SPE 124246-PP

Optimizing Directional Drilling While Minimizing the Risk of Well Collision

in Offshore Drilling
Nitin Sharma, Mike McDonald, and Jeffrey Mohammed, SPE, Baker Hughes; Bryan Daire, Theodore Eicks, and
Leo Jew, bp, plc.

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 4–7 October 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of 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 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
As offshore drilling grows more crowded and more complex, greater emphasis is placed on avoiding collisions with offset
wellbores. The implications of a collision with an existing well are very real, and care must be taken to minimize the risks
associated with such incidents. Collision with a producing well carries additional risks, including potential well-control
situations and lost income from shut-in wells. With more wells being drilled from multi-well locations, well collision is
becoming a very real possibility. Today’s drilling trends toward more directional, horizontal, and fishbone multilateral wells,
often with several from a single slot using subsea wellheads. This paper covers the best practices for sidetracking out of the
well using a whipstock and minimizing the risk of collision with offset wells. Special emphasis is placed on optimizing
whipstock placement (orientation and depth), use of gyroscopic tools while milling and drilling ahead, and the use of
traveling cylinders for collision avoidance. Case histories are presented here to illustrate the successful application of these
techniques.

Introduction
With the worldwide growth in drilling activities, operators are encountering increasingly complex and crowded drilling,
especially in developed fields where the existing well density is high.In recent years re-entry drilling has become an
increasingly popular option for production optimization.One of the important aspects of reentry is to mill a window in an
existing casing. Many of the wells drilled in developed fields are sidetracking from the existing wellbore. These cased-hole
sidetracks are performed utilizing a whipstock assembly. After setting the whipstock assembly, a rat hole is drilled to land the
drilling bottom hole assembly (BHA) to drill the rest of the section. After exiting the whipstock window, the sidetrack well
will be under the magnetic interference from the parent wellbore and nearby offset wells.
Depending on the proximity of the offset wells, magnetic interference can impair conventional measurement while
drilling (MWD) for a substantial drilled distance. Drilling blind after exiting the window may result in catastrophic results,
including colliding with a nearby existing producing wellbore. This paper places emphasis on the following:
1) Best practices on whipstock placement, orientation to avoid collision risks and optimize directional drilling at the same
time.
2) Reducing directional uncertainties by using gyro MWD and single/multi-shot gyro tools while drilling close to the
offsets wells.
3) Anticollision management using traveling cylinder plot and spider plot.
2 SPE 124246-PP

Whipstock Placement
The depth at which to set the whipstock depends on several factors. The first is related to the directional work required to get
to the target. The whipstock could be placed in order to have the shortest length to drill to get to the target. This may cause
the well path to have excessive doglegs. These doglegs could lead to problems with drilling and completing the well.
Maintaining a smooth wellbore with lower dogleg severity (DLS) is usually a more desirable option. This can help make
drilling easier and gives more room for error in case of unforeseen problems. Getting casing to bottom is also easier with
lower DLS. This may call for a longer section to be drilled, but the additional time spent here can help avoid problems later
in the well.
The second consideration in selecting the sidetrack location is the formation. Formations with high compressive strengths
may have low rates of penetration when drilling the rat hole. Some formations may require multiple mill runs to get the
window and rat hole drilled. Another complication arises when the strength of the formation is much greater than that of the
cement. The mill may not drill the formation at all, but deflect off the hard formation and drill along the cement sheath
between the casing and the formation. This can be mitigated by selecting a mill designed to push away from the whipstock
and a BHA designed to build angle.
Orienting the whipstock in the appropriate direction is very important, especially if the kick-off point (KOP) is in a drop
or a build section. Gravity and drill string rotation tends to force casing mills down and to the right. To avoid having a “lip”
that could possibly prevent the BHA or casing from passing through, the best practice is the orient the whipstock to the high
side of the wellbore (see Figure 1). The milling assembly used should be designed to build away from the whipstock. This
will help direct more of the cutting energy into milling the window instead of the whipstock. Standard BHA components can
be used to adjust the directional tendencies of the BHA to achieve this. Modeling software should be used to verify that the
BHA will not be damaged by rotating it across the high local doglegs that exist across the whipstock. If problems are
indicated here, the BHA can be redesigned.

High Side High Side

Milling
Assembly

Casing Lip

Milling
Well Bore Assembly
Sidetrack
Well Bore

Whipstock Gravitational Pull

Well Bore

Whipstock Sidetrack
Well Bore

Gravitational Pull

Whipstock Orientation on High Side Whipstock Orientation on Low Side

of Wellbore of Wellbore

Figure 1: A comparison of high-side and low-side whipstock orientation.

