Core Scanning, Resistors and The Technology Triangle

In 15 years I have given hundreds of pitches on the value of core scanning, made countless videos, and written dozens of papers and, to me, it is a no brainer – Scan your core!

However, despite the enormous benefits of a consistent, data-rich and objective dataset that is perfect for the boom in use of machine learning; core scanning, is still not a standard practise in mining, oil and gas, or geotechnics. Here’s why:

Implementing a core scanning project is a function of understanding the resistance people have to change; and the interplay between Geoscience, Data and Technology, which I visualise as The Technology Triangle.

Understand the Resistors

The successful implementation of change to any business, or industry for that matter, requires an understanding of change management and the emotional reactions to that change – the introduction of core scanning technology into an existing workflow is no different. The description of the emotional reactions of a person, or a group of people, from an event of change was described by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in1969. Whilst this original research was based on the stages of grief, it is also commonly applied to explain the process of change within an organisation, as the emotions felt are broadly similar. The implementation of core scanning involves changing an established logging workflow and the relationship between a geologist and their core. This change is typically sold (and rightly) with the ability to augment or better inform the geologist’s who are conducting the logging. It is my experience that during initial implementation and when new project teams are introduced many of the stages outlined in Kubler-Ross’s curve occur (Figure 1). I have added some common phrases I have heard that express these stages.

I have found it useful to group the different stages into three: Resistance, Change and Acceptance. A successful core scanning project will move through the stages from resistance to acceptance. However, in my experience many team members and management never move past the resistance phase or turn back at the decision point, with only a few people moving on to become what technology suppliers call “technology champions”. The result, is that a project’s success is often burdened on one or two people within an organisation and projects fail once those people move on or become overwhelmed by those that are still in the Resistance zone – “The Resistors”.??

Resistors are an important part of a team because they challenge and ultimately, if they are brought along the journey, help to create a better project. In addition, a resistor who moves through to acceptance is often the most powerful champion in a new technology project. To encourage teams or people to cease resisting and change to accept new technology then an implementor needs to understand the team/company dynamics, the composition of the team (are there lots of resistors or lots of champions?), and be cognisant of culture of the society/country. The last point is particularly important as there are societies that will naturally operate on the consensus of a group, and others that will wait or follow the decision of a senior manager.

I have found that asking myself these questions helps me to understand why or where the project is failing to make traction or is succeeding: who are the resistors and why are they resisting? What could I do to help encourage the project team to experiment with the data and move them into the Change Zone? How do they feel? What could I do to make them feel more comfortable with the technology to enable experimentation? ?

How do they feel? Yes! Consider again the change curve and the emotions resistors are likely to experience: Shock, Denial, Anger, and Depression. We, humans, are emotional beings, and our actions or decision-making are often influenced by how we feel.?

Core scanning could be the perfect solution to a client's geological problem and, once fully implemented, could offer the required speed and fluidity. However, in the initial stages, the benefits of the technology can be difficult to understand because of the learning curve and steady implementation to collect the data. This can lead to delays in the existing workflow, adding pressure to the team, which in turn adds to the negative emotions and therefore resistance to the project. If the supplier or client manager does not address this resistance, it will build up, the vision will be lost, and the project is likely to fail.?

It is just as crucial to engage with the early-stage resistors as it is to nurture the technology champions. Addressing both groups significantly increases the likelihood of a positive experience and change, and core scanning technology will be embraced.

The Technology Triangle

There are three connected parts or points of a core scanning project: Technology; Data; and Geoscience. I visualise these as points of a triangle (Figure 2).

Each point is connected by a project activity: Acquisition; Interpretation; and Value Communication. In my experience a core scanning project is conceived at one of these points and has the potential to fail at another. For example: here are few initial project plans that have kick started a few of my core scanning projects in the past.

• I want to understand the distribution and type of clay within my deposit (Geoscience);
• I want to build a digital dataset from my physical core library and then offer/sell to the Geoscience community or teams to explore (Data);
• I have a remit to test the latest technology into my project and investigate the value across a range of different geoscience problems (Technology).

And here are few examples of how they have failed:

• I do not understand how to utilise these new parameters in my resource model or engineering ground model. I think they are nice-to-have and not essential (Geoscience);
• There is so much data in formats that are not standard or recognisable to my database. My geologists cannot access it or visualise it, and so what is the point (Data);
• The core scanner is too slow and data is not being delivered fast enough (Technology).

So, why do some projects not reach their full potential for clients? I believe it is because the project has not found a balance between the three points. Here are a few examples of un-balanced projects and their position on The Technology Triangle. I think they will sound familiar to a few people reading this.

Project A – Uses good technology and reasonable data management but fails to interpret or does not have the resources to interpret the data into a compelling geoscience story, leaving management blind to the value of the technology and data.

Project B – Strong data managers and good geoscience team who communicate value effectively, but lack understanding of technology physics and time for supplier oversight, resulting in poor-quality or unsuitable data that undermines the data story and technology value.

Project C – Understands the geological problem and good knowledge of technology and data acquisition but stores data poorly, making it inaccessible and confusing, losing the narrative of the data.

