Volume 25, Number 3, 2020

Drone Geophysics
and Remote Sensing
Editor: Ron Bell
CONTENTS

• The Future of Drone Geophysics

• A Review of Satellite and UAV Remote Sensing for Geology
• Honey Blossom Mapping using Remote Sensing via Satellites and UAVs
• UAV Methane Detection
• Mapping Agricultural Sub-surface Drainage Systems using Drones and GPR
• UAV Magnetometry for Mineral Exploration and UXO
• Gamma Ray Spectrometry Mapping via Drone
• UAV Enabled Semi-Airborne Electromagnetics
• Archeological Investigations using UAV Photogrammetry, Thermal Infrared
and LiDAR
• Multi-method UAV Enabled Mapping of an Underground Coal Mine Fire
• InSAR and Thermal Imaging for Groundwater Management
• Drones for Infrastructure and Mine Site Characterization
• The History of FastTIMES Part 2 – the last 15 years

FastTIMES is the Technical Magazine of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
 Page 2 Vol 25, 3 2020

MASW.com Park Seismic LLC

All-In-One Package for 3D MASW Survey

ParkSEIS©-3D for 3D MASW Survey

ParkSEIS-3D is a dedicated software package that can handle "true 3D" field acquisition, 3D field setup, data rearrangement for
binning, data analysis, and 3D visualization of final shear-wave velocity (Vs) data, all in one package:
• Generation of 3D field logistics templates for a given set of equipment and ground volume being investigated.
• Convenient 3D field setup using GPS (e.g., *gpx) or text (*.txt) file, or mouse.
• Full AUTO analysis of numerical calculations (no manual steps for dispersion and inversion).
• Diverse 3D visualization.
• Export of 3D velocity (Vs) data into a user-defined format.
• All features of previous ParkSEIS versions (v. 2.0 and v. 3.0) included.
 Page 3 Vol 25, 3 2020

GeophysicalEquipmentRental.com
Proudly supported by K.D. Jones Instrument Corp.
 We rent and sell geophysical equipment. Visit GeophysicalEquipmentRental.com to see our latest
inventory with a cost estimate calculator and terms and conditions

 We are committed to providing a great user experience. We offer training, competitive

rates, and 24/7 customer service.

Some of the equipment available to rent.

All prices are subject to change and do not
include shipping, preparation fees, or taxes.
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY EQUIPMENT Contact us for a quote and our terms.
Geometrics Ohmmapper with a single receiver $175 per day
AGI Ministing resistivity meter for four pin soundings $55 per day
SuperSting R8/IP for electrical resistivity imaging (call for price on 84 electrode system) $150 per day
ELECTROMAGNETIC INSTRUMENTS
Geonics EM31-MK2 with data logger $85 per day
Geonics EM34 $85 per day
Geonics EM38-MK2 with data logger $85 per day
Geonics EM61-MK2A with data logger $95 per day
Geonics EM61-MK2 High Power with data logger NEW! $140 per day
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR
Sensors & Software pulseEKKO Pro, Ultra Receiver, SmartCart with DVL and pro-
cessing software (50, 100, or 200 MHz antenna) NEW! $262.50 per day
Sensors & Software Noggin SmartCart or SmartTow with DVL and processing software
(250, 500, or 1000 MHz antenna) $135 per day
CENTIMETER and SUB-METER GPS
Hemisphere Sub-meter DGPS receiver $35 per day
Hemisphere Atlas Centimeter DGPS receiver $58 per day
MAGNETOMETERS
Geometrics Model G-858 Cesium Magnetometer with one sensor $85 per day
Geometrics G-856AX Proton Magnetometer with one sensor $30 per day
Schonstedt fluxgate magnetometer $15 per day
Subsurface Instruments borehole magnetic gradiometer $40 per day
MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY METER
TerraPlus KT-10 Magnetic Susceptibility Meter $30 per day
PIPE and CABLE LOCATORS
Dynatel 2273M multi-frequency pipe/cable locator $50 per day
Pipehorn 800 dual frequency pipe/cable locator $50 per day
Aqua-Tronics A-6 Split Box pipe/cable locator $50 per day
SEISMOGRAPHS and ACCESSORIES
BALLARD borehole source $72 per day
Geometrics Geode (24 channel) $100 per day
Very Shallow, Shallow, Deep, and Very Deep MASW Packages Available Call
Geostuff land streamer (adjustable from 1-20ft with 4.5-14Hz geophones) $80 per day
Geostuff triaxial borehole geophone $35 per day
VIBRATION MONITORS
Micromate, Minimate, and Blastmate ground vibration seismographs starting at $25 per day
Casella CEL-633.C1/K1 Type 1 sound level meter with 1/3 octave band analyzer kit and
calibrator $27 per day

Visit our network: KDJonesInstruments.com ParkSeismic.com GeophysicalServices.com

GeophysicalEquipmentRental.com
Contact us today! Call 262-442-6327 or 936-396-9291. Email Art@KDJonesInstruments.com.
Get assistance with training, survey design, and processing for electrical resistivity imaging,
MASW, seismic reflection, and all other equipment we rent.
We offer very shallow, shallow, deep, and very deep MASW rental packages and services with processing!
 ISSN 1943-6505

Page 26 has a guide for better understanding of

how to use this interactive PDF Contents
Advertiser Directory 5 EEGS Intersociety Committee 32
Corporate Members 6 JEEG Report 33-34
Calendar – 2020-2022 7-11 EEGS Foundation - Auction Results 36
EEGS Office Bearers & Management 13-14
geoDRONE Report 48-50
President’s Message 16
EEGS Membership Committee  16 Advances in Geophysical Monitoring
for Groundwater - Call for Contributions 66
EEGS Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force 17
SAGEEP 2021  18 Agricultural Geophysics News 76
Editorial 19-20 Hydrogeophysics and Environmental Geophysics 99-104
Silver Jubilee Forum - The Future of Near-Surface Mining Geophysics News 115
Geophysics in the US - Call for Contributions 20 UXO Community Geophysics News 120-111
FastTIMES Editorial Team 21 Professional Directory 155
FastTIMES Online Silver Jubilee: The History of
Industry News 156-157
FastTIMES - Part 2 – The Last 15 Years. 22-26
Sustaining FastTIMES - A new Editorial Mode 28-29 Infrastructure and Geotechnical Geophysics News 158-159
FastTIMES – Publishing and Advertising 30 Archaeological & Forensic Geophysics 160-163
EEGS Membership Benefits 31 Government Geophysics News 164-165

SPECIAL THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT OF

CSEG 12 ASPRS 40 SEG 51 ISPRS 53 AGU 67 ASA-CSSA-SSSA 77 IAH 96
GRAC 105 EAGE 114 NAOC 130-131

Drone Geophysics and Remote Sensing

38 Foreword
106 Semi-Airborne Electromagnetics Using a
Multicopter
41 The Future of Drone Geophysics
119 The Rapsodia Magnetometry Case History for
Mineral Exploration
54 Status & Developments in Geological Remote
Sensing 132 Effective UAS Terrain Following for UXO
Magnetometry
69 UAV Methane Detection - Advances and
Markets 134 Multicopter-based Pentamag magnetometry
system for UXO mapping
78 Honey from space: detection of flowering
plants from satellites with UAV calibration 144 Drone-based LiDAR Mapping the Canyons of
the Ancients National Monument to uncover
83 GPR and UAV Mapping of Agricultural
Subsurface Drainage Systems: A Research
750-year old structures

Overview 148 UAS remote sensing and geophysics to

investigate legacy wells, heat distribution, and
88 Drone-borne gamma-ray spectrometry – for soil
mapping
subsidence at a coal mine fire
 ISSN 1943-6505

Advertiser Directory
FastTIMES Vol 25,3 Advertisers
(Click on the advertisers logo to be linked to the advertisement, which then by clicking on the advertisement then links to the advertisers website)
ISSN 1943-6505

AGI
Advertiser Directory
Medusa 

Aqua Geo Frameworks Mount Sopris

FastTIMES VOL 23,3 advertisers
(Click on the advertisers logo to be linked to the advertisement, which then
Arce Geofisicos
Park Seismic
by clicking on the advertisement then links toLLC
the advertisers website)

BaySpec  Mount Sopris

AGI
Pergam Group 
Collier Geophysics Geostuff
EAGE
Saga Geophysics
G3 Group (MERIT)
EARTHSCAN Technologies 
Exploration Instruments

Interpex
SEEQUENT
GDD
Exploration Instruments 
Geometrics (Geode EM3D) K. D. Jones
Exploration Instruments (Drones) SPH Engineering (UgCS) 
Geonics Limited Park Seismic LLC

GEM Systems 
Surrich
Geometrics (OhmMapper) R.T. Clark (PEG-40)

Geometrics 
Geophex Ltd. SurfSeis 6
SurfSeis 6
Geolitix  GPR-Slice Tromino (Moho)
Terra Plus
Geonics Limited Zonge

Tromino (Moho)
Intrepid PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY

K. D. Jones Aerobotic Geophysical Systems Vista Clara Inc.

Intrepid

East Tennessee Geophysical Services

PROFESSIONAL R.T. Clark
DIRECTORY
Aerobotic Geophysical Systems  (EXI)
Jeff Sinski Rob HewsonTerra Entheos Geoscience

GEOScene3D Waterloo Geophysics

Jeff Sinski (EXI) Subsea Technologies

Geophex Terra Entheos Geoscience 

 Page 6 Vol 25, 3 2020

EEGS Corporate Members (2020) - Applications for 2020 are open

Corporate Benefactor R. T. Clark Co. Inc.
Your Company Here! Corporate Membership www.rtclark.com
Renewals and Applications open for 2020.
Scintrex Limited
www.scintrexltd.com

Corporate Associate
Seequent
Aarhus GeoSoftware www.seequent.com
www.aarhusgeosoftware.dk
Sensors & Software Inc.
Advanced Geosciences, Inc. www.sensoft.ca
www.agiusa.com
Vista Clara Inc.
Exploration Instruments LLC www.vista-clara.com
www.expins.com
Zonge international, Inc
Geogiga Technology Corporation www.zonge.com
www.geogiga.com

Geometrics, Inc .
www.geometrics.com

Geonics Ltd . Corporate Donor

www.geonics.com
Fugro Consultants, Inc.
www.fugroconsultants.com
Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc .
www.geophysical.com

Geomar Software Inc.

Impulse Radar www.geomar.com
www.impulseradar.se

Geomatrix Earth Science Ltd.

www.geomatrix.co.uk
Mount Sopris Instrument 
Company Inc
www.mountsopris.com Quality Geosciences Company, LLC
www.quality-geophysics.com

MPT-IRIS Spotlight Geophysical Services

www.mptech3d.com www.spotlightgeo.com
 Page 7 Vol 25, 3 2020

Calendar 2020 - Dates shown were either planned

(pre-COVID-19) or are the rescheduled dates
September 7 - 11 International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
(Postponed until (ISSMGE)
6th International Conference on Geotechnical and Geophysical Site
2021)
Characterization – ISC’6
“Toward synergy at site characterisation”
Budapest, Hungary
http://www.isc6.org/

September 14-17 Groundwater Resources Association of California

THIRD ANNUAL WESTERN GROUNDWATER CONGRESS
Virtual Meeting
https://www.grac.org/events/302/

September 16-18 AEG 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting

(Virtual Meeting) American Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists
Portland, Oregon, USA
https://aegoregon.org/

September 21-23 CSPG/CSEG/CWLS/GAC/MAC/IAH(CNC-SNC)

Geo Convention 2020 – Virtual Event
https://geoconvention.com/

September 22 - 25 22nd Triennial Meeting of the International Association of Forensic Sciences

(Postponed to May Sydney, Australia
https://iafs2020.com.au/
17-21, 2021)

September 27-29 Society of Exploration Geophysicicists

(Check the 2020 SEG Workshop on Underground Water and Karst Imaging
https://seg.org/Events/2020-SEG-Workshop-on-Underground-Water-and-Karst-
Website for
Imaging
COVID-19 updates)

October 5-8 Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)

(Check the XPONENTIAL 2020
Trade show
Website for
Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center
COVID-19 updates) Dallas, Texas, USA
https://www.auvsi.org/auvsi-confirms-postponement-xponential-2020-october-5-8

October 5 American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS)

(Check the High-Accuracy Mapping With UAS: Standards, Principles, And Best Practices
Co-located with XPONENTIAL 2020 (AUVSI) Trade show
Website for
Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center
COVID-19 updates) Dallas, Texas, USA
https://www.xponential.org/xponential2020/public/Content.
aspx?ID=3193&sortMenu=103005

October 5-9 WEFTEC 2020 – The Water Quality Event

Virtual Event
https://www.weftec.org/about/about-weftec/
 Page 8 Vol 25, 3 2020

October 7-9 BSMAR17

(Check the Resilience Through Recharge and Recovery
17th Biennial Symposium on Managed Aquifer Recharge
Website for
Tempe, Arizona, USA
COVID-19 updates) https://www.grac.org/events/328/

October 11-16 Society of Exploration Geophysicists

(Check the SEG International Exposition and 90th Annual Meeting
Houston, Texas, USA
Website for
https://seg.org/AM/2020/
COVID-19 updates)

October 26-30 Geological Society of America

GSA 2020 Connects Online (Virtual Conference)
https://community.geosociety.org/gsa2020/home

October 28-29 IWRA-IAH

Online Conference on Groundwater & Climate Change
https://iwraonlineconference.org/

October 28-30 ASCE

ASCE Convention 2020 Virtual Event
https://www.asceconvention.org/?_ga=2.29534204.298943702.1573657382-
377176897.1568730319
November 4-6 SEG NSG
Summit on Drone Geophysics
Online Event
https://seg.org/Events/Summit-on-Drone-Geophysics

November 9-13 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil
Science Society of America
Translating Visionary Science to Practice
Virtual Annual Meeting
https://www.acsmeetings.org/

November 10 - 13 ASNT Annual Conference 2020

Disney's Coronado Springs, Orlando, Florida, USA
https://www.asnt.org/MajorSiteSections/Events/Upcoming_Events/
Annual_2020.aspx

December 7 - 10 Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)

(Check the WASTECON 2020: Embracing Disruption
Dallas Texas, USA
Website for
https://wastecon.org/
COVID-19 updates)

December 7 - 11 American Geophysical Union

(Check the AGU Fall Meeting 2020 (Mostly Virtual) Meeting
San Francisco, California, USA
Website for
https://www.agu.org/fall-meeting
COVID-19 updates)

December 7 - 11 EAGE
(Check the Near Surface Geoscience’20
Conference and Virtual Events
Website for Co-located with EAGE’s Annual Conference & Exhibition
COVID-19 updates) RAI Amsterdam Convention Centre
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
https://eage.eventsair.com/near-surface-geoscience-2020/
 Page 9 Vol 25, 3 2020

December 8-10 National Groundwater Association (NGWA)

(Check the Groundwater Week – Focus 2020
(Also a Virtual Event)
Website for
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
COVID-19 updates)
Groundwater Summit (Virtual Event)
https://groundwaterweek.com/
https://groundwatersummit.com/

Calendar 2021
February 10-12 SEG – AGU
(Check the Advances in Distributed Sensing for Geophysics Workshop
Houston, Texas, USA
Website for
https://seg.org/Events/Distributed-Sensing-for-Geophysics
COVID-19 updates)
February 17-21 Groundwater Resources Association of California
(Check the INTRODUCTION TO GROUNDWATER, WATERSHEDS, AND THE NUTS AND
BOLTS OF SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER PLANS
Website for
Short Course
COVID-19 updates) https://www.grac.org/events/302/

March 14-18 EEGS & EAGE

(Check the SAGEEP 2021
33rd Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and
Website for
Environmental Problems
COVID-19 updates) 1st Munitions Response Meeting
Denver, Colorado, USA
https://www.sageep.org/

March 30 – April 1 American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS)
(Check the Geo Week 2021
Denver, Colorado, USA
Website for
https://conferences.asprs.org/geoweek-2021/
COVID-19 updates)
April 12 – 16 National Cave and Karst Research Institute
(Check the 16th Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and
Environmental Impacts of Karst
Website for
Puerto Rico
COVID-19 updates) http://www.sinkholeconference.com/

May 10-14 ADSC / DFI / ASCE G-I / PDCA

(Check the International Foundations Conference and Equipment Expo
Dallas, Texas, USA
Website for
http://ifceexpo.com/
COVID-19 updates)

May 31 – June 3 83rd EAGE Conference & Exhibition 2021

Madrid, Spain
SAVE THE DATE
June 6-10 American Society of Reclamation Sciences
(Check the 38th Annual Meeting
Boise, Idaho, USA
Website for
https://www.asrs.us/Meetings/2021-Annual-Meeting
COVID-19 updates)
June 6-9 1st International Congress on Coastal Research
(Check the Al Hociema, Morocco
https://iccr2020.sciencesconf.org/
Website for
COVID-19 updates)
 Page 10 Vol 25, 3 2020

July 4-10 International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ISPRS)
(Check the XXIV ISPRS Congress
Nice, France
Website for
http://www.isprs2020-nice.com/
COVID-19 updates)

June 21-24 6th International Induced Polarisation Workshop

(Check the Annecy, Haut-Savoie, France
https://sites.google.com/view/ipworkshop6/home
Website for
COVID-19 updates)

August 15-18 ASCE-GI

(Check the GEO-EXTREME 2021
Geotechnical Engineering for Extreme Events
Website for
Savannah, Georgia, USA
COVID-19 updates) https://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Technical_Areas/Geotechnical_Engineering/
Content_Pieces/geo-extreme-2021-call-for-submissions.pdf

August 22-27 International Association of Hydrogeologists

(Hybrid) 47th IAH CONGRESS BRASIL 2021
September 21, Sao Paulo, Brazil
2020 to August 20, https://iah2021brazil.org/en/
https://iah2021brazil.org/en/online-event/
2021
(online events)
(Check the website
for COVID-19
updates)

September 6-10 International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH)

(Check the 48th IAH Congress – IAH 2021 – Inspiring Groundwater
Brussels, Belgium
Website for
https://iah2021belgium.org/
COVID-19 updates)

September 15-20 AIG / ASEG / PESA.

(Check the 3rd Australasian Exploration Geoscience Conference - AEGC 2021
Brisbane, Australia
Website for
https://2021.aegc.com.au/
COVID-19 updates)
September 17-21 International Water Resources Association (IWRA)
(Check the XVII World Water Congress
EXCO, Daegu, Republic of Korea
Website for
https://www.worldwatercongress.com/index.php
COVID-19 updates)
September 18–26 Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists
(Check the 64th Annual Meeting
Westin Riverwalk
Website for
San Antonio, Texas, USA
COVID-19 updates) https://www.aegannualmeeting.org/

September 26 – Society of Exploration Geophysicists Annual Meeting

Denver, Colorado, USA
October 1 https://seg.org/Events/Upcoming-SEG-Annual-Meetings
October 20-21 American Society of Civil Engineers
ASCE 2021 Convention
Chicago, Illinois, USA
SAVE THE DATE
 Page 11 Vol 25, 3 2020

November 15 - 18 ASNT Annual Conference 2021

Phoenix, Arizona, USA
SAVE THE DATE
December 2-4 American Society of Civil Engineers
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE 2021
Houston, Texas, USA
https://www.asce.org/templates/conferences-events-event-detail.aspx?id=34018

Calendar 2022
April 11 - 15 International Association of Hydrogeologists/Groundwater Resources Association
(California)/Arizona Hydrological Society/ Orange County Water District
ISMAR 11: 11th International Symposium on Managed Aquifer Recharge
Long Beach, California, USA
https://www.grac.org/events/272/

October 31 - ASNT Annual Conference 2022

Nashville, Tennessee, USA
November 3 SAVE THE DATE

DID YOU MISS REGISTERING FOR A CONFERENCE?

NO PROBLEM!
NOTE: Due to to fact that many conferences are Virtual and the
presentations are recorded, it may be possible with many
Conferences to register to affordably access the
Conference presentation recordings for
a limited time after the Conference Event.
Check the Conference websites listed in this Calendar of Events
to see if this facility is available for a particular Conference.
Virtual Conferencing and Webinars
bring a world of current awareness to your desktop
at the time and pace that suits your timetable and
opens up access to Conferences
you would not have been able to attend otherwise.
An opportunity to learn more about the
wider world of geoscience and geo-engineering
Page 12 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 13 Vol 25, 3 2020

EEGS Office-Bearers & Management

(Unless otherwise indicated - All Board Members and Office Bearers may be contacted via staff@eegs.org)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Barry Allred David Valintine Elliot Grunewald
President Vice President Committees Vice President – SAGEEP
Committees: Finance Committees: Committees:
Communications and SAGEEP Steering Committee
Publications Advertising (Chair) (Chair)

Bart Hoekstra Katherine Grote Dimitrios Ntarlagiannis

President-Elect Vice President-Elect Committees Vice President-Pre Elect,
Committees: Finance Committees: SAGEEP
(Chair) Student (Chair) Committees:
SAGEEP Steering Committee

Dale Werkema Darren Mortimer

Immediate Past Vice President-Elect
President SAGEEP 2022
Committees: Committees:
Nominations (Chair) SAGEEP Steering Committee
Finance
DEI Task Force

BOARD MEMBERS AT LARGE

Judith L. Robinson Robert Garfield P.G. (NY & LA) Dan Glaser
Board Member at Large Committees: Board Member at Large
Committees: Board Member at Large Committees:
Communications (Publications) Membership (Co-Chair) Student Communications (Social Media)
Inter-society (AGU Liaison) Associate Editor JEEG
Publications Advertising

Lia Martinez Moira Poje Jacob Sheehan

Board Member at Large Board Member at Large SAGEEP 2021
Committees: Committees: Committees:
Membership ( Co-Chair) Communications (Web site) SAGEEP Steering Committee
Inter-society (SEG Liaison) Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) DEI Task Force
DEI Task Force Task Force

CONTRIBUTORS
Mark Dunscomb Kisa Mwakanyamale (L) Jeffrey Leberfinger (L)
General Chair, SAGEEP 2020 Bethany Burton (R) John Jackson (R)
Technical Chairs - Technical CoChairs,
mdunscomb@utgeng.com SAGEEP 2020 SAGEEP 2021/ 1st Munitions
kemwaks@illinois.edu Response Meeting
blburton@usgs.gov jleberfinger@pikainc.com
John.M.Jackson@usace.army.mil

Micki Allen Dale Rucker Geoff Pettifer

International Board Liaison Editor, JEEG Editor, FastTIMES
(905) 474-9118 (520) 647-3315 +61407 841 098
mickiallen@marac.com druck8240@gmail.com editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com

EEGS FOUNDATION MEMBERS

Doug Laymon John Clarke Dennis Mills
President EEGS Foundation Secretary EEGS Foundation Treasurer EEGS Foundation
doug@collierconsulting.com jclark@coronares.com dmills@expins.com
 Page 14 Vol 25, 3 2020

(Unless otherwise indicated - All Board Members and Office Bearers may be contacted via staff@eegs.org)

EEGS COMMITTEE CHAIRS

Bart Hoekstra Lia Martinez (L) & Dale Werkema
President-Elect Robert Garfield (R) Immediate Past President
Finance Board Members at Large Nominations and Awards
Co-Chairs Membership

Judith L. Robinson Katherine Grote Elliot Grunewald

Board Member at Large Student Vice President – SAGEEP
Communications and SAGEEP Steering Committee
Publications

Geoff Pettifer (L)

editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
& Bruce Smith (R)
dyfrig43@gmail.com
Co-Chairs Inter-Society

EEGS BUSINESS OFFICES

1391 Speer Blvd., Ste. 450 Kathie A. Barstnar Jackie Jacoby
Denver, Colorado, 80204 USA Executive Director Managing Director
(303) 531-7517 (303) 531-7517
PH 303.531-7517
FX 303.820.3844 staff@eegs.org staff@eegs.org
staff@eegs.org

FastTIMES (ISSN 1943-6505) is published
by the Environmental and Engineering
Geophysical Society (EEGS). It is available
electronically (as a pdf document) from the
EEGS website (www.eegs.org).
FastTIMES is published electronically
five times a year. For the November,
2020 FastTIMES Vol 25,4 issue, please
send contributions to any member of
the editorial team by November 13th,
2020.
Advertisements final copy for the Vol
25,4 issue is due to David Valintine
(dvalintine@fugro.com) by November
13th, 2020 Environmental and
Engineering Geophysical Society. All
rights reserved.
ABOUT EEGS
The Environmental and Engineering (1) h olding the annual Symposium on the
Geophysical Society (EEGS) is an applied Application of Geophysics to Engineering
scientific organization founded in 1992. Our and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP);
mission: (2) publishing the Journal of Environmental &
Engineering Geophysics (JEEG), a peer-
“To promote the science of geophysics
reviewed journal devoted to near-surface
especially as it is applied to environmental
geophysics;
and engineering problems; to foster
(3) publishing FastTIMES, a magazine for the
common scientific interests of geophysicists
near-surface community and associated
and their colleagues in other related
geoscience professionals that are end-
sciences and engineering; to maintain a high
users of geophysics, and
professional standing among its members;
(4) maintaining relationships with other
and to promote fellowship and cooperation
professional societies relevant to near-
among persons interested in the science.”
surface geophysics.
We strive to accomplish our mission in many
ways, including
JOINING EEGS
EEGS offers individual, student and of corporate membership. All membership
corporate memberships. Annual dues are categories include free online access to
$110 for an individual membership, $55 for JEEG. The membership application is
introductory membership, $50 for a retired available at the back of this issue, or online
member, $50 developing world membership, at www.eegs.org.
and from $310 to $4025 for various levels
 Page 15 Vol 25, 3 2020

Exploration Instruments
North America’s Premier Source for
Geophysical and NDT Equipment Rentals

AFFORDABILITY
AVAILABILITY
DEPENDABILITY

Austin, TX 512-346-4042
Harrisburg, PA 717-303-5406
Service@expins.com
www.expins.com
 Page 16
President’s message
Barry Allred, President
staff@eegs.com
Dear EEGS Members:
Planning continues for SAGEEP 2021, and we will be providing
more conference information very soon.
As mentioned in my last letter to the society, Geoff Pettifer,
FastTIMES Editor-in-Chief, and Dale Rucker, Editor - Journal
of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics (JEEG) will both
soon be stepping down from their editor positions at the end
of 2020. Our search committee has devoted substantial time
and effort to find replacements for Geoff and Dale. We were
quite fortunate to have excellent candidates apply for both the
FastTIMES and JEEG editor positions. After a thorough review
of qualifications, followed up by interviews, we are pleased to
announce as follows the next FastTIMES and JEEG editors.
German Ojeda – FastTIMES Editor-in-Chief.
German has twenty years of industry
experience and is the founder and current
president of Subsuelo3D, a successful
company engaged in developing easy-
to-use geophysical instruments for
near-surface exploration. German is a
FL-licensed Professional Geologist, and
holds bachelors, masters, and doctorate
degrees in Earth Sciences.
Call for Volunteers EEGS
Membership Committee
The lifeblood of any membership society is its members. We
need volunteers to serve on the Membership Committee for
the 2019/2020 term to:
• help identify potential new members,
• develop and communicate new member benefits, and
• participate in efforts to retain our current members.
EEGS is the premier membership organization representing near
surface geophysics. Ours is a “big tent” society with members
from diverse disciplines such as engineers, practitioners,
academicians, students, service providers, manufacturers,
software developers, and more.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Aleksandra “Sasha” Varnavina – JEEG Co-Editor.
Aleksandra “Sasha” Varnavina – JEEG
Co-Editor. Sasha holds a Ph.D. degree in
Geological Engineering, and is currently a
Nondestructive Evaluation (NDE) Data Scientist
at BDI Inc. Sasha brings to JEEG a broad range
of experience working with various geophysical
methods to solve environmental, geological,
and engineering problems.
Afshin Aghayan – JEEG Co-Editor.
Afshin recently obtained his Ph.D. and his
research interests include application of near-
surface geophysical methods, aquifer
characterization using geophysical data, and
developing new methods for multiscale modeling
and inversion. Afshin has previously served as
a JEEG Associate Editor and is Founder & CTO
of Geo-Sustainable Services, LLC.
As been said before, it will be impossible to replace Geoff and
Dale, but I feel very confident going forward into 2021 that both
FastTIMES and JEEG will be in very good hands. Welcome
aboard to the EEGS community German, Sasha, and Afshin!
Special thanks to Geoff Pettifer, and Guest Editor, Ron Bell, on
the current FastTIMES edition focused on drone geophysics and
remote sensing. Drones with visible spectrum panchromatic,
multispectral, hyperspectral, thermal infrared, and lidar sensors
are now commonly employed for site investigations. Extensive
testing and research is presently being conducted on the use
of geophysical sensors mounted on drone platforms, which
has the potential to greatly advance near-surface geophysics
technology and application. Consequently, the excellent articles
found in this FastTIMES are both timely and relevant, thereby
certainly of great interest to our readers.
Best Regards,
Barry Allred, EEGS President
Why not lend your support to help grow the association, add
benefits to the the existing roster and identify strategies to let
the geophysics world know of EEGS’ existence and value to
the profession? This Committee has EEGS staff support to help
implement programs and benefits - we need your perspective
and passion!
If you think you can contribute in this rewarding role, please
Lia Martinez lia.martinez@mountstopris.com, EEGS Committee
Membership Chair.
 Page 17 Vol 25, 3 2020

EEGS Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force

Dear EEGS Community,

Following the death of George Floyd, EEGS released a statement
regarding social injustice and our commitment to equity within
our society. To stand true to this message the EEGS board has
created a Diversity Equity and Inclusion Task Force to address
the issues identified in that statement, which reads:
Acknowledging our duty and ethical commitment to protect
public welfare and provide equitable treatment, EEGS fully
supports movements that denounce racism in all forms that
permeate society today. We acknowledge the pain and trauma
that communities of color are experiencing and stand with them
in solidarity. As such, EEGS affirms its commitment to serve
communities, the profession and our members with the highest
standards of integrity, fairness, dignity and respect. Together,
we can make a difference.
Our Task Force has been working on initiatives which uphold
that statement. One of these initiatives was the DEI Task Force’s
inaugural event and community engagement event for EEGS: a
screening of “Picture a Scientist” https://vimeo.com/405966332
The “Picture a Scientist” screening was held on October 1st and
2nd, 2020 via a virtual screening room. The production company
for the film set up a screening room for us and there was a small
fee associated with that platform. To cover this cost, we solicited
donations to cover the cost of the screening room. Moreover, all Over 150 participants registered for the event and we had
additional funds from this fundraiser went to the EEGS DEI Task representation from 13 countries. We are looking forward
Force for the implementation of the following goals: to your input for future events. If you attended, check your
email for the post event survey. If you did not attend and are
•D
 iversity and equity education, promotion, and dialogue
interested in future events, please let us know via the form
within our profession for greater understanding and inclusion
on the EEGS DEI Task Force webpage: https://www.eegs.org/
within and among our profession
diversity-equity-and-inclusion.
•C
 ommunity outreach to future generations of geoscientists
Thank you for your consideration and attendance,
and engineers at SAGEEP meetings
•G
 rowing diversity, equity, and inclusion in our membership
EEGS DEI Task Force
and leadership
As part of the screening we hosted a happy hour to reflect and
discuss on October 2nd. We welcomed the following panelists
for the discussion:
- Dr. Kisa Mwakanyamale, AGU-NS
- Dr. German Y. Ojeda, P.G., EEGS
- Cian Dawson, AGU-NS
- Emily Hart, EEGS
 Page 18 Vol 25, 3 2020

CO-ORGANIZER

33 rd Symposium on the Application of Geophysics

to Engineering and Environmental Problems

1st Munitions Response Conference

S A V E T H E D AT E !
1 4 -1 8 M A R C H 2 0 2 1

W W W. S AG E E P.O R G

21645- SAGEEP2021 V2F A4.indd 1 26/06/2020 09:25

 Page 19
Editorial
FastTIMES Editor-in-Chief
Geoff Pettifer
editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
On behalf of Vol 25, 3 Editor Ron Bell (and Associate Editor for the
geoDRONE Report) and myself, welcome to Vol 25, 3 this Special
Issue of FastTIMES which focuses on Drone Geophysics and
Remote Sensing. This second venture into implementing the new
distributed Editorial model for FastTIMES, is a bumper edition
in terms of technical articles, advertisers and cross-promotion
of this Special Issue, testament to the interest in the revolution
in near-surface geophysics to speed up field data acquisition
and also to make airborne geophysics more affordable for near-
surface geophysics projects. Thank you for the support of all the
technical article contributors that have shared their knowledge
and experience in this emerging and rapidly evolving field and
of the advertisers (wrangled by David Valintine, Ron Bell and
myself) and Professional Societies involved in cross-promotion
of this Special Issue. We hope you enjoy reading about the drone
revolution and how drones and remote sensing from satellites
can assist in large- and small-scale site characterization. Pass
the word onto your geoscience and geo-engineering colleagues.
We cover most fields of application of NSG. Our readers, EEGS
and our Editorial team (p21) who, in their regular columns have
helped contribute to the Drone and Remote Sensing story, owe a
special thanks to Ron Bell, a passionate advocate for drones, for
putting this Special Issue together. Ron’s Foreword does greater
justice to summarizing the content of Vol 25, 3 than I can and Irefer
you to the Foreword (p38) and to the geoDRONE Report (p48) for
drone-related news that did not make it into technical articles.
In these grim and tragic for many families, COVID-19 times, there
is also an enforced revolution of delivery of technical content and
Professional Society Conferences, presenting a challenge to the
business plans of not-for-profit societies like EEGS, SEG, AGU
and EAGE, not to forget all national geophysical societies and
geoscience and geo-engineering societies globally. As in our
daily family, work and social lives we have all, under the cloud of
COVID-19, had to adapt to a new normal. There is at least one
silver lining however to the dark COVID-19 cloud and that is the
affordability of Virtual Conferences and internet technology that
brings a richness of Webinars, Society Branch meetings and
Conferences to our door. My annual conference going budget
(~US$2000) a year ago afforded me one physical Conference
(SAGEEP). That budget can now buy me access to at least three
Virtual Conferences and this year has given me access for the first
time, to the AEG Conference to learn more about the work flows
and end knowledge of engineering and environmental geology,
to the SEG Conference (the first time I will be “going to” an SEG
Conference in my almost 50 years with SEG), as well as EEGS
NS and NGWA or IAH. This provides an opportunity for us all to
Vol 25, 3 2020
Drone Geophysics and Remote Sensing Editor
Ron Bell
Senior Geophysicist & geoDRONEologist
Collier Geophysics, LLC
International Geophysical Services, LLC
Aerobotic Geophysical Systems,LLC
dyfrig43@gmail.com
particularly improve our outreach to understand more, our NSG
end-users. I encourage all readers to consider and take part in
at least one NSG end-user sector virtual Conference. We all have
much to learn about the wider site investigation toolbox and
problems where NSG could be applied.
Barry Allred in his President’s Message (p16) introduces our new
Editors for JEEG and FastTIMES, all commencing in 2021. I am
pleased to support Barry’s welcome and particularly pleased to
welcome German Ojeda (see p26 for his bio), as my successor,
knowing that FastTIMES will be in safe hands under German, who
comes on as an Associate Editor to our Editorial team in 2020
(p21) and shares my passion about outreach through the unique
vehicle FastTIMES provides or global NSG community. We have
already started work on the transition and as part of this, German
has a contributed a great article (p22) on the History of FastTIMES
Part 2 (the last 15 years) following on from reproduction of Jeff
Paines FastTIMES History Part 1 (Vol 13, 4 December 2008) article
in Vol 25, 2 pages 17 to 18. In the Part 2 article you can sample
his penmanship. German brings new ideas and approaches /
plans to developing and publishing FastTIMES, we look forward
to learning about how, with EEGS support, he and the Editorial
team can continue to improve the FastTIMES experience, once
these plans are more concrete.
Apart from our Associate Editors, there are three people that I
want to thank and mention that play a significant part in bringing
FastTIMES to you. Firstly, Jackie Jacoby (p14) in the EEGS
Office that carries out the important administrative leg-work to
keep FastTIMES going and has recently worked to re-vamp the
EEGS Website. Secondly, I mention David Valintine who is Chair
of Publications Advertising Committee (p21) and who is working
with German to develop the publication of FastTIMES beyond the
current pdf format and to improve the reader’s and advertiser’s
value and experience.
Thirdly there is one person in particular I wish
to pay tribute to that makes an enormous
contribution to the attractiveness of FastTIMES
and that is our design and layout person, Ana
Jovanovic, in Belgrade, Serbia who has patiently
and skilfully worked with me, on-call, contracted
through the Upwork on-line market place platform to carry out
the layout of the magazine since September 2017 (Vol 22, 3).
Ana, I thank you on behalf of EEGS and our readership for your
continuing cheerful, timely, efficient and well-crafted service in
making FastTIMES accessible, user-friendly and attractive. Any
errors are the editor’s responsibility, definitely not yours. If you
like Ana’s work as exhibited through the pages of FastTIMES
 Page 20
please contact her through Upwork to carry out your design and
layout requirements. Highly recommended.
One thing that is clear to me in researching the history of
EEGS is the power of volunteering and putting back to our
profession that is manifest in the numerous contributors to
the work and success of EEGS. Many serve for a period of a
few or more years and then move on, but there is a special
group of people that were there at Day one of EEGS in 1992
that have been working since then, more or less continuously,
to set up, maintain and build the unique EEGS NSG culture
and our three technical assets: SAGEEP, JEEG and FastTIMES
and have served on EEGS Committees, EEGS Board and/
or the EEGS Foundation or have supported one or more of
EEGS, SAGEEP, the EEGS Foundation and our publications
as sponsors / advertisers.
We could do no better in our Jubilee Year of FastTIMES and JEEG
to progressively honour their commitment and dedicated service
to the near-surface geophysics community through EEGS. I say
progressively because I will set the ball rolling, by mentioning
those I can immediately think of: Ron Bell (Associate Editor and
drone geophysics conspirator) and Bill Doll and Glenn Rix (serving
Silver Jubilee Forum - The Future of Near-Surface
Geophysics in the US
Contribute to the Forum - send contributions to : -
Geoff Pettifer
Editor-in-Chief, FastTIMES
editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
Why a Silver Jubilee Forum?
FastTIMES is in its 25th Year (Silver Jubilee) as an online
publication and coincidentally so too are JEEG and NAOC
celebrating a 25 year milestone. It is also the year of COVID-19
pandemic and the accompanying lockdowns. It is as if Mother
Nature and the Lords of Karma have “sent us all to our rooms to
think about what we have just done” for the last century or so,
on so many levels of being. It has reminded us that “we are all
in this together” and there is a talk of an “existential crisis” and a
“new normal” that might emerge once this pandemic is bested.
What will be the new normal for the US NSG community I
wonder? Will it mean something more fundamental than
just greater use of virtual gatherings, or will it be business
as usual (the “same-old same-old”)?
So how in these introspective, crisis-laden times, can we make a
fitting tribute to FastTIMES and the future of our NSG profession
in the Silver Jubilee? I can think of no better way to celebrate the
25 years, than to devote this year and this period of enforced
reflection in 2020 going into 2021, to having a Silver Jubilee
Forum: a series of essays being opinion pieces from various
contributors (both invited and those who want to contribute to
this Forum). The Forum will encourage and be the vehicle for,
us to be pausing, reflecting and taking stock of where we are
Vol 25, 3 2020
on the EEGS Foundation – p37). My apologies to those I have
missed but that is where you come in dear readers, by contacting
me and letting me know for the next issue of FastTIMES Vol 25,
4, others who started service with EEGS in 1992, and as EEGS
members, have worked more or less continuously for EEGS or
supported EEGS in some capacity since and that are still serving
today, so that particular Honour Roll can be complete. To learn
more of the history of EEGS go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Environmental_and_Engineering_Geophysical_Society.
To become a volunteer yourself on one of the EEGS communities
contact David Valintine, EEGS Committees Chair (dvalintine@
fugro.com) to register your interest (see also adverts for volunteers
for Membership (p17) and Inter-Society (p32).
Finally, I commend to you the new initiative by EEGS on Diversity,
Equity and Inclusion (p17 - https://www.eegs.org/diversity-equity-
and-inclusion), the EEGS Foundation report on the recent On-line
Auction (p36) and the JEEG Report (33).
In closing I hope you and your loved ones stay safe and productive
in these challenging times and that lock down affords you some
time to read in these Vol 25, 3 pages about the drone revolution
and the value of Remote Sensing in the NSG toolbox.Imus
as a US NSG community, how we are travelling and where are
we going, not just EEGS but the entire community of the three
US-based NSG professional Societies: SEG NSTS, AGU NS and
EEGS, plus the US-based members of EAGE NSGD and the NSG
members of National SEG & EAGE Chapters.
The Jubilee Forum is planned to cover our future NSG science
with its capabilities and its limitations, technological development
opportunities and the way we, as NSG scientists operate and
organize ourselves as a NSG community going forward (both
globally and in the US), within the global geophysics sector and
within the broader geoscience and geo-engineering community of
endusers of NSG geophysics.
A very modest start to this taking stock process was the planned
SAGEEP 2020 Wednesday April 1 lunchtime one-hour Panel
Discussion, chaired by Mark Dunscomb, Conference Chair on
“Near Surface Geophysics’ Future in North America” (see page
58 of FastTIMES Vol 25, 1). The scope of this topic and opinions
held about our future directions are so broad that they could fill the
pages of many editions of this Silver Jubilee Forum and the Forum
will better ground us all for this postponed short public gathering
at SAGEEP 2021. Your contributions and ideas are welcomed, and
hopefully we’ll together turn Silver into Gold through the pages of
this Forum.
Please contact me if you have thoughts to contribute or some
alchemical actions to advocate. Address emailed contributions to
Geoff Pettifer, Editor-in-Chief,
FastTIMES SILVER JUBILEE FORUM
editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
 Page 21 Vol 25, 3 2020

FastTIMES Editorial Team

Mohamed Ahmed Ron Bell Nigel Cassidy Abraham Emond Angelos Lampousis
Industry News geoDRONE Infrastructure and Government Agricultural
Corporate Profiles Report & EEGS Geotechnical Geophysics News Geophysics News
mohamed.ahmed@ Foundation News Geophysics News abraham.emond@alaska.gov alampousis@ccny.cuny.edu
tamucc.edu rbell@igsdenver.com nigel.j.cassidy@gmail.com

Jeff Leberfinger Moe Momayez German Ojeda Sina Saneiyan

UXO Community Mining Geophysics Associate Editor EEGS Student Chapters
Geophysics News News Editor-in-Chief Elect (2021) Web support
jleberfinger@pikainc.com moe.momayez@arizona.edu gojeda@subsuelo3d.com s.saneiyan@rutgers.edu

We are currently seeking Associate Editors with

interest in producing the following regular columns: -
• Hydrogeophysics and Environmental Geophysics
– existing column
• Archaeological and Forensic Geophysics – existing
column
Geoff Pettifer • Geophysics Education News – a new column
Editor-in-Chief • Current NSG Research News – a new column
editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com • E merging NSG News (globally especially in
+1-360-989-6771 developing nations) - existing column
+61407-841-098 If any of these areas of focus are of interest, and you
have the passion and time to make the commitment
Contact: editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com;
Tel +61407-841-098; Skype: geoff.pettifer

To download recent issues of FastTIMES go to https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue.

To download past issues of FastTIMES go to https://www.eegs.org/past-issues.

PUBLICATIONS ADVERTISING COMMITTEE

Go to https://www.eegs.org/advertising-information for FastTIMES advertising rates.
Contact David Valintine (dvalintine@fugro.com) for advertising enquiries.
Contact Jackie Jacoby (staff@eegs.org; 303-531-7517) to place an advertisement.
David Valintine
 Page 22
FastTIMES Online Silver
Jubilee: The History of
FastTIMES - Part 2 –
The Last 15 Years.
German Y. Ojeda
Associate Editor
Editor-in-Chief Elect (2021)
gojeda@subsuelo3d.com
Bio
What a pleasure it is to write this Part 2 of the FastTIMES story
(see FastTIMES Vol 25, 2 for Part 1), about a great periodic
publication that has positively influenced the professional practice
of so many colleagues around the world. There is no doubt within
our community of near-surface geophysicists that FastTIMES is
a treasured source of technical and commercial information in
our field. Well, want to know how this is accomplished? Here
is the secret: FastTIMES has always been able to attract and
retain talented, selfless and proactive team-players in the roles
of authors, Associate Editors and Editors-in-Chief. A selection
of the FastTIMES covers and topics covered in the last 15 years
is shown in Figure 1. An overview full list of FastTIMES editions
and the people who worked to bring the magazine to us since
late-2007, is presented in Table 1.
Let’s take a closer look at who and when. Back in 2007, a trio of
geophysicists took on the challenge to edit the initial electronic
issues of FastTIMES: Jeff Paine, Roger Young and Brad Isbell. They
managed to encourage authors to contribute articles ranging from
Geophysics on Ice to Archaeological exploration, and edited four
issues working together as a team. Thanks to Jeff, Roger and Brad’s
efforts, the electronic-only experiment proved to be a success. Their
self-sacrificing work paved the way to a bright future for FastTIMES.
To centralize the editorial tasks into a single individual, the role
of Editor-in-Chief was introduced in late 2008. Lucky for us
and our magazine, Jeff Paine was chosen as the inaugural
editor. He edited 2 issues on Geotechnical and Extraterrestrial
Geophysics, working closely with associate editors Roger Young,
Moe Momayez and Brad Isbell. Jeff was heavily involved with
edition of FastTIMES –in the roles of Editor-in-Chief and later
as associate editor, for over 8 years. He eventually received the
prestigious Gold Award from EEGS for his many contributions.
Jeff is now at the University of Texas at Austin.
Jeff’s short but successful tenure as Editor-in-Chief (see Table
1) was succeeded by another big name in FastTIMES history.
Early in 2009 Moe Momayez took on the challenge to edit
our magazine by associate-editing 2 issues. Moe’s inaugural
issue as Editor-in-Chief (Vol 14 No 2) released in July had
been downloaded over 8000 times by August! Under Moe’s
principal editorship, the section “The New Geoscience” was
created to feature student’s or recent graduate’s research,
Vol 25, 3 2020
providing a nice window for incoming geophysicists. This is
just one of Moe’s many contributions to FastTIMES over his
4-year tenure at the editorial helm, which resulted in production
of 13 issues ranging from Mine Geophysics to Seismo-electric
and Microgravity methods (Table 1).
Moe’s “From the Editor’s Desk” column in volume 16 number 2
speaks volumes about our mission: At Professor’s David Nobes
request, in the wake of the large March/2011 earthquake in
New Zealand which caused serious damage to the University
of Canterbury campus, the EEGS’s board at the time granted
guest access to our online publications collection to him and
his students, and did so in less than 24 hours! Moe is still at
the University of Arizona, actively pursuing his research and
teaching interests much to the benefit of our geophysical
community. He continues as an Associate Editor to this day,
delivering the regular Mining Geophysics column.
Moe passed the Editor-in-Chief baton to Barry Allred –our
current EEGS President and an outstanding Agricultural
Geophysics expert- in late 2013. For over four years Barry led
the editorial efforts of our magazine, which included a diversity
of topics including GPR, seismic, UXO, electromagnetics,
archaeological, forensic, karst and the first special issue on
application of drone technology for Geophysics.
Barry’s column titled “Message from the FastTIMES Editor-in-
Chief” was designed to inspire future contributing authors to
publish articles in our magazine based on themes of interest
carefully selected under his tactful leadership. And it worked.
Take for example volume 21 number 1 dedicated to Drone
Geophysics and guest-edited by Ron Bell (yes, the father of the
popular geoDRONE Report), or volume 21 number 2 dedicated
to Forensic Geophysics and co-edited by Daniel Bigman.
Both FastTIMES issues became important references in
their respective fields. Barry’s contribution to the success
of FastTIMES, which included lead-editing 16 issues, was
outstanding (Table 1). Barry continues to collaborate with
EEGS, JEEG and FastTIMES, while holding a position as
Research Agricultural Engineer, at the USDA/ARS Soil Drainage
Research Unit in Columbus, Ohio.
Volume 22 number 2 (June 2017) represented the transition from
Barry Allred to Geoff Pettifer as the new Editor-in-Chief. Geoff,
a geophysicist with the soul of a writer, brought a lot to the
table, including 45 years of experience in various Government
and consulting assignments. He was kind enough to reveal
his mantra in his first editorial: “There is no such thing as the
good old days in geophysics – the good old days are always
ahead of us because we are always improving and innovating,
and we need to talk that up and celebrate it.”
Geoff’s debut as official Editor-in-Chief (Volume 22 number
3) was a slam-dunk success. In addition to assembling great
science articles on California groundwater, a new layout format
was established, targeted to make FastTIMES much more
reader-friendly. In addition, he started to share his views on
geophysical and other topics in his regular Editorials, which are
quite enjoyable to read. Over the years, Geoff’s has carved
 Page 23 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 1. A few FastTIMES covers from the last 15 years selected at random.
 Page 24 Vol 25, 3 2020

Table 1. List of FastTIMES issues and editors over the period 2007-2020.
(All are accessible for free download from https://www.eegs.org/past-issues or https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue)

Year Year No Issue Title Editor-in-Chief Associate Editors

Moe Momayez, Nigel Cassidy, Ron Bell, Angelos Lampousis,

Drone Geophysics and
3 Jeffrey Leberfinger, Sina Saneiyan, Mohamed Ahmed, Abraham
Remote Sensing
Emond, German Ojeda

Moe Momayez, Nigel Cassidy, Ron Bell, Angelos Lampousis,

2020 25 2 Contaminant Geophysics Jeffrey Leberfinger, Sina Saneiyan, Mohamed Ahmed, Abraham
Emond

Moe Momayez, Nedra Bonal, Nigel Cassidy, Ron Bell, Angelos

1 SAGEEP 2020 Lampousis, Jeffrey Leberfinger, Sina Saneiyan, Mohamed Ahmed,
Abraham Emond, Koya Suto, Daniel Bigman

Moe Momayez, Katherine Grote, Nedra Bonal, Nigel Cassidy,

Geophysics for Geological
5 Ron Bell, Angelos Lampousis, Jeffrey Leberfinger, Sina Saneiyan,
Mapping
Mohamed Ahmed, Abraham Emond, Koya Suto, Daniel Bigman

Moe Momayez, Katherine Grote, Nedra Bonal, Nigel Cassidy,

Near-Surface Geophysics
4 Ron Bell, Angelos Lampousis, Jeffrey Leberfinger, Sina Saneiyan,
Software
Mohamed Ahmed, Koya Suto, Daniel Bigman
2019 24
US Infrastructure
3
Geophysics Moe Momayez, Katherine Grote, Nedra Bonal, Nigel Cassidy, Ron
Managed and Natural Geoff Pettifer Bell, Angelos Lampousis, Jeffrey Leberfinger, John Jackson, Koya
2 Aquifer Recharge Suto, Daniel Bigman
Geophysics
1 SAGEEP 2019 Moe Momayez, Katherine Grote, Nedra Bonal, Nigel Cassidy, Ron
Bell, Angelos Lampousis, Jeffrey Leberfinger, Bethany Burton,
5 UXO Geophysics Koya Suto, Daniel Bigman
Geophysics for Oil and Gas
4
Sector Impacts

2018 23 Infrastructure: Dams and Moe Momayez, Katherine Grote, Nedra Bonal, Nigel Cassidy, Ron
3
Levees Bell, Angelos Lampousis, Jeffrey Leberfinger, Daniel Bigman
Mine Site & Mining
2
Geophysics
1 SAGEEP 2018

4 Agricultural Geophysics

Planning for Sustainability

Moe Momayez, Ron Kaufmann, Katherine Grote, Nedra Bonal,
3 of California Groundwater -
Nigel Cassidy, Ron Bell
How Geophysics can Assist
2017 22
Barry Allred
AEM 2.5D Inversion and
2 (Geoff Pettifer
NMR Logging
Elect)
1 Environmental Geophysics Barry Allred
Geophysical Investigations
4
Using Muon Measurements
3 Karst Geophysics
Dan Bigman, Nedra Bonal, Nigel Cassidy, Katherine Grote, Ron
2016 21 2 Forensic Geophysics Barry Allred
Kaufmann, Moe Momayez
Special Issue on the
1 Application of Drone
Technology for Geophysics
 Page 25 Vol 25, 3 2020

Year Year No Issue Title Editor-in-Chief Associate Editors

Recent Developments in
4 the Radio Magnetotelluric
Method
3 Seismic Tomography & GPR
2015 20
2 Archaeological Geophysics
Electromagnetic Induction
1 Tools for Discrimination of
UXO
4 EEGS Student Chapters
3 UXO Geophysics Barry Allred

2014 19 Seismic Methods/ Moe Momayez, Jeffrey Paine

2 Capacitively Coupled
Resistivity
1 Airborne Geophysics
Low Cost Tomograph
4 System for Microtremor
2013 18 Seismic Acquisition
GPR Soil Water Content
3
Measurement
Seismo-electric and
2
2012 17 Microgravity
1 Proximal Soil Sensing
4 Electrical Techniques
Application of Geophysical
3 Techniques for Earthquake
2011 16 Research
Barry Allred, Jeffrey Paine
Magnetic and EM
2
Techniques
1 SAGEEP 2011 Moe Momayez
Agriculture: A Budding Field
4
in Geophysics
Near-Surface Geophysical
3
Investigations
2010 15 Civil Infrastructure Health
2
Monitoring and Diagnosis
Software for Analysis of Jeffrey Paine
1 Near-Surface Geophysical
Data
4 Hydrogeological Geophysics
Advances in Agricultural
3
Geophysics
Moe Momayez Jeffrey Paine, Roger Young
2009 14 Mapping and Detecting
2 Abandoned Mines with
Geophysics
1 Geotechnical Geophysics Jeffrey G.
Roger Young, Moe Momayez, Brad Isbell
4 Extraterrestrial Geophysics Paine
3 Geophysics in Archaeology

2008 13 Geophysics and Precision

2
Agriculture
Jeffrey Paine, Roger Young, Brad Isbell
Geophysical Fun in the Bay
1
of Fundy
2007 12 4 Geophysics on Ice
 Page 26
his elegant touch on most of the successful features that
make up today’s model of our magazine. Geoff, recognized
the uniqueness of FastTIMES as a resource for the global
NSG community and for outreach to near-surface geophysics
end-users, and aided by introduction of professional layout
support (Ana Jovanovic) and the EEGS Publications Advertising
Committee, built on extending the FastTIMES tradition of
focusing on NSG applications, to themes for key sustainability
issues for the US and globally. As well as three Special Issues
per year on sustainability themes, there is now one technology
focus issue and a fifth FastTIMES, the first of the year, focusing
on the heart of EEGS: a pre- and post-SAGEEP Conference
documentation and promotion issue. Intrinsic to the outreach
and extending the circulation of FastTIMES, was both cross-
promoting each Special Issue with sector professional
geoscience and geo-engineering Societies with an NSG end-
user demographic relevant to the theme and also the Associate
Editors producing regular columns focusing on the diverse NSG
end-user sectors. He promised and delivered. See Table 1 for
a taste of the diversity of themes that have been covered by
FastTIMES authors influenced by Geoff’s subtle yet powerful
editorial style (refer also to p28 for a montage of magazine
covers and topics from mid-2017 to the present.
After three and a half years at the editorial steering wheel, Geoff
Pettifer has regrettably decided to step down from his role as
Editor-in-Chief effective December to free-up time for other
exciting adventures in Vancouver, WA and Perth, Australia,
and other places to be decided. Geoff has promised –thank
goodness- to keep more than a vigilant eye on our cherished
magazine, in the roles of Associate Editor and columnist.
But what does all the above mean to the geophysical business?
Well, that’s an easy question. Just ask the advertisers. The
recurring roster of instrument makers, equipment renters,
service companies, independent consultants, freelance
geophysicists, etc. who advertise regularly in our magazine is
an eloquent declaration that advertising in FastTIMES is money
well spent, as well as an unspoken sign of endorsement for
the job done.
Let’s all work together within and outside our near-surface
geophysical community to sustain (and hopefully increase) the
Interactive PDF user instructions
• Cover page has active links to articles just click to navigate
• TOC (page 4) have active links for all contents of this PDF
just click to navigate
Clicking on the logo will direct you back to
the cover
Clicking on this icon will direct you back to the TOC
Clicking on this icon goes to the previous page
Clicking on this icon goes to the next page
• All email links are active and will open a new email when clicked on
Vol 25, 3 2020
high levels of reputation, visibility and readership of FastTIMES
that all previous authors, editors, EEGS staff and outside
contributors have struggled to build over the years. Only by
working together we will be able to confirm that the good old
days are actually ahead of us.
Author Bio
German Ojeda
FastTIMES Editor-in-Chief Elect (2021)
President
Subsuelo3D
Bogota, Colombia
gojeda@subsuelo3d.com
German Y. Ojeda is an international geologist, geophysicist and
entrepreneur. Born and raised in South America, he earned a
Geologist degree from Universidad Nacional de Colombia in
Bogota. Upon graduation, he moved to South Carolina to pursue
a Master’s in Geophysics, where he worked on interpretation
of 2D seismic, gravimetric and magnetometric data from the
northern Andes, unraveling the pre-deformational Cretaceous
basin geometry. He then moved south to Miami for a PhD in
Geology at Florida International University, where he modeled
the flexural rigidity of the lithosphere using multidimensional
spectral analysis of gravity and topography. He was later
offered a postdoctoral position at Coastal Carolina University in
Myrtle Beach, where he spent over 3 years developing seafloor
mapping techniques based on sidescan sonar data, applicable
to sediment-starved continental shelves. He returned home
to Colombia in 2004, to spend the next 11 years in the oil
industry in various assignments with Ecopetrol energy company
and LAEFM, a private equity firm. German is the founder and
current President of Subsuelo3D, a Bogota-based company
engaged in developing easy-to-use geophysical instruments
for near-surface exploration. He brings in a vision to increase
the visibility of FastTIMES by developing a promotion strategy
largely supported on social media.
• All website links are active and will direct you to the
corresponding website when clicked on. Same with logos and
advertisements..
• All images in the articles when clicked on will become larger,
click on the large image to minimize (please note: depending on
your PDF reader you may see overlapping of images when enlarged,
to fix this simply scroll down one page and then return to the page,
this resets your PDF reader to the proper display)
Clicking on this icon brings you back to the first page
of the current article you are reading
Bio Clicking on this icon will direct you to the author’s
bio page
Page 27 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 28 Vol 25, 3 2020

Volume 24, Number 5, 2019

Geophysics for
Geological Mapping
CONTENTS
Also Featured:
• SAGEEP 20/20 – Visionary Geophysics: Conference Details
• Foreword – AASG Geological Mapping Perspective
• Sustaining FastTIMES – a New Editorial Model in 2020
• FastTIMES Regular Columns focusing on larger scale mapping
• FastTIMES 2020 Themes – Plan Your Contribution(s)

FastTIMES is the Technical Magazine of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

Volume 25,1, February 2020 Volume 25, Number 2, 2020

(Pre-Conference Version)

CONTENTS
Contaminant
Geophysics
Editor: Dale Werkema Also Featured:
• EEGS 2020 Board and Committees
CONTENTS • 25th Year of FastTIMES Online –
Silver Jubilee
• Silver Jubilee Forum – Future of
Near-surface Geophysics in the US.
Contributions Welcome
• The First 10 years of FastTIMES
• A Look Back to the Founding
Days of EEGS and a Career in
Environmental Geophysics
• Calendar 2020-2022 update – in
light of COVID-19
• Regular Columns – Focus on
Contamination Issues
• Call for Associate Editors -
FastTIMES

33 rd Symposium on the Application of Geophysics

to Engineering and Environmental Problems

1st Munitions Response Meeting

MARCH 29 – APRIL 2, 2020

W W W. S AG E E P.O R G

Vol 25, 1 2020

FastTIMES is the Technical Magazine of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society FastTIMES is the Technical Magazine of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN NEAR-SURFACE GEOPHYSICS AWARENESS RAISING

Sustaining FastTIMES - development, applications, value and limitations of near-

surface geophysical methods to both geophysicists and the
a Precious NSG Community broader audience of geoscience and engineering professionals
who are the end-users of geophysics. As such it is a valuable
Outreach Resource. NSGS community resource.
FastTIMES is the technical near-surface geophysics magazine In addition to documenting and promoting the EEGS Annual
of EEGS and globally, it is the only magazine devoted entirely SAGEEP Conference and its proceedings, FastTIMES features
to near-surface geophysics news and outreach, bringing the an ongoing series of Special Issues, each focused on a theme
message, in an accessible way of the latest research and of sustainability for the Americas and globally (download recent
 Page 29
issues from https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue). But what about
the sustainability of magazine production?
A New Sustainable Editorial Model
EEGS is looking to maintain, as well as continue to improve,
FastTIMES magazine and with the current Editor-in Chief, Geoff
Pettifer, intending to move on in 2020, or lighten considerably his
time commitment to FastTIMES production, EEGS is considering
new ways of sustainably maintaining the quality and delivery
of the magazine with the approach of a managing Editor and
a team of guest Special Issue Editors, along with the current
Associate Editors, to share the workload more sustainably.
The plan is to move therefore to a distributed Editor model for
delivering FastTIMES, much like what is the case for ASCE-GI
GEOSTRATA magazine which has an Editor -in-Chief providing
strategic planning, continuity, mentoring and assistance to a
team of Special Issue Editors who voluntarily take on almost
full responsibility for a Special Issue once every 1-2 years with
the Associate Editors and regular correspondents providing the
regular copy material.
Join the Editorial Team
EEGS is therefore seeking expressions of interest in joining the
FastTIMES Editorial team, from geophysicists / geoscientists
who have the passion, time, energy and interest in either being
an Associate Editor or being responsible, under the Managing
Editor, for occasionally delivering as a Special Issue Editor, a
single issue of the magazine with a theme of your choice from
the many themes of sustainability for geoscience and geo-
engineering identified as worthy of focus in the various sectors
where near-surface geophysical methods can be applied, or
from a technology theme.
What Themes Are Planned or Possible?
Depending on the interest shown and preferences and
availability of each Editor, the Special Issues themes are chosen
from a long list of possible themes that cover the context
and applications of near-surface geophysics methods to
issues of sustainability for the infrastructure, geo-engineering,
geotechnical, groundwater, environmental, mining, agriculture,
archaeological, forensic, UXO and resource delineation sectors
as well a technology themes (see above graphic for themes
covered so far and tentative plans for 2020 on page19).
Vol 25, 3 2020
Sustainability Themes
Potential future sustainability application themes include such
themes as climate change, riparian and wetland condition,
sustainable groundwater resources, landfill, nuclear waste
disposal, geothermal energy, infrastructure – underground
excavations & cavities, infrastructure condition assessment –
NDT, abandoned mines and mine rehabilitation and closure,
coastal engineering, mine tailings management - geotechnical,
environmental / groundwater, mine water management,
catchment mapping, contaminated sites - investigation and
cleanup / auditing – Superfund sites, sustainable irrigation
- channel leakage, soil management, optimal agriculture,
geohazards, micro-seismicity, documenting archaeological
sites, underground and open pit mine safety geophysics,
forensics geophysics, geophysical research and education,
geological mapping, critical zone – surface and groundwater
interaction, glaciology and permafrost.
Technology Themes
Technological themes applicable to sustainability and advancement
of near-surface geophysics science, in addition to focus on
advances in individual geophysical methods, includes such
themes as uncertainty in modelling, transformation of geophysical
parameters incorporating uncertainty into other geoscience and geo-
engineering parameters, standards revisited, geophysical software,
3D inversion, calibration and instrument development, joint method
inversion, advances in computing power, cross-hole methods,
technology transfer from the O&G and minerals sector to NSG, NSG
uses of mineral exploration data for mine site development, NSG
uses of oil and gas exploration data, shallow marine geophysics,
hyperspectral geophysics, remote sensing sensors and datasets,
and 3D geophysical / geological integrated modelling.
If you are interested in outreach of near-surface
geophysics science and being part of the Editorial
team delivering FastTIMES, or want to learn more
about what is involved, please contact EEGS
Communications and Publications Chair: Judith
Robinson (judith.robinson@pnnl.gov) or
FastTIMES Editor-in-Chief: Geoff Pettifer
( editorFastTIMESnewsmagazine@gmail.com; Cell
phone: +1-360-989-6771).
 Page 30 Vol 25, 3 2020

Publishing and Advertising in FastTIMES 2020

FastTIMES Special Issues for 2020 and early 2021 are listed on In 2020 another 5 issues per year is planned - 4 Special Issues (1
page 46. technology, 3 applications - see page 28 for themes so far for 2020
As for the all Special Issues of FastTIMES, each issue will and page 46 for the remaining themes for 2020) and the SAGEEP
be sector focused and planned and publicized through issue. Over 30 Special Issues topics have been identified to maintain
relevant non-geophysical Societies, to ensure we maximize a 4 to 5 year cyclical focus on key sustainability issues, applications,
outreach and current awareness to non-geophysical end-users sectors, techniques and new developments in equipment, software,
and geophysicists working in the relevant target sector. data management, visualisation and interpretation / synthesis.

