A

Society d Petroleum Enginears

SPE 49061

Amiication of Intemolation In-Field Referencing to Remote Offshore Locations

H.S~Williamson,SPE. BPExdoration, P.A.Gurden, SPE, Baker~uqhes
and G.Shiells, SPE, Baker Hughes INTEQ

Copydght iWS, SWkty of Pefmleum Engineers, inc.

INTEQ. D.J.Kerridae,
-. British Geolo~ical Survev

inevitably lead to confusion and disillusionment of the

customer. For the examples described in this paper,
responsibility for the implementation and operation of the
service was taken by an autonomous survey management
group within the directional drilling company. In this way,
timely delivery of the IIFR data to the operation was kept
central to the targer positioning objectives of the wetl.

This paper was prepared for presenlafion al the iWS SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in New Orfeans, Louisiana, 27-SO September 1998,
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Commitea Iollowing review of
Information contained in an abrdract aubmited by the author(a). Contents ot the paper, as
presentwl, have not keen reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineem and are subject to
oorrecfion by the author(s). The material, as presented, dces not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society 01 Petroleum Enginews, ihnc.fficem, or members. Papem presented at
SPE meetings am subject to publication review by Edtorial Committees G+ the Sociely 01
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, dktribution, or storage of any pad of this paper
for commemial purposes withoul the written consent of the Scciety of Petroleum Engineers is
pmhibfled Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abslracf of not more then 300
wordq
illustrations may not be copied. The ebatracf must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented Wtie Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Sox S3S8Ss, Richardson, TX 750SS-282S, U.S.A., fax 01-972.952434S5.

The Geomagnetic

Field

The geomagnetic field vector, B, may be specified by its

declination D (the angle between true north and the horizontal
projection of the field vector, measured positive eastwards), its
dip angle I (the angle between the horizontal and the field
vector, measured positive downwards), and its intensity F. The
field can also be described in terms of its orthogonal
components X (north), Y (east) and Z (vertically downwards).
X, Y,Z and Fare usually expressed in units of nanoteslas, nT.
At any Wation near the Earths surface, B may be
expressed as the vector sum of the main field generated in the
Earths core (&), the crust.alfield from beat reeks (E) and a
combined disturbance field due to electrical currents flowing in
the upper atmosphere and magnetosphere, and currents
induced in the sea and in the ground (BJ:

Abstract

A method for modelling the crustrd magnetic field vector fkom

total intensity data has been used to determine the magnetic
field snapshot re@red for Interpolation In-Field Referencing
(IIIR), The method has been validated in a number of ways,
including comparison of magnetic and gyroscopic survey data
in three UK fields,
Introduction
The objective of the wellbore surveyor is simply stated

delivery of wellbore position to the required accuracy at

minimum cost to the operation. The technique of Interpolation
In-Held Referencing (IIFR) described by Russell et a1102has
enabled survey accuracy previously only obtainable horn
gyroscopic systems to be achieved with standard Measurement
While Drilling (MWD) tools.
The diftkulty of making accurate magnetic measurements
at sea has until reeently limited the offshore application of
IIFR to near-shore locations where the gradient of the erustal
field was known to be slight. The current authors have been
able to surmount this diftlculty through innovative use of total
field dat& typically acquired with an airborne survey. By
making certain simplifying assumptions, this data may be used
to deduee mathematically the direction of the crustal field,
Operators are increasingly inviting directional chilling
contractors to share in project goats and to provide assurance
that their design activities and operations are technically
sound. In developing an effective IIFR survey service within
this type of relationship, the directional drilling contractor is
tasked with the co-ordination of data flow between as many as
four organisations. A casual approach to this task will

B. accounts for approximately 98% of the field strength at the

Earths surface, and its strength and direction vary relatively
slowly with time. In the North Sea the rate of change is
typically some tens of nT per year in F, and a few arc-minutes
per year in direction. B. may be regarded as a static fiekl only
varying over geological timescates. In contrast, B~ fluctuates
on timescales of minutes to hours. During severe magnetic
storms the intensity of B~ may vary by a few thousand nT at
North Sea latitudes, and it can take any direction, leading to
variations in the direction of B of several degrees.
The normal practice of drilling surveyors in anatysing data
collected by magnetic survey tools has been to obtain estimates
of the geomagnetic field strength rmd direction at a drilling
location from a global model of the geomagnetic field sueb as
the British Geological Survey Global Geomagnetic Model
(BGGM). However, global models are designed to provide
387

H.S.WIIJJAMSON,

P. A. GURDEN,

D, J. KERRIDGE,

GSHIELLS

SPE 49(X1

making this approximation is about 2,5 nT.)

estimates of B. only. The contributions of Bc and Bd are

effectivelyerrors when B. alone is taken as an estimate of the
local field, B.
Ideally, magnetometers would be situated at a drilling site
to measure the local strength and direction of B continuously
and with high accuracy. This has rarely proved to be a rerdistic
proposition. The technique of IIFR has been developed to
provide a practical approximation to the ideal. IIFR combines
a local one-off absolute measurement of the geomagnetic field
made at one or more remote
with continuous measurements
magnetic observatories to estimate the local vrdues of B, In
effect a virtual magnetic observatory is run at the site, taking
advantage of the stringent quatity control procedures applied at
the remote observatories, Russell ef d and Shiells ef alz
descrhxl an application of IIFR where, txxause of the
proximity of the drilling site to the shore, heat absolute
observations of declination, dip angle and total intensity could
be made using standard land survey methods.

4. The anomaly in field intensity is harmonic. This is true

provided the direction of the main field is constant over the
area of the aeromagnetic survey.
5. The data points are collected on a horizontal surface.
Aeromagnetic surveys offshore are flown at a well-defined
altitude, approximating to a horizontal surface.
The final two assumptions limit the total area for which data
may be analysed, but in practical terms analysis of data over an
area of about 50 km by 50 km is generally adequate and the
deviations from the exact requirements of these assumptions is
then small. An implicit assumption is that an accurate
representation of the geomagnetic main field is available for
the survey area. In estimating the crustat field vector
components no assumptions are made about the geometriczdor
geophysical properties of the sources of the crustai anomaly
field such as their dimensions, orientations, or directions of
magnetisation. However, in practice the magnetic anomaly
data should be examined carefully and local geological
information used to as.wss the likelihood of the presence of
significant shallow magnetic sources, In some circumstances,
where such sources exisf, extrapolating the crustal component
values computed at the aircraft altitude to the subsurface
environment may lead to significant errors.