High local doglegs could exist between surface and the sidetrack location. This could result in the whipstock being set
prematurely or being stuck in the hole. This could lead to an expensive fishing trip. These high local doglegs can make it
more difficult to fish the assembly out, leading to more lost time. A sidetracking system should be selected to help avoid
these problems.
Deeper sidetrack points usually mean less distance to drill and less expensive sidetracks. These deeper sidetrack points,
however, also give more opportunity for something to happen while running in the hole with the whipstock assembly. In
newer wells this may not be an issue, but older wells could potentially have problems. A casing scraper run may be required
to ensure that the hole is free of obstructions.
SPE 124246-PP 3

The window milled should allow unrestricted passage of the drilling completion assemblies that will be run throughout
the rest of the well. If a full gauge assembly will be run, extra time should be taken to ensure that the window has been
opened sufficiently for this assembly to pass through. More flexible BHA’s will be able to pass through with less trouble, so
window conditioning is less of an issue. The length of rathole needed will depend on the type of BHA used for drilling the
rest of the interval. For BHA’s with MWD and LWD tools, the rathole drilled could be 150 – 200 ft.

Anti-Collision
After setting and orienting whipstock the most important concern in crowded drilling environment is collision risk.
One of the most serious situations that can occur while drilling on mult-well locations is a collision with another well. Many
wells are drilled in close proximity to each other, making a rigorous anti-collision procedure extremely important. The
visualization of a three-dimensional (3D) well profile is very difficult on traditional vertical section and plan view drawings.
These two-dimensional (2D) visualizations often do not give a clear picture of the offset wells that may be in close proximity.
This paper emphasis on the the anticollision tools like travelling cylinder and spider view to avoid collision issues.

The Traveling Cylinder Plot

The traveling cylinder plot is an effective tool for giving a better understanding of a well’s position with respect to offset
wells. The proximity of multiple wells can be illustrated in relation to the defined well’s trajectory. These traveling cylinder
plots are reviewed before spudding the well as part of the pre-well planning process. Once drilling starts, any deviation from
plan must be noted and adjustments made for any changes in the actually well path. The traveling cylinder uses a normal
plane to display the intersection of wells with a plane constructed in space at a right angle to the planned wellbore (see Figure
2).

Offset well

Plane normal to the direction

of the planned well at the
point of interest

Intersection of plane and offset

Planned well

Point of interest

Figure 2: An example of the plane used in building the traveling cylinder diagram.

In this plot the standard used by the service company and the client is to equate the 12 o’clock position with true north or
grid north, not high side. All depths referred to in the plots are measured depth (MD). The traveling cylinder normal-plane
projection is used to display the intersection of wells with a plane constructed in space at a right angle to the direction of the
planned well at the point of interest. The calculation is repeated at any given number of points along the planned well path.
These repeated results are superimposed on the same diagram. The relative separation between the planned well and adjacent
wells is indicated by the lotus of points at successive depths (see Figure 3).
4 SPE 124246-PP

Also called “Traveling Cylinder North”

All depths are Measured Depths on

Bearing angles of offset wells in degrees Reference Wellplan

Center of diagram always represents

reference wellplan

Scale of concentric circles: in this case, 1 inch = 400 ft

Figure 3: An example of a traveling cylinder plot.

Bearing of the Offset Well on Traveling Cylinder Diagram

The bearing of an offset well at the point of interest is the sum of the azimuth of the planned well at that point plus the
angle of the point on the offset well relative to the local highside angle (see Figure 4). In vertical wells where the highside
angle is indeterminate the bearing of a point on an offset well is the horizontal bearing of that point from the planned well.

N
N
In vertical wells where the highside angle is indeterminate the
bearing of a point on an offset well is the horizontal bearing
of that point from the planned well
N

Planned well

Highside of planned well

Offset well is 160° right of
highside

Offset well Planned well azimuth is 45°

referenced to Map North

V
Offset well bearing as plotted on TC
diagram = 160°+ 45° = 205°
Figure 4: Example of offset well bearing.

Separation Factor/Minimum Allowable Seperation

The traditional separation factor does not take into account the orientation of the ellipse of uncertainty. This can result in
overly conservative well planning, which can at times be unnecessarily restrictive. To avoid this problem, pedal curve
calculation were used which do take into account the geometry of the ellipse of uncertainty so that all scenarios with the same
oriented separation factor have the same probability of collision (see Figure 5).
SPE 124246-PP 5

Figure 5: Illustration of ellipse of uncertainty orientation and minimum allowable separation.