Regular existing and new columns such as Drone Report, In addition to a series of articles for each Special Issue focused
Groundwater, Agriculture, Environment, Infrastructure & on the theme of that issue, we welcome one-off articles on other
Geotechnical, Mining, UXO, Archaeology & Forensics, Industry applications, to increase the diversity and appeal of each issue
News, Government sector, and Student Chapter News have been of FastTIMES.
progressively added or will be added and maintained to ensure Underpinning this outreach approach of FastTIMES is that near-
ongoing regular engagement with relevant sectors, as the need and surface geophysics is a means to an end and just one of many tools
the voluntary effort required to maintain such regular columns is that geoscientists, environmental scientists and engineers use to
forthcoming. Regular Columnists and papers/articles are needed. characterize the subsurface. We as geophysicists, need to engage
FastTIMES is your magazine dear reader and your input and with our fellow end-users of geophysical techniques and maintain
voluntary effort will help maintain and improve the information their current awareness of geophysical capabilities and limitations
service provided. and encourage better integrated use of geophysical techniques.

ENHANCED VALUE ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITIES

FastTIMES in 2020 offers enhanced advertising values geoscience investigations, typically non-geophysicists
because, with the new redesign and our plans to have (managers, engineers, geologists). This will inevitably
more FastTIMES Special Issues in partnership with generate greater potential utilization of the services
other geoscience societies as well as end-user sector of geophysical consultants, contractors / service
focused Regular Columns, the intention is to increase providers and technologies (equipment and software).
the range and quality of content and provide greater Consultants, contractors and geophysical technology
appeal and technical value to a wider audience than providers are invited to take out a 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 or full-
just geophysicists. page advertisement or advertise in our Professional
The circulation of FastTIMES is progressively Directory. Advertisements are available with discounts
increasing as we increasingly utilize FastTIMES to for a full year of advertising commitment. In addition,
reach out and gain better engagement, publicity and our regular Industry News column particularly
circulation with the non-geophysical Societies and welcomes technically informative (not blatantly
communities. Our aim is to have at least a 6-fold commercial) articles about the benefits of new
increase in notification to greater than 20,000 regular geophysical developments, services and technologies,
notifications for free download per issue throughout especially from our valued advertisers. Special Issues
2020 (compared to an early 2017 circulation of provide particular focus for the benefits of advertiser’s
3000). We expanded to 5 issues in 2018 including the products. Please visit http://www.eegs.org/advertising-
SAGEEP 2018 FastTIMES and also will have 5 issues information for more information and 2019 rates for
in 2020. This outreach, expansion and improvements FastTIMES advertising.
means that your advertising in FastTIMES will To advertise in FastTIMES, contact:
increasingly reach decision makers that determine David Valintine: dvalintine@fugro.com , or
utilization and budgets of geophysical methods in Jackie Jacoby: staff@eegs.org; 303.531.7517

Volume 24, Number 2, 2019 Volume 24, Number 3, 2019 Volume 25, Number 2, 2020

Managed and Natural Aquifer US Infrastructure Geophysics Contaminant

Recharge Geophysics CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Geophysics
Editor: Dale Werkema Also Featured:
• EEGS 2020 Board and Committees
CONTENTS • 25th Year of FastTIMES Online –
Silver Jubilee
• Silver Jubilee Forum – Future of
Near-surface Geophysics in the US.
Additional features Contributions Welcome
• UXO Community Geophysics News features an article on a New Robotic System for Humanitarian Demining
• SAGEEP 2020 – Call for Session & Course Topics • The First 10 years of FastTIMES
• EEGS Student Chapter News – Research Associate Editor positions open – an opportunity
• A Look Back to the Founding
• Emerging World NSG News Forum – a Renewed Call for Contributions of Articles and News Items
• Geophysics for Aquifer Recharge Studies - Getting the Big Picture and Small Details
Days of EEGS and a Career in
• Why Does Effective Managed Aquifer Recharge Need Geophysics? Environmental Geophysics
• Hydrogeophysics and Environmental Geophysics – EM Methods: Some Pointers for Hydrogeologists
• Mining Geophysics – Patrick Killeen on Exploration Technology In 2018 – an Update on Developments
• Calendar 2020-2022 update – in
• Infrastructure and Geotechnical Geophysics – Infrastructure Spending, Monitoring (BIM) and Data Also Featured: light of COVID-19
• Agricultural Geophysics – Soils and Recharge, plus a new Urban & Environmental Geophysics Course
• geoDRONE Report – AGU/SEG Airborne Geophysics; Drones at SAGEEP 2020, SEG 2019 & AGU 2019 • SAGEEP 20/20 Abstracts Deadline Extended to October 25 • Regular Columns – Focus on
• Archaeological & Forensic Geophysics – Ancient Water Systems and 3D Resistivity on a Mayan Pyramid Contamination Issues
• Andrew Jackson’s Home - SAGEEP 2018 Geophysics • Call for Associate Editors -
• Reflections on NSG Shallow Reflections FastTIMES

• Sustaining FastTIMES – a New Editorial Model

• FastTIMES Regular Columns
• FastTIMES 2020 Themes – Plan Your Contribution(s)
• Calendar 2020 Update

FastTIMES is the Technical Magazine of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society FastTIMES is the Technical Magazine of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society FastTIMES is the Technical Magazine of the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society
 Page 31 Vol 25, 3 2020

Benefits of being an EEGS member

The benefits of being a member of EEGS extend well beyond the quantifiable benefits described below. Being a
member makes you part of one of the premier near-surface geophysical groups in the world. As a mostly volunteer
run organization, EEGS provides a unique opportunity to get involved with the near-surface geophysical community in
a more hands-on way than might be found in many professional societies. We count on our members for more than
membership dues, they are what makes this society run. Join now and be part of a growing and exciting community.

To join EEGS online, go to:

https://www.eegs.org/join-or-renew-online
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP INCLUDES:
• Access to the Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics (JEEG)
• Proceedings archives of the Symposium on the
Application of Geophysics to Engineering and
Environmental Problems (SAGEEP),
• Our regular technical news magazine FastTIMES -
5 issues per year.
•M onthly EEGS Newsletter and access to EEGS Social
Media Facebook and LinkedIn
•C omplimentary access to SEG Technical Program
expanded abstracts
•C omplimentay access to EAGE’s EarthDoc including
papers from EAGE events from 1982 forward, articles
from EAGE’s main magazine First Break and Near
Surface Geophysics and Petroleum Geoscience
(complete archives)
• Discounted registration fees for SAGEEP
• Voting rights for EEGS Board of Directors
LIFETIME MEMBER
Support EEGS, receive benefits on an ongoing basis and
never renew again! Members of this category enjoy all the
benefits of Individual membership.
INTRODUCTORY MEMBERSHIP
If you have never been a member of EEGS, Welcome! We offer
a reduced rate (Electronic JEEG Option) for new members to
enjoy all the benefits of individual membership (with the exception
of voting privileges) for your first year (membership is calendar
based, valid from January 1 through December 31).
CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP
Corporate members enjoy all the benefits of individual
membership and:
• a brief profile and linked corporate logo on the
Corporate Members page of the EEGS website
• a company profile in FastTIMES
• a 20% discount on JEEG article color figure charges and
• a 10% discount on advertising in JEEG and FastTIMES.
• All corporate sponsors will be recognized at SAGEEP
for their support. Additional benefits are listed for each
corporate level.
STUDENT MEMBERSHIP & STUDENT CHAPTERS
Students are the future of our organization and we offer you
a complimentary membership to EEGS which is subsidized
by the generous help of our Corporate Sponsors. Student
members enjoy all the benefits of individual membership (with
the exception of voting privileges). Student membership is
available for all students in an accredited University up to one
year post-graduation. Please submit a copy of your student ID.
Students in year two beyond graduation are offered a special
rate for one (1) year.
The Student Chapters of EEGS are a way for Students to
be more actively involved and the opportunity to receive
benefits in terms of attendance at SAGEEP Conferences
(go to http://www.eegs.tkboy.net/join.html to learn more).
Publishing by students is actively encouraged and regular
Student Chapter News in FastTIMES, welcomes information
on student activities and student technical articles.

Additional corporate membership options are available, please see:

https://www.eegs.org/membership-categories-benefits

Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

 Page 32 Vol 25, 3 2020
Page 15 Vol 23, 5 2018
Page 15 Vol 23, 5 2018

EEGSIntersociety
EEGS
EEGS IntersocietyCommittee
Intersociety Committee
Committee
The EEGS
The EEGS Intersociety
Intersocietycommittee
committee isseeking
seekingvolunteers
volunteers toserve serve asliaison
liaisontototechnical
technical societies
The EEGS Intersociety committee isisseeking volunteers to to serve as as liaison to technical societies
societies
who have
who have an
an interest
interest innearnearsurface
surfacegeophysical
geophysicalapplications.
applications.One Oneimportant
importantobjective
objective of
who have an interest ininnear surface geophysical applications. One important objective of of
intersociety
intersociety
activities
intersociety activities is to foster
activitiesisistotofoster
fosterthe the
theuse use
useandand applications
andapplications
applications of of
of
near
near
near surface
surface
surface
geophysics
geophysics
geophysics andand
and broaden
broaden
broaden
thescope
the scope
the scope ofofapplications.
applications.
of applications. This
ThisThis
can can
be
can be achieved
achieved
be achieved through through
through developing
developing
developing collaborative
collaborative
collaborative activities
activities
activities such as
suchas
technical
such astechnical
technicalsessions
sessions atsessions
SAGEEP, at at SAGEEP,
development
SAGEEP, development
of special
development of special
of workshops,
special workshops,
and publications
workshops, and publications
in FastTIMES
and publications in in
FastTIMES
orFastTIMES or
JEEG. Frequently JEEG. Frequently
intersociety intersociety
relations are relations
formalized are formalized
through a through
memorandum
or JEEG. Frequently intersociety relations are formalized through a memorandum of a memorandum
of understanding of
understanding
(MOU) or similar
understanding (MOU)
(MOU) ororsimilar
document. similar
EEGS document.
is currently
document. EEGSEEGS
renewingis currently
is currentlyandrenewingrenewing
developing and
andnew developing
MOUs
developing for new MOUs
newintersociety
MOUs
for intersociety
forcollaboration. collaboration.
intersociety collaboration.
In particular, if In
Inyou particular,
particular, if you are
if you areofaamember
are a member a member
society of of a society
a society
that you think that
thatwould you
you think think
would
benefit would
from
benefitcollaboration
benefit fromcollaboration
from collaboration with
with
with EEGS, EEGS,
EEGS,
this this
is anthis is ideal
isideal
an an
timeideal
time time to step
to step
to step forward.
forward.
forward.

Contact: Contact:
Contact:Bruce
Bruce Geoff
Smith,
Smith, Pettifer,
Chair
Chair Chair Intersociety
Intersociety
IntersocietyCommittee, Committee,
Committee,
dyfrig43@gmail.com
dyfrig43@gmail.com
editorFastTIMESnewsmagazine@gmail.com
 Page 33
The Journal of
Environmental & Engineering
GEOPHYSICS
JEEG Report - September 2020
It almost feels like the summer that never was. While in most
years we use the summer break from school to conduct field
experiments, this year has been a complete dud. At least
it has been for me, as I have been sitting here in the spare
bedroom/makeshift office for the past six months. It has been
difficult to get in the field with all of the restrictions over the
pandemic. The restrictions, of course, are justified; no one
wants to catch the Coronavirus. I can already start to see the
effects of the restrictions and lower than normal field work
as papers covering field case studies start to go down and
those describing numerical and laboratory experiments go
up. Personally, that has been my focus, along with combing
through old datasets to tease out even more detail than the
first go-around of investigations. Regardless if your dataset
is old or new, if you have a novel approach of modeling and
interpretation, we would gladly host it in JEEG.
I would also like to take this space in the journal to remind
everyone about the Near Surface Geophysical Letter
(NSGL) option for publishing in JEEG. The NSGL is a short
communication typically slated for rapidly evolving research or
case studies that may not be extremely novel, but interesting
nonetheless. Another advantage of publishing with a NSGL
is that reviews occur relatively rapidly with a short publication
cycle. For example, a NSGL recently submitted in early August
received reviews back in less than 30 days and you will likely see
it in print for the December issue. There are a few restrictions
for the NSGL, such as the word and figure count which cannot
exceed 2000 and 4, respectively. Converting an old SAGEEP
extended abstract is also an easy way to publish a NSGL in
JEEG.
Dale Rucker, Editor
Vol 25, 3 2020
Editor’s Note
Dale Rucker, PhD
JEEG Editor-in-Chief
Chief Technical Officer,
hydroGEOPHYSICS, Inc.
Tucson, AZ
520-647-3315
druck8240@gmail.com
The Journal of Environmental & Engineering
Geophysics (JEEG), published four times each
year, is the EEGS peer reviewed and Science
Citation Index (SCI®)-listed journal dedicated to
near-surface geophysics. It is available in print
by subscription, and is one of a select group of
journals available through GeoScienceWorld
(www.geoscienceworld.org). It is also available
to EEGS members who select the membership
type that includes a printed JEEG. Also the pub
is available via SEG’s Digital Library. Under
Editor’s note, the URL for submitting is
http://jeeg.allentrack.net JEEG is one of
the major benefits of an EEGS membership.
Information regarding preparing and submitting
JEEG articles is available at
http://jeeg.allentrack.net.
The Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics (JEEG) is the flagship publication of
the Environmental and Engineering Geophysical
Society (EEGS). All topics related to geophysics
are viable candidates for publication in JEEG,
although its primary emphasis is on the theory
and application of geophysical techniques
for environmental, engineering, and mining
applications.
There is no page limit, and no page charges
for the first ten journal pages of an article. The
review process is relatively quick; articles are
often published within a year of submission.
Articles published in JEEG are available
electronically through GeoScienceWorld and the
SEG’s Digital Library in the EEGS Research
Collection. Manuscripts can be submitted online
at http://www.eegs.org/jeeg.
Page 34 Vol 25, 3 2020

Try it free at geolitix.com

GPR Analysis
just went to the Cloud!
Geolitix is the new cloud-based GPR
processing and interpretation platform
designed to be easy to use,
powerful and affordable.
It is optimized to process any data
from single profi les to large
array survey in seconds.
 Page 35 Vol 25, 3 2020
MOUNT_SOPRIS_EEGS_fullpgcolor_Layout 1 2/24/15 4:09 PM Page 1

Mount Sopris Instruments

and
ALT
are leading manufacturers
of borehole geophysical logging
systems for GROUNDWATER,
ENVIRONMENTAL, GEOTECHNICAL,
ENERGY
and RESEARCH industries.

PROBES
WINCHES
LOGGERS
SOFTWARE

Learn more at
mountsopris.com
B O R E H O L E LO GGI N G SYSTE M S ALE S and RE NTA LS
 Page 36 Vol 25, 3 2020

Guiding Technologies Today.

Preparing for a World of Needs Tomorrow.

2020 AUCTION RESULTS… and NEXT EVENT NOTICE

The EEGS Foundation Summer Auction wrapped up last weekend, and we are pleased to report that it was a tremendous success!
We sold all but one of the items that were up for bid, with good returns on everything. We owe this success to two groups: those
who donated items for auction, and those who bid on auction items. We would especially like to thank the following organizations
and individuals who made donations:

Seismic Source Proseismic Services

www.seismicsource.com http://www.proseismic.com/

Hager-Richter Geoscience R.T. Clark Co., Inc.

http://hager-richter.net/ https://www.rtclark.com/

Mount Sopris Instruments TetraTech

https://mountsopris.com/ https://www.tetratech.com/

Springer-Verlag William Doll

https://www.springer.com/gp East Tennessee Geophysical Services

And John Stowell

To follow up on this success, we are already starting to plan the next Foundation Online Auction. The date has yet to be determined
but will be widely publicized once it is decided. Four items have already been donated. In addition to what has already been
donated, we are currently seeking additional donations. Please help make the next online auction a success and consider donating
an item or several items. We ask that you take a few moments to email us about the item(s) you will be donating as soon as you
are able. For more information and to donate an item for the auction please contact Tiffany Clark (eegsauction@gmail.com).
 Page 37 Vol 25, 3 2020

Support the EEGS Foundation

The EEGS Foundation depends on monetary donations from the EEGS membership to fund the creation of as well as sustain the
implementation of programs designed to further the mission of EEGS. This need is especially true during these difficult economic
times created by the COVID-19 pandemic. We, the volunteers serving on EEGS Foundation Board, feel privileged and honored to
be able to give back to the community that has been their professional family throughout their careers. However, we need your help
to continue the good work of the EEGS Foundation during these trying times. Please consider making a financial donation or the
donation of an item for the Next Online Auction today. To learn more about making a tax deductible donation, see the foundation
web page (www.eegsfoundation.org) or contact Dennis Mills at dmills@expins.com.

EEGS Foundation Board of Directors

President Director-at-Large
Doug Laymon Collier Consulting Glenn Rix Geosyntec
doug@collierconsulting.com GRix@Geosyntec.com

Director-at-Large
Treasurer Mark Dunscomb UTG Engineering
Dennis Mills EXI, Inc. mdunscomb@utgeng.com
dmills@expins.com
Director-at-Large
William Doll East Tennessee
Secretary Geophysical Services

John Clark Corona Resources, Inc. williamdoll01@gmail.com

jclark@coronares.com
Advisor
Mel Best Bemex Consulting
mbest@islandnet.com
 Page 38
Forward to this
Special Issue on
Drone Geophysics
and Remote Sensing
Ron Bell
Guest Editor
Welcome to the Special Issue of the FastTIMES titled: Drone
Geophysics and Remote Sensing. Within these covers
are insightful articles providing into the rapidly evolving,
energetically advancing world of drones employed in the
service of mapping the surface and, most importantly, what
lies within the subsurface of the earth. There are twelve invited
articles along with the normal cadre of regular columns, many
providing news and information about drones and their usage
in the agriculture, environmental, geotechnical, infrastructure,
UXO, and resource exeploration markets. In addition, there
are editorials and opinion pieces on the state of EEGS and the
profession of Near Surface Geophysics. In my humble opinion,
the only word that comes close to describing this issue is EPIC.
But then, as the Guest Editor, I will allow that I might be biased.
Nevertheless, I have every confidence that you will find this
issue not only informative but thoroughly thought provoking as
you consider how to integrate drone geophysics and remote
sensing into your work flow.
Up first is an article by Jan Franke titled The Future of Drone
Geophysics. Jan provides an well studied overview on how
drones are currently being applied to subsurface geophysical
characterization, surface imaging using a remote sensing
techniques, and the detection of gaseous emissions. I believe
you will be amazed by the number of sensors available today
for drone enabled geophysical and remote sensing surveys.
J.D. Hewson and his co-authors review the satellite sensor
technology applied to mapping geology along with recent and
upcoming developments in the satellite sensors and, most
importantly, their adaption for use on drones in the appropriately
titled Status and Developments in Geological Remote Sensing.
Pivoting towards what some might consider a non-geophysical
direction, Aaron Bufton reports on the technology advances
and markets for methane mapping in UAV Methane Detection:
Latest Advances and Current State of the Markets.
The next two articles are focused on use cases within the
agricultural market. Triston Campbell and Peter Kearns describe
the complimentary use of satellite and drone remote sensing
data for assessing and predicting the health of bee populations
in their article Honey from space: detection of flowering
plants from satellites with UAV calibration. Barry Allred writes
about UAVs equipped with thermal cameras to locate farmland
irrigation drain tiles and the application of ground penetrating
Vol 25, 3 2020
radar to verify the location in GPR and UAV Mapping of
Agricultural Subsurface Drainage Systems: A Research
Overview.
Ronald Koomans and Hans Limburg describe a revolutionary
new gamma ray spectrometer for use on a drone in their
article titled Drone-borne gamma ray spectrometry – a
dream come true. In the following article, titled Semi-airborne
Electromagnetics using a Multi-copter, Johannes Stoll and
his coauthors provide a good description along with results
of a resurrected and updated electromagnetic (EM) method
based on the use of surface transmitter and the drone mounted
receiver.
Jose Arce and his co-authors provide an excellent case history of
a UAV magnetic survey applied to mineral resource exploration
in the article titled The Rapsodia UAV Magnetometry Case
History. Martin Helmke and George Schultz discuss the
technology for accurate ultra-low altitude terrain following
as it pertains to magnetic surveys for UXO in their article
Effective UAS Terrain Following for UXO Magnetometry.
This is followed by an intriguing article titled Multicopter-
based Pentamag System Proves Our Realistic Performance
Metrics in which Johannes Stoll and his co-authors describe
in detail the development five (5) sensor magnetic mapping
system designed for UXO detection and delineation.
The penultimate article of the issue is titled Mapping the
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument – using
dronebased LiDAR to uncover a 750-year old structures by
Gert Riemersma. In the article, Gert demonstrates the efficacy
of drone enabled LiDAR to detect and map what is otherwise
difficult to discern variations in surface topography.
The final article in this special issue is titled UAS remote
sensing and geophysics to investigate legacy wells,
heat distribution, and subsidence at the coal mine fire in
Centralia, Pennsylvania. Martin Helmke and his coauthors
share the results of a drone-centric investigation into the
subsurface geology and relevant infrastructure pertaining to an
active underground coal mine fire. Though it is the last article
of this issue, it should be viewed as a harbinger of what while
be common practice in the not too distance future, i.e. the
integrated use of photogrammetric, magnetic, thermal infrared,
and LiDAR data collected via a UAV. It is worth your time to
read every one of the articles described above.
While you are at it, please invest a few moments to read Barry
Allred’s President’s Column on the direction of EEGS, Geoff
Pettifer’s brief on the Silver Jubilee, and Associate Editor
German Ojeda impressive review on the last 15 years of the
FastTIMES. please do not overlook Dale Rucker’s report on
the status of JEEG and the report on results of online auction
fundraiser in the EEGS Foundation News.
Nigel Cassidy provides a fascinating report on many
aspects including software relevant to the use for drones for
infrastructure investigation in his Infrastructure and Geophysics
News column. Abraham Emond in his Government Report
details the availability of newly released public domain data.
 Page 39
Moe Momayez fills us in on the how drones are adding value and
streamlining processes in the Mining Geophysics News column.
Geoff Pettifer reports on the use of drones and remote sensing
in his columns on Archeological and Forensics Geophysics and
use of InSAR for subsidence monitoring related to groundwater
withdrawal and the use of satellite and drone thermal imaging
applied to groundwater discharge in the Hydrogeophysical and
Environmental Geophysics column.
Angelo Lampousis reports on developments in the agriculture
sectors in the Agricultural Geophysics News. Mohamed Amed
delivers information on several important events in the Industry
News column and Jeff Leberfinger reports on several events in
the UXO Community News column.
In the geoDRONE Report©, I report on BVLOS in North
Dakota, drones for mapping methane in the Permian Basin,
and two sophisticated mission planning and control software
EEGS and FastTIMES appreciates the support of
the following Societies for this Special Issue
Vol 25, 3 2020
programs applicable to drone geophysical surveys. In addition,
I provide an update on several drone events including the
Summit on Drone Geophysics.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that this issue would
not be as EPIC if it were not for Geoff Pettifer, the Editor and
Chief of the FastTIMES. This issue is the direct result of Geoff’s
dedication, investment of an enormous amount of energy, and
his visionary leadership. He, much more than me, deserves the
credit for making this Special Issue of the FastTIMES a reality.
Finally, most of all, please enjoy reading this issue.
- Ron Bell
We invite you to email your comments, suggestions, and
criticisms about this issue to Geoff or/and me.
Geoff Pettifer editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
Ron Bell rbell@igsdenver.com
Page 40 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 41
The Future of Drone
Geophysics
Jan Francke
Groundradar Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
jfrancke@groundradar.com
Bio
Preface
This article is based on Amira Global Project P1204 – Developing
UAV- Mounted Geophysical Sensor Arrays. Contributing
authors were Dr. Jan Francke (Groundradar), Prof James Macnae
(RMIT), Dr Brian Minty (Minty Geophysics), Dr David Clark
(CSIRO), Prof Giles Hammond (The University of Glasgow), and
Dr Michael Hussey (Mineral Spectra Mapping). A public version
of the final P1204 project report will be available from Amira
Global in the near future. Examples of commercially available
sensors have be included for illustration purposes but inclusion
does not imply endorsement by AMIRA of the illustrated product
alone or over any other commercially available alternative.
Introduction
Drones are being touted as the future of field geophysics
(Figure 1). However, two key questions surrounding drone use
are which methods benefit most from this technology, and do
drones appear to offer solutions to problems that may not exist?
Over the past two decades, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or
drones, have evolved from military surveillance craft to hobbyist
test beds to lucrative commercial enterprises for geospatial
mapping. Today, the commercial UAV market is growing
Figure 1 – Drones can be mounted with different geophysical sensors – drone-
mounted GPR system
Vol 25, 3 2020
exponentially, with new types of aircraft, power plants, and
sensors extending their application monthly. The advantages
of machines that can perform repetitive spatial tasks – and
travel easily and cheaply into places where humans cannot –
are obvious. In topographic surveying and GIS applications,
UAVs with cameras and lidar have been able to produce maps
with unprecedented detail and accuracy in a fraction of the
time and cost of traditional surveys. In the agriculture sector,
UAVs have been fitted with multispectral cameras to capture
field variability that is invisible to the eye, enabling farmers to
detect diseases early and improve crop yields.
Near-surface geophysics is intrinsically repetitive in nature, and
often involves moving instruments along a pre-defined survey
grid, usually close to or on the ground surface. Commonly,
data density is a function of time and budget. A machine that
is able to collect data points safely, at minimal cost, and at any
density is an attractive prospect, provided the machine can
safely carry the required instrument, has sufficient endurance
to manoeuvre the survey terrain, and the site’s vegetation
lends itself to this type of approach. Although the concept
of mounting geophysical sensors on UAVs dates back a few
decades, only in the last ten years have the tools necessary to
make commercial surveys a reality been developed: sensors
that are sufficiently small, light and energy efficient and drones
with the required endurance for typical surveys.
Today, UAV-borne magnetics and VLF surveys are commonplace,
and drone-mounted GPR systems (Figures 1 and 2 ) are gaining
acceptance. Of relevance to near-surface mapping are the
anticipated developments in EM, gravimetric, radiometric,
and hyperspectral instrument miniaturization. Regardless of
their utility in geophysical surveys, UAVs currently account for
a fraction of the commercial geophysical surveying market.
Their acceptance has been limited by the availability of suitable
UAV platforms to carry larger payloads over longer flights, the
lack of available lightweight sensors designed for airborne
use, the lack of skilled service providers, and the ever-evolving
restrictive legislation governing commercial UAV use.
These limiting factors are being mitigated by disparate
developments. New UAV powerplants such as hydrogen fuel
cells hold the promise of enabling drones to operate carrying
heavier payloads and with greater endurance. Highly accurate
RTK-GPS positioning with radar, sonar and lidar terrain-
following and obstacle-avoidance sensors are plummeting
in price and complexity. The ability to coordinate swarms of
sensor-carrying UAVs, operating autonomously or in formation,
offers the potential to increase source power and exploit
complex source-receiver geometries for EM and GPR surveys.
Magnetometers and VLF
Sensors
Given their relatively small size, magnetometers were naturally
the first instruments to be mounted on UAVs (Figure 2). Due
to the labor-intensive nature of ground surveying and the cost
 Page 42 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 2. Commercially available magnetic sensor systems for drone magnetic

surveying
LEFT: https://sensysmagnetometer.com/products/systems/aerial-survey-systems/
magdrone-r3-magnetometer-kit/ Figure 3. VLF Sensor for drone operation
RIGHT: https://www.geometrics.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/MagArrow-Spec- https://www.gemsys.ca/uav-vlf/
Sheet.pdf

of traditional manned aircraft, magnetometer-equipped drones

continue to account for most UAV-borne geophysical surveys.
One significant technical challenge is the suppression of magnetic
noise created by the platform’s motors and electronics. In manned
aircraft surveys, this interference is mitigated by longlining the
sensor below or behind the aircraft, and/or through sophisticated
compensation methods using secondary on-board magnetometers.
Since additional compensating instruments are weight prohibitive
for use on UAVs, sensors must be towed from long cables below
rotary UAVs or generally at the wingtips of fixed-wing aircraft.
Magnetic noise may be further lessened by using combustion Figure 4. Drone-mounted GPR system

engines rather than electric motors, although the trade-off is a

significant increase in weight. The noise in magnetic measurements
during flight should be on the order of < 2 nT.
The use of rotary or fixed-wing UAVs is a function of survey
objectives, with helicopter or multi-rotor UAVs being the most
suitable for low altitude (0m – 10m) surveys with tight line
spacing to detect small discrete targets, such as UXOs, or for
archeological applications. In contrast, fixed-wing UAVs are
suitable for larger surveys such as those conducted in mineral
exploration. At present, there are multiple manufacturers
globally that produce UAV magnetometers, including some
gradiometer systems. These sensors are potassium or cesium
vapor, chip-scale atomic or triaxial fluxgate designs, because
vector field measurements require additional highly accurate
tilt, roll, and yaw sensors.
Like any maturing technology, the cost of sensors, and thus
the cost of UAV magnetometer surveys, is expected to drop in
the coming years as the technology gains acceptance in the
geophysical community. Concurrently, the cost of ancillary
instrumentation, such as altimeters, collision-avoidance and
GNSS sensors, is plummeting. Through developments of this
kind, the potential of UAV magnetometer swarms, in which
simultaneous measurements are taken at various elevations to
discriminate between shallow and deeper magnetic sources,
may be realized.
Drone mounted VLF systems are now being offered (Figure 3).
At least one currently available UAV-borne VLF system offers
measurements of vertical in-phase and quadrature data as a
percentage of the total field within the VLF frequency range
of 15 - 30 kHz from two transmitting stations simultaneously,
regardless of sensor orientation.
Ground Penetrating
Radar (GPR)
Low-frequency GPR systems have been longlined from
helicopters for glacier surveys for decades by research
organizations. In recent years, certain GPR manufacturers have
touted their ground-coupled GPR systems for deployment by
UAVs (Figure 4). It can be argued that GPR has historically
been the near-surface geophysical method that has generated
the greatest volume of marketing hype and inflated claims,
particularly in relation to statements about expected penetration
depths; these claims are always predicated in sales material
with the disclaimer “up to”. Although it represents the highest
resolution geophysical method, GPR penetration is inhibited by
high electrical conductivity and water content in the ground,
limitations that are exacerbated when using drones.
When a GPR antenna is decoupled from the dielectric, the
air-to-ground interface can act as a mirror for many typical
geological settings. In the best-case scenarios for low ground
resistivities and hyper-arid conditions (e.g., ice, dry snow, and
some deserts), less than 20% of the radar energy is reflected
at the ground surface. In wet soils or fresh water, over 80%
of the energy is reflected skywards, thereby severely limiting
effective penetration. Further, antennas lifted in the air have
a larger illumination zone and, unless lengthened to account
for the lower dielectric permittivity of air, they will be less
efficient than they are on the ground. More directional Vivaldi
or horn antennas may be considered, but these are likely be
too unwieldy for practical use when lifted by existing UAVs.
 Page 43
The limitations of physics are overshadowed in many
jurisdictions (e.g., Canada, the USA, and Europe) by legislations
restricting the use of GPR technologies to within 1 m of the
ground surface. Indeed, maintaining a flight altitude of less
than 1 m also addresses the limitations of physics discussed
earlier; however, in doing this, some of the advantages of UAVs,
such as rapid areal coverage, are diminished.
GPR systems are now being designed specifically for UAV
applications with total instrument weights, including batteries,
of less than 400 g (Figures 1 and 4). Nevertheless, with equipped
drones often travelling at 2 m/s with a maximum line distance
of around 2 km per flight, such low altitude requirements may
relegate UAV-borne GPR surveys to situations where human,
vehicle, or ground robotic towing methods are impossible.
It is unlikely that drone GPR will supplant conventional cart
or towed-array GPR surveys for typical applications such as
utilities detection.
New, low-cost multi-channel GPR instruments are currently in
development that may be light enough to be lifted by a single
low-flying UAV or a synchronized drone swarm. This type of
arrangement may allow the collection of wide-angle reflection
and refraction (WARR) data, which could be used to map the
3D distribution of radar velocities and by extension, relative soil
moisture for agricultural applications. Further developments,
such as the design of small, low-frequency antennas, may
make it possible to use drone swarms to improve profile
resolution in 3D and SAR data acquisition.
Electromagnetics
For the purposes of this discussion, large-loop airborne EM
(AEM) surveys with powerful transmitters used for mineral
exploration will be disregarded. For the shallow frequency
and time-domain EM surveys typically used in near-surface
mapping applications, at least one repurposed ground FEM
system is currently being marketed as having the capacity to be
longlined from a drone. An example of a FEM system stripped
down for drone operation is shown in Figure 5.
In addition, a TEM system intended for UXO mapping has
been discussed in the literature; again, this system is one
that is longlined from a UAV to avoid interference. Given the
relatively simple design of FEM and TEM instruments and the
large environmental geophysics market, it is entirely possible
that a number of new sensors will be commercially available
in the coming years.
Figure 5. A multifrequency FDEM sensor for a drone
http://www.geophex.com/Product%20-%20UAV-mounted.htm
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 6. Helicopter drone with a lightweight radiometric detector
https://the.medusa.institute/display/GW/Towards+drone-
borne+gammaray+mapping+of+soils
Radiometrics
UAV-borne radiometric mapping has multiple applications,
ranging from precision agriculture to mineral exploration. The
previous decade has seen gamma-ray spectrometric data
collected using low-cost UAVs for dose-rate measurements in
nuclear contamination sites. Large drones capable of carrying
100-kg sensors are being employed for radiometric mapping
of mineral deposits in situations where the survey area is
too small, the terrain is too extreme, or the line spacing is
impractical for conventional airborne surveys. Such platforms
are expensive and require special permits; however, in the
future, it may be possible to use smaller (lighter) crystals on
smaller UAVs to fly lower and slower than conventional airborne
surveys and achieve similar signal-to-noise ratios. If sufficiently
inexpensive platforms and sensors can be developed, the use
of independent drones flying in formation would dramatically
speed data acquisition. A lightweight radiometric sensor system
is shown in Figure 6.
Gravimeters
Gravimetric surveys have a number of applications in near-
surface geophysics, and in contrast to large airborne surveys
conducted for hydrocarbon or mineral exploration, they are
generally conducted by a small ground survey crew. Current
ground gravimeters are heavy (> 15 kgs) and likely unsuitable
for UAV deployment due to the high kinematic accelerations
of drones in flight. High-frequency engine vibrations may be
dampened, but low-frequency accelerations would need to be
tracked by an extremely precise and low-latency RTK-DGPS
receiver.
A more feasible alternative is a deployment scenario in which
a gravimeter is landed autonomously at a pre-defined spot
by a drone using an auto-levelling gimbaled system for each
reading, before being lifted and repositioned at the next reading
location. In order for this “grasshopper” mode to be effective,
an a priori survey would need to be undertaken beforehand
to map relatively flat, vegetation-free landing spots. There are
several small-form-factor systems under development that
show promise as suitable geophysical gravimeters (for example
 Page 44
Figure 7. MEMS gravimeter mechanism (Illustration: Giles Hammond) designed
by Dr Richard Middlemiss, Glasgow University Institute for Gravitational Research
(http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/igr/index.php).
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/fossil-fuels/stampsized-gravity-meter-
could-have-big-impact-on-oil-exploration
Figure 8. Drone-based Hyperspectral imaging concept schematic
https://www.mdpi.com/remotesensing/remotesensing-10-00385/article_deploy/html/
images/remotesensing-10-00385-g001.png
see Figure 7). These systems are based on either strapdown
linear/rotational accelerometers, or traditional 1- or 3-axis
MEMS accelerometers. The need to pre-map suitable landing
spots may preclude any advantages drone gravimetry may
have over traditional ground surveys in all but specific flat and
barren settings.
Hyperspectral Cameras
Maps showing mineral distributions generated by visible
and infrared cameras mounted on satellites and aircraft are
commonly used for mineral exploration; these have varying
pixel resolutions to as little as 1 m (refer to the schematic in
Figure 8). The cameras themselves have been sufficiently
miniaturized to scan drill cores on trays to sub-mm resolution.
Ideally, for open-pit mining operations, scanning blasted
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 9. Bathymetric LIDAR concept schematic
https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/technology-in-focus-bathymetric-lidar
benches at 20 cm resolution would be ideal, but this would
be impossible to achieve from aircraft. A multirotor UAV fitted
with a hyperspectral camera could be deployed for this type
of application.
At present there are three hyperspectral cameras designed
for UAV applications that cover the wavelengths required
for mapping minerals. Instrumentation is expensive (around
$300,000 USD), and these costs are unlikely to drop
substantially due to the complexity of the instrument and the
limited market demand. Agricultural hyperspectral mapping
requires a narrower bandwidth, and many manufacturers now
offer UAV imager solutions.
A new application for UAV-borne hyperspectral mapping is
combining the camera with a lidar sensor on a UAV, which is
also fitted with sophisticated collision avoidance radars and
inertial navigation systems to autonomously map tunnels for
underground mining operations.
Lidar Bathymetry
A significant challenge in littoral zone mapping is the merging
of two datasets from different sensors and vertical datums;
i.e., lidar for terrestrial mapping and sonar for bathymetry (refer
to the schematic in Figure 9). New bathymetric lidar systems
using green (532 nm) lasers offer a solution for seamless DEM
generation employed in nearshore charting, coastal monitoring,
river and inland water surveys, and environmental monitoring.
Shallow water sensors (< 10 m) generally emit less power per
pulse and have higher resolutions and narrower illumination
zones compared to deep water systems, which have been
used to 75 m depth.
Recently, bathymetric lidars have been designed that are light
enough and small enough to be mounted on UAVs. UAV-borne
DEM and bathymetric mapping would revolutionize littoral DEM
generation by offering a higher point density than ground or
manned aircraft surveys at a fraction of the cost. In addition to
green light lidars, multispectral airborne lidar sensors are being
developed that could produce 3D surface spectral responses
during the day or night in complex environments using a single
 Page 45
Figure 10. DART seismometers when dropped from drones, successfully
embed themselves in the ground and transmit data. They are designed to be
biodegradable, leaving no trace after the survey is completed.
https://wirelessseismic.com/darts-drones-future-onshore-seismic/
lidar sensor. Although these are presently being deployed on
manned aircraft, it may be possible to miniaturize such lidars
for drone deployment.
Gas Detection
A number of manufacturers are producing UAV-portable gas
detectors for 3D environmental monitoring, ship emission
verification, leak detection and HAZMAT response applications.
In addition, methane detection can be used to monitor
permafrost thawing in climate change studies. Modern drone
gas detectors have real-time upload capabilities and use
on-board cellular modems connected to cloud platforms for
immediate visualization of collected data.
Seismic Surveying
Typically, a method heavily reliant on ground crews, drone-
deployed wireless geophones are being tested in the steep,
inhospitable tropical jungle environments of Papua New Guinea,
as well as in the deserts of the UAE. The concept is that a
drone carries a rack of bomb-shaped geophones, which are
dropped from a sufficient height to penetrate the vegetation
canopies and embed themselves into the moist jungle floor,
or in the case of the UAE, soft aeolian sand (Figure 10). At
present, the geophones in PNG are then retrieved by hand
after shooting the spread, somewhat obviating the advantage
of drone deployment. However, in the UAE, robotic geophone
collectors are being tested in an effort to further automate
large-scale 3D seismic exploration projects.
The concepts being tested in this ambitious project have
implications for other applications of drone geophysics . In one
potential scenario, a swarm of drones is deployed , including
individual drones dedicated solely to surveillance. Prior to
“carpet dropping” thousands of geophones, an a priori drone
survey is conducted using lidar to create a high-resolution DEM.
This DEM can be studied by the survey team to determine the
optimal drop points and flight paths. The intent is for semi-
autonomous drones to adapt to changes in the environment,
both airborne (aerial intrusion) or on the ground (avoiding
people, animals, and buildings) in real time.
Vol 25, 3 2020
This type of approach could be used for UAV gravimetry
surveys in grasshopper mode or to deploy passive seismic
sensors for bedrock profiling.
Sensor Fusion and Data
Processing
Similar to conventional airborne surveys, geophysical service
companies will seek to optimize survey time and budgets by
combining sensors on drones to collect multiple datasets.
The challenges posed by this type of scenario are increased
weight and power requirements and the issue of interference
between instruments. Instruments that are sensitive to dissimilar
phenomenon and sufficiently light may be mounted on or towed
beneath drones, for instance, a viable configuration could
include a combination of magnetometers, VLF receivers and
radiometrics sensors. Ideally, sensor and drone manufacturers
would collaborate to establish a modular “plug-and-play”
interface for the physical mounting, power, and ancillary data
supplies.
The power of cloud computing is being exploited for geophysical
datasets, and this will shape data editing, processing, and
inversion in the near future. Recently, a new platform is being
offered that harnesses machine learning algorithms to semi-
automate processing and interpretation of large GPR datasets,
which are often considerably more complex than other near-
surface geophysical methods.
Legal Considerations
Often overlooked when considering the future of drone
geophysics is the dynamic and generally increasingly restrictive
legislative framework used to regulate commercial drone
operations in most jurisdictions. This is of particular concern
in hydrocarbon and mineral exploration geophysics, where
surveys involve flight patterns over large areas, and the survey
takes place beyond the line of sight of the drone pilot. Such
flights are heavily restricted in many jurisdictions. Survey
areas are generally much smaller for near-surface geophysical
applications, and while such regulations may not apply, those
related to flights over people or populated areas may. As the
practice of geophysics is unregulated in many countries, the
burgeoning interest in drone geophysics may inadvertently
result in further legislative restrictions being placed on the
practice.
Summary
Drone geophysics is now a well-established survey method,
particularly for magnetics. The higher point density, lower
cost, and ability to safely operate in dangerous terrain and
environments offer clear advantages over conventional survey
methods. The factors currently limiting more widespread
 Page 46 Vol 25, 3 2020

use of drones are the lack of lightweight, low-cost, portable

geophysical sensors and the high cost and low endurance of
Author Bio
suitable drones. For methods such as hyperspectral imaging, Jan Francke
the risks associated with mounting a $300,000 sensor on a Director
drone that could crash or experience a “fly-away” may limit Groundradar Inc
acceptance until sensor costs are dramatically reduced.
Toronto, Ontario
Although mounting sensors on UAVs is being lauded as a Canada
panacea, balancing the risks and possible signal-to-noise jfrancke@groundradar.com
compromises against the advantages of drone use is critical.
Near-surface geophysical surveys are generally conducted over
smaller regions than those studied in hydrocarbon and mineral Jan has spent the entirety of his 30 year career in geophysics on a
exploration, obviating some of the advantages of drones. With quest to understand where ground penetrating radar works. He runs
the exception of dangerous or inaccessible sites, the drive Groundradar Inc, which designs and deploys custom GPR systems
to make every geophysical method drone-capable may be for mineral exploration. He has worked in over 100 countries, and
attempting to solve problems that don’t exist. holds a BSc, MSc and PhD all in GPR-related geophysics.

FastTIMES 2020 – 25 years - Magazine Format Silver Jubilee

Call for Contributions & Editors - TentativeThemes & Deadlines
For contributions contact: editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
Vol 25, 4 - November - Mine site Geophysics Vol 26, 1 - January - April - SAGEEP 2021
- November 13th Pre-Conference: January 29th & Post-Conference: March 26th

Vol 25, 5 - December - UXO: Munitions Response

- November 27th
 Page 47 Vol 25, 3 2020

Accurately design, conduct

and process drone
magnetic surveys

Geosoft is part of Seequent, working together to enable

better decisions about earth, environment and energy challenges.

The UAV Geophysics extension

in Oasis montaj provides a
complete workflow for planning
and processing drone magnetic
surveys. From designing a survey,
to importing, leveling and merging
survey data into a single coherent
dataset, comprehensive tools make
it easy to analyze and interpret
UAV magnetic data for accurate
decision-making.

TAKE A TOUR OR REQUEST A DEMO AT: HTTPS://WWW.SEEQUENT.COM/UAV-GEOPHYSICS-TOUR/

COMPLEXITY TO CLARITY

Solve complex problems, manage risk and make better

decisions across the lifecycle of projects. seequent.com
 Page 48 Vol 25, 3 2020

geoDrone Report
©2017 IGS, LLC

Ron Bell
Senior geoDRONEologist
rbell@igsdenver.com
September 2020

BVLOS Network for Drones

Beyond visual line of site (BVLOS) is happening, sort of. Miriam
McNabb reported in the September 11th issue of DroneLife
Close-up-of-a-drone-checking-a-well-pad-for-methane-leaks.
that the state of North Dakota is supporting the development
and creation of a statewide BVLOS network. More efficient detection and repair
To read the report, check out the following link. Based on the data collected during the initial pilot program,
https://dronelife.com/2020/09/11/north-dakota-is-building-a- drone-based cameras and sensors have the potential to enable
statewide-bvlos-network-for-drones/ more efficient detection and reporting of leaks in the Permian.
Moreover, in the future, drones deployed in higher altitudes
Shell Using Drones to Check for Methane could enable detection over a larger area and an increased
Leaks in the Permian Basin & Elsewhere number of sites, providing further efficiency gains. This, in turn,
Sep 02, 2020 will enable much quicker repair of leaks, reducing methane
emissions and the related global warming impact.
Placing a high priority on combating methane emissions linked
https://www.shell.us/media/2020-media-releases/expanding-use-of-
to oil and gas, Shell is expanding its use of drones applied to
drones-for-methane-detection.html
methane leak detection and repair program in the Permian Basin.
In July 2020, SWEPI LP (Shell) reached an agreement with Field Trial of Perimeter X8 UAV and the
Avitas, a Baker Hughes venture, to expand the use of drones to
MagArrow
enhance its existing methane leak detection and repair (LDAR)
program in the Permian Basin. In August, I witnessed a field trial of the Perimeter X8 UAV made
by Skyfront Inc. and the MagArrow UAV magnetometer made
Combatting methane emissions by Geometrics, Inc. The field trial consisted of two (2) one (1)
At Shell, we place a high priority on combatting methane hour magnetic surveys over the same flight path at a constant
emissions linked to oil and gas production in the Permian Basin. altitude of 10 meters above ground level (AGL). The UAV has
We have taken actions to effectively reduce our emissions and a reported flight time of 5 hours at sea level. I will be reporting
have announced a target to keep methane emissions intensity on the results of the field trial in the next issue of this report.
for operated oil and gas assets below 0.2% by 2025.
To learn more about the Perimeter X8 UAV and MagArrow, visit
Working on multiple fronts the following websites.
We work on multiple fronts to find solutions that enable us to detect Skyfront, Inc. https://skyfront.com/
methane leaks better, faster, more efficiently and, in the future, Geometrics, Inc. https://www.geometrics.com/
potentially with quantification measurements. For example, since
2018, we have piloted the use of drones with methane detection
cameras and sensors in the Permian Basin. We have also tested
methane detection sensors in our Rocky Mountain House asset in
Canada. Meanwhile, we serve as an adviser to The University of
Texas Project ASTRA, which plans to establish a proof-of-concept
network of methane detection sensors in the Permian Basin.
Enhancing our existing leak detection
Our two-year drone pilot program with Avitas focused on testing
the technology and software platforms in a small number of
installations and sites in the Permian. We will now deploy
drones equipped with an optical gas imaging (OGI) camera and
a laser-based detection system across our entire operating area
in the Permian and conduct drone-based inspections across
more than 500 sites, including approximately 150 sites which
Perimeter X8 with MagArrow
fall under the EPA’s Clean Air Act reporting.
 Page 49
SPH Engineering announces
upgrades to UgCS
Alexey Dobrovolskiy, CTO for SPH Engineering, the makers
of UgCS, a UAV mission planning and control software used
extensively for drone magnetic and other geophysical survey
recently emailed the following information to me.
UgCS recently added support for Pergam’s Laser Falcon detector.
Laser Falcon is a lightweight methane detector designed for UAV.
It has light weight and extended detection range.
UgCS is now supports the following GPR systems:
• Zond-12e Drone 500a “Lite” version with weight just 2.5kg.
Zond-12e “Lite” has a low price, the target is to provide GPR
system for the drone for the price of a good camera. In the near
future Zond-12e 500a “Lite” will be available for DJI m300 drone.
• Zond-12e Drone LF (with 150 and 75 Mhz antennas).
• 2x antenna configurations of Zond-12e Drone GPR with
500 and 1000Mhz antennas. This configuration allows to
cover 2x more wide line in the single pass.
UgCS now support the Geonics EM61-Lite Time Domain metal
detector - airborne version of EM61-MK2. That can be very
interesting for North American customers as well. EM61-Lite is
fully integrated with drone avionics and UgCS software.
The maximum speed in terrain-following mode with radar altimeter
has been increased from 3 m/s to 10m/s at the request of a
number of customers wishing to fly at the maximum speed with
sensors like magnetometers.
Our team in presently in the process of completing construction
of a geophysical sensor test range. We are planning to include
dozens of targets for example. metallic magnetic/non-magnetic
pipes, plastic pipes (gas and water-filled), metallic and plastic
barrels of different sizes and orientation. When completed, we
believe it will be the only such test range with which to test new
sensor and sensor configurations as well as train customers.
To learn more, check out the following web site
http://industrial.ugcs.com
UAV Flight Planning & Navigation
Application
While attending the field trial of the Skyfront Perimeter X8 and
MagArrow, I became aware of a flight planning and navigation
application designed for mapping missions and used for drone
magnetometry.
Varun, the CRO for the firm, explained what makes his company’s
product unique in a recent email.
Hammer Missions is based in London and Seattle. We provide
adaptive flight automation software for drones. Unlike traditional
flight automation software, we integrate specialized flight modules
Vol 25, 3 2020
in our software, each tailored towards a specific use-case. Recently,
we’ve integrated magnetic mission modules to the software that use
specialized input (flight lines, tie lines, smooth corners) to generate
and fly mag-specific flight plans. These specialized flight plans
ensure high quality mag data collection with minimal pendulum
swing for a suspended magnetometer configuration such as the
Geometrics MagArrow suspended from the DJI Matrice 600.
Our software is currently deployed with a mining enterprise using
our software for mineral exploration in Europe. Also, we were tested
by Geometrics, the manufacturers of MagArrow and received
positive comments for the software’s magnetic capabilities. We
are currently conducting trials with USGS and the government of
British Columbia for magnetic missions. We currently support 500+
businesses and drone professionals in automating their specific
drone missions in mapping, inspection, SAR and more.
To learn more, check the following web site.
https://www.hammermissions.com/
Totally Virtual!!!
November 4, 5, & 6
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Society of Exploration
Geophysicists (SEG) Executive Committee decided at the end
of July to go totally virtual with the 2020 Annual Meeting. The
virtual conference will be held on Oct 11-16, 2020.
Originally scheduled as a one (1) day post conference workshop
at the 2020 SEG Annual Meeting, the organizers of the Summit
on Drone Geophysics decided to go virtual as well but with a
bit of a modification to the original program. The presentations
will now be spread out over the course of three (3) days in the
early part of November, i.e. November 4, 5, and 6.
The presentations are organized by topic area and will be limited to
a total of 3 hours per day. In addition, at the end of the presentations,
there will be a summary review and discussion for another hour.
To learn more about the Summit on Drone Geophysics, including
downloading how to register check out the following link.
https://seg.org/Events/Summit-on-Drone-Geophysics
Alternatively, you can contact
Laurie Whitesell
tel: +1.918.497.5573 direct
email: lwhitesell@seg.org
Drones for Geophysics
BC Geophysical Society Symposium
Another casualty of the of COVID-19 Pandemic, I recently
received an email from Dennis Woods informing me that the
British Columbia Geophysical Society (BCGS) Executive Board
decided to cancel their Drones for Geophysics Symposium
scheduled to be held on October 8 & 9. I was disappointed,
 Page 50 Vol 25, 3 2020

of course, in part because I was an scheduled to speak on the Lyceum 2020

future of drone geophysics and more broadly the geosciences.
Dennis extended an invitation to me to speak virtually at the
BCGS monthly meeting on Thursday, October 29th. I accepted.
To learn more, visit the following website
http://www.bcgsonline.org/

4th Annual Energy Drone & Robotics

Summit
November 10 – 11, 2020
The Woodlands, TX & virtual
The Energy Drone & Robotics Summit (aka EDR Summit or
EDRS) is the only event exclusively focused on the business and
technology of unmanned systems in energy operations. Over
the last 4 years, it has become the most influential gathering
of industrial, energy and engineering leaders where the key
challenges to operating drones and robotics successfully, from
the stars to the sea floor, are addressed.
This event, like the two mentioned above, has gone virtual as
well. To learn more, check out the following web site.
https://www.edrcoalition.com/vss-agenda
Status of Drone Geophysics
I recently emailed Ms. Elizabeth Baranyi and Ms. Lorraine
Godwin of Seequent (Geosoft) inquiring about their perspective
on the expanding utilization of drones along with a bit of insight
into the software requirements the users of Oasis montaj are
requesting. The following is their reply.
With commercial drone geophysical systems now readily available,
new trends in drone surveying and the use of Oasis montaj to
process, visualize and interpret these surveys continue to emerge.
Multi-rotor drones are being favoured over fixed wing because of
better stability, flexibility of deployment, and ability to fly lower to the
ground at near-perfect drape. The type of sensors which are being
mounted onto drones are on the rise, research is being conducted
on the use and application of hyperspectral, radiometric, ground
penetrating radar, induced polarization, and electromagnetic
sensors data. Groups such as Queens University investigate these
different configurations.
A common limiting factor for drone surveys is the payload,
currently at about 15 kg. Leading edge research to decrease
instrumentation size and increase drone payload continues.
EM drone surveys are lagging, the prohibitive factor being the
transmitter weight. One approach is to place the transmitter
on the ground and only mount the receiver on the drone. VLF
EM transmitters can be used as well but within a limited scope.
Moving beyond applications for mining and well head detection,
we are seeing drone geophysics being applied to agriculture,
water resources, landmine detection, and archaeology. In fact,
there is an international initiative to survey the entire globe with
LiDAR for the preservation of the current state of archaeological
surface artefacts, and archive it for posterity before it is altered
by human activity or naturally occurring environmental factors.
On Sept. 23, as part of the Lyceum 2020 event, I presented
with and was interviewed by, Lorraine Godwin.
The title of my presentation is
Drones: The New Normal
in Environmental Geophysics
To learn more, check out the following web site.
https://www.seequent.com/community/events/lyceum/
A Few Final Thoughts
In a previous column, I noted that the December 2020 edition
of the geoDRONE Report© will be my last for the FastTIMES.
My reasons are many but the most compelling is the publication
in PDF format. In my opinion, a PDF version is a bit too “old
school” for these modern, internet driven times. Geoff Pettifer
recently informed me that there are moves a foot to upgrade
the FastTIMES into an interactive and rapid response on-line
publication. To his credit, Geoff successfully convinced me to
continue submitting this column for another year.
I am committed to sharing my views on the use of drones for
geoscientific investigations of the surface and subsurface along
with news on industry events and briefs on relevant technology
and, of course, the views and opinions of others. Although it
is a bit annoying that I have received no emails and very little
acknowledgement via any other means that the column is, in fact,
read. I am hopeful that this special issue of the FastTIMES on Drone
Geophysics and Remote Sensing will inspire you to write me an
email filled with questions, constructive criticisms, suggestions,
and most of all opinions about the use of drones. All I ask is that
you exclude any complaints about things over which I have no
influence. My email address is rbell@igsdenver.com.
Thank you for reading the geoDRONE Report©. I sincerely
hope you found it to be an informative and worthwhile read.
– Ron Bell
The geoDRONE Report© is a copyrighted publication of
Aerobotic Geophysical Systems, LLC located in Lakewood,
CO. I am always looking for news and information content
pertaining to the application of drones to geophysical
and geoscientific mapping. If you have an item to share
with the readers, please do not hesitate to contact me at
rbell@igsdenver.com.
 Page 51 Vol 25, 3 2020

November 4th, 5th, and 6th, 2020

10:00 AM to 1:00 PM Central U.S. time (UTC-5)
17 Presentations with Panel Discussions
Virtual Event - 3 hours per day - 3 days
Topics include:
UAV Magnetometry
Applied to mineral exploration, infrastructure mapping, & UXO
Innovative UAV electromagnetic (EM) systems
Ground Penetrating Radar surveys via UAV
Seismic on a Drone
Data Processing Challenges
UAV Survey Workflow Issues
Data quality assurance \ quality control (QA\QC)

Register today at https://seg.org/Events/Summit-on-Drone-Geophysics.

Professionals: $150.00 Students: $30.00

Sponsorships available!!
– to learn more about sponsorship, contact Laurie Whitesell at ns@seg.org

Workshop Conveners: Ron Bell, rbell@igsdenver.com

Morgan Sander-Olhoeft, morgan.sander-olhoeft@guidelinegeo.com.

For more details, please contact Laurie Whitesell at ns@seg.org

 Page 52 Vol 25, 3 2020

Pervasive Spectral Sensing Full Spectroscopy solutions provider

OCI™ for Ultimate Hyperspectral Imaging

Remote Sensing Has Never Been So Easy
"All Seeing Eye"

Airborne Hyperspectral Imager

n Ultra-compact for UAV/ROV deployment
n Innovative technology
— High spatial and spectral resolution
— No GPS/IMU for hypercubes
n Applications
— Geospatial imaging
— Precision agriculture

OCI™-1000, OCI™-F and OCI™-F-SWIR

Pushbroom Imager
n 400-1700nm
n Up to 240 bands

OCI™-2000
Snapshot Hyperspectral Imager
n Instant hypercubes
n Real-time imaging

sales@bayspec.com BaySpec, Inc.