Magnetic Field Modelling with Aeromagnetic Data

Aeromagneticsurveyshave been carried out in oil exploration
areas for many years to provide data to assist in defining subsurface geology. The aeromagnetic data sets typicatly consist
of closely-spaced spot measurements of total intensity made
using an absolute instrument. Conventionally, the data
collected are corrected for time-varying fields by reference to
measnrementa made by a magnetometer operated at a base
station. An estimate of the main field is then removed, often
using a global geomagnetic field model, and the residuals are
presented in the form of crustal anomaly maps, A number of
anthors45,have considered the problem of using total intensity
data sets to estimate the vector components of the crustal field,
but this work has received little attention to date because of the
limited value perceived for geological interpretations, There is,
however, clearly considerable value in using these methods to
extend the application of IIFR offshore.

Validation of the Technique. The successof the aeromagnetic

data transformation technique has been tested using both
synthetic and real data. Fig. 1 illustrates the results of a
synthetic test. The left-hand diagrams show calculated
rmomrdyfields in F, X, 1and Z due to a dipole source assumed
to be magnetised in a direction representative of the North Sea
region. The centre diagrams show the X, Y and Z anomaly
fields computed from the F anomrdy data using the
transformation method. The right-hand diagrams show the
errors in the transformed values. The anomaly values are of
the order of 100 nT, the errors are only a few nT.
The tests with red data were made for two areas on land in
the UK over which aeromagnetic surveys had been flown67.
The transformation technique was applied to the aeromagnetic
data and the results comprwed with vector component data
measured at a network of sites on the ground. In one of the
areas (approximately 40 km by 50 km) the anomaly values in
totat intensity were relatively small, with a range of about 150
nT. Ground observations were made at 19 sites in the area and
the root mean square differences between the transformed and
observed values were 0,05 in declination and 0.02 in dip
angle. The second area provided a more challenging test. The
area (approximately 50 km by 50 km) contained an anomaly
with a range of about 750 nT - greater than observed in most
North Sea areas. In addition, the requirement for data on a
horizontal surface was not well satisfied because the flight
lines followed the undulating terrain, The transformation
technique produced estimates of the anomalies in declination
and dip angle with ranges over the area of about 1.4 and 0.5

The Method: Assumptions and Limitations.

The
mathematical formulation of the method is given in the
Appendix, A number of assumptions are made,
1. The crustal field vector, in the region where the data are
collected, may be expressed as the gradient of a scalar
potential, As aeromagnetic observations are made in the
air, where there are no electrical currents flowing and no
magnetised materiat this assumption is vatid.
2. The scalar potential is harmonic, i.e. it satisfies Laplaces
equation. This follows ftom the further assumption that
magnetic monopoles do not exist.
3. The anomaly in field intensity is, to a god approximation,
the component of the crustat field vector in the direction of
the local main field vector. This w be shown to be a good
assumption provided the strength of the anomaly field is
much less than that of the main field. (If the field intensity
is about 50000 nT and the anomaly is 500 nT the error in

388

SPE 49001

APPMCAT)ON

OF lNTERPOLATtON

IN-FIELD

REFERENCING

TO REMOTE

OFFSHORE

LOCATIONS

aeromagnetic data is used in preference to the value predicted

by a main field model to correct magnetic survey azimuths.
Since this value represents a snap-shot in time, its accuracy
will quickly degrade unless it is corrected for secular (ie. longterm) variation in the field, This may be done by calculating
the declination anomaly (ie. the difference between the true
value and the main field value) at the time of the observations,
and adding this value to all subsequent main field model
predictions.

respectively. The rcmt mean square differences twtween the

transformed and observed values at 36 sites in the area were
0.16 in declination and 0,08 in dip angle. Fig. 2a shows the
total intensity anomalies over the area and the observation
points on the ground. Figs. 2b and 2C both show the
declination anomalies over the area. Fig. 2b was calculated
using the transformation method, Fig. 2Cwas calculated from
the measurements at the observation poin[s. The close
similarity between these two figures is a striking confirmation
of the validity of the transformation method. It is also worth
noting the characteristic pattern of the declination anomaly.
The field is Ixmt in towards the (positive) total field anomaly,
generating a positive declination anomaly to the west, and a
negative anomaly to the east.

Option 2-Correction for instantaneous field declination. A

better estimate for declination may be obtained by adding in
the short-term variations detected at one or more nearby
observatories. This will largely eliminate the effects of
magnetic disturbances, Where observatory data are not
available in real-time, this correction will typically be made by
shore-based staff, delaying delivery of the final data to the
drilling operation by a day or two.

Data requirements for offshore mapping. In medem

aeromagnetic surveys carried out for exploration purposes
offshore, data are typically collected at an attitude of about
80 m with a flight-line separation of 500 m. Caesium vapour
magnetometers with an accuracy of atwut 0.1 nT in field
intensity are routinely used, typically sampled at about 10 Hz.
Similar magnetometers are operated at a base station. Good
quatity positional and timing information is available using
GPS. Compensation methods are used to eliminate from the
data the magnetic interference caused by the aircraft, For the
purposes of gathering data for use in estimating the crustal
contribution to the local vector magnetic field for use in IIFR
a flight-line separation of 2 km will be suftlcient unless the
area is unusuatly magnetically complex, If the main flight
lines are north-south then a set of east-west lines should be
flown at a separation of about 6 km to provide data at crossover points. The accuracies in magnetic field, navigationat and
timing data which are routinely achieved in aeromagnetic
surveys are more than adequate for IIFR. To allow accurate
data processing it is recommended that the base station
magnetometer is operated for at least 24 hours at the time of
the survey, not just while the survey is being flown.

