SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005
ADVANCES IN CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF HYDROCARBON
GASES IN DRILLING FLUIDS – THE APPLICATION OF SEMI-
PERMEABLE MEMBRANE TECHNOLOGY TO HIGH SPEED TCD GAS
CHROMATOGRAPHY
Aurel Brumboiu1, David Hawker1, Darrell Norquay1.and Douglas Law2
(1) Datalog Technology Inc, Canada, (2) Datalog Technology Ltd, United Kingdom
Copyright 2005, held jointly by the Society of Petrophysicists and
Well Log Analysts (SPWLA) and the submitting authors.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPWLA 46th Annual
Logging Symposium held in New Orleans, Louisiana, United States,
June 26-29, 2005.
ABSTRACT
The rapid analysis of hydrocarbon gases present in
drilling fluids has the potential to bring about significant
benefits in terms of drilling efficiencies, whether
through reliable determination of fluid contacts or as a
geo-steering tool. However, it is only with recent
advances in gas detection technology that the true worth
of such analysis can be fully utilised. The application of
mud gas analysis to reservoir characterisation and
formation evaluation has long been hampered by poor
gas extraction techniques and Chromatographs
providing limited temporal and spectral resolution.
In order to improve detection capabilities, researchers
have looked to developing rather than avoiding the
weak link in the gas extraction/analysis chain – the gas
trap. Yet it’s use still precludes the evaluation of actual
gas in mud, due to the recurring problems of gas trap
loading, the variability in efficiency according to mud
type and the sampling of ambient gases, providing
analysis of gas in air rather than gas in mud. Where
such issues have been minimised, the divorcing of the
point of extraction from the point of analysis and the
subsequent lag times which are incurred, create further
problems in terms of real-time capabilities.
This paper details the combination of two techniques,
which have been developed to enhance the accuracy,
repeatability and resolution of gas detection at wellsite.
The result of this development is a tool, which provides
a full chromatographic breakdown of free and dissolved
Hydrocarbon gases from Methane (C1) to Octane (C8),
along with aromatics (Benzene & Toluene), sour gases
(H2S & CO2) and Nitrogen. The system provides a
direct gas in mud analysis at the point of extraction, by
utilising a semi-permeable membrane probe, coupled
with the latest in high-speed TCD Chromatography.
1
The extraction of hydrocarbon gases through a gas
permeable membrane was first applied to drilling fluid
gas analysis by Brumboiu et al 2000. Whilst it’s
application at the time was limited to total gas detection,
it has proven that the principle is both reliable and
rugged enough for wellsite deployment. Experimental
and field data show the potential of the tool in fast,
heavy gas spectrum analysis with the accompanying
benefits of improved fluid contact determination,
reservoir characterisation and geo-steering. With
excellent separation of all component peaks and elution
times, which bring full analysis, incorporating C1-C8,
aromatics and non-hydrocarbon gases, within 50 s.
This combination of membrane technology and TCD
chromatography presents a significant advance in the
real-time characterisation of hydrocarbon bearing zones.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years we have witnessed renewed interest in
surface monitoring of mud gases, on the part of both
service companies and operators. There are two clear
reasons for this development; technological
improvements in gas detection (Breviere et al, 2002;
Brumboiu et al, 2000) spearheaded by Mudlogging
service companies and on the part of the operators, a
greater focus on the cost savings and added value
provided by surface monitoring. Whilst traditional
LWD tools have long been at the forefront of real-time
reservoir evaluation and geo-steering applications, other
more cost effective solutions are being considered, such
as LWT (Logging whilst tripping).
Problems associated with current extraction
techniques: Only now is mud gas evaluation
beginning to fulfil it’s potential, owing to the
recognition that the simple agitation method of gas
extraction is wholly inadequate for extending the range
of gas components analysed. The areas in which the
standard gas trap falls short are:
WWW
• Inefficient extraction of gas, proportional to
it’s solubility, resulting in skewed component
ratios.
SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005
• Variable ambient conditions, such as mud
temperature, fluid levels and positioning in
flow, resulting in varying extraction efficiency.
• Gas loading; whereby gas accumulates in the
trap, resulting in abnormally high levels of gas.
• Gas dilution; air is drawn into the trap. This
also negates the measurement of non-
hydrocarbon gases such as CO2 and N2.
• Poor response times, owing to distance
between trap and analytical equipment.
The introduction of the GRI Texaco Gas trap (Wright et
al, 1993), brought improvements in extraction efficiency
and developed the idea of standardising the process in
order to aid mud gas quantification in terms of it’s
relationship with the reservoir fluids. Whilst subsequent
derivatives have led to steady improvements, the
fundamentals of the design have remained, along with
its shortcomings. Perhaps the only successful derivation
of the gas trap agitator has been seen in the application
of constant volume sampling, sample heating and
controlled conditions within the sample lines. The
action of pre-heating the mud prior to agitation is seen
to result in improved extraction efficiencies of between
1.2 to 45 times, C1 to nC5, against a standard trap
operating in Water Based Mud (WBM) (Breviere et al,
2002). However, there seems little evidence to suggest
that this is anymore quantifiable in correlating surface
measurements with actual gas in mud values and thus
reservoir fluid composition. The reason being that
whilst air is utilised as the carrier gas between trap and
analyser, the probability of contamination cannot be
ignored. Accounting for the composition of air to allow
the measurement of such components as CO2, opens up
the process to error unless the carrier gas is of a known
and certified component mix.
Gas Analysis at Wellsite: The introduction of portable
GCMS (gas chromatograph coupled with mass
spectrometer) and QMS (Quadropole Mass
Spectrometer) gas analysers, has led many service
companies to report ever-falling gas sampling times and
so greater resolution. This apparent technological
advance is masked by the previous reliance upon slower
FID chromatography. The GCMS attempts to
circumvent the FID’s known shortcomings. These
being C1/C2 separation, an inability to determine non-
hydrocarbon components and long elution times. The
faster elution times now offered, have allowed the
analysis of heavier gas components beyond C5. For
GCMS, analysis up to C8 is now possible within 90 to
120 s (Breviere et al, 2002), this is also true for QMS
(Manufacturers claims, FIT USA). The use of Micro-
GC TCD chromatography (Thermal Combustion
2
Detector) demonstrated that faster elution times were
possible with advanced chromatography alone,
achieving C1 to C5 in 30 seconds.
Yet despite these advances in gas analysis, the majority
of systems are still reliant on an agitator gas trap,
whether constant volume, floating or otherwise.
The development of a technique, which avoids
mechanical extraction, is presented here as a significant
advancement in the analysis of reservoir fluids from
mud gases. The combination of semi-permeable
membrane gas extraction and high speed TCD
chromatography, is shown to not only result in much
faster elution times, greater extraction efficiencies and
negligible transit times, but more importantly provide a
wholly quantifiable means of assessing mud gases.
Behaviour of gases in fluids: In a mixture of
gases, the pressure (Pi) each gas exerts is the same as
that which it would exert if it alone occupied the
container, according to Dalton’s Law of Partial
Pressures. Similarly, the partial pressure of each gas
component within a mix is equal to its quantitative
concentration (Qi) within the mix.
In determining the relative concentrations of gases
within drilling fluids, the same basic principal applies.
In a fluid the amount of gas dissolved therein is directly
proportional to the partial pressure of the gas above the
fluid (Eq. 1, where K is a constant):
Qi = KiPi or Pi = Qi / Ki ….….………Eq.1
The solubility of hydrocarbon gases in any given liquid
is proportional to the number of C-H bonds in the
hydrocarbon molecule. It is also true that the solubility
will vary according to the fluid, such that water has a
lower solubility for light hydrocarbons than oil.
Brumboiu et al (2000) demonstrated the effect of this
upon the ratio of gas components measured out of
solution (Eq. 2). Whereby, for an equal mix of two
components dissolved in water, the gas mix above the
water surface would represent a ratio of K2:K1, in favour
of the lighter component.
P1 / P2 = (Q1 / K1) / (Q2 / K2) ………Eq.2
This demonstrates the importance of considering the
solubility of the individual hydrocarbon components
within the drilling fluid, when looking to infer the
relevant ratios in the formation fluids themselves. In
practice, this is rarely considered as part of the standard
mud gas analysis undertaken at wellsite.
 SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005

