Application Note
QEMSCAN® WellSite™ : on-shore field test in Papua New Guinea
Introduction
FEI, in collaboration with Halliburton and Oil Search Limited, field-tested the prototype of QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on oil rigs in the remote highlands of Papua New Guinea (PNG). QEMSCAN WellSite is an automated petrography solution applied at the well site as an advanced mudlogging service. The outcome demonstrates a mobile, ruggedized workflow solution, providing unprecedented near real-time data from drill cuttings used to support time-critical onsite decisions and the interpretation of downhole data.
BackgroundThis application note provides a detailed account of the Joint Development Project between FEI Company
(Hillsboro, Oregon), Halliburton (Houston, Texas), and Oil Search Limited (Sydney, Australia), testing the
QEMSCAN WellSite automated petrography solution on drilling platforms in the highlands of Papua New
Guinea (Figure 1). The remote site was chosen for the on-shore field test as a logistical and geological
challenge, being located in the inaccessible southern highlands within the complex, tectonically disturbed
siliciclastic stratigraphy of the Papuan foldbelt. The field test involved six months of on-site sample
preparations, measurements, and daily reporting for >1,000 sample intervals collected from three separate
wells, including: a gas injection well; a production well; and an exploration well.
FEI’s objectives for the field test were to assess the robustness and initial readiness of the newly developed
advanced mudlogging solution, and to understand how the system comprising a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) equipped with energy-dispersive spectrometers (EDS) operates in a challenging on-shore
environment. The field tests also provided FEI with experience for integrating QEMSCAN WellSite into an
existing surface logging workflow. Daily feedback and reports by a range of professional operators and all
stakeholders provided a solid foundation to optimize every step in the workflow; from sample preparation,
measurements, data processing, to data analysis and reporting.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 2
Halliburton’s objectives were to better understand the operational
requirements involved in running QEMSCAN WellSite by their
staff, and to assess the practical workflow in a 12-hour work shift
environment. Operation and basic servicing of the system in the field
was first performed by two, and subsequently by a single, Halliburton
Data Engineer.
Oil Search Limited wanted to improve their knowledge about the
intersected subsurface geology and potentially support time-critical
operational decisions.
Figure 1. Kutubu Oil Project located in the Papuan foldbelt of the Southern Highlands Province (indicated), ~550 km NW of the sealed roads of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. (Source: maps.google.com)
Logistics and EnvironmentBy any account, field testing the prototype of a QEMSCAN-powered
petrography solution in the remote jungle of PNG can be described
as a bold move. Petroleum wells in the Papuan foldbelt are among
the world’s most expensive land-based wells to drill because of the
logistical difficulties and costs involved in transporting equipment to
site. The remoteness of the location, and the lengthy custom clearance
procedures effectively limited FEI’s ability to send spare parts past
the initial shipment. The QEMSCAN WellSite solution was thoroughly
tested for ruggedness even before it arrived at site. The long transport
involved shipping by sea, land and air, and lasted for nearly two
months. Relocation between rig pads was achieved with the help of
a Bell helicopter and 4WD pickup trucks over steep, pot-hole ridden
tracks which could only be navigated in low gear (Figure 2).
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 3
Figure 2. QEMSCAN® WellSite™ system transported to rig locations by Bell helicopter and 4WD pickup trucks.
In addition to the logistical challenges, the tropical mountain climate
characterized by high humidity, heat, and daily torrential rains,
comprised another important operational test.
QEMSCAN WellSite was successfully set up in a range of existing
containers, none of which were equipped with air locks to keep out
moisture. Different setup configurations of the sample preparation
and system were tested, to better understand how the solution can
be fitted into an existing limited space (Figure 3). The daily working
environment was characterized by fluctuations in power, harsh climate,
intermittent air-conditioning, and alternatively dusty and muddy
ground surface.
WorkflowQEMSCAN WellSite is an integrated solution covering sample
preparation, measurement, data processing, data analysis, reporting,
and archiving. An important focus during the development and
field test was on providing a largely automated and easy to operate
workflow experience; from creating representative samples to
providing consistent, reliable cuttings data of unprecedented
detail. The workflow was extensively tested with the single longest
continuous run by Halliburton staff lasting for 34 days.
Figure 3. QEMSCAN® WellSite™ integration into existing container.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 4
thin layer of electro-conductive carbon, in order to prevent charging
under the electron beam (e-beam). In order to minimize time-to-data
in time-critical operations, the sample preparation process has been
designed to be applied to individual samples in the sequence they are
collected from the shakers. However, the most time-consuming step of
carbon coating can be performed in batches of up to six samples.
