DRILLING TECHNOLOGY

Multistation Analysis of MWD Magnetic Directional Surveys

Multistation analysis (MSA) is a technique widely used in measurementwhile-drilling (MWD) directional surveying to provide additional quality
control and to correct for systematic
errors. Although the potential of the
method to enhance survey quality has
been demonstrated, experience has
shown that MSA can produce unstable solutions and poorly interpretable
results. The full-length paper presents
a set of fundamental requirements
that have to be fulfilled to ensure
the correct application of MSA. The
requirements consist of a set of mathematical rules and corresponding
acceptance limits.

Introduction
MSA is a more-powerful survey-quality-evaluation method than conventional single-station calculations. It
makes it possible to identify and
quantify different types of systematic errors, providing greater proof of
whether or not surveys meet specification. Where systematic errors of
significant magnitude are identified,
they can be corrected for. However,
the ability of MSA to correct failed
surveys and provide increased confidence that surveys meet their stated
specification is limited by several
factors. For example, only a limited
This article, written by Assistant Technology Editor Karen Bybee, contains highlights of paper SPE 125677, Minimum
Requirements for Multi-Station Analysis
of MWD Magnetic Directional Surveys,
by Erik Nyrnes, SPE, StatoilHydro
ASA; Torgeir Torkildsen, SPE, SINTEF
Petroleum Research; and Harry Wilson,
Baker Hughes, originally prepared for
the 2009 SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling
Technology Conference and Exhibition,
Manama, Bahrain, 2628 October. The
paper has not been peer reviewed.

number of systematic-error terms can

be estimated accurately for a given set
of survey data, this being dependent
on factors such as the geometry of
the wellbore, the number of survey
stations, and the number of estimated
error terms. In current common practice, it is not always clear how the
application of MSA to a given survey
log affects its status with respect to its
own accuracy specification.
Improved accuracy may be claimed,
but the link between MSA data
manipulation and the error model
that quantifies accuracy usually is
not explicit.
In the full-length paper, a basic
MSA methodology suitable for adoption across the industry is proposed.
The methodology consists of a set of
requirements and acceptance limits
that have to be fulfilled when applying MSA. The requirements can be
applied to any survey log to determine
which error terms can be estimated
validly. In addition, mechanisms are
included to ensure that the randomnoise level in the survey data is of tolerable magnitude. The requirements
are easy to apply and straightforward
to implement and, therefore, should
be easily communicated throughout
the survey industry.
It is a common practice to describe
the error characteristic of a magnetic
MWD directional surveying sensor by
systematic-error terms: a bias error
and a scale error. In addition, random
errors will be present. MSA acceptance criteria should be derived from
the error model applicable to the
MWD instrument and survey method
used to acquire the data. The example
acceptance criteria presented in the
full-length paper are for two specific MWD error models: basic MWD
without axial interference correction
and the same model with the addition

of enhanced geomagnetic referencing. By fulfilling the requirements,

compliance with the actual error
model can be claimed. If corrections
are applied, they merely bring failed
surveys back within the specification
of the relevant error model.
The MSA requirements consist of a
set of simplified mathematical measures and corresponding acceptance
limits. The mathematical measures
describe the actual well geometry for
the given data set. An example of
such a measure is the arithmetic mean
of the axial magnetometer readings,
which indirectly describes the average
direction of the wellbore with respect
to the vector of the Earths magnetic field. These so-called geometrical
measures have been assigned suitable acceptance limits. When applying MSA, the decision to estimate a
specific error term is based on there
being an acceptable match between
the calculated value of the geometrical
measures of relevance and the associated acceptance limits. The geometrical measures and acceptance limits
for accelerometer and magnetometer
error terms are given in Tables 1
and 2, respectively, of the full-length
paper, along with expressions for test
variables and acceptance limits for the
noise tests. By fulfilling the requirements presented in this paper, the
resulting uncertainty of the estimated
inclination, azimuth, and systematic
errors should be consistent with the
relevant MWD-error model. The derivation of the noise test for accelerometer measurements is shown in
Appendix A of the full-length paper
and an example of use of the MSA
requirements is given in Appendix B.
Theory of basic statistics and leastsquares estimation is described in
Appendix C of the full-length paper,
while Appendix D presents a flow

For a limited time, the full-length paper is available free to SPE members at www.spe.org/jpt.
52