The Technology Triangle describes factors within a project that can be controlled. A project is also affected by external and uncontrollable factors such as: falling metal prices, which reduce R&D spending and lead to staff reductions; inflexible or changing pricing models from suppliers; or the departure of key technology champions. Such external factors undeniably influence numerous decisions, making it all the more critical to construct a resilient and balanced project to mitigate the impact of these uncontrollable elements.

A successful Core Scanning Project is a Balanced Core Scanning Project

A balanced project is a blend of fit-for-purpose technology, high-quality data, and accessible storage that allows the geoscience team to interpret the data and deliver value to save their company time, money, and effort. There are multiple core scanning projects that I consider have achieved balance (e.g. Harris et al., 2024; Hunt et al., 2020; Tusa et al., 2019; Martini et al., 2017; Shreeve et al., 2017, Huntingdon, 2016, there are many more!) and in these formative projects balance has often been found by the determined efforts from the core scanning supplier and the end user. In all of these cases the projects have found the centre point of The Technology Triangle (Figure 3). If you are conducting a core scanning project and it is not quite delivering the value you hoped then consider where your project lies on the triangle and implement a strategy to move your project to the centre; or are thinking about starting a project then set your requirements and budget such that you are aiming for balance.

Here are my top 5 tips that I think are common to all projects to help you find the centre of the triangle:

1. Set a Hypothesis: Clearly define the questions you're aiming to solve with a value proposition. Ensure these hypotheses are validated or disproven by the technology, data management, and geoscience teams.
2. Match Technology to Geology: Identify what you want to detect first. There isn't a one-size-fits-all sensor system, so choose the sensor technology and vendor that match your hypothesis.
3. Understand the Workflow: Communicate with your teams where the core scanner will be placed in your core logging workflow. Plan the logistics for moving core boxes to and from logging benches and the scanner.
4. Consider Extra Costs: Data from core scanners can be huge and storing it will add to your budget. Furthermore, don't forget to allocate time and resources for data management and interpretation to avoid unnecessary rework and associated costs.
5. Plan for Visualization: Despite new digital visualization tools, traditional core logs are valuable as they are easy communication tools that everyone understands. Plan the flow of data from technology expert, through the geology teams and into the reports that lead to decisions – the visualizations need to be there every step of the way.

Is Core Scanning Worth all this Effort?

Absolutely! Since the inception of geoscience geologists have used tools to investigate the subsurface. The first tools where hammers for measuring strength and taking samples, or knives to determine hardness, then there was the advent of geophysics and downhole wireline tools for imaging the subsurface, cone penetration testing (CPT), and portable devices such as XRF or IR Spectroscopy. Now, we have satellites, drones, and core scanners. Despite the advent of all of this technology there is still one underlying fact: a geological sample (core, chip, cutting, soil etc) is your only source of ground truth. Core scanning extracts information from samples that goes well beyond what you can tell from using hammers, knives and even your eyes!

Keep in Touch

Sharing ideas is how all of our projects will achieve greater results. How do you think understanding team dynamics and the technology triangle will apply to your project?

References

Harris A. C,, Finn D. J., MacCorquodale F. T. A, Ravella M., Clarke W. J, Krneta S.,Battig E., Maguire S.; Empowering Geologists in the Exploration Process— Maximizing Data Use from Enabling Scanning Technologies. SEG Discovery 2024; (136): 17–31. doi: https://doi.org/10.5382/SEGnews.2024-136.fea-01

Hunt. G.A., Williams. R., Charnock, M. A., Moss, A., Meltveit, J., and Florescu, D. 2020. Geological and petrophysical applications of imaging infrared spectroscopy for mineralogical analysis of core and cuttings: examples from the North Sea, Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea. In: Cross-Border Themes in Petroleum Geology II: Atlantic Margin and Barents Sea. Geological Society, London, Special Publications. 495. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP495-2018-168

Huntington. J. 2016. Uncovering the mineralogy of the Australian Continent: the AuScope National Virtual Core Library. A national hyperspectrally derived drill-core archive. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences. 63(8). 923-928. DOI:10.1080/08120099.2016.1269630

Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan.

Martini, B.A., Harris, A.C., Carey, R., Goodey, N., Honey, F., and Tufilli, N. 2017. Automated Hyperspectral Core Imaging – A Revolutionary New Tool for Exploration, Mining and Research. Paper 83. Presented at Exploration 17 Sixth Decennial International Conference on Mineral Exploration. 21-25 October. Toronto, Canada.

Shreeve. J.W., Shreeve. B., Pitel. J., Palix. E., and Souf. A. 2017. The use of non-destructive core logging and X-ray imaging techniques to resolve a complex geological stratigraphy for a planned offshore windfarm. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference of Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics. 12-14 September 2017, Royal Geographical Society, London, UK.

Tusa, L., Andreani, L., Khodadadzadeh, M., Contreras, C., Ivascanu, P., Gloaguen, R., & Gutzmer, J. (2019). 'Mineral Mapping and Vein Detection in Hyperspectral Drill-Core Scans: Application to Porphyry-Type Mineralization', Minerals, 9(2), p. 122. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/min9020122.