From cuttings collection to a measurement-ready sample block took
on average ~25 minutes (Figure 5). This provided enough time for the
operators to prepare, and in parallel set up, run, process, and report
measurements. During the 12-hour single operator shifts, Halliburton
staff prepared on average 25 samples per day. However, the Data
Engineers demonstrated that twice the number of sample blocks can
be prepared when processing a backlog of cutting samples from a
previous well during drilling downtime. Consumables per 100 prepared
samples include: <1 set of 500 ml bottles of epoxy; <10 re-usable plastic
sample moulds; and ~25 cm of carbon rod.
A number of challenges not present in the original laboratory
environment were faced and resolved successfully in the field. Instead
of dealing with oven-dried samples, the wet and clay-rich cuttings
had to be thoroughly dried within the existing time requirements in
order to be carbon-coated and loaded into the vacuum chamber of
the system. Rapid drying was achieved by placing the wet-screened
aliquots for ~2 min into a standard microwave. Further, the sectioning
of some sample blocks resulted in the dispersion of clay-rich particles
and significant plucking from the 2-D surfaces. By exchanging the
original water-based coolant for the cutting saw with diesel, this
problem could successfully be resolved. In some samples, size and
density segregation were observed as an artifact of the sample
preparation. Any impact of horizontal segregation on measurement
results was counted in the measurement setup by defining measured
surface segments equally covering the area from the center to the
perimeter of the block (Figure 6).
The overall onsite sample preparation workflow has been described by
surface loggers involved in the field test as a convenient and elegant
solution to sample handling and archiving. The measured blocks can
easily be stored and take up less space than conventional bags of dry
cuttings. If required, the resin-mounted cuttings can be re-measured
at a later time. The described onsite sample preparation presents a
major leap from the existing lab-based preparation procedure, which
typically takes up to two days and is optimized for the preparation of
large batches of samples.
Figure 4. 2-D surface of drill cuttings mounted in a resin block compared with the original sample collected from the shale shakers.
Sample Preparation
QEMSCAN WellSite sample preparation is different from conventional
and other advanced mudlogging sample preparation requirements.
Drill cuttings are measured in 2-D section in their original size and
shape as produced by the drill bit. As a result, there is no bias being
introduced by physical size fractionation or by reducing cuttings
to powder, as required for example by x-ray diffraction (XRD), x-ray
fluorescence (XRF), or laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS).
In the field test, cutting samples generated by a PDC drill bit were
collected from the shale shakers at regular drilling intervals ranging
from 3 to 10 m predefined by the drilling program. The samples were
wet-screened using 2 mm and 63 micron sieves, complying with the
sample preparation protocol of the conventional surface logging team
on site. A representative scoop of ~5 ml (~5 g of dry cuttings) was
collected from the ~200 g washed sample material spread over the
63 micron screen, placed onto a watch glass, and dried in a microwave.
The dry sample was added to fast-curing epoxy into a re-usable 30 mm
plastic mould, and placed into a planetary mixer. The solid resin block
was removed, labeled, and subsequently sectioned by a diamond saw.
As a result, sample aliquots are presented in the form of representative
2-D surfaces of randomly distributed cuttings mounted in resin
(Figure 4). In a final step, the surfaces were coated with a 25 nanometer
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 5
Figure 5. Schematic of sample preparation procedure indicating the individual steps and approximate times.
Measurement
Sample blocks can be loaded into the vacuum chamber and measured,
either one-by-one in the sequence of sample collection, or as batches
of up to six blocks. The QEMSCAN WellSite measurement parameters
and workflow have been optimized to minimize measurement times
without compromising mineral and textural identification, and the
overall measurement statistics. The following setup was consistently
applied to all measurements in the field test, targeting average
measurement times of ~30 min in order to provide time-critical data
within an hour from sample collection (Table 1).
Parameter Value Comment
frame size 2,000 µm equivalent to maximum cuttings size
number of frames 61 half a block (semi-circle)
e-beam voltage 20 keV optimal for heavy and clay mineral identification
e-beam current 7 nA providing maximum EDX count rate
total x-ray count 1,000 providing reliable mineral identification
e-beam stepping interval 20 µm providing sufficient textural resolution
mineral identification O&G v3.3 new QEMSCAN® Spectral Analysis Engine
Table 1: Summary of instrument setup and measurement parametersFigure 6. Image of half a block measurement.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 6
Figure 7. Schematic of automated QEMSCAN® measurement.
