Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine and Petroleum Geology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpetgeo

Review article

Laser scanning and digital outcrop geology in the petroleum

industry: A review
David Hodgetts*
School of Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The use of lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) systems for modelling petroleum reservoir analogues has
Received 12 September 2011 become increasingly popular over the past few years, and there has been a proliferation of articles on the
Received in revised form subject both on techniques and applications. A review of the literature of recent years has been con-
6 February 2013
ducted focussing on the use of lidar data not only in petroleum geology related projects, but also looking
Accepted 23 February 2013
Available online 23 April 2013
to the wider field of lidar usage to examine what other approaches may be of use to the petroleum
geologist. Benefits of digital data acquisition are considered, as well as a basic overview of data collection
approaches. Use of a variety of attributes (intensity, colour, dip, azimuth, co-linearity, co-planarity among
Keywords:
Lidar
others) is discussed as an aid to both manual and automated interpretation approaches. Integration of
Outcrop analogues lidar data with other data types from traditional field data (sedimentary logs for example) and other
Reservoir characterisation digital data types such as multispectral and hyperspectral imagery, and ground penetrating radar are
Review discussed as a way of increasing the amount of information in the digital dataset. The application of
artificial intelligence approaches such as Smart Swarms and Neural Networks are considered, as well as
current developments in both hardware and software. A variety of examples are given where lidar has
been used in an innovative or interesting way, showing the strength of this data acquisition approach
when combined with appropriate interpretation and modelling techniques.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction particularly appropriate for outcrop analogue applications in the

The use of lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) or Terrestrial
Laser Scanning (TLS) systems (Fig. 1) is becoming more frequent as
the geological community becomes aware of the strengths of this
data collection approach. Lidar systems are the optical equivalent of
the more familiar radar system. In a lidar system a laser (typically
near infra-red) is fired at an object such as a geological exposure.
Knowing the direction of the laser pulse, a 3D point representing
the position of the exposure can be derived, and the topography can
be recorded by scanning the laser across the exposure. As the
scanner can only record data in its line of sight, some areas of
exposure may be occluded requiring scanning to be undertaken
from different positions to give a complete coverage. A virtual
version of the exposure can then be created, visualised and inter-
preted in the office.
Though far from being a replacement for traditional fieldwork
and fieldtrips, this kind of data acquisition approach is a powerful
additional tool to the field geologist’s arsenal. Lidar systems are
* Tel.: þ44 (0) 1612753806; fax: þ44 (0) 161 306 9361.
E-mail address: david.hodgetts@manchester.ac.uk.
petroleum industry as the scale of data collection is similar to that
of a hydrocarbon reservoir, encapsulating heterogeneity from a few
cm to 10’s km. Figure 2 shows a comparison of scales of geological
and geophysical features alongside scales of a variety of digital data
acquisition approaches including both airborne and terrestrial lidar,
illustrating the relevance to reservoir scale geology.
Before considering the specifics of the use of lidar the benefits of
digital outcrop data will be outlined.
1.1. LIDAR, LiDAR or lidar?
During the course of this review it is clear that LIDAR, LiDAR and
lidar are all commonly used to describe the kind of laser scanning
systems under discussion here. As the name originally comes from
an acronym (Light Detection And Ranging) it is easy to see why
people have adopted an upper case naming convention. In the case
of radar (Radio Detection And Ranging), however, through common
usage the term has become a word in its own right and is no-longer
capitalized. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED, 2012) defines lidar
as a noun, and so should be capitalised as such. In this review
“lidar” will be used.

0264-8172/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpetgeo.2013.02.014
336 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
Figure 1. Riegl LMSz420i lidar or terrestrial laser scanner. This system comprises an integrated, upgradeable, Nikon digital camera, a field ruggedized computer (Trimble Yuma) and
a DGPS for georeferencing.
1.2. Why use digital outcrop data?
The use of lidar data within geosciences has mainly been driven
by the oil industry in order to understand subsurface heterogeneity
through the use of outcrop analogue data. Outcrop analogue data
can improve reservoir characterization through better under-
standing of depositional systems in a qualitative sense, but also
more quantitatively by allowing geostatistical analysis of the
geological exposure. The understanding of these geostatistical
properties is essential as they are the basis for current stochastic
reservoir modelling approaches such as Sequential Indicator Sim-
ulations (SIS), object modelling and multipoint statistics.
Figure 2. Comparison of scales of geological features and data with lidar and similar
data collection approaches. Data collection scales adapted from Large et al. (2009),
geological feature scales adapted from Jones et al. (2010). This illustrates how terres-
trial and airborne lidar scales of data collection are particularly suited to reservoir
analogue scale studies.
