapidly growing Asia-Pacific market. An operating
companySakhalin Energy Investment Company Ltd.
was established in 1994 to meet these objectives. Today,
the company's shareholders are Gazprom (50% plus 1
share), Royal Dutch Shell (27.5% minus one share),
Mitsui (12.5%), and Mitsubishi (10%). The two fields are
located some 15 km offshore north-east Sakhalin in water
depths of 30 to 50 m. Sakhalin Energy adopted a phased
approach to the project implementation.
PHASE 1
The Sakhalin-2 Phase 1 project was responsible for
developing initial crude oil production from Molikpaq
(PA-A) platform at the Astokh feature of the PiltunAstokhskoye field. The field was discovered in 1986 and

underwent an extensive seismic program that included 17

test wells and 14 development wells. It has recoverable oil
reserves of more than 110 million tonnes.
PHASE 2
Building on the success of Phase 1, the Sakhalin-2 Phase
2 project was an integrated oil and gas development that
enabled year-round oil and gas production and
exportation. This multibillion dollar project is thought to
be the biggest single integrated oil and gas project ever
undertaken.
Full-field development of the Sakhalin-2 project involves:
Two
new
offshore
platformsPiltunAstokhskoye-B (PA-B) and Lunskoye-A (LunA)
Offshore pipelines to carry oil and gas from
platforms to onshore processing facility
An onshore processing facility (OPF)
Onshore pipelines to carry oil and gas to the
south of the island
A liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant and
offloading terminals for crude oil and LNG
Tophole Drilling and Surveying Operations
Because of tight clearance between slots (center-to-center
distance 2.5 m for PA-B and 3 m for Lun-A), good MWD
magnetic surveys could not be obtained. For these
surveys, the separation between wells should be more
than 12 m. Both platforms required gyro surveying to be
implemented to survey directional top holes as well as 30in. conductors.
Despite the fact that the PA-B and Lun-A wells had
identical casing strings to begin with, represented by the
30-in. driven conductor, they had different sizes of
tophole sections to be drilled and surveyed. The PA-B
platform wells had a standard casing design, with 18 5/8or 13 3/8-in. surface casing. (The first four PA-B wells
were cased with 18 5/8-in. surface string; starting with the
fifth well, the casing design was optimized to exclude the
18 5/8-in. surface string, by drilling 17 -in. surface hole
out of 30-in. conductor and running 13 3/8-in. casing.) In
all wells, casing was set at the depth at which no magnetic
interference from offset wells was present [below 650 m
true vertical depth below rotary table (TVD BRT)]. LunA platform wells had to be cased with 18 5/8-in. surface
casing at shallow depth (~370 m TVD BRT) because of
the presence of a shallow gas anomaly. Because of this
condition, Lun-A wells also required an extra section to
be drilled and underreamed while still under magnetic
interference from casing strings in nearby wells. Thus, on
top of the general requirement to survey 30-in. conductors
on both platforms, PA-B wells required gyro surveys
while drilling only 24- or 17 -in. top hole, but Lun-A
platform wells needed to have gyro surveys in two top
hole intervals of 22- and 17 20 in.