1101 McKay Drive | San Jose, California 95131
© 2020 BaySpec, Inc. All rights reserved. All BaySpec products are made in USA. (408) 512-5928 | www.bayspec.com
 Page 53 Vol 25, 3 2020

XXIV ISPRS Congress

International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
4 – 10 July 2021, Nice, France

The largest meeting

of the geospatial community

www.isprs2020-nice.com
Keynote speakers

Executive committee

ENSG-IGN-Univ. Gustave Eiffel

Congress Congress Congress Congress Congress Congress Congress
Director Deputy Director Media Chair Program Chair Program co-Chair Industry Chair Financial Chair

Platinum sponsor Gold sponsors Silver sponsors

Bronze sponsors

Institutional partners, supporting graduate schools and associations

 Page 54 Vol 25, 3 2020

Status and Developments in Abstract

Geological Remote Sensing Recent improvements and availability of optical to infrared to
thermal satellite and airborne sensors opens up the opportunity
R.D. Hewson for advancing surface mineralogy and geological mapping.
Earth Systems Analysis, Such mapping may include the identification of alteration
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth zones for exploration activities or monitoring ore quality and
Observation, inventory within open cuts. Remote sensing technology is also
on the cusp of major new developments with deployment of
University of Twente, The Netherlands
hyperspectral sensor satellites, UAV/drones and proximal mine
hewson001@gmail.com
face sensors. Such imagery will provide additional compositional
Bio information within the geoscientists tool kit for regional to mine
H. M. A. van der Werff site scale studies. In particular the improvement and access
of higher spectral and sometimes, spatial resolution will assist
Earth Systems Analysis,
the mapping of different AlOH, MgOH, carbonate, sulphate
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth and iron oxide mineral identities, potentially related to phyllic,
Observation, propylitic and argillic alteration zones. Integration of such
University of Twente, The Netherlands remote sensing map products with regional geophysical data
harald.vanderwerff@utwente.nl and other geoscience information has in the past and will in the
future refine and improve its interpretation. Satellite imagery
Bio
and large-scale airborne survey acquisitions can be particularly
C.A. Hecker
useful for greenfields exploration in exposed terrain within
Earth Systems Analysis, arid to semi-arid remote areas. UAV/drone platform remote
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth sensing is increasingly being applied to brownfields open cut
Observation, observations and mine site environmental monitoring. However,
University of Twente, The Netherlands an understanding of the caveats and limitations on remote
c.a.hecker@utwente.nl sensing is essential. In particular, knowledge of the issues of
sensor resolution, and illumination, atmospheric and ground
Bio conditions at the time of acquisition is important. This paper
F.J.A. van Ruitenbeek aims to provide a brief overview of current available remote
Earth Systems Analysis, sensing technologies, a cross section of related case studies,
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth and a roadmap strategy for undertaking geological remote
Observation, sensing applications.
University of Twente, The Netherlands
f.j.a.vanruitenbeek@utwente.nl
Introduction
Bio
Remote sensing technology is a fast-moving field for surface
W. H. Bakker
observations and interpretation of the terrestrial environment.
Earth Systems Analysis, In particular, the accessible civilian sensors, the platforms they
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth observe from, and the applied algorithms / software have come
Observation, a long way since the early four band visible observing days
University of Twente, The Netherlands of ERTS/MSS Landsat in the 1970s [https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.
w.h.bakker@utwente.nl gov/]. Multiple wavelength regions can now be observed by
“hyperspectral” sensors with over 100 bands Meer et al. (2012).
Bio Each sensor band is designed to record the reflected light or
M. van der Meijde emitted heat from the surface at different wavelengths of the
Earth Systems Analysis, Electromagnetic Spectrum. The improvement in the modern
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth sensors for their spectral resolution (e.g. number of bands and
Observation, their bandwidth) enables greater confidence in the interpretation
of diagnostic mineral features observable within the visible-near
University of Twente, The Netherlands
infrared (VNIR), shortwave infrared (SWIR) and the thermal
m.vandermeijde@utwente.nl
infrared (TIR) wavelength regions. Higher spatial resolution
Bio (e.g. finer image pixels) provided by modern sensors also
improves their ability to delineate narrow geological features
such as dykes and structures. It can also reduce the issue of
 Page 55
Figure 1. Comparison between common spectral signatures versus multi-spectral
(e.g. TM, ASTER, WV-3) and hyperspectral (e.g. HyMap) sensors.
“spectral mixing” where each image pixel potentially observes
the combined signatures from rock outcrops, soil, green and
dry vegetation. However, a compromising engineering result
of higher resolution sensors is the potential reduction in the
Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) which can counteract the benefits
of both higher spatial and spectral information.
There has also been an incredible growth in the number and
type of platforms available for remote sensing to be undertaken
since the early satellite borne Landsat sensors [https://landsat.
gsfc.nasa.gov/]. Several satellite platforms with sensors also
useful for geologists, have followed Landsat Thematic Mapper
(TM), including ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal
Emission Reflection Radiometer) (Abrams & Yamaguchi,
2019) [https://asterweb.jpl.nasa.gov/] and WorldView-3 (Kruse
et al. 2015) [ https://www.maxar.com/constellation ] (Figure 1).
Such satellite sensors are regarded as “multi-spectral” with
less than 20 bands recording within the VNIR, SWIR and TIR
wavelength regions. The acquisition timing of such multi-
spectral satellite sensors generally occurs between 10 am
to midday local time. The Sentinel-2 (Meer et al., 2014) and
Landsat missions [ https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/] have been
designed to regularly re-acquire imagery over the same ground.
However, ASTER’s acquisition policy was to acquire imagery
under optimal seasonal and cloud-free conditions within its
effective 2000-2007 combined VNIR-SWIR-TIR operating life
(Abrams & Yamaguchi, 2019).
The practical benefits of undertaking higher resolution regional
geological reconnaissance or detailed mineral mapping has
also encouraged the development of several airborne platforms
with hyperspectral sensors recording radiance measurements
from the VNIR, SWIR or TIR wavelength regions. Commercial
hyperspectral airborne sensors acquiring imagery within these
mineralogically diagnostic wavelengths include HyVista’s
HyMap [ http://www.hyvista.com/ ], SpecTIRs’ AisaOWL &
AisaFENIX [ https://www.spectir.com/], and ITRESs’ CASI, SASI
and TASI [ https://www.itres.com/]. Such airborne surveys could
Vol 25, 3 2020
then be mobilized for optimal seasonal and ground conditions,
weather permitting (?!). A useful review of geological remote
sensing and both multi-spectral and hyperspectral sensors,
up to 2012, is provided by Meer et al. (2012).
A new and promising development of sensor platforms for
geological applications has been the Unmanned Airborne
Vehicles (UAVs) or drones. This is a fast-changing technology
scene, offering the ability to carry multi-spectral, and recently,
hyperspectral sensors for domestic, agricultural/environmental
and geological observations. The early limited payload carrying
capacity of such UAVs initially were restrictive for such
sensors in the early 2000s. However, as sensor engineering
and drone capacity improved, the scope for short duration
(e.g. 20 to 60 minutes) ultra-high spatial resolution multi- to
hyperspectral sensor observations has become possible. Such
high spatial resolution and accurately controlled low altitude
image acquisitions lend themselves for mining activities (e.g.
“brown fields”) involving mineral related ore quality control
analysis and inventory volume monitoring. Another theatre for
detailed geological or mineralogical remote sensing is with the
use of ground based proximal sensors, typically directed at
mine pit walls or outcrop surfaces. Such sensors are typically
hyperspectral and high spatial resolution for very detailed
mineral mapping.
The aim of this overview is to provide a brief introduction
to geological remote sensing as a broad summarized
roadmap example of possible steps that can be followed
towards generating geologically and/or mineralogically related
compositional maps. The case studies described are a small
cross section sample of publications that can demonstrate
this aim. The examples of sensors, either as satellite borne,
airborne, UAVs or proximal are in no way intended to be
comprehensive but to provide a starting step for a remote
sensing geoscientist practitioner in the 2020s.
Mineral detection vs sensor
One of the key questions an exploration or mining geologist/
geophysicist needs to ask themselves when deciding the
applicability of remote sensing for a particular problem is to
strictly define the surface mineralogical or geological target(s).
Defining this will enable the follow-on questions regarding, what
wavelength region and sensor resolution is required. What is the
likely target surface exposure? Answering these questions will
help establish the type of sensor, the platform and consequently
the cost of image acquisition(s).
Several decades of laboratory-based spectroscopy within the
VNIR, SWIR and TIR wavelength regions have established the
ability to identify, or at least discriminate minerals and mineral
groups. In particular, the ferric oxide group (e.g. hematite and
goethite), the OH- bearing phyllosilicates (e.g. clays, micas,
chlorites) and other silicates have been shown to display
diagnostic signatures within the VNIR, SWIR and TIR wavelength
regions, respectively (Sherman 1985; Clark et al. 1990; Grove
 Page 56
Figure 2. Examples of common mineral mapping targets at different spectral resolution
(a) USGS Lab spectra (solid) vs Landsat 8 OLI (square symbols) (b) ASTER (astericks) vs WV-3 (squares) (c) Sentinel-2 (triangles) vs HyMap (solid)
et al. 1992; Salisbury & D’Aria 1992). In addition, carbonate
and some sulphate minerals have spectral absorption features
both within the SWIR and TIR wavelength regions (Grove et
al. 1992; Salisbury & D’Aria 1992). Such spectral signatures
exhibit absorption features whose depth in reflectance values
(or emissivity within the TIR) can be approximately related to
abundance or content of that mineral. Some mineral signatures
(e.g. muscovite) also demonstrate shifts in the wavelength
of their absorption reflectance minima (approximately 2.2
um) associated with compositional chemistry changes. Such
inferred compositional changes of mica can be relevant for
the interpretation of their possible metamorphic or alteration
history (Duke 1994).
The latest online accessible USGS spectral library provides
laboratory level high spectral resolution measurements of
pure mineral specimen signatures within the VNIR-SWIR
region (Kokaly, et al., 2017) [ https://www.usgs.gov/labs/spec-
lab/capabilities/spectral-library]. Both the older USGS VNIR-
SWIR and also the Johns Hopkins University TIR mineral
spectral libraries are described and accessible via the ASTER/
ECOSTRESS website (https://speclib.jpl.nasa.gov/)
Examples of the USGS Laboratory VNIR-SWIR signatures for
calcite, muscovite, chlorite, and the iron oxides hematite and
goethite, are displayed in Figure 2 a) (Kokaly, et al., 2017).
The same mineral signatures were resampled to simulate the
resolution equivalent to Landsat 8 OLI (Figure 2a); ASTER
and WV-3 (Figure 2b), and the Sentinel-2 and HyMap sensors
(Figure 2c). It is apparent that the Ferric iron oxide minerals,
hematite and goethite, are best discriminated by their 0.7 to
1.0 um VNIR features at the hyperspectral resolution. However,
to a some extent, Sentinel-2 (Meer et al., 2014) and WV-3’s
multi-spectral VNIR bands and resolution can resolve a shift
of the VNIR 0.8 to 0.9 um FeOx spectral features to longer
Vol 25, 3 2020
wavelengths, related to the hematite to goethite composition
respectively (Figures 2 b & c). Figures 2 b) & c) show that ideally
the carbonate mineral, calcite, requires the more complete
SWIR wavelength spectrum that includes its 2.25 to 2.4 um
absorption feature measured by the HyMap and ASTER sensor.
However, confusion between calcite and chlorite can still be an
issue using the lower resolution ASTER unless the Ferrous Iron
composition within chlorite is observed from the spectral “ramp”
running from 2.0 to 1.0 um. WV-3 lacks the band 9 of ASTER
at 2.4 um and shows only one of the reflectance “shoulders”
of the calcite and chlorite absorption features at 2.33-2.35 um
(Figure 2b). Again, having access to a hyperspectral resolution
sensor enables the potential to distinguish their more subtle
features such as chlorite’s minor 2.25 um absorption feature.
The muscovite 2.2 um absorption feature is typical for several
AlOH or clay phyllosilicate signatures (e.g. montmorillonite,
kaolinite, illite) and can be observed by the HyMap, ASTER and
WV-3 sensors. However, the limitation of only one SWIR band
acquired by Landsat and Sentinel-2 is an obvious handicap
in confidently identifying such potentially argillic alteration
associated minerals (Figures 2 a & c).
Spatial resolution can also be a critical factor in the decision
of the appropriate sensor and imagery to use, depending on
the geological and alteration target. Traditionally multi-spectral
satellite sensors (Landsat TM, ASTER VNIR-SWIR) used by
geologists have been acquired at 30 m resolution. Comparison
between AlOH map products generated from ASTER’s 30 m and
HyMap’s 3.5 m imagery over Broken Hill shows the benefits of
higher spatial resolution in areas with narrow bedding or shear
zones, if that is an important survey target criteria (Hewson et
al. 2005). New generation satellite sensors such as Maxar’s
WorldView-3, launched in 2015, now offers 1.2 m VNIR and 3.7
m SWIR imagery [https://www.digitalglobe.com/]. In a study over
 Page 57
the exposed geology of Death Valley using several airborne
hyperspectral VNIR-SWIR acquisitions over time, Kruse (2000)
demonstrated that there were clear benefits in geological
mapping from a higher spatial resolution (e.g. < 20 m), assuming
a reasonable SNR image quality (e.g. > 100-200:1) is achievable.
Making it happen
Having decided the mineral(s) of interest for a study of the
surface composition and appropriate sensor(s) to use, the
format of the imagery or the data level of the imagery needs to
be chosen. Most satellite image suppliers list online possible
data levels from Level 1 (raw/unprocessed or calibrated
“radiance at the sensor”) to Level 2 (typically atmospherically
and geometrically corrected surface reflectance for VNIR-
SWIR or emissivity for TIR). Some suppliers such as USGS’s
LPDAAC [https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/] also provide orthorectified
radiance data (Level 3) that has an terrain correction applied
using DEMs and is useful for areas with significant topographic
relief. The example of the LPDAAC supplied ASTER data levels
and their explanations is available via https://asterweb.jpl.nasa.
gov/data_products.asp. Generally, suppliers of airborne VNIR-
SWIR hyperspectral imagery these days, supply geometrically
corrected surface reflectance data. Hyperspectral TIR imagery
is not so widely acquired as VNIR-SWIR, although very useful
for mapping silicates (e.g. quartz, feldspars, garnets, pyroxenes)
and carbonates. Such TIR imagery can be more challenging for
separating temperature effects from the diagnostic emissivity
signatures and other atmospheric effects, such as indirect
“downwelling” radiance contributions.
Once the imagery data level is chosen (ideally surface reflectance
or emissivity), downloaded and/or acquired, the processing and
extraction of the mineral, or mineral group, information can be
undertaken. There is almost a minefield (no pun intended) of
different processing techniques, and the choice is partly affected
by the mineral(s) or lithological unit target(s), and partly whether
its multispectral or hyperspectral imagery. Another deciding
factor may be the availability of affordable image processing
software. Processing by remote sensing consultants may offer
an option to extract the geological / mineralogical information
using their own specialized software. Such specialized software
may include ERDAS-IMAGINE [https://www.hexagongeospatial.
com/products/power-portfolio/erdas-imagine] or ENVI [ https://
www.harris.com/solution/envi]. ERDAS software can also include
the installation of ER Mapper software, used by geophysicists
widely in the past, and has GIS and data integration facilities.
Multi-spectral imagery is also easily handled and processed by
ERDAS IMAGINE/ER Mapper. ENVI has many powerful image
processing capabilities included for hyperspectral imagery and its
comparison / integration with laboratory or field acquired spectral
signatures. Cost can be a factor for such specialized software.
Options may include the example by the ENVI supplier L3Harris
for short term academic or commercial ENVI licensing for as
short as 1 month to 1 year (alternatively available as perpetual
academic or commercial licenses).
Vol 25, 3 2020
Other software processing options may also include public
domain software such as QGIS, combining GIS integration
with processing options, for multi-spectral imagery (e.g.
ASTER, Sentinel-2, WV-3). QGIS requires the public domain
software language, Python [https://www.python.org/] and offers
the possibility of user designed algorithm programs as plugins
into QGIS. Other examples of public domain software include
the ITC (University of Twente) HypPy software [ https://blog.
utwente.nl/bakker/hyppy/], that also runs on Python. HypPy
(Hyperspectral Python) has several band math, display and
logic options, useful for multi-spectral imagery. One of its
key capabilities is polynomial curve fitting to any spectral
absorption features detected within hyperspectral imagery, and
matching them with depth and wavelength parameters as a way
to extract estimates of mineral abundance and composition. It
requires the imagery to be in ENVI data format, which is also
possible via QGIS or GDAL [https://gdal.org/] operations. Further
details on its operation and case study examples are described
in Hecker et al. (2019).
A new paradigm in image processing is the use of online
development platforms. These platforms give access to cloud
computing services, linking to several data archives with remote
sensing imagery and other geospatial data. Examples of popular
platforms are ‘Google Earth Engine’, ‘OpenDataCube’ and
Sentinel-Hub; a complete listing is given in Gomes et al., (2020).
Mineral (& lithology) mapping
The choice of available software influences the type of type
of processed mineral map products, as well as the above-
mentioned decisions of sensor resolution and data level format.
Processing of multi-spectral imagery has often involved band
math or ratio operations applied on the various sensor bands
to generate indices that qualitatively to semi-quantitatively
represent mineral abundances. One particular band math
operator often used is the Relative Band Depth (RBD) that
highlights the target mineral absorption feature using three
bands, one band at a wavelength known to be close the
mineral absorption feature, and the other two bands chosen
on the shoulders of the absorption feature (Figure 3) (Crowley
et al. 1989). The simplest version of the RBD operator can be
demonstrated with the ASTER RBD expression for muscovite
abundance (Figure 3) using the equation:
(R5 + R7) / R6
where R5, R6 and R7 are the surface reflectance ASTER band
values for bands 5 (2.17um), 6 (2.21um) and 7 (2.26um) respectively
(Figure 3). The wavelengths shifts shown for the 2.2 um muscovite
feature, can be caused by changes in chemistry and related
structure of the mica, particularly from the Al content. This may
be an important observation for interpreting possible alteration
and hydrothermal influences, as mentioned above (Duke, 1994).
Several band ratios can be designed using ASTER bands 5, 6 and
7 to qualitatively interpret these Al changes in muscovite, as well
discriminate from kaolinite (Figure 3). One such qualitative ASTER
 Page 58
Figure 3. Example USGS SWIR muscovite and kaolinite absorptions signatures (Kokaly,
2017), and their resampled ASTER equivalent spectral relative to bands 5, 6 and 7.
image product to distinguish AlOH mineral differences can be
achieved using the Red Green Blue color composite
e.g. RGB : R5 / R6 ; R7 / R6 ; R7 / R5
Similar RBD and band ratio operators can be designed using
WV-3, and also using hyperspectral imagery. Examples of these
and other band math multi-spectral algorithms for mineral and/
or mineral group map products are described in Rowan and
Mars (2003), Mars and Rowan (2006), Hewson et al. (2005),
Meer et al., (2012) and Cudahy (2012). Ninomiya et al (2006) has
also devised band math operators using ASTER’s TIR bands
10-14 for silicate lithology mapping, incorporating more bands
related to the overall spectral signature shape.
There are also many processing options for generating geological
map products from hyperspectral VNIR-SWIR and TIR imagery.
As well as equivalent hyperspectral band versions of RBDs and
other band math operators described above, Spectral Angle
Mapper (SAM) and spectral unmixing or Matched Filtering/
Mixture Tuned Matched Filtering (MTMF) are commonly used
for the entire VNIR-SWIR or TIR image signatures (Kruse et
al., 1993). These and many other algorithms are available
in ENVI software. Such algorithms require the input of an
assumed target mineral signature, present in the imagery,
derived from the imagery itself (e.g. “endmember”), or from a
lab/field derived mineral spectral library. Examples of unmixing
imagery from both ASTER and the airborne hyperspectral NASA
sensor, AVIRIS, are described in Rowan and Mars (2003). In
particular their study shows that by utilizing the entire VNIR-
SWIR spectrum, rather than an individual mineral absorption
feature (e.g. via a RBD index), it is possible to map different
lithologies containing several minerals and their associated
spectral features.
Caveats & Pitfalls
The successful application of remote sensing techniques
for geological mapping requires a respect of the limitations
generated by the atmospheric / illumination conditions, ground
moisture, weathered / transported cover, and of course (our
Vol 25, 3 2020
friends?), the green and dry vegetation. The correction of
the satellite acquired “radiance at the sensor” to surface
reflectance or emissivity has tended to be undertaken in the
past by atmospheric modelling software, based on MODTRAN
[http://modtran.spectral.com/] using seasonal and latitude user
inputs. Increasingly, spectral bands are now included in the
design of multi-spectral satellite sensors to estimate moisture
and sometimes aerosol concentration at the time of acquisition
(e.g. WV-3, Sentinel-2). Hyperspectral VNIR-SWIR sensors
typically already have bands at particular wavelengths that
can be used for in-situ atmospheric corrections. However,
both the default modelled and in-situ corrections are not
perfect and the goal of deriving absolute reflectance imagery
for comparison with spectral libraries is difficult to achieve.
Apparent reflectance imagery with consistent and sensible
relative values between bands showing recognizable mineral
spectral signatures is, however, achievable but not guaranteed.
Users of reflectance level imagery should be aware of the
possible atmospheric artifacts particularly when humidity or
smoke are present. Distortions in the lower wavelength visible
bands can occur from aerosol (e.g. smoke) scattering (e.g.
~<0.6 um). Increased humidity, particularly during warmer
seasons, reduces the transmission and reflection of the solar
radiation making the modelling or in-situ corrections more
difficult and results a lower effective SNR. Acquiring imagery at
the highest sun angles is optimal and may limit the surveying
time during winter months depending on the latitude. This
issue can be more difficult in areas of topographic relief. Using
DEMs to model the extent of such shading at the expected
acquisition times is possible using image processing software
(e.g. ERDAS IMAGINE/ER Mapper; ENVI).
Ground moisture is also an issue and local weather stations
should be accessed to assess the possibilities of rainfall before
the satellite or airborne data acquisition. Moisture content
within the surveyed soils or rock outcrops will reduce the
reflected spectral contrast of mineral absorption features and
possibly make their discrimination or detection more difficult.
Another ground surface issue is the nature of the surface,
whether it be weathered and unrepresentative of the fresh units,
or composed of transported alluvial, colluvial or aeolian cover.
A great deal of research has been undertaken within the often
deeply weathered Archean cratons of Australia studying the
“regolith” [http://crcleme.org.au/]. Residual weathered minerals
such as Ferric Iron Oxides, kaolinite and quartz often dominate
the surface. However, with sufficient spectral resolution, subtle
changes observed in the kaolinite 2.16-2.2 um absorption
feature can indicate whether the ground surface is exposed
outcrop or regolith / transported cover (Cudahy, 2016).
Vegetation cover is an obvious handicap particularly if it is
forested or even open woodland with shadowing. The chlorophyll
green vegetation features within the VNIR (0.5 – 0.85 um; Figure 1)
not only obscure any exposed geology but their spectral features
will potentially complicate the interpretation of iron oxide spectral
signatures (0.6 – 1.1 um; Figure 2a). Dry vegetation containing
cellulose also has a broad spectral feature and characteristic
 Page 59
signature (2.0-2.3 um, Figure 1) that can also complicate the
interpretation of the important clay mineral features (2.1-2.25 um,
Figure 2a). Note that it’s not only dry leaf litter or bark that may
produce such an interfering SWIR signature as lichen growing
over outcrops also has a cellulose signature. Green vegetation
cover is sometimes dealt with by generating masks from the
VNIR imagery which effectively exclude or mask those pixels
which produce higher levels of the band ratio/math map products
related to the chlorophyll “Red Edge” (e.g. 0.75-0.85 um; Figure
1). This vegetation mask may consist of ASTER Band 3/Band 2
> 1.4 (Cudahy, 2012). Alternatively, a mask can be produced from
the Normalised Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI, Myneni et al,
1995) > 0.4 (Hewson et al., 2020). NDVI can be calculated almost
from all standard VNIR-SWIR sensors using the bands: Red (~0.65
um) and IR (~0.8 um). For ASTER: NDVI = (R3 – R2) / (R3 + R2)
where R2 and R3 are the ASTER image reflectance’s of bands
2 and 3. Image pixels with such vegetation indices above such
thresholds are effectively excluded from geological interpretation.
Another approach to dealing with vegetation cover is to apply
spectral unmixing techniques (e.g. MTMF), estimating the
proportion of a pixel’s spectral signature that is affected by an
assumed vegetation signature (Kruse et al., 1993). The resulting
spectrally unmixed classification produces map products for each
of the assumed vegetation, mineral, etc. components contributing
to the reflectance signature from each pixel (Kruse et al., 1993).
It assumes that the combined image pixel signature is a linear
combination of the various surface components. This may not
be the case when light is reflected and scattered between the
various ground components. Also, it is not certain at what % of
vegetation cover spectral unmixing will produce reliable mapping
of the remaining geologically related components. The combined
effects of shadows and non-linear spectral mixing should make
the user cautious when interpreting geological components in
forested areas or areas with dense shrub or grass cover. Armchair
geological mapping via remote sensing in such areas, without
follow up field work, is risky even with higher spectral and spatial
sensor resolutions.
Case Studies
Satellite & Airborne
There have been many geological mapping case studies
undertaken using ASTER since its launch in December 1999
(Abrams & Yamaguchi, 2019). Rowan and Mars (2003) showed
early on that lithological mapping was feasible in areas of good
exposure. Mosaicked multi-scene ASTER was also processed
using simple devised spectral indices such as band ratios and RBDs
to generate geological compositional maps within the Curnamona
Province (Broken Hill) (Hewson et al., 2005). A successful attempt
to generate 17 cross continental ASTER geoscience products
(Cudahy, 2012; Caccetta et al., 2012) was later achieved and made
available via Geoscience Australia [http://portal.auscope.org/index.
htm ; https://portal.ga.gov.au/persona/eftf].
These large-scale Australian ASTER map products at 30 m spatial
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 4. Geoscience Australia data portal showing example of the Australian
ASTER map product, AlOH abundance.
resolution have been successfully used for detailed exploration in
arid to semi-arid areas such as in the Northern Territory’s Arunta
Province Chubko gold prospect (Laukamp et al., 2013). A large scale
interpretation of Australia’s weathered soils, deposition and regolith
also utilises these cross continental ASTER map products (Cudahy
et al., 2016). However, there can be limitations for the geoscience
application of such map products in more temperate and cultivated
regions (Hewson et al., 2015). Geoscience Australia (GA) has
recently commenced generating regional surface compositional
maps using Landsat and Sentinel-2, extracting the optimal
seasonal acquisitions with the “barest” exposures of the geology
(Roberts et al, 2019) [https://www.ga.gov.au/eftf/minerals/innovation].
Such satellite systems have a continuous multi-temporal operation,
unavailable within the ASTER archive, although lacking ASTER’s
multi-band SWIR capability. Even though ASTER has a only
partial night-time acquisition capability, limited case studies have
suggested that there is potential for observations of surface and
subsurface thermal and physical properties (Hewson et al., 2017,
Hewson et al., 2020). Interpretation of such night time imagery,
ideally in conjunction with proximate day time thermal acquisition,
offers the potential to derive thermal inertia properties related to
porosity/density (e.g. outcrop vs transported cover) and moisture
content (soil, sub-surface aquifer or green vegetation related)
(Hewson et al., 2017). Currently NASA’s ECOSTRESS spaceborne
thermal sensor project is studying such frontier research areas for
environmental and geoscience applications [https://ecostress.jpl.
nasa.gov/].
As mentioned above, there has been a growth in the use of
commercial airborne hyperspectral sensors with higher spectral/
spatial resolution than available from satellites, particularly within
the VNIR SWIR wavelength region. In the late 1990’s HyVista’s
HyMap (Cocks et al., 1998) demonstrated at the Pilbara Panorama
site its ability to not only map high temperature alteration minerals
such as topaz, but also map the distribution of muscovite’s chemical
 Page 60 Vol 25, 3 2020
(a) (c)

(d)

(b)

Figure 5. Haib Namibian study area (Hewson et al., 2019): (a) 1st Vertical Derivative
magnetics and interpreted lineaments; (b) magnetic lineaments as an insert image
overlying the WV-3 AlOH map product (RGB : b5/b6, b7/b6, b7/b5); (c) Radiometrics K
channel (99% linear stretch); (d) Radioelement K vs WV-3 AlOH content; (e) WV-3 AlOH
Haib area content thresholded by Radioelement K concentration (Figure (d)). Note: the
geophysics images, 5(a) and 5(c) have the same coordinate extents, as the magnetic (e)
lineament insert image within 5(b). WV-3 image (e) has the same extents as (b).

variation corresponding to the hydrothermal discharge / recharge

sites within the overturned oceanic crustal exposed outcrops
(Cudahy, 2016). Larger scale multi-flight line acquisitions of HyMap
have been subsequently acquired and mosaicked into 1:100,000
scale map sheet sized areas within the Kalgoorlie, Broken Hill and
Mt Isa mineralised province areas of Australia (Cudahy, 2016).
HyMap currently acquires VNIR-SWIR imagery down to 1.8 m
spatial resolution at a SNR of 500:1, and with orthophoto and
DEM generating capability (Cocks, pers. comm). An example of
combined hyperspectral airborne, outcrop sample and drillcore
VNIR-SWIR spectroscopy from the Pedra Branca orogenic gold
prospect, Brazil, demonstrates the potential for 3D exploration
from remote sensing studies (Naleto et al., 2019). In particular, ProSpecTIR VNIR-SWIR imagery because of its characteristic
detailed field and drillcore sample spectral measurements identified SWIR absorption feature with a 2.16 um and 2.20 um doublet
a useful vector for locating mineralized veins by the presence of absorption feature (Figure 3) (Naletoet al., 2019).
Al poor white micas (e.g. phengite muscovite) which weather to A demonstration of the capabilities of integrated VNIR-SWIR and
well-ordered crystalline forms of kaolinite within surface outcrops TIR hyperspectral imagery to map iron oxide, clay, carbonate and
(Naleto et al., 2019). The recognition of this well-ordered kaolinite silicate minerals has been successfully achieved with spectral
mineral vector, was useful for the interpretation of the hyperspectral unmixing (MTMF) techniques (Kruse, 2015). Although these
 Page 61 Vol 25, 3 2020

image datasets were acquired for research studies by JPL/NASA

with their airborne AVIRIS VNIR-SWIR (@3.2m) and HyTES TIR
(@4.3m) sensors (Kruse, 2015), there is growing commercial activity
in undertaking such joint multi-wavelength region hyperspectral
surveying (e.g. SpecTIR, ITRES, HyVista). Such combined high
spectral and spatial resolution VNIR-SWIR-TIR acquisitions are not
feasible with current satellite sensors nor will be in the foreseeable
future.

Marrying Geophysics and

Remote Sensing?
Integrating and utilizing both spectral and regional geophysical
datasets has also proved useful where both are available. An example
in the early days of ASTER using HYMap, DEMs and and regional
geophysics at the Pilbara’s Woodie Woodie Mn prospect showed
Figure 6. Survey area / image pixel resolution cartoon defining possible economic
that there could be less ambiguity in the mineral interpretation UAV survey operational models between flying multirotor versus fixed wing
of the individual datasets if all relevant information is combined (modified from Dering et al, 2019)
(Hewson et al., 2006). For example, ferric iron oxides mapped by
since 2010. As mentioned above, a number of constraints
HyMap associated with Tertiary ferricrete, could be discriminated
are still being overcome including payload capacity and flight
from hematite bearing altered units of interest by observing regolith
duration. Several reviews have been published in various
units containing radiometric Thorium (Hewson et al., 2006). Also,
journals summarizing these developments (Dering, et al., 2019;
manganese bearing dolomite units exhibiting silicification alteration
Shahmoradi et al., 2020; Lee & Choi, 2016). In particular Lee
were more clearly mapped using a combination of HyMap’s
and Choi (2016) describe their application for the mine site
carbonate and ASTER TIR silica map products (Hewson et al.,
environment, accurately undertaking high spatial resolution
2006). Overall, the study showed the combined use of both airborne
topographic and visible wavelengths observations of opencut
and satellite spectral data was able to provide a cheaper way to
operations and stockpiles. Dering et al. demonstrates their
narrow the target of geological units for helicopter borne EM surveys
usefulness in detailed outcrop observations of various dyke
exploring for sub-surface manganese deposits (Hewson et al., 2006).
outcrops from several sites including a dyke swarm within felsic
Another case study demonstrating the benefits of utilizing both
migmatite/granodiorite in south eastern Western Australia. In
VNIR-SWIR remote sensing and regional airborne magnetics and
particular Dering et al. (2019) describes the visible orthoimage
radiometrics is shown for the Haib Cu porphyry deposit in Namibia
acquisition at 1 cm image and 2 cm DEM resolution as means
(Hewson et al., 2019). Airborne HyMap imagery has been previously
to interpret the fracture density, dyke geometry/structure and
used by Teck Cominco Namibia Ltd. to identify argillic and sericitic
chilled margins along a 500 x 20 m coastal outcrop. Four flights
units of interest for possible porphyry systems (Teck Cominco
were undertaken to acquire imagery over a total of one hour.
Namibia Ltd., 2009). Subsequent comparisons with ASTER and
Spatial accuracy was optimized with multiple ground control
WV-3 SWIR imagery produced similar results (Hewson et al., 2019).
points measured with an accuracy of 4mm. Dering et al (2019)
Extracting lineament features from 1st Vertical Derivatives filtered
recommended that users first need to decide on the required
airborne magnetics generated structural related shear zone and
ground sampling distance (GSD; or ground pixel size) in order
fault-line features that also corresponded well with several surface
to determine the appropriate UAV configuration. The GSD
AlOH clay anomalous occurrences (Figure 5a & b). Also integrating
affects the flying height and choice of sensor. Derring et al.
the radiometric K data (Figure 5c) with the WV-3 AlOH clay index
(2019) suggests multirotor UAVs are generally better for low
map product, using a scatterplot (Figure 5d) helped to refine the
attitude surveys to produce a higher resolution GSD and are
interpretation of the AlOH clay mineral map (Figure 5e). Although
also able to better handle windy conditions. Figure 6, modified
satellite WV-3 is used here with moderate spectral SWIR resolution,
from Derring et al. (2019) illustrates the interplay between the
it appears to discriminate potassium bearing alunite alteration within
GSD resolution and the economics of survey area for deciding
the Haib Cu prospect (red areas: “H” and “I” within the white box,
the choice of fixed wing versus multirotor UAVs for such
Figure 5e). Further field sampling is required, as other K anomalous
photogrammetric surveys.
areas are present (“C”, Figure 5e) and possibly related to K-feldspar
bearing intrusives (Hewson et al., 2019). A comprehensive and recent review of drone applications in
the mining industry is presented by Shahmoradi et al (2020)

UAV and Face Mapping discussing drone and sensor types, different mine related
applications and include a detailed reference list. Such
The development and deployment of UAV’s carrying VNIR-SWIR applications include surface mines (e.g. 3D mapping, slope
sensors for civilian geological applications has accelerated stability, safety issues, inventory / construction monitoring),
 Page 62 Vol 25, 3 2020
a)

Figure 7. Proximal TIR sensor, Hyper-Cam, undertaking mine face mapping at the
Jura cement quarry

underground mines (e.g. geotechnical, gas detection), and

abandoned mine monitoring (e.g. subsidence, rehabilitation, b)
acid drainage monitoring) Shahmoradi et al. (2020). Shahmoradi
et al (2020)’s paper also describes drones and models used
in surface mines from fixed-wing to multirotor types, varying
from 20 to 50 minutes endurance carrying a 150g to 1000 g
payloads. However, such models with limited payload capacity
are more relevant for standard RGB digital photography and
orthophoto imagery rather than multispectral remote sensing
(Shahmoradi et al, 2020). Other commercial drones listed here
for other mining / geology applications include fixed-wing, and
variations of multirotors (e.g. quadcoptor, hexacoptor) with an
endurance range from 17 to 120 minutes and payload capacity
from 250 g to 5.5 kg. Not all specifications for listed drone
suppliers are present, however, it appears the multicoptors
can carry larger payloads (e.g. Precision-hawk’s Quadcoptor/
Hexacoptor, Microdrone’s Quadcoptor, Trimble’s Hexacoptor)
(Shahmoradi et al, 2020).
A well-presented detailed account of using a Rikola VNIR Figure 8. (a) Jura carbonate quarry mine face with reference panels; (b) Interpreted
calcite / dolomite spectrally unmixed mine face product, (Boubanga-tombet et al., 2018)
hyperspectral sensor (5 kg) on a Aibot X6 V2 Hexacoptor for
mapping acid drainage issues in the Sokolov lignite open pits is these sensors over the arid terrain of the Karatagh gold-copper
written up by Jackisch et al. (2018). Acid drainage is characterized prospect of western China. The quality of the acquired imagery and
here by jarosite, hematite, goethite and schwertmannite minerals reflectance signatures were for the discrimination and mapping of
having spectral absorption features within the 504 – 900 nm (eg iron oxides (e.g. goethite, hematite, jarosite) associated alteration
0.504 – 0.9 um) VNIR range of the Rikola sensor (Jackisch et al., at 0.8 m spatial resolution, using SAM and traditional hyperspectral
2018). Multi-temporal observations were acquired to observe processing techniques (Jiang et al., 2019).
changes in the acid drainage at 3 to 5 cm spatial resolution. A variation of mine site UAV applications has been the recent
The ground validated UAV study showed that it was successful deployment of ground based or proximal hyperspectral sensors
in mapping jarosite and goethite associated minerals with SAM targeting open cut walls or vertically exposed outcrops. There
processing but not able to derive predictor relationships directly is naturally no issue regarding payload capacities or duration of
for the actual acidic ph levels observed (Jackisch et al., 2018). acquisition operations. A TIR hyperspectral imaging sensor, Hyper-
One of the study’s outcomes was that there was a limitation Cam, is available, including for hire by Telops Inc. [https://www.
using only VNIR hyperspectral bands to 900 nm for a full iron telops.com/], measuring thermal radiance from 7.7 to 11.8 um (4
oxide mineral mapping capability. cm-1 wavelength spectral resolution) within a focal plane detector
An example of VNIR-SWIR hyperspectral UAV systems are the array of 320 x 256 pixel imaging (Boubanga-tombet et al., 2018).
HySpex instruments of Norsk Electro Optikk, consisting of a 400- A field study was undertaken at the Jura cement feedstock quarry,
1000nm VNIR sensor (4.6 kg) and a 970-2500 nm SWIR sensor Cornaux, Switzerland, with the aim of testing its ability to assist quality
(5.7 kg) (Jiang et al., 2019). A larger UAV platform in the form of control monitoring within the quarry. In particular, it is important for
the Airbon XT91 powered suspended glider was used to carry the cement plant operations to know how much dolomite and other
 Page 63
silica or clay contaminants are present in the targeted calcite deposit
(Boubanga-tombet et al., 2018). The Hyper-Cam sensor was placed
at 35 meters from the quarry face and measured the thermal radiance
signature with approximately a 26 cm2 pixel resolution (Figure 7).
As mentioned previously, thermal radiance measurements involve
more complicated pre-processing including the separation of the
temperature component from the surface emissivity signature.
However, with the aid of reference panels placed on the imaged
quarry surface (Figure 8a) corrections of atmospheric and temperature
effects were performed. Hyper-Cam’s TIR spectral resolution was
sufficiently high to enable the spectral unmixing processing to
discriminate and map the dolomite from the calcite by their main
TIR absorption features, at 11.20 um and 11.32 um respectively
(Figure 8b) (Boubanga-tombet et al., 2018).
Looking forward
The obvious benefits of using hyperspectral resolution VNIR-SWIR
sensors has promoted an active interest by government space
agencies to develop and launch such sensors on spaceborne
platforms. The first civilian prototype of such a satellite-borne
hyperspectral sensor was NASA/JPL’s Hyperion mission
acquiring 30-meter resolution imagery for effectively 198 bands
between 400 to 2500 nm, within a 8 km swath image (Pearlman
et al., 2003). Recognisable VNIR-SWIR spectral signatures were
generally acquired with the Hyperion sensor, however the SNR
was poor (~40:1) within the SWIR wavelengths and precluded
widespread mineral mapping applications (Cudahy, 2016).
Several hyperspectral satellite sensors have been launched or
are planned for deployment in the near future. A recently launched
Italian mission, PRISMA, is currently undergoing initial validation
studies and providing early imagery [http://prisma-i.it/index.php/
en/]. Japan’s HiSUI hyperspectral 185 band 20-30 metre pixel
VNIR-SWIR sensor is already installed on the International Space
Station and data should be accessible after 2021 [https://ssl.
jspacesystems.or.jp/en_project_hisui/]. Expectations are that HiSUI
will have a favorable SNR of 450:1 for the VNIR and 300:1 for
SWIR. The German Aerospace satellite sensor, EnMAP, is a
planned 242 band 30 m spatial resolution VNIR-SWIR sensor
with its own platform and planned for launch Q3 2021. EnMap
also plans for a favorable SNR, 400:1 for the VNIR and 170:1 for
the SWIR (https://www.enmap.org/). NASA’s “Surface Biology &
Geology Mission” (formerly HyspIRI) are a possible pair of VNIR-
SWIR hyperspectral and TIR 8 band sensors (https://sbg.jpl.nasa.
gov/doc_links) is currently undergoing a feasibility review process.
One major difference between the NASA and other hyperspectral
missions above, is the possible planned larger swath image width
of 150 km compared to the other mission 20-30 km swath widths.
Such a wider image swath improves the potential capability
to mosaic acquired scenes into larger regional, continental, or
possibly global map products.
Summary
For geological remote sensing to have a reasonable chance
of success it is critical that the practitioners have a clear
Vol 25, 3 2020
understanding of their geological or mineralogical target(s) and
likely surface exposure. The choice of the right sensor/platform/
image product with the appropriate resolution should follow.
Ground, environmental, illumination and atmospheric conditions
need to be considered and accounted for during the acquisition
and processing of the imagery. Integrating ancillary geoscience
and/or regional geophysical data can often reduce ambiguities in
the geological interpretation. A lot of geological remote sensing
case studies have been published in journals and presented at
conferences which can be a great asset for planning surveys, data
acquisitions and extracting useful processing techniques. Finally,
remote sensing is a rapidly changing technology and its advisable
to stay abreast of new developments.
References
Abrams, M., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2019), Twenty years of ASTER
contributions to lithologic mapping and mineral exploration,
Remote Sensing, 11(11). 10.3390/rs11111394. 9
Boubanga-tombet, S., Huot, A., Vitins, I., Heuberger, S.,
Veuve, C., Eisele, A., Hewson, R., Guyot, E., Marcotte F. &
Chamberland, M. (2018), “Thermal Infrared Hyperspectral
Imaging for Mineralogy Mapping of a Mine Face” Remote
sensing, 10, 10, 15 p., 1518.
Caccetta, M., Collings, S., Cudahy, T.J. A calibration method
for continental scale mapping using ASTER imagery. Remote
Sens. Environ. 2012, 139, 306–317.
Clark, R.N., King, T.V.V., Klejwa, M., and Swayze, G.A., (1990),
“High spectral resolution reflectance spectroscopy of minerals.”
Journal Geophysical Research, 95, B8, pp.12653-12680.pp.
Cocks, T., Jenssen, R.; Stewart, A., Wilson, I., Shields, T.,
(1998), “The HyMap airborne hyperspectral sensor: The
system, calibration and performance. In Proceedings of the
1st EARSEL Workshop on Imaging Spectrometry, Zurich,
Switzerland, 6–8 October, pp. 37–42.
Crowley, J.K., Brickley, D.W., and Rowan, L.C., (1989, “Airborne
imaging spectrometer data of the Ruby Mountains, Montana:
mineral discrimination using relative absorption band-depth
images,” Remote Sensing of Environment, Vol. 29, pp121–134.
Cudahy, T.J. (2012), Australian ASTER Geoscience Product
Notes; CSIRO Report, EP-30-07-12-44, Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO):
Canberra, Australia, 2012. Available online: https://doi.
org/10.4225/08/584d948f9bbd1
Cudahy, T. (2016), Mineral Mapping for Exploration: An
Australian Journey of Evolving Spectral Sensing Technologies
and Industry Collaboration, Geosciences, 6(4).10.3390/
geosciences6040052. 2878.
Cudahy, T.C., Caccetta , M., Thomas, M., Hewson, R., Abrams, A.,
Kato, M., Kashimura, O., Ninomiya, Y., Yamaguchi, Y., Collings,S.,
Laukamp, C., Ong, C., Lau, I., Rodger, A., Chia, J., Warren, P.,
Woodcock, R., Fraser, R., Rankine, T., Vote, J., de Caritat, P.,
English, P., Meyer, D., Doescher, C., Fu, B., Shi, P., & Mitchell,
 Page 64
R., (2016), “Satellite-derived mineral mapping and monitoring of
weathering, deposition and erosion”, Nature Scientific Reports
6, Article number: 23702 , doi:10.1038/srep23702
Dering, G.M.; Micklethwaite, S., Thiele, S.T., Vollgger, S.A.,
Cruden, A.R., (2019), “Review of drones, photogrammetry
and emerging sensor technology for the study of dykes: Best
practises and future potential.” J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res.
Duke, E.F. (1994), Near infrared spectra of muscovite, Tschermak
substitution and metamorphic reaction progress: Implications for
remote sensing. Geology, 22, pp 621–624.
Gomes, V.C.F., Queiroz, G.R., & Ferreira, K.R., (2020), “An Overview
of Platforms for Big Earth Observation Data Management and
Analysis”, Remote Sensing, Vol. 12(8), 25pp.
Grove, C.I., Hook, S.J., and Paylor II, E.D., (1992). “Laboratory
reflectance spectra of 160 minerals, 0.4 to 2.5 micrometers”.
JPL Publ. 92-2.
Hecker, C., Van Ruitenbeek, F. J. A., Van Der Werff, H. M. A.,
Bakker, W. H., Hewson, R. D. & Van Der Meer, F. D., (2019),
“Spectral Absorption Feature Analysis for Finding Ore: A Tutorial
on Using the Method in Geological Remote Sensing”, 1 Jun 2019,
In: IEEE geoscience and remote sensing magazine. 7, 2, p. 51-71
Hewson, R.D., Cudahy, Mizuhiko, S., Ueda, K., and Mauger, A. J.
(2005). ‘Seamless geological map generation using ASTER in the
Broken Hill-Curnamona Province of Australia.’ Remote Sensing
Environment, Vol. 99, pp. 159-172
Hewson, R.D., Cudahy, T.J., Drake-brockman, J., Meyers., J.,
and Hashemi, A., (2006). ‘Mapping geology associated with
manganese mineralization using spectral sensing techniques at
Woodie Woodie, East Pilbara.’ Exploration Geophysics, Vol. 37,
pp. 389-400.
Hewson R., Robson, D., Mauger, A., Cudahy, T. Thomas, M. and
Jones, S., (2015), “Using the Geoscience Australia-CSIRO ASTER
maps and airborne geophysics to explore Australian geoscience”,
J. Spatial Science, DOI: 10.1080/14498596.2015.979891
Hewson, R.D., Robson, D., Carlton, A. and Gilmore,
P. (2017) Geological application of ASTER remote sensing within
sparsely outcropping terrain, Central New South Wales, Australia.
Cogent geoscience: open access, 31, article no. 1319259, 22 p.,
DOI 10.1080/23312041.2017.1319259
Hewson, R.D., Chinkaka, E., van der Meijde, M., Baugh, B., Titus,
N. & Mubita, J.P., (2019), “Geological investigations with high
spatial resolution WV-3 satellite imagery and regional geophysics
at the Haib Cu porphyry, Namibia”, In Proc, 2nd Australasian
Exploration Geoscience Conference, 2 - 5th Sept., 2019, Perth,
Australia, 1-5pp.
Hewson, R.D., Mshiu, E., Hecker C., van der Werff, H., van
Ruitenbeek F., Alkema, D., and van der Meer1 F., (2020), “The
application of day and night time ASTER satellite imagery for
geothermal and mineral mapping in East Africa”, Int. J. of App.
Earth Obs. and Geoinform, Vol. 85, 1-13 pp.
Jackisch, R., Lorenz, S., Zimmermann, R., Möckel, R., Gloaguen,
R. (2018), “Drone-Borne Hyperspectral Monitoring of Acid Mine
Vol 25, 3 2020
Drainage: An Example from the Sokolov Lignite District. Remote
Sens. 2018, Vol. 10, Page 385, 10, 385.
Jiang, G., Zhou, K., Wang, J., Cui, S., Zhou,S., & Tang, C.,
(2019), “Identification of iron-bearing minerals based on HySpex
hyperspectral remote sensing data”, Journal of Applied Remote
Sensing, Vol. 13(4), 16pp.
Kokaly, R.F., Clark, R.N., Swayze, G.A., Livo, K.E., Hoefen, T.M.,
Pearson, N.C., Wise, R.A., Benzel, W.M., Lowers, H.A., Driscoll,
R.L., Klein, A.J., 2017. USGS Spectral Library Version 7: U.S.
Geological Survey Data Series 1035, 61 p.
Kruse, FA; Lefkoff, A. B; Boardman, J. W.; Heiedbrecht, K. B.
Shapiro, A. T., Barloon, P. J., Goetz, A. F. H., 1993, The Spectral
Image Processing System (SIPS) – Interactive Visualization
and Analysis of Imaging Spectrometer Data. REMOTE SENS.
ENVIRON. 44:145-163.
Kruse, F.A., (2000), The effects of spatial resolution, spectral
resolution, and signal-to-noise on geologic mapping using
hyperspectral data, Northern Grapevine Mountains, Nevada,
In Proc. 9th JPL Airborne Earth Science Workshop, JPL Publ.
00-18, pp.261-269.
Kruse, F. A. (2015). “Integrated visible and near infrared, shortwave
infrared, and longwave infrared (VNIR-SWIR-LWIR), full-range
hyperspectral data analysis for geologic mapping.” Journal of
Applied Remote Sensing 9(1): 096005-1 to 096005-17.
Kruse, F. A., Baugh, W. M., & Perry, S. L., 2015, Validation of
DigitalGlobe WorldView-3 Earth imaging satellite shortwave
infrared bands for mineral mapping, Journal of Applied Remote
Sensing, 9(1), 96044., https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JRS.9.096044
Laukamp, C., Cudahy, C., Caccetta, M., Thomas, M., Close,
D., & Lennartz, R. (2013) Successful mineral exploration using
multispectral remote sensing data - ASTER geoscience map of
Australia, Proceedings 12th SGA Biennial Meeting, 12–15 August
2013, International Association for Mathematical Geosciences,
Uppsala, Sweden, 4pp.
Lee, S. & Choi, Y., (2016), “Reviews of unmanned aerial vehicle
(drone) technology trends and its applications in the mining
industry”, Geosystem Eng., 19, pp197–204.
Mars, J. C., & Rowan, L. C. (2006). Regional mapping of phyllic-
and argillic-altered rocks in the Zagros magmatic arc, Iran,
using Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection
Radiometer (ASTER) data and logical operator algorithms.
Geosphere, 2(3), 161-186.
van der Meer, F. D., H. M. A. van der Werff, F. J. A. van Ruitenbeek,
C. A. Hecker, W. H. Bakker, M. F. Noomen, M. van der Meijde,
E. J. M. Carranza, J. B. de Smeth, and T. Woldai (2012), Multi-
and hyperspectral geologic remote sensing: A review, Int. J.
Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 14(1), 112-128, doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jag.2011.08.002.
van der Meer, van der Werff H. M. A, and van Ruitenbeek F. J. A.,
(2014) “Potential of ESA’s Sentinel-2 for geological applications,”
Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 148, pp. 124–133.
Myneni, R. B., F. G. Hall, P.J. Sellers, and A.L. Marshak (1995) ‘The
 Page 65
interpretation of spectral vegetation indexes’, IEEE Transactions
on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, vol. 33, 481-486.
Naleto, J.L.C., Perrotta, M.M., da Costac, F.G. & de Souza Filho, C.
R. (2019), “Point and imaging spectroscopy investigations on the
Pedra Branca orogenic gold deposit, Troia Massif, Northeast Brazil:
Implications for mineral exploration in amphibolite metamorphic-
grade terrains”, Ore Geology Reviews, Vol. 107, pp283-309.
Ninomiya, Y., Fu, B., Cudahy, T.J. Detecting lithology with
Advanced Space-borne Thermal Emission and Reflectance
Radiometer (ASTER) multispectral thermal infrared “radiance-
at-sensor” data. Remote Sens. Environ. 2005, 99, 127–139.
Pearlman, J.S., Barry, P.S., Segal, C.C., Shepanski, J., Beiso,
D. & Carman, S.L., 2003. Hyperion, a Space-Based Imaging
Spectrometer. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing, 41(6), pp. 1160-1173.
Roberts, D., Wilford, J., and Ghattas, O. (2019), “Exposed soil
and mineral map of the Australian continent revealing the land
at its barest,” Nature Communications, 10, 11pp.
Author Bios
R.D. Hewson
Earth Systems Analysis,
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science
and Earth Observation,
University of Twente, The Netherlands
hewson001@gmail.com
Rob Hewson is a remote sensing geoscientist consultant, based
in Victoria, Australia, with collaborative research links with ITC
University of Twente, The Netherlands, where he was Assistant
Professor in Geological Remote Sensing until 2019. He holds a
PhD in geological remote sensing (UNSW), MSc in geophysics
(Macquarie) and has previously worked as a geophysicist for Shell
Australia and as a research geoscientist at Australia’s CSIRO.
Mark van der Meijde
Earth Systems Analysis,
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science
and Earth Observation,
University of Twente, The Netherlands
m.vandermeijde@utwente.nl
Mark van der Meijde is a professor in geophysics and head
of the department of earth systems analysis at the faculty of
Geo-Information science and earth observation at the University
of Twente. He holds a PhD in Geophysics (ETH Zurich), MSc
in geophysics (Utrecht University) and has previously worked
as a geophysicist for the Dutch Geological Survey (TNO). His
research interests are focused on earth structure and dynamics.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Rowan, L. C., and Mars, J. C., 2003, Lithologic mapping in the
Mountain Pass, California area using Advanced Spaceborne
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) data.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 84, 350–366.
Salisbury, J.W. and D’Aria, D.M., (1992). “Emissivity of terrestrial
materials in the 8-14 mm atmospheric window.” Remote
Sensing Environment, 42, pp.83-106.
Shahmoradi, J., Talebi E., Roghanchi, P. & Hassanalian, M.,
(2020), “A Comprehensive Review of Applications of Drone
Technology in the Mining Industry”, Drones, Vol. 4, 34, pp25
Sherman, D.M. (1985). “The electronic structures of Fe3+
coordination sites in iron oxides: application to spectra,
bonding and magnetism.” Physics and Chemistry of Minerals,
12, pp.161-175
Teck Cominco Namibia Ltd. , 2009, Renewal Report: Exclusive
Prospecting Licence 3140. Retrieved from https://www.
deepsouthresources.com/wp-content/uploads/Haib_NI43-101_May-
3-2016_FINAL.pdf
Harald van der Werff
Earth Systems Analysis,
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science
& Earth Observation,
University of Twente, The Netherlands
harald.vanderwerff@utwente.nl
Harald van der Werff is an associate professor in geological
remote sensing at the faculty of Geo-Information science and
earth observation (ITC) at the University of Twente. He holds
a PhD and MSc in geology from Utrecht University and has
previously worked at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in
Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany. His research interests are imaging
spectroscopy, porting of hyperspectral mineral indices to
operational satellites, and monitoring earth dynamics.
Christoph Hecker
Earth Systems Analysis,
ITC - Faculty of Geo-Information Science &
Earth Observation,
University of Twente, The Netherlands
c.a.hecker@utwente.nl
Chris Hecker is an associate professor in Thermal Infrared
Sensing, at ITC, University of Twente. He holds a PhD in Geologic
Remote Sensing (University of Twente) and an MSc in Earth
Sciences (University of Basel). His research interests focus on
thermal remote sensing for the exploration of earth resources,
such as geothermal systems and critical raw materials.
 Page 66 Vol 25, 3 2020
Page 66 Vol 25, 3 2020
Wim H. Bakker Frank van Ruitenbeek
ITC - H.
Wim Faculty of Geo-Information
Bakker Earth Systems
Frank Analysis,
van Ruitenbeek
ITC - Faculty
Science of Geo-Information
& Earth Observation, Earth Systems
ITC - Faculty ofAnalysis,
Geo-Information Science &
Science & Earth
University Observation,
of Twente, The Netherlands ITC - Faculty
Earth of Geo-Information Science &
Observation,
University of Twente, The Netherlands
w.h.bakker@utwente.nl Earth Observation,
University of Twente, The Netherlands
w.h.bakker@utwente.nl University of Twente, The Netherlands
f.j.a.vanruitenbeek@utwente.nl
f.j.a.vanruitenbeek@utwente.nl

Wim Bakker is a lecturer at the faculty of Geo-Information science Frank van Ruitenbeek has an M.Sc. degree in Geology from
and earth
Wim Bakker observation
is a lecturer(ITC) at faculty
at the the University of Twente. He
of Geo-Information holds
science Utrecht
Frank University
van Ruitenbeek (1993)
hasand a Ph.D.
an M.Sc. in Geological
degree in Geology Remote
from
an MSc
and earthinobservation
Geoinformation (ITC)and is currently
at the Universityworking on his
of Twente. HePhD in
holds SensingUniversity
Utrecht from Utrecht (1993)University (2007).
and a Ph.D. In 1997 heRemote
in Geological started
Practical
an MSc inImaging Spectrometry.
Geoinformation and isHe startedworking
currently his career
onby
hisfounding
PhD in working for
Sensing fromITC,Utrecht
first as aUniversity
lecturer and since 2007
(2007). In 1997 as an
heAssistant
started
a company
Practical in industrial
Imaging imageHe
Spectrometry. processing
started hisand automation.
career by founding In Professor
working for the
for ITC, first Department of Earth
as a lecturer and Systems
since 2007 as an Analysis.
Assistant
1993 he joined the ITC where he worked in various
a company in industrial image processing and automation. In positions Frank usesfor
Professor infrared hyperspectral
the Department of data
Earthsets to measure
Systems rock
Analysis.
and projects
1993 he joined in the
thefield
ITCofwhere
remote hesensing,
worked(hyperspectral) image
in various positions composition
Frank and microstructure.
uses infrared hyperspectralHedataapplies
sets these methods
to measure to
rock
processing,
and projects databases
in the field ofand GIS. sensing, (hyperspectral) image
remote study hydrothermal
composition systems, ore deposits,
and microstructure. He applies early life environments
these methods to
processing, databases and GIS. and planetary
study surfaces.
hydrothermal systems, ore deposits, early life environments
and planetary surfaces.