As an addition to traditional field data collection approaches,
digital outcrop data acquisition provides several advantages
(McCaffrey et al., 2005; Pringle et al., 2006). Some of the advantages
can be summarized as follows:
Collection of data from otherwise inaccessible areas: This is
perhaps the greatest benefit of lidar and similar approaches.
During fieldwork access to exposure if often limited, either due
to topography (very high cliff faces etc.) or other health and
safety related issues (e.g. working on road cuttings or other
dangerous areas). The accurate lidar data allows detailed mea-
surements to be made from these locations without having to
physically access them directly.
Virtual Viewpoints: Being able to view the data from many
different angles, as well as being able to swap rapidly between
different scales of view, allows geometries and features not
usually visible from a land-based viewpoint to be seen.
Increased sample size: In the field we are typically limited to
making measurements from the areas we can physically reach,
with digital datasets the areas from which we can make mea-
surements is massively increased, meaning more statistical in-
formation can be collected than previously possible, increasing
sample size and therefore reducing the errors in statistical
analysis. For examples see Fabuel-Perez et al., 2009a; Falivene
et al., 2010; García-Sellés et al., 2011 and Gillespie et al., 2010.
Generation of new attributes: With data in digital form new at-
tributes can be generated to highlight subtle features, help with
interpretation and provide the basis for automated mapping
approaches. The field of attribute analysis will be dealt with
later on in the paper, but this is an important aspect of the data
which gives more information than can be derived from tradi-
tional fieldwork alone. For examples see García-Sellés et al.,
2011 and Hodgetts, 2009.
Rapid data collection: Modern terrestrial lidar systems have
rapid data collection rates in the region of 10’s of thousands to
100’s thousands of points per second, with varying maximum
ranges (>1.0 km is common) and accuracy (<1.5 cm), with short
range scanners typically being more accurate. This fast rate of
 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
data collection allows large areas to be scanned rapidly. Another
approach for larger areas is that of airborne lidar systems based
on light aircraft or helicopters (Buckley et al., 2008a), though
these approaches are useful for large areas they are not without
their limitations (see Section 2.3).
Improved use of fieldwork time: The use of digital outcrop
models, though time consuming to collect in some cases, can
make remaining field time more efficient by offsetting some
data interpretation back into the lab (McCaffrey et al., 2010,
2005). Tasks readily accomplished from lidar data include
measuring structural data from bedding planes and faults, or
tracing key stratal surfaces between outcrop logs. This leaves
more field time for collecting data not directly available from the
lidar data. It is, of course, necessary to collect ‘ground truth’ or
test data from the outcrop directly in order to compare results
with those from the outcrop model to ensure the lidar-derived
measurements are accurate.
Training: Field time can be very expensive. In order to make the
best use of field time the use of digital outcrop models as an
introduction to an area to be visited, or as a chance to re-visit an
outcrop once back from the field is of great importance
(McCaffrey et al., 2010, 2005). Digital outcrop models for
teaching are a long way from being a replacement for traditional
field classes, but used correctly can greatly enhance the field
experience.
With any data collection approach, there are problems associ-
ated with lidar data, some of the main issues are outlined below:
Resolution: Though generally high resolution, there is a lot of
information necessary for good geological interpretations which
are not possible to retrieve reliably from current laser scan data.
These data include grain size, sedimentary structures (though
sometimes visible on digital photographs projected onto the
data) and information on facies.
Weight/Battery life: Lidar systems are currently heavy (>15 kg),
with limited battery life. Though many are described as portable
they are not designed for being carried long distances. This is
becoming less of an issue as modern systems become lighter.
Cost: Terrestrial lidar systems are still prohibitively expensive
for many groups to buy, which is a significant limiting factor in
the uptake of this technique in general.
Digital Imagery: Laser scan data if often linked with digital
photographs to give a photo-realistic representation of the
outcrop. The collection of digital photographic data is in itself a
task which requires care and lengthy, time consuming pro-
cessing to produce a visually accurate model. As scan data for an
area may take hours to several days to collect, varying lighting
conditions and directions of photographs (into or away from the
sun for example) makes evenly exposed and colour matched
imagery problematic.
Size of dataset: High speed data collection from laser scanners
coupled with increasingly high resolution digital images leads to
very large datasets which may be difficult to process and
interrogate. Lidar datasets often comprise 10’s of millions up to
billions of data-points (depending on the size of the survey)
making data handling an issue.
As research progresses in terms of data interpretation and
processing techniques, new advantages are being discovered and
disadvantages are being addressed and becoming less of an issue.
The following sections will look at the development and applica-
tion of digital outcrop geology using lidar and how these new ap-
proaches are being, or may be used, to help improve the generation
of high quality outcrop analogue data.