On a traveling cylinder diagram, the minimum required separation between the planned well (center of diagram) and an
offset well is described by the “no-go” line at the given depth. These lines illustrate the minimum separation required
between the references well and the offset well. The function of the “no-go” line is to clearly show the region that the planned
wellbore must not enter while at or shallower than the measured depth indicated on the diagram

Figure 6: Examples of no-go lines.

6 SPE 124246-PP

The planned well is required to have a minimum separation from any “Major Risk” offset well at any particular depth
of interest calculated by:

Minimum Separation = 3(σ1+ σ2) + ½(d1+d2) + min{1% DD, 10m} + Sb

Where:
σ1 = planned well position uncertainty at 1 standard deviation
σ2 = interfering well position uncertainty at 1 standard deviation. This must include any uncertainty in the relative
surface positions of the planned and offset wells
d1 = hole size of planned well
d2 = casing OD of interfering well
min{1% DD, 10m} = 1% drilled depth (below mud line) capped at 10 meters
Sb = allowance for any survey bias

Spider Map
A spider map is a plan view of the planned wellbore along with offset wells. In the spider map the wellpath is plotted
based on True Vertical Depth (TVD) and North/East coordinates. The spider map, along with the traveling cylinder plot, is an
ideal tool to help plan the well and avoid collision risks during the drilling phase. During the planning phase, if the planned
wellbore is intersecting any offset wells at approximately the same TVD, closer monitoring will be needed while drilling.

Gyroscopic Tools
Gyroscopic (gyro) tools are widely used for completion surveys and for drilling wellbores where magnetic interference
can cause conventional magnetic MWD tools to become less reliable or even “blind.” In this paper, two different wells are
presented where different gyro tools were utilized while drilling to help avoid potential collisions. The biggest advantage of
gyro tools, as described above, is to obtain definitive surveys along the wellpath where conventional MWD tools are
impaired due to magnetic interference. While drilling in crowded environment the importance of decreasing the positional
uncertainty is apparent. The wells discussed in this paper utilized gyro MWD along with single and multi-shot gyros to
decrease this positional uncertainty.

Gyro System Configuration

Gyroscopic survey tools contain up to three accelerometers and three single-axis or two dual-axis gyroscopes installed in
various configurations within the tools. Systems designed to operate at all attitudes generally require a full complement of
gyroscopes and accelerometers to provide measurements of acceleration and angular rate for three orthogonal axes.
However, some systems use a reduced sensor set and accept any resulting limitations in their operating range. The
accelerometers’ measurements are used to determine wellbore inclination and high side tool face while the gyroscope
measurements provide a measure of wellbore azimuth with respect to true north. Many systems operate by taking
measurements at discrete depth intervals along the well path when the survey tool is stationary to generate the estimates of
inclination, tool face and azimuth angles at these locations. Other systems can be operated in continuous-survey mode by
effectively integrating the gyro measurement of turn rate to keep track of wellbore attitude as the tool traverse the well path.

Background
BP’s Holstein spar is located in Green Canyon Block 644/645 in the Gulf of Mexico. This spar was built for the development
phase of the the Holstein project. The spar was built with 20 slots (see Figure 7), with 15 slots being used thus far to drill a
total of 32 wells, including sidetracks (see Figure 8). The wells that will be discussed more in-depth later in this paper were
drilled from slots 4, 13 and 17.
SPE 124246-PP 7

North
Slot 01 Slot 02 Slot 03

A4 A5 A6

West Pipe Rack East Pipe Rack

Slot 04 Slot 05 Slot 06 Slot 07 Slot 08

A3 A13 Empty A16 A7

Slot 09 Slot 10 Slot 11 Slot 12

A2 Empty Moon Pool Empty A8

Slot 13 Slot 14 Slot 15 Slot 16 Slot 17

A1 Empty A15 A14 A9

Slot 18 Slot 19 Slot 20

A12 A11 A10

South

Figure 7: Slot layout on the Holstein spar.

A3 ST#1

Figure 8: Subsurface view of Holstein wells.