Call
Callfor
forSpecialist
Specialist Contributors
Contributors - -
NSG
NSGCommunity
Community Outreach Opportunity
Outreach Opportunity
Joint
JointReview
Review Paper on
Paper on
AdAdvances
vances ininGGeophysical
eophysical M onitoringof
Monitoring ofGroundwater
Groundwater
Journal
Journal of of Contemporary Water
Contemporary Water Research
Researchand
andEducation
Education
Deadlines:
Deadlines: Expression Interest -- October
ExpressionofofInterest 21st; Paper
October 21st; PaperSubmission - December
Submission- December 1st 1st
2020
2020
The Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education (JCWRE - https://ucowr.org/journal/about-the-journal/) upcoming
The Journal
Spring 2021 of Contemporary
edition Water Research
is on the specialist topic of and Education
Advances (JCWRE)
in Water upcoming
Monitoring. JCWRESpring
are2021 edition
seeking is on the specialist
a comprehensive review
topic of Advances in Water Monitoring. JCWRE are seeking a comprehensive review paper on Advances
paper on Advances in Geophysical Monitoring of Groundwater (excluding satellite monitoring which is covered in another paper). in Geophysical
Monitoring of Groundwater (excluding satellite monitoring which is covered in another paper).
The geophysical methodologies and technologies involved are so diverse and specialized that to make the maximum impact
The
of geophysical
this NSG Community methodologies
opportunityandfortechnologies
outreach to theinvolved are so diverse
water resource researchand
andspecialized that to make
education community, it isthe maximum
proposed that
impact of this NSG Community opportunity for outreach to the water resource research and education
this be a joint NSG Community review paper compilation of contributions of short reviews of different available technologies community, it is
proposed
and that this by
methodologies be specialists
a joint NSG andCommunity
experienced review paper compilation
hydrogeophysics of contributions
practitioners. In this wayofweshort reviews of
can optimally anddifferent
directly
capture contemporary state-of-the-art practice and compile such a review with the most relevant literature references,way
available technologies and methodologies by specialists and experienced hydrogeophysics practitioners. In this we
on each
can optimally and directly
specialist method and technology. capture contemporary state-of-the-art practice and compile such a review with the most relevant
literature references, on each specialist method and technology.
Accordingly we invite interested specialists for the joint review paper to contact editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com (deadline
Accordingly
October 21st,we invite
2020) to interested specialists
express interest for the joint
in contributing and review paper to
the proposed contact editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
specialization topic. The field of hydrogeophysics
(deadline October 21st, 2020) to express interest in contributing and
advances could cover, but not be confined to: methodology/technology experience/research the proposed specialization topic.
in one-off and Thetime field of
series
hydrogeophysics advances could cover, but not be confined to: methodology/technology experience/research
measurements for geophysical monitoring of groundwater, recharge and hydrogeological conditions [e.g. geophysical logging, in one-off
and time (surface,
resistivity series measurements for geophysical
cross-hole, implant electrodes), monitoring of groundwater,
AEM, NMR, marine, recharge
IP, EM, seismic, and hydrogeological
magnetics, conditions
radiometrics, gravity, use of
[e.g. geophysical logging, resistivity (surface, cross-hole, implant electrodes), AEM, NMR, marine,
optic-fibre, uncertainty in modelling, geophysical to hydrogeological parameterization for models, joint monitoring/methodologyIP, EM, seismic,
magnetics, etc.].
approaches radiometrics, gravity, use of optic-fibre, uncertainty in modelling, geophysical to hydrogeological
parameterization for models, joint monitoring/methodology approaches etc.].
Page 67 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 68 Vol 25, 3 2020

Locate • Delineate • Characterize

Geophysics for
Groundwater, Infrastructure, & Energy
Offices in Texas, Colorado, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Tennessee
Serving Clients Coast to Coast

www.colliergeophysics.com
 Page 69 Vol 25, 3 2020

UAV Methane Detection - can pilot-on-board aircraft equipped with methane detection
capability. Thus, we turned our attention to employing
Latest Advances and the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) equipped with specially built
methane measurement sensors.
Current State of the Markets
Aaron Bufton Detecting Methane
Pergam-Suisse Pergam Technical Services
There are several methods for detecting methane but the
Kilchberg Renton
most practical, cost-effective technology for measuring the
Switzerland Washington, USA amount of methane is based on the absorption of near-infrared
info@pergam-suisse.ch info@pergamusa.com
light5 at a specific wavelength (normally 1650nm) matched to
Bio the methane molecule. “Sniffer” style methane measurement
sensors measure with high sensitivity and accuracy the amount
of methane contained within a vessel of known volume. In
Introduction some cases, the systems are designed for spectrographic
measurement of multiple gases. As the measurement occurs
A methane plume with an estimated volume equivalent to roughly internally to the sensor, the UAV with sensor attached must be
1% of total U.S. natural gas system daily emissions in 2018 was flown through sufficient gas concentration density.
released from a yet to be confirmed source in Florida, USA on A more popular approach is to use a “Remote” style system
May 2, 20201. The volume of the release was 170 metric tons. illustrated in Figure 1. These “Open Path” sensors use the same
During measurement on May 3rd, the cumulative amount had single wavelength laser light emitted externally from the sensor
risen to more than 300 metric tons. More than two (2) months detecting the reflection of the laser radiation off the ground or
would pass before the results of a data mining algorithm applied an object back to the sensor. The amount of returned light is
to the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-5P satellite data would analyzed to determine the concentration of methane in units
be brought to the attention of the public2. The mere fact that the of ppm-meter (PPM*M) within the atmospheric volume the
super emitter methane release event was detected via satellite laser passes through.
remote sensing data demonstrates how far the technology for
The “Open Path” style methane detection systems exhibit
detecting methane releases has progressed while simultaneously
good sensitivity and can be operated at a pragmatic distance
emphasizing the need to detect and characterize the sources
away from the gas source. The detection swath or width of the
of potential methane emissions before they become significant
sensing area is narrow so the sensor must be flown at a close
events.
enough ground track spacing so that the laser beam intersects
the methane plume to achieve a sufficient gas concentration
A Third of California Methane density. Normally this is just a small distance downwind. The
lighter weight systems at about a ½ lb/0.3kg have a detection
Traced to a Few Super-Emitters range of up to 30m while higher power systems can weigh
as much as 25 lb/11kg and have a range of up to 150m. The
In California, point-source methane emissions are dominated by heavier versions require a UAV similar to the one made by
landfills (41 percent), followed by dairy farms (26 percent) and Swissdrones shown in Figure 2. Examples of lighter weight
the oil and gas sector (26 percent). The largest methane emitters
in California are a subset of landfills, which exhibit persistent
anomalous activity3. The majority of the methane super-emitters,
other than landfills, are intermittent events in the energy, waste,
and agriculture sectors4. It is, therefore, possible to extrapolate
that the vast majority of super emitters are man-made.
Satellite-based methane detection has already delivered many
successes on a global scale and will only get better with
improvements in the sensitivity and resolution of the sensors.
However, due to the limited number of sensors passing over
the earth at any one time and the possibility of clouds blocking
the target locations, satellite detection will always be subject
to intermittent detection coverage. Therefore, satellite remote
sensing to detect methane leaks is simply not able to provide
the just-in-time methane emission awareness needed to have
prevented the super-emitter methane event that occurred in
Florida. Due to the high cost and limited availability, neither Figure 1 Drone methane detection over a landfill
 Page 70 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 2 – Heavy lift drone with IR laser methane detection system

systems are shown in Figure 3.

A third type of detector is the “Scanning Remote” laser-based
gas detection system where the laser is scanned from side to
side creating a wide swath. The sensors exhibit good sensitivity
and can also be operated from a pragmatic distance away from
the gas cloud. These systems measure gas along the entire
laser beam path. They weigh from 10 lb/4.5kg to 40 lb/18kg,
with a detection range of up to 50 m and 150 m, respectively.
“Wide-swath hyperspectral sensor” gas detection systems use
sunlight as the energy sources instead of lasers, have good
sensitivity, and can be a long-distance away from the gas cloud
to register a detection. These systems measure for gas along
the entire sunlight reflection path from the ground or object
and have units of PPM*M. Their weight is 10lb/4.5kg with a
detection range of up to 100m. These systems often include a
LiDAR unit to improve the sensor detection reliability. Figure 3 – Light lift drones with IR laser methane detection system. (Top) LMC mini
detector (for hand-held use) installed on a small MD4-1000 drone; (Bottom) LMC
“Optical Gas Imaging (OGI)” is an infrared camera specially Falcon detector installed on a DJI M600 Pro drone.

designed to detect and visualize when either the unique parts
of the infrared light spectrum are absorbed or emitted by the
gas. These type of sensors have good sensitivity and can
be up to 100 ft/30m away from the gas cloud to register a
detection. The best results are obtained when is stationary with
a background that is constant and uniform. They are sensitive
to multiple gases. Quantitative Optical Gas Imaging (qOGI) are
OGI cameras with special software that can calculate flow rates.
Macro-level quantitative methane emission detection studies,
despite their varying levels of accuracy, have already identified
themes such as landfills, vents and flares, etc. with mitigation
efforts being implemented. The next step is how to cost-
effectively ensure these solutions are continually effective.
Success to Date
The level of interest and acceptance of UAV-based methane
detection platforms has grown considerably over the last
5 years and they are now the preferred method for initial
detection and localization of natural gas infrastructure facilities
inaccessible by other methods (ground staff, vehicle-based).
The availability of UAV methane detection payloads that can
also be used for handheld surveys provided greater flexibility
and value. The same resource can now inspect all the natural
gas infrastructure during a single site visit.
The use of open-path remote laser methane detection payloads
is advantageous over local methane detection payloads (e.g.
“sniffers”) as they can measure the methane at ground level
from a safe and operationally comfortable distance. This results
in a higher detection reliability for smaller amounts of methane.
The best results are obtained from constant above ground
altitude and avoidance of directly overhead sun reflection. The
maneuverability of the UAV platforms combined with payloads
that produce real-time measurement data gives the operator
the ability to quickly stop and reverse to verify detections
raising the detection reliability to nearly 100%. As biological
sources can also produce detectable methane emissions, a
camera aligned with the laser is the additional asset needed to
determine whether the natural gas infrastructure is the source.
The economics that are the driving force for companies to
lower methane emissions should be obvious. Does the cost
of detection and action to mitigate the emissions outweigh
 Page 71
Figure 4. Landfill Methane Emissions - Single Pass Profile. The 120 PPM*M detection
in the upper right corner of the landfill was 150 cubic feet per hour
the loss of product (in the case of gas companies) and risks
such as potential safety issues, violation of regulations, public
opinion of their brand, etc? Reducing the cost of the first part
of this equation to get companies to act has proven to be far
easier than any other endeavors. High quantitative accuracy
has not been needed to provide actionable information to
reduce emissions.
Examples of Methane Mapping
over Landfills
For landfill operators, the simple act of removing the cover dirt
to enable storage of more refuse can trigger a super-emitter.
During testing, a UAV sensor payload was flown over an artificial
leak, a section of gas transmission pipeline which had no leaks,
and then over a landfill (Figure 4) for comparison and additional
verification about the system’s sensitivity.
The results including a maximum spike of 3088 PPM*M with a
large area that was dangerous for personnel was surprising to
all. The landfill operator was informed and they demonstrated
they had done due diligence for safety including staff who had
personal gas detectors. Interestingly, the first third of the landfill
had methane capture installed and no methane emissions were
detected. An example of a multi-line methane survey is shown
in Figure 5.
Ground-based methane emission monitoring has proven
ineffective due to the exposure to landfill operation, toxic
chemical, and unstable terrain hazards. Economical UAV-based
tools to monitor methane emissions that fit within the landfill’s
already tight business models are already available and the
industry continues to innovate.
Implementing aviation airspace restrictions up to 200 feet AGL
above all landfills where not in conflict with existing controlled
airspaces could enable automated 24/7 UAV-based Beyond-
Visual-Line-Of-Sight (BVLOS) methane emission surveys
giving operators a new level of safety notification and emission
awareness.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 5. Results of a “Simple” Landfill Survey
Landfill operators can easily determine where to store more
refuse and where to install methane capturing equipment using
just the results of a simple survey (for example Figure 5), with
a cost-efficient laser remote methane detection sensor UAV
payload. Pergam Technical Services’ LMC payload mounted
on a DJI Matrice 600 can survey 40 acres/0.4km x 0.4km in 25
minutes where each laser scan pass swath width is 1ft/0.3m
from an altitude 100ft/30m.
Would better quantification, higher resolution, or an elegant
heat map provide more actionable information justifying the
higher price? The focus must be on value for every dollar
spent. Despite rapidly increasing interest in landfill surveys,
only a few hundred of these sensor payloads are currently
sold worldwide per year. Increased demand would reduce their
cost further by as much as a third via the economics of higher
volume manufacturing.
Methane Leak Detection for
O&G Facilities and Infrastructure
UAV-based methane detection also provides value at the
micro level such as gas companies’ facilities and distribution
pipeline networks. The limitations inherent to every business
model dictate that not every leak in a natural gas facility or
infrastructure can be fixed. UAV-based remote quantitative
emission measurements can be directly used to prioritize
emission mitigation resources, but at a price and does not
alone characterize the future potential emissions of the source.
A primary focus area of the methane sensor industry is to find
cost-efficient methods to quickly detect, localize, and quantify
leaks and the leading candidates are UAV-based payloads.
An example of the potential benefits of UAV-mounted methane
detection is in regard to a recent incident in Florida1, mentioned
in the Introduction, where a gas company maintenance operation
was suspected of a gas leak. he same UAV methane detection
system which surveyed the landfill could have been patrolling
downwind of the Florida-based gas company’s maintenance
event to provide real-time monitoring and document that their
actions were not the cause of the Florida plume.
Page 72 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 73
New Gas Detection
Technologies and their Cost-
Effectiveness
The exciting new technologies are quantitative Optical Gas
Imaging (qOGI), scanning laser remote methane detection
sensors, and wide-swath hyperspectral gas detection sensors.
qOGI can achieve quantitative accuracy between 30% and
50% with a professionally customized calibration configuration
for the conditions, a particular environment, and hovering long
enough to take several measurements. Additionally, qOGI has
the benefit of detecting multiple gas types.
The total cost of detection which includes training and setup
time is in the order of 7 times higher as compared to the cost-
efficient laser remote methane detection sensor UAV payload
previously described.
Scanning laser remote methane detection sensors have
approximately 10ft/3m wide laser pass swath width and have
achieved similar accuracy results from 100ft/30m while in motion
and with fewer limitations, but with a total cost of detection
estimated at over 13 times higher as compared to the cost-
efficient laser remote methane detection sensor UAV payload.
This technology is the most advanced for large area quantitative
methane mapping, but the high cost is significantly limiting its use.
Wide-swath hyperspectral sensor gas detection payloads have
slightly lower sensitivity and quantitative ability than scanning
laser remote methane detection sensors with a total cost of
detection estimated at only 10 times higher as compared to
the cost-efficient laser remote methane detection sensor UAV
payload. This technology is already used to monitor agriculture
and has a strong potential of becoming a cost-efficient method
for large area quantitative methane mapping as the gas-
sensitive versions mature. All three methods require line-of-
sight with the leak source for greater quantitative accuracy.
Numerous efforts are underway to improve the performance
and cost of these technologies.
UAV-based gas “sniffer” detection sensors can have quantitative
accuracy of 15%, but must take many measurements only 2-3
yards/meters from the leak source which can be in the hazard
zone and time-consuming. Payload pairing a laser remote
methane detection sensor with either a sniffer or OGI sensor
takes advantage of the strengths of both to provide results
faster, but at a higher cost.
The optimal solution for UAV-based natural gas distribution
pipeline leak inspection, for example in suburban neighborhoods,
has not yet been achieved. It will take a revolutionary change
in UAV capability, noise reduction, and economics in order to
effect change.
Once large scale autonomous Beyond-Visual-Line-Of-Sight
UAV operations are allowed, gas companies can take advantage
of UAV’s lower cost per mile, lower environmental impact, and
near-instant availability to inspect their high-risk areas daily
Vol 25, 3 2020
and their entire networks whenever needed or desired, finding
leaks when small and simpler to resolve/repair. Due to cost,
the market has stagnated to only around a third of the US
transportation pipeline being inspected from aircraft with active
methane detection equipment and normally only annually.
Quantitative Methane Mapping
Via Drone
Large area quantitative methane mapping is the next frontier
for UAV-based methane detection. Mapping of methane natural
sources on a global scale (e.g. tidal flats, melting permafrost,
etc) over time to understand their effects is of critical scientific
importance. A cost-efficient method has yet to be established
and sorely needed. Even the fixed-wing aircraft quantitative
efforts have been limited and mainly publicly or charity funded.
The methane sensor industry is focused on the wide swath
sensors, but continues to hope that the clever application
of a bit of science will determine a method for repeatably
accurate quantification using the lower-cost methane detection
payloads. The research to date has established the largest
source of variation in the quantification calculation is in the
actual methane measurement. A UAV’s freedom to fly closer
to the ground and a tighter survey pattern than aircraft and the
ability to fly a precise automated flight pattern with minimal
changes in altitude above ground have already been shown to
improve the quality of the measurement data.
Several advanced UAV operators are experimenting with
complex multiple sensor payload packages such as the addition
of rangefinders and light intensity sensors in combination
with ground sensors providing environmental data along
with advanced analysis and modeling software. The ease of
mounting almost any payload combination continues to be a
strength of UAV-based measurement.
Summary and Conclusions
Fifteen years of dialogues over detection reliability, inspection
beam width on the ground, and equipment sensitivity have
curtailed the mainly helicopter-based natural gas leak detection
efforts as customers have become increasingly confused
whose technology to trust with their limited funding. The
reduced operational cost per mile/kilometer of UAVs, the
dramatically reduced cost of the methane detection sensors,
and the flexibility of both UAV operations and payloads will
solve this problem and lead to significant expansion not only
in the natural gas transmission pipeline leak inspection market.
The focus now is on awareness by educating individual
companies to eventually transform the normal practice of
industries, supporting those who desire to find new ways of
using existing sensors, and the continued development of better
sensors. Just-in-time methane emissions awareness will lead
to low-methane emissions business models. Even with our
 Page 74 Vol 25, 3 2020

differences, the methane detection sensor industry is united in

our commitment and passion to reduce emissions, and we stand
Author Bio
prepared to engage further. A key enabler to long term methane Aaron Bufton
emissions reduction is not only extensive global emissions Pergam-Suisse Pergam Technical Services
mapping but also timely economical monitoring as well. Dorfstrasse 7 285 SW 41st Street
Kilchberg Renton

References Switzerland Washington, USA

1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-20/epa-
launches-investigation-into-massive-florida-methane-leak
2 https://bluefield.co/press-release-florida-methane-0720/
3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3
4 https://methane.jpl.nasa.gov/
5 Richard C. Nelson, Earle K. Plyler, and William S. Benedict.
1948 - Absorption Spectra of Methane in the Near Infrared.
US Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,
Research Paper RP1944, Vol 41, December 1948 https://nvlpubs.
nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/041/jresv41n6p615_A1b.pdf
info@pergam-suisse.ch info@pergamusa.com
After graduating from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CA, USA in
1997 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering, Aaron Bufton
joined Intel, working first at its development factories in the USA
and then at its new fabrication plant in Ireland. He then joined
Pergam-Suisse in Zurich, and has devoted the last 14 years of
his career to helping reduce industrial methane emissions for
both safety and environmental reasons. The combination of his
field engineering and helicopter pilot experience has given him
a unique perspective, enabling him to bring valuable solutions
and results to customers.
Page 75 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 76
Agricultural
Geophysics News
Angelo Lampousis, PhD,
City College of New York
alampousis@ccny.cuny.edu
Welcome back to our FastTIMES agricultural geophysics column. As
our editor Geoff Pettifer has indicated elsewhere in this and previous
volumes, FastTIMES is the only magazine on the globe that is solely
devoted to near surface geophysics applications, technologies and
outreach to geophysicists and the end-users of information obtained
from geophysical data. In this context, our current special issue on
drone geophysics and remote sensing allowed for our agricultural
geophysics column to expand into a section.
We start with a major calendar update. Previously scheduled for
November 8-11, 2020, in Phoenix, Arizona, the American Society
of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil
Science Society of America, will conduct its annual conference
virtually from November 9th to the 13th, 2020. It is safe to assume
that the virtual attendance will be in the thousands, especially
after accounting for the people who would have been unable to
attend in person.
Barry Allred, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Soil Drainage
Research Unit, Columbus, Ohio, offers an overview of his research
conducted on the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR) and
an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for mapping buried drainage
pipe networks in farm fields. Dr. Allred of course is well known
Vol 25, 3 2020
to FastTIMES readers having served or currently serving in top
positions within EEGS, the SAGEEP Annual Conference, and in
other organizations. By way of full disclosure Dr. Allred initiated
my own involvement in FastTIMES after inviting me to contribute
an education related article in the 2017 Volume 22, Number 4,
FastTIMES special issue on agricultural geophysics (see cover
below and link to full content: https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue)
Tristan Campbell and Dr. Peter Fearns of Curtin University, Western
Australia, Australia, report on the first integrated assessment of
different calculated flower abundances across four apiary Marri tree
sites in southwest Australia. USA based bee keepers as well as
those around the World will very likely identify with their Australian
counterparts who have to drive thousands of kilometers to match
the growth of their bees to the flowering period. Given the on-going
and multi-parameter crisis in the bee-keeping industry here in the
USA this article can very well inform feature research at the cross
roads of the scientific fields of ecology, remote sensing, and apiary
management, as well as related technology innovation such as
beehive monitoring hardware.
Ronald Koomans and Han Limburg of Medusa Explorations
BV, Groningen,The Netherlands, report on the long-awaited
improvements on mounting gamma-ray spectrometry equipment
on drones. They discuss the challenging task of navigating the
scientific, technological, and even legal constraints of achieving
a device that can produce reliable data retrievals through an
optimization process. Applications include environmental
mapping and, relevant to this section, precision farming. Flying
over measurements, as opposed to driving over measurements
in agricultural fields, open new avenues for improved field
characterization throughout the growing cycle.
Page 77 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 78
Honey from space: Introduction
detection of flowering plants Honeybees (Apis mellifera) are globally significant for crop
from satellites with UAV pollination (Potts et al. 2016), and are widely considered the
most economically valuable pollinator in this sector (Klein et al.
calibration 2017). For bees to pollinate effectively, strong, healthy colonies
are required (Vaissière 1991), with good nutrition available to
Tristan Campbell
Curtin University
Western Australia, Australia
tristan.campbell@curtin.edu.au
Bio
Dr Peter Fearns
Curtin University
Western Australia, Australia
peter.fearns@curtin.edu.au
Bio
Abstract
Honeybees are recognised as highly valuable for crop pollination
around the globe, and high quality nutrition is required for
the colonies to maintain strong populations for optimum
pollination. Marri trees in southwest Australia produce pollen
of excellent nutrition to honeybees, and the honey produced
from nectar from these trees often contains high antimicrobial
properties. With these trees occurring over a geographic range
of over 84,000 km2, apiarists in southwest Australia often drive
thousands of kilometers over the Marri flowering period to
inspect flowering phenology and manage their beehives.
Previous work by the authors has included development of
algorithms to measure changes in flower abundance from both
satellite and UAV mounted sensors. This study represents the
first integrated assessment of the different calculated flower
abundances across multiple apiary sites.
Satellite and UAV data were acquired from four apiary Marri
sites from January to February 2019, as well as anecdotal
information on intra-seasonal honey production from apiarists
who accessed the sites. The 2019 season was a poor honey
production season and, as a result, all remotely-sensed flower
coverage metrics were operating close to or below their
estimated limitations of sensitivity.
Flower coverage measures from the Sentinel-3 satellite and regular
UAV surveys were consistent with reported variations in honey
production over the study period, as well as with each other.
This indicates good potential for future use of these measures for
future production periods, even over poor seasons. However, both
approaches require good to cloud-free weather to acquire data.
The MODIS satellite flower measure showed minimal variation over
the season and is, therefore, not able to provide useful information
for apiary management. This is inline with initial assessment by the
authors previously, which indicated that MODIS flower coverage
is likely to be useful only in good harvest years.
Vol 25, 3 2020
the colonies for optimum rearing of larvae into healthy adult
bees (Haydak 1970; Sagili and Pankiw 2007).
In southwest Australia, one of the key honey producing plants
is the Marri tree (Corymbia calophylla). This species occurs
over a range in excess of 84,000 km 2 and generally flowers
in late summer to early autumn (Herbarium 2015). Due to
the geographic range, commercial apiarists commonly have
multiple apiary sites for Marri honey production located
hundreds of kilometers apart and drive thousands of kilometers
each season to monitor the flower phenology of each site and
manage their beehive movements accordingly.
In addition to potentially large honey harvest volumes from
Marri forests of over 70 kg per hive over the 1 – 2 month
flowering period (Campbell et al. 2020), honey from Marri trees
often has exceptionally high antimicrobial properties (Irish et
al. 2011) and the pollen from Marri trees is high in all nutrients
required for rearing healthy bee larvae (Kratz et al. 2019).
While derivation of spectral indices for measuring changes in
flower abundance from satellite-borne sensors have shown
promise in mature Marri forests (Campbell and Fearns 2018a),
results were not reliable over younger forests and mixed
land-use apiaries using data from the MODerate Imaging
Spetrometer (MODIS) (Campbell et al. 2019).
In this study, the Marri Flowering Index (MFI) derived by
Campbell and Fearns (2018a) is calculated from Sentinel 3
and MODIS satellite data over multiple Marri apiaries during
the 2019 Marri flowering season (January to February), with the
relative flower abundance verified by regular UAV surveys of
the apiary sites as specified by Campbell and Fearns (2018b)
Methods
Apiary site locations and honey harvest data
Data from four different apiary sites in southwest Australia
were used for this study. As shown in Figure 1, three of these
sites were in forests within 100 km of Perth, the capital city
of Western Australia, and one site was near the south coast.
These sites represent a range of different forest structures, as
shown in Figure 2. These figures indicate the proportion of the
vegetation canopy which is higher than 5 m, the height above
which Marri trees are typically sufficiently mature to commence
flowering (Brooker and Kleinig 2001).
The Northcliffe and Byford sites were both in mature forest,
several kilometers from any extensive cleared farmland. The
Northcliffe site has the tallest average canopy of any of the sites.
 Page 79
Figure 1 - Location of study apiary sites. Coordinates in WGS84
The Hovea site was located in an area of forested private blocks
of land (average size ~2 Ha) near John Forrest National Park and
the Chidlow site is an area of Marri forest surrounded by farmland.
Honey harvest data was anecdotal information from the apiarists
for each site. Overall, the 2019 season was a poor season, with
no honey harvested from the Northcliffe and Byford sites. The
Marri trees at the Northcliffe site formed buds over December and
January, then the majority of the trees dropped the buds in early
February, with almost no Marri flowers observed. Intermittent
flowering was seen on some Marri trees at the Byford site over
February but no beehives were placed at this location owing to
the expected poor harvest. Therefore, no comments could be
made regarding variability in honey production over the study
period.
Less than 20 kg of Marri honey was harvested per hive for the
Hovea and Chidlow sites. These two sites both recorded some
production of Marri honey at the start and end of February, with
a rain event in the middle of the month reducing production for
approximately one week.
Figure 2 - Forest structure for each study site, derived from Auscover the Vegetation Height and Structure Dataset (Scarth 2009). Colour scale is height at which 75% of the
plant cover has been intercepted. The Auscover data covers an area of 1 km x 1 km for each site.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Satellite MFI calculation
Ground-based spectroradiometer data were used by Campbell
and Fearns (2018a) to determine the spectral ranges with
the highest spectral separation between Marri flowers and
surrounding material in these forests (Campbell 2019). It was
determined the Marri flowers have a higher spectral reflectance in
the visual range (450 – 650 nm) and a lower spectral reflectance
in the UV range (< 450 nm). Therefore, the greatest spectral
separation for satellite data is achieved by dividing the highest
visual band reflectance (~550 nm) by the UV band reflectance,
where these bands are available. This number is designated as
the Marri Flowering Index (MFI).
This hypothesis was tested using over 10 years of honey harvest
data from an apiary site near Perth in mature Marri forest and the
years with exceptionally high harvest weights (> 40 kg of Marri
honey per hive) were reliably distinguished from lower harvest
years by the MFI derived from the MODIS sensors. However,
later analysis of MFI and honey harvests of multiple apiary sites
over 10 years showed that the MODIS-derived MFI is not reliable
across all locations (Campbell et al. 2019).
Since this research was carried out, data from the European
Space Agency’s (ESA) Sentinel-3 satellite has become more
widely available. As the spectral analysis in Campbell and
Fearns (2018a)) indicated that the MFI from the Sentinel-3
satellite is more sensitive to changes in flowering abundance
than the MODIS sensor, and Sentinel-3 has a higher spatial
resolution than MODIS, Sentinel-3 data were acquired over the
2019 Marri flowering period (mid-January to March).
Sentinel-3 data were obtained through the Copernicus Open
Access Hub ( https://scihub.copernicus.eu/), with the relevant
Sentinel-3 scenes downloaded in the NetCDF4 format. Data
were then processed in the Sentinel Application Platform
(SNAP - https://step.esa.int/main/toolboxes/snap/) with scenes
geolocated and all band and quality data extracted from the
pixel coordinate for each study site.
The MFI was calculated for each study site for each cloud-free
acquisition by dividing Band 6 by Band 1 (as per Campbell and
Fearns (2018a) to create a dataset of relative flower coverage
over time per study site. To allow comparison with the previously
utilised MODIS-calculated MFI, MODIS MYDOCGA-006 data were
 Page 80
downloaded for each study site over the same period and the MFI
calculated from Band 10 divided by Band 8, with the data filtered
by quality control flags contained within the file downloaded from
Application for Extracting and Exploring Analysis Ready Samples
(AppEEARS - https://lpdaacsvc.cr.usgs.gov/appeears/).
UAV flower abundance
calculation
UAV imagery were acquired using a DJI Mavic Pro UAV drone,
with the UAV following pre-defined flight paths in the AutoPilot
app for repeatable coverage between UAV surveys. Surveys were
conducted on a weekly basis where weather and other logistical
constraints permitted. Flight altitude was set to 60 m for all flights,
as recommended by Campbell and Fearns (2018b), and the
percentage of flower coverage calculated as per the parallelepiped
method on the RGB image data as detailed in the same publication.
For each survey, the average percentage flower coverage was
calculated for all UAV images to create a dataset of percentage
flower coverage over time per study site. Examples of acquired
UAV images and the resulting flower coverage classification are
provided in Figure 3.
Figure 3 - Example of UAV images before and after flower coverage classification.
Example has classified 1.5% of pixels as flower
Results
Sentinel-3 MFI
The Sentinel-3 MFI for each study site are presented in Figure
4, along with the MODIS MFI and UAV flower coverage. Despite
an average revisit of time of less than 2 days for the study area,
the average time between cloud-free acquisitions of Sentinel-3
data for each site ranged from 4 to 8 days (see Table 1), with a
maximum data gap period of 26 days recorded for the Chidlow
site. This trend of high cloud cover continued through March,
with no cloud-free days occurring for any Sentinel-3 revisit days
for the whole month.
Table 1 – Times between cloud-free Sentinel-3 data acquisition (15/01/2019 to
28/02/2019)
Study Site Average Time Maximum Time
Northcliffe 4.0 days 12 days
Byford 6.0 days 16 days
Hovea 6.0 days 20 days
Chidlow 8.0 days 26 days
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 4 - Sentinel-3, MODIS and UAV flower coverage for each study site from
15/01/2019 to 28/02/2019. Note that the satellite-derived MFI is displayed against
the left-hand vertical axis and the UAV flower coverage is displayed against the
right-hand vertical axis. Blue points are Sentinel-3 MFI, grey points are MODIS MFI
and orange points are UAV calculated flower coverage.
Of the four study sites, three showed an overall increase in
MFI over the study period. As noted previously in the Methods
section, the majority of the Marri trees at the Northcliffe site
dropped their buds prior to flowering. This is consistent with
the low Sentinel-3 MFI measure of ~0.9 that did not vary
considerably.
The three study sites near Perth all showed similar patterns,
where cloud-free days allowed for acquisition of sufficient
quality Sentinel-3 data. The Sentinel-3 MFI for these three sites
commenced at ~1.5 in the middle of January and reached a
peak of 2.3 – 2.6 at the end of February. For Byford and Hovea
sites, data from early February showed an increase in Sentinel-3
MFI to >2.0 before a temporary reduction in MFI in the middle
of the month. This pattern in Sentinel-3 MFI is consistent with
the reported honey production variability for the Perth region.
Sentinel-3 data was unavailable for Chidlow in early February.
MODIS MFI
The MFI calculated from MODIS data for the same period
showed little variation, with the MODIS MFI for all sites
averaging ~1.5 and showing considerably less variation than
the Sentinel-3 MFI over time. Certainly, there is no indication of
the increase in MFI expected in February based on the reported
honey production variation and the Sentinel-3 MFI patterns.
UAV flower coverage
All four study sites had a UAV flower coverage progression of
lower coverage (<0.5%) in January and highest coverage at the
end of February (1.8 – 4.5%). It is important to note that the
UAV flower coverage algorithm is estimated to be more reliable
for flower coverages greater than 2% (Campbell and Fearns
2018b) and therefore these low coverage estimates need to
be used with caution.
The UAV flower coverage for all sites followed a similar pattern to
the Sentinel-3 MFI for each site, with Northcliffe having consistently
 Page 81
the lowest flower coverage and the Byford and Hovea sites
increasing in early February with a mid-February decrease before
increasing towards the end of the month and Chidlow showing
a more stable increase from the end of January to late February.
Discussion and conclusions
Given the previously published sensitivity levels for the different
methods used to measure Marri flower coverage in this study
(1.1% for Sentinel-3, 2.1% for MODIS and 2% for UAV imagery),
the three different datasets used in this study performed as
expected given that the study year was of below average Marri
honey harvests, with concomitant low levels of Marri flower
coverage.
It is clear that the MODIS MFI does not have sufficient sensitivity
for detecting changes in flower coverage during poor flowering
years. This is in line with the previous research by Campbell and
Fearns (2018a), in which MODIS MFI was able to distinguish
between good and moderate to poor years but not moderate to
poor years on a seasonal basis. The more detailed intra-seasonal
data used in this study confirmed the inadequate performance
of MODIS MFI in poor years, although ideally similar repeated
studies in moderate and good years would be conducted to verify
the findings across the range of harvest qualities.
Despite working at the lower limits of sensitivity, the Sentinel-3
MFI and UAV flower coverage both correlated with anecdotal
information relating to intra-seasonal honey production, and each
other. This promising result indicates the potential for apiarists to
utilise the Sentinel-3 MFI data to infer honey production during the
season without visiting apiaries for manual inspection of beehive
condition. When apiaries are visited, UAV surveys can provide a
more detailed measure of the flower phenology behaviour and
further inform apiary management decisions.
Both the Sentinel-3 MFI and UAV flower coverage measurements
suffer from weather constraints common in remote sensing; the
Sentinel-3 MFI requires cloud-free days coincident with revisit
times and UAV surveys require site visits as well as rain-free
days (although surveys can still be conducted on cloudy days).
As with the MODIS MFI, further studies in moderate to good
honey harvest seasons would assist with verification of the scope
and accuracy of these metrics for apiary management. If beehives
are present on the apiary sites, these studies may be combined
with detailed hive data from beehive monitoring hardware, which
have become more widely commercially available in recent years
(e.g. www.arnia.co.uk). Detailed data on ambient temperature,
hive activity and honey production (via changes in hive weight)
will all assist with improved understanding between Marri flower
ecology, remote sensing data and apiary management.
References
Brooker MIH, Kleinig DA (2001) Field guide to eucalypts. vol
Volme 2, South-western and southern Australia. Bloomings
Books, Melbourne, Australia
Vol 25, 3 2020
Campbell T (2019) Ground-based spectroradiometer
measurements of vegetation and groundcover of Corymbia
calophylla forests in Western Australia. Curtin University.
doi:10.25917/5d47b72fc294f
Campbell T, Dixon K, Dods K, Fearns P, Handcock R (2020)
Machine Learning Regression Model for Predicting Honey
Harvests Agriculture 10:118
Campbell T, Fearns P (2018a) Honey crop estimation from
space: Detection of large flowering events in Western
Australian forests. Paper presented at the ISPRS TC I Mid-term
Symposium “Innovative Sensing – From Sensors to Methods
and Applications”, Karlsruhe, Germany,
Campbell T, Fearns P (2018b) Simple remote sensing detection
of Corymbia calophylla flowers using common 3 –band
imaging sensors. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and
Environment 11:51-63 doi:10.1016/j.rsase.2018.04.009
Campbell T, Fearns P, Dods K, Dixon K (2019) Prediction and
detection of honey harvests from remote sensing and weather
data International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research
Technology 8:73 - 88
Haydak MH (1970) Honey Bee Nutrition Annual Review
o f E n t o m o l o g y 1 5 : 1 4 3 - 1 5 6 d o i : 1 0 . 1 1 4 6 / a n n u r e v.
en.15.010170.001043
Herbarium WA (2015) Florabase. Department of Parks and
Wildlife. https://florabase.dpaw.wa.gov.au/. Accessed 22 April
2015 2015
Irish J, Blair S, Carter D (2011) The Antibacterial Activity of
Honey Derived from Australian Flora PLoS ONE 6 doi:10.1371/
journal.pone.0018229
Klein S, Cabirol A, Devaud J-M, Barron AB, Lihoreau M (2017)
Why Bees Are So Vulnerable to Environmental Stressors Trends
in Ecology & Evolution 32:268-278 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2016.12.009
Kratz M et al. Essential amino acid composition of emerging bees
fed different food sources. In: Bee Industry Council of Western
Australia 2019 Industry Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 2019.
Potts SG et al. (2016) Assessment Report on Pollinators,
Pollination and Food Production.
Sagili R, Pankiw T (2007) Effects of protein-constrained brood
food on honey bee ( Apis mellifera L.) pollen foraging and colony
growth Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61:1471-1478
doi:10.1007/s00265-007-0379-1
Scarth P (2009) Vegetation height and structure - derived
from ALOS-1 PALSAR, Landsat and ICESat/GLAS,
Australia coverage. Brisbane, Australia. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.4227/05/5703458340442
Vaissière BE Honey bee stocking rate, pollinator visitation, and
pollination effectiveness in upland cotton grown for hybrid seed
production. In: ISHS Acta Horticulturae 288: VI International
Symposium on Pollination, Tilburg, Netherlands, 1991.
International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), Leuven,
Belgium, pp 359-363. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.1991.288.58
 Page 82 Vol 25, 3 2020

Author Bios
Tristan Campbell Dr Peter Fearns
Associate Lecturer Senior Lecturer
Remote Sensing and Satellite Research Remote Sensing and Satellite Research
Group (RSSRG) Group (RSSRG)
Curtin University Curtin University
Kent St, Bentley, 6103 Kent St, Bentley, 6103
Western Australia Western Australia
tristan.campbell@curtin.edu.au peter.fearns@curtin.edu.au

Tristan Campbell is an experienced geoscientist, with over 20
years of experience in the application of geophysics and remote
sensing methods to engineering, environmental and agricultural
applications. His hobby of beekeeping has lead to research into
the use of these methods to improve honey production and bee
health. A complete list of his publications is available on Google
Scholar: scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=4DDoCHUAAAAJ
Peter Fearns has over 25 years experience in physics and
environmental remote sensing science. Fields of interest include
ocean colour remote sensing and in-water optical processes,
reef and coastal habitat mapping, bush fire detection, airborne
and drone vegetation mapping, and monitoring dredge activities.
 Page 83
GPR and UAV Mapping of
Agricultural Subsurface
Drainage Systems:
A Research Overview
Barry Allred
USDA - Agricultural Research Service – Soil Drainage
Research Unit
Columbus, Ohio
Barry.Allred@usda.gov
Bio
Introduction
This article provides an overview of the author’s research
conducted on the use of ground penetrating radar (GPR)
and an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for mapping buried
drainage pipe networks in farm fields. Due to economic and
environmental considerations, there exists an important need
for effective, efficient, and nondestructive methods for locating
buried agricultural drainage pipes. The widespread adoption
of subsurface drainage practices to remove excess soil water
has enabled the Midwest U.S. to become one of the most
productive agricultural regions in the world. A 1985 economic
survey showed that several states within the Midwest U.S.
(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, Missouri,
and Wisconsin) had by that year approximately 12.5 million
ha of farmland that contained subsurface drainage systems
(Pavelis, 1987). Since 1985, a substantial amount of additional
agricultural drainage pipe has been installed. Farmers within this
region often need to repair drain lines that are not functioning
correctly or install new drain lines between the old ones to
improve soil water removal efficiency. Whether for system
repairs or efficiency improvements, locations of the preexisting
drain lines are required; however, in most cases, a map of the
original subsurface drainage system installation is no longer
available.
Furthermore, subsurface drainage practices can release
substantial amounts of nitrate (NO3-) and phosphate (PO43-) from
farm fields into adjacent waterways (Sims et al., 1998; Zucker
and Brown, 1998). The release of these agricultural nutrients
in turn degrade surface water bodies on local, regional, and
national scales. Risk assessment of this environmental hazard
from the farm field perspective calls for some knowledge of
the installed drainage pipe network, including the extent of
coverage and spacing distance between drain lines.
Regardless of whether the need is economic or environmental,
finding drain lines with a hand-held tile probe is time-consuming,
extremely tedious, and if not careful, can damage buried pipes
(Figure 1a). Using heavy trenching equipment is generally
effective, but always causes considerable pipe damage requiring
costly repairs (Figure 1b). Subsurface drainage system patterns
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 1. Present methods for finding drainage pipes: (a) hand-held tile probe; (b)
heavy trenching equipment with inset photo showing an example of the drainage
pipe damage caused during this excavation operation.
can be complex, thereby further hampering efforts to map drain
lines using traditional tile probe or trenching detection methods.
Consequently, there is a critical necessity for effective, efficient,
and nondestructive drainage pipe mapping methods. Proximal
soil sensing or imagery obtained with unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAVs) can potentially provide a viable means for mapping
these agricultural subsurface drainage systems.
Ground Penetrating Radar
Drainage Pipe Mapping
Chow and Rees (1989) demonstrated the use of ground
penetrating radar (GPR) to locate subsurface agricultural
drainage pipes in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. Allred
et al. (2004) tested several near surface geophysical methods
(electromagnetic induction, GPR, magnetometry, and resistivity)
for subsurface drainage mapping, but obtained success
only with GPR (Figure 2). Ground penetrating radar surveys
conducted at fourteen southwest, central, and northwest Ohio
test plots had an overall drainage pipe detection effectiveness
of 74%; with 100% of the pipe found at seven sites, 90% at one
site, 75% at two sites, 50% at two sites, and 0% at two sites
(Allred et al., 2004; Allred et al., 2005; Allred and Redman, 2010
– see Figure 3). Based on these investigations, GPR was shown
to often be to successful in finding clay tile and corrugated
plastic tubing (CPT) drainage pipe down to depths of around
1 m in a variety of different soil types. Allred et al. (2005)
additionally determined the impact of computer processing
procedures, equipment attributes, site conditions, and field
operations on GPR agricultural drainage pipe detection. Allred
and Redman (2010) showed, given certain shallow hydrologic
conditions, GPR capable of locating an isolated drainage pipe
obstruction affecting water conveyance functionality. A study
by Allred (2013) found substantial differences in the strength
of the GPR drainage pipe response for an antenna orientation
perpendicular to a drain line versus an antenna orientation
parallel to a drain line. Under moderately dry soil conditions,
a GPR antenna orientation perpendicular to the drain line
provided the strongest GPR drainage pipe response, while
under wet soil conditions, a GPR antenna orientation parallel
to a drain line provided the best GPR drainage pipe response.
Allred et al. (2018a) demonstrated improved drainage mapping
efficiency through integration of GPR with Real-Time Kinematic
 Page 84
Figure 2. (a) Collection of GPR drainage pipe detection data using a Sensors &
Software Inc. (Mississagua, Ontario, Canada) Noggin® GPR system with 250 MHz
antennas, (b) GPR time/depth profile showing GPR response to drain lines oriented
perpendicular to measurement transect, and (c) GPR time/depth-slice amplitude
map showing drain line locations.
Global Navigation Satellite System (RTK/GNSS) technology.
However, even with integrated GPR and RTK/GNSS equipment
mounted on an all-terrain vehicle, completing more than 15 ha
(40 acres) of a farm field drainage mapping survey in a single
day is difficult, so for larger areas, a different method is needed.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
Drainage Pipe Mapping
The soil surface directly over top of a drain line is often drier
than the soil surface between drain lines. This phenomenon
can be especially true a few days after a large rainfall, because
the soil over a drain line is dewatered faster than the soil
between drain lines (Smedema et al., 2004). Dry soil surfaces
reflect more visible (VIS) and near infrared (NIR) wavelength
electromagnetic (EM) radiation than wet soil surfaces (Jensen,
2007a). Panchromatic visible color/grayscale (VIS-C or VIS-G)
and multispectral (MS – separate narrow-band blue, green, red,
red edge, and NIR wavelengths) cameras can obtain VIS and
NIR imagery. Consequently, with VIS or MS cameras, given
bare ground conditions outside the growing season, between
harvest and planting, lighter shaded dry soil surface features
(i.e. increased reflection of VIS and/or NIR radiation), that
appear linear, may be representative of drain lines. The Stefan-
Boltzmann and Kirchhoff’s laws stipulate that the thermal
infrared (TIR) radiation emitted from an object is a function of
that object’s temperature and emissivity. Due to the specific
heat capacity of water, the soil surface over a drain line may
have a different temperature than the soil surface between
drain lines. The differences in emitted thermal radiation caused
by these temperature differences can be detected with a TIR
camera. There may also be emissivity differences between wet
and dry soil surfaces that can be detected with a TIR camera
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 3. Representative GPR drainage system mapping results from northwest Ohio,
U.S.A.: (a) east-west GPR profile showing drainage pipe responses, (b) north-south
GPR profile showing drainage pipe responses, (c) GPR amplitude map depicting
drain line locations, and (d) interpreted subsurface drainage system map (drain lines
represented by dashed black lines), with position of the east-west GPR profile shown
by the blue line and the position of the north-south GPR profile shown by the red line.
(Mira et al., 2007). A wet soil surface soil surface tends to have
a higher emissivity value than a dry soil surface (Jensen, 2007b).
Therefore, outside the growing season, when bare ground
conditions exist, with or without crop residue present, UAV
VIS, MS, and TIR imagery can provide a means for mapping
subsurface drainage systems.
During the growing season, there often seems to be better crop
(corn/soybeans/wheat) establishment and health directly above
drain lines, likely from better soil aeration conditions caused
by the faster drainage that occurs over a drain line directly
after rainfall events (compared to between the drain lines). In
fact, crops commonly become first established directly over
drainage pipes, which then show up as distinct green lines on
VIS-C aerial imagery obtained very early in the growing season.
Regardless of the time during the growing season, if the crop
has become better established or is healthier over drain lines,
then high-resolution UAV VIS imagery, especially VIS-C (rather
than VIS-G), can conceivably indicate drainage pipe locations.
Multispectral imagery obtained with UAVs is commonly utilized
to produce NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) and
NDRE (Normalized Difference Red Edge) maps, which depict
spatial variations in crop establishment and/or health/stress
(Jensen, 2016; Sayago et al., 2017), thereby also providing
a possible means to delineate drain line locations. Thermal
infrared imagery has additionally been utilized to depict spatial
variations in crop health/stress (Kullberg et al., 2017; Sepulcre-
Cantó et al., 2007; Sobrino et al., 2005). Consequently, UAV
VIS-C, MS, and TIR imagery acquired during the growing
season can all potentially map agricultural subsurface drainage
systems given that the crop is better established and/or
healthier over the drain lines.
For the UAV drainage mapping investigations conducted by this
author, a senseFly SA (Cheseaux-sur-Lausanne, Switzerland)
eBee Plus RTK/PPK fixed-wing UAV was employed to carry
 Page 85 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 4. Equipment used for conducting UAV surveys: (a) fixed-wing UAV, tripod
with ground modem antenna, and computer, (b) 61 cm diameter aluminum pizza pan
ground control point (GCP) for TIR imagery and cloud-connected Propeller Aero
(Surry Hills, New South Wales, Australia) AeroPoint GCP for VIS-C and MS imagery.

out VIS-C, MS, and TIR aerial surveys. A fixed-wing UAV

can cover larger areas than a multirotor UAV during a single
flight, so for this reason, a fixed-wing UAV was chosen for
drainage mapping research. The equipment set-up for the
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system is shown in Figure 4
and includes the UAV itself (110 cm wingspan), the ground Figure 5. UAV site survey results from farm field in Clay County, Iowa, U.S.A.: (a)
TIR orthomosaic map from one day before a 4.2 cm rainfall event (drain lines are not
modem antenna (mounted on a tripod), and a computer. The evident), and (b) TIR orthomosaic map from one day after 4.2 cm rainfall event (drain
computer had an internal cellular modem that allowed field lines clearly depicted).

internet access. The ground modem antenna connected to the

computer provided communication between the computer and
the UAV. The senseFly SA eMotion 3 software installed on the
computer was used to plan/control UAV flight patterns, along
with managing the data collected during each survey. During
flight, the UAV typically achieved speeds of 37 to 56 km/h (20
to 30 kn). Consequently, during a single 30 min. flight, this UAV
could cover 80 ha (200 acres), which is a significant efficiency
improvement over GPR for drainage mapping. There were
three separate camera payloads utilized in this study; S.O.D.A.
(Sensor Optimized for Drone Applications) for obtaining VIS-C
imagery with RTK/GNSS positional accuracy, Sequoia for MS
imagery, and thermoMap for TIR imagery.
Pix4D SA (Prilly, Switzerland) software, Pix4Dmapper Pro, was
employed for initial data processing, particularly “stitching”
together of overlapping images obtained during a UAV survey
with a particular camera. The end product of this stitching
process was a set of VIS-C, MS, and TIR georeferenced
orthomosaic image maps of the complete site survey area
over which the UAV was flown. Orthomosaic maps were post-
processed using ArcMap 10.2 desktop software (Environmental
Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, U.S.A),
where annotations were added and the image then saved in a
manageable format/size. Further processing was accomplished
using the free public access GNU Image Manipulation
Program (GIMP) 2.10.10 image editor. This software allowed
for adjustment and enhancement of exposure, color levels,
sharpness, image size, and resolution.
In a preliminary case study by Allred et al. (2018b), a UAV with
a TIR camera detected roughly 60% of the subsurface drainage
infrastructure known to be present at an agricultural field near
Mount Gilead, Ohio, U.S.A. Results obtained from the same
field site used by Allred et al. (2018b), found that pairing of RTK/
GNSS technology with the UAV TIR survey was essential for
accurately locating buried drain lines in the field (Freeland et
al., 2019). Williamson et al. (2019) utilized both UAV MS and
Figure 6. (a) VIS-C orthomosaic of Seneca County, Ohio, U.S.A. farm field under
bare ground conditions with drain line locations indicated by lighter shaded linear
features, and (b) MS NIR orthomosaic of Ross County, Ohio, U.S.A. farm field
covered by a well established soybean crop with drain line locations indicated by
darker shaded linear features.
TIR imagery in a complementary approach to map random
drain lines in two conservation tillage farm fields near Harlan,
Indiana, U.S.A. Aerial surveys using a UAV with VIS-C, MS,
and TIR cameras were conducted by Allred et al. (2020) at 29
agricultural field sites in the Midwest U.S to compare these
technologies for drainage mapping. Overall results from this
study (Allred et al., 2020) show VIS-C imagery detected at
least some drain lines at 48% of the sites (14 out of 29), MS
imagery detected drain lines at 59% of the sites (17 out of 29),
and TIR imagery detected drain lines at 69% of the sites (20
out of 29). Three key findings, listed as follows, were extracted
from the results obtained by Allred et al. (2020). (1) Although
TIR generally worked best, there were sites where either VIS-C
or MS proved more effective than TIR for mapping subsurface
drainage systems. Consequently, to ensure the greatest chance
for successfully determining drainage pipe patterns in a field,
UAV surveys need to be carried out with all three types of
cameras, VIS-C, MS, and TIR. (2) Timing of UAV surveys
 Page 86
relative to recent rainfall can sometimes have an important
impact on drainage pipe detection results (Figure 5). (3) Linear
features representing drain lines and farm field operations can
be confused with one another and are often both depicted
on site aerial imagery. Knowledge of subsurface drainage
system installation and farm field operations can be employed
to distinguish linear features representing drain lines from
those representing farm field operations. Another key finding
emphasized by more recent research is that even though UAV
drainage mapping results tend to be better under bare ground
conditions, there are cases where drainage network patterns
can be effectively mapped with UAVs during the growing
season when crops are well established and completely cover
the farm field (Figure 6).
Conclusions and Future
Research
Both GPR and UAV surveys exhibit promise for mapping
agricultural subsurface drainage systems. Of the two, UAV
surveys are far more efficient and provide capability for
mapping drainage pipe networks in larger farm fields (>15 ha).
However, the use of GPR can still be valuable for ground truth
of suspected drain line location depicted by UAV imagery. The
next step for the research program will be to develop specific
guidelines as to when and where this UAV technology can best
be employed to map agricultural subsurface drainage systems.
To develop these guidelines, additional UAV VIS-C, MS, and TIR
surveys will be conducted at farm field sites in Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio, specifically chosen so that
there will be a wide range of soil types across the sites. Each
site will be visited multiple times over a period of several years.
With this approach, the range of site conditions (soil type,
time of day, within or outside of growing season, soil wetness/
dryness, and ground surface characteristics) will be determined
under which a particular type of UAV imagery (VIS-C, MS, or
TIR) is effective at mapping drain lines.
References
Allred, B. J., Fausey, N. R., Peters, L.Jr., Chen, C., Daniels, J. J.,
Youn. H., 2004. Detection of buried agricultural drainage pipe
with geophysical methods. Appl. Eng. Agric. 20, 307-318.
Allred, B. J., Daniels, J. J., Fausey, N. R., Chen, C., Peters, L.Jr.,
Youn. H., 2005. Important considerations for locating buried
agricultural drainage pipe using ground penetrating radar. Appl.
Eng. Agric. 21, 71-87.
Allred, B. J., Redman. D., 2010. Agricultural drainage pipe
assessment using ground penetrating radar: Impact of pipe
condition, shallow hydrology, and antenna characteristics. J.
Environ. Eng. Geoph. 15, 119-134.
Allred, B. J., 2013. A GPR agricultural drainage pipe detection
case study: Effects of antenna orientation relative to drainage
Vol 25, 3 2020
pipe directional trend. J. Environ. Eng. Geoph. 18, 55-69.
Allred, B., Wishart, D., Martinez, L., Schomberg, H., Mirsky,
S., Meyers, G., Elliott, J., Charyton. C., 2018a. Delineation of
agricultural drainage pipe patterns using ground penetrating
radar integrated with a Real-Time Kinematic Global Navigation
Satellite System. Agriculture. 8, e167
Allred, B, Eash, N., Freeland, R., Martinez, L., Wishart. D.,
2018b. Effective and efficient agricultural drainage pipe
mapping with UAS thermal infrared imagery: A case study.
Agric.Water Manag. 197, 132-137.
Allred, B., L. Martinez, M. K. Fessehazion, G. Rouse, T. N.
Williamson, D. Wishart, T. Koganti, R. Freeland, N. Eash, A.
Batschelet, and R. Featheringill. 2020. Overall results and key
findings on the use of UAV visible-color, multispectral, and
thermal infrared imagery to map agricultural drainage pipes.
Agric. Water Manag. 232, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2020.106036
Chow, T. L., Rees. H. W., 1989. Identification of subsurface
drain locations with ground-penetrating radar. Can. J. Soil Sci.
69, 223-234.
Freeland, R., B. Allred, N. Eash, L. Martinez, and D. Wishart.
2019. Agricultural drainage tilesurveying using an unmanned
aircraft vehicle paired with Real-Time Kinematic positioning -
A case study. Comput. Electron. Agric. 165, 1-9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compag.2019.104946.
Jenson, J. R., 2007a. Chapter 12 – Remote sensing of soils,
minerals, and geomorphology. In: Remote Sensing of the
Environment, 2nd Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey. pp. 457-524.
Jenson, J. R., 2007b. Chapter 7 – Thermal infrared remote
sensing. In: Remote Sensing of the Environment, 2nd Edition.
Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. pp.
243-286.
Jenson, J. R., 2016. Chapter 8 – Image enhancement. In: Digital
Image Processing, 4th Edition. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey. pp. 273-359.
Kullberg, E. G., DeJonge, K. C., Chávez. J. L., 2017.
Evaluation of thermal remote sensing indices to estimate crop
evapotranspiration coefficients. Agric. Water Manag. 179, 64-73.
Mira, M., Valor, E., Boluda, R., Caselles, V., Coll. C., 2007.
Influence of the soil moisture effect on the thermal infrared
emissivity. Tethys. 4, 3-9.
Pavelis, G. A., 1987. Economic survey of farm drainage. In:
Pavelis, G. A. (Ed.), Farm Drainage in the United States:
History, Status, and Prospects, Miscellaneous Publication
Number 1455. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, Washington D.C. pp. 110–136.
Sayago, S., Ovando, G., Bocco. M., 2017. Landsat images and
crop model for evaluation water stress of rainfed soybean.
Remote Sens. of Environ. 198, 30-39.
Sepulcre-Cantó, G., Zarco-Tejada, P. J., Jiménez-Muñoz, J. C.,
Sobrino, J. A. Soriano, M. A., Fereres, E., Vega, V., Pastor. M.,
 Page 87
2007. Monitoring yield and fruit quality paramaters in open-
cnopy tree rops under water stress: Implications for ASTER.
Remote Sens. of Environ. 107, 455-470.
Sims, J. T., Simard, R. R., Joern. B. C., 1998. Phosphorus loss
in agricultural drainage: Historical perspective and current
research. J. Environ. Qual. 27, 277-293.
Smedema, L. K., Vlotman, W. F., Rycroft. D. W., 2004. Chapter
7 – Design of pipe drainage systems. In: Modern Land Drainage:
Planning, Design and Management of Agricultural Drainage
Systems. A. A. Balkema Publishrs, Leiden, Netherlands, pp.
137-167
Sobrino, J. A., Gómex, M., Jiménez-Muñoz, J. C., Olioso,
A., Chehbouni, G., 2005. A simple algorithm to estimate
evapotranspiration from DAIS data: application to the DAISEX
campaigns. J. Hydrology. 315, 117-125.
Williamson, T. N., Dobrowolski, E. G., Meyer, S. M., Frey, J.
W., Allred. B. J., 2019. Delineation of tile-drain networks using
thermal and multispectral imagery – Implications for water
quantity and quality differences from paired edge-of-field sites.
J. Soil Water Conserv. 74, 1-11.
Zucker, L. A., Brown. L. C., 1998. Agricultural Drainage: Water
Quality Impacts and Subsurface Drainage Studies in the
Midwest, Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 871. Ohio
State University Extension, Columbus, Ohio. 40 pages.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Author Bio
Barry J. Allred, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.
Research Agricultural Engineer
USDA/ARS Soil Drainage Research Unit
590 Woody Hayes Drive
Columbus
Ohio 43210, USA
Barry.Allred@usda.gov
Barry Allred is a Research Agricultural Engineer with the USDA
- Agricultural Research Service - Soil Drainage Research Unit
in Columbus, Ohio. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees
in geoscience and a Ph.D. in biosystems engineering. His
research interests include agricultural applications of near
surface geophysics and aerial/satellite imagery technology,
agricultural water recycling and treatment, and contaminant
transport processes in soils.
 Page 88 Vol 25, 3 2020

Drone-borne gamma-ray
spectrometry – a dream
come true!
Ronald Koomans
Medusa Explorations BV | Medusa Radiometrics BV
Groningen, The Netherlands
ronald@medusa-online.com

Bio

Han Limburg
Medusa Explorations BV | Medusa Radiometrics BV
Groningen
Figure 1: the 3-step approach for sensor-based mapping, the application model to a
The Netherlands map that can be used by an end-user.
han@medusa-online.com

Bio
Spectral gamma-ray tools
Spectral Gamma-ray (SGR) sensors are devices that record the

Introduction energy distribution of gamma radiation. This gamma radiation

There has been a boom in the use of drones for geophysical
survey projects during the last couple of years. Not so much
as a replacement for traditional (manned) airborne surveys but
more as a replacement for walking or vehicle-borne surveys.
As a consequence, geophysical instrumentation is rapidly
becoming adapted for drone-use. This “dronification” of
geophysical equipment poses several technical challenges,
as the equipment needs to get smaller in size and weight and
energy-use needs to be minimized. Some of the technologies
in the geophysicist’s toolbox can be used under drones without
too much adaptation. Others, like gamma-ray survey systems,
impose much more of a challenge as these systems tend to
be relatively bulky, especially if the systems were originally
designed for traditional airborne applications.
Gamma-ray spectrometry
is a highly energetic form of electromagnetic waves emitted by
radioactive sources like the natural ones mentioned above, but
also by man-made sources like 137Cs (cesium) and 60Co (cobalt).
Most SGR sensors used for geophysical work are made from
so-called scintillator crystals, highly transparent materials
that emit a light flash when radiation enters the crystal. The
amount of light generated is proportional to the radiation
energy recorded by an optical device and then translated into
a radiation spectrum.
It is important to note that, in contrast to many other geophysical
technologies, SGR tools are passive tools. They do not emit
radiation, but just capture it. The capture probability, and
thereby the detection efficiency, is directly proportional to the
volume of the detector. The bigger the detector, the better the
efficiency. This is the reason for using the large, multi-crystal
detector “packs” in airborne surveying; the commonly used
80kg, 16liter packs just captures more radiation than a small
3x3inch handheld detector.

Gamma-ray spectrometry has a long tradition as a geophysical

tool for mapping soil and sediment properties. All rocks, soils and Using gamma-ray spectrometry
sediments contain tiny but measurable traces of potassium (40K),
uranium (238U) and thorium (232Th), and the radiation emitted by in geophysics
these radionuclides carries information on the minerals the rocks
The schematization in Figure 1 describes how SGR systems
and soils are made of. This phenomenon is used for instance in
are used for mapping soil properties for precision farming,
oil and gas and mineral prospecting to get a qualitative image of
environmental studies and mining. This 3-step approach: using
the mineral composition of an area or rock matrix. The research
a proper sensor, finding an application model and the final
that started in the 1990’s at the University of Groningen (NL)
mapping is described in the present paper.
has helped to quantify this phenomenon. It was found that
several soil and sediment properties can be predicted with a high
degree of accuracy by their radionuclide content. In other words,
radionuclide concentrations form a ‘radiometric fingerprint’ of
A sensor for a drone
the soils under study (Meijer, 1998; van der Graaf et al., 2007) The real challenge in using an SGR under a drone is the limited
and this fingerprint can be used to translate the radionuclide payload of the platform. Although there is a large variety of
concentrations into the soil property under study. drones available nowadays, all of them (except for some very
 Page 89 Vol 25, 3 2020

exotic and expensive types) have a limited payload capacity

which for most practical purposes does not exceed 10-15 kg.
This has to do with legislation. In most countries, drones with a
total weight lower than 25kg can be used with a straightforward
RPL (Remote Pilot License).
Such payload limits imply a drastic reduction in allowable weight
of a drone-borne SGR system. “Drastic” meaning a reduction
of at least a factor of 10 compared to the 80-100kg weight of
“classic” 4x4L NaI systems that are used in manned airborne
surveys. The question arises: Is it possible to obtain reasonable
survey results with such a small detector? We will show that it is
possible by optimizing the size, shape and crystal type and by
optimizing data processing such that it squeezes out every last
piece of information out of the spectral data acquired.