Option 3-Correction
drillstring
magnetic

for crustal field declination and

The limitations of
interference.

established magnetic interference correction algorithms to

errors in the assumed values of magnetic field strength and dip
angle are well known89.Hitherto, this has restricted their
application offshore. Where values for magnetic field strength
and dip angle more accurate than those provided by a main
field model are available, these limitations are mitigated, but
not eliminated. The practical effect is that these corrections
may be applied with confidence to surveys over a greater range
of hole orientations, with only those within a few degrees of
horizontal east-west being excluded. Estimates of magnetic
field strength and dip angle at the drill site should be made as
in Option 1 and updated for each well drilled.
Option 4-Correction
for instantaneous field declination
and drillstring magnetic interference. A combination of

Options 2 and 3, Estimates of instantaneous magnetic field

strength and dip angle are used as inputs in an established
interference correction rdgorithm, The resulting magnetic
azimuths
are corrected for instantaneous declination.

Survey Data Processing

There are at least five options of applying beat field models

and observatory data to magnetic wellbore surveys which can
k deseribed as IIFR. The simpler methods give the most rapid
turn-around time and require the least complex technieal
assurance. The more advanced methods offer the potentiat of
greater accuracy, but at the expense of greater computational
and logistical complexity. Typieatly, an operation will need to
select two correction methods: one for instantaneous
application at the rig site to enable drilling ahead, and one for
production of definitive wellbore position data. Only where the
magnetic observatory data is available at the rig site, together
Withappropriate software and expertise, ean definitive data be
generated in true real time. The main options for azimuth
correction are as follows.

Option S-Correction
for tool sensor errors, field variation
and interference using near real-time data. Corrections for

magnetic survey azimuths which use multiple survey stations

to track tool sensor perfcmnanee as well as external
interference are now entering widespread uselOl1. Their
effectiveness is greatly enhanced by the availability of realtime estimates of the magnetic field, Indeed, the increased use
of IIFR has encouraged their development. Generally
speaking, these methods have yet to be successfullyautomated,
and their application remains the preserve of oftke-based
experts within the directional drilling companies.
For the operational examples included in this paper,
correction Options 3 and 5 were used for real-time rig site data
and definitive positional data respectively.

Option l-Correction
for crustrd field declination. The
magnetic declination at the drill site as determined from the

389

H. S. WILLIAMSON,

P. A. GURDEN,

Operational Sequence of an Offshore IIFR Service

The implementation of the technique can be divided into two

Acquisition of Aeromagnetic Data. Prior to commissioning

the survey, it is important to obtain as much existing magnetic
data as possible surrounding the field, This will help determine
the character of the magnetic gradients and crustal anomalies
in the area. The scale and location of these features will
determine the extent, sample frequency and potential benefit of
any new aeromagnetic data. For an isolated field in the North
Sea covering a 10 km by 10 km area, an aeromagnetic survey
of an area 50 km by 50 km would typically be required.
The potential for errors of hundreds of metres in the
geographical location of magnetic anomalies shown on old
airborne surveys must be recognised. Use of such data for IIFR
would require significant relaxation of survey performance
models to allow for these errors.
Wh.h a typical flight height of about 80 metres above sea
level for aeromagnetic data acquisition, it is important that all
onshore and offshore personnel in the area are informed when
and where the survey is to be undertaken.
of magnetic

field

values.

G. SHIELLS

SPE 49061

Validation of magnetic field values. Since they are not the

result of direct observation and rely on the validity of several
assumptions, the magnetic field values obtained from the
anomaly map must be validated by independent techniques
prior to use. This is typically done by comparing IIFR
corrected MWD surveys with high accuracy inertial grade
downhole gyro surveys. There are three variations on this
method, all of which have been used to good effecc

parts :
Acquisition and validation of the crustal anomaly data,
. Use of IIFR in daily drilling operations. This includes
applying the improved declination data, quality control
monitoring, deciding which, if any, correction techniques
are to be applied, and delivering the data.

Computation

D. J. KERRIDGE,

Run gyros in the fiist one or two wells drilled after the
magnetic mapping exercise

If gyro surveys have been taken in previous wells, and if

suitable MWD data are available, re-process the data and
compare results retrospectively.

CompareIIFR MWD resultswith results in-hole referencedto

a gy&copic too112.This validationmethod was used in BPs
WytchFarm field.

Application of IIFR data. At a basic level, the application of

the IIFR technique is simple, The rig drills ahead correcting its
surveys for declination only. These are replaced with a batch of
IIFR corrected surveys as and when required (Fig. 3).
Knowledge of the crustal anomaly at the drill site benefits
the real-time survey data in two ways. First, a more accurate
declination value may be used for correcting data at the rig. To
avoid confusion, a single value is normally adopted for the
whole well, but for some extended reach or deep wells use of
more than one value may be justified, Second, improved
estimates of total field strength and dip angle allow better realtime magnetic data quality control to be applied on the rig.
All MWD surveys acquired on the rig are compiled into a
file and sent to the processing centre, typically on a daily basis,
Each survey must be time stamped using a time base
synchronous with the magnetic observatory data. Except
during magnetic disturbances, particularly at high latitudes,
synchronisation accurate to +/- 1 minute is suftlcient, and may
ke achieved by the MWD / Survey engineers using a broadcast
radio signal. For quality control purposes it is important that
the six-axis accelerometer and magnetometer data be supplied
for full analysis using triaxial bias and scale factor error
evaluation techniques.

Once the data

acquisition is complete, a new digital magnetic field map may

be calculated (see Appendix). This will show anomalies
relative to a particular main field model. The exact coordinates of each structure or wellhead within the area are
interpolated on the new magnetic anomaly map to determine
the crustal offset relative to this model. Should an updated
main field model be available at the time of the drilling
operations, new offsets for each drilling facility must be
calculated. Computing the local magnetic field as an offset
from a main field model allows long-term secular field
variations to be properly allowed for in the IfFR correction.
For simplicity, the same computed magnetic field values
(those for the wellhead) are used throughout the length of each
well. The aeromagnetic map must k reviewed to ensure that
the variation of the crustal field along each wellbore is not in
excess of the values which have been incorporated into the tool
performance model.

