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. Background
This 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. FEIs 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

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 Environment

Halliburtons 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. By 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 worlds 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 FEIs 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).

Page 2

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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.

Workflow
QEMSCAN 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. Page 3

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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.
Figure 4. 2-D surface of drill cuttings mounted in a resin block compared with the original sample collected from the shale shakers.

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.

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

Page 4

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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
frame size number of frames e-beam voltage e-beam current total x-ray count e-beam stepping interval mineral identification Figure 6. Image of half a block measurement.

Value

Comment

2,000 m equivalent to maximum cuttings size 61 20 keV 7 nA 1,000 20 m half a block (semi-circle) optimal for heavy and clay mineral identification providing maximum EDX count rate providing reliable mineral identification providing sufficient textural resolution

O&G v3.3 new QEMSCAN Spectral Analysis Engine

Table 1: Summary of instrument setup and measurement parameters

Page 5

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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 ~2545 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.

Figure 7. Schematic of automated QEMSCAN measurement.

Figure 8. Primary Mineral List of phases identified in drill cuttings from siliciclastic reservoirs.

Page 6

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

Data Processing 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. 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. QEMSCANs 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.

Page 7

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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
calc-cmt-crs-qtz ark-crs-qtz cl-crs-qtz crs-qtz calc-cmt-si cl-si

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.

si

calc-cl

cl

cmt

uclass

Figure 11. Image of drill cuttings sorted into 10 lithology classes.

Page 8

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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 Applications

Over 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
Figure 12. Percentage return of cuttings and particles of swarf and solid drilling fluid additives, showing a significant but varying contribution of BARACARB additives.

the mineralogy of clays; discriminating swelling (e.g. smectites) from non-swelling (e.g. chlorite), and radioactive (e.g. illite) from nonradioactive (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

Page 9

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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).

Page 10

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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.

Page 11

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

Figure 15. Property sheet for lithology class cl (clay) based on combined well cuttings. This cuttings class comprises illite-rich claystone cuttings.

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:
LithoProp LithoMin LithoView LithoLog DensityLog SizeLog MapView MinLog petrographic image for each sample modal mineralogy (volume or mass %) for selected sample sequence, including clay mineral, feldspars, heavy and trace mineral quantification cuttings images for defined lithology classes lithology classes contributions (volume or mass %) for selected sample sequence calculated matrix density for selected sample sequence average quartz grain size (or cuttings size) for selected sample sequence modal mineralogy (volume or mass %) for selected lithology classes 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 measurement statistics for selected sample sequence

Stats Page 12

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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.

Page 13

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

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.

Page 14

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

Figure 16. Continued from previous page.

Conclusions
Successful 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 wetscreening 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 colorcoded mineral maps of cuttings, making data interpretation readily accessible to a range of well-site professionals, including geologists, petrophysicists, drillers and engineers.

Page 15

Application Note QEMSCAN WellSite on-shore

Figure 17. PDC cuttings measured at 2 micron spatial resolution showing carbonate fossils (light blue) embedded within illite-rich claystone cuttings (green).

About the authors

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.

fei-natural-resources.com World Headquarters Phone: +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

TV Certification for design, manufacture, installation and support of focused ion- and electron-beam microscopes for the Electronics, Life Sciences, Research and Natural Resources markets.

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