The optimum sensor: a matter of proper

size, shape, and crystal type?
To overcome the weight limits sketched above and achieve a
weight reduction of a factor of 10, one should very carefully
investigate and optimize the optimum size, shape and crystal
type to be used.
The current availability of efficient detector modelling software
allows for a rapidly converging detector design process. with a
nuclear particle tracing code like MCNP (Waters et al., 2007),
studied large numbers of detector sizes, shapes and crystal
types on their effectiveness of capturing radiation in a drone-
borne scenario. NaI is the most commonly used detector
material but there are alternatives. CsI, and BGO have a
higher density which positively affects the detection efficiency.
Figure 2. In the windows approach of data analysis, only part of the measured data
Moreover, CsI has a few physical properties (unbreakable, is used (top). In the FSA approach (bottom), all data is used and every last piece of
highly temperature stable) that make it a favorable crystal type information is squeezed out of the spectral data.

to use in many geophysical applications, especially in drone- is the sensitivity1 per kg detector material, which is used to find
borne operations where ruggedness is an important quality. the optimum sensor for a given payload drone.
The table below shows a comparison of some of the readily The comparison in Table 1 clearly demonstrates that the most
available detector types that we studied. Key in the comparison sensitive detectors are the 3inch – 3.5inch diameter CsI crystals.

Table 1. A comparison of the sensitivities of some commonly available gamma-ray detectors. Sensitivities were calculated against
a 1ppm 232Th source. The sensitivity data was obtained by summing all counts between 300keV and 3MeV. The percentages
in the 2360 keV peak were calculated as sum from 2410 keV to 2810 keV. For a full description of the MCNP-X procedure, see
(van der Graaf et al., 2011).
Detector type 5x6” BGO 3x8.6” CsI 3.5x6.5” CsI 3.5x13” CsI 4x4x16” CsI 4x4L NaI Pack
Volume (ml) 1931 996 1025 2050 4198 15992
Crystal weight (kg) 13.7 4.5 4.6 9.2 18.9 62.1
Shape cylinder cylinder cylinder cylinder square square pack
Sensitivity (cps per ppm) 46.4 26.4 25.6 50.4 79.2 224
% in 2360 keV peak 9.37% 4.55% 4.93% 5.35% 6.05% 5%
Sensitivity per kg crystal 3.36 5.76 5.56 5.44 4.9 3.6
material
Relative efficiency w.r.t. 93% 160% 154% 151% 136% 100%
4x4L NaI pack

¹Detector sensitivity or ‘yield’ is the number of events (counts) per second a detector registers facing a certain source. It depends on a sensor’s volume, shape
and crystal type.
 Page 90 Vol 25, 3 2020

These units outperform the classic 4x4L packed NaI packs by

at least a factor 1.5! A comparison like the one presented here
can help find the right detector for the job and the ability to run
simulation codes like MCNP has become an invaluable asset
for the system designer.

Optimizing spectral processing -

FSA
A proper detector design in terms of shape and material is
only one of the optimization paths towards lightweight but
efficient detectors. The other route is via improved spectral
fitting methods. The standard approach to retrieve radionuclide
concentrations from gamma-ray spectra is using the windows-
or 3-windows methods (“Guidelines for radioelement mapping
using gamma ray spectrometry data,” 2003). In this method, the
content of the most prominent 40K, 238U and 232Th peaks is used
to extract concentrations. Drawback of the method is that only
a small part of the spectral data is used for fitting (Figure 2).
In the past, several noise-reduction techniques were developed
(Hovgaard and Grasty, 1997; Minty and Hovgaard, 2002) but
little of the noise. The NASVD and MNF methods differ mainly in
how they normalise the input spectra for noise before spectral
component analysis. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate
these methods in terms of both the accuracy and precision of
the resultant noise-reduced spectra. We develop a methodology
based on the use of a synthetic spectra dataset to result in the
true spectrum channel count rates in the absence of noise.
Techniques that are very efficient in improving overall data
quality but are empirical by nature. A certain smoothness of
the data is assumed and the methods the risk of cancelling
genuine data as noise.
The concept of “Full Spectrum Analysis (FSA)”, however, does
not stand this risk. Early papers by Grasty (Grasty et al., 1985)
and later refined by Minty (Minty et al., 1998) already describe
the possibility of using a much larger part of the gamma-ray
spectrum in the fitting procedure. In FSA, virtually all energy
channels of the gamma-ray spectrum are used to retrieve
the radionuclide concentrations instead of just the 3 peaks
in the Windows method. FSA, when properly implemented,
can improve data quality by at least a factor of two (Hendriks
et al., 2001). FSA more or less halves the uncertainties in
the radionuclide concentrations with respect to the windows
method. This implies that one could use a 4-times2 smaller
detector with FSA and still obtain results with the same quality!
Flying low and slow
Apparently, proper detector design could yield a weight reduction
of about 1.5 and proper data analysis could improve even a
2
 amma-ray spectra obey Poisson statistics. This means the uncertainty in the
G
count rate scales with the square root of the count rate. This also holds for
the uncertainty of radionuclide concentrations – these scale with the square
root of the total spectrum content. Therefore, if FSA reduces the uncertainties
by a factor 2, this means a spectrum of only1/4th of the intensity is needed to
get the same quality data.
Figure 3. The MS-1000 Drone Detector is a low-power and robust gamma-ray
detector system and, with a weight of 6.3 kg, is intended for use under UAV’s.
factor of 4. If combined, both approaches allow for sensors at
least 6 times smaller to be used and still get comparable results
as a classic 4x4L crystal pack. However, the main benefit of
using drones comes in here: a drone can fly low and slow!
Lowering survey elevation from the 80 m which is common in
manned airborne surveys to a “drone survey height” of about
10m gives another big improvement in data quality. The layer
of air at 80m absorbs almost 50% of the radiation, an effect
which is virtually zero at 10m. Moreover, the ground spot that
a sensor sees is much smaller at 10m yielding a much better
spatial resolution of the data.
Following these considerations: optimized crystal type, size and
shape, improved data analysis and flying low and slow, convinced
us that drone-borne gamma ray spectrometric surveying is a
viable option, even with detectors of weights of 7kg or even
less. Figure 3 shows the Medusa-designed detector that we
have found to be optimal for UAV-based radiometric surveying.
Application models
Application models are the models utilized to translate
concentrations of radionuclides to the soil property or
contaminant of interest. In this approach, the concentrations of
radionuclides serve as a proxy for soil texture or contaminants
levels. The gamma-ray spectrometer provides a direct
measurement of concentrations of radionuclides. Most common
are the concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides (40K,
238
U and 232Th) or other man-made radionuclides (or fission
products) such as 137Cs. These measurements are the input for
validated statistical models that correlate the concentrations
of the radionuclides with the soil property or contaminant of
interest. To be able to translate the field measurements into
quantitative parameters such as clay content or contaminant
level, it is of great importance that the field measurements
provide quantitative and accurate results. A proper calibration
of the sensor and the right choice of sensor (size suited for the
application) is therefore a prerequisite.
The rationale behind the application models is illustrated
below (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Soil is composed of particles
with different size, shape and origin. Most soils are composed
of sand, clay and organic matter. Each of these particles have
 Page 91
Figure 4: Soil is composed of particles with different chemical composition and
different abilities to adsorb contaminants. This simplified schematic shows the
relation between the concentration of the natural radionuclides (geochemical trace
elements that can be measured in situ) and soil particles. The elements K, U, Th are
mainly bound within the crystal structure of clay particles. The element U is more
soluble and will, similar to other heavy metals, be adsorbed to the clay particles. Cs
is an anthropogenic element and will adsorb onto clay and organic matter.
Figure 5: Top: organic pollutants that are diffusely distributed in the water column will
mainly bind to clay particles and organic matter complexes (Uddin, 2017). Bottom:
heavy metals mainly adsorb to clay particles (lower image). Scientific laboratory
analyses are described in (van der Graaf et al., 2007). A review (Uddin, 2017) describes
how “adsorption is one of the most important processes of metal uptake by clay”.
radionuclides bound in their crystal structure or have absorbed
radionuclides. The exact concentration of radionuclides per
particle depends on the provenance and weathering of the
minerals. In most climates, fine soil particles such as clay contain
increased concentrations of natural occurring radionuclides
(Wijngaarden et al., 2002). It is known that contaminants such
as heavy metals and organic pollutants, when released into
the natural aquatic environment, will bind to fine sediment
particles (Moyo et al., 2014; Perk, 2006; Uddin, 2017) both
in its natural and modified forms, effectively removing heavy
metals from aqueous solution, as extensively discussed in
this review. This detailed review compiles thorough literature
of current research over the last ten years (2006–2016. The
manner in which contaminants bind to the sediment particles
depends upon the properties of the sediment (e.g. type of clay),
properties of the chemical constituents and the concentrations
of the chemical constituents. Therefore, a calibration model has
to be determined for each site in which one of these properties
differs.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 6: the application model that translates the thorium concentration (Bq/kg)
into the clay fraction, defined as the grain size <50µm.
Figure 7: grain size map derived from a ground-borne survey (left) and an drone-
borne survey (right).
Maps
Precision farming
Precision farming is more and more becoming an important tool
in management of cropfields. In this concept, information on
the clay content, grain size and water retention of agricultural
fields helps farmers to improve the management of their fields.
A gamma-ray spectrometer is a proven tool for mapping soil
composition and the technique is often applied using a ground-
borne vehicle as a tactor or ATV. However, after crop has been
planted on the fields, access to the field is undesirable and the
mapping is delayed until the harvesting season. The use of a
drone can overcome this problem and gives the opportunity to
map the fields for soil properties during the growing season.
To evaluate the quality of field mapping obtainable from a
gamma-ray spectrometer mounted under a drone, we
designed a comparison study for the prediction of physical soil
properties of a meadow of 40 ha (8 fields) area in Flevoland, the
Netherlands. In the project, measurements using a MS-2000
(a 2L crystal) sensor mounted on a tractor were compared
with a drone-borne MS-1000 detector and to traditional soil
 Page 92 Vol 25, 3 2020

samples (Egmond et al., 2018). The MS-1000 “Drone Detector”

is a low-power, lightweight and robust gamma-ray detector
system intended for use on UAV’s. The sensor is comprised
of a 1L CsI scintillation crystal onboard electronics and has a
weight of 7.7 kg. The MS-1000 was mounted under a standard,
commercially available, drone (DJI M600 PRO). The drone was
flying at an average elevation of 14 m with survey lines about
30 m apart. The data from the gamma spectrometer were
analyzed using full spectrum analyses (Hendriks et al., 2001)
with the Gamman software package and measurements were
corrected for elevation of the drone.
To derive the application model, 14 soil samples were taken
and analyzed in the lab on radionuclide content and clay
fraction. The 232Th content shows excellent correlation with the
fraction <50 µm (R2=84%, Figure 6) and was used to translate
the field values of 232Th into a map showing the concentration
Figure 8: MS-1000 gamma spectrometer mounted under a standard commercial DJI
of fines (<50 µm). M600 drone.

Figure 7 shows the resulting maps. Although the ground

measurement and the drone data match relatively well, the
spatial resolution of the data taken with the drone is less than
the data taken walking. This is expected as the drone sees a
larger radiation area and thereby has a larger footprint.
A separate set of 44 soil samples were taken and were used
for independent statistical validation of the resulting maps.
Sample locations were allocated using stratified random
sampling. Using this data, we can compare the two gamma-ray
measurements on their ability to predict physical soil properties,
their footprint and accuracy. This analysis shows that the grain
size values predicted from the measurements with the gamma-
ray spectrometer correspond well to the validation samples.
The Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) of the ground borne map
is 4%, whilst the RMSE of the drone borne map is 6% (Egmond
et al., 2018). These values are small and demonstrates that the
quality of the drone-borne map is up to par with the ground-
borne survey and that both approaches are equally good for
soil sampling.
Figure 9: Dioxin concentrations of one of the fields of the floodplain. The points represent
the sample locations and colours of the points are identical to the colours of the grid. The

Contamination of soils dioxin concentrations at these points were used to derive a % fines-dioxin relationship to
convert the radiometrics derived % fines map to a dioxin concentration map.

Environmental contamination due to human activity is recognized
as one of the modern dangers resulting from our industrial
advancements. This contamination involves both organic
contaminants and heavy metals due to historic releases at
current and former industries. The contaminants can enter
in the foodchain through uptake by the biota. Environmental
restoration and closure of contaminated sites is a major priority.
The current approach to the management and monitoring of
contaminated sites involves invasive, often labour-intensive,
methods. This is particularly true when in the collection of
samples to quantify and map the distribution of contaminants.
As a result, the contours of the contaminant distribution based
on the samples are subject to a number of potential errors
resulting from sample size and inter-sample spacing, with the
potential for ‘hot spots’ to remain unmapped.
Many contaminants are adsorbed to clay particles, especially in
aquatic sediments. As a result, contaminant levels are strongly
correlated to the composition of these sediments (when under
water), or to the soil when the sediments are deposited on
floodplains (Figure 5).
The Elbe River is one of the major rivers of Central Europe. It
rises in the northern Czech Republic, traverses eastern and
northern Germany before flowing into the North Sea northwest
of Hamburg. Spittelwasser Creek is one of the tributaries of the
Elbe River and has been the subject of numerous investigations
dealing with the contamination of water, sediment, and soil
in the Elebe River Basin. For many decades, waste water
from the chemical industry located at the Bitterfeld-Wolfen
site was discharged into Spittelwasser Creek. Large areas of
the floodplains flowing into the basin were used as stacking
 Page 93
basins for the heavily contaminated waste water during flood
events. As a result, large amounts of contaminants released
into the river systems were buffered in the aquatic sediments
in the rivers and creeks and in the non-aquatic sediments of
the floodplains. In this period, mostly organic chemicals were
released increasing the levels of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
and furans (PCDD/F), hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), and
organotin compounds, impacting the water quality of the river
still today (Jacobs et al., 2015).
To assess the contamination levels of the sediments on the
three (3) plots located in the floodplains of this small river,
a drone-borne mapping (with an MS-1000) was conducted.
The MS-1000 was mounted under a DJI M600 drone (Figure
8). This drone is battery operated and has flight time with full
load of 10-12 minutes. A dGPS antenna was connected to
the sensor for measurement of the position. The drone flew
at an elevation of 7m at a velocity of 3 m/s. The sensor had
a sampling frequency of 1 Hz. The sensor was flown with 10
m spaced N-S flight lines and 10 m spaced E-W tie lines, 50
hectares were mapped in 3 days.
The drone-borne set-up was selected because some of the
areas were difficult to access physically whilst for some areas,
the landowners were not known and permits to physically
access the land could not be acquired.
The results the survey were presented as maps of contaminant
levels of the sediments (Figure 9). With this data, the government
has detailed information about the contamination on a river-
basin scale with which determine the proper remediation
measures.
Summary & Conclusions
For several years, geophysicists have been dreaming about using
drones for gamma-ray surveys (Stettler, 2015). This dream has
become reality thanks to the innovation of highly optimized light-
weight gamma-ray spectrometers. Devices that combine smart
data processing with optimized detector design and choice of
sensor material to arrive at small, efficient and rugged sensors.
Such sensors can now be applied routinely in drone-borne surveys,
opening up a new range of applications as demonstrated in this
paper for precision farming and environmental mapping.
Acknowledgements
The mapping projects described were conducted for
Landesanstalt für Altlastenfreistellung (LAF) of Sachsen Anhalt,
Germany and for Wageningen Environmental Research, the
Netherlands.
References
Egmond, F.M. Van, Veeke, S. Van Der, Knotters, M., Koomans,
R.L., Limburg, J., 2018. Mapping soil texture with a gamma-
Vol 25, 3 2020
ray spectrometer: comparison between UAV and proximal
measurements and traditional sampling. Wageningen, the
Netherlands.
Grasty, R., Glynn, J., Grant, J., 1985. The analysis of multichannel
airborne gamma-ray spectra. Geophysics 50, 2611–2620.
Guidelines for radioelement mapping using gamma ray
spectrometry data, 2003.
Hendriks, P.H., Limburg, J., de Meijer, R.J., 2001. Full-spectrum
analysis of natural gamma-ray spectra. J. Environ. Radioact. 53,
365–80.
Hovgaard, J., Grasty, R., 1997. Reducing statistical noise in
airborne gamma-ray data through spectral component analysis.
Proc. Explor. 753–764.
Jacobs, P., Schaffranka, E., Zauter, H., 2015. Organic contaminants
in suspended particles, sediments, and loodplains of the
Spittelwasser creek and the Mulde river with regard to their relevance
in the Elbe river basin. Hydrol. und Wasserbewirtschaftung 59,
342–353.
Meijer, R. De, 1998. Heavy minerals: from Edelstein to Einstein. J.
Geochemical Explor. 81–103.
Minty, B., Hovgaard, J., 2002. Reducing noise in gamma-ray
spectrometry using spectral component analysis. Explor. Geophys.
33, 172–176.
Minty, B., McFadden, P., Kennett, B., 1998. Multichannel processing
for airborne gamma-ray spectrometry. Geophysics 63, 1971–1985.
Moyo, F., Tandlich, R., Wilhelmi, B.S., Balaz, S., 2014. Sorption
of Hydrophobic Organic Compounds on Natural Sorbents and
Organoclays from Aqueous and Non-Aqueous Solutions : A
Mini-Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 11, 5020–5048.
doi:10.3390/ijerph110505020
Perk, M. van der, 2006. Soil and Water Contamination From
Molecular to Catchment Scale, 1st ed. Taylor &Amp; Francis Ltd.
Stettler, E., 2015. Dreaming about Drones, in: Breaking Barriers,
SAGA 14th Biennial Geophysical Conference and Exhibition. SAGA
2015 keynote, Drakensberg, South Africa.
Uddin, M.K., 2017. A review on the adsorption of heavy metals by
clay minerals, with special focus on the past decade. Chem. Eng.
J. 308, 438–462. doi:10.1016/J.CEJ.2016.09.029
van der Graaf, E.R., Koomans, R.L., Limburg, J., de Vries, K., 2007.
In situ radiometric mapping as a proxy of sediment contamination:
assessment of the underlying geochemical and -physical principles.
Appl. Radiat. Isot. 65, 619–33. doi:10.1016/j.apradiso.2006.11.004
van der Graaf, E.R., Limburg, J., Koomans, R.L., Tijs, M., 2011.
Monte Carlo based calibration of scintillation detectors for
laboratory and in situ gamma ray measurements. J. Environ.
Radioact. 102, 270–82. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2010.12.001
Waters, L.S., McKinney, G.W., Durkee, J.W., Fensin, M.L.,
Hendricks, J.S., James, M.R., Johns, R.C., Pelowitz, D.B.,
2007. The MCNPX Monte Carlo radiation transport code, in: AIP
Conference Proceedings. pp. 81–90.
Wijngaarden, M. Van, Venema, L.B., Meijer, R.J. De, Zwolsman,
J.J.G., 2002. Radiometric sand – mud characterisation in the
Rhine – Meuse estuary Part A . Fingerprinting. Geomorphology
43, 87–101.
 Page 94 Vol 25, 3 2020

Author Bios
Ronald Koomans
Medusa Explorations BV | Medusa Radio-
metrics BV
Groningen
The Netherlands
ronald@medusa-online.com

Droneborne
Droneborne
Ronald Koomans studied geology at Utrecht University and Gamma‑ray
Gamma‑ray
finished a PhD at the nuclear physics lab of the University of
Groningen on the application of an underwater gamma-ray
Survey
Survey Systems
Systems
spectrometer to study the transport of sediments in the coastal
zone. Together with Han Limburg, Koomans founded Medusa
Explorations in 2000. Both Limburg and Koomans have been
working in the role of management, research and commercial
projects since then. In the company, Ronald Koomans applies
gamma-ray sensors for mapping properties of soil and sediment
and is expert in developing application models for mapping grain
size, texture and contamination of soils and sediments.

Han Limburg
Medusa Explorations BV | Medusa Radio-
metrics BV
Groningen
The Netherlands

Lightweight
han@medusa-online.com

Rugged
Han Limburg studied physics at the University of Groningen
and finished a PhD (cum laude) at the atomic physics group
of the nuclear physics lab of the University of Groningen. After
this PhD, Limburg worked at the nuclear physics lab on the
commercialization of an underwater gamma-ray spectrometer.
Together with Ronald Koomans, Han Limburg founded Medusa
Explorations in 2000. Both Limburg and Koomans have been
Autonomous
working in the role of management, research and commercial
projects since then. In the company, Han Limburg focusses on the
technical development by creating gamma-ray survey systems
for geophysical applications by applying new detector materials
and novel data analysis methods to make detectors smaller, more
robust and user friendly.

info@medusa‑online.com
www.medusa‑radiometrics.com
Page 95 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 96 Vol 25, 3 2020

International Association furthering the understanding, wise use

of Hydrogeologists and protection of groundwater resources
the World-wide Groundwater throughout the world
Organisation

Who we are
Founded in 1956, the International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH/AIH) is a scientific, educational
and charitable professional membership association for scientists, engineers, water managers and other
professionals working in the fields of groundwater resource planning, management and protection .

Join us
Membership is your chance to support IAH and to receive a great range of benefits, including the
Hydrogeology Journal, book and conference discounts, printed and electronic newsletters and more. As
well as the National Chapters, you will be able to participate in the activities of the association’s
commissions and networks, sharing knowledge and experience with others. We welcome all those, from
whatever discipline or level of technical knowledge, who wish to improve their understanding of
groundwater issues and support the aims of the Association.
We have a variety of membership types for individuals and companies/organisations, and a number of
discounts. We also run a sponsorship scheme to support those unable to join the association for financial
or practical reasons.

Support IAH and its global membership in protecting groundwater for people and
the environment
We have attractive and cost-effective schemes that can help you and your staff participate in global
groundwater affairs and publicise your company’s services. Choose Corporate Membership, Corporate
Sponsorship, or other bespoke corporate support opportunities to best meet your needs.
See our website https://iah.org/join-us

2021 - a special year for IAH congresses!

The Covid-19 pandemic has challenged us all in many ways
and not least in how conferences are managed. A historic
decision has been made by IAH to run two congresses in
2021, in Sao Paulo and in Brussels. And why not – it’s IAH’s
65th birthday! Preparations for both congresses were
already far advanced when it became clear that we would
have to do things a little differently. The countries and the
cities are very different and of course each conference will
be different – but we look forward to a unique IAH
experience in this collaboration between Brazil and
Belgium, and, we hope, the opportunity for many more
people to participate. Rest assured also that COVID-19
continues to be a priority for us.

Find out more

See our website https://iah.org/ and sign up to receive IAH’s Groundwater eNews
For congress information, go to https://iah.org/events
Email info@iah.org
Page 97 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 98
Hydrogeophysics and
Environmental Geophysics
Geoff Pettifer,
editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
For this FastTIMES Vol 25, 3, 2020 Hydrogeophysics and
Environmental Geophysics column, we consider application of
drone geophysics and remote sensing to groundwater mapping,
specifically: -
• Examples of satellite and drone thermal imaging of
groundwater discharge into surface water bodies
• Using Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR), and its
capacity to measure subsidence with cm-scale accuracy over
large areas, to estimate California groundwater withdrawals
Please contact me, if you have ideas / contributions / articles
for the Column. (editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com). The
next deadline for Vol 25, 4 is October 30.
Figure 1 – Woodgate National Park offshore fresh groundwater discharge in
an area where dugongs were found to be common. Satellite images can reveal
fresh groundwater discharge into shallow saline water bodies where the fresh
groundwater from a buried ancient stream channel, visibly changes the benthic
vegetation conditions. In this case sea-grass abundance distribution is related to
freshwater discharge through fractures in sub-bottom volcanics as mapped by
aeromagnetics (not shown). After Pettifer and Wood (2004).
Vol 25, 3 2020
The EEGS and FastTIMES team is also inviting inaugural
advertising / sponsorship of this Hydrogeophysics
News regular column and also alerting readers to the
opportunity of an affordable business card listing for
groundwater professionals in the FastTIMES Professional
Directory – see Page 155). If you are interested in
sponsorship / advertising or you want to learn more,
please contact :- David Valintine (dvalintine@fugro.com)
or (editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com)
Groundwater Discharge
Evidence from Satellites and
Drone Thermal Sensing
Groundwater discharge (surface <-> groundwater interaction)
can be mapped by satellites or drones in the visible or infrared
spectra. Figure 1 shows a Landsat TM example from Woodgate
National Park south of Bundaberg, Queensland, Australia
(Pettifer and Wood, 2004), of visible spectrum indirect evidence
of shallow fresh groundwater discharge into the shallow saline
coastal waters. The freshwater discharge has changed the sea-
bottom seagrass water chemistry environment and vegetation
abundance. Lineations in the sea-grass patterns are interpreted
to be related to linear fractures in buried volcanics discharging
groundwater. Onshore apparent transverse resistivity (ATR)
mapping (resistivity x thickness product empirically related to
aquifer transmissivity) shows the location of the buried channel
that is the likely channel aquifer source of the shallow discharge
(magenta dashed arrow in Figure 1). Recent coastal dune build-
up has diverted south the modern stream channel (which inland
of the diversion follows the old channel course). The diverted
south stream joins the present day Gregory River near the
current River mouth. A broad high ATR anomaly shows the
ancient Gregory River valley just inland of the current Gregory
River outlet to the sea.
Regional aeromagnetics data (not shown) was interpreted to
map ancient stream channels in-filled with buried volcanic
flows and shows the location of the in-filled ancient Gregory
channel. The magnetics show the in-filled ancient Gregory
valley extends from the broad ATR anomaly across the river
mouth and along the coast to the location of the freshwater
discharge point where the ancient stream channel apparently
connected with the ancient Gregory River channel defined
by the aeromagnetics offshore. The light blue water / bottom
color anomaly on the Landsat, extending south along the coast
towards the more prominent present day white sand bottom
at the Gregory River mouth, approximates the location of the
offshore volcanics magnetic anomaly indicating the ancient
Gregory channel may also be contributing to groundwater
discharge.
The near coast in this area, which is a coast bound by the Great
Barrier Reef representing the pre-Ice Age coastal reefs, was
drowned during the recent Ice Age glacial retreat period. The
 Page 99 Vol 25, 3 2020

buried coastal plain out to the present-day reef is characterised

by numerous fresh groundwater discharges, some large
enough to enable WW2 Navy ships to replenish fresh water
supplies offshore from Bundaberg, directly from upwelling fresh
groundwater plumes in the coastal seas. These discharges
are only detectable in the visible in water shallow enough
to see the water bottom on satellite images, but they could
be detected by thermal imaging or simple marine resistivity
water layer resistivity modelling locating higher 1st layer
resistivity anomalies. In my project experience, such simple
marine mapping has been used for offshore groundwater lens
discharge mapping in Pacific Island atoll lagoons.
In terms of thermal imaging, the U.S. Geological Survey regularly
uses handheld and drone thermal imaging technology to study
surface water <-> groundwater interaction, where waters are
of similar salinity but have measurable temperature differences
that can be as low as fraction of a degree centigrade (https://
www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/handheld-
thermal-imaging-cameras-groundwatersurface-water?qt-science_
center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects).
Sometimes this is supplemented by distributed optic fibre
temperature sensing measurements in situ.
Briggs et al (2019) present a good paper with an accompanying
video from the mountain headwater Oh-Be-Joyful Creek in a
“Community Watershed” in the headwaters of the East River
near Crested Butte, Colorado (USA). The case study shows the
application of drone (3D Robotics Solo, 3D Robotics drone) Figure 3. Comparison of thermal and visual vertical images (same view) in detail of
equipped with thermal imaging technology (FLIR VUE Pro a discharge / mixing zone. Top: Thermal image with a temperature range of 60C to
R 13 mm camera) and photogrammetry equipment (GoPro 300C. Bottom: The Visual image shows little evidence of groundwater discharge /
mixing compared to the thermal image/
HERO4 Black Camera (GoPro)) collecting thermal and visual Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1002%2F
images DTM, and stream flow data with dye tracer testing to hyp.13332&file=hyp13332-sup-0002-SI.mp4

map and quantify groundwater inflows to the creek. Figure 2

and 3 are screen grabs from the accompanying video and with
the captions illustrate the thermal inflow and mixing anomalies
mapped.
Figure 2, Drone oblique thermal image of colder (<80C) groundwater discharging
into the warmer (150C) stream
Interferometric Synthetic
Aperture Radar (InSAR),
measures subsidence to
determine impacts of California
groundwater withdrawals
Land subsidence (up to >4 meters in extreme cases), generally
caused by unsustainable withdrawals with respect to recharge
volumes of groundwater, is a world-wide problem (U.S., Europe,
India, China and the Middle East). Subsidence is causing extensive
damage to infrastructure and presenting several challenges
such as geotechnical and groundwater use, water quality and
agricultural economic management (Wannamaker, 2020).
Subsidence is caused by dewatering and inelastic shrinkage of
clays in aquicludes and aquitards (a slow process due to draining of
the clays), almost impossible to reverse as well as relatively quick,
elastic deformation due to dewatering of the granular aquifer which
is challenging but feasible to be reversed by groundwater recharge
(natural or engineered).
In China pre-1975 and the pre-recent economic boom, land
subsidence was typically <10mm, but with accelerated economic
 Page 100 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 4, Major subsidence areas in the U.S. due to groundwater. Source: Galloway

growth post 1990 subsidence has accelerated and regional

subsidence has reached over 2 meters over a wide area. Of
the 655 cities in China, more than 400 rely on groundwater
and more than 50 cities in China suffer from land subsidence,
including Beijing, Tianjin & Shanghai. Groundwater depletion and
subsidence economic cost on the North China Plain are estimated
to be as high as US$51 billion and in Shanghai US$30+ billion
(China Water Risk 2013a & b; Tok, 2013).
In 45 states of the U.S., a large number of aquifer systems are
affected (Figure 4; Galloway et al., 1999) with an estimated 80%
of subsidence attributed to groundwater withdrawals.
The best-known area in the U.S. affected by subsidence due to
groundwater overdraft is the recent drought-affected California
food bowl of the Central Valley of California. Subsidence since the
1930’s has exceeded 9 metres in the San Joaquin Valley (Figure5
shows just the post 1955 subsidence).
A U.S. Geological survey fact sheet (Galloway et al, 2000b)
summarizes the InSAR technology and compares it to other
elevation measurement technologies. Elevation measurement
accuracy is the order of a centimetre with elevation measurements
approximately every 40 to 80 metres along and across the 3 km
swath width satellite track at a much greater data density than
other elevation methods (spirit levelling, geodimeters, vertical
borehole and horizontal extensometers and GPS).
The satellite-derived subsidence data for the California Central Valley
along with ground elevation and groundwater level measurements
and aquifer/aquiclude geotechnical property information has been
applied in two published studies by researchers based in California
(Stanford University, 2017; Smith et al, 2017) and in Arizona (Arizona
State University, 2018; Ojha et al., 2018; Ojha et al., 2019, Carlson
et al., 2020a and Carlson et al., 2020b), both working independently
to model the observed subsidence and determine the proportion
of elastic and inelastic deformation contributing to the subsidence.
The results of both groups are summarized below.
Figure 5. Measures of gross land subsidence in San Joaquin Valley. Source: U.S.
Geological Survey
subsidence as high as 85 cm has been observed between
June 2007 and December 2010 using Interferometric Synthetic
Aperture Radar (InSAR).
Smith et al, 2017 worked only over a small area (~15,000 km2)
in Southern Central Valley California (Figure 6) and covered the
2007-2010 drought period where subsidence of up to 0.85 m
was measured in the area, The area geology (see schematic type
section in the inset in Figure 6) is a 470 – 760 m thick confined to
semi-confined aquifer system with the Corcoran clay aquiclude
up to 20 m thick separating the upper and lower aquifers in
the west of the study area and small local clay lenses. There
were 945 wells in the study area but only 10% had sufficient
length water level records to be useful to the study and 80 wells
together with InSAR data and some GPS subsidence validation
data was used to model subsidence partition between inelastic
and elastic deformation of the aquifer/aquiclude system.
Using estimates of sand and clay thicknesses from well
logs, water withdrawal and water level drop information and
limited geotechnical property information, the study outlined
a calculation methodology and calculated inelastic and
deformation of the system and impacts on water storage loss,
as follows (see also Figure 7):-

STANFORD UNIVERSITY RESEARCH –

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, 2007-2010
In the San Joaquin Valley the large subsidence evidence in
Figure 5 was arrested late last century, with surface water
systems taking pressure off the groundwater system but recent
drought starting in 2001, 2007 and 2012 as well as increased
prevalence of high value crops, have increased the pumping
of groundwater, leading to widespread subsidence. In the Figure 6. Location of Stanford research study area (approximately 15,000 km2) and
southern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, for example, vertical schematic type section of the aquifer system (after Smith et al, 2017)
 Page 101
Figure 7. Top: InSAR measured subsidence 2007-2010. Bottom: Left (a) minimum
and Right (b) maximum permanent subsidence due to inelastic deformation (after
Smith et al., 2017)
• 16.5 km3 water extraction occurred during the 2007-2010
period,
• InSAR mapped subsidence of up to 0.85 m (Figure 7 top),
• An average of between 54% to 98% of subsidence was
calculated to be inelastic deformation/permanent storage
loss (Figure 7 bottom),
• Representing between 0.41 to 0.75 km3 storage loss or 5%
to 9% of total water extracted, water that otherwise would
be a valuable reserve for drought years.
The study established the utility of the InSAR method and
calculations and importance of a good public database of
long-duration water level monitoring data, geological logs and
geotechnical / hydraulic property data property data.
ARIZONA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH –
CENTRAL VALLEY, 2007-2010
Ojha et al, 2018 WRR analysed the groundwater loss and
different aquifer mechanical properties extending to a study
area (see Figure 8) across the entire Central Valley (~52,000
km2 area) and covering the drought period 2007 - 2010. The
study area covered much thicker parts of the inelastically
compressible Corcoran Clay (Figure 6), up to 400m thick. This
research was probably the first time use of high-resolution InSAR
data was carried out over such a large scale for understanding
groundwater response.
The accelerated rate of decline in groundwater levels across
California’s Central Valley results from overdrafting and low
rates of natural recharge and is exacerbated by droughts. Figure
8 shows the subsidence velocity (mm/year) variation over the
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 8. InSAR measured subsidence velocity (mm/year) over San Joaquin Valley
(the southern half of the Central Valley study area), during 2015-2017 using Satellite
radar interferometry. Credit: Chandrakanta Ojha. (Source: Learn, 2019)
San Joaquin Valley, being the southern half of the study area,
differences being due to variations in geology, groundwater
demand/withdrawal and recharge volumes across volumes.
A good correlation was found between InSAR and static GPS
subsidence measurements to +/- 8 mm.
Figure 9 shows mapped spatial variation in derived datasets
(inelastic and elastic, storage coefficients, aquifer storage loss
(loss of storage capacity due to inelastic compaction) and total
groundwater volume loss (loss of water volume). These results
showed: -
• Seasonal oscillation in water volumes due to withdrawal /
recharge for the entire valley is 10.11 ± 2.5 km3,
• Temporal changes in subsidence were mapped (see inset
graph for five different wells in Figure 8),
• A total of 21.32 ± 7.2 km3 of groundwater storage loss has
been estimated, amounting to a depletion rate of ~7 km3/yr
for the period December 2006 to January 2010,
• Higher losses were estimated in the south (see Figure 9)
but not as high as the Smith et al, 2017 estimates, and
• Permanent aquifer storage losses were tabulated, but were
averaging about 2% in total for the study time period.
GRACE Satellite data estimates of storage losses for the
Central Valley are detailed in Scanlon et al., 2012, Although the
GRACE satellite sensor has a footprint resolution of 200,000
km2 that is 4 times the area of the InSAR study, these coarse
and aggregate gravity-derived storage losses were determined
to be in agreement with that obtained from InSAR.
The study again confirmed the utility of the InSAR method and
calculations and as well as reinforcing the importance of a
good public database of long-duration water level monitoring
data, geological logs and geotechnical / hydraulic property
data.
 Page 102
Figure 9. Intermediate input and derived datasets used in the process of converting
InSAR subsidence data to groundwater storage losses showing the variability of the
datasets and impacts on the groundwater system across the Central Valley (Source:
Ojha et al, 2018)
ARIZONA UNIVERSITY RESEARCH –
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, 2012-2015
Subsequent to this study Ojha et al, 2019 carried out a similar
study focused only on San Joaquin Valley (26, 000 km2), for
the drought of 2012-2015, and in this study integrated and
validated several geodetic datasets including GPS, InSAR,
GRACE, extensometer and head level data for aquifer-system
response. The study used 175 wells of 500 available and
determined further loss of groundwater storage in 2012-2015
after the 2007-2010 losses compounding to 29.2 +/- 8.7 km3.
They also quantified the additional loss of aquifer storage to 3%
of the total aquifer storage capacity, which adds to permanent
losses from previous droughts. With more frequent droughts
and little time for the aquifer to recover between droughts,
this sounds a warning to groundwater managers. Further
the study discusses different approaches and highlights the
varying uncertainties of hydrologic, GRACE, GPS and InSAR
modelling modelling of groundwater storage loss.
Overall, the InSAR technology has proved very valuable
because of its high accuracy and spatial resolution. With
that, the spatially rich InSAR data are ideal for modelling of
groundwater storage loss in highly stressed groundwater
systems.
Vol 25, 3 2020
For further information, a Geoscience Australia Webinar by
Chandrakanta Ojha. entitled: Groundwater monitoring in
California’s Central Valley using satellite remote sensing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA3HClNJ8dc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA3HClNJ8dc
References
Arizona State University (2018) - ASU scientists use satellites
to measure vital underground water resources https://asunow.
asu.edu/20180719-discoveries-asu-scientists-use-satellites-measure-
vital-underground-water-resources
Briggs, M.A,. Dawson, C.B., Holmquist-Johnson, C.L., Williams, K.H.
and Lane, J.W., 2019 - Efficient hydrogeological characterization
of remote stream corridors using drones. Hydrological Processes,
13(2), pp 316-319 (with accompanying video)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hyp.13332?casa_toke
n=DX93xVvMFNIAAAAA:CiSYH55Oei3XJqg-qA93S7xOjn4gn2LEbVZ
pUebOGhRFn6hzqL8QET6QM2GydOc0ze-XeE7l92rB6Bhp
Video: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?
doi=10.1002%2Fhyp.13332&file=hyp13332-sup-0002-SI.mp4
Carlson, G., Shirzaei, M., Werth, S.,Zhai, G., & Ojha, C.
(2020a) - Seasonal and Long-term Groundwater Unloading
Modifies Crustal Stress in California,. Journal of Geophysical
Research:Solid Earth, 125, e2019JB018490. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2019JB018490
h t t p s : / / a g u p u b s . o n l i n e l i b r a r y. w i l e y. c o m / d o i /
epdf/10.1029/2019JB018490
Carlson, G., Shirzaei, M., Werth, Ojha, C. & Werth, S. (2020b)
- Subsidence-Derived Volumetric Strain Models for Mapping
Extensional Fissures and Constraining Rock Mechanical
Properties in the San Joaquin Valley, California. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, Accepted Article. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2020JB019980 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020JB019980
China Water Risk, 2013a - Groundwater Depletion –
Provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities
https://www.chinawaterrisk.org/the-big-picture/groundwater-
depletion/
China Water Risk, 2013b - Underground Shifts: Subsidence
Review, China Water Risk, 7 November, 2013
https://www.chinawaterrisk.org/resources/analysis-reviews/
underground-shifts-subsidence-review/
Fielding, E.J., Blom, R.G., and Goldstein, R.M., 1998 - Rapid
subsidence over oil fields measured by SAR interferometry:
Geophysical Research Letters, v. 27, p. 3,215–3,218 https://
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/98GL52260
Galloway, D.L., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., 1999,
Land subsidence in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1182, 175 p. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1182/
 Page 103
Galloway, D.L., Jones, D.R. and Ingebritsen, S.E., 2000a -
Land Subsidence in the United States. US Geological Survey,
Groundwater Resources for the Future brochure https://water.
usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/SubsidenceFS.v7.PDF
Galloway, D.L., Jones, D.R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., 2000b,
Measuring land subsidence from space: U.S. Geological Survey
Fact Sheet 051-00, 4 p
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-051-00/pdf/fs-051-00.pdf
Learn, J.R., 2019 - Western droughts caused permanent loss
to major California groundwater source
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2019/03/19/western-droughts-
caused-permanent-loss-to-major-california-groundwater-source/
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (2018) - NASA Data Show
California’s San Joaquin Valley Still Sinking. https://www.jpl.nasa.
gov/news/news.php?feature=6761
Ojha, C., Shirzaei, M., Werth, S., Argus, D. F., & Farr, T.
G. (2018) - Sustained groundwater loss in California’s
Central Valley exacerbated by intense drought periods.
Water Resources Research, 54, 4449–4460. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2017WR022250 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/full/10.1029/2017WR022250
Ojha, C., Werth, S., & Shirzaei, M. (2019) - Groundwater loss and
aquifer system compaction in San Joaquin Valley during 2012–
2015 drought. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth,
124, 3127–3143. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JB016083 https://
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JB016083
Pettifer, G. and Wood, W., 2004. Bundaberg Groundwater
Investigation, Australia – A Case For The Benefits Of Extensive Use
Of Geophysics In Groundwater Investigations. 17th Environmental
and Engineering Geophysical Society Symposium on the Application
of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems
http://earthdoc.eage.org/publication/
publicationdetails/?publication=44192
Rowan, L. (2017) - Groundwater Extraction During Drought in
the Central Valley Reduces Future Storage Capacity.
Vol 25, 3 2020
https://www.unavco.org/science/snapshots/environmental-
hydrogeodesy/2017/rgsmith.html
Scanlon, B.R., Longuevergne, L. and Long D., 2012 - Ground
referencing GRACE satellite estimates of groundwater storage
changes in the California Central Valley, USA. Water Resources
Research, 48(4) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
full/10.1029/2011WR011312
Smith, R. G., Knight, R., Chen, J., Reeves, J. A., Zebker, H.
A., Farr, T., and Liu, Z. (2017) - Estimating the permanent
loss of groundwater storage in the southern San Joaquin
Valley, California, Water Resour. Res., 53, 2133– 2148,
doi:10.1002/2016WR019861.
h t t p s : / / a g u p u b s . o n l i n e l i b r a r y. w i l e y. c o m / d o i /
full/10.1002/2016WR019861
Stanford University, 2017 - The Use of InSAR to Map Changes
in Groundwater Storage in the San Joaquin Valley, California.
https://gemcenter.stanford.edu/research/use-insar-map-changes-
groundwater-storage-san-joaquin-valley-california (accessed 10
September, 2020)
Than, K. (2017) - Groundwater over-pumping is reducing San
Joaquin Valley’s ability to store water. https://news.stanford.
edu/2017/04/12/groundwater-overuse-cuts-san-joaquin-valleys-
water-storage-ability/
Tok, X, 2013 - Sinking Cities: Cracks in the Ground, China Water
Risk, 7 November, 2013
https://www.chinawaterrisk.org/opinions/sinking-cities-cracks-in-
the-ground/
Wanamaker, C., 2020 - Geologic Hazards: All About Land
Subsidence Due to Groundwater Pumping, April 24, 2020
https://owlcation.com/stem/Geologic-Hazards-What-You-Need-to-
Know-about-Groundwater-Induced-Land-Subsidence
Learn, J.R., 2019 - Western droughts caused permanent loss
to major California groundwater source
https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2019/03/19/western-droughts-
caused-permanent-loss-to-major-california-groundwater-source/
Page 104 Vol 25, 3 2020
Page 105 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 106
Semi-Airborne
Electromagnetics
Using a Multicopter
Johannes B. Stoll
Mobile Geophysical Technologies GmbH,
Celler Str. 13, 29229 Celle, Germany,
+49 (0)5141 - 88 93 551 (corresponding author)
jstoll@mgt-geo.com
Bio
Thomas Kordes
Aerialis GbR, Stresemann Str. 46, 27570 Bremerhaven,
Germany, +49(0)471-140 500
info@aerialis.de
Bio
Rolf Noellenburg
Aerialis GbR, Stresemann Str. 46, 27570 Bremerhaven,
Germany, +49(0)471-140 500
info@aerialis.de
Bio
Abstract
Airborne Electromagnetic methods (AEM) are an efficient
way to map geology and the implementation of innovative
technologies for and are widely used in mineral exploration
and environmental monitoring. Most EM methods currently
used in mineral exploration are of the moving source type; i.e.,
the primary field source is moved simultaneously and in a fixed
configuration with respect to the receiver.
In this paper we present an alternative configuration of AEM
measurements, where a fixed transmitter is established on
the ground and the receiver is flown on an unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV). This configuration is called the semi-airborne
electromagnetic method.
The use of unmanned aircraft in airborne electromagnetics is
new. Conventional measurement devices were too heavy to be
lifted by small UAVs. Great efforts have been made in the last
10 years to make EM instruments light weight enough for use
on small sized UAVs. In 2018, MGT GmbH presented an EM
system that was miniaturized and optimized for deployment
on a 20kg octocopter.
In this article, we describe an octocopter based semi-airborne
electromagnetic data acquisition system and show the results
of a field test in Northern Germany. This test affirmed that the
UAV enabled semi-airborne electromagnetic method is very
well suited to conduct geophysical surveys at prospect scale.
The method is safer for the operators, cheaper with regard to
Vol 25, 3 2020
initial and operational costs, and more effective in terms of
site characterization. Future efforts will involve multiple source
configurations and the implementation of innovative technologies
for increasing the resolution of the conductivity structure at depth.
Introduction
Conventional AEM systems have been designed to employ
a current-carrying loop or coil transported or towed by the
aircraft as the source. In early days of the AEM development
some systems used sources located on the ground (e.g.
Bosschart&Seigel, 1966; Elliot, 1998). Grounded cables or
loops were used and survey lines were flown perpendicular
to these sources. This configuration is called semi-airborne
“EM”, since it uses a source on ground and the receiver is
transported by an aircraft. In 2001 Smith et al. (2001) reported
about a comparison test aiming to investigate the advantages
of semi-airborne EM over ground transient electromagnetics
(TEM) and standard airborne TEM. The authors concluded
that the semi-airborne EM concept combines the features
and advantages of ground and airborne methods in terms
of time efficiency and depth penetration. There are several
groups working on the semi-airborne EM methodology.
Working groups in Japan and China (Ito et al., 2014, Fubo et
al., 2016, Liu et al., 2018) further developed this method and
presented its applicability in the field. In 2016, a joint research
project named DESMEX (Deep Electromagnetic Soundings
for Mineral EXploration) in Germany was founded to develop
a semi-airborne controlled-source electromagnetic exploration
system for the exploration of deep mineral deposits up to 1 km
depth (Nittinger et al., 2017, Becken etal, 2020, Steuer et
al., 2020). The complete measuring system consists of a
3-component induction coil system, a 3-component fluxgate
magnetometer and a SQUID magnetometer. The sensors are
installed in a bird and slung below a heavy lift helicopter. In
order to reference the sensors to a Earth fixed reference frame
the motion of the bird is recorded during flight. Laser gyros
are used to accurately sense the motion of the bird and to
compensate the sensor motion. The system and results from
several field surveys are described by Becken et al. (2020)
and Steuer (2020). Since the weight of the system amounts
about 250kg, the DESMEX project uses a heavy lift helicopter
to transport the measurement system.
In recent years, the reliability of drone technology and their
portability has considerably increased with decreasing costs
at the same time. Sensors are getting smaller and software
is becoming more accessible. Regulations are changing fast.
In most countries, the national aviation administrations and
airspace authorities have released rules for small unmanned
aircraft (UAS) operations including a pilot certification. The
rules were eased to cover a broad spectrum of commercial
uses for drones weighing less than 25 kg. The use of drones
for geophysical measurements and the application for flight
permissions became a formality and is regulated in most
countries.
 Page 107
To our best knowledge, the first EM system on an unmanned aerial
vehicle was described by Kipfinger (1998) from the US Geological
Survey. He used a small size, light weight, low power VLF system.
It was primarily designed for collecting VLF data during ground
surveys over small grid areas. He modified it for installation on
a Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), which was supplied by BAI
AEROSYSTEMS, Inc.. Tests were flown in 1996 and 1997.
In collaboration with Aerialis GbR, MGT GmbH designed,
developed and tested an octocopter. Based on previous test
flights using a 75kg unmanned helicopter, an existing EM
system from Metronix GmbH in Braunschweig Germany was
miniaturized for the deployment on the octocopter and optimized
with respect to payload capability and flight endurance. The total
weight is far below 10kg and allows to use the system on small
sized data acquisition system multicopters of similar payload
capacity. Care was taken to minimize the EM interference from
the multicopter and to reduce sensor movement during flight
operations. Following sections will describe the concept of our
octocopter based semi-airborne EM system.
Methodology of Airborne EM
Using a Fixed Transmitter
In spite of their design diversity, all AEM systems share a similar
principle of operation. The active systems use an artificial
source to generate a primary, time varying magnetic field, which
causes eddy currents to flow in the subsurface. A secondary
electromagnetic field is generated by the currents in the ground
and the field is measured by induction coils. The technique can
be classified according to the type of transmitter and the receiver
which measures the magnetic field. Most active AEM systems
have been designed to employ a current-carrying loop towed by
the aircraft. Early in the AEM method development, some systems
used sources located on ground. For example, the airborne
equivalent of TURAM used a non-grounded loop to generate a
primary field. To achieve deep penetration a substantial separation
between transmitter and receiver is desirable. One solution is to
install the transmitter in one aircraft and the receiver in the other.
Here we follow a different approach. The UAV enabled semi-airborne
electromagnetic method combines the benefits of a high power
transmitter located on ground with UAV-borne EM receiver to map
the resulting magnetic field. The ground source controls the source
signal and applied frequency in a way that exceeds the depth
penetration of standard airborne EM systems. Low frequencies and
large transmitter-receiver offsets can be combined.
The Semi-Airborne Electromagnetics method is a frequency-
domain electromagnetic sounding technique which uses a fixed
grounded dipole or horizontal loop as an artificial signal source.
The source provides a stable, dependable signal, resulting in
higher-precision and more economical measurements usually
obtained with natural-source measurements in the same spectral
bands. Typically, measurements are made within the 1Hz to
10kHz frequency band. The depth of investigation is a function
of the separation distance between the transmitter dipole and the
Vol 25, 3 2020
receiver. The lateral resolution is controlled by the electric dipole
length, which normally is between 100-1000m.
For separations greater than 4δ, where δ is the skin depth of
the EM field for a given frequency, the depth of investigation
corresponds roughly to . The region electrically far from
the dipole is known as the “far-field” zone or “plane-wave”-
zone, characterized by large induction numbers. The induction
number is a dimensionless parameter and characterizes the
electromagnetic induction response. For a 1D layered earth
model, the induction number is given by the source-receiver
separation. The separation is much larger than the skin
depth and the depth of penetration is independent of array
geometry. For the given frequency band and typical electrical
conductivities of the uppermost part of the Earth’s crust, the
depth of investigation is limited to 2-3km.
The region near the transmitting dipole is characterized by small
induction numbers, where the separation is much smaller
than the skin depth. The sounding depth and the resistivity
measured there are a function of array geometry and frequency.
The region between these zones is called the “transition” zone,
where there is moderate wave curvature.
Along a flight profile the drone approaches and constantly moves
away from the electric source and changes from the near zone
to the transition zone and the far zone with respect to separation
and frequency used.
In the frequency domain controlled-source electromagnetic
(CSEM) method, an electromagnetic dipole is used to create
a source field that is measured at receivers placed on an
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). This source dipole field couples
with surrounding materials and the measured field is treated as a
linear convolution of the source with an attenuative, diffusive earth
(Ward&Hohmann 1987). The frequency response of the Earth
transfer function (TF) varies according to conductivity, source–
receiver range and a variety of other factors, with the result
that the CSEM method is sensitive to changes in the electrical
conductivity at depth. Thus the CSEM method has become an
important geophysical sounding and mapping method in mineral
exploration and hydrocarbon exploration. Because the peak
frequency sensitivity of an exploration target is not well known a
priori, it is common to transmit a source waveform, which allows
for simultaneous broadcast of multiple frequencies.
The classic example of such a waveform is the square wave,
which provides a bunch of frequencies at the odd harmonics
of the fundamental transmission frequency. However, the
amplitude of its harmonics falls off as 1/n, where n is the
harmonic number. The fields attenuate exponentially as a
function of range and frequency, many of the square wave’s
harmonics fall below the noise level at useful ranges.
The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the measured CSEM signal
is directly related to the source dipole moment (SDM) of the
transmitter. Existing transmitters output up to several decades of
amps. Transmitter dipole lengths up to 1000m are common but
because of the increasing complexity of logistics longer dipoles
are impractical.
 Page 108 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 2: Octocopter X825. Several systems are mounted on a rod which is slung
below the octocopter: the 3-component induction coil system, a 3-component
fluxgate sensor, an inertial measuring unit and the data acquisition system