MEMBRANE EXTRACTION COUPLED WITH has proven to be more robust. The increase in surface
MICRO-GC ANALYSIS area to 81.4 cm2 has resulted in increased resolution.
Principle of membrane gas extraction:
In order to ensure the fastest response times it is
Gas extraction / detection through the use of natural or
necessary to remove the need for the traditional
polymeric membranes has been used widely in a
extended transit lines from point of extraction to logging
number of industries to detect specific gas components
cabin. Instead this technique allows for the gas
and isotopes. The membrane material used in each
analyser, in this case a Micro-GC to be moved to the
application is specific to the mode of detection and the
flow line, the preferred point of extraction. The
gases under consideration. The basic principal however
complete system, referred to as GC-TRACER (Gas
remains the same. The membrane acts as a semi-
Chromatograph Tool for Real-time Analysis,
permeable barrier, allowing only those gases for which
Characterisation & Evaluation of Reservoirs), is located
it has been designed to pass through.
no more than 3 m from the membrane probe, with the
probe being mounted in the flow line (Fig. 2). A
controlled environment is maintained within the
enclosure to protect both GC and Server. The system is
controlled remotely from a laptop/PC running
proprietary software and using standard TCP/IP
connection protocol.
Fig. 1 Illustration of gas extraction technique. The
membrane is mounted as part of a probe and located in
the flow line close to the bell nipple. Blue arrows
indicate flow of carrier gas, red arrows represent
transit of gas across membrane interface.

