PLANNING FOR

E X T E R N A L M AG N E T I C
INTERFERENCE

Schlumberger Confidential
AN MWD SURVEYING CASE STUDY

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager August 2004

 PLANNING FOR EXTERNAL
M AG N E T I C I N T E R F E R E N C E
AN MWD SURVEYING CASE STUDY

P U R P O S E O F T H I S R E P O RT

This case study report is intended to provide a useful guide to help Drilling Engineers and MWD
Survey Engineers to plan for, and deal effectively with, external magnetic interference to the MWD
survey sensor package.

External magnetic interference in this case refers to the presence of other nearby cased wells, or
wells containing fish left in the hole, where the anticollision scan can be used to estimate a magnetic
scan clearance distance.

S U M M A RY

Schlumberger Confidential
Several recent cases involving external magnetic interference, caused by the presence of nearby
offset wells, have shown that the magnetic interference scan report can be useful in estimating the
requirement for continued gyro singleshot surveying once the local clearance distance for the
location has been calibrated.

This is easily done using DMAG, which is used to reverse calculate the equivalent magnetic scan
clearance from the raw MWD data. In the case of a high well density surface location on a multi-well
platform or installation, the MWD surveys will be affected by external magnetic interference. In this
situation, where high accuracy surveys are required to prevent an unintended well collision, gyro
surveys must be employed until the well has been drilled down to a point where the MWD is clear of
the interference as a result of the developing well separation.

The well separation distance required for this point to have been reached is based on the
geographical location, the well trajectory being drilled, the relative orientations of the offset wells, the
size and degree of magnetization of the surface conductors, and the rate of effective well separation.

The magnetic clearance scan report, which is derived from the anticollision scan, can be
calibrated and used as a planning tool to estimate the future need for gyro singleshot surveying, and
will help the Drilling Engineer to reasonably estimate gyro service costs, and plan an effective
surveying program.

This technique can also be used by the MWD field engineer as a guide to indicate when to expect
external magnetic interference, and when to expect to be clear of interference, particularly when
monitoring the progress of the actual well versus the plan.

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 2

 I N T RO D U C T I O N

MWD surveys that fail to meet the Field Acceptance Criteria (FAC) quality control metrics
cannot be accepted or used for the purpose of well collision risk management. At best, if the gravity
reference values are within specification, these surveys could be used as ‘inclination-only’ surveys. At
worst, and since we are dealing specifically here with interference from other nearby wells, this could
result in a well collision, and a potentially catastrophic failure.

MWD sensors use the earth’s magnetic field as a reference and surveys are calculated from these
measurements based on the underlying assumption that the effects of other sources of potential
magnetic interference are minimized to the point where we can reasonably estimate the accuracy of a
standard MWD survey. The FAC metrics are used as a basic ‘first pass’ quality filter that allows the
engineer to quickly recognize a problem (or the potential development of one).

M W D S U RV E Y S T H A T FA I L F I E L D A C C E P TA N C E

When an MWD survey fails the magnetic field quality requirements of the FAC metrics, then the

Schlumberger Confidential
cause of this can be as a result of;

1) The tool has made an erroneous measurement.

• There is a tool sensor problem, or a sensor has failed,

• There is a failure condition in the tool circuitry that is causing a local magnetic
disturbance field near the sensor cartridge (e.g. a ground loop).

• There is a tool calibration problem; the tool has been loaded with the wrong
calibration, or the calibration is invalid.

2) The measurement environment is not what we expect.

• There is external magnetic interference from one or more nearby wells or

objects (e.g. the rig, anchor chains, sunken wrecks or junk in the well),

• The is crustal magnetism present in the surrounding rock formations that is not
accounted for in the reference field model,

• There is extreme magnetospheric activity taking place as a result of a solar

magnetic storm, and the subject well is at high latitude,

• The surface system has been incorrectly initialized, or the rig location, date or
surface elevation entered are incorrect,

• The reference field model is wrong.

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 3

 Clearly, the field engineer can quickly check some of these failure conditions and this should be
taken care of as a matter of course. Some of these conditions are also easily ruled out where
consistent checkshots have been made across MWD tool run boundaries, or where redundant
surveying has been used as an additional quality control metric.