8 SPE 124246-PP

Well A-1 ST#3

This well was planned to drill a target far south of the spar’s surface location. The location of the target and the two
previously-drilled sidetrack wells resulted in sidetracking this well from up above from the 13 5/8” casing. During the
planning phase all the doglegs were planned to be below 3.5°/100 ft due to completion and casing operations.The well was
planned to drill in three sections. Due to fracture gradient and directional drillability to the target the sidetrack point was
decided to be approximately 8300 ft MD.At this shallow depth the well was surrouded by several offset wells.The directional
plan was optimized to build from near vertical to 68º in less than 2500 ft MD while turning to the left from 30 º to 267 º
Azimuth to get away from all offset wells.The second section was planned to build to 71 º and then hold the tangent for 6500
ft MD to head towards the target and final/third section was planned to drop inclination to hit the center of the target.The
Anti-collision report after scanning the nearby offset wells indicated that the A1 ST#3 plan had major risks with five nearby
wells and their sidetracks (see Figure 9). The magnetic scan also indicated that the well would be susceptible to magnetic
interference from the parent wellbore to 8800 ft with a center-to-center (C-C) distance of 42 ft and a no-go distance of only
10 ft. The minimum no-go distance with respect to the other offset wells ranged from 3 ft to 40 ft from the sidetrack point to
section TD. To get the sidetrack well away from the offset wells as early as possible it was planned to build from vertical to
66° in approximately 2400 ft while turning to the left towards the target and away from the parent wellbore. The KOP was
selected to be 8295 ft MD due to the fracture gradient and directional feasibility to the target.

Whipstock Orientation
At 8295 ft MD the well was near-vertical at 0.38° inclination. Due to this fact, there was no highside defined in the
wellbore. The whipstock was set up and oriented at 90° to the left (or 270°) to align the planned wellbore with the target (see
figure 10c). Another purpose for this orientation was to help get away from the parent wellbore and achieve the directional
objectives (see figure 10a).

Gyro Tool
Since the magnetic scan indicated that the well would be under magnetic interference for 500 ft from the sidetrack depth
and there were tight no-go distances, the utilization of gyro tools was necessary to get clean surveys while drilling the first
part of the section (from 8295 ft to 8800 ft MD). It was decided to use gyro multishots deployed on wireline for collision
management and to orient the whipstock. A universal bottom hole orientation (UBHO) sub was installed in the milling
assembly to land the gyro tools. After setting and orienting the whipstock the window was milled and rat hole was drilled
from 8333 ft to 8448 ft MD. The UBHO sub was approximately 99 ft from the bottom of the milling assembly, so only three
new surveys were taken down to 8340 ft MD. To determine the surveys for the rest of the rat hole, a survey run was planned
with a bit sub along with baffle plates to land the gyro multi-shots. The baffle plate was offset only 2 ft from the bottom of
the BHA, allowing surveys to be run much closer to the end of the rat hole. A total of nine surveys were taken and plotted
along with the earlier run on the traveling cylinder diagram. These surveys indicated that the sidetrack was getting away from
the offsets wells as planned. A rotary-steerable system (RSS) BHA was picked up along with an expandable reamer to do the
directional drilling. This assembly was equipped with a reamer, so a baffle plate could not be installed to land the gyro. It was
decided to land the gyro at the reamer to get some more clean surveys before getting clear of the magnetic interference. Four
more surveys were taken with the gyro from 8455 ft to 8628 ft MD. These surveys were also plotted on the traveling cylinder
to make sure the sidetrack was heading in the right direction.

Collision Management
In this well the most crucial section from collision risk prospective was the first section.The plan was to build and turn
right from the beginning to achieve separation from parent wellbore.During the planning stage two traveling cylinder plot
was generated along with nearby offset wells one with 25 ft C-C separation and one with 125 ft C-C along with spider view
plot. Once surveys while drilling were obtained they were plotted as an offset well to the plan on the traveling cylinder. As
crucial depths ranged from the KOP at 8295 ft down to 10500 ft MD (according to the anticollision report), each survey was
plotted to visualize the wellbore placement. The first few surveys from the gyro tool confirmed that the whipstock was
oriented in the desired direction and the sidetrack was headed away from the parent wellbore and the other offset wells (Fig
10a). Although the intial surveys plotted on TC diagram indicated that no-go lines for the same depths for A1 ST#3 and A1
parent wellbore intersecting each other but that was expected at the sidetrack depth. The survey taken at 9858 ft MD plotted
on TC indicated that the well was heading toward the no-go line for the A-15 well (Fig 10 b).All these survey points are also
plotted simuntaneously on the spider plot to confirm if the well bore is following the plan closely and to make the steering
decisions.This allowed the sidetrack to be steered away from the A-15 ST#1 well while giving enough time to get the
directional work done without generating excessively high doglegs.The well was steered away by changing the azimuth from
244º Azimuth at 9858 ft MD to 233 º Azimuth at 100,20 ft to get the away from A-15 ST#1 well. The well was drilled to
target depth without much deviation from the plan and exceeding the dogleg severity.
SPE 124246-PP 9

Figure 9: View of subsurface with A-1 ST#3 target.