Frequency of Data Delivery. Prior to commencing the IIFR

service, it is important to determine the appropriate frequency

of data delivery to the rig, This helps establish the technique
within the operational sequenm and enables fit-for-purpose
communication infrastructure to be installed and tested. The
decision depends on operational requirements and is inevitably
a compromise between:

keeping the rig appraised of the best estimate of the well

position at all times

390

avoiding the proliferation of datasets with different

processing applied

minimizing operational cost

SPE

4=>

APPL}CAT\ON

OF INTERPOLATION

IN-FIELD

REFERENCING

TO REMOTE

OFFSHORE

LOCATIONS

Foinaven B and Schiehallion Central drilling sites are atl less

than O.1O.
The anomalies surrounding the Andrew field are illustrated
in Figs. 5a, 5b and 5c, The data from which these maps were
computed were acquired in 1997. The aeromagnetic survey
coverage was extended to the west (not shown) to cover the
Alba and Britannia fields, operated by Chevron. This reduced
the capital cost of data acquisition to both Operators,
Fig. 5a shows the totat intensity anomalies over an area 40
km by 52 km containing the Andrew platform. A large feature,
of intensityjust over 400nT can be seen centred some 23 km to
the south east of the platform. The declination anomaly (Fig.
5b) shows the characteristic positive-negative pattern described
above. The dip angle anomaty (Fig, 5c) is less obviously
related to the total field anomaly, but it is worth noting that the
centre of the main feature, where the dip angle anomaly
exceeds 0.2, does not coincide with the centre of the totat field
anomaty. It happens that the direction (but not the strength) of
the magnetic field at the Andrew platform is very close to the
field predicted by the BGGM main field model. The magnetic
effect of the platform itself, although clearly visible in the raw
aeromagnetic data, was removed numerically at an early stage
in the processing.

During times of relative magnetic calm, the field variations

cm be adequately monitored on a daily basis, and delivery of
the updated wellbore position may be left to the end of each
hole section. In periwis of high magnetic disturbance, or when
knowledge of wellbore position is criticrd, near real-time
updates will be required to maintain survey performance
within the pre-determined bounds. If the primary reason for
applying IIFR is for future well collision avoidance, or for
improved reservoir mapping, prmessing need not be
undertaken until drilling is complete. This of course removes
the advantage of improved confidence in the while-drilling
well position.
Experience has shown that monitoring magnetic variations
daily and reacting to problems as they cccur is a satisfactory
compromise. This allows update to the wellbore position daily
or at casing point dependent on circumstances,
Service Management and Communications. Acquisition and
delivery of IIFR data involves up to four organisations. The
operator, the directional drilling company, the MWD survey
company and the providers of the magnetic observatory data
all play an important role. Eftlcient management of the service
is a non-triviat exercise in communication. In particular, rapid
and robust verbal and digital data links are critical to success.
Transmission of data either by hand-entry or fax has ken
shown in practice to be inadequate except as a temporary
measure.
The applications of IIFR discussed in this paper are
assigned to a survey management service operating
independently within a directional drilling company. The
survey management service is given full responsibility for the
set up, monitoring and control of the survey service. They also
provide an operational position to whom all questions
regarding the application and implications of IIFR may be
addressed.

Comparison of IIFR vs. Gyro and Inertial Surveys. All

three fields in this study have two wells in which a high
accuracy gyroscopic or inertial tool and IIFR-processed MWD
data are simultaneously available. Fig. 6 shows the results of
the data comparisons for all six wells. The white circle and
bars show the mean and standard deviation of the difference
between the gyro/inertiat survey azimuth and the MWD
azimuth corrected only for main field declination The main
field model used was the current BGGM. The black square and
bars compare the gyrdinertial survey azimuth with the MWD
azimuths after full IIFR correction (Gption 5),
For all six wells, application of IIFR produces a mean
difference ktween MWD and the gydinertial survey of less
than 0.3. For five of the six wells, this represents a significant
improvement, There is little effect on the standard deviation of
the difference. This is probably due to the (random) residual
errors left after application of the magnetic data prmessing
algorithm. At these accuracy levels the gyrdinertial survey can
no longer he regarded as the truth. They must be treated, like
the IIFR data, as an approximation to it.
There is no evidence that the IIFR technique is correcting a
systematic azimuth difference common to all wells in any of
the three tields. This is unsurprising given the size of the local
declination anomalies in comparison to other sources of error.

Results from Using IIFR Offshore

BP is currently applying IIFR in three offshore fields over

which the magnetic field has been mapped using aeromagnetic
data.. The Foinaven and Schiehallion fields are neighbors in
the West of Shetland province. Magnetic variation data for
these fields is supplied by the BGS observatory at Lerwick in
the Shetland islands, 165 km to the east. Andrew is in the
Central North Sea. Its IIFR service uses magnetic data
interpolated between Lerwick, 275 km to the north west, and
the BGS observatory at Eskdalemuir, 415 km to the south
west. Fig. 4 shows locations of the fields and observatories.
Magnetic Anomaly Maps. The aeromagnetic data for the
West of Shetland fields was part of a larger dataset acquired
for exploration purposes in 1993 and 1994, The cost of
reprocessing was therefore the only expense to the drilling
operation. Processing the data (see Appendix) revealed a 250
nT total field anomaly centred some 5 km to the south of the
fields. Angular anomalies are small over both fields. The
computed values for declination and dip anomaly at the

Some Technical Issues Affecting IIFR

Daily and Magnetic Storm Variations. There are two main
sources of magnetic field which vary on timescales of minutes
to hours; the regular daily variation and magnetic storm
variations. The daily variation has a fundamental peria.i of 24
hours and has a very similar structure over the whole region of

391

H. S. WILLIAMSON,

P. A. GURDEN,

the British Isles. Its typical range, which varies with latitude,
the seasons and with the 1l-year solar cycle, is a few tens of
nT in total intensity, approximately 0.2 in declination and
abaut 0.03 in dip angle. The phase of the daily variation
depends on local time.
Magnetic storm variations, on the other hand, are
essentially simultaneous over large regions and their amplitude
depends on geomagnetic latitude. In the area of the North Sea,
the amplitude of variations may be of the order of a few
thousand nanoteslas in field intensity and a few degrees in
direction during severe magnetic storms.
Tnrbitt and Chtrk*3 compared data for 1991 from the
permanent magnetic observatories at Lerwick, Dombas
(IWrway) and Brorfelde (Denmark). They used data from
tick
and Brorfelde to study longitudinal effects. They
found that on quiet days the cross-comelations between the
data sets peaked at lags consistent with the difference in locat
time between the two sites (about 51 minutes). On disturbed
days the cross-correlations peaked at zero lag, showing that the
disturbance fields affected both sites simultaneously and
caused similar field perturbations.