IADC/SPE 135910

At the planning stage of the project we considered

using conventional drop gyros (DG) to survey 30-in.
conductors and wireline single shot gyros (WLSSG) to
survey directional top holes, as no GWD technology had
ever implemented anywhere in Russia before. However,
at the end of 2006, after conducting a detailed study
evaluating the superiority of GWD technology over
conventional DG and WLSSG, Sakhalin Energy made a
decision to deploy GWD technology for the project.
GWD Technology Advantages over Conventional
WLSSG
There are several benefits of GWD technology over
conventional WLSSG. All these benefits have been
clearly observed and realized during project
implementation.
Reduced Gyro Surveying Time. In addition to 4 to
6 hours rig-up time, it takes at least 1 hour to obtain each
gyro survey with conventional WLSSG. This time is
spent picking up the gyro probe from the rig floor;
running it in hole through drill string at controlled speeds,
while taking into consideration the measured depth of the
universal bottomhole orientation (UBHO) sub; taking
three single-shot gyro surveys; pulling out of hole; and
laying down the gyro probe. A minimum of three singleshot gyro surveys are required each time the motor is
oriented for directional control. Each gyro survey is taken
independently by reseating the probe into the UBHO sub
with a keyslot. All three consecutive gyro surveys should
be in agreement. This is required to make sure the tool is
seated correctly in the UBHO keyslot. When the GWD
system is used, the gyro survey is taken by shutting off
the mud pumps for 3 or 8 minutes (3 minutes for a
standard gyro tool and 8 minutes for an intelligent-mode
gyro tool) to allow the gyro tool to collect and process
inclination and azimuth data at each survey depth. Once
the mud pumps are switched back on, the gyro survey is
transmitted simultaneously to surface in real time with the
MWD magnetic data by means of the systems mud pulse
telemetry unit. The maximum time period between the
moment the mud pumps are turned on and the moment
when the gyro survey is received at surface is 1 minute.
An additional 2 minutes are required to wake up the tool
if it is in a sleep mode while reaching survey point.
Sleep mode is the condition of the gyro tool when it is
switched off to preserve the battery life. The tool switches
over to sleep mode when either no circulation is
experienced for 15 minutes or rotation of drill string is
encountered. These additional 2 minutes are spent on
shutting down the mud pumps for 1 minute and bringing
them back to receive confirmation of the tool power up.
Thus, each GWD survey takes from 4 to 11 minutes. Rigtime saving is at least 49 minutes for each gyro survey,
providing a huge time saving for the whole section, for
which 15 to 25 gyro surveys are required.
Reduced HSE Risk. GWD is definitely much safer
compared to WLSSG. Operations on the wireline unit
require special attention and clear communications among

IADC/SPE 135910

all parties on the rig. With the WLSSG unit located on top
of the pipe barn, this work must be thoroughly planned;
because WLSSG operations restrict the cargo movements
on the platform, no crane work is allowed over the wire
for the duration of the operation. The wireline operator
has the responsibility to deploy and retrieve the gyro tool
in a safe manner. Dealing with adverse hole conditions,
equipment failures, or an unanticipated safety situation
requires decisive action by the operator. With the GWD
system in place, the additional responsibilities of the
wireline operator and the possibilities for human error,
which can lead to rig personnel injury, are reduced or
eliminated.
There are other risks associated with wireline
operations that can lead to dangerous situations, including
the wireline itself which may become snagged or tangled
in the rig mast, broken sheaves or winch, rigging up/down
wireline sheaves, and the numerous probe deployments to
take WLSSG measurements (each well on the project
requires 15 to 25 gyro surveys). All of these create
additional risks for rig personnel because of the potential
for dropped objects due to lifting equipment failures,
pinch points, and whipping wireline failing under high
tension.
Reduced Rig Crew. The WLSSG operations require
eight people to be on the platform and work back to back
in order day/night shifts. These people are: two gyro
engineers to perform the gyro job; two wireline engineers
to operate the winch, and four wireline operators to
perform all others duties as required to take WLSSG
surveys while drilling tophole sections. To operate a
GWD system for 24 hours there are only two people
required ideally. They are gyro engineers. All top holes
on Sakhalin Energy platforms were drilled and surveyed
with only one gyro engineer on board. Thus, platform
POB was reduced by at least 6 people, which is an
important benefit for the platforms doing drilling and
production simultaneously with a lot of POB.
Improved Directional Control. To take WLSSG
surveys and define the orientation of the mud motor, it is
required to include a UBHO sub in the bottomhole
assembly (BHA). The UBHO sub is placed above the
MWD tool, which puts the gyro survey point as far as 22
to 28 m away from the bit. Typical project BHAs for 17
-, 22-, and 24-in. sections with a UBHO sub and 17
20-in. section with baffle plate would have a distance
of 28 and 22 m from the gyro survey point to the bit
(Figure 1). If a GWD system is in use, then a 9-in. collar
with gyro probe is placed below the MWD tool,
significantly decreasing the distance between the gyro
survey point and the bit. Typical project BHAs for 17 -,
22-, and 24-in. sections and 17 20-in. section with a
GWD system in place have distances of 14.7 and 9.5 m
from the gyro survey point to the bit (Figure 2). Thus,
replacing conventional WLSSG with GWD technology
reduces the gyro survey point-to-bit distance in half,
which is a very important benefit for drilling directional