Figure 10a: Traveling cylinder plot showing gyro surveys for A-1 ST#3 and offset well A-1 parent wellbore along with no-go lines
10 SPE 124246-PP

Figure 10b: Traveling cylinder plot showing gyro surveys for A-1 ST#3 and offset well A-15 &ST#1 wellbore along with no-go lines

Target

Figure 10c: Spider view plot A-1 ST#3 and offset well A-15 ,A-15 ST#1 , A1, A1 ST#1, A1 ST#2 & A7wellbore

Well A-3 ST#1

This well was planned to drill a target southeast from the sidetrack point. During the planning phase 9500 ft MD was chosen
to be the sidetrack point due to the directional constraints and fracture gradient limits. The wellpath was planned to be drilled
in two sections. The first section was planned from the sidetrack point to 14100 ft MD to drop the angle from 37° to 6°
inclination while turning to the northwest. The second section of the plan built the inclination back to 57° while turning to the
southeast. The plan was optimized to avoid potential collisions from the A-13, A-3, and A-9 wells while hitting the primary
target. During the planning phase the anti-collision reports indicated that magnetic interference would influence the surveys
up to 10150 ft MD from the parent wellbore with a minimum no-go distance of 15 ft. The anti-collison reports also indicated
that the allowable deviation would only be 8 ft from the A-13 well at 11250 ft MD.
SPE 124246-PP 11

WhipStock Orientation
At the setting depth of 9458 ft MD the well was at 35° inclination. The whipstock was oriented 42° to the right from the
highside which was 297° to get away from offset well A-13 and the parent wellbore and also to complement the directional
plan (see Figure 12c).

Gyro Tool
The anti-collision report and magnetic interference dictated the use of gyro multishots to be used in the milling assembly.
Following the procedure used in the A-1 ST#3 well, a UBHO was installed, which was offset 70 ft from the bottom mills.
After milling the window, the rathole was drilled to 9700 ft MD. Two surveys were taken with the gyro multishot. It was
decided not to run the gyro multishots during the RSS drilling for the rest of the section because the directional plan was
optimized to just drop the inclination and not make any turns until clear from magnetic interference at 10150 ft MD.

Collision management
This well had potential collision issues near the sidetrack depth after coming out of the parent wellbore and also at deeper
depths from well A-13. It was decided to plot the survey points on the travelling cylinder diagram until the well was clear
from well A-13 at 11500 ft MD. Two travelling cylinder plots were generated one with the planned A3 ST#1 as the center of
the plot with A3 parent well bore as offset well with 25 ft C-C(see figure 12a) and then with A-13 well with 115 ft C-C(see
figure 12b) .The surveys from the gyro tools clearly indicated the whipstock was set in the desired direction and the rathole
was drilled away from the parent wellbore and other offsets wells (see Figure 12a). At 11,214 ft MD(see figure 12b) the
MWD surveys indicated that the well was only 20 ft C-C distance from the no-go line of well A-13 and also on the spider
map(see figure 12c) closer than the planned wellbore..The well was steered as planned to the right by changing azimuth from
348º to 13.54º. This allowed the well to promptly be steered away from the A-13 well. The well was then drilled to the target
depth with minimal deviation from plan.

Figure 11: Subsurface view of A-3 ST#1 and offsets.

12 SPE 124246-PP

Figure 12a: Traveling cylinder plot for A-3 ST#1 with parent wellbore A-3, showing the sidetrack heading away from the parent
wellbore.

Figure 12b: Traveling cylinder plot for A-3 ST#1 with A-13 well showing that the no-go line at 11240 ft MD got close to the no-go line
for well A-13.
SPE 124246-PP 13

Figure 12c: Spider map for A-3 ST#1 with offset wells.

A-9 ST#2
This well was planned for a target east from the sidetrack depth from the parent wellbore. This well was planned to be drilled
in two sections to the TD of the well. The directional work was planned to build inclination from 5° to 64° then drop to 42°
with a maximum DLS of 3° /100 ft (see Figure 13). It was decided to set the whipstock at 9150 ft MD and start turning to the
right while building and then drop inclination while turning to the left. The well plan was optimized for collision
management while reaching the target within the DLS constraints. The anti-collision report showed that the well would be
affected by magnetic interference at approximately 9600 ft MD. The plan also included drilling 200 ft of rathole from the
window.