337
1.3. Early work on digital outcrop geology
The first overview of how digital outcrop geology could be used
in the petroleum industry was that of Bryant et al. (2000). This
paper showed how digitally acquired data from Rio Puerco in New
Mexico could be used to aid the interpretation and modelling of the
Carboniferous Bend Conglomerate of the Boonsville Gas Field in
North Texas. Those authors illustrated how 3D datasets from
modern environments could be used to look at internal architec-
ture and geometry, and that being able to view the analogue data in
the same 3D environment as the subsurface data allowed in-
terpreters to make direct comparisons between outcrop and sub-
surface data, as well as allowing the analogues to be used as explicit
controls on the modelling of the subsurface reservoir (Bryant et al.,
2000). This early work set the scene for the development of digital
outcrop geology from the use of differential GPS, laser rangefinder/
total station surveying (Contreras et al., 2003; Hodgetts et al., 2004;
McCaffrey et al., 2005; Pringle et al., 2006; Xu, 2000; Xu et al., 2000,
1999, 2001) through to the lidar and photo-realistic model based
approaches used today (Alfarhan et al., 2008; Bellian et al., 2005;
Buckley et al., 2008b; Enge et al., 2007; Fabuel-Perez et al., 2010;
Hodgetts et al., 2007; Jones et al., 2010; Labourdette R, 2007; Olariu
et al., 2011a, 2011b; Redfern et al., 2007; van Lanen et al., 2009;
Wilson et al., 2009b).
Though there are many other published works using a variety
of digital outcrop acquisition techniques, this review will focus
on that of lidar or Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS). The results of
collection and processing of lidar data are a 3D computerised
visual representation of the outcrop, commonly referred to as a
Digital Outcrop Model or DOM (Bellian et al., 2005) or as a
Virtual Outcrop or VO (McCaffrey et al., 2005). These digital
models differ from traditional Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
data in that they are textured models that support multiple Z
values for any single XY position (which DEMs do not) allowing
complex over-folded surfaces and re-entrant angles within the
model.
2. Workflows for collection, processing and interpretation
The workflows for collection and processing of lidar data are
well documented (Bellian et al., 2005; Buckley et al., 2008b), but a
brief overview of related issues will be given here. Lidar data may
be collected from either terrestrial or oblique airborne systems,
each with their own advantages and limitations.
2.1. Terrestrial
Terrestrial laser scanners are the most common system used in
outcrop geology at the moment. These systems are typically
tripod mounted, or on some other fixed position. Data is collected
by scanning the area of interest from several positions to mini-
mise data gaps caused by occlusion. Scan positions are typically at
a low elevation compared to the area being scanned, resulting in
occlusion problems which are not necessarily fixed by multiple
scan positions. Acquisition time is typically short compared to
transport and setup/takedown time. Recent advancements
include the development of mobile terrestrial laser scanner sys-
tems which include GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) and
IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) alongside the scanner to enable
scan data to be acquired from moving platforms, such as boats,
trains, on-road and off-road vehicles (Rieger et al., 2010). These
systems are typically used in urban environments, and so are not
suitable for many field locations where vehicular access is not
possible.
338 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
2.2. Scanner resolution and point spacing
During data collection the beam divergence and range noise of
the scanner (as well as the purpose of the data collection) need to
be considered as this impacts upon the resolution of the scanner.
The beam divergence refers to how the scanners laser beam widens
with distance resulting in a range dependent laser footprint on the
outcrop (Buckley et al., 2008b), and is usually given in milliradians,
with a beam divergence on 0.25 mrad equating to an increase in
laser footprint width of 0.25 mm per 100 m. Buckley et al. suggest
using a minimum point spacing of 86% of the laser footprint size in
order to prevent oversampling (footprints of adjacent data point
overlapping too much), while also pointing out that the most
appropriate spacing based on requirements of the dataset (reso-
lution needed, area to be covered etc.) may be significantly larger
than this.
Another important factor to be considered when deciding point
spacing is the accuracy of the scanner itself. If a perfectly flat surface
is scanned it will usually appear slightly noisy in the resulting data
due to the inaccuracy of the scanner, the less accurate the scanner
the more fuzzy or noisy the data will be. If the scanner in question
has an accuracy of 10 mm, there is little relevance in using a point
spacing of 1 mm as any topographic variations on this scale will be
lost in this range noise. It should also be noted that stated scanner
accuracies are measured under ideal conditions, and the actual
accuracy may be less when used under real field conditions. The
current generation of laser scanners have accuracies from a few
mm through to 15 mm, depending on the maximum range of the
scanner, with longer range scanners (3000e4000 m for an 80%
reflective target, though geological exposure are to be less reflective
than this giving a reduced range) tending to be less accurate than
short range (<100 m) scanners.