In high well density locations it is also easy to check whether MWD surveys from previous runs
(even those from offset wells), have met their FAC, and whether those FAC correlate to the values in
use for the current run.

The most likely problem in our scenario is the presence of external magnetic interference and we
can assume, as is most often the case, that the MWD surveys are out of specification and that gyros
are being run until clear of interference.

T H E E F F E C T O F M A G N E T I C I N T E R F E R E N C E F RO M O F F S E T W E L L S

The effect of external magnetic interference on the MWD surveys follows a fairly
straightforward inverse square law. For a given field strength of interfering magnetic pole the effect
on the survey sensor is a function of one divided by the square of the separation distance.

Schlumberger Confidential
Interference effect = Pole strength x (1/Distance2)

What this means is that if there are two nearby offset wells, that are say 2 feet and 10 feet away
from our subject well respectively, and they share the same magnetic pole strength (of say, one unit
of interference), then they will affect our MWD surveys at this point by;

• 1/22 = 1/4 = 0.25, and

• 1/102 = 1/100 = 0.001

So, the well that is only 2 feet away will affect our magnetic surveys by a factor of 250 times
more than the well that is 10 feet away. Not only that, since they do not affect our MWD sensors in
turn, but in combination as an overall interfering field, this can be estimated as the root sum of these
two numbers;

Combined effect of external interference = Pole strength x √(1/W12 + 1/W22 … +1//Wn2)

Again, using our example here, this would result in;

• √(0.252 + 0.0012) = √0.062501 = 0.250002

In other words, the external interference from the well which is only 2 feet away is driving the
overall external interference effect, since using the inverse square law makes the effect of the
proximity of the 10 feet away well significantly less. However, this example was given for the sake of

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 4

clarity. In reality when we have significant interference from multiple wells, one of which is say, 6
feet away, and with say, five other wells that are 8 feet away, then this might mistakenly make us
think that we should only care about the single closest well.

• √(1/36)2 = 1/36 = 0.027778

• √((1/36)2 + (1/64) 2 + (1/64) 2+ (1/64) 2+ (1/64) 2+ (1/64) 2) = √0.0019923 = 0.044635

This demonstrates the idea that whilst the nearest source of external interference definitely
contributes the greatest effect on the MWD sensor, the presence of multiple nearby wells can
significantly increase this effect (in this simple example, by more than 60%).

Of course, we made an underlying assumption with this approach that each of the offset wells
contributes an interfering field of equal magnetic field strength, and this will be discussed further
below.

M A G N E T I C I N T E R F E R E N C E S C A N R E P O RT

Schlumberger Confidential
When an anticollision scan is run against offset wells, one of the calculations that are done is a
‘behind-the-scenes’ root sum of the center-to-center squared distance. In other words, the exact
calculation shown in the example of the previous section, for each anticollision scan interval.

This information is tabulated in the “Magnetic Interference Scan Report” or ‘MagScan report’ in
the Close Approach module of Drilling Office. The report gives standard header information on the
subject well with a list of each of the offset wells that have been included in the combined scan, and
finally the tabulated results of the magnetic scan calculation as shown in the example below:

Magnetic Scan Results

CC-1 Survey
MD (ft) TVD (ft) DISTANCE (ft)
0.00 0.00 2.08
100.00 100.00 2.08
200.00 200.00 2.08
300.00 300.00 2.08
400.00 400.00 2.08
500.00 500.00 2.08
600.00 600.00 2.08
700.00 700.00 2.08
800.00 800.00 2.09

This example output shows the measured depth and TVD of the subject well versus the
equivalent combined magnetic clearance scan distance of all of the scanned nearby wells (i.e. as if all
of the magnetic interference were going to come from a single well at this equivalent distance). In
theory, we would want to ensure that all possible nearby wells are included in this scan, but in
practice for this application our magnetic clearance scan report containing at least all of the wells
present from the platform, rig or installation that the subject well is being drilled from will probably
be sufficient for these purposes.

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 5

 D M A G – D R I L L S T R I N G M A G N E T I C I N T E R F E R E N C E M U LT I S TA T I O N C O R R E C T I O N

The DMAG software application is an MWD survey correction platform that is designed to
correct for drillstring magnetic interference. In this case (where the source of the interference is
external), DMAG is unable to provide a useful solution to the problem, and gyro surveys must be
used until clear of magnetic interference. However, DMAG can be effectively used to calibrate the
magnetic interference scan report for a specific location. This is simply done by gathering the
standard raw MWD surveys for the current run in the normal fashion until clear of external magnetic
interference, and the MWD surveys are now within specification (or where the only remaining
problem with them is drillstring magnetic interference, which DMAG will take care of).

