SPE 124246

Optimizing Directional Drilling While Minimizing the Risk of Well Collision

in Offshore Drilling
Nitin Sharma, SPE, Mike McDonald, SPE, and Jeffrey Mohammed, SPE, Baker Hughes; Bryan Daire, Theodore
Eicks, SPE, 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, 47 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. Todays drilling trends toward more directional, horizontal, and fishbone multilateral wells,
often with several from a single slot using subsea wellheads. This paper covers the 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 reentry 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 using a whipstock assembly. After setting the whipstock assembly, a rathole is drilled to land the
drilling bottomhole 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 emphasizes the following:
1) Practices on whipstock placement, orientation to avoid collision risks and optimization of directional drilling at
the same time
2) Reducing directional uncertainties by using gyro MWD and single/multishot gyro tools while drilling close to the
offsets wells
3) Anticollision management using traveling cylinder plot and spider plot

SPE 124246

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 to have the shortest length to drill to get to the target. This may cause the
wellpath 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 rathole. Some formations may require multiple mill runs to get the
window and rathole 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 drillstring rotation tend 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 to orient the whipstock to the high
side of the wellbore (Fig.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

Sidetrack
Wellbore

Milling
Assembly

Wellbore

Gravitational Pull

Whipstock

Wellbore
Whipstock

Sidetrack
Wellbore

Gravitational Pull

Whipstock Orientation on High Side

of Wellbore

Whipstock Orientation on Low Side

of Wellbore

Fig. 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.
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 BHAs 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 BHAs with MWD and LWD tools, the rathole drilled could be 150 to 200 ft.

SPE 124246

Anti-Collision
After setting and orienting whipstock, the most important concern in a crowded drilling environment is collision risk. One of
the most serious situations that can occur while drilling on multi-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 3D well profile is very difficult on traditional vertical section and plan view drawings. These 2D visualizations often do
not give a clear picture of the offset wells that may be in close proximity.
This papers emphasis is on the anti-collision tools, like traveling cylinder and spider view, to avoid the collision issue.
The Traveling Cylinder Plot
The traveling cylinder plot is an effective tool for giving a better understanding of a wells position with respect to offset
wells. The proximity of multiple wells can be illustrated in relation to the defined wells 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 actual wellpath. 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 (Fig. 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

Fig. 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 oclock 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 wellpath.
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 (Fig. 3).

SPE 124246

Also called Traveling Cylinder North

All depths are measured depths on
reference well plan

Bearing angles of offset wells in degrees

Center of diagram always represents

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

Fig. 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 plu
s the
angle of the point on the offset well relative to the local highside angle (Fig. 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

E
Planned well
High side 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

Fig. 4: Example of offset well bearing.

SPE 124246

Separation Factor/Minimum Allowable Separation

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 that 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 (Fig. 5).

Fig. 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 reference 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

Fig. 6: Examples of no-go lines.

SPE 124246

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(1+ 2) + (d1+d2) + min{1% DD, 10m} + Sb
Where:
1 = planned well position uncertainty at one standard deviation
2 = interfering well position uncertainty at one 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 m
Sb = allowance for any survey bias

Spider Map
Spider map is a plan view of the planned wellbore along with offset wells. In a spider map the wellpath is plotted based
on true vertical depth (TVD) and North/East coordinates. A spider map, along with a traveling cylinder plot, is an optimum
tool to plan a well and avoid collision during the drilling phase. During the planning phase, if the planned wellbore is
intersecting with any offset wells at approximately the same TVD as the offset well, it needs consideration while drilling at
the same depth.

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 used 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 a crowded environment, the importance of decreasing the positional
uncertainty is apparent. The wells discussed in this paper used gyro MWD along with single- and multishot 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 highside 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 wellpath 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 traverses the wellpath.

Background
BPs 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 (Fig 7), with 15 slots being used thus far to
drill a total of 32 wells, including sidetracks (Fig 8). The wells that will be discussed more in-depth later in this paper were
drilled from slots 4, 13 and 17

SPE 124246

Slot 01

North
Slot 02

Slot 03

A4

A5

A6

Slot 05

Slot 06

Slot 07

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

West Pipe Rack

Slot 04

South

Fig. 7: Slot layout on the Holstein spar.

A3 ST#1

Fig. 8: Subsurface view of Holstein wells.

East Pipe Rack

Slot 08

SPE 124246

Well A-1 ST#3

This well was planned to drill a target far south of the spars 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-in. casing. During the
planning phase, all the doglegs were planned to be below 3.5/100 ft due to completion and casing operations. The anticollision report after scanning the nearby offset wells indicated that the A1 ST#3 plan had major risks with five nearby wells
and their sidetracks (Fig. 9). The magnetic scan also indicated that the well would be susceptible to magnetic interference
from the parent wellbore to 8,800 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 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 2,400 ft while turning to the left toward the target and away from the parent wellbore. The KOP was selected
to be 8,295 ft MD due to the fracture gradient and directional feasibility to the target.
Whipstock Orientation
At 8,295 ft MD the well was near-vertical at 0.38 inclination. Due to this fact, there was no high side defined in the
wellbore. The whipstock was set up and oriented at 90 (or 270) to align the planned wellbore with the target (Fig. 10c).
Another purpose for this orientation was to help get away from the parent wellbore and achieve the directional objectives
(Fig. 10a).
Gyro Tool
Since the magnetic scan indicated that the well would be under magnetic interference for 500 ft from the sidetrack depth
and that there were tight no-go distances, the use of gyro tools was necessary to get clean surveys while drilling the first part
of the section (from 8,295 to 8,800 ft MD). It was decided to use gyro multishots deployed on wireline for collision
management and to orient the whipstock. A universal bottomhole 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 rathole was drilled
from 8,333 to 8,448 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 8,340 ft MD. To determine the surveys for the rest of the rathole, a survey run was planned
with a bit sub along with baffle plates to land the gyro multishots. 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 rathole. 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 8,455 to 8,628 ft MD. These surveys were also plotted on the traveling cylinder
to make sure the sidetrack was heading in the right direction.
Collision Management
This wells most crucial section, from a collision risk prospective, was the first section.The plan was to build and turn
right from the beginning to achieve separation from the parent wellbore. During the planning stage, two traveling cylinder
plots were generated along with nearby offset wellsone with 25 ft C-C separation, and one with 125 ft C-C along with a
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 8,295 ft down to 10,500 ft MD (according to the anti-collision 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). The survey at 9,858 ft MD plotted on TC indicated that the well was heading toward the no-go line for
the A-15 well (Fig 10b).All these survey points are also plotted simultaneously on the spider plot to confirm if the wellbore 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 244 Azimuth at 9,858 ft MD to 233 Azimuth at 10,020 ft to get away from
the A-15 ST#1 well. The well was drilled to target depth without much deviation from the plan and exceeding the DLS.