The Multicopter-Based
Semi-Airborne EM System
We developed an octocopter (8 engines) specifically designed
and manufactured by Aerialis GbR in Bremerhaven/Germany.
The specifications are listed in Table 1. Figure 2 shows the
complete system, consisting of the octocopter with the GPS
receiver on top of the drone and the 3-component induction coil
sensor contained in a light weight box. The sensor is mounted
Figure 1: The Semi-Airborne Electromagnetic method uses an electric source on
on a bar and slung 2.0m below the octocopter. Ancillary
ground (grounded wire or loop), which transmits a suite of frequencies from one
location (transmitter site) and measuring the magnetic fields in the area of interest sensors, fluxgate and inertial measuring unit, are also mounted
carrying a receiver (induction coils) on an aircraft. This figure shows synthetic on the vertical bar. This novel system combines high-moment
results of a signal generated by a long grounded wire and the responses measured
by induction coils in the time and frequency domain A) classic example of a horizontal electric dipole transmitter on the ground with low-
square wave generated by the transmitter, B) frequency spectrum of the source noise three-axis induction coil magnetometers, a three-axis
signal, C) synthetic time series of the vertical component of the B-field and of the
first derivative dH/dt for calculated for a homogeneous halfspace, D) frequency fluxgate magnetometer and a laser gyro inertial measurement
spectrum of the B-field. The induction coils output the magnetic field instead of the unit integrated within a helicopter-towed airborne platform.
first derivative Hz/dt.
Table 1: Technical specifications of the octocopter
The source signal is a time series of electric current generated by
the transmitter. In CSEM, it is common practice to apply a square- UAV type Octocopter X825 (8 electric motors),
wave (Figure 1a). The source signal as well as the Earth’s response coaxial configuration
is a line spectrum. Figure 1 shows an example of the square autopilot The multicopter can be operated in
wave in the time domain and its amplitude spectrum (Figure various modes:
1b). The fundamental wave and a large number of harmonics a) manual mode, b) GPS Position
are generated up to 10kHz and provide a series of evaluation Hold, c) autonomous Navigation.
frequencies that set up the transfer function. Terrain Following Mode, Low Voltage
The time series of the response is shown in Figure 1c and its Protection, Homing function & Auto
amplitude spectrum in Figure 1d. We emphazise here that the Landing
induction coils used in this test survey output the magnetic field max speed Vertical: -2 - 5m/s Horizontal: 15m/s
but not the first derivative dH/dt. empty weight 7.1kg (2 batteries 4.4kg)
It is generally known that in the near field approximation, the maximum payload 9.1 kg (@ 25,0 kg MTOW)
primary and secondary fields cannot be separated. Further shall endurance 35 min @ 6kg payload
be emphazised that the magnetic field is not sensitive for the earth temperature, -5°C to +50°C, 0% - 90% RH (non
conductivity in the near field of the transmitter. This suggests to humidity condensing)
use a different source signal with 50% duty cycle, that allows
wind < 8 m/s (17,9 mph / 28,8 km/h)
to pick the EM signal in the time domain during off time of the
electric source. distance data link range: ≤ 1 km (@ 2.4 GHz,
visual line-of-sight)
 Page 109
Figure 3: Endurance vs. payload capacity estimated for the octocopter X825 (8
engines). The X825 was specifically designed to carry the Electromagnetic system. The
EM system weighs about 8.0kg. In this configuration it allows a flight time of 25min.
The endurance is an important issue in commercial applications.
It depends on the power consumption of the propulsion system,
and the flight time is limited due to the limited energy storage
capacity. In addition to the propulsion system, the drag and
weight of the multicopter strongly affect the flight time. Figure
3 shows the endurance of the octocopter as a function of the
payload derived from a synthetic multicopter model for given
components (battery specifications and discharge, power
consumption, motors and propellers).
Results of a Field Test in
Northern Germany
In this section, we present the results of a semi-airborne test
carried out on flat grassland in Northern Germany. We briefly
describe the field setup, the steps to estimate the transfer
function and, finally, present a numerical model that interprets
the transfer function at one measuring point.
FIELD SETUP AND DESCRIPTION OF FLIGHT OPERATIONS
The semi-airborne EM test was carried out on November
15 and 16, 2018. The field set up involved installing a long
electric grounded wire several hundred meters long. The test
site is about 10km east of Bremerhaven in Northern Germany.
Figure 4 shows the position of the electrodes, the direction of
the wire and the flight lines. On the day of flight, the ambient
temperature was around 5°C. The weather was misty but there
was almost no wind.
A total of four flights were carried out. Each flight consisted
of four lines flown at a speed of 2 m/s. The regular lines were
directed east-west. A control flight was done in north-south
direction. The average flight altitude was 25m above ground
level. The lines are 950m long. The line spacing is 50m.
The electric wire was laid out and connected to a transmitter.
In order to allow large separations between the transmitter and
the receiver we used a GGT30 30kW generator from Zonge
Engineering. The contact impedance of the current electrodes
buried in the soil was optimized using metal meshes and metal
stakes. The maximum output voltage of the generator is 1kV.
Due to low contact impedance prevailing at this site current
amplitudes up to 25 amps were realized. However to avoid
sensor saturation during the crossover flight of the line source,
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 4: Test area in Donnern, Northern Germany. The site is located about 10km
east of Bremerhaven. The size is 1km-by-0.5km. 10 regularl lines were flown in
east-west direction (red lines). Eight control lines were flown in north-south direction
(yellow lines). The line spacing of the regular lines was 50m. A 500 m long wire was
laid out and grounded at point A and B. A 30kW transmitter (GGT30 from Zonge)
was deployed to generate the electric source signals.
the current strength was reduced to less than 10 amps. The
duty cycle was set to 100% and the fundamental frequency
was set at 10 Hz for two flights and 100 Hz for the other two
flights.. The system was operated in the frequency domain.
The time series of the current is synchronized via GPS time
stamp with the transmitter which permits subsequent stacking
and windowing of the data. The induction coils are connected
to a three-channel receiver. An Inertial Measuring Unit (IMU)
senses the orientation (compass) of the coil triple against the
Earth’s reference frame to allow subsequent correction of
sensor motion.
About 250 m west of the electric dipole an EM ground station
was installed to record the time series of the three components
Hx, Hy, and Hz at a fixed point on ground. It allows comparison
of the response of the UAV borne EM system with the readings at
this station on ground, while the octocopter flies over it. A second
EM unit was installed to record the electric current during flight
operations. All measuring systems are synchronized with GPS
accuracy. The flight speed was 2m/s for all flights. The multicopter
was operated in autonomous mode. Three flights were required,
each 20 min long, to cover the 950m X 500m large area.
A current probe was clamped around the electric wire to record the
time series of the current. It is a simple measurement of the current,
that is transmitted, without the need to make physical contact
with it. The device allows measurements of the electric current
ranging from 50mA up to 100A over a frequency range from DC
up to 100kHz. The current recordings are needed as a reference
to normalize the magnetic field measured with the receiver coils
to the current. The time series of electric current and the magnetic
field require highly accurate synchronization. The data acquisitions
systems being used in this survey, provide an accuracy of the
synchronization better than 50ns.
Figure 5 shows the time series of the three magnetic components
along one flight line. The graphs show the envelope of the
square wave signal along the flight line during the cross over
flight over the transmitter. The maximum of the magnetic field is
 Page 110
Figure 5: Measured time series of the three components Hx, Hy, and Hz of multicopter-
based semi-airborne measurements. The plot shows the fields along one flight line,
which were flown perpendicular to the linear source (sketch see figure 2) laid out on
a test site in Northern Germany. A square wave of a pulse width of 12ms (83.33Hz)
was applied. The zero-crossing in the Hz-component and the maximum in the Hx-
component clearly indicate the fly over of the multicopter over the transmitter cable.
Figure 6: The upper panel shows the source signal transmitted on day 2 (16.11.2018)
during flight 4. The pulse wave has a period of 12ms (~83.33Hz). The sample rate
was 65536Hz. The current strength was about 7.5A. The lower panel shows the
amplitude spectrum of the electric current derived from 1s time interval. The
fundamental frequency corresponds to 12ms period of the pulse wave. The square
wave contains many odd-integer harmonic frequencies, which can be followed in
the spectrum up to 30kHz The fundamental frequency and harmonics define the
evealuation frequencies being used to estimate the transfer functions..
clearly visible in the Hx component. The Hz component shows
a zero crossing and a sign change over the transmitter cable.
DATA PROCESSING AND ESTIMATION OF THE TRANSFER
FUNCTION
The time series of the current and the magnetic fields are analyzed
in the frequency domain. In this section we analyse flight 4 of
November 16. Figure 6 shows a time section of the current
measurements and the amplitude spectrum. The pulse length
was 12ms, which corresponds to the fundamental frequency
83.33Hz. The sample rate was 65536Hz, and harmonics were
generated up to 30kHz. The square wave contains components
of odd-integer harmonic frequencies of the form .
The processing procedure involves the analysis of the data
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 7: The two upper panels display the readings of the vertical component of the
magnetic field Hz for 4s time interval and the spectrum of the Hz component. The flight
path is about 100m away from the transmitter cable. The readings show that the amplitude
of the magnetic field is constantly decreasing, since the multicopter moves away from the
transmitter. The spectrum shows the fundamental frequency and hundreds of harmonics
which are available for the estimation of the transfer function. The two lower panels display
the readings of the roll, pitch and yaw angle, which were picked by the inertial measuring
unit. It is attached to the bar that carries the induction coils. The bar is about two meter
long and exhibits an eigenfrequency of a few seconds. Damping elements additionally
reduce the pendulum movements during flight. Therefore no significant movements were
observed in this time interval. The expected period of the movement is almost two orders
smaller than the fundamental frequency of 83.33Hz. Only small oscillations of the roll and
pitch angle of less than 5° and a period between 3-4s were observed at this time. The lower
most panel displays the readings of the 3-component fluxgate magnetometer. Fluxgate
sensors are known to be extremely sensitive to movements within the Earth’s magnetic
field. The long period changes observed in the three components correspond to the
angular variations observed by the inertial measuring unit. The sample rate of the fluxgate
sensor is 100Hz. Therefore no magnetic signal could be picked from the transmitter.
in the frequency domain to estimate the transfer function
for selected evaluation frequencies. In essence, the transfer
function between the readings of the vertical magnetic field
component Bz and of the electric current signal is analyzed.
Transfer Function
 Page 111
Figure 8: Transfer function for four TX-RX separations. In the DC limit the real
part approaches a finite value and is in-phase with the transmitter current. The
imaginary part reaches a minimum and converges to zero in the DC limit.
Figure 7 shows the time series of the vertical component Bz for
a time window of 4s and the amplitude spectrum for this time
interval in the two upper panels. The data interval was recorded
on flight 4 and is located about 100m west of the transmitter
cable. The readings depict the decrease of the amplitude of the
magnetic field while moving away from the transmitter.
The two lower panels show the Euler angles sensed by the
inertial measuring unit and the horizontal and vertical magnetic
field obtained from the 3-component fluxgate magnetometer.
Fluxgate magnetometers are known to be extremely sensitive
to movement. The readings indicate only little movement of the
EM receiver during flight. The amplitude is small (<5°) and the
period is almost monochromatic at about 3s.
The transfer function was evaluated for all harmonics of the
amplitude spectrum. It is shown in Figure 8 for four different
separations from the electric dipole. The transfer function is
a complex quantity. It is estimated in the frequency range
between 100Hz and 8kHz and comprise of 300 frequencies.
The real part (blue dots) is constantly rising and approaches a
finite value in the DC limit. The imaginary part (red dots) reaches
a minimum value and decrease to zero in the DC limit. At low
frequencies the transfer function contains a real part only and
is in-phase with the transmitter signal.
Each measurement point on the profile corresponds to a
sounding point at which the electrical conductivity can be
determined as a function of distance and frequency. In the
last section a conductivity model is derived at a distance of
325m from the transmitter dipole. The result of the numerical
modeling is shown in Figure 10.
Numerical Modelling
The AC/DC Module of Comsol Multiphysics® is a simulation
software for solving low-frequency, quasistatic electromagnetic
and electromechanical problems. In combination with the
optimization module it can be used to solve inverse problems.
In particular, we are aiming to determine the values of a set of
parameters and calculate synthetic data to fit the observed data.
Here we give an example how this module can be applied to fit
the transfer function of the semi-airborne EM measurements
estimated for a single point and using a simple 3-layer model.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 9: 1kmX1kmX1km Earth cubic model for estimating the response of an
infinite electric line. The model consists of three layers and an airspace above
the Earth’s surface. COMSOL Multiphysics®, a software package, that enables
numerical modelling of electromagnetic problems in 3D space, was applied to
simulate and fit the semi-airborne EM data. A measuring plane was defined at 25m
above the ground level. It corresponds to the average flight altitude of the sensor
above ground. A high electrically conductive layer of 50m thickness is inserted at
100m depth. The background conductivity is 0.05 S/m and the conductivity of the
conductive layer is assumed to 4 S/m. A chart of Transfer functions for a 3-layer
model was calculated for a given transmitter-receiver separation (350m) and the
depth of the conductive layer and the conductivity was varied. In this way an initial
model was searched as input model for the optimization problem. The Optimization
Module of COMSOL Multiphysics® was then used, which provides an interface
for calculating optimal solutions. We used the Marquardt-Levenberg algorithm
to iteratively fit the synthetic data against the recorded data. The result of the
optimization process is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10: Real and imaginary part of the observed and synthetic transfer function.
The synthetic transfer function (dotted lines) fits best to the observed data using
a three-layered earth model depicted in the right panel. A highly conductive
layer at 125m depth and 50m thickness is sandwiched by an upper layer and a
homogeneous halfspace below comprising a conductivity of 0.05 S/m. The existence
of a salt diapir 2km north of the test site suggests a highly conductive layer
consisting of dissolved salt.
The geology of the test area is known to consist of tertiary and
quaternary sediments. This suggests that a layered earth is an
appropriate geologic model.
The parameters of the 3-layer model are defined in Figure 9.
The model is a 1kmX1kmX1km large cubic body. In essence it
consists of one highly conductive layer of 4 S/m, sandwiched
between two layer of a much lower conductivity of 0.02 S/m.
The thickness of the uppermost layer is set at 100m allowed
to vary during the inversion process. The thickness of the
conductive layer is 50m. An infinite electric line source is
located in the center of the ground surface plane. The ground
surface is covered by an airspace of 500m thickness. 25m
above the ground level a measuring plan is defined which
corresponds to the average flight altitude. The transfer function
was estimated for a point 325m away from the transmitter
cable. The transfer function is shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10 depicts the results of the optimization process. To
keep the problem simple, only the depth range was varied
between 50 and 350m. The electrical conductivity was set
 Page 112
to 1 S/m. The layer thickness was also fixed to 50m. This
corresponds to a conductance of 50 Siemens.
Using trial and error method an initial model was chosen from
a chart of synthetic transfer functions. Only 30 frequencies
out of 300 were used in this inversion process. This chart of
model curves was created to pre-select one transfer function
as the initial input model which is close to the observed transfer
function. In the final step, the Marquardt-Levenberg algorithm
was applied to adjust the synthetic transfer function. The final
result is shown in Figure 10.
The test area is situated in the North West German Basin,
which is known for its salt tectonics of Permian salt diapirs.
The test area is located about 2 km south of a salt diapir named
“Bramel”. It is covered by tertiary and quaternary sediments.
The underlying salt dome is highly resistive but becomes
dissolved when in contact with fresh water. The brines are
highly conductive and the salinity causes a high conductivity
zone in deeper aquifers.
Conclusion
In 2018 first UAV enabled semi-airborne electromagnetic
measurements were performed on a test site in Northern Germany.
Four lines, each 1 km long were flown per flight. The flight time
was less than 20min. A daily production rate of 3-5 square
kilometers is feasible. The UAV based semi-airborne EM system
is most suitable for projects on prospect size.
The logistics of a UAV semi-airborne EM survey is minimal when
compared to 2 pilots and 1 geophysicist are required to perform
the survey. The daily production rate is between 2-5 square
kilometers. However, an additional ground team is necessary to
set up the transmitter on ground.
The suspension of the EM receiver below the octocopter causes
only slight movements of the induction coils and is far below the
range of frequencies used in this survey.
During survey operations, measurements change from near-
field to the transition zone then to the far-field response. Even
for a simple layered model geometry, sophisticated modeling
capabilities are needed to take into account the response due
to changes in receiver transmitter geometry.
The UAV-based semi-airborne method has great potential to
significantly improve the resolution of highly conductive structures,
this is particularly true if multiple transmitter sources are used.
UAV based semi-airborne EM fills the gap between ground
based EM measurements and conventional manned airborne
EM methodologies.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all helpers in the field and to the technical
staff, who contributed to the test survey and to the technical
developments in November 2018. This first UAV based semi-
Vol 25, 3 2020
airborne test survey was only possible with the support of many
colleagues. In particular, I would like to thank Ulrich Matzander
from Metronix GmbH for his great commitment in preparing
the test project. We are grateful to Bernhard Friedrichs and
Martin Wilde (Metronix GmbH) for their continued interest and
the provision of measuring devices.
I also like to thank my colleagues from the Institute for Geophysics,
University of Münster, Michael Becken, Julian Wessel, Alexander
Weyer, Yannik Polkowski, Philipp Kotowski for their help in setting
up the measuring devices and for recording the electrical current.
I would also like to thank Rainer Bergers, Andreas Busse and
Bülent Tezkan, Pritam Yogeshwar (Institute of Geophysics, Univ.
Cologne), as well as Thomas Günther, Mike Müller-Petke, and
Robert Meyer from the Leibniz Center for Applied Geophysics,
Hanover, for providing the two power sources.
References
Baldschuh,R., Binot,F., Fleig, S., und Kockel, F., 2001.
Geotektonischer Atlas von Nordwestdeutschland und dem
deutschen Nordsee-Sektor. Geolog. Jahrbuch A 153 S 95
Stuttgart (Schweizerbart). Aus: Landesamt für Bergbau, Energie
und Geologie, Referat Bergbau und Energie. Referat Digitale
Kartographie, 3D Modellierung
M. Becken, , C. G. Nittinger, , M. Smirnova, , A. Steuer, , T.
Martin, , H. Petersen, , U. Meyer, , W. Mörbe, , P. Yogeshwar,
, B. Tezkan, , U. Matzander, , B. Friedrichs, , R. Rochlitz, ,
T. Günther, , M. Schiffler, , and R. Stolz. 2020. DESMEX: A
novel system development for semi-airborne electromagnetic
exploration. (accepted for publication)
Bosschart, A.R.& H.O.Seigel, 1966. Some Aspects of the Turam
Electromagnetic Method. Transactions, Volume LXIX, 1966,
pp. 156-1 61
COMSOL MULTIPHYSICS: https://www.comsol.com/
Elliott, P., 1998, The principles and practice of FLAIRTEM: Expl
Geophys, 29, 58–60.
L. Fubo, L., Huang, L. Lihua, L. Jutao, G. Zhi, Z. Qimao & G.
Fang. (2016). A New Semi-airborne Transient Electromagnetic
System and Application of Detecting Underground Conductor
in East Ujimqin Banner, China. 10.2991/iceeg-16.2016.113.
H. Ito, H. Kaieda, T. Mogi, A. Jomori. 2014. Grounded electrical-
source airborne transient electromagnetics (GREATEM) survey
of Aso Volcano, Japan. Exploration Geophysics 45(1) April
2014, DOI: 10.1071/EG12074
R.P. Kipfinger Jr. 1998. Unmanned airborne vehicle (UAV): Flight
testing and evaluation of two channel E-field very low frequency
(VLF) instrument. USGS, DOE/OR/22398-TI
F. Liu, Z. Qimao, G. Zhi, P. Yuxi, L. Yang. G. Fang. (2018).
Application of grounded electrical source airborne TEM system
in Changyi BIF deposit, Jiaodong Peninsula of eastern China.
Annals of Geophysics. 61. 10.4401/ag-7457.
C. Nittinger, M. Cherevatova, M. Becken, A. Steuer, R.
 Page 113 Vol 25, 3 2020

Rochlitz, DESMEX Working Group Airborne induction coil and
fluxgate measurements above a grounded electric dipole,
23rd Electromagnetic Induction Workshop (EMIW2016), 14.-
20.08.2016 Chiang Mai, Thailand.
R.S. Smith, A.P. Annan, & P.D. McGowan, 2001. A comparison of
data from airborne, semi-airborne, and ground electromagnetic
systems. Geophys, 66, 5; pp. 1379–1385.
Steuer, A., M. Smirnova, M Becken, M Schiffler, Th. Günther, R.
Rochlitz, P Yogeshwar, W Mörbe, B. Siemon, S. Costabel, B.
Preugschat, M. Ibst von Seht, L.S. Zampa, Franz Müll. 2020.
Comparison of novel semi-airborne electromagnetic data with
multi-scale geophysical, petrophysical and geological data from
Schleiz, Germany. J. Appl. Geophys 182 (2020) 104172, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jappgeo.2020.104172
Ward S.H. and Hohmann, G.W., 1987. Investigations in
Geophysics Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics:
Volume 1, Theory Editor Misac N. Nabighian, Society of
Exploration Geophysicists

Author Bios
Johannes B. Stoll Thomas Kordes
Mobile Geophysical Technologies, GmbH Aerialis GbR
Celle, Germany Stresemann Str. 46
jstoll@mgt-geo.com 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
+49(0)471-140 500
info@aerialis.de

Dr. Johannes B. Stoll has a background in geophysics and
electrochemistry and was active in several positions in the
Oil&Gas industry and research institutions. He is founder and
CEO of Mobile Geophysical Technologies GmbH. He has 25
years experience as an active exploration geophysicist.
Dr. Thomas Kordes, aerospace engineer, UAV operator and
co-founder of aerialis. Dr. Kordes has a lot of experience in the
management of international aerospace projects and teams. In
addition to his management work, he has 20 years professional
experience and was responsible for the design, development,
and operation of many types of UAVs in international projects.

Rolf Noellenburg
Aerialis GbR
Stresemann Str. 46
27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
+49(0)471-140 500
info@aerialis.de

Rolf Nöllenburg, aerospace engineer, UAV pilot and co-founder

of aerialis. He is designing, developing and operating fixed wing
and rotary wing UAVs for research and commercial use since
2004. In cooperation with MGT, he integrated geo-physical
sensor systems into several UAVs within the last 7 years. He
is very experienced in adaption and modification of UAVs
as well as in soft- and hardware design of the flight control
systems. He also gained a lot of operational experience in many
international projects.
Page 114 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 115 Vol 25, 3 2020

Mining Geophysics
News
Moe Momayez
moe.momayez@arizona.edu

In this issue of Mining Geophysics News, we look at the

added value that drones have brought to the mining industry.
From search and rescue, health and safety, risk management,
production and environmental control, to mine planning
applications, drones have improved so many aspects of mining
engineering. We will also discuss the growth in the global drone
market expected over the next several years.
EEGS welcomes contributions of mine site and mining
geophysics news and articles from mining engineers,
geophysicists, geologists, hydrogeologists, geotechnical
engineers and environmental scientists in local and international
firms, research, academia, service providers and government
agencies on topics that may be of interest to both the mining
geophysics practitioner and end-user communities.
Please contact me, Moe Momayez (moe.momayez@arizona.edu),
Associate Editor, with your ideas, news, or articles that you
would like to share with us.

Drones in Mining – Adding Value

and Streamlining Processes
It is estimated that the drone services market will grow at a
compound annual growth rate of 56% between now and the
year 2025. In 2019, about four billion dollars were spent across
many industries such as Agriculture, Aviation, Healthcare,
Infrastructure, Insurance, Logistics, Media & Entertainment,
Mining, Oil & Gas, Scientific Research, Search & Rescue,
Security, Utility & Power, and Weather Forecasting. The
projected expenditures over the next five years are expected
to reach 64 billion dollars.
The demand for aerial photography, remote sensing, data
collection, mapping, and surveying has grown exponentially in
recent years, all of which have direct applications in the mining
industry. Based on the current trends, drones are poised to
become prevalent in both surface and underground mining
operations in the days to come. Geographically, the North
American market currently has the largest potential for growth
if current projections hold.
In the mining industry, drones are currently used in many
applications related to surface, underground and abandoned
mines [Lee & Choi]. More specifically, the application space spans
areas such as mine design and planning (haul roads optimization
for more efficient fleet management, accurate elevation and
contour mapping), stockpile inventory management, stope
volume calculation, unblocking ore-passes, mine safety (hazard
detection through visual inspection of hard-to-access and

Drone Services Market by Region (USD Billion)
© 2020 MarketsAndMarkets
North America Europe Asia Pacific Middle East
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Figure 1. Drone Services projected market growth by global region.
Source: MarketsandMarkets
Figure 2. Drone view of mine stripping operations.
Image Source: Unsplash, Shane McLendon and JohnnyMclendon.com
high traffic areas), mine search and rescue, mineral zone
identification, 3D and landscape mapping, construction
and facilities management, slope stability and geotechnical
characterization, rock fragmentation, gas detection, subsidence
monitoring, revegetation monitoring, and tailings, acid drainage,
and environment monitoring.
In the summer of 2020, Kespry – provider of the drone-based
aerial intelligence Kespry Perception Analytics (KPA) platform
– reported that the Shelly Company of Ohio is using drones
to streamline mine planning and inventory management tasks
at their limestone, sand, and gravel quarries. For example,
the company needs to provide accurate quotes to their
stakeholders.
Drones are flown before and after the stripping operation (Figure
2), to ensure the required amount of material has been moved.
Drones also help improve safety in the mines. They reduce the
need to send human operators to potentially unsafe areas, such
as the toes and crests of highwalls, step on unstable ground,
or work close to mobile equipment.
Operations are using indoor drones for inspection and mapping
applications. Elios 2 by Flyability is one such drone that is
housed inside a decoupled cage to absorb collision impacts
when operating in a tight and hard to reach spaces such
as pressure vessels, boiler rooms, pipelines, and chimneys
Page 116 Vol 25, 3 2020
64
RoW
2023 2025-p
Figure 3. Drone in a tethered cage for confined space operations.
Image Source: Flyability
Figure 4. Underground space inspection drone view - Elios 2 Control Unit Display
(Figure 3). The device is also being tested in underground
mining operations for visual inspection of unsafe areas and 3D
mapping of stopes and large openings.
In a case study conducted at the Golden Sunlight Mine, Elios
2 was used to inspect the condition inside several stopes (for
example loose rock as large as a small car blocking the ore
pass) and to identify whether valuable ore is left behind (Figure
4). Flyability reports that the drone’s lighting system provided
sufficient lighting to navigate through the largest spaces,
and the protective cage prevented damage to the rotors and
sensors during collision with metallic wires and ground support
bolts. The operators were able to fly Elios 2 close to the floor
of the stope along the body of the ore, and study geological
structures and the dilution resulting from the mixing of ore and
waste rock.
Hovermap is a solution developed by the Australian startup
Emesent that allows drones to fly unassisted in dark and tight
quarters, especially underground where no GPS signal is
available (Figure 5).
Wingtra’s vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) drones are used
in the mining industry equipped with visual, LIDAR, ultra-wide
band radar, magnetic and hyperspectral sensors. The data
from these sensors are converted to 3D maps, 3D point clouds,
3D textured mesh, orthomosaic maps, 3D models, volume
 Page 117
Figure 5. Hovermap image of a difficult to access mine level cavity.
Note the drone trail shown in the 3D image
Source: https://www.emesent.io/resource-library/
estimation, mineral zone identification, safety berm heights,
haul road boundaries, crests’ and toes’ length, width, and
elevation changes, and highlight potential threats with the help
of advanced photogrammetry, mining, and machine learning
software.
Mines have diversified the way they operate to attract hundreds
or thousands of visitors every year. The North Georgia gold
mine was discovered in 1828 in Dahlonega and is believed to
be the first operation to attempt a methodical approach to deep
underground mining in the eastern United States. The mine is
no longer active; however, it continues to give tours to many
Figure 6. Underwater drone ready to be deployed at North Georgia Mine
Source: https://accesswdun.com/article/2020/9/941123/drone-technology-uncovers-
the-history-of-a-north-georgia-mine
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 7. Drone-Based Solutions in Life of Mine Cycle
Source: Tata Consultancy Services
visitors and tourists every year. Since the summer of 2020, an
expansion project is underway to take visitors deeper into the
mine. For nearly a hundred years, no one has set foot in lower
levels of the mine, with some areas completely submerged
in water. The mine owners began to survey the inaccessible
areas with the help of a drone company, Inspired Intelligence.
Aerial and underwater drones (Figure 6) are used to produce an
accurate 3D map of the entire mine, which until now, could only
have been inferred from miner’s journals and old newspapers
(Sizemore, 2020).
A quick survey of the literature reveals that the mining industry
in general (metal, non-metal, coal, and industrial minerals
sectors) is embracing the fourth industrial revolution, including
the internet of things, data analytics, machine learning, and
cloud computing. Figure 7. summarizes drone-based solutions,
and their relative importance, in the life of mine cycle.
Mining is a multifaceted business and highly depends on a
fast turnaround time from extraction to sales. It is clear that
drones will play an increasingly important role in streamlining
mining processes, resulting in higher productivity and cost-saving
opportunities.
References
Lee, S.; Choi, Y. Reviews of unmanned aerial vehicle (drone)
technology trends and its applications in the mining industry.
Geosystem Engineering, 2016, 19, 197–204
Sizemore, K., 2020 - Drone technology uncovers the history of a
North Georgia mine. accessWDUN website https://accesswdun.
com/article/2020/9/941123/drone-technology-uncovers-the-history-
of-a-north-georgia-mine
Tata Consultancy Services. Reaching for the Sky: Using Drones
to Propel the Mining Industry Forward, White Paper, 2018.
Page 118 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 119 Vol 25, 3 2020

The Rapsodia UAV

Magnetometry Case History
José R. Arce
Arce Geofísicos S.A.C.
Lima, Perú
josearce@geofisicos.com.pe
Bio
Jesús A. García
Arce Geofísicos S.A.C.
Lima, Perú
jgarcia@geofisicos.com.pe
Bio
Figure 1. Survey Location. A) General Location. B) Survey Lines.
Rodríguez, Julián R. (2)
Geoscan Ingeniería S.A.S.
Bogotá, Colombia
jrodriguez@geoscan.com.co
Bio

Abstract
Magnetic surveys have been widely used in mineral exploration
for many decades as a mean of obtaining structural and
geological information. Airborne magnetic surveys are quite
common providing large areal coverage over a short span of
time, but require complex logistics involving aircraft (helicopter
or fixed wing), fuel licenses and transportation, as well as
complex health and safety concerns. An alternative is to do
ground magnetometer surveys but field production is not as
efficient as with airborne surveys. The necessity to obtain
high resolution magnetic information over intermediate-size
areas that could be considered too large for ground work
production and too small to justify aircraft logistics, has opened
the possibility of using drones as the magnetic sensor carriers.

Introduction and Survey Area

Freeport-McMoRan (FMI) is one of the senior mining corporations
in the world leading the use of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
magnetometer surveys projects. In January 2020, and as part of
their exploration programs, FMI commissioned Arce Geofísicos Figure 2. Geological Map for the Rapsodia project (Source: Ingemmet). The red
polygon denotes the geophysical survey area. Red formations are Acarí diorites
to conduct a survey for their Rapsodia project in Southern Perú.
from the Coastal Batholith. Green formations represent Huallhuani sandstones. Both
The survey was conducted for FMI’s Peruvian subsidiary, rock types are Cretacious in age.

Exploraciones Antakana S.A.C. and the area is located next

to the city of Bella Unión in Arequipa, approximately 570
kilometers South of Lima, accessible through the Panamerican
Highway.
Rapsodia is located in the Peruvian Coastal Batholith region. The
Cretaceous age batholith consists of the Acai diorite intruding
into the early Cretaceous Huallhuani formation, composed of
quartz sandstones with interbedded grey limolites.
Survey design and flight
parameters
The survey consisted of an original plan of 916 line kilometers
of North-South profiles with a line separation of 100 meters,
of which 832 kilometers was completed. The area was split
multiple blocks with 2 to 3 kilometers length, considering that
the maximum flying time was around 25 minutes and between
 Page 120
Figure 3. Digital Terrain Model (DTM) and Survey Blocks. Map resolution of 10m
(Source: Intermap Netxmap World 10). The survey blocks represent the different
pads used in the survey plan and red triangles are the flight bases.
10 and 15 kilometers per flight, depending of the terrain,
weather and battery performance. Figure 3 shows the blocks
and takeoff and landing base locations used at the project.
The survey was performed over 18 days of production,
considering 4 additional days of mobilization/demobilization
and travel time from Lima. The crew consisted of 1 geophysicist
and drone pilot, 1 field geophysicist QC, 1 geophysicist operator,
4 local helpers and 1 senior geophysicist based in Lima.
The daily production was:
Minimum: 9.12km per day
Maximum: 95.22 km per day
Average: 46.26 km per day
Mission planning and monitoring
The UAV used was a quadricopter manufactured and
customized by BFD Systems 1400-SE8, powered by 4 LiPo
batteries of 22000 mA/h capacity each, with a flight computer
on board from Ardupilot (Cube) and 8 weather sealed motors,
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 4. Equipment used in Rapsodia. A). BFD Systems 1400-SE8 UAV System. B)
GEM Systems Airbird sensor.
which provide up to 26 minutes endurance flight time, using a
maximum payload of 12.25 kg in normal conditions (Figure 4A).
In addition, the copter has a laser altimeter with a maximum
measuring height of 100m.
A high precision potassium-vapor GEM Systems magnetometer
was used. This sensor was part of the GEM Airbird towing
system (Figure 4B). This sensor offers very high sensitivity with
small heading error with an absolute accuracy of 0.1nT and
sampling rate of 10Hz. The Airbird ensured a smooth operation
and high quality readings due to its mechanical stability and
aerodynamics.
The survey area was provided by the client to prepare the
survey plan and flight lines. Based on the terrain access and
station locations, the survey area was split into several polygon
zones, exported to kml and used to create the flight mission
plan using the UgCS software version 3.4.609. The following
parameters were considered:
Line separation: 100m
Flight height: 40m ~ 50m ground clearance.
Extended distance outside each block: 250m to achieve 500m
overlap.
UgCS software allows mission planning in terrain-following
mode, enabling a very-low- flying vehicle to automatically
maintain a relatively constant altitude above ground level, ideal
for this type of surveys. The accuracy of the default SRTM
database of UgCS varies, therefore, the software allows import
a detailed DTM (Digital Terrain Model) for precise and safe flight
altitude control. For the project a DTM with 10m resolution was
purchased from Intermap (https://www.intermap.com/nextmap).
 Page 121
Figure 5. UgCS software environment with a survey block scan mode parameters.
Figure 6. Monitoring Software (Gem Systems, 2016). A) Sensor readings in nT, signal
strength, altitude above ground in meters and other parameters like coordinates,
signal lock indicator, heater indicator, etc. B). Airbird 3D position with yaw, pitch and
roll to denotate rotations in the Z, Y and X axis, respectively (GEM Systems, 2016).
It is critical to have a high resolution DTM prior to commencing
the UAV magnetic survey, particularly in areas with difficult
topography, to increase reliability in terrain following, considering
that lower ground clearance yields better magnetic field
sensitivity and resolution. The flight height programmed in the
survey varied from 40 to 50 meters above ground, considering
the tow cable’s length of 10 meters and uneven topography
in specific areas as well as a desirable flight speed of 15 m/s.
Real time magnetic measurements monitoring was performed
with the Airbird ground control software, which provided not
only sensor readings and field strength, but also laser altimeter
ground clearance.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Acquisition and Data Processing
Quality Control
Before the start of the survey, Geosoft scripts were generated
to make quick quality control and pre-processing of collected
data. During daily QC, it became clear that the best time to
acquire magnetic data was early in the morning; this is mainly
due to the fact that in those hours there is less wind, improving
sensor aerodynamics, obtaining cleaner readings. The best
hours for flight were from 6 AM to PM (noon).
Right after the copter landed in each sortie, survey data were
downloaded from the Airbird using its telemetry communication
and imported into Oasis Montaj for QC. The raw data were
always maintained in its original form in a channel and all further
processing was done in new channels.
There were methods used to handle the field data:
Case 1: Dead-zones. To correct these, a filter was applied
over the channel “L” coming from the raw data, which placed
dummy values at all rows where the logged value was “0”.
These sections or “Dead Zones” of the dataset are caused
by the magnetic sensor coming out of signal-locking range,
usually due to crosswind and low speed performance. In
Figure 7 below, we can see the raw signal (A) with a dead
zone, when the sensor was not coupled with the magnetic field
(lock parameter L=0) and the signal pre-processing once the
unlocked information was filtered and interpolated using the
Akima method (B).
Figure 7. Dead Zones. Zones with unlocked magnetic signal (A) and Signal filtered
and interpolated using the Akima method (B)
As a next step, a fourth difference filter was applied over
all data points exceeding the sensor absolute precision
specification of 0.1nT, in accordance to the manufacturer's
specifications. The fourth difference filter is widely used in
aerial magnetic surveys to identify data noise that exceeded
acceptable parameters.
Case 2: Data Jumps. The magnetic data acquired was very
clean for most of the survey because the sensor was towed with
a 10 meter kevlar cable, far enough from the copter, reducing
magnetic noise effects. However, in presence of crosswind and
rough topography, the sensor makes sudden movements when
climbing up or descending, producing a low speed motion and
velocity changes causing instability in the sensor pitch. For this
case, a jump constant difference was calculated, and the signal
was recovered and interpolated using Akima method when
the distance did not exceed more than 100 meters of ground
distance, otherwise the line would be repeated under better
 Page 122
conditions. Figure 8 shows data jumps with raw and filtered/
interpolated signal.
Figure 8. Data Jumps. Zones with jumps in the magnetic signal (A) and Signal
filtered and interpolated using the Akima method (B)
Corrections
Magnetic field readings were compensated by diurnal drift using
a GEM GSM-19T base station with a proton precession sensor
with GPS incorporated for time synchronization with the Airbird.
Daily base station data was cleaned using a non-lineal filter to
remove spikes produced by geological noise, geomagnetic
storms or sun activity, as part of the daily quality control.
The magnetic heading effect was determined on site by flying
a North-South oriented pattern, at a height of 150 meters over
terrain. At least one pass on each direction was flown over a
recognizable magnetically “flat” feature on the ground to obtain
sufficient statistical information to estimate the heading error.
A heading effect was considered for lines flown from North to
South of -0.331 nT.
A lag test was performed over the data to determine the time
difference between the magnetometer readings and the GPS
System location in the bird, applying 1 meter back, since that is
the distance position between the center of the bird where the
GNSS antenna is located and magnetometer sensor position.
A negative lag will shift the data forward in time, in this case a
lag of -1 fiducial was determined by the average speed channel
(10 m/s), and the magnetometer frequency of 10 Hz.
Microleveling
Since tie-lines where not considered from the beginning of the
survey, the levelling process was not applied, but a microleveling
procedure was used.
Once the data was cleaned and corrected by diurnal, lag and
heading correction, levelling problems were noticed along
survey lines like data shifts in between lines, caused for the most
part by differences in ground clearances in the line overlaps
between blocks. This resulted in responses biased to the used
line orientation as shown in Figure 9. To correct this, an FFT
decorrugation filter was applied to yield a grid that contained
the leveling error; a combination of a Butterworth High-Pass
filter combined with a Directional Cosine filter was used. The
first one, cleaning up the low-frequency noise, and highlighting
the high-frequency trends (Rioul et al., 1991), while the second
one removing directional noise using the flight line azimuth.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 9. Magnetic Levelling of TMI. Pre-levelled Total Magnetic Intensity (A) and
levelled TMI (B).
The resulting grid was an error grid with stripes parallel to the
line direction. The error value was sampled from the grid and
cleaned through a Low Pass filter to separate the high frequency
geological signal from the longer wavelength levelling error
(Geosoft, 2020). A cutoff wavelength of 1000 fiducials were used
(10 times the line separation: 10 x 100m = 1000 fiducials). Once
the error was filtered, this value was subtracted from the original
grid and a leveled grid was obtained as shown in Figure 9B.
Reduction to the magnetic pole
for low latitudes (RTPLL)
The reduction to the pole is a geophysical tool frequently used
to estimate and simplify location, intensity and symmetry of
magnetic anomalies. When a magnetic survey is performed, all
magnetic responses are affected by distortions of their shape, size
and location caused by survey location within magnetic latitudes,
making this procedure an important step to understand results.
Moreover, a standard Reduction to the Pole (RTP) procedure
commonly yields mathematical artifacts when the data was
obtained close to the magnetic Equator (+/- 30 degrees of
magnetic latitude). In this case, an RTPLL was performed (Figure
10) considering an IGRF intensity of 23992.2 nT, a regional field
inclination of -7.3 degrees and a declination of -3.1 degrees.
The strong magnetic anomalies in the Northern area may be
attributed to the presence of Coastal Batholith rocks and the
high zone in the center of the map could be interpreted as the
influence of the Cerro Batidero in contrast with the quaternary
colluvial type deposits.
The South zone is magnetically flat, and characterized by long
wavelength responses attributed to the possible geological
configuration of the basement and the overlying sedimentary
cover.
 Page 123
Figure 10. Tilt Derivative.
Analytic Signal of Vertical
Integration (ASVI)
The ASVI can be defined as the square root of the sum of the
squares of the derivates in the X, Y and Z directions of the
Vertical Integration of the TMI. The objective of this filter is to
better define the edges of magnetic and non-magnetic bodies
that cause the anomalies, and provide a cleaner response than
a standard Analytic Signal calculation.
Tilt Derivative (TDR)
The tilt derivative was quite helpful to map shallow responses
and structures. This filter has the advantage of enhancing and
sharping the magnetic trends yielding geophysical structures.
Geophysical Structures
The TDR map was used for geophysical structural interpretation,
as its theory indicates that the zero contour line will be located
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 11. Analytic Signal of the Vertical Integration.
at or very close to the a fault or geological contact. Tracing the
zero contour line of the TDR map delineates the subsurface
structure of the area and thus drawing possible faults that
characterize the area (Esmat E., et al., 2015).
Two fault systems were distinguished in the survey area; the first
one with a NE-SW orientation following general Andean regional
fault trends, and the second one with a NE-SE orientation.
Regional faults presented in orange were downloaded from
the Geocatmin system of the INGEMMET (Instituto Geológico,
Minero y Metalúrgico of Perú). This public system ( https://
geocatmin.ingemmet.gob.pe) , offers geological and mining
information of Peru and served like starting point to identify
the rest of geophysical structures (black lines) using the TDR
map, as shown in Figure 13.
Magnetic Modelling
An MVI 3D modelling was performed on the magnetic dataset.
One of the main advantages of using an MVI inversion over a
standard magnetic susceptibility inversion is its capability of
obtaining more realistic results when magnetic remanence is
 Page 124 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 13. Structural Interpretation on TDR.

Figure 12. Tilt Derivative.

present in the data. This is why MVI inversions are usually easier
to interpret with local geology than magnetic susceptibility
inversions. An MVI inversion produces for each cell in space, a
vector which indicates direction of magnetization and intensity.
The inversion results may be seen in Figure 14.
The inversion led some interesting results, which are not easily
interpretable from the geological map as most of the area
has quaternary sedimentary cover, except on the Northern
and Northeastern edges of the survey area. The Huallhuani
sandstones in the NE edge have no response in the magnetic
inversion and the Acarí batholith shows as a magnetic high
that is trending East-West and then South East. High amplitude
magnetization responses are seen in the South and South
Eastern areas. Magnetic high responses seem to be forming
into a circular shape with a magnetic low center located under
recent sedimentary cover.

Flight and Survey Safety

When a geophysical survey is carried out, it is of utmost Figure 14. MVI Inversion. A) Resulting vectors from inversion process displaying
orientation and magnetization intensity. B) Amplitude of magnetization in equivalent
importance to operate under the highest standards of safety for SI Units overlaying resulting vectors.
 Page 125
Figure 15. Inversion Shells. Displayed Amplitude of Magnetization ranges are greater
than 0.01. A) shows the geologic map overlaying the inversion, while B) shows a 3D
view of the inversion results in perspective, looking NW.
both the crew and geophysical equipment. A UAV survey is not
the exception, due to the increased hazards and potential risks
associated with the use of an aircraft, particularly in surveys
with difficult topography. Some fundamental aspects have to
be guaranteed, such as good radio telemetry control range,
high-resolution Digital Elevation Model, direct line of sight with
the UAV and a good programming system which makes the
aircraft properly follow terrain with a safe ground clearance.
On February 22th, 2020, during the ferry part of a flight, a crew
member noticed the drone was flying at lower altitude than
expected, and when the pilot tried to get control of the UAV
though the remote controller, there was no communication
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 16. Graphic representation of the accident
between the UAV and both the remote control and base station
radios. A note must be made that there is always a small delay
when sending an emergency command to a UAV and in this
particular case, it would’ve been too late anyway to make the
UAV fly higher or return to base. A description of the accident
is shown in the Figure 16.
When the causes for the accident were analyzed, the crew
noticed that the software did not take into account the DTM
for terrain following between the copter homepoint and the
beginning of the survey lines, in order to keep ground clearance
at a safe level, so the aircraft did not do any terrain draping
in this part of the flight, but maintained a constant altitude,
resulting in a crash 10 meters before reaching the top of a
small hill.
Even though flight programming software allows users to follow
terrain using a previously loaded DEM, these do not consider
waypoints to modify ground clearance automatically in the area
between the base and survey lines. To guarantee a safe flight
an additional waypoint path should be programmed manually
with enough waypoints from the homepoint to the beginning
of the survey line path as well as from the end of the flight to
return to the landing base once the flight is complete. This is
critical for in a project with difficult topography.
Further issues were found regarding the difference between
the DTM purchased online versus the DTM processed by
using the laser altimeter data from the Airbird system, is shown
in Figure 17. The processed DTM is a much smoother and
realistic depiction of the ground morphology, considering the
low and high points when crossing through creeks, where a
major crash may occur due the low flight. Therefore, it is highly
recommended to conduct a lidar or photogrammetric drone
survey to obtain a higher resolution DTM prior to carrying
out any UAV magnetic survey. This will drastically reduce the
possibility of an accident and permit a low ground clearance
flight, which will also improve magnetic sensor resolution.
Conclusions
The UAV magnetic survey in the Rapsodia project provided a
large coverage of line kilometers over a relatively short span of
time. This is particularly useful if there is a time limit to complete
a particular survey.
UAV magnetometer surveys are useful to cover areas that may
 Page 126
Figure 17. Comparison of Commercial (A) and surveyed (B) DTM grids.
be too large for a ground survey and too small to justify the
logistical costs and ferry time of a helicopter borne magnetic
survey.
UAV magnetometer surveys may be performed with small
ground clearances and line separation. They may also be
deployed quickly in comparison to a manned airborne
survey. They may be used to make detailed infill surveys over
existing regional magnetic maps, such as those available from
governments.
This type of survey does have several limitations, particularly
due to civil aviation regulations in various countries where it is
mandatory to keep line of sight with the UAV, sometimes not
to be able to exceed a 1.5km distance. Survey bases need
to be placed in centric locations and in a desirable design
to optimize the survey, but this strongly depends on ground
access and surrounding infrastructure in roads, social permits,
topography and vegetation.
Ground control station software available to run the mission
plan still needs to be improved to safely conduct these type of
surveys. Our accident is a perfect example of the software lacking
some safety features, but these are being constantly improved
as UAV usage is rapidly evolving into several applications.
Survey precision was excellent. The potassium vapor sensor
provided very stable readings with a very small heading error.
The Airbird system provides complete information from the
sensor location, including pitch, roll and yaw, laser altimeter,
accelerometers, and GPS. All this information proves to be quite
useful data during processing and helps explain the dead zones
or jumps.
Due to the accident we suffered, several engineering, software,
and best practice activities have been implemented on the
UAV use, mission planning and use of high resolution DTM
information, to improve safety considerably. A new anti-collision
system is being implemented on the copter as well as a new
telemetry backup system is being added to increase awareness
from the pilot, observers and field geophysicist. The pre-flight
check list has also been improved and expanded.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Freeport McMoRan for the
Vol 25, 3 2020
authorization to use this survey information for this publication.
In particular we would like to thank Mr. Wolfram Schuh and
Mr. Ronald Gutierrez for their support to present this case
history. We would also like to thank Mr. Eugenio Ferrari for his
assistance with the geological map presented here.
References
Arce, J.R., 2020, Total Field Magnetometry Survey with
Unmanned Aircraft System (AG-DMAG), Rapsodia Project,
Perú. Report #1325-20. Exploraciones Antakana S.A.C.
Esmat A.E.A., Ahmed K., Taha R., Salah O., 2015. Geophysical
contribution to evaluate the subsurface structural setting using
magnetic and geothermal data in El-Bahariya Oasis, Western
Desert, Egypt. NRIAG Journal of Astronomy and Geophysics,
11722 Helwan, Cairo, Egypt.
Gem Systems, 2016. GEM Data Acquisition System for UAV-
TOW, PC Operational Manual, p.11-12.
Geosoft Inc., 2020. Application Help.
Instituto Geológico Minero y Metalúrgico (INGEMMET),
Geocatmin National Geological Maps. Acarí sheet, 31n, 1978.
Rioul, O., & Vetterli, M., 1991. Wavelets and Signal Processing.
IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, v.8(4), p.14-38.
Author Bios
José R. Arce
Arce Geofísicos SAC
Lima, Perú
josearce@geofisicos.com.pe
José R. Arce graduated with a Bachelors of Science degree in
Geology and Geophysics in 1991 from the University of Missouri
Rolla and completed a Masters of Science degree in Geophysical
Engineering from the University of Arizona in 1993. He has worked
in Arce Geofísicos since his return to Perú in mid 1993 and has
completed over 950 surveys and consulting studies since in
mining, geotechnical and groundwater geophysics. He has been
involved in applying and developing geophysical techniques
and applications with experience spanning from North to South
America.
 Page 127
Jesús A. García
Arce Geofísicos SAC
Lima, Perú
jgarcia@geofisicos.com.pe
Jesús A. García graduated in Geophysical Engineering in
2014 from the Universidad Central de Venezuela. He made his
internship in Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), taking part in
projects where were applied various geophysical methods for the
exploration of the Orinoco Oil Belt, Venezuela. He worked for a
year in the Vice-Ministry of Gas in Venezuela, where was involved
in projects for the harnessing of the natural gas. He has been
working in Arce Geofísicos since 2019 processing geophysical
data in mineral, geotechnical and groundwater exploration in
Perú, Colombia y Nicaragua.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Julián Rodriguez
Geoscan Ingeniería SAS
Bogota, Colombia
jrodriguez@geoscan.com.co
Julian R. Rodriguez graduated with a Bachelor’s degree in land
surveying engineering in 2007 and completed a postgraduate
degree in Geographic Information Systems in 2009 from the
Distrital University Francisco Jose de Caldas, in Bogota.
Professional and licensed pilot in UAV since 2016, working in
several drone projects with drone lidar and photogrammetric
projects, and recently working with drone magnetics surveys with
Arce Geofisicos SAC in Peru in 2019 and 2020. He worked in the
major mining company AngloGold Ashanti from 2008 to 2019 as
professional geophysicist, taking part in successful exploration
programs looking for gold and copper across Colombia, Brazil and
Argentina; participated and supported the highlighted discoveries
of the “La Colosa” gold porphyry project and “Nuevo Chaquiro”
copper porphyry project. He has experience in field acquisition,
processing and interpretation of airborne magnetic and radiometric
surveys, ground magnetics and induced polarization studies.
Page 128 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 129
UXO Community
Geophysics News
Jeff Leberfinger, PGp, PG
jleberfinger@pikainc.com
Welcome to the UXO Geophysics
Community News column. In this issue
you will read contributions about the
the rescheduled 1st Munition Response
Meeting, and news on the 2020
SERDP/ESTCP Symposium Munitions
Response program.
An accompanying article to the column
“Effective UAS Terrain Following for
UXO Magnetometry” details how drones have been enabled
to fly close enough to the ground to effectively carry out UXO
magnetometry.
If you wish to contribute to the column please send your article
to jleberfinger@pikainc.com Best Practices Training Seminars
on Seequent’s Oasis montaj and
SAGEEP 2020 and 1st Munitions
Other Geoscience Extensions
Response Meeting
As many of you know due to COVID-19 the 1 st Munitions
Response Meeting which was scheduled for this spring in
Denver, Colorado was rescheduled to March 14th - 18th, 2021
at the same venue in Denver. The meeting planning committee
is working on updating the 16 scheduled sessions with over
70 Munitions Response (MR) related presentations on a wide
variety of MR topics.
NAOC is continuing to partner with the Environmental and
Engineering Geophysical Society (EEGS) and European
Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) to offer
Vol 25, 3 2020
the meeting in conjunction with the Symposium on the
Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental
Problems (SAGEEP). John Jackson (USACE CX) and myself will
continue as the technical chairs for the 1st Munitions Response
Meeting. New and updated abstracts will be requested in early
fall. Additional information on the rescheduled meeting and
frequently asked questions can be found at www.sageep.org.
2020 SERDP/ESTCP
Symposium
The 2020 SERDP and ESTCP Symposium is going virtual this
year. The Symposium will continue as a virtual conference the
week of November 30, 2020 - December 4, 2020 in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic. Brian Harre from the Naval Facilities
Engineering and Expeditionary Warfare Center (EXWC) will
chair a session on “Lessons Learned from Remediation of
Sites Containing UXO”. Visit the Symposium website to learn
more about the technical sessions, short courses and poster
sessions that will be offered online the week of November 30:
https://www.symposium.serdp-estcp.org#SerdpEstcp2020
This fall, Seequent is providing a series of training seminars to
Improve your skills or get a refresher in Seequent solutions. Join
the instructor-led remote courses to learn how you can quickly
and effectively gain insights from your geoscience data. You
can find additional information or registered at the following
link: https://www.seequent.com/events/
Airborne Magnetic QC & Levelling
September 8-10 | 12:30pm - 4:30pm EDT | $675 CAD |
VOXI TDEM Workshop
September 29-30 | 12:30pm - 4:30pm EDT | $450 CAD |
Oasis montaj Fundamentals
October 6-7 | 1:00pm - 5:00pm EDT | $350 USD |
UX-Analyze Fundamentals
October 19-22 | 1:00pm - 5:00pm | $700 USD |
UAV Geophysics for Environmental Applications
November 17-18 | 1:00pm - 5:00pm | $350 USD |
Seequent’s Lyceum Virtual Event
– September 23rd, 2020
Seequent’s Lyceum event is now open for registration. The
geoscience community has never been more interconnected
 Page 130 Vol 25, 3 2020

with teams working together remotely to make confident
decisions when it matters most, across civil infrastructure,
mining and exploration, environmental, and energy challenges.
This year Seequent is bringing a new experience to their
customers - an online Lyceum event that they can tune into
from anywhere in the world.
Join Rina Hartmann and the Seequent team virtually on
September 23rd to explore how technology and connection
are playing an important role now and into the future. Meet other
geoscientists across various industries, hear thought-provoking
and relevant talks, and connect with the Seequent staff. Virtual
solution zones will showcase Seequent’s portfolio of products
including Leapfrog, Oasis montaj, GeoStudio, Central and more.
With live streaming, attendee match-making, and solution zone
areas Seequent expects this year’s virtual Lyceum to be a hit!
Register now to receive regular email updates announcing
speakers, networking opportunities and more: https://www.
seequent.com/community/events/lyceum/

FastTIMES Vol 25, 5 December 2020 -

Special Issue on Munition Response Geophysics
Call for contributions - Draft Copy
Deadline: November 27, 2020
The December 2020 issue of FastTimes will be a Special Issue on Munitions Response
Geophysics. The planned issue will provide papers with topics on land, water, and drone
geophysical methods for munitions response projects. If you are interested in contributing a
primary article for FastTimes or a shorter ½ -2 page article to the UXO column please contact
the issue Guest Co-Editor’s Jeffrey Leberfinger (jleberfinger@pikainc.com) or (john.m.jackson@
usace.army.mil). For a look at the 2018 FastTimes Special Issue: UXO Geophysics go to
https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue. Also contact jleberfinger@pikainc.com for information on
advertising opportunities, if interested in advertising in this December’s issue.
 Page 131 Vol 25, 3 2020

A GLOBAL LEADER IN
MUNITIONS RESPONSE

More than

20
ABOUT US of representing
NAOC is an industry trade association representing companies who
companies who perform munitions response perform munitions
services, both in the United States and response and
related Services

Years
internationally. The membership of NAOC promotes
efficient, quality project execution while putting the
highest emphasis on workforce safety and
protection of the public and environment.

STRUCTURE
• NAOC is a not-for-profit, tax-exempt corporation
• Membership is open to all companies, domestic and International
• Officers: President; Vice-President; Secretary and Treasurer
• 11 Board of Director Members
• Committees: Government Affairs, Member Services, Operations &
Standards, Technology, and Small Business
• Dues structure for membership is according to company
revenues and size

HISTORY
• Established on February 22, 1995
• 21 Founding Members, who were all UXO service providers
• Comprised of more than 80 companies representing multiple
facets of the industry

HIGHLIGHTS
For more information visit:
www.naoc.org
• Annual General Membership Meeting: Speaker sessions and
workshops including high-level government speakers from the
Department of Defense and international organizations,
discussing a broad range of topics of interest such as safety,
quality, contracting, and regulatory issues.
• Annual Fly-In: Meetings on Capitol Hill with key representatives
from Federal Agencies to discuss the MMRP and program funding
• Opportunities for early review and to provide comments and input
on DoD documents and policies relating to MMRP work
• Receive early distribution of the latest MMRP information
 Page 132 Vol 25, 3 2020

Effective UAS Terrain

Following for UXO
Magnetometry
Martin Helmke, PhD, PG
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
West Chester
Pennsylvania, USA
mhelmke@wcupa.edu
Bio
Figure 1. The two heavy-lift UAS platforms equipped with radar terrain rangefinders
Gregory Schultz, PhD were the Pixhawk Cube DJI S1000 with Ainstein US-D1 (left) and DJI Matrice 600
Pro with the UgCS/Nanoradar NRA24 (right). The radar rangefinders are located on
White River Technologies, Inc. the front left arm of each aircraft. 1 meter for scale.
Lebanon We tested two radar altimeter systems on UASs, both with
New Hampshire. USA encouraging results (Figure 1). First, we used the UgCS SkyHub
schultz@whiterivertech.com system with a Nanoradar NRA24 rangefinder on a DJI Matrice
Bio 600 Pro UAS. This system, developed by SPH Engineering
in Latvia, employs their UgCS software and an on-board
Unmanned aerial systems (UASs) provide an effective platform
computer to send flight adjustments to the flight controller
for deploying magnetometers and other sensors to locate
using the DJI SDK protocol. To our knowledge this is the only
unexploded ordnance (UXO) rapidly and safely. Detecting small
commercially available radar terrain following package for DJI
(<100mm) UXO targets, however, requires a tight (<5 m) grid
drones. Second, we constructed our own UAS using a Pixhawk
spacing, flying the sensor close to the ground surface (1 m),
Cube flight controller on a DJI S1000 airframe equipped with an
stable autonomous flight maneuvers, and excellent positional
Ainstein US-D1 radar rangefinder. Both systems were capable of
accuracy (<1 m). This presents a significant challenge for both
maintaining a magnetometer payload suspended 30 cm above
hardware and the UAS operator.
ground or water at a velocity of 2 m/s (Figure 2). The UgCS
One option is to employ high-resolution digital terrain following product is readily available for DJI enterprise-level drones.
for autonomous missions. This requires a flight plan constrained The Pixhawk Cube affords more flexibility than the DJI flight
by a digital elevation model (DEM) of sufficient detail to include controller and is used by many heavy lift UAS manufacturers
all obstacles and topographic changes greater than 10 cm. Most in the United States. However, it requires substantial hardware
UAS terrain following systems rely on Shuttle Radar Topography and software knowledge to install and operate.
Mission (SRTM) data with a 30 m resolution, which is too
coarse for this purpose. Site-specific UAS photogrammetry
and/or LiDAR mapping could be used to produce a sufficient
DEM. However, a flight area with moderate topographic relief
could require thousands of waypoints to maintain a constant
height above the ground or objects. Such a large number of
waypoints would require time-consuming processing on the
UAS and would likely exceed hardware limitations (the DJI
Matrice 600 Pro UAS, for example, is limited to 99 waypoints).
A DEM terrain following approach at this altitude with 10 cm
positioning accuracy would also require RTK GPS.
A more practical option is to use an on-board sensor that
automatically maintains above ground altitude during flight for
terrain following. Most UAS rely on barometric altitude, which is
only accurate to 3 m. UAS equipped with downward facing 24
GHz radar rangefinders, on the other hand, are capable of flying
autonomous missions with an above ground accuracy of 10 cm.
Radar sensors perform better than LiDAR rangefinders under these
conditions because they are less susceptible to interference caused
by shaking plants and water ripples generated by propwash. At
greater flight altitudes (> 45 m above ground), LiDAR rangefinders
may be more appropriate due to their superior range. Figure 2. Field testing in New Hampshire
 Page 133
The UAS terrain following system was tested at a bog in New
Hampshire using an experimental magnetometer payload
provided by White River Technologies. The variable-density
vegetation and transition from land, bog, and open water
provided challenging and realistic flight conditions. Inert
(deactivated) UXO targets were placed within a 10 m by 50 m
area and flown with a 1.5 m grid spacing at 3 m above ground
altitude (sensor 1.5 m above ground/water). The UAS followed
the terrain well, smoothly transitioning between the 1 m thick
shrubs to open water. The accurate, autonomous flight lines
and uniform above-ground/water altitude facilitated reliable
target detection by the airborne magnetometer (Figure 3).
Figure 3 Top magnetic image of a buried target UXO item.
Bottom left – various test target UXO items. Bottom right – drones-eye view of the
magnetometer payload
This project demonstrates that a UAS equipped with a radar
rangefinder and magnetometer is an effective tool for detecting
UXO in environments that would otherwise be difficult or
dangerous to survey by traditional ground-based methods.
More complex terrain with obstacles may require a combination
of high-resolution DEM modeling in addition to radar terrain
following. Similar methods should work well for deploying
other geophysical instruments by UAS, including EM and
GPR. Although employing these techniques requires an
experienced UAS operator, the technology has clearly evolved
to a point where UASs are capable of conducting autonomous
geophysical surveys at sub-meter altitudes.
This research was funded in part by the SERDP-ESTCP
program, project MR19-5212.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Author Bios
Martin Helmke, PhD, PG
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
750 S. Church St.
West Chester, PA 19383
mhelmke@wcupa.edu
Dr. Helmke is a Full Professor of Hydrogeology in the Department
of Earth and Space Sciences at West Chester University of
Pennsylvania, President of Helmke Hydrogeologic, LLC, and
Past President of the Pennsylvania Council of Professional
Geologists. He is an FAA-licensed drone pilot with over 20
years of experience applying fixed-wing and multi-rotor UAVs
for scientific research and commercial clients. He is a scientific
advisor to Groundwater and Environmental Services, Inc’s
UAV services program. Current research projects include
UAV magnetometer deployment strategies to map UXO and
pipelines, multi-instrument detection of abandoned petroleum
wells, multispectral fracture trace analysis, and geophysical
characterization of sinkholes and subsidence.
Gregory Schultz, Ph.D.
White River Technologies, Inc.
115 Etna Road, Bldg. 3 Ste 1
Lebanon, New Hampshire 03766
schultz@whiterivertech.com
Dr. Schultz is the Chief Technology Officer at White River
Technologies, Inc. and Principal Investigator for geophysical
system DOD research and development programs such as the
ESTCP project MR19-5212. He has 18 years of experience
with autonomous sensing, geophysical data processing and
inversion, simulation, and implementation of miniaturized
magnetometers in ordnance clearance, infrastructure, and
environmental applications. He is leading multiple efforts
to integrate advanced magnetometer and electromagnetic
sensor payloads on a variety of unmanned systems including
autonomous fixed wing and rotary aircraft and autonomous
underwater systems.
 Page 134 Vol 25, 3 2020

Multicopter-based Pentamag that the system prototype is fully functional in an operational

environment. As result the multicopter borne Pentamag system
system proves out realistic is capable for detecting and locating objects of sizes of at least
3.7cm.
performance metrics
Johannes B. Stoll Introduction
Mobile Geophysical Technologies, GmbH Multicopter borne geomagnetics has the potential to effectively
Celle, Germany and efficiently cover large tracts of land and wide areas for
jstoll@mgt-geo.com the purpose of screening and identifying areas that potentially
Bio contain unexploded ordnance (UXO). Large areas across many
countries are potentially contaminated with UXO, with some
Thomas Kordes ranges encompassing tens to hundreds of thousands of hectares.
Aerialis GbR Ultimately, safe clearance of contaminated areas requires a standoff
Bremerhaven, Germany or an unmanned, remote detection capability due to the inherently
info@aerialis.de unsafe nature of UXO. Technologies are needed which will allow
Bio for cost effective wide area scanning with near 100% coverage
and near 100% detection of subsurface ordnances. But current
Rolf Noellenburg sensor systems have very limited capabilities to discriminate clutter
Aerialis GbR from UXO. As a result, nearly every anomaly must be excavated
Bremerhaven, Germany to determine if it is, in fact, an UXO.
info@aerialis.de Current technologies, either walking on ground or manned
Bio helicopter, can achieve these requirements. Two manned helicopter
based systems have been developed over the past decades in
Anders Jepsen the USA, the ORAGS (Oak Ridge Airborne Geophysical System)
Exploration For Humanity system developed by Oakridge National Lab (Doll et al. 2001;
Walnut Creek Gamey et al. 2003) and the Multisensor Towed Array Detection
Califonia, USA System (MTADS) system developed by the Naval Research
jepsen@explorationforhumanity.org Laboratory (Nelson et al. 2004). Both systems are similar in design,
Bio consisting of a boom equipped with a number of cesium vapor
magnetometers mounted in the front of a manned helicopter. But
these systems are not cost effective, dangerous to operate, and
the associated economics make it impossible for potential clients
Abstract to apply universally.
The Pentamag is the next generation of magnetic field sensors In order to be effective for small UXO detection, the sensing altitude
designed by Mobile Geophysical Technologies of Germany for magnetic site investigations needs to be on the order of 1 – 2
specifically to be carried by a custom-designed octocopter in a meters above ground level (AGL). An unmanned aerial vehicle
survey pattern close enough to the ground to detect and accurately (UAV) magnetometer platform is an obvious alternative to ground
locate small metal objects, e.g. unexploded ordnances (UXO). magnetic measurements or manned helicopters. The motivation
This system carries an array of five fluxgate magnetic sensors in behind such a system is that it is safer for the operators, cheaper
a linear array. An earlier system, with a 2- fluxgate magnetometer in initial and operational costs, and more effective in terms of site
array, has already been shown as a tool that can be useful to detect characterization. Key features of our proposed system are:
and accurately locate UXO. The Pentamag system is specifically 1. The availability of a customized octocopter platform
designed with RTK location accuracy and for operation close to the with autonomous flight capability, payload capacity and
ground to sense small metal objects. The magnetometer system endurance
is integrated into a specifically designed octocopter that can
2. assembling of five fluxgate magnetometers on this
operate in survey mode for up to 25 minutes. Standard operational
octocopter instead of only one or two sensors, which
procedure is to specify a series of GPS locations to represent a
considerably enhances the resolution and detectability of
regular survey, including both location and elevation above grade,
small objects
based on a lidar system to guide elevation control.
3. the low power consumption of the five sensors and ancillary
Testing of the performance of this system was carried out on a
systems, which is negligible compared to the power ratings
military test facility in Northern Germany, on which more than 50
of the octocopter
metal objects (amunition) were buried at known locations and
depths. The size of the area is about 1 hectare. The time needed 4. a positioning system which encompasses RTK accuracy
to screen this area was about 20min. The field test demonstrated for accurate localization of objects
 Page 135 Vol 25, 3 2020