Having reached this point in the well, DMAG will be unlikely to provide good corrected surveys
as a result of just ‘dumping’ in all of the raw surveys for the current run. This is because there are too
few good surveys, and DMAG will not work unless the input dataset contains a predominance (i.e.
more than half) of clean ‘drillstring interference only’ surveys.

In practice the engineer should begin processing using DMAG from the current point in the
well, and working backwards up the well (shallower) adding surveys for as long as DMAG can
continue to produce good corrected survey outputs. In our first case study, where external
interference from offset wells is the problem, it can be clearly seen from DMAG when this point is

Schlumberger Confidential
reached.

50000
External Magnetic Interference Case Study 1

External magnetic interference decreasing as effective magnetic

clearance scan distance increases
49500
Total Field Strength (nT)

49000

48500

Reference Field Strength

48000
+/- 300 nT FAC

Measured Depth (ft)

47500
2300 2800 3300 3800 4300

In the example shown above, external magnetic interference can clearly be seen at 2300ft
measured depth as the total field measured by the MWD sensor approaches the FAC reference value
with increasing well separation as drilling continues. In this case, the presence of some drillstring
magnetic interference is also indicated beyond about 3300ft MD, where we can estimate ‘by eye’ that
we are probably clear of the external interference effects.

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 6

 In this case, DMAG is used to correct the surveys for drillstring magnetic interference beginning
from the deepest survey, and working back up the hole, by adding successive surveys, until a point is
reached where the correction software cannot successfully reprocess them.

From the plot shown below, it can be seen that this point is reached somewhere around 3000ft
MD. What this means is that shallower than this depth the MWD surveys are too badly interfered
with by external magnetic interference that they cannot be successfully corrected.

50000
External Magnetic Interference Case Study 1

External magnetic interference decreasing as effective magnetic

clearance scan distance increases
49500
Total Field Strength (nT)

DMAG corrected surveys - processed in batches from the deepest survey

by adding more survey data working back up the hole, until as many good
surveys as possible are obtained.
49000

48500

Schlumberger Confidential
Reference Field Strength
48000
+/- 300 nT FAC

Measured Depth (ft)

47500
2300 2800 3300 3800 4300

It should also be noted at this point that this same technique could be used in single well
applications to estimate the clearance distance required from exiting the last casing shoe before the
MWD surveys will be clear of external interference from the casing. (This is not discussed further
here.)

It is important to understand some aspects of how DMAG works in order to be able to make an
assessment about the validity of the results. In many cases the entire group of surveys shown in the
plot above can be input into DMAG and numerous apparently ‘good’ surveys obtained from the
results, from positions through the run. However, this is unlikely to include any (or many) of the very
last (deepest) surveys in the group, in which we have the greatest confidence of being good, and this
is a good indicator that DMAG has found the ‘wrong’ answer.

The only way to successfully ensure that the best, and most correct surveys have been obtained
in this example is to work from the deepest surveys first, and experience has shown that the results
will be excellent whilst working back up (shallower) the hole until a point is reached where the
surveys just can’t be effectively corrected and the output from DMAG will appear to ’flip’. What this
means is that up until now we will have obtained almost all good corrected surveys until we reach
this turnover point. At this point the next batch of DMAG processed data, with even one more ‘bad’
survey included for processing will cause the software to fail to reach the correct solution. At this
stage it may even report some previously ‘good’ surveys as ‘bad’ and vice-versa.

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 7

 CALIBRATING THE MAGNETIC INTERFERENCE SCAN

Now that we have the largest possible group of DMAG corrected ‘good’ surveys, working back
up the hole from a point where we were confident that we were clear of any external magnetic
interference effects, then we can look at the measured depth of the last good corrected survey to
calibrate the magnetic interference scan report.