Whipstock Orientation
The whipstock was set at 9137 ft MD, where the wellbore inclination was 5°. The whipstock was oriented 26° to the right.
This allowed the sidetrack to get away from wells A-9 and A-9 ST#1 and also helped get the sidetrack started in the right
direction to reach the target.

Gyro Tools
Unlike A1 ST#3 and A3 ST#1, this well utilized gyro MWD to obtain surveys in the rathole while drilling. Four surveys
were taken outside the window. No gyro surveys were planned while drilling the rest of the first section since the directional
plan was to just build inclination and not to make any turns until clear from magnetic interference at about 9600 ft MD.

Collision Management
Two travelling cylinder plot were plotted one with the parent wellbore A-9 with 40 ft C-C and one with offset well A-7
well with 100 ft C-C. A spider map was also ploteed with the planned wellbore and the nearby offset wells.The Gyro surveys
in the rat hole confirmed that the orientation of whipstock was in the right direction (see Figure 14a) and the well was headed
away from A-9 and A-9 ST#1. At 10,020 ft MD the surveys from the MWD tool indicated that the no-go line (see Figure 14b
&14c) of the A-9 ST#2 was very close to the no-go line of A-7 well. All the survey pint were also plotted on the spider map
to get the steering decision.This enabled the well to be steered away from the A-7 well by changing the azimuth according to
the plnned wellbore from 78º to 74º from 10,020 ft MD to 10,140 ft MD.The well was drilled to the taget without much
deviation from the plan.
14 SPE 124246-PP

Figure 13: Subsurface view of A-9 ST#2 and offset wells.

Figure 14a: Traveling cylinder plot for A-9 ST#2 with A-9 parent wellbore
SPE 124246-PP 15

Figure 14b: Traveling cylinder plot for A-9 ST#2 with A-7 Well

Figure 14c: Spider Map for A-9 ST#2 with A-7 Well and parent wellbore
16 SPE 124246-PP

Conclusions

The paper has outlined all the aspects of sidetracking a well using a whipstock in a collision risk environment by:

1) Describing the best practices on whipstock placement

a. Placement: Depth, Directional Drillability
b. Orientation: Inclination, Target Location
The whipstock placement and orientation practices were demonstrated to optimize the directional drilling in the
planning and execution phases.

2) Utilization of gyro tools in the milling and RSS assemblies to avoid collision risk
The importance of gyro tools was stressed, including where and when to use them to get in line with survey
management goals and also to complement anti-collision management criteria.

3) Anti-collision management
a. Use of the traveling cylinder plot to confirm the whipstock orientation
b. Use of the traveling cylinder plot and spider map to help make steering decisions and avoid collisions
according to planned wellbore.

The authors have clearly demonstrated the use and importance of AC management with the traveling cylinder plot. This
paper has further emphasized no-go line criteria on the TC plot which gives users a proactive approach to make any changes
in directional plans. This flexibility from the TC diagram permits optimum directional drilling without posing an
unacceptable financial risk for the participants.

Nomenclature
BHA = bottom hole assembly
C-C = center-to-center
DLS = dogleg severity
KOP = kick-off point
MD = measured depth
MWD = measurement while drilling
RSS = rotary-steerable system
TC = traveling cylinder plot
TD = total depth
TVD = true vertical depth
UBHO = universal bottom hole orientation

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of BP, Shell, and Baker Hughes for permission to publish this paper.
Special thanks to Wes Black and the Holstein team for making this project a success.

References
1 B. Poendjono, G. Akinniranye, G. Conran, T. San Antonio, and W. Phillips: “Minimizing the Risk of Well Collisions in Land and
Offshore Drilling,” SPE/IADC 108279.

2 Torgeir Torkildsen, Stein T. Havardstein, John Weston, and Roger Ekseth: “Prediction of Wellbore Position Accuracy When
Surveyed with Gyroscopic Tools,” SPE 90408.

3 J.L. Thorogood and S.J. Sawaryn: “The Traveling Cylinder Plot: A Practical Tool for Collision Avoidance,” SPE 19989.

4 Zhihua Wang and Tom A. Inglis: “Planning Directional Wells through a High-Density Cluster of Existing Wells,” SPE 17594.

5 Charles H. Dewey and Ronald D. Childers: “Planning for Successful Window Milling Operation,” SPE 49255