5. a laser altimeter that controls the flight altitude enabling Discrimination to date discrimination of different types
flight operations with a ground clearance of about 1m. This of UXO is not feasible via geomagnetic
ability is a key feature for maintaining low flight altitudes measurements.
above ground.
The ideal multicopter magnetometer system should allow for the
effective and accurate detection of metal objects of concern. The Pentamag System:
Flight operations should be done by the acquisition of regularly
spaced values of the magnetic field as closely as possible to the Autonomous UAV-Mag System
ground. Here we demonstrate that the Pentamag owns these
X810 OCTOCOPTER
capabilities. We have invested much time and effort to:
The Pentamag system allows for the effective and high
(1) improve the in-flight sensor resolution, sensor temperature
confidence detection of munitions of concern. Using five
stability and the reduction of sensor weight
fluxgate sensors in a linear array, the Pentamag system acquires
(2) d
 esign and build an octocopter optimized for the deployment regularly spaced values of the magnetic field as closely as
of five magnetometers and maximizing the endurance for possible to the munitions of concern. But the measured and
this payload reported magnetic field typically differs from the true magnetic
(3) integrate a laser altimeter to maintain a constant altitude of field due to a variety of factors, including:
the UAV and sensor package above the ground level 1. positioning error (i.e., we report a datapoint at a different
(4) e
 nsure that the total weight of the system does not exceed point than where it is truly recorded)
10 kg. In this configuration, this system is very flexible and 2. sensor related effects, specifically heading error
can be used worldwide. This UAV category requires less
3. magnetic interferences generated by the multicopter platform
effort to successfully apply for a flight permission and to
receive export permissions for most countries. The airborne magnetometer system requires the mounting of
the magnetometer on a UAV and the integration of this payload
(5) T
 he data acquisition system shall allow highly advanced
with the UAV infrastructure.
positioning and synchronization of the position and magnetic
data. The sample rate shall be at least 100Hz. We developed an octocopter (8 engines) specifically designed
and manufactured by Aerialis GbR in Bremerhaven/Germany.
The detection and delineation of UXO places many highly
Figure 1 shows the complete system, consisting of the
demanding requirements on the measuring system:
octocopter with the GPS receiver on top of the drone and the
The ideal system needs to demonstrate near 100% detection assemblage of the five magnetometers, which are mounted on
over all terrains with very limited false alarms. This is not a a horizontal boom slung 1.50m below the octocopter.
technically feasible goal even for ground based systems.
Therefore, a series of thresholds and requirements will be
established to demonstrate a leap ahead in the capabilities
and performance over current capabilities.
Detection define a minimum size of object, that can
threshold be clearly detected by the UAV airborne
system. In this study we prove that we
can locate metal objects with a caliber of
3.7cm.
Accuracy RTK capabilities allow for 0.1m accuracy,
this is the accuracy that needs to be
achievable for data reacquisition
Cost rates Depending on the daily production rate,
a cost rate of a few cents per square is
achievable.
Production Depending on the terrain, a daily
rate production rate of 10 hectares is feasible.
The line spacing is 2m and the data
density is 5 magnetic tracks per 2m. This
corresponds to 75 data points per square
meter.
Accessibility Get access to all scenarios encountered at
Figure 1 Octocopter carrying five fluxgate magnetometers. The vertical bar is 1.50m
sites long. The horizontal boom is 2m wide. The sensors are equally spaced at 50cm.
 Page 136 Vol 25, 3 2020

The following Table 1 shows the key technical specifications

of the octocopter.
Table 1: Technical specifications of the octocopter

Type of UAV Octocopter X810 (8 electric motors), X4

coaxial configuration
Autopilot The multicopter can be operated in
various modes:
a) manual mode, b) GPS Position Hold, c)
autonomous Navigation. Figure 3: Three-component fluxgate magnetometer and data acquisition system
Terrain Following Mode, Low Voltage
Protection, Homing function & Auto compensated magnetic field sensor is built up of self-manufactured
Landing low noise ring cores and a self-supporting Helmholtz coil system.
The innovative design of the circuit boards and the ring cores
max speed Vertical: 2-5m/s Horizontal: 15m/s
reduces noise and temperature drift to a minimum and improves
empty weight 4.1kg (2 batteries 4.4kg) long term stability. The magnetometer is a stand-alone instrument.
maximum 6,5 kg (@ 15,0 kg MTOW) Table 2 shows the main technical specifications
payload Table 2: technical specifications of the fluxgate
endurance 25 min @ 3.3kg payload (Pentamag system) magnetometer system
personnel 1 – 2 operators Field range ± 65 μT
ADC 2x 16 bitt
temperature, -5°C to +50°C, 0% - 90% RH (non
Resolution 10 pT
humidity condensing)
Power supply 5 VDC
wind < 8 m/s (17,9 mph / 28,8 km/h) Power consumption Minimum: 1.4 W (1 Sensor) @5VDC
distance data link range: ≤ 1 km (@ 2.4 GHz, visual Sample rate 1, 10, 50, 100 Hz
line-of-sight) Data storage SD Card (4Gbyte)
Data format ASCII, binary
maximum take- ~ 2.500 m (in standard configuration)
Weight ca. 220 g
off elevation
Dimensions 16cm X 6cm X 3cm (LWH)
The endurance is an important issue in commercial applications. Time and Position GPS-receiver
The endurance depends on the power consumption of the Synchronization Internal high precision clock
propulsion system, and the flight time is limited due to the Sensor construction self-supporting Helmholtz coil
limited energy storage capacity. In addition to the propulsion system
system, the drag and weight of the multicopter strongly affect Sensor size Height 40mm
the flight time. Figure 2 shows the endurance as a function of Cover Ø 50 mm
the payload derived from a synthetic multicopter model for Socket Ø 67 mm
given components (battery specifications and discharge, power Sensor weight 105 g
consumption, motors and propellers). Noise < 10pT/VHz
Long-term stability < 10 nT per year
Orientation X, Y, Z
Range ±65 μT
Orthogonality <0.02°
Temperature range -20 to +75 °C

The magnetometer system uses a ublox NEO-M8N GPS receiver,

Figure 2: Endurance vs. payload capacity estimated for the octocopter X810 (8
engines). The X810 was specifically designed to carry the Pentamag system. The
sensors weighs about 3.3kg. In this configuration it allows a flight time of 25min. A
SingleMag system weighs about 1 kg.
FLUXGATE MAGNETOMETER
The Digital Fluxgate Magnetometer which is used for the Pentamag
system is a three component, high precision, low noise vector
magnetometer (Figure 3). The small-sized, lightweight vector
which outputs the latitude, longitude, altitude and UTC time. The
sample rate can be selected between 1, 5, 10, 50, and 100 Hz.
The accuracy of the position critically depends on the number
of satellites available at a time. Several tests suggest that the
absolute accuracy of the horizontal position derived from the GPS
is in the order of 1.5 m and about 2 m for the vertical position.
We implemented a GPS device that would allow to achieve
RTK-accuracy (Real-Time Kinematics). An algorithm is applied
for processing measurements made from satellite navigation
systems to compute differential positioning using carrier phase
measurements through post-processing of satellite data.
 Page 137
COMPENSATION OF MOTION INDUCED EFFECTS
Fluxgate magnetometers are widely used in many applications
due to their low power ratings, small dimensions and their light
weight. Therefore, it is the sensor of choice for deployment on
multicopters. If several sensors shall be deployed at the same time
on a multicopter, the total weight and the power consumption of the
complete system are key. The main reason for using five sensors
is to significantly increase the detectability of small metal objects
in the soil. It is expected that an array of five sensors will enhance
Bx, By, Bz [nT]
the resolution and considerably leverages the production rate.
However, fluxgate magnetometers differ significantly from other
magnetometers used in geophysical exploration, e.g. optically
pumped magnetometer. Fluxgate magnetometers cannot
measure the absolute magnetic field. It, therefore, requires
calibration using a total field magnetometer, e.g. Cs-vapor or
proton magnetometer. Fluxgate magnetometers measure the
magnetic field using three components. The difficulty is that even
small differences in the physical design of the three components
cause significant directional dependence of the total intensity of
the earth's magnetic field. These differences must be eliminated
to achieve values of the Earth’s magnetic field independent on
sensor motion.
This calibration procedure is different from the general method
introduced by Leliak (1960) for identifying and evaluating magnetic
sources associated with the magnetic airborne detector equipped
aircraft. Mathematical formulas are derived aiming to compensate
for the magnetic noise related to the maneuvers of the aircraft. A so
called 'clover-leaf' test is performed and designed to demonstrate
that the aircraft and system have no significant heading effects.
Heading effect means that the magnetic field exhibits different
values at a given location depending on the direction in which the
location is overflown.
Compensation for the heading effect involves a 'figure of merit'
(FOM) test. It usually is achieved by flying specific manoeuvres
at a large distance above ground (2000-3000m) in each of the
four cardinal compass directions and compensating for the
differences. For unmanned multicopters the maximum flight
altitude is usually limited to about 100m above ground level (AGL).
The aircraft then turns and flies over the same point again in an
easterly direction, then in a southerly direction, a westerly direction
and finally in a northerly direction again to check for any diurnal
variation since the first overflight. With improved compensation this
difference was reduced to a fraction of 1nT. Current airborne mag
systems (e.g. optical pumped magnetometers) on manned aircrafts
achieve a resolution of 0.2nT after compensation and better.
This process is different for fluxgate magnetometers.
There are two different principles for calibrating a fluxgate
magnetometer: In a vector calibration the output of the vector
magnetometer is compared with the known magnetic field vector
which is applied to the instrument. In a scalar calibration only
the intensity of the magnetic field is used, but not its direction.
Clearly, a vector calibration is superior to a scalar calibration if the
magnetic field vector is known. If it is approximated by a model
Vol 25, 3 2020
Result of 3-component Fluxgate Sensor Calibration on Ground
49549 49580
49548 49570
uncalibrated TMI [nT]
calibrated TMI [nT]
49547
49546 standard deviation σ = 0.23nT 49560
49550
2nT
49545
49544 49540
49543
49542
49530
49541 calibrated sensor 49520
uncalibrated sensor
50000
25000
BX
0 BY
BZ
-25000
-50000
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
time [s]
Figure 4: Result of the scalar calibration of the fluxgate sensor on ground.
Calibration on ground avoids to expose the sensor to the EM interferences from
the electric engines and other magnetic components built into the multicopter.
The lower panel shows the magnetic intensity of the three components Bx, By, and
Bz. During the calibration process on ground the fluxgate sensor is rotated about
the X-, Y, and Z-axis by 360°. Then the fluxgate axes are turned into the opositite
direction and the rotation process about the three axis is repeated. In total 24
rotations are carried out. Note a few rotations are repeated. The upper panel shows
the uncalibrated (blue line) and the calibrated total magnetic intensity (red line) after
application of the 9 coefficients and compensating for scaling and offset-errors and
non-orthogonalities. After calibration, the fluxgate sensor only slightly depends on
the attitude direction. The standard deviation is 0.23nT. The peak-to-peak error is
1.5nT. The total magnetic intensity of the uncalibrated sensor exhibits much higher
noise, that would not allow operation in geophysical exploration.
of the Earth’s magnetic field, a scalar calibration is probably a
better choice. The calibration of fluxgate magnetometers requires
to correct for scaling and offset errors of each component and
transformation of the components into an orthogonal reference
system to compensate for non-orthogonalities between two axes.
In case of vector calibration, the Euler angles must be known to
align each component against a reference frame. However, the
measurement of Euler angles requires extremely high angular
accuracy (in the order of 1/100 degree). We refrain from doing
so, because we are only interested in mapping the total magnetic
intensity along flight lines.
Assuming a linear transfer function between the earth's magnetic
field and the magnetometer output, the rotation of the sensor
around at least two magnetometer axes is sufficient to perform
a scalar calibration (Auster et al., 2002). Therefore, in principle a
calibration can also be performed during flight, because in this case
mainly the horizontal components are rotated in the geomagnetic
field. At a site, the field strength is known either from absolute
magnetometer readings (optically pumped magnetometer) or
from the IGRF for that site. The difference between the "true"
scalar magnetic field strength and the output is then minimized by
adjusting the nine coefficients representing the offset and scaling
factor of each component and the non-orthogonalities.
Usually the calibration is performed on the ground without the
presence of the multicopter. The magnetometer is step wise
rotated about the axis of each component (X, Y, Z) by 360°. Then
the total magnetic intensity is estimated via the Pythagorean
theorem. An example from the military test site is shown in Figure
 Page 138 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 5A: Cloverleaf flight pattern of the octocopter performing Figure 5B: 3D plot of the cloverleaf test
an in-flight calibration

4. The difference between the calibrated and uncalibrated sensor

is clearly obvious. After applying the 9 coefficients there is no
directional dependence of the sensor. Regardless of its attitude
the fluxgate sensor picks nearly the same total magnetic intensity
in any direction. The standard deviation obtained is 0.23nT.
In order to include the noise and magnetic signature of the
multicopter, we developed an in-flight calibration procedure.
It involves executing a ‘figure-of-merit’ (FOM) flight test. The
pattern is cloverleaf-shaped and flown at about 40m above
ground (Figure 5). This flight pattern systematically generates
rotations of the horizontal components of the fluxgate sensors,
whereas the vertical component is only slightly deviated. In
contrast to the calibration on the ground, which is usually
performed in a magnetically quiet place, the EM interference and
all magnetic components built into the octocopter superpose
with the readings of the Earth' magnetic field. The calibration
also takes into account the specific magnetic signatures of the
multicopter.
Figure 6 shows the results of the FOM test. It was performed on
the same day of the detection test. The FOM was flown about
40m above the ground. This pattern mainly causes changes
in the horizontal components but only slightly deviates the
vertical component. As a result of the FOM test the directional
dependence of the total magnetic intensity from direction is
nearly eliminated. The standard deviation of the residual noise
and the attitude dependence of the octocopter was estimated to
1.09nT. It should be noted that all data is unfiltered. The residual
noise is generated by the eight electric motors of the octocopter.
Results of the Luttmersen
Pentamag Test
In 2016, German federal authorities established a test field on
a military training site in Luttmersen near Hanover in Northern
Germany. It was chosen for a geophysical comparison test. 53
objects (ammunition, UXO) of different calibers from 2 cm to
Figure 6: Result of the cloverleaf test. The test was flown about 40m above ground.
The lower panel shows the three components of the fluxgate sensor during flight.
Changing the flight direction also changes the sign of the horizontal components.
The upper panel shows the Total Magnetic intensity of the uncorrected fluxgate data
(light blue) and after calibration (dark blue). Without calibration the TMI strongly
depends on the sensor orientation and flight direction. The TMI is correlated with
the change in the flight direction. After calibration the TMI exhibits a straight line
and is more or less independend from the flight direction and orientation of the
fluxgate sensor. The data are not filtered. The sample rate is 100Hz. The noise
amplitude peak-to-peak is about 5nT. The standard deviation is 1.09nT.
500 pound bombs were buried in the soil at different depths
and directions. The area is about 1 hectare large and comprises
flat grassland. There are no bushes or other obstacles which
make it a perfect site for this test (Figure 7). Since this training
area is still in use by the German army, there are many other
objects buried in the ground.
Five fluxgate sensors were mounted on a horizontal bar equally
spaced of 50cm. They are located in white polystyrene spheres.
This array produces 5 magnetic tracks along flight line. Assume
a speed of 4m/s and 100Hz sample rate, this configuration
produces 250 values of the TMI on a 2mX2m unit area. The flights
were performed on October, 8th, 2019. The sampling rate was
100Hz which corresponds to a ground sampling rate of 4cm at
a constant flight speed of 4m/s.
 Page 139 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 8: Base station data: Readings of the time variations in the magnetic intensity
recorded at a fixed location nearby the test site. A GEM system GSM-19 was used. No
significant variations except a small trend of less than 5nT was observed during the
operation times. The blue boxes indicate the time intervals of the operation times of the
Figure 7: Test site on a military training area in Northern Germany close to Hanover. 3 detection flights. The red box indicates the figure-of-merit test (FOM). The dashed
The size of the area is about 1 hectare. 53 objects of known size were buried in 2016. red line indicates the intensity of the Total Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF) derived
for the location for Oct 2019.
Table 3: Flight plan and flight altitude
sensor
Operation altitude
Oct, 8, 2019 Start Stop time above
ground
Flight 1 11:59:29 12:22:16 00:22:47 1.50m
Flight 2 13:03:00 13:22:46 00:19:46 1.20m
Flight 3 FOM 13:33:22 13:52:43 00:19:21 40-50m
Flight 4 14:08:43 14:29:33 00:20:50 1.20m

A base station was set up to record the temporal variations

of the geomagnetic field during flight operations (Figure 8).
On the day of the test flight no significant temporal variations
were observed. The time intervals of each flight are shown in
Table 3. Interestingly, the total magnetic intensity of the Earth’
magnetic field deviates from the value obtained from the IGRF
by about 16nT, which prevails at this time.
The drone was programmed to performing autonomous flights
following a set of waypoints that were defined prior to the
flight operations. The flight lines are north-south oriented. The
line spacing was 2.0m and the length of the lines was 80m.
The flight area is 60m wide. 30 lines were flown to cover the
area and to collect magnetic data. The size of flight block is
approximately one half hectare.
The UAV speed was 4m/s. The distance between sensor and ground
was reduced between flights from 1.50m to 1.20m. One flight was
needed to cover this area. Two repeated flights were performed
over this area. After the second flight the FOM test was performed.
We use a GPS devices (NEO ublox M8N) with singe frequency
that outputs raw measurements (carrier phase and code
pseudorange) which are post-processed to obtain RTK
corrected positions resulting in centimeter-level accuracy in
data point positioning. In Figure 9, the flight lines of uncorrected
flight lines and the RTK corrected lines are shown. The RTK
correction causes a translation of the flight lines by about 1m.
Coordinate shifts are also observed in some places, which Figure 9: Uncorrected GPS coordinates of the flight lines (blue points) and RTK
occur when the GPS data quality is insufficient. corrected GPS positions (red points)
 Page 140 Vol 25, 3 2020

Figure 10: 30 lines were flown with a 2m line spacing that cover the total area. Each
flight line produces 5 magnetic tracks. The lines are NS oriented. The distance between
sensor and ground was about 1.20m and controlled by the laser altimeter. The blue
dots indicate the known locations of the buried objects. The yellow dots indicate the
locations of magnetic anomalies clearly detected by the Pentamag system. The bold
lines indicate the magnetic tracks of flight line 18 which is zoomed in Figure 12.
Figure 11: 2D-Isoline plot of the TMI in [nT]. The area exhibits a large number of
magnetic anomalies, which indicate the existance of a whole bunch of metallic objects
in the shallow ground. The comparison of the locations where known objects were
buried and the locations detected by the Pentamag system show good correlation.
However, only objects above a certain size and up to a certain depth were located. The
result of the localization and detection test is summarized in Figure 13.

Following procedure was applied to obtain the residual magnetic The data density of the measured area is quite high, but we
field intensity (Figure 10): didn’t achieve 100% coverage. There are still locations with
Step 1 A pplication of calibration coefficients to the raw no or coarse data density. Due to gusty winds the multicopter
magnetic data to eliminate motion-induced effects deviated from its predefined flight path. Due to the limited
from the fluxgate sensor readings accuracy of the GPS device of about 1.5m the flight line spacing
Step 2 Estimation of Total Magnetic Intensity from the three of 2m is within the accuracy of the GPS device. Smaller line
components Bx, By, Bz from each of the five sensors spacings are hardly realistic for a single GPS system, but would
Step 3 Reduction of the local magnetic field obtained from the involve RTK capabilities during flight operation.
base station data. Table 4 lists the sizes and depths of 53 objects which are buried
Step 4 Synchronization of magnetic data with GPS position in the ground.
data Table 4: List of objects which are buried in the ground at
Step 5 Applying the RTK correction and calculating the position known locations and depth
of each of the five sensors to generate five magnetic
tracks for each flight line. No Obj Caliper [cm] Buried depth in [m]
Step 6 G ridding the magnetic data and creating a mesh. 12 2 0.03m – 1.27m
Creating an isoline plot of the residual magnetic field 13 3.7 0.1m – 0.95m
intensity. 7 7.5 0.3m – 1.8m
7 8.8 0.26m – 1.94m
The two following figures display the magnetic tracks of the
6 10 0.72m – 2.13m
Pentamag system (Figure 10) and the results of the processed
2 12.8 0.85m – 1.9m
Pentamag data in a 2D isoline plot. The blue dots indicate the
3 15 1.06m – 1.62m
locations of metal objects buried in the soil. The yellow dots
1 250 lbs 1.9m
indicate the locations of magnetic signatures obtained from
2 500 lbs 1.13m – 2.145m
the Pentamag system.
 Page 141 Vol 25, 3 2020

The evaluation of the measurement results reveals that objects

of a caliber of 3.7cm and at a depth of less than 0.3m are
detectable. Larger objects of 10cm caliber can be localized up
to about 2m depth. The results are summarized in Figure 13.
Figure 12 shows five magnetic tracks of flight line 18. Five
objects at known locations were overflown. Three of them were
clearly located. The sizes and depths are listed in table 5.
Table 5: Result of the Pentamag test on line 18.

Caliper/ Buried
Obj. No orientation
weight depth
52 500 lb 2,0 horizontal detected
13 3.7 cm 0,1 vertical detected
21 3.7 cm 1,0 horizontal not detected
29 7.5 cm 1,0 vertical detected
38 8.8 cm 2,0 vertical not detected

Figure 13 summarizes the results of the Pentamag test on the

military test area. 53 objects are buried in the soil at known
locations and depths. The test clearly shows that objects of
a caliber of 3.7cm and larger are detectable. However, the
detectability rapidly decreases with depth. Smaller objects can
be detected up to depths of 30cm. Metal objects with a caliber
Figure 13: Plot of object size versus buried depth. The plot summarizes the limits of the
detectability of objects located by the PENTAMAG system tested in a real environment.
The grey area indicates the limit of detectability of metal objects of different size and
depth. Note that this limit was determined for a flight altitude of the sensors of 1.20m
above ground. Lower or higher flight altitudes will shift this limit considerably.

of 10cm and larger can be located up to a depth of 2m. Metal

objects of several hundred kilograms can be located at depths
of several meters.
Figure 12: Location of the five magnetic tracks of line 18 (left panel) and TMI of the
five magnetic tracks (right panel).
Conclusion
In this test we demonstrated that the Pentamag system is
capable of locating objects of sizes of 3.7cm. The specific
features of this system can be summarized as follows:
1. We were able to design and integrate the requisite payload
elements associated with such a system. This is obviously
subject to power, size and weight limitations imposed by both
the UAV and operational needs. Payload elements include
magnetometers, data storage and communications infrastructure
as well as a power infrastructure (batteries). On board power
generation or some hybrid solution is not favoured since it
requires additional load and is another source of noise.
2. In addition the Pentamag system includes GPS with RTK
accuracy, laser altimeter to accurately obtain the flight positions.
A laser avoidance systems will be part of the next generation. It
is planned to establish a collision avoidance capability in such
a manner that a multicopter can fly at elevations of about 1.5
meters at speeds of about five to ten meters per second.
3. We designed and built an optimized multicopter which can
operate autonomously and can carry this payload for appropriate
flight times.
4. The collection of high quality magnetic data on this a platform
required a) judicious placement of the magnetometer,
b) minimization of noise generating components and post
acquisition noise elimination, and c) the in-flight calibration
which eliminates the magentic signatures due to the multicopter.
5. T he technical readiness of this prototype was tested in
operational environment. This test reveals that metal objects of
3.7cm are detectable.
 Page 142
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all helpers in the field and to the technical
staff, who contributed to the test surveys and to the technical
developments. We thank Dr. Holger Preetz (Niedersächsisches
Landesamt für Bau und Liegenschaften in Hanover (NLBL)) for
his continuous interest in our methodology. He provided the
opportunity to perform this test on the military training site. In
particular we thank Dr. Christopher Virgil and Christian Kuluecke
and Prof. Andreas Hoerdt (TU Braunschweig, Geophysics
Institute) for their continuous interest and assistance in the
field. We are grateful for their technical support, in particular
the integration and deployment of two fluxgate magnetometers.
References
Auster, H.U., Fornacon, K H, Georgescu, E., Glassmeier, K H and
Motschmann, U, 2002. Calibration of fluxgate magnetometers
using relative motion. Measurement Science and Technology,
13(7), 1124–1131.
Author Bios
Johannes B. Stoll
Mobile Geophysical Technologies, GmbH
Celle, Germany
jstoll@mgt-geo.com
Dr. Johannes B. Stoll has a background in geophysics and
electrochemistry and was active in several positions in the
Oil&Gas industry and research institutions. He is founder and
CEO of Mobile Geophysical Technologies GmbH. He has 25
years experience as an active exploration geophysicist.
Rolf Noellenburg
Aerialis GbR
Stresemann Str. 46
27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
+49(0)471-140 500
info@aerialis.de
Rolf Nöllenburg, aerospace engineer, UAV pilot and co-founder of
aerialis. He is designing, developing and operating fixed wing and
rotary wing UAVs for research and commercial use since 2004. In
cooperation with MGT, he integrated geo-physical sensor systems
into several UAVs within the last 7 years. He is very experienced
in adaption and modification of UAVs as well as in soft- and
hardware design of the flight control systems. He also gained a lot
of operational experience in many international projects.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Doll, W. E., T. J. Gamey and J. S. Holladay (2001). Current
Research into Airborne UXO Detection. SAGEEP Annual
Meeting, Oakland, CA.
Gamey, T. J., W. E. Doll, L. P. Beard and D. T. Bell (2003).
Analysis of noise coherence in airborne magnetic gradients
for UXO detection. 2003 SAGEEP Meeting, San Antonio, TX.
Leliak, P. 1961. Identification and evaluation of magnetic field
sources of magnetic airborne detector equipped aircraft. IRA
Transactions on airspace and navigational electronics, 8, 95–
105.
Munschy, M., et al., 2007. Magnetic mapping for the detection
and characterization of UXO: Use of multi-sensor fluxgate
3-axis magnetometers and methods of interpretation, J. App.
Geophys. 61 pp. 168–183.
Nelson, H. H., D. L. Wright, T. Furuya, J. R. McDonald, N. Khadr
and D. A. Steinhurst (2004). MTADS Airborne and Vehicular
Survey of Target S1 at Isleta Pueblo, Albuquerque, NM, 17
February - 2 March 2003, Naval Research Laboratory.
Thomas Kordes
Aerialis GbR
Stresemann Str. 46
27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
+49(0)471-140 500
info@aerialis.de
Dr. Thomas Kordes, aerospace engineer, UAV operator and
co-founder of aerialis. Dr. Kordes has a lot of experience in the
management of international aerospace projects and teams. In
addition to his management work, he has 20 years professional
experience and was responsible for the design, development,
and operation of many types of UAVs in international projects.
Anders Jepsen
Founder
Exploration For Humanity
1300 Oakmont Drive #4
Walnut Creek,
California 94595, USA
+1-925-330-9753
jepsen@explorationforhumanity.org
Dr. Jepsen has had a 45-year career in various areas of
geophysical exploration for minerals, energy and environmental
engineering objectives. He is founder of Exploration For
Humanity, a nonprofit organization dedicated to combining
drones and smart-sensor technology to locate hidden threats
such as landmines and unexploded ordnance.
Page 143 Vol 25, 3 2020
 Page 144 Vol 25, 3 2020

Mapping the Canyons of the Surveying the area

Ancients National Monument The team started the flight planning process by considering
- using a drone based LiDAR the objectives of the survey and the diverse terrain of the
Sand Canyon area. The primary aim was to achieve as high
system to uncover 750-year- aofresolution Digital Terrain Model (DTM) as possible, devoid
trees and shrubs. The secondary objective was to ensure
old structures a high degree of accuracy, in particular, a relative accuracy
with respect to the topographic survey conducted many years
previously.
Gert Riemersma
Routescene Inc. The UAV used was the DJI M600 Pro, chosen for its stability
Durango and high lift capacity. The UAV can sustain a flight duration
of 15-20 minutes, dependent on environmental factors, and
Colorado, USA
can collect data from an area of at least 400 x 400m in a
gjr@routescene.com
single flight. Therefore, surveying 2+ km sq per day was a
Bio realistic and achievable aim. Designed in 2013 for use on UAV's,
Routescene's LidarPod, the hardware element of their UAV
LiDAR solution, includes a carefully selected array of sensors
to ensure that the solution is fit for purpose across a range
of different survey and mapping applications. The Velodyne
HDL32, the workhorse of the modern UAV mapping industry,

Introduction
When the local Crow Canyon Archaeology Center and the
Canyons of the Ancients National Monument looked to map
Sand Canyon, an ancestral Pueblo site in the area, they knew
traditional mapping would not suffice. Using UAV LiDAR
technology, they received impressive results and made some
new discoveries.
The culturally rich Canyons of the Ancients National Monument
in Colorado contains a wealth of historical and environmental
resources. Now a recreational hotspot, in A.D. 1240, the Pueblo
community occupied the area, constructing over 70 villages
with approximately 30,000 residents. In Sand Canyon alone
over 90 subterranean structures, known as 'kivas', were used by
families as dwellings. Hundreds of years later, the preservation
team were looking for a way to accurately survey this site of
archaeological importance. It had been over 20 years since a
survey of this calibre had been undertaken and they needed
new ways to visualise the area.
In partnership with local UAV service experts, Caddis Aerial,
Routescene Inc were chosen to create a high-resolution terrain
model of the Sand Canyon Pueblo site using their UAV LiDAR
3D mapping solution. This turnkey solution was identified as
the perfect system for penetrating the dense vegetation and
producing high-resolution data.
Fundamental to the Routescene system is a carefully thought
through 6 step workflow which spans the entire utilisation of the
solution – from survey and project planning, data acquisition,
data processing to the final outputs or “actionable information”.
This workflow is a set of orchestrated and repeatable procedures
and processes, so every survey and subsequent data analysis
is undertaken in a systematic, streamlined way; ensuring the
best possible outcomes each time.
provides a scan rate of up to 1.4 million points per second from
32 different lasers angled in a 40 degrees field of view. The
LidarPod has a radio modem built in to enable command and
control but more importantly allows operations, complete with
real-time QA monitoring, over a distance of more than 2km.
The team chose a take-off point on the main dirt road at the
north of the survey area (Figure 1), with sufficient line of sight
so the team could observe the UAV at the outer edges of the
survey site. The terrain and the direction of the slope of the
area had to be considered when deciding in what direction
to fly the lines, in this case, the decision was made to fly the
lines north-south at a constant altitude. The UAV was flown at
40m altitude relative to the take-off point, which meant that
due to the undulating terrain, the altitude at the west and east
boundaries was 20m. In the south of the area, the altitude was
60m due to steep cliffs.
During the survey itself, marshals were stationed to ensure
members of the public did not enter the survey site. The
LidarPod operators monitored in real-time in-flight the quality
of the data being collected using Routescene's QA Monitor
Figure 1. The team preparing for UAV LiDAR flights at Sand Canyon, CO, USA.
 Page 145 Vol 25, 3 2020

software. After each of the 3 flights the raw LiDAR data was
inspected to ensure the highest quality was achieved. This
prevented unnecessary repeat visits to this remote site.
The team planned the flight so that the outer boundaries were
covered first and then they worked towards the middle where
the take-off point was. This ensured that when the UAV battery
reached the point at which to abort the mission, the time to fly
home was as short as possible.
The aim was to ensure a very high DTM resolution, and this
was achieved by flying as low as was safely possible, flying at
a speed of 5m/s and setting the overlap between adjacent flight
lines at 100%, meaning each piece of land was surveyed twice.
This flight planning not only created a higher data density but
also increased the probability of the laser points hitting the
ground. The use of a multi-laser LiDAR scanner within the
LidarPod ensures that the lasers can hit the ground from all
angles and this significantly improves the vegetation penetration
capability of the system.
Once the UAV was ready to go, the mission plan was uploaded Figure 2. Routescene Ground Control Target being deployed at Sand Canyon
to the UAV from DJI's GS Pro app. The M600 Pro was flown
that the use of Microsoft Excel to store the GCP coordinates
manually to the start of the mission and the mission flight plan
was proving detrimental. Excel rounds all numbers to six
executed from within the GS Pro App.
decimal places and, as it was storing geographical coordinates,
this caused the team to lose up to 4m of accuracy. Reloading
Ground targets the original raw data into another format restored the accuracy,
but left the ground survey team members rather displeased - a
The first day was spent establishing ground control and lesson learned.
undertaking a reconnaissance of the site (Figure 2).
Routescene has a strong ethos of Quality Assurance; with
foundations in basic land survey training built upon by many
Calibration control
years working in the offshore industry where QA\QC was of Three of the targets were used to calibrate the Routescene
paramount importance. As part of the QA process, the team LidaPod for boresight misalignment; the targets are positioned
establish ground control in all our survey areas, accurately in a particular way as this enables the roll, pitch and heading
surveying in Ground Control points (GCP) and placing misalignment to be determined. The targets are overflown in
Routescene LiDAR targets on those points. a specific pattern, and in the subsequent post-processing the
The targets placed on the GCPs are 60cm in diameter, mounted boresight misalignments are computed and applied to the
on small tripods and are covered in a highly reflective material; raw point cloud. In general, over time the Routescene team
the retro-reflective material gives a high-intensity return which have observed that the heading misalignment is the smallest
enables it to stand out and so is easy to spot in the resultant of the errors, and this can be attributed to the fact that we use
point cloud. As the targets are raised from the ground, they a Dual heading antenna solution. The roll misalignment is the
also enable the returns to be automatically extracted from the largest, and this is made up a variety of different misalignments,
point cloud. including the INS - LiDAR, LiDAR encoder, and laser diode
misalignments.

Never say never

There is always a possibility that additional data needs to be
collected at a later date, be it unplanned or planned, so as a
matter of course all GCPs were permanently marked using
a peg driven into the ground. In the case of Sand Canyon,
we identified a discrepancy in the position of the control
points relative to the processed point clouds. To resolve this
discrepancy the survey team visited the site again, this time
mid-winter, to locate the control points under a foot of snow and
resurvey the points. After extensive analysis, it was revealed
Processing the data
Efficient data processing is crucial. After every mission, the
data is downloaded from the LidarPod and inspected using
Routescene's proprietary LidarViewer Pro software. This software
provides a framework on which to build a LiDAR processing
workflow, using the Filter Development Toolkit to develop and
apply specific filters to the collected point cloud, to achieve as
quickly as possible the most accurate final deliverable. In this
case, more than 3.2 billion points were collected, and it was
 Page 146 Vol 25, 3 2020

important that the high resolution of the data was maintained

during analysis to create a DTM. The filters used in an automated
sequence were sector reduction, laser ID reduction, coordinate
conversion, grid creation, the purpose-built “Bare Earth tool”,
a skim grid and finally a LAS export filter. This process virtually
removes all the vegetation from the site, to expose in detail
the structures that the archaeologists were interested in. The
resolution of the final output was an impressive 400 points/m2.

Bingo at 40%
The overall survey experience was mostly positive for the team
involved. The survey was undertaken at a time of year when
the temperature was 15-20 degrees C in the early morning, Figure 3. Sand Canyon - over 3.2 billion points were collected during the survey and
processed
increasing another 5 degrees as the sun came out. The altitude
of the survey area was 7000ft and as such this altitude had to
be considered in the UAV mission planning as any aircraft's
performance is reduced the higher it flies. In this project, the
density altitude was also a significant consideration. Density
altitude is the altitude adjusted for atmospheric conditions,
such as temperature and humidity. Operating early in the
morning when the air was cooler made a significant difference
to the density altitude, which was calculated at 9,000-10,000ft.
The UAV flying was a challenge for many factors, not just
density altitude but also pilot experience on the craft, a newly
purchased aircraft, and the payload. The agreement was made
to “return to base” when there was 40% battery remaining;
this is a generous safety margin but, given all the factors, was
Figure 4. Completed Digital Terrain Model showing 700-year old dwellings called ‘kivas’.
deemed to be a sensible approach. When the 40% battery
capacity was reached the current flight line was completed, and monitor the future condition of the site and has provided baseline
the UAV brought into land, typically landing at 30% capacity. data for the Canyons of the Ancients land managers to plan on-
The wind tends to increase mid-morning making the flying going preservation.
conditions even more challenging to the extent that it became Varien said, “The impact of this survey approach is truly
outside our operational limits. It was fortunate that the team astonishing. It illustrated how the tool could be used to record
finished the last flight line when the wind further strengthened to undocumented sites with unprecedented precision. It removed
beyond the flying limits; four separate flights with no incidents. the need for a painstaking ground survey and the speed of
delivery of such detailed results is impressive. It has accelerated
our understanding – the results indicate the pueblo was more
Surprising results extensive than we had previously imagined. We are now able to
concentrate our future work in a small finite area – to study the
The results gained from the survey proved to be accurate and
new found kivas in more detail.”
surprising for the preservationists involved. Although the Sand
Canyon Pueblo was studied, mapped, and excavated between For more information please visit www.routescene.com
1984 and 1995 using traditional survey techniques, the Crow
Canyon Archaeological Center were excited to discover previously
undocumented structures. The LiDAR image (Figure 3 and Figure
4) proved to be the best tool for visualising the ancient site in
detail and to plan future preservation. Removing the need for
painstaking ground surveys, the impressive data accelerated
understanding of the Pueblo area and has allowed the client to
concentrate their future work on the newly found structures.
Mark D. Varien, Executive Vice President of the Research Institute
at Crow Canyon Archaeological Center stated that they were
excited by the final results presented. The LiDAR image provides
the best tool for visualizing this ancient site in detail to better
 Page 147 Vol 25, 3 2020

Author Bio
Gert Riemersma
Founder and Chief Technical Officer
Routescene Inc.
Durango
Colorado, USA
gjr@routescene.com

Gert Riemersma trained as a land surveyor and worked as a
hydrographic surveyor for 20 years before getting involved in
LiDAR and developing the Routescene UAV LiDAR solution
in 2013. A private pilot since 1986, he worked as a navigator
in 1985 on an aeromagnetic survey using a DC4 flying 16-
hour sorties halfway across the Atlantic. More recently UAV
projects range from the UK to Alaska, working with many
different UAV operators. Founder and CTO of Routescene,
eager to engage with customers, to see their operations first
hand and gather valuable feedback to enable the Routescene
products to evolve and further improve. Routescene designs
and manufactures the UAV LidarPod and LidarViewer Pro
software. Routescene’s customers have used the system all
over the world, from Australia to Alaska, across a variety of
different projects. Routescene global headquarters are based
in Edinburgh, Scotland with office also in Durango, Colorado.
 Page 148 Vol 25, 3 2020

UAS remote sensing and 120 from Exploration Instruments, Inc. An atomic, optically-
pumped magnetometer with a noise floor of 1 pT was flown
geophysics to investigate at an altitude of 10 m AGL by a DJI Matrice 600 Pro UAS.
Digital photomosaic maps of EO and thermal IR imagery were
legacy wells, heat generated using the photogrammetry software Pix4D. LiDAR

distribution, and subsidence data were processed using Cloud Compare software. Magnetic
anomalies were mapped using MATLAB.
at the coal mine fire in UAS remote sensing and geophysics data revealed an exothermic

Centralia, Pennsylvania landscape impacted by subsidence. EO photogrammetry

documented subsidence; however, vegetation obscured ground
features which reduced the method’s accuracy. Thermal IR
Martin Helmke, PhD, PG recorded ground temperatures up to 40 °C. Surface temperatures
West Chester University of Pennsylvania were greatest in the western portion of the study area where
West Chester the fire is most active. Interestingly, surface temperatures
were significantly cooler than the record 237 °C measured at
Pennsylvania, USA
ground surface in the 1980s, suggesting that the fire may be
mhelmke@wcupa.edu
slowing down and diminishing in size. LiDAR resolved numerous
Bio subsidence features that correspond with the locations of late
Daniel Bochicchio, GIT 19th century room and pillar mines 20 m below the ground
surface. The magnetometer readily detected the steel casing of a
Groundwater and Environmental Services, Inc.
decommissioned well that had been used to monitor subsurface
Pennsylvania, USA temperatures and gas concentrations in the 1980s. Collection of
dbochicchio@gesonline.com remote sensing and geophysical information by UAS produced
Bio more accurate and higher resolution data than afforded by
traditional aerial methods. Moreover, the combination of EO,
Jeffrey Leberfinger, PGp, PG
thermal IR, LiDAR, and magnetometer data allowed for a more
Exploration Instruments LLC sophisticated, synergistic analysis of the study area.
Harrisburg
Pennsylvania, USA
jleberfinger@exiusa.com Introduction
Bio Recent advances in UAS and payload technologies enable
Gregory Schultz, PhD collection of high-resolution remote sensing and geophysical
data. As with any scientific tool, an understanding of the
White River Technologies, Inc.
benefits, limitations, and proper application of these methods
Lebanon
is vital for conducting a successful investigation. Deploying
New Hampshire, USA sensors by UAS also requires the knowledge and skill to fly
schultz@whiterivertech.com the aircraft safely, effectively, and legally. The objective of this
Bio study is to evaluate the use of EO photogrammetry, thermal
IR, LiDAR, and magnetometry to investigate decommissioned
wells, coal fires, and subsidence. The combination of datasets
created by these diverse sensors is likely to provide greater
Abstract insight than any single method.
Abandoned wells, coal fires, and subsidence are three pressing
High-resolution remote sensing and geophysical surveys
geologic issues that benefit from use of drone-borne remote
are instrumental for monitoring the evolution and impact of
sensing and geophysics. Due to the rapid rise and decline of
coal mine fires. This study demonstrates the application of
the petroleum industry in Western Pennsylvania between 1859
unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to investigate the coal mine
and the mid-1920s, hundreds of thousands of abandoned
fire in Centralia, Pennsylvania. As the fire advances, high
petroleum wells are scattered across the Commonwealth
temperatures and ground subsidence continue to threaten this
(Kang et al., 2016). Many of these wells emit toxic or explosive
once thriving community.
gases, threaten water quality, or cause subsidence. Identifying,
This investigation employed electro-optical (EO), thermal characterizing, and mitigating these wells is a priority in
infrared (IR), LiDAR, and magnetometer payloads on UAS Pennsylvania and surrounding states. Coal mine fires are
platforms. EO and thermal IR imagery was collected using a another significant challenge from late 19th century industry.
Zenmuse XT2 camera flown by a DJI Matrice 210 UAS. The There are currently 241 coal mine fires burning in the United
LiDAR data were recorded using a LiDAR USA Revolution States, including 38 in Pennsylvania (PADEP, 2020). Coal
 Page 149
Figure 1. Location map of Centralia Pennsylvania and a schematic cross section of
the mined coal beds within the Centralia Syncline. The Centralia Tunnel lowered the
water table and introduced air to the mine workings, allowing the coal fire to burn.
mine fires emit high concentrations of carbon monoxide and
other toxic gases, can cause combustion of structures, and
accelerate mine subsidence. Nationwide, subsidence caused
by mine collapse, groundwater extraction, sinkholes in karst,
and other mechanisms costs between $125 and $300 million
annually (Galloway et al., 1999; Weary, 2015).
The former coal mining town of Centralia, Pennsylvania (Figure
1) was selected for this study because it offers an active
coal mine fire, numerous (some decommissioned) thermal
monitoring wells, and subsidence. Located in the Western
Middle Anthracite Field of Columbia County, Pennsylvania,
the Centralia fire was reportedly ignited by trash burning in
May 1962 (PADEP, 2020). After 8 unsuccessful attempts to
extinguish the fire between 1962 and 1980 (Chaiken et al., 1980),
the threat of subsidence and elevated indoor concentrations
of carbon monoxide led to the relocation of approximately
1,200 residents from Centralia Borough and nearby Byrnsville
by 1992. Today, most of the buildings in Centralia have been
razed and only a handful of residents remain.
The labyrinth of mines beneath Centralia provides near ideal
conditions for a coal fire. The coal beneath and adjacent to
Centralia Borough was extensively mined by room and pillar
methods during the second half of the 19th and early 20th
centuries. Miners exploited ten coal beds (from the Buck
Mountain to the Holmes) within an east/west-striking syncline
of the Pennsylvanian Llewellyn Formation. The Centralia Tunnel
was installed in the 1860s to drain groundwater from the mines
into the Mahanoy Creek Watershed 1.5 km to the southeast.
This tunnel lowered the water table approximately 70 m (PADEP,
2020) and introduced air, providing combustible conditions for
the coal fire. Since 1962 the coal fire spread within the Buck
Mountain bed along strike to the west, southwest, and east. In
the 1980s, ground vent temperatures exceeded 315 °C and the
fire advanced 20 to 23 m per year (GAI, 1983). Early estimates
predicted the coal fire could encompass 1,500 ha and burn for
400 years. By 2011, however, the fire had cooled significantly
Vol 25, 3 2020
(vent temperatures less than 65 °C) and the western fire front
had slowed to 2 m per year (Elick, 2011). To date, the fire has
only consumed approximately 160 ha (PADEP, 2020).
Deploying EO, thermal IR, LiDAR, and magnetometer sensors
from a UAS is an area of active research. We found the UAS-
based approach for this site to be particularly beneficial due to
the complexity of the terrain, vegetation cover, and areal extent
of the study area. High-resolution EO cameras suspended by
stabilizing gimbals are routinely mounted on contemporary UAS.
Overlapping imagery from these cameras may be assembled into
orthomosaics and 3-dimensional digital elevation models (DEMs)
using photogrammetry software. UAS EO maps are very high
resolution, with a typical ground sampling distance (pixel resolution)
of 2 cm, a horizontal accuracy of 6 cm, and a vertical accuracy of
12 cm. EO photogrammetric models have been used for many
applications, including documenting mine subsidence (C´wiakała,
2020). Thermal IR provides accurate measurement of ground surface
temperature and has been used to identify gas emissions and
monitor mine fires (Li et al., 2018). UAS LiDAR records millions
of survey measurements with 5 cm accuracy (Bakuła et al., 2017)
and can monitor subsidence and ground disturbance beneath the
tree canopy. UAS-borne total field magnetometers are used to
detect magnetic objects such as steel well casing, pipelines, and
unexploded ordnance (Nikulin and de Smet, 2019). Employing all
four methods better constrains the data and provides an opportunity
to conduct a more thorough investigation of wells, coal fire heat
emission, and mine subsidence at Centralia.
Methods
EO data were collected using a DJI Phantom 4 Pro UAS equipped
with a 20 megapixel camera with a 2.5 cm CMOS sensor and
mechanical shutter. Images were also recorded during thermal
IR flights with the Zenmuse XT2 12 megapixel visual sensor.
Autonomous EO flights were flown at an above ground altitude
of 60 m with a 75 percent frontlap and sidelap. Images were
compiled to produce digital orthomosaics and 3D models using
the photogrammetry software Pix4D (Vautherin, 2016).
IR thermal images were collected with the Zenmuse XT2 camera
mounted on a DJI Matrice 210 UAS (Figure 2a). This instrument
Figure 2. UAS instrumentation, including (a) Zenmuse XT2 thermal IR camera, (b)
and (c) LiDAR USA/Exploration Instruments LiDAR on a DJI Matrice 210 UAS, and
(d) a White River Technologies magnetometer deployed by a DJI Matrice 600 Pro
UAS.
 Page 150 Vol 25, 3 2020

uses a FlIR sensor that measures thermal emissions in the far

infrared between 15 and 1,000 µm wavelengths. The camera
has a 640 x 520 pixel resolution, a 13 mm focal length, and a
maximum precision of 0.1 °C.
A LiDAR USA Revolution 120 M8 laser survey instrument,
provided by Exploration Instruments, Inc., was used to collect
LiDAR data for this project. This device is equipped with an
8-channel Quanergy sensor with a 150 m range, 903 nm laser that
collects 440,000 points per second with an accuracy of 3.8 cm.
At 1.7 kg, this is one of the few LiDAR packages light enough to
be carried by the DJI Matrice 210 UAS (Figure 2b/c). The LiDAR
instrument was flown autonomously at an above ground altitude
of 50 m with a 50 m spacing at a velocity of 5 m/s for this study.
Data were processed by ddms using Cloud Compare software
(CloudCompare, 2020) to create a digital surface model (DSM)
and digital elevation (bare earth) model (DEM).
An experimental total field magnetometer system provided
by White River Technologies, Inc. was used for this research
(Figure 2d). The instrument was equipped with an atomic,
optically-pumped magnetometer with a noise floor of 1 pT.
An autonomous magnetometer mission was flown using a DJI
Matrice 600 Pro UAS programmed by UgCS software (SPH
Figure 3. UAS imagery of thermal monitoring well N-4 using EO (top) and thermal IR
Engineering, 2020) at an above ground altitude of 10 m and (below) sensors. The EO image reveals the circular shape of the well and a patch of
a spacing of 5 m. Positioning and total magnetic field data stunted vegetation (image captured in June 2020). A thermal IR image of the well
captured in February 2018 shows the stark contrast in temperature of the 40 °C well
collected on board were downloaded and evaluated using casing against the surrounding snow.
MATLAB software (MathWorks, 2020).

Results and Discussion

Data from the remote sensing and geophysical techniques were
analyzed to facilitate interpretation of legacy well location, mine
fire advancement, and subsidence. In each case a combination
of methods was used to augment and validate the findings.

Legacy Well Location

Over 75 thermal monitoring wells were installed in the 1980s to
monitor the temperature and gases emitted from the advancing
fire front in Centralia. Since that time, many wells have become
overgrown, decommissioned, or damaged by subsidence.
Although different in construction and purpose from abandoned
petroleum wells, these wells may serve as a reasonable proxy to
legacy wells due to their thermal flux, age, and condition.
With a 2 cm ground sampling distance, EO maps contained
Figure 4. Measured total field magnetic anomaly detected by the UAS
sufficient resolution to identify many of the 20 to 25 cm diameter magnetometer flown 10 m above thermal well N-68. An upward continuation
outer well casings by close inspection of the aerial imagery. analysis of the gridded magnetic field reveals that the well would have been
detected at an altitude of 40 m.
In cases where wellheads were intact and unobstructed at the
ground surface, these wells could be readily observed as small was significant thermal contrast. For wells unheated by the
circles from the air (Figure 3). Some of these wells served as mine fire, their temperature was usually sufficiently different
conduits to allow heat and gases to escape to the surface, from the surrounding soil and vegetation to be detected by
disrupting nearby vegetation and producing a conspicuous the 0.1 °C precision of the thermal IR camera. Thermal was
patch devoid of vegetation. less effective at locating wells when wells were obscured by
Thermal IR imagery quickly revealed the locations of hot thick vegetation or in the spring and fall when ground surface
(typically 40 °C) thermal wells during cold weather when there temperature was similar to the well bore.
 Page 151
Figure 5. Drone EO (top) and thermal IR maps (bottom) of Centralia fire front 1
collected June 15, 2018. Vent temperatures are generally below 40 °C, much cooler
than reported in the 1980s.
The UAS magnetometer readily detected the magnetic anomaly
produced by a thermal well with intact steel casing (Figure 4).
Upward continuation modeling was used to predict the response
at greater flight altitudes. These simulations suggest that a 40
m altitude and a reduced flight grid spacing of 10 m would have
been sufficient to detect the well and invert for its location and
magnetic moment. Similarly, in cases where the upper steel
casing has been removed (as is common for legacy wells), the
sensor should remain capable of detecting residual casing 40
m below ground surface if the UAS is flown at a lower altitude.
Continued development of inverse modeling could provide
estimates of residual casing depth, which would be instrumental
for developing abandoned well remediation strategies.
Although it would be difficult to use EO photogrammetry and
LiDAR DTM to find such a small object as a well, these approaches
would certainly detect subsidence, a well pad, abandoned
road, or similar ground disturbance associated with legacy well
construction and operation. LiDAR would be particularly useful
for identifying relic well infrastructure beneath the tree canopy.
In the case of Centralia thermal wells, EO photogrammetry and
LiDAR identified the network of abandoned roads and streets
that were used for drill rig access in the 1980s.
Coal Mine Fire Temperature Mapping
Conventional thermal IR imagery has been used to monitor the
mine fire progress for several decades in Centralia (Elick, 2011).
Recent studies concluded that temperatures are diminishing,
and advancement of the fire front has slowed. The UAS thermal
IR map (Figure 5) supports this conclusion, reporting a maximum
ground temperature of 40 °C, far lower than the maximum
Vol 25, 3 2020
Figure 6. EO photogrammetry documenting subsidence in the area of the active fire
front. Mine maps show that the mineworks are only 20 m below ground surface in
this area.
temperature of 237 °C reported at ground surface in the 1980s.
UAS thermography allows for cost-effective and therefore more
frequent UAS thermography flights. Three thermal IR UAS
mapping events between February 2018 and June 2020 have
shown that the fire at Centralia appears to have stopped and is
cooling or is moving deeper into the former mines.
Subsidence Monitoring
Ground collapse and subsidence poses one of the greatest risks
in Centralia. Much of the room and pillar mineworks from the
late 19th century is now unstable due to age and combustion.
EO photogrammetry of Centralia shows significant subsidence
above the active fire front (Figure 6). An interpretation of the
photogrammetric maps demonstrates the subsidence structures
are 50 to 75 m apart, 20 to 60 m in diameter, and 2 to 4 m
deep. Although the photogrammetric maps are high quality,
with an estimated horizontal accuracy of 6 cm and vertical
accuracy of 12 cm, vegetation obscures many of the subsidence
features, rendering the technique less effective. Nonetheless,
EO photogrammetry is an efficient method of constructing a
DSM, allowing rapid measurement of subsidence volume and
monitoring subsidence progression over time.
The UAS LiDAR flights collected 78 million survey points over an
area of approximately 6 ha, approximately 1,300 points/m2. This
dataset was rendered and converted into a DSM (Figure 7). The
EO orthomosaics and LiDAR DSM maps both show the significant
influence of vegetation. These data were further processed to
generate a bare earth DEM with a point density of 400 points/m2.
Analysis of the LiDAR DEM shows numerous subsidence features
that correlate with the mineworks, coal seams, and fire location
as noted previously by Elick (2013). The UAS LiDAR map is far
more detailed than conventional LiDAR surveys and allows a more
thorough assessment of subsidence than could be conducted
by visual inspection in the field. This base map may now be
 Page 152
Figure 7. An EO orthomosaics, LiDAR DSM, and LiDAR bare earth DEM for southern
Centralia, Pennsylvania. The LiDAR data reveal numerous subsidence structures
that correspond with subsurface room and pillar mineworks.
used as a reference for future LiDAR surveys, allowing a precise
measurement of changes in the landscape over time.
Conclusions
UAS-deployed sensors produce rapid, frequent, and high-resolution
remote sensing and geophysics data that can be applied to map
and characterize legacy wells, delineate mine fires, and quantify
subsidence. Use of multiple sensors, including EO photogrammetry,
thermal IR, LiDAR, and magnetometry, provide complementary
datasets that may be used to reinforce and validate conclusions. The
strengths and limitations of each tool along with UAS deployment
strategies should be well understood for any remote sensing or
geophysics investigation. The coal mine fire of Centralia provides
a useful case demonstration of these techniques, illustrating how
they may be used with success elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the Borough of Centralia, James Andrews
at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
District Mining Operations, ddms, Inc., FlIR, Dr. Sandra Mather,
and WCU students Thomas D’Lauro, James Hannagan, and
Joseph Spatafore for their support of this project.
References
Bakuła, K., Salach, A., Wziatek, D. A., Ostrowski, W., Górski, K.,
and Kurczynski, Z., 2017, Evaluation of the accuracy of LiDAR
data acquired using a UAS for levee monitoring: Preliminary
results: International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 38 (8–10), p.
2921–2937, doi:10.1080/01431161.2016.1277044.
Chaiken, R.F., Brennan, R.J., Heisey, B.S., Kim, A.G., Malenka, W.T.,
Vol 25, 3 2020
and Schimmel, J.T., 1980, Problems in the control of anthracite
mine fires: A case study of the Centralia mine fire (August): U.S.
Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations 8799, 93 p.
CloudCompare, 2020, CloudCompare v. 2.6.1 User Manual, www.
cloudcompare.org, 180 p.
Cwiakala, P., Gruszczynski, W., Stoch, T. , Puniach, E. , Mrochen,
D., Matwij, W., Matwij, K., Nedzka, M., Sopata, P., and Wójcik, A.,
2020, UAV applications for determination of land deformations
caused by underground mining: Remote Sensing, v. 12, n. 11, 25
p., doi:10.3390/rs12111733.
Elick, J. M., 2011, Mapping the coal fire at Centralia, Pa using
thermal infrared imagery: International Journal of Coal Geology,
v. 87, p. 197-203.
Elick, J. M., 2013, The effect of abundant precipitation on coal
fire subsidence and its implications in Centralia, Pa: International
Journal of Coal Geology, v. 105, p. 110-119.
GAI Consultants, Inc., 1983, Engineering analysis and evaluation
of the Centralia mine fire, Office of Surface Mining, 1 and 2, United
State Department of the Interior, Monroeville, PA.
Galloway, D., Jones, D. R., and Ingebritsen, S.E., 1999, Land
Subsidence in the United States, U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin
1182, 175 p.
Kang, M., Christian, S., Celia, M. A., Mauzerall, D. L., Bill, M.,
Miller, A. R., Chen, Y., Conrad, M. E., Darrah, T. H., and Jackson,
R. B., 2016, Identification and characterization of high methane-
emitting abandoned oil and gas wells: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Unit. States Am., v. 113, p. 13636–13641, https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1605913113.
Li, F., Yang, W., Liu, X., Sun, G., and Liu, J., 2018, Using high-
resolution UAV-borne thermal infrared imagery to detect coal fires in
Majiliang Mine, Datong Coalfield, Northern China: Remote Sensing
Letters, v. 9, n. 1, p. 71–80, doi:10.1080/2150704X.2017.1392632.
MathWorks, 2020, MATLAB desktop tools and development
environment, version R2020a, 232 p.
Nikulin, A. and de Smet, T. S., 2019, A UAV-based magnetic
survey method to detect and identify orphaned oil and gas wells:
The Leading Edge, v. 38, p. 447–452, https://doi.org/10.1190/
tle38060447.1
PADEP, 2020, The Centralia Mine Fire Frequently Asked Questions/
Answers, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation, http://files.dep.
state.pa.us/Mining/.../CentraliaFrequentlyAskedQuestions.pdf,
accessed 8/30/2020, 14 p.
SPH Engineering, 2020, UgCS User Manual v. 3.6.225, www.ugcs.
com, 87 p.
Vautherin, J., Rutishauser, S., Schneider-Zapp, K. Fai Choi, H.,
Chovancova, V., Glass, A. and Strecha, C., 2016, Photogrammetric
accuracy and modeling of rolling shutter cameras, Pix4D, www.
support.pix4d.com, 8 p.
Weary, D. J., 2015, The cost of karst subsidence and sinkhole
collapse in the United States compared with other natural hazards:
Proceedings, 14th Sinkhole Conference, Rochester, MN, p. 433-446.
 Page 153
Author Bios
Martin Helmke, PhD, PG
West Chester University of Pennsylvania
750 S. Church St.
West Chester, PA 19383
mhelmke@wcupa.edu
Dr. Helmke is a Full Professor of Hydrogeology in the Department
of Earth and Space Sciences at West Chester University of
Pennsylvania, President of Helmke Hydrogeologic, LLC, and
Past President of the Pennsylvania Council of Professional
Geologists. He is an FAA-licensed drone pilot with over 20
years of experience applying fixed-wing and multi-rotor UAVs
for scientific research and commercial clients. He is a scientific
advisor to Groundwater and Environmental Services, Inc’s
UAV services program. Current research projects include
UAV magnetometer deployment strategies to map UXO and
pipelines, multi-instrument detection of abandoned petroleum
wells, multispectral fracture trace analysis, and geophysical
characterization of sinkholes and subsidence.
Daniel Bochicchio, GIT
Groundwater and Environmental
Services, Inc.
440 Creamery Way, Suite 500
Exton, PA 19341
dbochicchio@gesonline.com
Dan Bochicchio is the Drone/UAV Technical Lead at GES with
the duty of integrating new UAV technology into traditional
geologic investigations and environmental services. His UAV
work includes project progress monitoring and data governance
modeling which he uses to train project managers and entry-
level staff alike on how to derive data from a drone. His recent
UAV projects have included HDD pipeline installation monitoring
using thermal imagery, ROW monitoring and inspection, and
integration of new sensor types into the UAV toolset. Prior
to joining GES, Mr. Bochicchio led the development of the
drone program at West Chester University. He later founded
Skybernetics, a start-up consulting company specializing in
the deployment strategies of UAV adoption. He earned his
master’s degree from West Chester University in Geoscience,
his bachelor’s at Appalachian State University in Environmental
Geology and is awaiting his PG in PA.
Vol 25, 3 2020
Jeffrey Leberfinger, PGp, PG
Exploration Instruments LLC
Harrisburg, PA 17111
jleblerfinger@exiusa.com
Jeffrey Leberfinger is a senior geophysicist with Exploration
Instruments, LLC and PIKA International Inc. He is a licensed
Professional Geophysicist (CA) and Geologist (PA) with over 30
years’ experience performing geophysical surveys across the
US for Munitions Response/UXO, environmental, geotechnical,
water resource, mineral exploration, and archaeological
projects. A former Board of Director of the National Association
of Ordnance Contractors (NAOC), Jeffrey is currently serving
as the NAOC Technology Committee Chairman. He has also
served on the Board of Directors of EEGS and the Pennsylvania
Council of Professional Geologists (PCPG).
Gregory Schultz, Ph.D.
White River Technologies, Inc.
115 Etna Road, Bldg. 3 Ste 1
Lebanon, New Hampshire 03766
schultz@whiterivertech.com
Dr. Schultz is the Chief Technology Officer at White River
Technologies, Inc. and Principal Investigator for geophysical
system DOD research and development programs such as the
ESTCP project MR19-5212. He has 18 years of experience
with autonomous sensing, geophysical data processing and
inversion, simulation, and implementation of miniaturized
magnetometers in ordnance clearance, infrastructure, and
environmental applications. He is leading multiple efforts
to integrate advanced magnetometer and electromagnetic
sensor payloads on a variety of unmanned systems including
autonomous fixed wing and rotary aircraft and autonomous
underwater systems.
Page 154 Vol 25, 3 2020
Geoff Pettifer
Principal
terraentheosgeoscience@gmail.comPage
Tel: +l-360-989-6771 (US); +61-(0)407-841-098 (Aust.)
155 Vol 25, 3 2020