Figure 8. Primary Mineral List of phases identified in drill cuttings from siliciclastic reservoirs.
The e-beam stepping interval defines the spatial resolution and
thereby pixel size of the image. Sample surfaces were measured
as semi-circles of 61 frames, each 2 mm wide and mapped at a 20
microns stepping interval, providing both sufficient textural detail
(Figure 6) and overall robust measurement statistics. The total
x-ray count defines the number of x-ray photons collected at each
measurement point to build up the energy-dispersive x-ray (EDX)
spectrum used to determine the chemical composition (Figure 7).
QEMSCAN automatically discriminates between resin (background)
and sample, and skips the analysis of areas identified as background.
QEMSCAN WellSite mineral identification is based on an x-ray count
of 1,000 photons, which has been demonstrated to provide ultra-fast
(~200 points/sec) and reliable mineral identification.
The mineral identification protocol for QEMSCAN WellSite is based
on the latest QEMSCAN Spectral Analysis Engine (SAE) element
concentration approach. A custom Species Identification Protocol
(SIP) was developed for the application of drill cuttings in siliciclastic
sequences. The O&G _v3.3 SIP is capable of accurately discriminating
>30 mineral groups, including: clay minerals and micas such as
kaolinite, smectites, chlorite, illite and glauconite; solid solution series
of feldspars; and trace minerals such as pyrite, rutile and zircon.
All mineral definitions are based on elemental ranges and ratios,
backscatter electron brightness (BSE) thresholds, and take into account
the challenging sampling environment characterized by contamination
from oil and drilling fluid additives, i.e. potassium chloride and barite
(Figure 8).
The average measurement time in the field test was ~35 minutes,
ranging from ~25–45 min depending on the packing density of the
sample. Measurements could keep up with the general drilling speed,
resulting in an average of 23 measurements per day. The average
raw data generated per single sample interval is based on >300,000
spectra, collected on >2,000 genuine drill cuttings.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 7
During the field test, the application team faced some operational
challenges which could all be resolved onsite without requiring
additional tools or spares. On arrival, the unit was dropped off from
a helicopter, resulting in the shearing of the heavy penning gauge
from the vacuum chamber. As a workaround, the broken pipe was
plugged with a plastic cone. The automated measurement start had
to be set to a fixed 2 min pump-down period. While this increased
the overhead on measurement times slightly, measurement results
remained unaffected. Fluctuations in the power supply in one of
the workshops areas caused intermittent carbon coating interlocks
and e-beam instability. On the rig sites, power supply proved stable
enough for trouble-free 24/7 operation. The initially targeted average
measurement time of ~30 min was slightly exceeded, mainly due
to the unexpected large presence of fines in some intervals which
translated in an increase in measurement points.
In contrast to existing lab-based QEMSCAN systems, setup and
calibration of QEMSCAN WellSite is fully automated. Measurements
are started via a software interface developed to provide a single-click
solution to system calibration; including e-beam alignment, BSE, EDS
and SAE calibration. In the field test, all measurements and routine
maintenance were successfully performed by Halliburton staff without
advanced SEM training. Maintenance included changing the tungsten
filament, which took <5 minutes.
Data Processing
The measurement raw data are subsequently processed by offline
software. The data processing can be separated into: 1) image-based
operations performed on the stitched image of the measurement
area; and 2) particle-based operations classifying individual particles
into similar categories. Both processing capabilities are unique to
QEMSCAN data and are here demonstrated to increase the significance
and value of the generated cuttings data.
Despite wet-screening, most drilling intervals showed considerable
contamination with drilling mud. Contamination by fines attached to
cuttings was effectively removed by applying a set of “digital screens”
to the raw data, including: image-based field stitching; touching
particle separation; size filter; and a boundary phase processor.
Some sample intervals were characterized by significant contributions
of BARACARB®, an engineered ground marble added to the drilling
mud as a borehole strengthening treatment to prevent fluid loss,
and by swarf generation from the drill string. QEMSCAN’s ability to
perform particle-by-particle classification was used to apply a set of
“contextual screens”, separating additives from cuttings (Figure 9). As
a result, data could be generated from genuine cuttings originating
from the drilled rock formation (Figure 10). Each data processing step,
including digital and contextual screening, is documented in the
metadata and fully reversible.
Figure 9. Classification rules applied to resolve similar particles such as: swarf (contaminants) from iron-oxide/siderite cemented clasts (cuttings) in top row; BARACARB® crushed marble (additives) from calcite-cemented clasts (cuttings) in bottom row.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 8
Figure 11. Image of drill cuttings sorted into 10 lithology classes.