The membrane is impermeable to liquids. Gases are

driven across the membrane interface according to the
difference in partial pressure within the drilling fluid
and within the probe. The pressure differential is
maintained by continual flushing of the membrane
backspace by an inert carrier gas, in this case Helium
(Fig. 1).

Advances in Membrane Extraction: Brumboiu

et al (2000) first introduced the application of
membrane extraction to wellsite mud gas analysis. At
that time the focus was upon providing an instantaneous
direct gas in mud measurement for Total Gas. The
principles behind this application are identical, the only
difference being the material used for the polymeric
membrane. The Total Gas (TG) solution used a
capillary-based membrane through which air was passed
in order to maintain the partial pressure differential and
transport the hydrocarbons back along the umbilical to
the CC (Catalytic Combustion) gas detector. The
membrane it self was wound around a helical shaft, for
it’s protection and also to increase sensitivity by
increasing surface area. This was subsequently replaced
by a planar membrane sandwiched within a steel mesh.
This chromatographic application also uses a planar
membrane, although a different polymer is used.
The membrane used in this application has a surface
area 2.6 times that of the current non-chromatographic
system and despite having less physical protection, it
Fig. 2 A Typical Installation of GC-Tracer system at
flow line.
The conditions from the point of extraction to analysis
are carefully controlled. The sample lines running from
the probe to the GC through the umbilical are
maintained at 80ºC. A secondary heater is placed
immediately prior to the sample entry to the GC column
modules, also helping to maintain optimum sample
conditions.
Advances in TCD GC Technology: The chromatograph
chosen as the analytical device to provide high-
resolution results in such a harsh environment is the
Varian CP4900. This is a TCD chromatograph and as
such, is compact enough to be fitted into an pressurised WWW
explosion proof enclosure. Rather than using Hydrogen
as a carrier gas, Helium is used. This removes safety
concerns in locating the system within Zone 1
hazardous area. The performance of the CP4900 also