50000
External Magnetic Interference Case Study 1

External magnetic interference decreasing as effective magnetic

clearance scan distance increases
49500
Total Field Strength (nT)

DMAG correction back calculated until surveys can no longer be brought

into specification, indicates minimum magnetic clearance scan point
(3080ft MD).
49000

Schlumberger Confidential
48500

Reference Field Strength

48000
+/- 300 nT FAC

Measured Depth (ft)

47500
2300 2800 3300 3800 4300

At this stage it is best to re-run the anticollision scan using all of the good actual survey data
obtained for the well to date. In our multi-well installation example, this will include the gyro
singleshots, and the corrected ‘good’ DMAG results.

On running the anticollision scan on this data, the magnetic interference scan report can be
generated. In order to provide a more useful graphical (visual) display of the magnetic scan data an
excel spreadsheet can be used to plot the results of the magnetic scan report.

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 8

 This was done using the results for the actual surveys from case study 2, comprising the gyro
surveys plus the good DMAG results as follows;

80
Magnetic Scan Plot - Case Study 2

70

60

50

40
Effective Magnetic Clearance (ft)

30

Schlumberger Confidential
20

10

Measured Depth (ft)

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

In this case it can be seen that the effective magnetic clearance distance is less than 10ft until we
are at about 1500ft MD in our well. In a sense this plot shows a graphical summary of the
anticollision scenario, although not in a useful format for that application.

In order to calibrate the magnetic interference scan, the survey data was reverse processed as
described above using DMAG and the following results were obtained;

Therefore, in this case we were unable to back process any good DMAG surveys shallower than
2762.95ft MD. By using this depth, and our magnetic interference scan plot, we can now calibrate
our magnetic interference scan results for this location.

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 9

 The plot below shows the magnetic interference scan report with a MD marker placed at
2672.95ft MD;

80
Magnetic Scan Plot - Case Study 2

70

60

Effective Clearance Requirement for this Location = 50ft

50

40
Effective Magnetic Clearance (ft)

30

Schlumberger Confidential
20

10

Measured Depth (ft)

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

By subtending a horizontal marker from the intersection point on our interference scan at
2672.95ft MD, we get an effective magnetic clearance of 50ft. This is now a locally calibrated value
for this location that can be applied (and improved by being updated with successive well data) for
practical purposes.

In the planning sense this value can be applied to future anticollision scans of plans versus offset
wells to indicate the expected MD to which gyro surveys will be required. This information can be
applied to the survey program, and also used to plan service costs and operational requirements for
these services.

At execution time, this information can be used as the well is drilled to estimate actual clearance
versus planned clearance and to update the expected gyro surveying service requirements against the
plan. Provided the same technique is applied consistently, the effective clearance requirement for this
location can also be updated and modified as time and circumstances perhaps, affect the magnetic
characteristics of the well casings and local external interference levels.

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 10

 A N OT E A B O U T U N D E R LY I N G A S S U M P T I O N S

There are a number of underlying assumptions that must be used in order to make this technique
of practical use;

1) The magnetic field strength of the affecting offset well conductors is the same for all
offset wells (but will be different from location to location).

• This may not be true if different sized conductors are used in different slots on
the installation.

• Experience suggests that this is generally true where the conductor size is the
same for a given installation.

2) The effective clearance required is different from installation to installation in

different locations.

• Experience has shown that this is also generally true. The effective clearance
requirement for one smaller platform in a mid-latitude northern hemisphere
field was 33ft with 18-inch conductors.

Schlumberger Confidential
• Our example case study 2 shown here, is for a large platform in an equatorial
region, using larger conductors, where the effective clearance requirement is
50ft.

3) DMAG can provide a useful measurement as to when the threshold for good MWD
surveys has been reached.

• This is true, and attempts should not be made to keep reverse processing
random groups of surveys going back up the hole where DMAG could derive
an incorrect solution and falsely report some bad surveys as ‘good’.

• Care should be taken even when external interference is present and the
standard MWD surveys are now drifting into specification. This does not
necessarily indicate that the survey is clear of external interference, since this
could be the combined effect with drillstring interference, or that some of the
allowances made for the FAC for the GeoMag field uncertainty are being
incorrectly applied as an allowance for external magnetic interference. This is in
fact one of the ‘use-and-practice’ assumptions made when using the FAC as a
quality metric when clearing external interference.

DMAG is the only consistent method to manage clearing external magnetic interference.

Chris Chia, D&M Surveying Manager 11