D. J, KERRIDGE,

Q. SHIELLS

SPE 49061

currents (the skin depth in sea water for variations with a

period of 10 seconds is about 1 km). This means that there will
he effects during severe magnetic disturbances, but in general
the uncertainties due to fluctuations in the source currents will
be more significant than the induced currents, This also
demonstrates that there is, on most days, very little screening
of field variations by the sea. The most significant induced
current effects are expected to k in coastal areas where there
is a contrast in conductivity between the land and the sea.
Experience at Liverpool Bay12has shown that the ability to
interpolate accurately falls slightly during disturbances.
Impact of IIFR on Surveying Uncertainty

FuII apprwiation of the impact of HFR on survey performance

depends on understanding the difference between uncertainty
reduction and error reduction. Just as high intensity magnetic
storms are relatively infrequent events, so high intensity
Crustal anomalies are relatively sparsely scattered
geographically. As a consequence, IIFR corrected survey data
will frequently show only slight differences from the same
dataset processed conventional y. A natural reaction is to
question the value of the technique, but consideration of the
associated survey uncertainties shows this reaction to be
mistaken. Since both high-intensity storms and crustal
anomalies are essentially random and unpredictable in their
occurrence, ample allowance must be made for them in apriori estimates of survey uncertainty for services which do not
attempt to eliminate t.km. This justifies the apparently
pessimistic values for magnetic field uncertainty which are
currently in use. A technique which can be shown to eliminate
most of the effects of magnetic storms and crustal anomalies
can be assigned a much tighter uncertainty model, with
consequent benefits for overatl wellbore surveying costs.

Change of Main Field Model. The transformation technique

described in this paper estimates the local magnetic field by
the combination of a main field model and aeromagnetic data.
The crustal field values which are derived are apparent
values consistent with the main field model used in the
analysis. When a new main field model is adopted, these
crustat field values are adjusted to be consistent with the new
model, so there is no jump in the local field estimates, Strictly,
the whole crustal field analysis should be repeated using the
new main field model, but this will have very little effect on
the results, Any discrepancy arising following model revision
will be a result of differences in the secular variation models.
This will be a small effect over a few years.

Magnetic field predictions based on main field models. A

British Geological Survey report14 commissioned by Baker

Hughes INTEQ estimated the magnitude of the various effects
causing the instantaneous magnetic field at a randomly chosen
time and place to differ from the prediction of a main field
model. Although not a comprehensive study, the results can be
used to derive robust estimates of the total uncertainty in a
typical main field model prediction in the North Sea region

IIFR at High Latitude. During periods of severe magnetic

disturbance there are intense electrical currents flowing in the
auroral regions, at a height of about 100 km, and the strength
and the pattern of the currents can change rapidly. As a result,
the ability to use magnetic observatory data to estimate
variations at remote locations, possible over a few hundred
kilometres in the UK region, will decrease to tens of
kilornetres at high-latitude locations close to the auroral
electrojet currents. Because of the increased rate of field
variation, efforts should be made to improve the
synchronisation between the MWD system and the magnetic
observatory to better than 1 minute.

Declination
Dip angle
Total Field Strength

perjield
perjleld
130 nT perjield

0.5
0,2

The characterization of these uncertainties, quoted at one

standard deviation, as per j7eld indicates that when

Induced Currents. Short term geomagnetic field variations

may be viewed as electromagnetic waves which propagate into
the Earth generating induced currents as they are absorbed.
The characteristic length scale for absorption, the skin depth,
depends on the electrical conductivity of the solid earth (and
the sea) and the frequency of the variations . In shallow sea
water only short period variations will induce significant

implemented as error terms in a tool performance model, they

should be treated as acting systematically throughout a field.
This is because the bulk of the uncertainty is attributable to the
crustal field, the spatial variations of which are rather larger
than most oil and gas fields. While open to challenge, the
authors consider these values to be the best currently available.
392

SPE 49061

APPLICATION

OF INTERPOLATION

IN-FIELD

REFERENCING

the estimates of the instantaneous magnetic field at the drill

site may be split into errors in the combined main and crustat
fields, B., and errors in the short-term variations, B4.
Main Field plus Crustul Fiehi. The transformation
technique provides an estimate of the combined main and
cmstal tields, and any errors apply to the sum of these
components. The UK land studies discussed above used
aeromagnetic data acquired in 1962 and 1956 respectively. It
is likely that similar studies with aeromagnetic data acquired
with modem equipment would show better agreement between
the measured and calculated fields. The results of the land
studies indicate thati particulmly in D and I, errors in the
transformation method increase with the size of the anomaly in
a roughly linear fhshion. Using this assumption, individual
uncertainties may be calculated for particular locations based
on the size of local anomalies. Given our knowledge of typical
anomaly intensity in the North Sea region, the 1 standard
deviation uncertainties in the components of the main field
plus cmstal field vector at a typical drilling location are
estimated as 0.08 in D, 0.025 in 1 and 40uT in F. These
vrdues do not include the possible effects of short wavelength
down-hole anomalies which would not h detected by
aeromagnetic surveys.
Short-Term Variations. A number of studies have been
carried out using data Born the three UK magnetic
observatories and observatories in Norway and Denmark to test
the accuracy of the interpolation technique in both
magnetically quiet and disturbed conditions. Barraclough and
MacmiIlan*5examined the degree to which field variations
observed at Eskdalemuir Observatory (55,3N) could be
reproduced using data from Lerwick Observatory (60.1N) and
Hartland Observatory (51.0N) over a selection of 83
magnetically disturbed days during the three-year period 198789. Setting thresholds of 5 arc-minutes (0.083) in declination
and dip angle and 50 nT in field intensity they found
agreements between the observed and interpolated vatues for
96.6%, 94.3% and 93.9% of the time, respectively. Given that
Eskdatemuir is more than 450 km from both Lerwick and
Hartland, this result gave confidence in the ability to
interpolate between observatories even on disturlxxl days, The
intermittent, spiky nature of short-term magnetic variations
makes these values conservative as 2 standard deviation
estimates of the errors in B~,
These results are borne out by the success of the
interpolation technique for Liverpool Bayi2.Over a period of 4
months the standard deviation of differences between data
horn au on-site monitor and data interpolated from
Eskdalemuir and Hartland Observatories was less than O.O1
in Eoth declination and dip angle, and less than 10 nT in field
intensity. These results show errors less than those found by
Barraclough and Macmillan15.This is beeause Liverpool Bay
is at a comparatively low latitude and the distance over which
the data were interpolated was less than in their study.
Model