SPE 124246

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

Fig. 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

Fig. 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

Fig. 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, 9,500 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 14,100 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 10,150 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 11,250 ft MD.

SPE 124246

11

Whipstock Orientation
At the setting depth of 9,458 ft MD, the well was at 35 inclination. The whipstock was oriented 42 to the right to get
away from offset well A-13 and parent wellbore and also to complement the directional plan (Fig. 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 9,700 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 10,150 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 traveling cylinder diagram until the well was clear
from well A-13 at 11,500 ft MD. 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 (Fig. 12a). At 11,214 ft MD the
MWD surveys indicated that the well was only 20 ft C-C distance from the no-go line of well A-13.The well was steered as
planned to the right .This allowed the well to promptly be steered away from the A-13 well. The well was TD to the target
depth with minimal deviation from plan.

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

12

SPE 124246

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

Fig. 12b: Traveling cylinder plot for A-3 ST#1 with A-13 well showing that the no-go line at 11,240 ft MD got closer to the no-go line
for A-13 well.

SPE 124246

13

Fig. 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 and was 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 (Fig. 13). It was decided to set the whipstock at 9,150 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 9,600 ft MD. The plan also included drilling 200 ft of rathole from the window.
Whipstock Orientation
The whipstock was set at 9,137 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 used 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 to not make any turns until clear from magnetic interference at about 9,600 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 (Fig. 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 (Fig. 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 78 to 74 from 10,020 ft MD to 10,140 ft MD.The well was drilled to the taget without much deviation
from the plan.

14

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

Fig. 14a: Traveling cylinder plot for A-9 ST#2 with A-9 parent wellbore

SPE 124246

SPE 124246

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

Fig. 14c: Spider Map for A-9 ST#2 with A-7 Well and parent wellbore

15

16

SPE 124246

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 directionaldrilling in the
planning and execution phases.
2) Use of gyro tools in milling assembly and RSS assembly to avoid collision risk.
The authors demonstrated the importance of gyro toolswhere and when to use to align with survey
management and also to complement the anti-collision management criteria.
3) Anti-collision management
a. Use of traveling cylinder plot to confirm the whipstock orientation.
b. Use of traveling cylinder and spider map to make the steering decision to avoid collision according to
planned wellbore.
The authors have clearly demonstrated the use and the importance of anti-collision management with traveling cylinder
plot.
This paper has further emphasized the no-go line criteria on traveling cylinder plot, which gives users a proactive
approach to make any changes in directional plans. This flexibility enabled from the traveling cylinder diagram permits
optimum directional drilling without posing an unacceptable financial risk for the participants. The authors also
demonstrated the importance of gyro tools and where and when to use them to get in alignment with survey management
and also to complement the anti-collision management criteria.
Nomenclature
BHA = bottomhole assembly
C-C = center-to-center
DLS = dogleg severity
KOP = kick-off point
MD = measured depth
TVD= true vertical depth
MWD = measurement while drilling
RSS = rotary-steerable system
TD = total depth
UBHO = universal bottomhole orientation
TC= traveling cylinder plot
References
Dewey, C.H. and Childers, R.D. 1998. Planning for Successful Window Milling Operation. Paper SPE 49255 presented at
the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 27-30 September. DOI:
10.2118/49255-MS.
Poendjono, B., Akinniranye, G., Conran, G., San Antonio, T., and Phillips, W. 2007. Minimizing the Risk of Well Collisions
in Land and Offshore Drilling. Paper SPE 108279 presented at the SPE/IADC Middle East Drilling and Technology
Conference, Cairo, Egypt, 22-24 October. DOI: 10.2118/108279-MS.
Thorogood, J.L. and Sawaryn, S.J. 1991. The Traveling Cylinder Diagram: A Practical Tool for Collision Avoidance. SPE
Drill Eng 6 (1): 31-36. SPE-19989-PA. DOI: 10.2118/19989-PA.
Torkildsen, T., Hvardstein, S.T., Weston, R., and Ekseth, R. 2008. Prediction of Wellbore Position Accuracy When
Surveyed with Gyroscopic Tools. SPE Drill & Compl 23 (1): 5-12. SPE-90408-PA. DOI: 10.2118/90408-PA.
Wang, Z. and Inglis, T.A. 1990. Planning Directional Wells Through a High-Density Cluster of Existing Wells. SPE
Drill Eng 5 (4): 291-293. SPE-17594-PA. DOI: 10.2118/17594-PA.