3
SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005
makes it well suited to advanced gas detection. It has a
limit of quantification (LOQ) of just 1ppm, an order of
magnitude lower than FID. The lower detection limit
(LDL) is therefore in the sub ppm range.
Conventional TCD chromatographs suffer from water
vapour co-eluting with Propane, which can result in
interference. The CP4900 completely avoids this
problem by eluting water vapour at a different time (Fig
3), through a combination of improved column
characteristics and advanced integration algorithms.
Fig. 3 Elution of water vapour (H2O), at 19s for the
method used above, is separated from hydrocarbons.
Propane elutes between 25s to 30s depending upon the
method used. The excellent separation of N2 & C1 is
also clearly visible.
The CP4900 GC uses two column modules, comprising
a wound capillary column, solid state injection and
detection. It is capable of very fast injection times, from
10 ms with sample sizes from 1-10 µl, resulting in fast
elution times and a high degree of peak definition. In
this particular system, the column modules are fitted
with sample line heaters, to reduce the risk of
condensation immediately before injection. In order to
eliminate baseline drift and minimise equilibration time
between samples, the columns are backflushed during
the analysis cycle. This is only possible given the
precise pneumatic controls built into the system and
results in the characteristic shift in the baseline, seen at
25 s in Fig 3 on Column B. This shift in baseline has no
effect upon peak integration.
BTEX and extending the range of light gas
components: The majority of mud gas analysers
used at wellsite are GC’s, whether TCD or FID. The
standard range for GC analysis extends from C1 to C5,
being confined within this range by the limitations of
the extraction techniques used. This has of course
limited the potential for reservoir analysis based upon
mud gas results. A number of ratios are used to
characterise reservoir fluids, Pixler being the most
prevalent (Pixler, 1968) along with the Balance,
4
Character and Wetness ratios. Alternatives to these
have been developed, such as the GWD method by
Elf/Agip. Each of these methods, due to the limitations
of the data are based upon the C1 to C5 range.
However, a great deal of Geochemical / Petrophysical
interest lies in the heavier hydrocarbons up to and
beyond C12. Thus far such analysis has only been
possible in the laboratory. In contrast to this, whereas
the cycle times for GC’s have been falling, to 25 s in the
case of TCD GC’s, the analytical range has remained
the same throughout, until recently.
The working range of the system described in this
article is nominally C1 to C8. This is achieved in
approximately 50 s, below the ideal time limit of 60 s
for providing maximum temporal resolution during real-
time analysis. However, as can be seen from Fig. 4, this
range can be easily extended. In this case it has been
possible to provide analysis up to C10 within 120 s.
Fig. 4 Full analysis of C1 to C10 with BTEX,
demonstrating capability of TCD chromatography.
The capability of the CP 4900 to extend the range of
hydrocarbon analysis is demonstrated below. Using a
sample of medium gravity crude, headspace analysis
was carried out firstly to determine the systems ability
to clearly identify hydrocarbon components from such a
complex source and also to indicate the degree of peak
separation.
The full analysis of components eluting on Column B
can be seen in Fig. 5, with the commonly analysed
hydrocarbons, iC4, nC4 up to nC8 clearly present, along
with the aromatic hydrocarbons, Benzene (B), Toluene
(T), Ethylbenzene (E) and Xylene (X). It is to be noted
that the concentrations of hydrocarbons larger than C8
are present only in very small amounts. The results for
Column A, where only hydrocarbons up to C3 elute are
not included.
 SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005
Fig. 5 Headspace analysis of crude oil sample. Only
Column B results are shown, C4 to C8 with the
aromatics BTEX.
Looking more closely at the component mix of the
gases analysed, we see that a number of isomers are
present. The number of component peaks is far greater
than is accounted for in the calibration of
chromatographs at wellsite using standard calibration
gases, i.e. C1 to C5. Of interest is the strong presence
of the C6 isomers (Fig. 6), 2-Methylpentane and 3-
Methylpentane. Also present is a C7 isomer, which
appears alongside Benzene (Fig. 5), eluting marginally
later than Benzene.
Fig. 6 Magnified view of Headspace analysis results
for crude oil, demonstrating profusion of C6 isomers.
We can also see in Fig. 7 an isomer of C8, which elutes
before nC8. Beyond nC8, the Aromatics Ethylbenzene
and Xylene exhibit strongly, as do the isomers of
Xylene, these being o-Xylene, m-Xylene & p-Xylene.
This indicates that the current practice of evaluating
formation fluids based upon C1 to C5 is limited.
However it will take much more investigation into the
role and behaviour of the heavier hydrocarbons C6+
their isomers and the Aromatics before a useful model
can be derived.
5
Fig. 7 Magnified view of Headspace analysis results
for crude oil, further demonstrating complexity of
isomers.
THE EFFECT OF GAS SOLUBILTY IN
DRILLING FLUIDS ON RESERVOIR ANALYSIS
In order for current mud-gas analysis techniques to
accurately assess the ratio of components from the
drilling fluid, it is essential that the fluid type is taken
into account. One of the features of the membrane
extraction principle is that the gas readings sampled
from the mud can be corrected for the specific drilling
fluid type.
Gases sampled from a particular mud type will exhibit a
component mix, which is proportional to the theoretical
partial pressure of each component above the mud. This
applies to all techniques used to extract and analyse
mud-gases. It is also the cause for the so called " Trap
Factor" investigated in the QGM method by Texaco
(Wright et al, 1993).
As presented by Brumboiu et al (2000), the way gases
are liberated from the mud is dependent upon both the
gas type and upon the mud type, in relation to the partial
pressures of individual components when dissolved.
Other factors whilst present have a much lesser effect.
The Pixler ratios thus far have provided the best means
of characterising the reservoir and by applying Eq. 2 to
provide a ratio between components:
P1 / Pi = (Ki / K1) * (Q1 / Qi) …..…..Eq. 3
We can see that the ratios in which the dissolved gas
components are measured when extracted differs from
the ratio in which it is dissolved. The factor that
controls this difference, the ratio Ki/K1, is dependent
upon the gas component (Ci) and in turn for Ci it will WWW
depend upon the mud type. Such that, for WBM there
will be a Kiw solubility coefficient which will differ
SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005