Figure 10. Contaminated sample demonstrating the impact of digital and contextual screening improving the relevancy of the reported data: wet-screened sample as measured (left); digitally screened sample (center); contextually screened sample (right).
QEMSCAN particle classification was then applied to sort the genuine
drill cuttings into lithology classes defined by shared mineral
composition and textural attributes. Cuttings classification is an
interactive, data-driven approach, by developing a protocol that sorts
the present mix of cuttings encountered within the sample interval
into discrete, meaningful lithology categories. Cuttings classes provide
a snapshot of the subsurface lithology, and take full account of the
regional basin geology, drilling practice, and any other information
requirement defined by the well-site geologist (Figure 11). Lithology
classes were identified by Oil Search Limited as carriers of potentially
valuable information, which has not been previously applied to the
onsite interpretation of changes in the subsurface geology, and the
calibration of downhole data.
calc-cmt-crs-qtz ark-crs-qtz cl-crs-qtz crs-qtz calc-cmt-si cl-si si calc-cl cl cmt uclass
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 9
In terms of time-to-data, the full set of detailed reports on mineral and
lithology composition, including percentage cuttings return, average
cuttings and grain size trends, the presence of tracer minerals, clay
typing, and calculated matrix density, were all made available within
~1 hour from sample collection at the shakers, if not run in batches of
six samples. QEMSCAN log data could be updated every 40 mins, once
a sample has been measured and the data fully processed.
Results and Data ApplicationsOver the duration of the field test, more than 1,000 samples were
collected, prepared and measured. The most continuous sampling
sequence comprises 728 samples collected in 34 days from a single
well. The following results are excerpts from this dataset, including
~200 million individual spectra from 1 million genuine cuttings.
QEMCAN data are unique in that images, more specifically individual
compositional maps of cuttings, form the basis for all numerical and
graphical reports. QEMSCAN reports can be generated for any selected
sample interval, lithology class, or even individual cuttings. For this
application note, drilling depth sections defined by the drill bit size
were selected as the basis for reporting results.
From particles to genuine cuttings
The first level of information provided by QEMCAN WellSite includes
reports on the overall composition of particles within a sample
sequence. In addition to drill cuttings, these can include cavings, swarf,
additives, and casing cement. Reports include the percentage return
of cuttings and their average size and shape, identified by Oil Search
Limited as an independent measure of the drill bit performance, in-situ
stress fields, and borehole condition. In the given example, a well
section is presented in which BARACARB additives make a significant
contribution to overall sample composition (Figure 12).
From cuttings to lithology classes
The second level of information includes reports on the composition
of representative drill cuttings within a sample sequence. In the given
example, the removal of contaminants by digital and contextual
screening is shown to have a significant impact on the modal
mineralogy. The reported mineral stratigraphy on genuine cuttings
is demonstrated to be more relevant and sensitive to changes in the
subsurface lithology than the whole sample composition (Figure 13).
Oil Search Limited was particularly interested in reports quantifying
the mineralogy of clays; discriminating swelling (e.g. smectites) from
non-swelling (e.g. chlorite), and radioactive (e.g. illite) from non-
radioactive (kaolinite) clay minerals. In addition, the presence of trace
phases such as pyrite, apatite, heavy minerals and tracer minerals
were monitored for downhole data calibration and well correlation
Figure 12. Percentage return of cuttings and particles of swarf and solid drilling fluid additives, showing a significant but varying contribution of BARACARB® additives.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 10
Figure 13. Comparison of modal mineralogy results for: wet-screened raw data (left); digitally screened data (center); and, final contextually screened data reporting on genuine cuttings (right). Independently determined geological formation tops are indicated by horizontal red lines.
purposes. In addition to the mineralogy, average mineral grain sizes
were reported as equivalent sphere diameters. In the field test, quartz
grain sizes were plotted as an independent means to highlight fining
and coarsening trends in the siliciclastic sequence. The cuttings matrix
density calculated from mineral reference data was reported and
compared to downhole bulk density values. As discussed in the data
processing paragraph, drill cuttings were sorted into discrete lithology
classes based on similar mineral composition and textural attributes.
In the given example, the modal mineralogy log for a well section
is compared with the lithology log for the same sample interval,
highlighting the additional contextual detail provided by the lithology
classes (Figure 14).