Parameters.

OFFSHORE

LOCATIONS

estimates for the 1 standard deviation magnetic field

uncertainty when using IIFR in the North Sea region are:

Magnetic field predictions based on IIFR. Likely errors in

Error

TO REMOTE

Declination
Dip angle
Field Strength

0.08 perjield
0.025 perjield
40 nT perjeld

0.04 per survey

0.04 per survey
25nT per survey

The characterization of the uncertainties due to short term

variations in the field as per survey indicates that error model

terms arising horn them are to be treated as systematic

tx?tweenstations in the same survey, but not between different
surveys in the same well. This reflects the distinctly nonrandom variations characteristic of some disturbance events, In
the case of MWD hole section surveys, which are normally
acquired over a period of severat days, this is a distinctly
conservative assumption. With electronic mukishot surveys,
which are acquired over a few hours, the assumption will still
be conservative, but far less so.
The above vatues are thought to be readily attainable for an
HFR service set up and managed in a way similar to that
described in this paper. Significant change in geographical
location, magnetic environment, or data acquisition and
processing would necessitate a review.
Impact on Total MWD Error Budget. In most applications,
total azimuth uncertainty of an MWD measurement is
dominated by two sources of error: declination uncertainty and
drillstring magnetic interference. The figures above suggest
that use of HFR will typically reduce the impact of declination
uncertainty by a factor of about five. If no attempt is made to
correct for drillstring magnetic interference, IIFR will have no
effect on this error source, However, the improved knowledge
of the total field strength and dip angle afforded by IIFR
significantly reduces the errors inherent in the correction
algorithms currently in use. Used with care, these corrections
or their successors will replace the error due to uncorrected
interference with a residual error several times smaller.
Both declination uncertainty and the impact of cirilIstring
interference are strongly dependent on geographical location
aud/or hole direction. This precludes generalization about the
overall reduction in azimuth uncertainty available through use
of IIFR. Nevertheless, two statements can be made with
reasonable confidence. Careful use of IIFR:

enables substantial reductions in azimuth uncertainty

compared with conventional MWD surveying. The
evidence presented in this paper suggests that the average
azimuth error over a well can generally be reduced to less
than 0.3.

greatly reduces the dependency of azimuth uncertainty on

external factors, such as the presence of magnetic
anomalies. This builds confidence in the use of the tool
performance model for quantitative risk-based decisions,
Impact of IIFR on Well Positioning

The development of HFR from its fwst ground-br~lng

application into an established survey service has enabled the

From the above data, best

393

H. S. WILLIAMSON,

P. A. GURDEN,

D. J. KERRIDGE,

G. SHIELLS

SPE 49081

survey systems,
3. Provision of an effective HFR service requires a significant
effort of co-ordination and surveying expertise.
Communication systems, data processing methods and data
delivery schedules must be tailored to the individual
operation.

benefits forecast in a previous paperl to lx substantially

reatiied. These can be summarised under four headings.
Survey Program Optimisation. Gyroscopic surveys are
genemlly no longer required in the deeper hole sections. They
are retained at shallow depths where external magnetic
interference may be expected. Electronic multishot surveys are
no longer required for end-of-section quality control, They add
little extra assurance if the MWD tool performance has been
analysed using one of the latest magnetic processing
algorithms.

Nomenclature
A(u,v) Fourier transform of the magnetic field potential

b
B
BOOM
C(u,v)

unit vector in direction of magnetic field

magnetic field vector
British Geological Survey Globat Geomagnetic Model
Fourier transform of the total intensity anomaly
values
magnetic declination
D
F
total magnetic field strength
AF
total intensity anomaly
magnetic dip angle
I
IIFR
interpolation in-field referencing
MWD measurement while drilling
wave number in x-direction
u
v
wave number in y-direction
v
magnetic field potential
function relating A(u,v) and C(n,v)
north direction
:,x
Y,y
east direction
z, z
down direction

Near Real-Tbne Quality Control. The new magnetic

processing algorithms highlight the deterioration in MWD tool
performance characteristic of imminent failure. Changing out
such a tod at the next convenient opportunity may save a trip.
Near ReaI-Thne Definitive Survey. The effect of IIFR on the
directional drilling operation has been likened to getting a
gyro survey every day (an unusuatly reliable one). Missed
targets and correction runs caused by misleading surveys are
elimimted.
of Well Position. The reduction in position
uncertainty afforded by IIFR reduces the number of seismic
lines against which a match with the well logs may need to be
sought. The increased confidence in absolute well position also
reduces the temptation to run extra surveys when the wells
position relative to the existing reservoir model is in doubt.
Interpretation