from the solubility of the same gas in an Oil based Mud 1000

(OBM), Kio.

Thus, theoretically and from the point of view of 100

solubility, for the same volumetrically dissolved gas

mixture (Qi %), there exist different ratios for each
different mud type, such as when extracted from WBM 10

in Eq. 4 or from OBM in Eq 5.

1
P1w / Piw = (Kiw / K1w) * (Q1 / Qi) ….…..Eq. 4 2 3 4 5

Ratio Abs Ratio WBM Ratio OBM

P1o / Pio = (Kio / K1o) * (Q1 / Qi) .……....Eq. 5

Fig. 8 Gas solubility in particular mud types and it’s
In practice this difference in behaviour cannot be effect upon the relative gas composition.
inferred alone from the theoretical solubility.
Therefore, the need for it to be taken into account means The membrane sampling principle allows us to quantify
that the behaviour has to be derived empirically. An the effects mentioned above by allowing gas mixtures in
example of the variation in the Pixler plots ratios for a fluids to be studied in closed systems. This has taken
same gas mixture when sampled from a WBM and then the form of inserting the membrane probe into a closed
from an OBM is shown in Table 1. The gas mixture flow loop system, whereby a known amount of drilling
chosen was designed to mimic the ratios one should see fluid is circulated under controlled conditions in a
from Medium gravity oil. It was analysed using a He enclosed system. A known amount of gas can be
carrier gas before injection into the closed flow loop injected into this system. With the membrane sampling
system. probe being installed within the loop and being
impermeable to liquids it makes the system a closed and
controlled environment. This would be hard to achieve
Ratio Absolute WBM OBM
using an agitation type extraction mechanism. In that
case the system is either an open one or the gas
C1/C2 5.5 21.3 29.6 concentration in the mud is altered by the air being used
to transport the extracted gas to the analyzer. By
C1/C3 6.4 55.0 96.2 undertaking these drilling fluid solubility studies, it has
been possible to construct algorithms to be applied to
C1/C4 6.6 115.4 211.6 the raw data generated by the GC. The algorithms are
inbuilt into the software and allow the real-time
C1/C5 8.6 274.0 649.0 measurement of true gas in mud values.