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 11
Figure 14. Comparison between fully processed modal mineralogy log (left) and lithology log (right). Geological formation tops for the selected sequence of sample intervals are indicated by horizontal red lines.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 12
Figure 15. Property sheet for lithology class ‘cl’ (clay) based on combined well cuttings. This cuttings class comprises illite-rich claystone cuttings.
MapView petrographic image for each sample
MinLog modal mineralogy (volume or mass %) for selected sample sequence, including clay mineral, feldspars, heavy and trace mineral quantification
LithoView cuttings images for defined lithology classes
LithoLog lithology classes contributions (volume or mass %) for selected sample sequence
DensityLog calculated matrix density for selected sample sequence
SizeLog average quartz grain size (or cuttings size) for selected sample sequence
LithoMin modal mineralogy (volume or mass %) for selected lithology classes
LithoProp lithology class properties for selected sample sequence
LithoQtzGSD average quartz grain-size distribution for selected lithology classes
Return percentage return (volume or mass %) of drill cuttings and contaminants/additives for selected sample sequence
Stats measurement statistics for selected sample sequence
From lithologies to rock properties
The third level of information provided by QEMSCAN WellSite includes
detailed reports on the composition and texture of cuttings within
individual lithology classes. Lithology-based reports in this field test
include the average modal mineralogy, quartz grain size distribution,
average cuttings and quartz grain sizes, matrix density, and the total
number and volume contribution of classified cuttings for selected
sample intervals. Here, one of ten basin-specific lithology class reports
corresponding to claystone is presented as an example (Figure 15).
As a result of discussions between FEI Application Scientists,
Halliburton Data Engineers, and Oil Search Limited Geologists and
Petrophysicists, a set of eleven report templates was developed in
order to provide consistency in data reporting in the field test.
This set of reports can easily be adapted and expanded to meet
individual reporting requirements:
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 13
From properties to integrated logs
Selected QEMSCAN WellSite data were exported as numerical log
data and imported into Oilfield Data Manager (ODM™), a third party
integration and interpretation software designed to store, manage,
and interpret geological well data. Within ODM, QEMSCAN data
were juxtaposed with data from selected downhole measurements,
including: rate of penetration; gamma radiation; caliper; bulk density;
resistivity (not displayed); and neutron porosity logs (Figure 16). The
example from the integrated log highlights aspects of the added
information obtained by QEMSCAN WellSite data.
Quantification of hydrous micas, such as glauconite, supports
the interpretation of the neutron porosity log, by calibrating the
inferred clay reading, and the interpretation of the resistivity
logs, by calibrating the inferred formation water content. Volume
contributions of alkali feldspars, as well as non-radioactive clays
(kaolinite), support the interpretation of the gamma-ray log response.
The interpretation of resistivity logs is supported by showing the
presence or absence of pyrite and clay grain coatings. Quantitative
QEMSCAN clay typing further assists in interpreting changes in the
rate of penetration of the drill bit and in the borehole diameter, by
discriminating swelling (smectites) from non-swelling clays (e.g. illite).
In the given example, the Alene Member is characterized by a sudden
increase in smectites and intervals with high glauconite content.
Identification of clays and clay types also assisted in the deterministic
petrophysical interpretation of the drilled intervals, particularly with
respect to the volume of clay parameter. It is anticipated that the
mineral identification information which has been extracted from
the QEMSCAN data will assist in the derivation of a more accurate
multi-mineral model for usage in an optimal solution petrophysical
interpretation.
The QEMSCAN lithology log corresponds well to the geological
formation tops. Intervals characterized by claystone, siltstone and
sandstone are clearly distinguished. In the given example, siltstone of
the Juha Member is identified and discriminated from the sandstone
reservoir intervals of the Toro Formation, despite overall similar
mineralogy. The lithology log also provides detailed information
on lithology associations with carbonate cementation. Here, calcite
cementation in claystone of the Bawia Member is contrasted with
calcite cementation in siltstone of the Basal Juha Sands. The individual
members of the Toro Formation are clearly identified as sandstone
intervals, separated by an increase in clay-rich siltstone. QEMSCAN
data integration with downhole data shows considerable potential, but
is still at an early stage. Using the ODM software, different logs can
be designed to highlight specific correlations, such as clay mineralogy
with gamma-ray log.
QEMSCAN WellSite log data were also compared with the original
Formation Evaluation Log provided by the onsite surface loggers
(Figure 16). Overall, the QEMSCAN lithology log compares well with the
conventional classification of cuttings into sand-, silt-, and claystone
based on optical microscopy observations. Discrepancies in the
amount of sand-, silt-, and claystone reported in the two logs can be
partly explained by the written remarks in the Formation Evaluation
Log, where inferences are made about contamination. The dominant
lithology reported in the Formation Evaluation Log generally has
a stronger presence than reported in the QEMSCAN lithology log.