Aerobatic Geophysical Systems, LLC

Ronald S. Bell
Geophysicist & geoDRONEo/ogist
tel: 303-462-1466
e-mail: rbell@igsdenver.com

on the web at www.aeroboticgeo.com

Drone Enabled Geoscientific Mapping

Seismographs
The GPR
R.T. Clarlt Geophones
1
Mags
Cables
Resistivity
Loggers
� EM&Mo:rem
Web: rtclark.com Email: rtcl.ark@rtclark.com
Tele: 405-751-9696 fax: 405-751-6711
P.O.Box 20957, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73157 USA

Your business card

could be here

Are you a researcher, Would you like to see your

consultant, contractor, business card reach the
equipment provider, software many FastTIMES readers?
agent or in education. Your
business card could be here
to alert and inform potential Go to
customers, clients, partners
or students of your services, http://www.eegs.org/advertising-information
technologies and capabilities to learn how affordable, it is.
 Page 156
Industry News
Mohamed Ahmed
Mohamed.ahmed@tamucc.edu
For this edition of the Industry News column, we have: -
• Subsuelo3D QC Software
• Seequent GeoStudio Core
We welcome contributions of industry news and articles relevant
to near-surface geophysics in the Americas and globally from
local and international service provider and consulting firms,
researchers and research consortia, government, indeed any
member of the global near-surface geophysics community with
a good story to tell.
This might entail technical and commercial topics, people news,
research projects, regulatory changes, standards, workshops
and conferences and good photos are always welcome. In
fact, any news item that may be of interest and technically
informative to both the near-surface geophysics practitioner
and end-user communities.
Please contact me if you have ideas or news / articles to
contribute (mohamed.ahmed@tamucc.edu).
Noise QC Software
SPAC-RT Interface
Subsuelo3D (www.subsuelo3d.com) has developed SPAC-RT,
an easy-to-use quality control software designed for rapid, in
the field evaluation of information contained in your raw data
acquired for seismic noise-based methods.
SPAC-RT is a simple tool for quick approval or rejection of a
given data record. The user batch-loads a series of seismic
files (in SEG2 or any other common data format). SPAC-RT
Vol 25, 3 2020
automatically calculates and auto-picks the F vs V phase
spectrum for each file. Based on a series of internal decision
rules, the software determines the data quality and discriminates
among valid, marginal or unusable files.
Seequent reinvents geotechnical
analysis with new GeoStudio
Core
Seequent announced the release of GeoStudio Core. GeoStudio
Core combines updated SLOPE/W and SEEP/W with a new,
completely reformulated SIGMA/W product. These major
upgrades allow geotechnical engineers to understand and
tackle major engineering challenges for infrastructure and
mining projects – from dams and levees to tunnelling and the
stability of cuts in underground and open pit mines.
GeoStudio Core delivers better modelling of open pit mine
dewatering effects on highwall stability
Paul Grunau, President of Seequent’s GEOSLOPE, says
GeoStudio Core 2021 is the most significant GeoStudio
release in the past five years. “SIGMA/W has been completely
redeveloped from the ground up, delivering new levels of
confidence and capability for geotechnical engineers needing
to assess ground deformations and stability. The new Strength
Reduction Stability analysis in SIGMA/W complements the
industry-trusted solutions in SLOPE/W to provide a rigorous
understanding of slope failure mechanisms, allowing the
engineer to design effective stabilization measures. These
products integrate with SEEP/W to include the impact of
changing groundwater conditions, providing a comprehensive
solution for stability problems,” says Grunau.
GeoStudio Core is ideal
for rigorous analysis of
Tailings Storage Facilities
 Page 157
“The combined GeoStudio Core solution runs in a single
integrated environment, speeding up the project workflow
and easily scaling with the user’s needs. All project data and
analyses can be combined into a single project file, enabling
smooth data exchange and simpler data management.”
Combining pore water pressure with slope stability and deformation analyses in
GeoStudio Core
Vol 25, 3 2020
Professor Soon-Hoe Chew, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore,
says, “GeoStudio 2021 can model a wide range of geotechnical
problems encountered in practical projects that deal with stress
and deformation of soil. For example, the hardening soil models
can be confidently used to model the soft clay in Singapore,
especially for excavation related problems.
“While engineers need to have a good understanding of the
key issues at hand and the soil mechanics, SIGMA/W’s well
formulated features and its logical flow of the modelling steps
make it very easy to use with less chance of errors or oversight.”
GeoStudio Core, with SIGMA/W’s expanded material model
library and new analysis types, allows for comprehensive
modelling of a wider range of soil and rock behaviour. For
example, simulating the strain-softening behaviour of brittle
clays enables stability control of a tailings dam or roadway cut.
The new GeoStudio multi-physics solver enables SIGMA/W to
offer improved solver performance and enhanced modelling of
rapid reservoir drawdown, open pit mine dewatering effects
on highwall stability, and solute transport from tailings ponds.
GeoStudio Core and its use in civil, environmental, and mining
projects will be showcased at Seequent’s upcoming virtual
event Lyceum on September 23rd – which explores how
technology and connection are playing an important role now
and into the future.
 Page 158
Infrastructure and
Geotechnical Geophysics
News – September 2020
Professor Nigel Cassidy
Professor of Geotechnical Infrastructure
Engineering,
University of Birmingham, UK
Welcome to the 2020 Fall edition of FastTIMES infrastructure and
geotechnical geophysics news; hasn’t it been a strange year?
Back in January, I opened my column looking forward to a year
of new developments in software, technology and equipment
not realising that it would mean going from a video conferencing
dummy to a Skype-Zoom-Teams natural in less than a month – as
many of us have had to. In March, I feared for the cohesion of the
near-surface geophysical community as conferences, workshops
and training activities were postponed indefinitely or hastily
cancelled with little prospect of them being re-scheduled. Six
months later, I realise my fears were ill-placed and I have attended
more events on-line this summer than I would have had the funds
or time to do so normally. I can choose what I attend and when
(some of the technical training webinars I have attended have
been excellent) and, more importantly, I can do a lot of this at
my own pace and without distraction. On-line will never replace
person-to-person contact, and the enjoyment we have meeting
up with old friends, but it is not a bad alternative. I have ‘visited’
over twenty different countries from the comfort of my own home
this summer (and at a fraction of the cost) and the interactive
on-line seminars I have attended have been fantastic (and very
innovative). I have been forced to be more proactively involved
due to the nature of their delivery (on-line chat, audience voting,
polling and live agenda-setting) and I like this. Rather than being
a passive participant, as often occurs when at physical events,
the audience is part of the delivery - I am definitely a convert.
On-line conferences are not for everyone but our institutions,
societies and academic/industry groups have stepped up to the
challenge of digital delivery and I’m pleased that they have. Maybe
the unfortunate circumstances of the Pandemic forced us to rethink
how we operate as a connected community and therefore foster
new ways of disseminating the good work we do – I hope so.
Students and career-young geophysicists from any country can
now attend many more US/EU events without the crippling cost
of travel and accommodation. Visa complications are not an issue
and, ultimately, we have a better record of the events and their
content for everyone. This cannot be a bad thing, can it?
With this all in mind, it is important to highlight two of the upcoming
international events this year that have particular resonance to the
infrastructure and geotechnical minded geophysicists…
The SEG Annual meeting is happening between 11-16th October
as a purely on-line event and, along with the usual themes, there
Vol 25, 3 2020
are a number of relatively new special sessions that have specific
interest to our community including ‘Urban Geophysics’ and
‘Machine Learning in the Near Surface’. Visit https://seg.org/
am/2020/attend for more information but also have a quick read of
this article in SEG’s August 2020 edition of The Leading Edge from
the Chairs of the Technical committee, Olga Nedorub and Brye
Swinford… “90 years of technological advancement: Envision,
develop, improve, implement, teach, and envision once more”
(https//doi.org/10.1190/tle39080538.1). It will certainly illustrate
how societies are embracing on-line conference technology and
a new future for our discipline.
The EAGE’s re-scheduled Annual Conference and Exhibition will
take place in Amsterdam, 8-11th December 2020 and, although
many of the sessions are being delivered physically, they will
also have on-line provision. I particularly like the look of the
workshops on “Passive Seismic” and “Geophysical Aspects of
Smart Cites” on the 6-7th of December. Further information
on the conference, and what is being delivered digitally, can
be found at www.eageannual2020.org.
It is also worth looking at EAGE’s forthcoming first conference on
Geophysical Monitoring Technology (GeoTech2021, The Hague,
Netherlands) scheduled for the 1-3 March 2021. Although
focused towards Oil & Gas technologies, there is likely to be
much to offer in the way of engineering, environmental and
geotechnical geophysics (including the 2nd EAGE workshop
on Distributed Fibre Optic Sensing), see www.geotech.eage.org.
Conferences have always been focal events for our community
and it is to the credit of the societies involved that they are
developing new ways for us to be involved, particularly in the
current circumstances. I look forward to seeing you there – even
if only virtually.
------------------------------------------------------------
This edition of FastTIMES is very timely for me as I have been
getting more involved in UAV remote sensing over the past six
months. There is UAV innovation in the fields of archaeology,
geoscience and environmental science that we can certainly
adopt in the infrastructure sector. Geophysical techniques are
at the forefront of these developments and, in combination
with the more conventional drone-related imaging technologies
(e.g., thermal, optical, etc), I feel there is an opportunity to
expand our techniques ‘toolbox’. Thermal imaging is a good
example of this and the recent purchase of a number of high-
resolution thermal cameras by my University (in part as a
response to Covid-19) has provided me with an opportunity
to play with their capabilities. I’ve successfully used these
relatively inexpensive thermal cameras for locating grout
voids in cable ducts, monitoring structural defects in masonry,
tracking groundwater flow and even detecting wasp nests
in cavity walls. Time-lapse thermal imagery, combined with
low-frequency EM sensing, has helped me track sources of
electromagnetic radiation associated with potentially failing/
overloaded electricity power transformers in rural settings. It
is an area of geophysics that can benefit from the experience
of our engineering colleagues and I have been very impressed
with the temporal response and accuracy of these instruments.
 Page 159
Figure 1. Thermal imagery of overhead rural power distribution used to track cycles in
operational temperature as a result of potential overloading and/or component pre-failure.
If you are curious about the possibilities of drone-based thermal
imaginary, and the technology that is out there, I recommend
the following places to visit…
https://www.dronefly.com/blogs/news/how-thermal-drones-work/
https://www.dronezon.com/learn-about-drones-quadcopters/9-heat-
vision-cameras-for-drones-and-how-thermal-imaging-works/
I have found these two sites very informative and they provide
good, technical appraisals of drone-based thermal imagery and
the pros/cons of current systems. The issue, as I see it, is the
lack of freely available software to process and evaluate the
collected images in the way that a geophysicist would require.
That said, there are a number of good thermal image analysis
tools available, either at cost from the thermal camera providers
or as toolboxes to open-source image analysis programs. There
is also a developing community of open source users who are
making thermal imaging technology (mainly through Raspberry
Pi and mobile phone applications) and software openly available
to the hobbyist and researcher community. Have a look at…
https://www.dronecode.org/ - a community site dedicated to
making drone software open-source
https://www.electronics-lab.com/open-thermal-camera-thermal-
imaging-rest-us/ - cheap, simple thermal camera add-ons for
mobile phones
https://towardsdatascience.com/detecting-people-with-a-
raspberrypi-a-thermal-camera-and-machine-learning-376d3bbcd45c
- an interesting and technically comprehensive article on how
to build a Raspberry Pi based thermal imaging camera
And… this interesting, April 2020 article coming out of the
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta on the development of
a low cost, Raspberry Pi based thermal imaging system for the
auto-triage of Covid-19 patients, https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.0
4.09.20059840. What I like about the application is that it uses
standard imaging components, freely available code and the
combination of both optical and IR imaging in a single package
whilst integrating neural network code for the automated, real-
time data interpretation of data and patient screening. I can
see packages like this being easily applied to the real-time
monitoring of infrastructure assets and, when combined with
inputs from other geophysical sensors, could lead to interesting
new avenues of research for our discipline.
Finally, for this edition, I would like to share my experiences of
some freely available software resources that have been very
useful to me over the past few months in lockdown…
GeoPIV-RG - http://www.geopivrg.com/ - Particle Image
Velocimetry program
Vol 25, 3 2020
GeoPIV-RG is a free image analysis module for MATLAB users that
is designed for geotechnical and structural engineering research
applications. Originally developed in mid-2000s as GeoPIV, it has
undergone a few revisions to get it to its current version (GeoPIV-
RG). It is fantastic at tracking pixel and sub-pixel particle movement
within time-lapse image sequences and colleagues of mine have
been using it for soil deformation studies. There are a number
of analysis/visualisation plug-ins that are very useful (e.g., small
strain evaluation) but to use it properly you need to have a decent
level of Matlab skill and the right version installed - it’s not quite
a ‘plug and play’ application. However, once up and running, it is
a powerful analysis tool that I am starting to use for applications
beyond geotechnical engineering (i.e., time-lapse thermal imagery).
Have a look at the “how to” videos on the site as these will give
you an appreciation of its capabilities and technical requirements.
There is also a very informative 2015 article from the code’s
authors that can be downloaded at… https://www.nrcresearchpress.
com/doi/full/10.1139/cgj-2015-0253#.X1Ynbn7lrX4 - S.A. Stanier, J.
Blaber, W.A. Take, and D.J. White, 2015. Improved image-based
deformation measurement for geotechnical applications Can.
Geotech. J. 53: 1–13 (2016)
Figure 2. Strain analysis using GeoPIV-RG for a drum centrifuge ‘punch-through’
test (sand overlying clay soil) – taken from http://www.geopivrg.com/
To help with capturing the time-lapse images/videos and
sequencing them in the right format, size and duration, I have
found ‘Openshot’ the most useful of the free video editing suites
https://www.openshot.org/. Ultimately, it’s a matter of personal
choice but I found it fairly easy to use as a beginner and the skills I
have developed have been invaluable for my own on-line teaching.
Colleagues also recommend ‘Blender’ (https://www.blender.org/)
which appears to have more technical capabilities and high-level
functions. It can also be used for particle tracking https://www.
blendernation.com/2016/08/25/particle-tracking-blender/ but I suspect
this is something better tackled by more advanced users.
I hope you get the chance to try out these software packages
and image analysis tools and, as always, we would love to
hear about your experiences. Please do send us your articles
(to nigel.j.cassidy@gmail.com or the chief editor, Geoff Pettifer,
editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com) as whatever you have
will be of interest to our community.
Thank you and best wishes for the Fall,
Nigel Cassidy
 Page 160
Archaeological & Forensic
Geophysics
Geoff Pettifer,
editorfasttimesnewsmagazine@gmail.com
This issue of the FastTIMES Archaeological and Forensic
Geophysics Column, addresses the theme of Vol 25, 3, focusing
on the use of Satellite imagery and drones for characterization
of archaeological sites and landscapes, both alone and in
conjunction with other geophysical methods – so called
manifold or multi-geophysical method approaches. There has
been growing interest in this subject in the last ~10 years
A good overview of the subject of is a free-access Editorial
article in MDPI Geosciences entitled: - Remote Sensing and
Geosciences for Archaeology, the editorial of a Special Issue
of Geosciences 2018, 8, 41; doi:10.3390/geosciences8020041
(accessible at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/18/3102/htm
Another good introductory reference approached from the
viewpoint of integration of ground methods is: Apostolos
Sarris, Tuna Kalayci, Ian Moffat, and Meropi Manataki, 2018
- An Introduction to Geophysical and Geochemical Methods
in Digital Geoarchaeology. Pp215-236, Chapter 14 in C.
Siart et al. (eds.), Digital Geoarchaeology, Natural Science in
Archaeology,DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25316-9_14 (accessible
from: -https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/8/2/41
Satellite Imagery in Archaeology
In FastTIMES Vol 23, 2 p125 (freely
downloadable from https://www.
eegs.org/latest-issue) we profiled the
book: Remote Sensing for
Archaeology by Professor Sarah
Parcak, Professor of Anthropology
at the University of Alabama at
Birmingham. The book: - Parcak,
S.H. Satellite Remote Sensing for
Archaeology; Routledge: London,
UK; New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN
9780415448772. First published in
2009, can be purchased from https://
www.amazon.com/Satellite-Remote-
Sensing-Archaeology-Parcak-ebook/dp/B0025CTGQK
Sara Parcak is CEO of Globalxplorer and is Director of the Joint
Mission to Lisht (Egypt). Sarah has pioneered and promoted
the young field of satellite archaeology, to help transform how
discoveries are made. She is the first Egyptologist to use
multispectral and high-resolution satellite imagery analysis to
identify previously unknown archaeological sites. Globalxplorer
is a citizen science project searching anonymous location
satellite image tiles for signs of possible grave robbing and
archaeological site vandalism.
Vol 25, 3 2020
A recent publication documenting Parcak and her team’s
approach is: - Parcak, S.; Mumford, G.; Childs, C. Using
Open Access Satellite Data Alongside Ground Based Remote
Sensing: An Assessment, with Case Studies from Egypt’s
Delta. Geosciences 2017, 7, 94. (accessible at https://www.
mdpi.com/2076-3263/7/4/94). The paper presents examples
from earlier pre-digital data CORONA satellite imagery (late
1960’s vintage) and advocates for greater use of more modern
satellite imagery at the end of wet winter months in Egypt to
detect vegetation anomalies related to shallow archaeological
infrastructure and any looting/vandalism changes.
The basis of satellite spectral imaging and detection of the
presence of archaeological infrastructure in a total landscape
or a particular site that is over-printed by recent and historical
agricultural activity is to use vegetation indices to discriminate
patterns of crop or vegetation vigour due root zone impacts of
underlying archaeology (see the principles of this in Figure 1).
Figure 1. The principles of crop marks due to shallow buried archaeological
infrastructure (ditches – high vegetation vigour and walls/foundations – stressed,
reduced vigour vegetation). This can be exacerbated by thermal differences in
soil evident in differencing located thermal wavelength images throughout the day
giving scope for repeat passes at different times of day or at similar times of day
in different seasons, either by higher resolution satellites or drone hyperspectral
images. Source DART project website, accessed from https://www.dayofarchaeology.
com/dart-and-the-british-science-festival/ DART is the Detection of Archaeological
Residues using remote sensing Techniques project.
Most thermal imaging technologies focus on the near-infra-red
(NIR) wavelengths and more recently the short-wave-infra-red
(SWIR) wavelengths (measured in micrometres or nanometres)
The visible band (.4-.7 μm) is the white light region composed of
three segments representing the additive primary colors blue (.4-
.5 μm), green (.5-.6 μm), and red (.6-.7 μm). The more complex
IR band is commonly divided into near (NIR: 0.7-1.5 μm),
middle (MIR: 1.5-5.6 μm), and far (FIR: 5.6-1000 μm) regions,
but also addressed as reflected IR versus emitted or thermal
IR. On average, slightly more than half of the electromagnetic
radiation impacting the earth reaches the surface, the rest is
either reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere. A small fraction
of this energy is reflected from the surface as UV, visible, NIR,
or MIR radiation, detectable by drones / aircraft- or spacecraft-
borne sensors. The remainder, absorbed by various surfaces,
is transformed into low-temperature heat (surface warming)
 Page 161 Vol 25, 3 2020

that is reradiated continuously back into the atmosphere as Duffy, 2013 - Integration of geophysical survey, ground
long-wave thermal radiation (about 3-1000 μm, in the SWIR, hyperspectral measurements, aerial and satellite imagery for
MIR and FIR ranges). archaeological prospection of prehistoric sites: the case study
of Vészt}o-Mágor Tell, Hungary. Journal of Archaeological
Science 40 (2013) 1454-1470 (accessible from: - https://www.
academia.edu/15700667/Integration_of_geophysical_surveys_
ground_hyperspectral_measurements_aerial_and_satellite_
imagery_for_archaeological_prospection_of_prehistoric_sites_
the_case_study_of_V%C3%A9szt%C5%91_M%C3%A1gor_Tell_
Hungary_2013_?email_work_card=view-paper)
Athos Agapiou, Vasiliki Lysandrou, Apostolos Sarris, Nikos
Papadopoulos and Diofantos G. Hadjimitsis. 2017 - Fusion of
Satellite Multispectral Images Based on Ground-Penetrating
Radar (GPR) Data for the Investigation of Buried Concealed
Archaeological Remains. In Geosciences 2017, 7(2), 40; https://
doi.org/10.3390/geosciences7020040. Academic Editors:
Figure 2. Worldview-3 NIR & SWIR spectral ranges and applications. Source: https:// Deodato Tapete and Jesus Martinez-Frias (accessible at https://
content.satimagingcorp.com/static/galleryimages/worldview-3-spectral-bands.jpg
www.mdpi.com/2076-3263/7/2/40/htm).
The Satellite Imaging Corporation website The satellite and ground data workflow diagram used by the
https://www.satimagingcorp.com/satellite- Greece / Cyprus / Crete-based research team is shown in
sensors/ is an access point to purchase and Figure 2
information of available high resolution multi-
spectral imaging satellites (see inset opposite
of the GeoEye-1 satellite and Figure 2 shows
the spectral content and applications of the
WorldView-3 satellite sensor spectral range and application is in
the NIR and SWIR band (sourced from the Satellite Imaging
Corporation website) The range of satellite data purchasable from
the Satellite Imaging Corporation, with imagery programmable
with return periods of a little as three days (with the panchromatic
wavelength specified in brackets) is as follows: -
WorldView-4 (0.31m) has currently malfunctioned and recent
data is not available; WorldView-3 (0.31m); WorldView-2
(0.46m); WorldView-1 (0.46m); GeoEye-1 (0.46m); Pleiades-1A
(0.5m); Pleiades-1B (0.5m); SuperView-1 (0.5m); KOMPSAT-
3A (0.55m); KOMPSAT-3 (0.7m); QuickBird (0.65m); Gaofen-2
(0.8m); TripleSat (0.8m); IKONOS (0.82m); SkySat-1 (0.8m);
SkySat-2 (0.8m); Jilin-1 (1m); TerraSAR-X; SPOT-6 (1.5m);
SPOT-7 (1.5m); Other Satellites (2m-20m)

Remote Sensing & Ground Figure 3. Satellite and ground data workflow diagram

Geophysics - Hungary Sensing Archaeology in the

A comprehensive case study from the Vészto-Mágor Tell site
on the Plain of Hungary applying 26 different literature cited
North Workshop, August 2018
vegetation indices (see Table 1 in the first listed paper) and
other image processing techniques (e.g. PCA and Brovey etc)
to GeoEye-1 satellite and ground spectrometer data at an
archaeological site and comparing the satellite data to ground
spectrometer, magnetics and GPR data is documented in two
Carmen Cuenca-García, Ole Risbøl. C. Richard Bates, Arne
papers as follows: -
Anderson Stamnes, Fredrik Skoglund, Øyvind Ødegård,
Apostolos Sarris, Nikos Papadopoulos , Athos Agapiou Andreas Viberg, Satu Koivisto, Mikkel Fuglsang, Manuel
, Maria Cristina Salvi, Diofantos G. Hadjimitsis, William A. Gabler, Esben Schlosser Mauritsen, Wesa Perttola and Dag-
Parkinson, Richard W. Yerkes, Attila Gyucha and Paul R. Øyvind Solem, 2020 - Sensing Archaeology in the North: The
 Page 162
Use of Non-Destructive Geophysical and Remote Sensing
Methods in Archaeology in Scandinavian and North Atlantic
Territories. Remote Sens. 2020, 12(18), 3102; https://doi.
org/10.3390/rs12183102. Accessible at https://www.mdpi.com/2072-
4292/12/18/3102/htm
The proceedings of this recent workshop in Scandinavia
summarizes the utility of LiDAR, airborne and marine drones
and ground geophysics. The workshop was organised by the
‘TErrestrial, Marine, and Aerial Remote sensing for archaeology’
(TEMAR) research group at the Department of Archaeology and
Cultural History (University Museum, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology—NTNU) during 29–30 August 2020.
13 researchers with interests in the application of terrestrial
(i.e., ground-based sensors), marine, and aerial/remote sensing
methods for archaeological investigations in Norther clime
countries (Scandinavia and Scotland) attended the workshop.
The general tenor of the workshop was that uptake of airborne
(particularly LIDAR and visual photography) and marine sensing
methods were more commonly used and accepted than use
of ground geophysical techniques apart from some GPR over
snow covered areas and magnetics. Conductive soils often
limited GPR effectiveness. An example Lidar scene is shown
in Figure 3 reproduced from Figure 2 in the paper shows the
effectiveness of LIDAR in the frequently heavily forested terrain
of Norway (similarly Finland).
Figure 3. A landscape section from a rural district north of Oslo in SE-Norway seen
from aloft. The right-hand part of the image is an aerial photo and the left-hand part
a LiDAR generated digital terrain model. The image exemplifies a forest holding a
large number of cultural features, in this case charcoal kilns, grave mounds and
(hollow) roads. Illustration by Magnar Mojaren Gran, NTNU University Museum.
(Reproduced from Cuenca-Garcia et al, 2020).
The use of LiDAR in jungle terrains (for Mayan and Khmer
civilizations archaeology) is profiled in FastTIMES Vol 23, 4, p167-
171 (freely downloadable from https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue).
SERDP Project SI-1263
In the US a comprehensive integrated study using remote
sensing and ground geophysics over US army historical forts/
Vol 25, 3 2020
towns and Native American site is documented in the following
395 page technical report: -
University of Arkansas, Center for Advanced Spatial
Technologies, Kenneth Kenneth Kvamme, Eileen Ernenwein,
Michael Hargrave, Thomas Sever, Deborah Harmon, Fredrick
Limp, Burgess Howell, Michele Koons, Jason Tullis. Lead
Principal Investigator Fred Limp, November 10, 2006 - New
Approaches to the Use and Integration of Multi-Sensor
Remote Sensing for Historic Resource Identification and
Evaluation SERDP Project SI-1263 (accessible from: -https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/242137737_SERDP_Annual_
Report_CS1263_Project_Title_New_Approaches_to_the_Use_and_
Integration_Of_MultiSensor_Remote_Sensing_for_Historic_Resource_
Identification_and_Evaluation)
The project was carried out pre-drone technology and used
satellite and motorized parachute aerial photogrammetric
and multispectral imagery from ultra-light aircraft illustrating
shadowing from oblique photographs of subtle depressions
and mounds. Figure 4 reproduced from Figure 4.49 in the
SERDP Project report illustrates clear crop markings from low
level imagery.
Figure 4 – From SERDP Project SI-1263 Figure 4.49. Vegetation and shadow marks
point to subsurface archaeological conditions.
a) Vegetation marks distinguish between houses, village fill, and middens at 15th-
18th century Double Ditch Village, North Dakota.
b) Fortification ditch, bastions, and several houses indicated by positive vegetation
marks in a 1968 soil survey photo of 14th century Whistling Elk village, South
Dakota.
c) Fortification ditch, bastions, and several houses indicated by positive vegetation
marks in a 1938 soil survey photo of 13th century Menoken Village, North Dakota.
d) Shadow marking in a sunrise view of Double Ditch.
e) Shadow marking shows houses, trails, defenses, and corrals at the 19th century
Mandan-Arikara village at Fort Clark, North Dakota.
f) Close-up of houses and collapsed subterranean storage pits at Fort Clark.
The SERDP project comprehensively covered image processing
techniques for spectrometer data alone and in combination with
detailed ground geophysical coverage, particularly over the
Army City site (see Figure 5). The report is worth reviewing for
the coverage of the image processing methods approaching the
subject of combination of thermal imaging and ground sensing
data. The thermal imagery revealed information not evident in
detailed EM38 conductivity, magnetic gradiometry, magnetic
susceptibility and resistivity mapping of the Army City site with
the thermal data dominating the third principal component in
the PCA analysis of the joint data sets.
 Page 163 Vol 25, 3 2020

Use of Drones in Archaeology

The growing impact of drones in archaeology investigations
is profiled in an article by Peter Guterriez ( https://
insideunmannedsystems.com/drones-transform-archaeology/) and
by Peter Rauxloh of MOLA (https://www.mola.org.uk/blog/peter-
rauxloh-drones). Drones have replaced use of tethered balloons
and kites for site aerial photography and photogrammetry. As
well drones are being use for LiDAR for terrain DTM anomalies
and in combination with photogrammetry to produce above
ground structure 3D images of archaeological ruins and as well
as thermal imaging for crop marks.
The use of the Pentamag system (Stolle et al, this FastTIMES
Special Issue) designed for magnetic prospecting for UXO, for
Figure 6 – Dearne valley landscape drone images clearly showing former habitation.
application to archaeological sites, replacing multi-sensor carts
(Source: http://discoverdearne.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Aerial-
for magnetic prospecting, is yet to be realized. Photography.jpg)

Yorkshire Archaeological Aerial Mapping (YAAM) are very active

in the UK carrying out aerial photogrammetry, terrain and
thermal imaging with drones under contract, for archaeological
purposes. Figure 7 shows a possible Roman military or industrial
site visible only on the NIR in North Yorkshire, obtained by
YAAM. Many more examples collected by YAAM can also be
found on their Website or Facebook pages:
http://www.yaamapping.co.uk/
https://www.facebook.com/yaamapping/
http://www.yaamapping.co.uk/uploads/6/3/7/4/637489/henges_2.pdf

Figure 5 - From SERDP Project SI-1263 Figure 5.3. Interpretive vectors overlaid on (a-f)
geophysical data and (g) each other. a) Conductivity, b) GPR, c) magnetic gradiometry,
d) magnetic susceptibility, e) electrical resistivity, f) thermal infrared, g) composite
overlay integrating the data. KEY: yellow=conductivity; green-GPR; cyan=magnetic
gradiometry; white=magnetic susceptibility; red=resistivity; magenta=thermal infrared;
robust anomalies=solid bright colors; subtle anomalies=cross-hatching or dull-colored
line vectors.
A particularly spectacular example of drone image showing crop
marks in the Dearne Valley landscape, UK is shown in Figure 6
Figure 7 – NIR image froma drone of a site in North Yorkshire, UK. The square feature
is over 100m in dimension.(Source: Yorkshire Archaeological Aerial Mapping
Facebook Page photo. https://www.facebook.com/yaamapping/
photos/a.1355620687878063/3036325519807563)
The EEGS and FastTIMES team is also inviting
advertising / sponsorship of this Archaeological and
Forensic Geophysics regular column. If interested in
sponsorship / advertising or if you want to learn more,
please contact: David Valintine -
dvalintine@fugro.com and also visit:
http://www.eegs.org/advertising-information.
 adjacent airborne geophysical surveys are available from
Page 164 VolRepository
Natural Resources Canada's Geoscience Data 25, 3 2020for
Aeromagnetic data at http://gdr.agg.nrcan.gc.ca. Copies of
this map Geoscience
may also beData
obtained from the Yukon Geological
Government
Happy fall, in Alaska anyway. The Geological Survey of Canada’s
Survey,
at Energy, Mines and
http://gdr.agg.nrcan.gc.ca
Repository for Aeromagnetic
Resources,
. Copies Government
of this map
data
may also of
be
Canada and Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical
Geophysics
Surveys (DGGS) releasedNewsnew data. Australia has
Yukon, P.O.
obtained
and
from
Resources,
Boxthe
2703 (K-102),
Yukon
Government
Whitehorse,
Geological
of Yukon,
Survey,Yukon, Y1AMines
Energy, 2C6.
Telephone: (867) 667-3201, email: P.O. Box 2703 (K-102),
geology@gov.yk.ca,
significantly
Abraham expanded their Exploring for the Future
Emond Whitehorse, Yukon, Y1A 2C6. Telephone: (867) 667-3201, email:
website: http://www.geology.gov.yk.ca.
program. For those of
abraham.emond@alaska.gov us working at government geology@gov.yk.ca, website: http://www.geology.gov.yk.ca.
institutions we often have a wealth of base data at our
disposal on our internal servers. The good news is much of
the data
Happy fall,are accessible
in Alaska to the
anyway. Thepublic if youSurvey
Geological know where to
of Canada
look.Alaska
and I will share some
Division of insider tips of
Geological how to get the
& Geophysical best
Surveys
(DGGS)
geosciencereleaseddatanewfrom
data. DGGS,
AustraliaI has significantly
hope to getexpanded
similar
their Exploring for the Future program. For those
information from other surveys on often overlooked data of us working
at government institutions we often have a wealth of base data
resources.
at our disposal on our internal servers. The good news is much
Please
of sendare
the data meaccessible
your contributions
to the public on ifdata and report
you know where
releases and either planned, upcoming, in progress
to look. I will share some insider tips of how to get the best or
recently completed
geoscience data fromgeophysical
DGGS, I hope projects
to getor research.
similar I can
information
be contacted
from other surveysat abraham.emond@alaska.gov,
on often overlooked data resources.+1-907 451
3098 (office)
Please sendorme +1-801-839-4127
your contributions(cell). on data and report
releases and either planned, upcoming, in progress or Abraham
recently

Geological Survey of Canada

completed geophysical projects or research. I can be contacted
at abraham.emond@alaska.gov, +1-907 451 3098 (office) or
Contact: Doug Oneschuk
+1-801-839-4127 (cell).
Geophysicist
Abraham
Airborne Geophysics Section
Geological Survey of Canada
Geological Survey of Canada
601 Booth Street, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada
Contact: K1A 0E9
Doug Oneschuk
Douglas.Oneschuk@Canada.ca
Geophysicist
613-947-3337
Airborne Geophysics Section
Geological Survey of Canada
The Geological Survey of Canada has recently released
601
mapsBooth
and Street, Ottawa, during an aeromagnetic survey
data acquired
carried out
Ontario, from K1A
Canada January
0E919, 2020 to March 28, 2020 in the
Nash Creek area of the Yukon
Douglas.Oneschuk@Canada.ca (Figure 1). The data were
recorded using a split-beam cesium vapour magnetometer
613-947-3337
mounted in the tail boom of a Beechcraft King Air aircraft.
The Geological Survey of Canada has recently released maps
The nominal traverse and control line spacings were,
and data acquired during an aeromagnetic survey carried out
respectively,
from January 400 m andto2400
19, 2020 Marchm,28,
and2020
the in
aircraft flewCreek
the Nash at a Figure 1. Regional and National survey location maps
Figure 1. Regional and National survey location maps
nominal
area terrain
of the Yukonclearance
(Figure 1).ofThe
150data
m. were
The recorded
flight path wasa
using
recovered following
split-beam post-flight
cesium vapour differential
magnetometer corrections
mounted in the to
tail
the raw
boom of aGlobal Positioning
Beechcraft King AirSystem
aircraft.(GPS). Maps traverse
The nominal of the
and control
residual line
total spacings
magnetic were,
field andrespectively, 400 mderivative
the first vertical and 2400
m, and the aircraft flew at a nominal terrain clearance of
of the magnetic field were published.
150 m. The flight path was recovered following post-flight
differential corrections to the raw Global Positioning System
(GPS). Maps of the residual total magnetic field and the first
vertical derivative of the magnetic field were published.
This publication is available for free download through GEOSCAN
(http://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca). Corresponding digital profile and
gridded data as well as similar data for adjacent airborne
geophysical surveys are available from Natural Resources
 Page 165 Vol 25, 3 2020

Alaska Division of Geological &

DGGS released preliminary magnetic and radiometric data
12Alaska
days! after the
Alaska Division
completion of
Division of
of Geological
the their Shaw Creek and&
Geological &
Geophysical Surveys
Shawnee Peak survey, https://doi.org/10.14509/30551.
Geophysical Surveys
ThisGeophysical
fast turn aroundSurveys was to support our industry partners’
exploration programs. Looking for great base layer data try
these Alaska statewide links,
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/arcgis/rest/services
DGGS released preliminary magnetic and radiometric data
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/portal/home/
DGGS released
DGGS released preliminary
preliminary magneticmagnetic and and radiometric data data
12 days! after the completion of the their radiometric
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/arcgis/services/eleva Shaw Creek and
1212days!
days!afterafterthe thecompletion
completionofofthe thetheir
theirShaw
ShawCreek Creek andand
Shawnee Peak survey,
tion/IFSAR_DTM/ImageServer https://doi.org/10.14509/30551.
ShawneePeak
Shawnee Peak survey,
survey, https://doi.org/10.14509/30551.
https://doi.org/10.14509/30551 . This fast Figure 2. The Exploring for the Future program will collect regional-scale
This around
fast turn around
http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/ was to support our industryexploration
partners’
This fast turn
turn wasaround
to support was ourto support
industryour industry partners’
partners’ geoscience data across southern Australia, and along two corridors with
exploration
Don’t overlook
programs. programs.
Looking Looking
municipalities
for great forlayer
either,
base great base
Fairbanks
data trylayer
North
these dataStar
Alaskatry potential for new discoveries of groundwater, mineral and energy
exploration programs. Looking for great base layer data try
these Alaska
statewide
Borough haslinks,statewide
some excellentlinks,local data including LiDAR and resources. Source: Geoscience Australia
these Alaska statewide links,
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/arcgis/rest/services
4https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/arcgis/rest/services
inch pixel size ortho photos.
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/arcgis/rest/services The EFTF program has been highly successful, implementing
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/portal/home/
https://gisportal.fnsb.us/referenced/rest/services/publicDa
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/portal/home/
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/portal/home/
innovative methods and integrating multi-disciplinary data
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/arcgis/services/eleva
tahttps://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/arcgis/services/elevation/
https://geoportal.dggs.dnr.alaska.gov/arcgis/services/eleva Figure 2. The Exploring for the Future program will collect regional-scale geoscience
from surveys that covered 2 corridors
millionwithsquare kilometres.
tion/IFSAR_DTM/ImageServer
https://gisportal.fnsb.us/image/rest/services
data across southern Australia, and along two potential for new
tion/IFSAR_DTM/ImageServer
IFSAR_DTM/ImageServer http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/ Figure 2.
Nearly
discoveries ofThe
200 Exploring
new
groundwater, for the
datasets
mineral and Future
and programhave
reports
energy resources. will collect
Source:been regional-scale
delivered
Geoscience Australia
http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/ Figure 2. ThedataExploring for the Future program will collect regional-scale
Geoscience
Don’t Australia –either,
http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/
overlook municipalities
Don’t overlook municipalities Exploring
either,
Fairbanks for
Fairbanks Norththe
North Star
Star
geoscience
through
The EFTFaprogram
geoscience
potential fordata
across southern
newacrossworld-leading
hassouthern
new discoveries
Australia,
been highly data and along
delivery
successful,
ofAustralia, and
groundwater, along
two corridors
portal.
implementing
two
mineral corridors
with
The
and energywith
Don’t overlook
Borough has some municipalities
excellent localeither, FairbanksLiDAR
data including North and Star
4 program
innovative
potential has
for been
methods
new extended
and for
integrating
discoveries of four years and
multi-disciplinary
groundwater, mineralwill expand
and data
energy
Future
Borough
inch pixel Program
has
size some
ortho excellent
photos. local data
Borough has some excellent local data including LiDAR and
including LiDAR and resources. Source: Geoscience Australia
itsresources.
fromreach Source:
that Geoscience
nationally.
surveys 2Australia
The Exploring
covered millionfor the Future
square kilometres.data portal
Nearly
4 inch pixel size ortho photos. 200
(Figurenew datasets
3) program
to downloadand reports
these have been
datasets delivered
and report through
for isa
4 inch pixel size ortho photos.
https://gisportal.fnsb.us/referenced/rest/services/publicData The EFTF has been highly successful, implementing
https://gisportal.fnsb.us/referenced/rest/services/publicDa newTheworld-leading
accessibleEFTF program hasdelivery
data been highly
portal.successful,
The program
at https://portal.ga.gov.au/persona/eftf. implementing
has been A
https://gisportal.fnsb.us/referenced/rest/services/publicDa
https://gisportal.fnsb.us/image/rest/services innovative methods and integrating multi-disciplinary data
ta innovative
extended
demonstration methods
for four years and
video and
of theintegrating
will expand itsmulti-disciplinary
data portal reach nationally. The
features can data
be
ta from surveys
Exploring that covered
for the Future data portal 2 (Figure
million square kilometres.
https://gisportal.fnsb.us/image/rest/services from at
viewed surveys that covered
https://youtu.be/vtG5s-AdldY 2 million3) to download
. square
these
kilometres.
https://gisportal.fnsb.us/image/rest/services Nearly 200 new datasets and reports have been delivered
Geoscience Australia – Exploring
InGeoscience
June 2020, Australia Australia announced –– Exploring
a $125M AUD for the
($91M
datasets and
through a. Anew
report for is accessible
world-leading videodata
at
Nearly 200 new datasets and reports have been delivered https://portal.ga.gov.au/
of thedelivery portal. The
Geoscience Australia
USD) four-year expansion of their Exploring for the Future Exploring for the persona/eftf
through afor
Registration
program has
demonstration
newfour
been
world-leading
webinars
extended (on
for demand)
four
data portal
data delivery
years that
and are
will
features
portal.
expand
The
for the Future Program
Future
Future
(EFTF) Program
Program,Program https://www.ga.gov.au/eftf. This builds on
can be viewed at https://youtu.be/vtG5s-AdldY.
program has
introducing the been
its reach nationally.
extendedcan
EFTF program
The Exploring
forbefour
for
years and
accessed
the Future
will expand
at: -data portal
Registration
its reach for four webinars
nationally. The (on demand)
Exploring for the that
Future are data
introduc-
portal
the $100M AUD ($73M USD) initially invested in 2016 and https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServ
(Figure 3) to download these datasets and report for is
ing(Figure
the EFTF program can be accessed at:
3) to download these datasets and report for is - https://event.on24.
expands the program to all of Australia from the initial let?target=reg20.jsp&referrer=https://wcc.on24.com/webc
accessible at https://portal.ga.gov.au/persona/eftf. A
com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=reg20.jsp&refer
accessible at https://portal.ga.gov.au/persona/eftf. A
ast/groupregistration/2340360&eventid=2340360&sessioni
northern focus. This program is focused on groundwater, demonstration video of the data portal features can be
rer=https://wcc.on24.com/webcast/groupregistration/2340360&even
demonstration video of the data portal features can be
d=1&key=9E0C5D3E593F944F92A33FB269C1EBE3&regTag=
viewed at https://youtu.be/vtG5s-AdldY .
mineral resources, and energy. In August 2020 Geoscience tid=2340360&sessionid=1&key=9E0C5D3E593F944F92A33FB
viewed at https://youtu.be/vtG5s-AdldY .
1028134&sourcepage=register
Australia
In June identified
2020, Australia two priority
announced corridors and outlined
a $125M AUD ($91M the 269C1EBE3&regTag=1028134&sourcepage=register
In June
southern 2020,
focus Australia
of the announced
expanded program
USD) four-year expansion of their Exploring for the Future a $125M
as shown AUD by ($91M
the Registration for four webinars (on demand) that are
USD) four-year expansion of theira $125M
Exploring forimpressive
the Future Registrationthe
introducing forEFTF
fourprogram
webinarscan (onbe demand)
accessed thatat:are-
map
In created
June
(EFTF) 2020,by
Program, Geoscience
Australia Australia.
announced
https://www.ga.gov.au/eftf. This isAUD anThis($91MbuildsUSD)on
(EFTF) Program, https://www.ga.gov.au/eftf. This builds on introducing the EFTF program can be
https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServ accessed at: -
investment
four-year in
expansiongeoscienceof their that “is
Exploring
the $100M AUD ($73M USD) initially invested in 2016 and focused
for the on
Future boosting
(EFTF)
the $100M https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServ
investment
Program,
expands inAUD the ($73M
resourcestoUSD)
https://www.ga.gov.au/eftf
the program initially
all sector,
of invested
Thisgenerating
. Australia
buildsfrom oninthe 2016
jobs
the and
$100M and
initial let?target=reg20.jsp&referrer=https://wcc.on24.com/webc
expands
AUD ($73M the
USD) program
initially to all
investedof Australia
in 2016 andfrom the
expands initial
the let?target=reg20.jsp&referrer=https://wcc.on24.com/webc
ast/groupregistration/2340360&eventid=2340360&sessioni
maintaining
northern focus. a strong Thiseconomy.”
program -Geoscience
is focused on Australia.
groundwater, ast/groupregistration/2340360&eventid=2340360&sessioni
mineral resources, and energy. In August 2020groundwater,
northern
program tofocus.
all of This program
Australia fromisthe focused
initial onnorthern focus. d=1&key=9E0C5D3E593F944F92A33FB269C1EBE3&regTag=
Geoscience d=1&key=9E0C5D3E593F944F92A33FB269C1EBE3&regTag=
This
ACIL program
mineral
Allen is focused
resources,
Consulting and on groundwater,
energy.
published In August
a mineral
2020
positive resources,
Geoscience
economic 1028134&sourcepage=register
Australia
and energy.
identified
In August
two2020 priority corridorsAustralia
Geoscience
and outlined the
identified 1028134&sourcepage=register
Australia focus
assessment
southern identified
of the of thetwo
first priority
four
expanded corridors
yearsprogram
of the as and
program outlined
shown here:
by the
the
two priority
southern corridors
focus and outlined the southern focus of the
expanded programby of the expanded program
https://www.acilallen.com.au/projects/program-
map created Geoscience
as shown byAustralia. This is
the map created
as an shown by the
impressive
by Geoscience
map created by Geoscience Australia.
evaluation/exploring-for-the-future-program-return-on-
investmentThis in isgeoscience that investment This
“is focusedinon is an impressive
boosting
Australia. an impressive geoscience
investment
investment-analysis
investment in
in the geoscience that “is focused on boosting
that “is focused on resources sector, generating
boosting investment jobs
in the resources and
investment
maintaining
sector, generating
in the
a strong jobs
resources
economy.” sector,
and maintaining-Geosciencegenerating
a strongAustralia. jobs
economy.”
and Figure 3. Exploring for the Future data portal
maintaining Australia.
a strong economy.” -Geoscience Australia. Figure 3. Exploring for the Future data portal
-Geoscience
ACIL Allen
ACIL Allen Consulting
Consulting published
published aa positive
positive economic
economic EDITORS NOTE: Refer also to FastTIMES Vol 24, 5 pp 95-100
ACIL Allen
assessment of Consulting
ofthe
thefirst
first published a positive economic
assessment fourfour years
years ofprogram
of the the program here: for more information on Geoscience Australia’s nation-wide
here: https://
assessment of the first four years of
https://www.acilallen.com.au/projects/program- the program here: data coverage (https://www.eegs.org/latest-issue).
www.acilallen.com.au/projects/program-evaluation/exploring-for-the-
https://www.acilallen.com.au/projects/program-
evaluation/exploring-for-the-future-program-return-on-
future-program-return-on-investment-analysis
evaluation/exploring-for-the-future-program-return-on-
investment-analysis
investment-analysis
Figure 3. Exploring for the Future data portal
 Page 166 Vol 25, 3 2020

Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2020 Individual Membership Application
Individual Membership Categories
EEGS is the premier membership organization for near surface geophysics applied to engineering and environmental
problems. Our multi-disciplinary blend of professionals from the private sector, academia, and government offers a unique
opportunity to network with researchers, practitioners, and users of near-surface geophysical methods.
Memberships include access to the Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics (JEEG), proceedings archives of the
Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP), and our electronic
newsletter, FastTIMES. Members also enjoy complimentary access to SEG’s technical program expanded abstracts, as well
as discounted SAGEEP registration fees, books and other educational publications. EEGS offers a variety of membership
categories tailored to fit your needs. Please select (circle) your membership category and indicate your willingness to
support student members below:
Yes, I wish to sponsor student(s) @ $20 each to be included in my membership payment.

Student Members Students represent EEGS’ future and we offer complimentary membership subsidized by
Corporate Student Sponsor Members and those who sponsor students. Student members enjoy all the benefits of
individual membership (except to vote or hold office). Available to all students in an accredited university up to one
year post-graduation. Please submit a copy of your student ID and indicate your projected date of grad-
uation: ___ /____ (Month/Year). Students in year two beyond graduation are offered a special rate for 1 year.

Category Annual Dues (Calendar Year)

Student up to 1 Year Post Graduation $ 0

Student - Year Two Post Graduation (Grad Date: Mo/Yr.: ___/___) $50
Individual Members Individual members are invited to sponsor student members. Simply indicate the number
of students you’d like to support (at $20 each) to encourage growth in this important segment of EEGS’ membership.

Category Annual Dues (Calendar Year)

Individual $110

Retired Members Your opportunity to stay connected and support the only membership organization focusing
on near surface geophysics. Retired members are invited to sponsor student members. Simply indicate the number of
students you’d like to support (at $20 each) to encourage growth in this important segment of EEGS’ membership.

Category Annual Dues (Calendar Year)

Retired (Must be Approved by EEGS Board of Directors) $50

Introductory Members If you have never been a member of EEGS, we offer a reduced rate for new members to
enjoy all the benefits of individual membership (except voting or holding office) for one year.

Category Annual Dues (Calendar Year)

Introductory $55

Lifetime Members Support EEGS, receive benefits on an ongoing basis and never renew again! Members of
this category enjoy all the benefits of Individual membership.

Category Annual Dues (Calendar Year)

Lifetime Member $995

Developing World Members Those wishing to join this category of EEGS membership are invited to check
the list of countries to determine qualification.

Category Annual Dues (Calendar Year)

Developing World (List of qualifying countries next page) $50

 Page 167 Vol 25, 3 2020

Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2020 Individual Membership Application

Membership Renewal
Developing World Category Qualification

If you reside in one of the countries listed below, you are eligible for EEGS’s Developing
World membership category rate of $50.00.

Afghanistan El Salvador Maldives Somalia

Albania Eritrea Mali Sri Lanka
Algeria Ethiopia Marshall Islands Sudan
Angola Gambia Mauritania Suriname
Armenia Georgia Micronesia Swaziland
Azerbaijan Ghana Moldova Syria
Bangladesh Guatemala Mongolia Taiwan
Belize Guinea-Bissau Morocco Tajikistan
Benin GuyanaHaiti Mozambique Tanzania
Bhutan Honduras Myanmar Thailand
Bolivia India Nepal Timor-Leste
Burkina Faso Indonesia Nicaragua Togo
Burundi Iran Niger Tonga
Cambodia Iraq Nigeria Tunisia
Cameroon Ivory Coast North Korea Turkmenistan
Cape Verde Jordan Pakistan Uganda
Central African Republic Kenya Papua New Guinea Ukraine
Chad Kiribati Paraguay Uzbekistan
China Kosovo Philippines Vanuatu
Comoros Kyrgyz Republic Rwanda Vietnam
Congo, Dem. Rep. Lao PDR Samoa West Bank and Gaza
Congo, Rep. Lesotho Sao Tome and Principe Yemen
Djibouti Liberia Senegal Zambia
Ecuador Madagascar Sierra Leone Zimbabwe
Egypt Malawi Solomon Islands

1391 Speer Blvd. | Suite 450 | Denver, CO 80203

(p) 001.1.303.531.7517 | (f) 001.1.303.820.3844 | staff@eegs.org | www.eegs.org
 Page 168 Vol 25, 3 2020

Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2020 EEGS Membership Application

CONTACT INFORMATION

SSalutation First Name SMiddle Initial LLast Name

LCompany/Organization LTitle

LStreet Address LCity LState/Province LZip Code LCountry

LDirect Phone LMobile Phone LFax

LEmail LWebsite

ABOUT ME: INTERESTS & EXPERTISE

In order to identify your areas of specific interests and expertise, please check all that apply:
Willing to
Geophysical Professional/ Serve on a
Role Interest or Focus Expertise Scientific Societies Committee?

Consultant Archaeology Borehole Geophysical AAPG Publications

User of Geophysical Svcs. Engineering Logging AEG Web Site
Student Environmental Electrical Methods ASCE Membership
Geophysical Contractor Geotechnical Electromagnetics AWWA Student
Equipment Manufacturer Geo. Infrastructure Gravity AGU
Software Manufacturer Groundwater Ground Penetrating EAGE
Radar
Research/Academia Hazardous Waste EERI
Magnetics
Government Agency Humanitarian Geo. GeoInstitute
Marine Geophysics
Other Mining GSA
Remote Sensing
Shallow Oil & Gas NGWA
Seismic
UXO NSG
Other
Aerial Geophysics SEG
Other SSA
SPWLA

1391 Speer Blvd. | Suite 450 | Denver, CO 80203

(p) 001.1.303.531.7517 | (f) 000.1.303.820.3844 | staff@eegs.org | www.eegs.org
 Page 169 Vol 25, 3 2020

Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2020 EEGS Membership Application

FOUNDATION CONTRIBUTIONS
FOUNDERS FUND
The Founders Fund has been established to support costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of
the EEGS Foundation as we solicit support from larger sponsors. These will support business office expenses, nec-
essary travel, and similar expenses. It is expected that the operating capital for the foundation will eventually be
derived from outside sources, but the Founder’s Fund will provide an operation budget to “jump start” the work.
Donations of $50.00 or more are greatly appreciated. For additional information about the EEGS Foundation (an IRS
status 501(c)(3) tax exempt public charity), visit the website at http://www.EEGSFoundation.org.

Foundation Fund Total: $

STUDENT SUPPORT ENDOWMENT
This Endowed Fund will be used to support travel and reduced membership fees so that we can attract greater in-
volvement from our student members. Student members are the lifeblood of our society, and our support can lead
to a lifetime of involvement and leadership in the near-surface geophysics community. Donations of $50.00 or more
are greatly appreciated. For additional information about the EEGS Foundation (a tax exempt public charity), visit
the website at http://www.EEGSFoundation.org.
Student Support Endowment Total: $
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS
The EEGS Foundation is designed to solicit support from individuals and corporate entities that are not currently
corporate members (as listed above). We recognize that most of our corporate members are small businesses
with limited resources, and that their contributions to professional societies are distributed among several
organizations. The Corporate Founder’s Fund has been developed to allow our corporate members to support the
establishment of the Foundation as we solicit support from new contributors.
Corporate Contribution Total: $
Foundation Total: $

Subtotals
PAYMENT INFORMATION Membership: $
Check/Money Order MasterCard Student Sponsorship: $
VISA
Foundation Contributions: $
AmEx Discover
Grand Total: $

SCard Number LExp. Date LCVV #:

LName on Card

LSignature
Make your check or money order in US dollars payable to: EEGS. Checks from Canadian bank accounts must be
drawn on banks with US affiliations (example: checks from Canadian Credit Suisse banks are payable through
Credit Suisse New York, USA). Checks must be drawn on US banks.
Payments are not tax deductible as charitable contributions although they may be deductible as a business
expense. Consult your tax advisor.
Return this form with payment to: EEGS, 1391 Speer Blvd. | Suite 450 | Denver, CO 80203 USA
Credit card payments can be faxed to EEGS at 001.1.303.820.3844
Corporate dues payments, once paid, are non-refundable. Individual dues are non-refundable except in cases
of extreme hardship and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the EEGS Board of Directors. Requests
for refunds must be submitted in writing to the EEGS business office.
QUESTIONS? CALL 001.1.303.531.7517
 Page 170 Vol 25, 3 2020

Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2020 Corporate Membership Application
EEGS is the premier membership organization for near surface geophysics applied to engineering and environmental
problems. Our multi-disciplinary blend of professionals from the private sector, academia, and government offers a
unique opportunity to network with researchers, practitioners, and users of near-surface geophysical methods.

Annual (calendar year) memberships include access to the Journal of Environmental & Engineering Geophysics (JEEG),
proceedings archives of the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems
(SAGEEP), and our electronic newsletter FastTIMES. Members also enjoy complimentary access to SEG’s technical program
expanded abstracts, discounted SAGEEP registration fees, books and other educational publications. EEGS offers a variety
of membership categories tailored to fit your needs. We’ve added value to all the Corporate Membership categories and
added two new Website Advertising opportunities. We’ve packaged the two for an even greater value! Please select
(circle) your membership category and rate below:

Category 2020 2020 Basic +

Basic Dues Web Ad
Rate Package
Corporate Student Sponsor $310 $840
Includes one (1) individual membership, a company profile and linked
logo on the EEGS Corporate Members web page, a company profile in
FastTIMES and the SAGEEP program, recognition at SAGEEP and a 10%
discount on advertising in JEEG and FastTIMES and Sponsorship of 10
student memberships

Corporate Donor $675 $1225

Includes one (1) individual EEGS membership, one (1) full conference registra-
tion to SAGEEP, a company profile and linked logo on the EEGS Corporate
Members web page, a company profile in FastTIMES and the SAGEEP pro-
gram, recognition at SAGEEP and a 10% discount on advertising in JEEG
and FastTIMES

Corporate Associate $2425 $2975

Includes two (2) individual EEGS memberships, an exhibit booth and regis-
tration at SAGEEP, the ability to insert marketing materials in the SAGEEP
delegate packets, a company profile and linked logo on the EEGS Corporate
Members web page, a company profile in FastTIMES and the SAGEEP pro-
gram, recognition at SAGEEP and a 10% discount on advertising in JEEG and
FastTIMES

Corporate Benefactor $4025 $4575

Includes two (2) individual memberships to EEGS, two (2) exhibit booths and
registration at SAGEEP, the ability to insert marketing materials in the SAGEEP
delegate packets, a company profile and linked logo on the EEGS Corpo-
rate Members web page, a company profile in FastTIMES and the SAGEEP
program, recognition at SAGEEP and a 10% discount on advertising in
JEEG and FastTIMES

Purchase Separately
Website Advertising Package Rates
One (1) Pop-Under, scrolling marquee style ad with tagline on Home page, $600/yr. include both website
logo linked to Company web site ad locations
One (1) Button sized ad, linked logo, right rail on each web page $250/yr.
 Page 171 Vol 25, 3 2020

Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2020 Corporate Membership Application

CONTACT INFORMATION

SSalutation First Name SMiddle Initial LLast Name

LCompany/Organization LTitle

LStreet Address LCity LState/Province LZip Code LCountry

LDirect Phone LMobile Phone LFax

LEmail LWebsite

ABOUT ME: INTERESTS & EXPERTISE

In order to identify your areas of specific interests and expertise, please check all that apply:
Willing to
Geophysical Professional/ Serve on a
Role Interest or Focus Expertise Scientific Societies Committee?

Consultant Archaeology Borehole Geophysical AAPG Publications

User of Geophysical Svcs. Engineering Logging AEG Web Site
Student Environmental Electrical Methods ASCE Membership
Geophysical Contractor Geotechnical Electromagnetics AWWA Student
Equipment Manufacturer Geo. Infrastructure Gravity AGU
Software Manufacturer Groundwater Ground Penetrating EAGE
Radar
Research/Academia Hazardous Waste EERI
Magnetics
Government Agency Humanitarian Geo. GeoInstitute
Marine Geophysics
Other Mining GSA
Remote Sensing
Shallow Oil & Gas NGWA
Seismic
UXO NSG
Other
Aerial Geophysics SEG
Other SSA
SPWLA

1391 Speer Blvd., Ste. 450 | Denver, CO 80204

(p) 001.1.303.531.7517 | (f) 000.1.303.820.3844 | staff@eegs.org | www.eegs.org
 Page 172 Vol 25, 3 2020

Environmental and Engineering Geophysical Society

Join Online at www.EEGS.org
2020 Corporate Membership Application

FOUNDATION CONTRIBUTIONS
FOUNDERS FUND
The Founders Fund has been established to support costs associated with the establishment and maintenance of
the EEGS Foundation as we solicit support from larger sponsors. These will support business office expenses, nec-
essary travel, and similar expenses. It is expected that the operating capital for the foundation will eventually be
derived from outside sources, but the Founder’s Fund will provide an operation budget to “jump start” the work.
Donations of $50.00 or more are greatly appreciated. For additional information about the EEGS Foundation (an IRS
status 501(c)(3) tax exempt public charity), visit the website at http://www.EEGSFoundation.org.

Foundation Fund Total: $

STUDENT SUPPORT ENDOWMENT
This Endowed Fund will be used to support travel and reduced membership fees so that we can attract greater in-
volvement from our student members. Student members are the lifeblood of our society, and our support can lead
to a lifetime of involvement and leadership in the near-surface geophysics community. Donations of $50.00 or more
are greatly appreciated. For additional information about the EEGS Foundation (a tax exempt public charity), visit
the website at http://www.EEGSFoundation.org.
Student Support Endowment Total: $
CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS
The EEGS Foundation is designed to solicit support from individuals and corporate entities that are not currently
corporate members (as listed above). We recognize that most of our corporate members are small businesses
with limited resources, and that their contributions to professional societies are distributed among several
organizations. The Corporate Founder’s Fund has been developed to allow our corporate members to support the
establishment of the Foundation as we solicit support from new contributors.
Corporate Contribution Total: $
Foundation Total: $

PAYMENT INFORMATION Subtotals

Membership: $
Check/Money Order VISA MasterCard
Student Sponsorship: $
AmEx Discover
Foundation Contributions: $
Grand Total: $
SCard Number LExp. Date

LName on Card

LSignature
Make your check or money order in US dollars payable to: EEGS. Checks from Canadian bank accounts must be
drawn on banks with US affiliations (example: checks from Canadian Credit Suisse banks are payable through
Credit Suisse New York, USA). Checks must be drawn on US banks.
Payments are not tax deductible as charitable contributions although they may be deductible as a business
expense. Consult your tax advisor.
Return this form with payment to: EEGS, 1391 Speer Blvd., Suite 450, Denver, CO 80204 USA
Credit card payments can be faxed to EEGS at 001.1.303.820.3844
Corporate dues payments, once paid, are non-refundable. Individual dues are non-refundable except in cases of
extreme hardship and will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the EEGS Board of Directors. Requests for
refunds must be submitted in writing to the EEGS business office.
QUESTIONS? CALL 001.1.303.531.7517