Table 1 Relative Pixler ratios for a gas mix in air, oil
based mud and water based mud. Ratios are prior to
application of algorithms.
When plotted as a Pixler Plot (Fig. 8) the significance of
the differences in the drilling fluid used can be seen.
Without the application of correction factors to the data,
when WBM is used we see a shift to a productive gas
zone. In OBM the shift is greater as the solubilty of C2
to C5 is higher in OBM and we see a non-productive
gas zone.
WELLSITE EVALUATION
Deployment: Results for deployment of the system
during the 8 ½” section of an offshore well are
presented in comparison with a standard FID gas
detection system. The mud system in use during this
section was a synthetic OBM at 13.9 ppg. The flow line
temperature recorded by the system was 67ºC. The
membrane probe was mounted in the flow line.

6
 SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005

Comparison of techniques: Deployment of a Breviere et al (2002), we can see that the ratio also lies
membrane extraction device (GC-TRACER) took place in the region of 1 to 2 and exhibits considerable linearity
alongside a standard FID GC with a traditional gas (Fig. 10).
extraction device. The temporal resolution of GC-
TRACER The relative differences in the C1/C2 ratio prove
significant when it is applied to reservoir fluid
evaluation. The greater efficiency of extraction results
in lower C1/Ci ratios. A GC-TRACER sample from the
reservoir section (Fig. 11) indicates an oil zone, with
light oil (API around 35) with fair-good permeability.
Whereas the standard gas system indicates a wet gas
with much weaker permeability. The GC-TRACER
assessment was borne out by the LWD tools.

Fig. 9 Comparison of GC-TRACER gas data with

LWD data, highlighting the resolution achieved with
this method.

Comparison of the C1/C2 ratio over a section of the

reservoir (Fig. 10) shows a surprising degree of
similarity in the trends. For hydrocarbons above C2 the
membrane extraction technique was considerably more
efficient. The difference between the systems ranging
from 9.2 to 19 times with an average of 13.4 times more
C2 measured by the GC-TRACER. It can be seen that
this translates into a significantly lower C1/C2 ratio, as
the C1 values detected by the GC-TRACER were 2.65
times greater than with the conventional system.
Breviere et al (2002), also reported higher levels of C2
for a GCMS based system, being 2.5 times above the
conventional system values.

100

Fig. 11 Pixler ratios from reservoir section. Upper

10 plot shows GC-Tracer analysis. Lower plot shows
standard gas system.

1 The same interpretation is seen throughout the reservoir

section. Consistently the membrane extraction principle
indicates light oil with an API around 35 (Fig. 12) with
0.1 fair-good permeability. Where the oil is seen to become
22500 22550 22600 22650 22700 22750
lighter, API 36-42, the standard gas system exhibits an
GC-TRACER C1/C2 Ratio Standard GC C1/C2 Ratio GC_TRACER iC5/nC5 Ratio
increasing offset due to the poor extraction of
Fig. 10 Comparison of GC-TRACER & standard GC hydrocarbons heavier than C2.
C1/C2 ratios (x axis is MDRT ft). GC-TRACER
iC5/nC5 ratio also shown.
WWW
The membrane extraction technique also displays a high
degree of stability in the measurement of heavier
components. In comparing the iC5/nC5 ratio with