Subscripts
excluding external field sources
o

Future Developments
As nse of IIFR becomes widespread, it will be incumbent on

the directional drilling industry to develop operations

procedures, data formats and performance models which are,
as far as possible, standardised across companies. This will
improve the Operators confidence in the technique, and the
value they derive from it.
Integral to the type of IIFR service described here is the use
of the new generation of magnetic survey processing
algorithms. These methods are not claimed to be 100%
accurate, nor will they produce good surveys from
fimdamentally poor quality data, but they are highly indicative
of erroneous surveys. The size of the residurd errors to be
expected after prcxessing requires deeper investigation before
the somewhat conservative performance estimates currently in
use can be tightened. This will be the subject of further
publication.

due to crustat anomaly

due to external field sources
due to main field

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank BP Exploration, Baker Hughes

INTEQ and the Director of the British Geological Survey

(NERC) for permission to publish this paper.
A number of the studies that established the basis of IIFR
were supported by Sperry-Sun Drilling Services, who also
manage the IIFR service for BP Exploration on the Foinaven
field.
References

1, Russell, J,P., Shiells, G. and Kerridge, D.J.: Reduction of

Well-Bore Positional Uncertainty Through Application of a
New Geomagnetic In-Field Referencing Technique, paper
SPE 30452 presented at the 1995 SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, TX, Oct. 22-25.
2. Shiells, G., D. J. Kerridge and J. P. Russell, 1996.
Reduction of Wellbore Positionat Lhcertainty with a new
Geomagnetic Referencing Technique .IPT (March 1996)
~43-2@,
3. Rixse, M.R. and Thorogood, J.L.: Case Study - Building a
System in a Service Company to Assure Technical Integrity
and Institutionalize Organizational Learning, paper

Conclusions

1. Mathematical analysis of aeromagnetic total field data

provides an accurate and cost-effective means of mapping
the crnstrd field vector which is particularly suitable for
offshore locations.
2. IIFR combined with recently develo@ magnetic data
processing methcds can deliver MWD surveys to an
accuracy normally associated only with high-accuracy
394

SPE 49061

APPLICATION

OF INTERPOLATION

IN-FIELD

REFERENCING

IADC/SPE 35067 presented at the 1996 IADC/SPE

Drilling Conference, NewOrleans, LA, Mar. 12-16.
4. Le Mout21,J.-L., Le lev~ a&omagn&ique de la France.
Calcul des composantes du champ ?Ipartir des mesures de
lintensit&Annales de Gkophysique, 26,2,229-258.,1970
5. Lourenco, J.S., and Morrison, H,F., Vector magnetic
anomalies derived from measurements of a single
component of the field Geophysics, 38, 359-369.,1973
S., and Barraclough, D.R., A review of
6.
methods for deriving all elements of the crustat magnetic
field from total intensity observations, British Geological
Survey TechnicaJReport WM/90/18C, 1990.
7. Macmillan, S., and Barraclough, D.R., Transformations of
total intensity aeromagnetic data in Norfolk, British
Geological Survey Technical Report WM/90/25C, 1990.
8. Nljden Twilhaar, G.D,, Accurate Magnetic Surveying in a
single NMDC: Analysis of magnetic interference
correction, paper SPE 16530 presented at Offshore Europe
87, Aberdeen, UK, Sep. 8-11.
9. Brooks, A.G,, and Wilson, H., An Improved Met.hl for
Computing Wellbore Position Unc&aint y and its
Application to Collision and Target Intersection Probability
Analysisfl paper SPE 36863 presented at the 1996 SPE
European Petroleum Conference, Mihm, Itaty, Oct. 22-24.
10.McElhinney, G,, Sognnes R., and Smith, R,, Case
Histories Demonstrate a New Method for Well Avoidance
and Relief Well Drilling, paper 37667 presented at the
1997 SPE/L4DC Drilling Conference, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, Mar. 4-6.
11.Brooks, A.G., Gurden, P.A., and Noy, K,, Practicat
Application of a Multiple-Survey Magnetic Correction
Algorithm, paper SPE 49060 presented at the 1998 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, LA, Sep. 27-30.
12.Thorogood, J.L., and Knott, D,R., Surveying Techniques
With a Solid-State Magnetic Multishot Device, SPEDE
Sept. 1990, p. 209-214.
13.Turbitt, C, W. and T, D. G. Clark. The use of Lerwick
variometer measurements to estimate magnetic
disturbances over the North Sea. British Geological
Survey Technical Report WM/94/21C, 1994.
14.Macmillan, S., Firth, M.D., Clarke, E., Clark, T.D,G. and
Barraclough, D.R., Error estimates for geomagnetic field
values computed from the BGGM, British Geological
Survey Technical report WM193t28C,1993.
15.Barraclough, D,R. and S. Macmillan. Correction of
magnetic survey observations for the effects of magnetic
disturbance. British Geological Survey Technical Report
WM/90/22C, 1990.

TO REMOTE

OFFSHORE

LOCATIONS

contribution from external field sources. If B~ is the main field

and B. is the crustal field vector at the sample point, then
BO=BW+BC
and the measurement made by the magnetometer is [Bo [,
The total intensity anomaly AF is defined as
AF=lBO[-lB~l
where IB~ I may be estimated using a global geomagnetic
field model. The total intensity anomaly is not the magnitude
of the crustal field because
AF=lB~+BC[-lB,nl

#lBel

However, if the crustal field is small compared to the main

field, i.e. [BmI>> \ BC\, it follows that

)1

AF=(Bm.Be / Bm
= BC.b~
= XCX~ I Fm +lCY~I F~ +ZcZ,~ I Fm

.. ..(A-l)
where BC= (Xc, k,, ZJ and b. = (X#F., YJF., Z#F.) is the
unit vector in the direction of B~. Thus the total intensity
anomaty is the magnitude of the component of the crustal field
vector in the direction of the main field vector.
As the aeromagnetic data are collected in a source-flee
region the crustal field may be written as the gradient of a
scalar potential satisfying Laplaces equation, so
BC = -VVC

and

V%c = o

From this it follows that the components of B. also satisfy

Laplaces equation,
If b. is constant for the area of the survey then
V2AF = V2(b~.BC)

b~. V2BC

Hence the total intensity anomaly values satisfy Laplaces

equation, A general solution to Laplaces equation for the
crustat field potentiat V, in cartesian coordinates (x - north, y east, z - vertically down) maybe written as
V=(x, y,z) = ]
--.-