top holes in a crowded well environment where the risks

of well-to-well collisions are higher.
Reduced Risk of Stuck BHA. Reducing the amount
of time when pumps are shut off and when the drill string
is static is important in decreasing the chances of the
BHA getting stuck. Thus, it is fair to say that GWD
technology, which requires the BHA to be stationary for a
maximum of 8 minutes, is considerably safer, from the
stuck pipe point of view, than conventional WLSSG
operations, which require the BHA to be stationary for a
minimum of 1 hour.
Project Challenges
At the beginning of the project, when the GWD system
was deployed for drilling and surveying of the first well
on each platform, some operational challenges were
encountered during surveying 30-in. conductors driven to
50 to 60m below the sea bottom and while drilling 22-in.
surface holes. Some of GWD surveys were bad or
marginal. The decision was made to re-run the gyro
MWD after the surface casing was set and cemented. On
Lun-A, the gyro MWD was included in the BHA used for
the next hole section; on PA-B it was part of the rotary
BHA used to clean and drill out 18 5/8-in. casing. Unlike
the original surveys, both surveys done inside the cased
top hole were completed successfully, without any
problems. It was not clear at that time, why the method
worked in 18 5/8-in. cased hole, but did not work in the
bigger (30-in.) casing or in 22-in. open hole below it.
This issue had to be solved and solution found prior to
drilling the following wells.
The environmental noise encountered in openhole
sections during the initial stage of the well was the result
of interference from the mud lift system used for the
drilling operation on both platforms. The system, which
is located at the lower deck of the platform, helps to
reduce the hydrostatic pressure in the annulus to prevent
mud losses in the weaker shallow formations while
drilling the tophole interval. Use of this dual-gradient
system causes a delay in the settling of the mud column,
resulting
in
environmental
noise
(drillstring
movement/vibration) during the GWD survey period. To
address the problem, the intelligent mode tool (IMT)
method was introduced into the GWD tool. This method
was originally used in conventional gyro systems. IMT
provides improved data quality from a gyroscopic survey
tool when it is subject to a moving environment that is
large enough to cause data saturation. This involves
increasing the data sampling time from 3 minutes up to 8
minutes to ensure that a good average is produced for the
expected environmental input. With this method, the
GWD tool could adjust to the environment to provide
good gyro compass stationary surveys.
Operational Time/Cost Comparisons
There have been 15 wells on the project drilled and
surveyed with GWD technology. The technology was
used to survey driven-in 30-in. conductors and directional

tophole intervals from about 110 m measured depth (MD)