7
SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005
Fig. 12 Pixler ratios from reservoir section. Upper
plot shows GC-Tracer analysis. Lower plot shows
standard gas system.
Fig. 13 Pixler ratios from above the reservoir section.
Upper plot shows GC-Tracer analysis. Lower plot
shows standard gas system.
8
CONCLUSIONS
The combination of membrane extraction and high
speed TCD chromatography is seen from headspace and
flow loop tests to provide a different perspective upon
mud gas analysis. The excellent peak resolution and
elution times characteristic of the technique represents a
significant advance in wellsite gas chromatography.
In developing the technology it has highlighted the
fundamental importance of accounting for the solubility
of gas components in drilling fluids. With the ability to
easily create a closed flow system, it is now simpler to
account for specific mud types. This approach has
demonstrated that membrane extraction is able to
provide greater accuracy in comparison to a standard
agitation based extraction system. With hydrocarbon
concentrations an order of magnitude greater than
conventional means, it is now envisaged that these
improvements in detection capability will lead to a
better understanding of reservoir fluids.
This technique provides a true evaluation of the gas
components present in the mud. Membrane extraction
will provide for the first time, the opportunity to
conduct reliable real-time reservoir evaluation and
characterisation from surface gas measurements.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the
contributions made by those who had a significant input
into the development of this technology. Brent Hoerle
of Datalog who provided the programming and
software. Denis Dria of Shell E&P, who first
recognised the potential of the technique and facilitated
the early testing.
Our thanks also to, Larry Krusell of Petro-Canada &
Carlo Carugo of Eni/Agip for their assistance with early
field trials. Cristina Arroyo-Garcia and Tim Bourgeois
of SEPCO for their support of the recent field
deployments. To Dave Occleston, Marc Johnson and
Mohamed Hussein also for their efforts in support of
field operations.
REFERENCES
Breviere, J., Herzaft, B., Mueller, N.; 2002. Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GCMS)-A New
Wellsite Tool for Continuous C1-C8 Gas Measurement
in Drilling Mud-Including Original Gas Extractor and
Gas Line Concepts. First Results and Potential.
SPWLA 43rd Annual Logging Symposium, 2002.
 SPWLA 46th Annual Logging Symposium, June 26-29, 2005

Brumboiu, A.O., Hawker, D.P.; Norquay, D.A.,

Wolcott, D.K., 2000. Application of Semipermeable
Membrane Technology in the Measurement of
Hydrocarbon Gases in Drilling Fluids. SPE 62525,
Western Regional Meeting June 19-23, 2000

Pixler, B.O.; 1968. Formation Evaluation by Analysis of

Hydrocarbon Ratios, SPE 2254 presented at the 43rd
Annual Fall Meeting, Sept 29-Oct 2, 1968.

Wright, A.C., Hanson. S.W., De Laune, P.L.; 1993. A

New Quantitative Technique for Surface Gas
Measurements, SPWLA 34th Annual Logging
Symposium, June 13-16, 1993.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Aurel BRUMBOIU is an R&D Engineer with Datalog

Technology Inc in Calgary. He holds a BS in Applied
Petroleum Engineering Technology from the Southern
Alberta Institute of Technology and an MS in
Engineering Physics from the University of Bucharest.
He has previously worked for the Analytic Division at
the Institute for Project Automation in Cluj-Napoca.

David HAWKER is Vice President for Technology at

Datalog Technology Inc in Calgary. He joined Datalog
from Exlog at which point he was responsible for QHSE
& Training. His particular interest is in hydrocarbon
evaluation and gas chromatography. Through this he
has headed up much of the R&D undertaken by Datalog
in this field

Darrell NORQUAY is an R&D Engineer with Datalog

Technology Inc in Calgary. He holds a Electronic
Engineering Technology Diploma from the Southern
Alberta Institute of Technology. He has gained
extensive experience in various facets of the oil industry
including Seismic, Mudlogging and Design
Engineering. His particular interest is in gas detection
and chromatography coupled with instrumentation
design.

Douglas LAW is the Operations Manager for Datalog

Technology’s Europe, Africa & Asian business unit in
Plymouth. He is also the global product specialist for
GC-TRACER. After graduating in Geology & Physics,
he went onto research in the area of Marine Science,
obtaining a PhD from University of Wales. He joined
Datalog in 1997 as a Geologist before taking a role in
Operations.
WWW