This suggests differences between qualitative lithology descriptions
and consistent quantitative QEMSCAN lithology classification.
The comparison also highlights the limited ability of conventional
mud logging to describe the clay mineralogy, presence of genuine
carbonate cementation, and the type of feldspars, all of which are
combined in remarks.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 14
Figure 16. Integrated ODM™ log juxtaposing QEMSCAN® data with selected downhole data and the original Formation Evaluation Log including written remarks by the mud loggers, the conventional cuttings log, as well as the final interpreted lithology log by the well-site geologist.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
Page 15
Figure 16. Continued from previous page.
ConclusionsSuccessful operation of QEMSCAN WellSite in the challenging on-shore
rig environment in the highlands of Papua New Guinea demonstrated
the ruggedness of the mobile system and the sample preparation
equipment. All operational challenges were resolved on site without
requiring shipment of additional consumables, tools or spare parts.
QEMSCAN WellSite was successfully integrated into 12-hour work shift
surface logging operations by Halliburton staff. Sample collection,
preparation and measurement could keep up with the drilling
speed. During rig relocation, QEMSCAN WellSite was moved to the
Halliburton workshop area and operated to measure selected samples
at higher resolution and cuttings samples from a previous well in batch
mode (Figure 17).
The field test demonstrated the ability to report near real-time data
which can be used to support time-critical on-site decisions and
downhole data interpretation. Single sample reports were on average
based on >2,000 genuine cuttings. The field test also demonstrated
that the digital removal of contaminants in addition to the wet-
screening routinely performed by surface loggers can provide
relevant data on the subsurface geology. QEMSCAN data processing
successfully separated genuine drill cuttings from contaminants and
drilling fluid additives. The drill cuttings were further sorted into
lithology classes.
A comparison of QEMSCAN lithology log data with downhole
instrument data and conventional cuttings descriptions shows good
alignment between geological formation tops. The detail provided on
clay mineralogy, feldspars, and lithology associations with carbonates
is unprecedented and was used to improve the interpretation of
the downhole data, in particular the gamma-ray and resistivity
log responses. All QEMSCAN data are linked to micron-scale color-
coded mineral maps of cuttings, making data interpretation readily
accessible to a range of well-site professionals, including geologists,
petrophysicists, drillers and engineers.
World HeadquartersPhone: +1.503.726.7500
FEI Europe Phone: +31.40.23.56000
FEI Japan Phone: +81.3.3740.0970
FEI Asia Phone: +65.6272.0050
FEI Australia Phone: +61.7.3512.9100
© 2011. We are constantly improving the performance of our products, so all specifications are subject to change without notice. QEMSCAN, WellSite and the FEI logo are trademarks of FEI Company, and FEI is a registered trademark of FEI Company. All other trademarks belong to their respective owners. AN0000 09-2011
fei-natural-resources.com
TÜV Certification for design, manufacture, installation and support of focused ion- and electron-beam microscopes for the Electronics, Life Sciences, Research and Natural Resources markets.
Application Note QEMSCAN® WellSite™ on-shore
David Haberlah is a Senior Applications Scientist
for automated petrography solutions at FEI Natural
Resources in Brisbane, Australia. He graduated
with an MSc in Physical Geography from the Free
University of Berlin in 2004 and obtained his PhD in
Geology in 2009 at the University of Adelaide. From 2009 to 2010, he
held a research fellow position within CO2CRC at the Australian School
of Petroleum. David joined FEI in late 2010, and supported application
development in the Papua New Guinea field test by helping to develop
the mineral identification and cuttings classification protocols, digital
and contextual screens, and adjustments to the sample preparation
workflow.
Mike Garrick is a Data Engineer with Halliburton in
the North Sea. He graduated with a BSc in Geology
from the University of Portsmouth in 2005, where
he specialized in Structural Geology. He started
working for Halliburton on various rigs as a Surface
Logger in late 2006, and was promoted to Unit Manager. Showing
a keen interesting in the development of advanced mudlogging
solutions, he was asked in November 2010 to assist in the field test of
the QEMSCAN WellSite solution in Papua New Guinea.
About the authors
Figure 17. PDC cuttings measured at 2 micron spatial resolution showing carbonate fossils (light blue) embedded within illite-rich claystone cuttings (green).