JPT FEBRUARY 2010

chart illustrating the process of applying the MSA requirements. It should

be noted that the requirements are
valid for an orthogonal instrument
coordinate system of which the z-axis
of the surveying instrument coincides with the direction of the borehole. The z-axis of the survey instrument also will be referred to as the
axial direction.
Derivation of the
MSA Requirements
Derivation of the requirements was
based solely on applying MSA to simulated survey data. The simulations
were performed under the assumption of random-noise standard deviations of 0.003 ms2 and 70 nT for
accelerometer and magnetometer
measurements, respectively. These
numbers represent realistic estimates
of the noise levels in MWD magnetic
directional surveys. Correspondingly,
the input standard deviations of the
magnetic-field intensity of the Earth
and dip angle have been set to 130 nT
and 0.2, respectively, for the standard referencing, and 65 nT and 0.12
for the enhanced referencing. A wide
variety of wellbore geometries was
considered in the simulations, and the
number of survey stations was varied
for each case to see how this would
affect the results. In this way, potential
critical situations were identified for
each particular combination of systematic-error terms. The identification
was made by means of assessing the
standard deviations of the estimated
inclination, azimuth, and systematicerror terms obtained by MSA for each
particular case. The results, in terms
of estimated standard deviations, were
evaluated against the actual MWD
error model and classified as unacceptable when significant deviations
from the error models were detected.
Implementation
The intention is that the MSA
requirements presented in the fulllength paper shall be applied more
or less automatically. It is therefore
important that the different parts
of the requirements are applied in
the correct sequence. The following
sequence is recommended.
1. Check that Earths magnetic dip
angle for the actual location is within
80. If the dip angle falls outside

JPT FEBRUARY 2010

this interval, the MSA requirements

are not valid. Use the midpoint of the
survey log as reference.
2. Calculate the variation in highside tool face. If the criterion of minimum tool-face variation is not satisfied, the survey data are not qualified
for use with MSA.
3. Count the number of survey stations to specify the total number of
error terms that can be estimated.
4. Specify which types of systematic-error terms can be estimated by
comparing relevant geometrical measures with corresponding acceptance
limits. If these error terms are greater
in number than the number specified
in Step 3, one or more error terms
have to be excluded so that the total
number of systematic-error terms is
less than or equal to that of Step 3.
5. Apply MSA, and correct the sensor readings for the effects of systematic errors.
6. Apply the multistation noise tests
to the corrected survey data. Remove
survey stations that do not pass the
multistation gross-error tests, and
return to Step 2. When no gross
errors are left, apply the multistation
overall-noise test. Reject the entire
data set if the total survey noise is
greater than accepted (i.e., if the multistation overall-noise test fails).
Summary
A set of fundamental requirements
has been developed that makes MSA
largely user independent, providing
consistent and valid outcomes regardless of the estimation technique being
used. The requirements consist of
basic mathematical measures that
describe the geometry of the well
and the noise level in the surveys.
Misapplication of MSA is avoided if
the values of calculated measures do
not exceed the respective acceptance
limits. Highly skilled users may prefer methods that are more optimized
for evaluation of MSA resultsfor
instance, direct interpretation of
least-squares standard deviations of
estimated inclination, azimuth, and
systematic-error terms. However,
although the method proposed in the
full-length paper is relatively uncomplicated and the criteria have been
simplified, both method and criteria are based on correct mathematiJPT
cal principles.

SI METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

The list below includes SI Metric conversion factors
for common engineering units. The SI Metric System
of Units and SPE Metric Standard, the Societys official
standard, is available from SPE Book Order Dept., P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836.

acre 4.046 873

E+03 = m2
acre 4.046 873
E01 = ha
acre-ft 1.233 489
E+03 = m3
ampere-hr 3.6*
E+03 = C
1.0*
E01 = nm
API 141.5/(131.5+API) = g/cm3
atm 1.013 250*
E+05 = Pa
bar 1.0*
E+05 = Pa
bbl 1.589 873
E01 = m3
Btu 1.055 056
E+00 = kJ
Ci 3.7*
E+10 = Bq
cp 1.0*
E03 = Pa s
cycles/sec 1.0*
E+00 = Hz
dyne 1.0*
E02 = mN
eV 1.602 19
E19 = J
ft 3.048*
E01 = m
ft2 9.290 304*
E02 = m2
ft3 2.831 685
E02 = m3
F (F 32)/1.8
= C
F (F + 459.67)/1.8 = K
gal (U.S. liq)3.785 412
E03 = m3
hp 7.460 43
E01 = kW
hp-hr 2.684 520
E+00 = MJ
in. 2.54*
E+00 = cm
in.2 6.451 6*
E+00 = cm2
in.3 1.638 706
kip 4.448 222
knot 5.144 444
ksi 6.894 757
kW-hr 3.6*
lbf 4.448 222
lbm 4.535 924
mL 1.0*
mho 1.0*
mile 1.609 344*
oz (U.S. fl)2.957 353
psi 6.894 757
psi2 4.753 8
sq mile 2.589 988
stokes 1.0*
ton 9.071 847
ton (metric)1.0*
tonf 8.896 444
tonne 1.0*

E+01 = cm3
E+03 = N
E01 = m/s
E+03 = kPa
E+06 = J
E+00 = N
E01 = kg
E+00 = cm3
E+00 = S
E+00 = km
E+01 = cm3
E+00 = kPa
E+01 = kPa2
E+00 = km2
E04 = m2/s
E01 = Mg
E+00 = Mg
E+03 = N
E+00 = Mg

*Conversion factor is exact.

These conversion factors are from The SI Metric System of Units and SPE
Metric Standard, SPE, Richardson, Texas (1984).

53