Skip to content
Explore Demo
Menu

Engineering Validation

Blind Validation Against Withheld Known Bottom-Hole Locations

DirectionalPlan survey corrections were evaluated using simulated wells where the raw survey data and well headers were provided first, and the simulated true bottom-hole locations were reviewed only after the correction had already been calculated.

That makes this a meaningful blind-position test: the engine was asked to correct the survey from the measurements alone, then the resulting bottom-hole position was compared against the withheld simulated truth.

See Blind Test Results How the Correction Works
Beta notice: Survey Corrections remains a beta feature. These results are intended to demonstrate engineering validation methodology and should not replace independent review for operational or final well-positioning decisions.
80 Wells Ten documented simulated known-position test sets
73 of 80 Corrected BHLs closer to simulated truth
75.6 → 45.0 m Mean raw-to-corrected 3D position error, using the sign-reviewed reference reconstruction
10 of 10 PASS All 10 of the eight-well batches met their reported acceptance criteria

Blind Validation Method

Blind Testing Against Known Bottom-Hole Positions

The correction solver did not use the simulated true bottom-hole location to produce the corrected survey. The true BHL was only examined after the corrected position was already calculated.

What this demonstrates

DirectionalPlan took the supplied raw survey data and well header information, calculated a corrected survey, and then checked whether the corrected bottom-hole location moved closer to the independently generated simulated truth.

This is the kind of evidence that helps build trust because it evaluates the final engineering outcome — improved well position — instead of only comparing intermediate calculation steps.

The comparisons below examine independently produced correction results alongside DirectionalPlan outputs. Known-position accuracy and agreement between correction providers are reported as separate engineering evaluations.

Commercial Engineering Cross-Checks

DirectionalPlan Compared with MagVAR and SuperiorQC

Independently calculated corrected survey positions were compared using common wellpaths and matching final measured depths. Differences are measured in three dimensions using Northing, Easting, and TVD.

7 Wells

Matched DirectionalPlan and MagVAR corrected positions.

29.0 ft

Mean three-dimensional BHL separation.

33.9 ft

Median three-dimensional BHL separation.

Corrected BHL Separation by Well

Seven matched commercial survey datasets. Scale: 0–80 U.S. survey feet. Smaller values indicate closer agreement.

01
8.15 ft
02
3.85 ft
03
8.04 ft
04
77.01 ft
05
34.86 ft
06
36.96 ft
07
33.87 ft

Paired Numerical Results

Case Final MD (ft) Raw BHL Difference (ft) Corrected BHL Difference (ft)
01 22,188 0.19 8.15
02 22,136 0.10 3.85
03 19,834 1.11 8.04
04 18,159 1.34 77.01
05 21,110 0.17 34.86
06 27,809 0.34 36.96
07 22,933 1.85 33.87

The raw-position differences show agreement between the two original survey reconstructions. Corrected-position differences reflect independently applied processing methods and are not measurements against a known true wellbore position.

Known-Position Comparison

DirectionalPlan vs. SuperiorQC

Eight simulated well cases were evaluated against known bottom-hole positions using DirectionalPlan and a supplied SuperiorQC comparison dataset.

Each value represents the three-dimensional distance between the corrected BHL and the simulated true BHL. Lower values indicate better positional agreement with simulated truth.

22.68

DirectionalPlan mean 3D error (source units)

24.87

SuperiorQC mean 3D error (source units)

8 Cases

DirectionalPlan closer in 2 cases; SuperiorQC closer in 6 cases.

Corrected BHL Error Against Simulated Truth

DirectionalPlan SuperiorQC

Eight anonymized simulated wells. Blue bars represent DirectionalPlan; green bars represent SuperiorQC. Scale: 0–80 source coordinate units.

S01
15.3 / 8.1
S02
2.9 / 1.9
S03
23.7 / 12.5
S04
39.1 / 26.1
S05
42.2 / 74.2
S06
29.8 / 20.9
S07
2.7 / 35.0
S08
25.8 / 20.2

Eight-Well Comparison Results

Case Azimuth DirectionalPlan Error SuperiorQC Error Closer to Truth
S01 0° 15.31 8.11 SuperiorQC
S02 0° 2.86 1.94 SuperiorQC
S03 30° 23.67 12.46 SuperiorQC
S04 30° 39.06 26.08 SuperiorQC
S05 60° 42.24 74.18 DirectionalPlan
S06 60° 29.81 20.92 SuperiorQC
S07 90° 2.66 35.00 DirectionalPlan
S08 90° 25.83 20.23 SuperiorQC

These eight historical simulated cases are separate from the 80-well blind-validation cohort shown above. The numerical comparison uses the supplied recorded errors. The original source units and prediction-freeze sequence for this separate dataset have not been independently confirmed.

Three-Way Case Study

One Well, Three Independent Corrections

A single well was processed using DirectionalPlan, MagVAR, and SuperiorQC corrected survey methods. The resulting final-position differences provide a direct comparison of the three calculations.

14.39 ft

DirectionalPlan vs. SuperiorQC

33.87 ft

DirectionalPlan vs. MagVAR

44.57 ft

MagVAR vs. SuperiorQC

Anonymized actual well comparison showing estimated corrected two-sigma uncertainty ellipses from DirectionalPlan, MagVAR, and SuperiorQC, with each ellipse centered on its calculated corrected BHL.
Three-way engineering comparison using actual field well survey data. Well identity has been omitted for privacy. Corrected bottom-hole positions are taken from the corresponding reports. Ellipse sizes and alignment are approximate, based on the available figures and represented at a common 2σ level.

Three-way case study: final MD 22,933 ft US. The supplied SuperiorQC report was generated in a non-production environment and is marked not definitive. Processing methods differ, including SAG and FDIR handling. These comparisons do not establish which corrected position is closest to actual wellbore truth.

Commercial provider names identify the origins of the reference calculations. No certification, partnership, or endorsement by those providers is implied. Original third-party survey deliverables are not reproduced on this page.

Correction Method

How DirectionalPlan Calculates the Corrected Survey

The technical guide describes a physics-based correction workflow. The correction is calculated from the measurements and references — not by forcing the survey to a desired bottom-hole location.

01

Reference QA

Total magnetic field, dip, declination, gravity, and grid convergence are checked against the survey location and date before correction is accepted.

02

Physical Error Solving

The engine evaluates plausible sensor and reference error combinations using the gravity and magnetic measurements recorded through the survey run.

03

Recomputed Well Position

Supported corrections are applied to recompute inclination, azimuth, and the resulting trajectory by minimum curvature.

04

Uncertainty Remains Separate

Positional uncertainty is still an engineering estimate. A corrected survey may become more plausible without claiming certainty beyond what the data supports.

05

Cross-Checked Internally

DirectionalPlan has also been reviewed against dozens of independently corrected survey deliverables from established providers. Those files are used as internal engineering cross-checks and are not republished here because they are proprietary.

06

Trust Through Disclosure

This page includes blind-test improvements and regressions, numerical comparisons with commercial correction results, uncertainty-model limitations, and the beta status of the feature.

What This Evidence Means

What This Page Establishes — and What It Does Not

This page does establish

  • DirectionalPlan can move calculated BHL positions closer to simulated truth in blind tests.
  • The correction is based on survey measurements and engineering references, not a known target answer.
  • The product is being validated with transparent, inspectable engineering evidence.

This page does not establish

  • Independent certification by a third-party correction provider.
  • A guarantee that every survey correction will improve every well.
  • A substitute for engineering review before operational or final well-positioning decisions.
Open Survey Corrections → Back to Survey Corrections Overview