We present a procedure that uses nonlinear optimization theory to plan complex, three-dimensional well paths and path corrections while drilling. The problem of hitting a 3-D target is posed as seeking a profile that optimizes some well-defined objective function (the optimality criterion) subject to equality and inequality constraints. The well path is idealized to contain a finite combination of turn and straight sections. Operational restrictions translate into inequality constraints, and target restrictions translate into equality constraints. Several optimality criteria may be chosen, and appropriate choices are discussed. In this work, we choose optimization with respect to user preferred parameters as the criterion. The resulting nonlinear optimization problem is solved using a sequential gradient-restoration algorithm (SGRA), with scaling and optimal step-size selection. The optimization problem formulation and the solution procedure are described. The procedure is robust, efficient, and clearly superior to trial-and-error heuristic techniques that are commonly used to plan well paths today. A computer program based on this technique has been developed and successfully used. Two examples are included to illustrate the procedure. It is concluded that nonlinear optimization is a powerful and versatile mathematical tool that can be used for planning better, optimal well paths, and can be extended to several other drilling and production problems.

1.
Helmy, M. W., Khalaf, F., and Darwish, T., 1997, “Well Design Using Computer Model,” SPE Paper No. 37709, presented at SPE Middle East Oil Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain.
2.
Wu, H-C., Kuehn, J. L., Ziaja, M. B., and Patten, W. N., 1994, “Optimal Wellbore Planning for Deviated Wells,” presented at the ASME Energy Sources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX.
3.
Rudolf, R. L., Suryanarayana, P. V. R., McCann, R. C., and Rupani, R. A., 1998, “An Algorithm and a Program to Plan Optimal Horizontal Well Paths,” presented at the ASME Energy Sources Technology Conference and Exhibition, Houston, TX.
4.
American Petroleum Institute, 1985, “API D20: Bulletin on Directional Survey Calculation Methods and Terminology,” The American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
5.
Miele, A., Calabro, A., and Rossi, F., 1977, “The Prerestorative Step in the Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for Mathematical Programming Problems with Inequality Constraints,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 3, pp. 265–280.
6.
Gill, P. E., Murray, W., and Wright, M. H., 1981, Practical Optimization, Academic Press, New York, NY.
7.
Miele
,
A.
,
Huang
,
H. Y.
, and
Hiedeman
,
J. C.
,
1969
, “
Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for Minimization of Constrained Functions, Ordinary and Conjugate Gradient Versions
,”
J. Optim. Theory Appl.
,
4
, No.
4
, pp.
213
243
.
8.
Miele
,
A.
,
Bonardo
,
F.
, and
Gonzalez
,
S.
,
1979
, “
Modifications and Alternatives to the Cubic Interpolation Process for One-Dimensional Search
,”
The Arabian J. for Science and Engineering
,
4
, 1979, pp.
121
128
.
9.
Levy, A. V., and Guerra, V., 1976, “On The Optimization of Constrained Functions: Comparison of Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm and Gradient-Projection Algorithm,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 2, pp. 283–309.
10.
Huang
,
H. Y.
, and
Aggarwal
,
A. K.
,
1975
, “
A Class of Quadratically Convergent Algorithms for Constrained Function Minimization
,”
J. Optim. Theory Appl.
,
16
, Nos.
5/6
, pp.
447
485
.
11.
Miele
,
A.
,
Cragg
,
E. E.
,
Iyer
,
R. R.
, and
Levy
,
A. V.
,
1971
, “
Use of the Augmented Penalty Function in Mathematical Programming Problems, Part 1 & 2
,”
J. Optim. Theory Appl.
,
8
, No.
2
, pp.
115
153
.
12.
Gonzalez
,
S.
, and
Miele
,
A.
,
1978
, “
Sequential Gradient-Restoration Algorithm for Optimal Control Problems with General Boundary Conditions
,”
J. Optim. Theory Appl.
,
26
, No.
3
, pp.
395
425
.
You do not currently have access to this content.