down to 340 to 615 m MD where magnetic surveys were
no longer affected by external magnetic interference
(Table 1). Drilling of top holes on all wells went without
problems, and the planned well trajectory was maintained
as required. Gyro surveys were taken every 10 m through
the intervals with the higher collision risk (approximately
to 200 to 250 m MD), and then the surveying frequency
was gradually increased to 15 m and to 30 m depending
on the severity of downhole conditions. On the PA-B
platform, only the first 4 wells had 24-in. top hole. The
well design was optimized for subsequent wells, and
17 -in. top holes were drilled in the rest of the wells.
The 18 5/8-in. surface casing was replaced with 13 3/8 in.
casing. Just a few 18 5/8-in. joints were run and cemented
below the wellhead housing to provide required structural
integrity. This design change, amongst other things,
enabled use of standard gyro software, and only 3 minutes
were required for the GWD system to take the survey. For
the calculation of the rig time which would be spent on
taking WLSSG surveys, it was assumed that the
surveying frequency will be the same as for GWD. On
average, each WLSSG survey would take 1 hour. Total
rig time spent on taking 329 GWD surveys is 27.4 hours;
if WLSSG had been used on the project, then total rig
time spent on gyro surveying would have been 329 hours
(Figure 3). In total, there were 12.6 rig days saved for the
first 15 wells of the project as a result of using GWD
technology.
At first sight, the cost of GWD technology seems to be
higher than conventional WLSSG as it has higher
operational/stand-by rates than a conventional gyro and
wireline-based system. However, when more detailed cost
analysis is performed and, on top of pure wireline unit
rental cost, all other costs such as rig time, charges for
each single wireline round trip, wireline hourly charges
for the unit when it is operated and wireline crew daily
rates are added, then the cost of using GWD technology is
at approximately the same level as the cost of running
conventional WLSSG. With comparable costs for both
systems, use of the new technology allows the operator to
substantially accelerate the drilling performance while
considerably reducing HSE exposure and operational
risks.
Qualitative Acceptance of GWD Surveys
The most accurate survey of 30-in. conductor is obtained
by running a multishot gyro tool with two special roller
centralizers to eliminate gyro tool misalignment. This
method requires additional rig time, and that is why it not
frequently used by operators. Another technique for
surveying conductors that is accepted by the oil and gas
industry, but which is less accurate, is dropping a
multishot gyro inside the conductor cleanout BHA after
cleaning out conductor down to the shoe. This method
does not require any additional rig time as long as the
conductor cleanout run is preplanned. The Sakhalin
Energy drilling team put forward the challenge of how to
achieve the most accurate results while keeping the

IADC/SPE 135910

operational time and the cost down, and this challenge

was met with the GWD technology. Conductor cleanout
was planned to be performed with the drilling BHA while
running in hole through conductor. Thus, the only way to
survey conductors on the project was to take GWD
surveys while running in hole, drilling BHA on both
platforms, and this is what was done in all wells. There
was no special drop or wireline gyro surveying run
planned on the project to verify the quality of GWD
surveys inside conductors or openhole GWD surveys.
However, one of the wells on the Lun-A platform
required a drop gyro survey in the production hole. A
multishot drop gyro tool was pumped through the drill
string down to BHA at total depth (TD), and the entire
well was surveyed while pulling the BHA out of hole.
Multishot drop gyro surveys were compared with GWD
surveys taken while surveying the 30-in. conductor and
drilling 22-in. hole. It was observed that the grid azimuth
of the multishot drop gyro survey matched very closely
the GWD surveys taken through the same intervals, even
at low inclination (Figure 4 and 5).
Conclusions
The implementation of GWD technology for the current
offshore project allowed the operator to reliably drill and
survey all directional top holes with reduced rig time and
with the highest HSE and operational standards applied,
while following planned trajectories as closely as the
anticollision situation required. No well-to-well collisions
or GWD failures were reported on the project. This
proves the reliability and qualitative acceptance of the
technology for directional tophole drilling with tight
clearance between offset wells.
Nomenclature
BHA Bottomhole Assembly
GWD Gyro While Drilling
MD Measured Depth
MWD Measurement While Drilling
TVD True Vertical Depth
BRT Below Rotary Table
DG Drop Gyro
WLSSG Wireline Single Shot Gyro
POB People on Board
UBHO - Universal Bottom Hole Orientation
TD Total Depth
References
1. Garza, T., Wimberg, J., Woolridge, T., North, E., and
Beattie, K. 2010. Gyro Guidance Techniques and
Telemetry Methods Prove Economical in Onshore MultiWell Pad Drilling Operations in the Piceance Basin. Paper
IADC/SPE 128299 presented at the 2010 IADC/SPE
Drilling Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, 2-4 February.
2. Sakhalin Energy Sakhalin-2 project web page:
http://www.sakhalin2.ru

IADC/SPE 135910

Table 1: Actual project drilling and surveying

data with GWD technology compared with
projected WLSSG data.