AppendixTransformation
Method of Calculating
Crustal Field Vector from Total Intensity Data
Suppose that B. is the geomagnetic field vector at a point

exp

2ti(m

A(u. r)

+ ,7) + 2nz(u2 + 1,2)2

d~4dv

where u and v are wavenumtwrs in the x and y directions

respectively, and A(u,v) is the Fourier transform of VC(X,Y,O),
If the altitude at which the aeromagnetic data were
collected is taken as z = O, then a similar expression may be

where an aeromagnetic spot measurement of field intensity is

made, and assume, to simplify the algebra, that there is no
395

HS.WILLIAMSON,

10

P. A. GURDEN,

G. SHIELLS

Synfhetic Deta
mntour interval. 10 nT

used to describe the total intensity anomaly values

.AF(x,y,O)= ~ ~exp{2?ri(ux
+ vy)}C(u,v)dudv
----

D. J. KERRIDGE,

SPE 49061

Transformed
Defa
contour interval = 10 nT

Differences
contwr

mtewal = 1 nl

....(A-2)

where C(Wv) is the Fourier transform of the total intensity

anomaly values. The components of the crustal field in the x, y
and z directions on the surface z = Oare then given by

X.k,o=+z=o=-d
7iuexp{2@P+vy)}A(uv)~dv
.-.0

Z(X,Y,O)=~=o=-2zj
z

-80

mmm
GlrEI

~ivexp{2ti((x+*y)}A(u,v)&dv
-co--

Inserting these expressions into Eq. A-1 and then using Eq. A2 gives a relationship between A(u,v) and C(u,v):
A(u,v) = C(u, v)/2zw

where
w = i(uXjJFm + vYJFjjJ + (U2+ v2)1nUFm.

Fig. 1 Synthettc test of the transformation method of magnetic

fletd modelling. The direction of the main ffeld vector is typical of

Hence, ffom the total intensity anomaly values the function

C(u,v) maybe computed, then the function A(u,v) and, finalIy,
the values of Xc,Ycand z.

:$+Y3ij&f
!* ,--.

270

230

290
Easiings

3(X)

310

320

(km)

Fig. 2a UK land teat of the transformation method of magnatlc

flafd modafllng. Aeromagnetfc total intensity anomalies (nT) and
ground observation locations.

396

SPE

49081

APPLICATION

OF INTERPOLATION

IN-FIELD

REFERENCING

TO REMOTE

Take

MWD

suweys

OFFSHORE

Process

QC,
-

using

Option

at rig

11

LOCATIONS

reporl

Real time
(rig site)

and drill

ahead

4
Compile
surveys
into daily
tile
1

Get daily
magnetic
variation
data

Repxt results
to rig (frequency
depends on
operational
requirements) I

Process
using
Option
3,4 or 5

Regular
turn-around
(office)

Fig. 3 Typical flow of MWD survey date in an IIFR operation

270

280

280

300

310

320
6 W
4 w
. . . . .. . . . ., ------ .,...;,
!1
~ Foinaven ~
:
~
00
Schiehsllion
..
!. ..- .. . . . ..
,,

Eaetings (km)
FfrJ. 2b UK land teat of the tranaformatfon method of meanettc

fl~d modalling. Declination anomalies (arc minutes) calculated from

i
:

!,

. . . ..

-12

1,

.
,,

,W
b

..1..

d
T

:
,

...0

670

;,
. . .. .

;.!

to

880

w
:,

. ) s

eeo

;))

,!

fn

am-l

,,

1 ,--,
,,,

,
!

,,,
,!.
,.

-\ , :
.=,l:

. ..

. .

..

;...*.

4,>!

,.,

;,$

.
,,,

:..

, ...

;,,

:,
,,
,,>

!,
,.

270

.
,

56N
;,
,,

,!
,,,

,.

.,.

,
:

t,

i-

,,,

,.

\ ,

040

,,
...

,(

:!!!

-12

,,

..

*N

Fig. 4 Location map for Foinaven, Schiehallion and Andrew ffelds

and BGS magnetic observatories at Lemvick and Eskdalemulr
280

280

350

310

320

Eaetings (km)

Fig. 2c UK land test of the traneformatfon method of magnetic

flefd mcdalling. Declination anomaliea (arc minutes) from ground
observations.

397

H. S. WILLIAMSON,

12
1

---

..~

---

---,.~

~----

--

e-----

,. 2
..

1
0

------

-----lg!!3
,
/

----

6450

----

------

-------

0
7

~-

-*

,(

;;

6440-

Andrew
p!atioml

6430

--------

.2-)

..

------

#--

~.

~
>

,--1

#-

-----

6460-

----

.8*

SPE 49061

G. SHIELLS

,---

D. J. KERRIDGE,

P. A. GURDEN,

+
3

6 J

12

6420

---041U

390

400

410

10

420

UTMZorP331 Eestings (km)

-2-----

.-

-I_

r
I

420

410

400

360

--

UTM Zone 31 Eastings (km)

Fig. 5a Total field anomalies (nT) for the Andrew field and

Fig. 5C Magnetic dip angle anomaiiaa (nT) for the Andrew field
an-dsurrounding area.

surrounding area.

+1 ,5

E
FJ

:
]T
g
+1 ,0

5
=
;

+05

o.

1, ,

;f

-T-

;,

:,

g
I1

E
g

.0,5 -

-1.oO-

[-1.5-

C02
(39 w weys)

S05
(39 Wiwy$)
S06
(21 Wtveys)

Foinaven

1-

AIIZ
(64 aufveya)
A07
(3! surveys)

C03
(50 Wlww)
Schiehallion

Andrew

Fig. 6 Comparfeon of MWD va. gyroscopic reference azimufhs for

six wells. Uncorrected azimuths (white circle and bars) have only the
BGGM declination applied. llFR+orrected azimuths (black equare
and bars) are corrected using Option 5 (aae text).
390

400

410

420

UTM Zone 31 Eeetinge (km)

Fig. 5b Declination anomalies (arc minutes) for the Andrew field

and surrounding area.

398