Well No

GWD surveying
interval, m

Actual
amount of
taken GWD
surveys

Assumed
Actual time time spent on
spent on GWD
WLSSG
surveys, hours
surveys,
hours

Time difference
betw een GWD
and WLSSG
surveys, hours

From

To

Lun-A w ell 1

104

413

16

1.3

16

14.7

Lun-A w ell 2

104

365

23

1.9

23

21.1

Lun-A w ell 3

104

509

25

2.1

25

22.9

Lun-A w ell 4

104

615

32

2.7

32

29.3

Lun-A w ell 5

104

520

21

1.8

21

19.3

Lun-A w ell 6

104

502

26

2.2

26

23.8

PA-B w ell 1

110

350

18

1.5

18

16.5

PA-B w ell 2

110

370

28

2.3

28

25.7

PA-B w ell 3

110

340

15

1.3

15

13.8

PA-B w ell 4

110

350

24

2.0

24

22.0

PA-B w ell 5

110

450

23

1.9

23

21.1

PA-B w ell 6

110

370

15

1.3

15

13.8

PA-B w ell 7

110

550

20

1.7

20

18.3

PA-B w ell 8

110

575

16

1.3

16

14.7

PA-B w ell 9

110

605

27

2.3

27

24.8

329

27.4

329

301.6

Total

Figures
17 1/2 X 20" Underreamer
9" Resistivity tool

17 1/2 X 20" Underreamer

UBHO sub for WLSSG
Gyro Survey to bit = 28m

17 1/4" String Stabilizer

17 1/4" String Stabilizer
9" NM Pony Drill Collar

9" MWD tool

9" NM Pony Drill Collar

9" Resistivity tool

Baffle plate for landing
gyro probe
Gyro Survey to bit = 22m

9" Resistivity tool

9" MWD tool

9" MWD tool

9" Collar with Gyro

Gyro Survey to bit = 14.7m

17 or 20 or 22" String Stabilizer

9" Resistivity tool

17 or 20 or 22" String Stabilizer

9" Collar with Gyro

Gyro Survey to bit = 9.5m

9" Float Sub

9" Float Sub

9" Float Sub

9" Float Sub

17 3/8" String Stabilizer

9 5/8" Mud Motor
w. 17 3/8" or 21 3/4 or 23 3/4"
sleeve stabilizer
17 1/2 or 22 or 24" Bit

17 3/8" String Stabilizer

9 5/8" Mud Motor
w. 17 3/8" or 21 3/4 or 23 3/4"
sleeve stabilizer

11" Rotary Steerable

System
17 1/2 "Bit

Figure 1: Typical BHAs for drilling

conventional WLSSG surveying method.

top

17 1/2 or 22 or 24" Bit

holes

9" MWD tool

with

11" Rotary Steerable

System
17 1/2 "Bit

Figure 2: Typical project BHAs for drilling top holes with

GWD technology.

IADC/SPE 135910

GWD vs. WLSSG surveying time

45

Rig time saved

40

Time needed to take WLSSG surveys

35

Time spent on GWD surveys

30
Hours

25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure 3: Actual rig-time savings per well.

8
7

Multi Shot Gyro Inclination

GWD Inclination

Inclination, degrees

5
4
3
2
1
0
200

250

300

350

400

450

500

MD, m

Figure 4: GWD survey inclination vs. conventional gyro

inclination.
350
GWD Azimuth

Grid Azimuth, degrees

300

Multi Shot Gyro Azimuth

250
200
150
100
50
0
200

250

300

350

400

450

500

MD, m

Figure 5: GWD survey azimuth vs. conventional gyro

azimuth.