When considering data spacing the purpose of the data needs to
be considered (Buckley et al., 2008b), but also any future possible
use of the data needs to be taken into account. In the workflow used
by the author, data is nearly always collected at the smallest data
spacing suitable for the scanner model and range at which the data
is collected (unless time is limited). This ensures the data is suitable
for any future projects or new approached which may occur in the
future.
2.3. Airborne
A more recent development in data collection is the application
of oblique airborne laser scanner systems (as opposed to nadir
airborne scanners) for petroleum outcrop analogue data collection
(Buckley et al., 2008a; Richet et al., 2010; Rittersbacher et al.,
2010). This approach allows large areas to be covered in a rela-
tively short amount of time with scan data and images being
collected perpendicular to the outcrop, giving optimal coverage
and minimising data gaps due to occlusion and range. With heli-
copter based scanning, the data collection is prohibitively expen-
sive, the technology is not available to use in many countries, and
helicopters cannot be used in tight canyon/valley environments, so
the approach is not without problems. The stable platform of a
terrestrial laser scanning systems also allows for a slightly higher
accuracy and denser data coverage over that or an airborne
system.
3. Processing
Processing of point lidar data into a useable dataset is a well-
documented process (Bellian et al., 2005; Buckley et al., 2008b),
but will be covered here for the sake of completeness.
3.1. Merging
For terrestrial surveys each scan position has its own coordinate
system, with the origin (0,0,0) at the sensor within the scanner and
data points stored as azimuth (horizontal), inclination (vertical)
and range. These data are readily converted into a Cartesian coor-
dinate system e a process usually hidden from the user. These in-
dividual scans need to be merged together into a single coordinate
system, which may be done with reflectors (retro-reflective cylin-
ders or discs of around 5.0 cm typically, though may vary in size) on
the outcrop that are individually scanned. If 4 or more reflectors are
common between scans, the individual scans can be merged by
matching the common reflector positions. This approach has the
advantage of scans being merged at the time of acquisition, though
extra time is required to set out and scan reflectors, and the process
is only really effective at short ranges (<100 m) if small reflector
targets are used (for example 5 cm). At a wider scan spacing larger
reflectors are needed, and ensuring enough reflectors are visible
between adjacent scan positions in areas of complex topography
can be problematic.
A second approach is to use software to merge the data by
minimizing the error between matched shapes of overlapping point
clouds. This process does not require reflectors to be scanned, so
reduces field acquisition time and is better for situations when scan
stations are at a relatively large spacing. Care must be taken however,
to ensure there is adequate overlap between scans to make pattern
matching possible. For this reason merging with this approach is best
undertaken while still in the field to ensure enough overlap has been
obtained to allow a solution to be converged, if not it is then still
possible to go acquire extra scans to correct the problem.
3.2. Georeferencing
Georeferencing is defining an objects position in space by
establishing its location in terms of a global coordinate system such
as latitude/longitude or UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) co-
ordinate system. UTM coordinates are the most commonly use in
digital outcrop studies as it is a standard, well known coordinate
system, and is in metres thereby making it more understandable to
the user. Georeferencing may be undertaken by a variety of
methods, including:
1. GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems, of which GPS is one
type) surveying of the reflectors used to merge point clouds in
the field. This requires a survey-grade GNSS system as the
reflector spacing is relatively small.
2. GNSS surveying of each scan position, and then re-orienting the
merged scan positions to match the GNSS positions. This re-
quires at least 3 - non-collinear scan positions to achieve full
georeferencing. The accuracy of the GNSS data required de-
pends on how far apart the furthest scan positions are and the
number of scan positions available for matching.
4. Point clouds, triangulated meshes and photorealistic
models
There are a variety of approaches of visualising lidar data. These
include point clouds, triangulated meshes and photorealistic
models. Here we will look at the relative merits and problems with
each approach to using the lidar data.
4.1. Point cloud data
This represents the lidar data in its most basic form, each point
has a X,Y,Z position and usually 1 or more attributes associated with
 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354 339

it (e.g. intensity of the returned laser pulse, colour information or
some other attribute). Figure 3A shows a lidar dataset rendered
using points alone, coloured using RGB parameters (Red, Green and
Blue colour channels) derived from digital images. The point cloud
data has the advantage of requiring the least amount of processing,
and being the fastest data type to render allowing very large
datasets to be visualized easily. In terms of manual interpretation
the point cloud is probably the most challenging requiring more
time to become more familiar with interpreting this kind of data,
and views may become confusing if there are multiple surfaces
overlapping. As a result many people choose to use triangulated
mesh data instead.
4.2. Triangulated meshes
Triangulation, in this sense, is the linking together of the points
in the point cloud via a series of triangles (Fig. 3BeF) with the aim
of producing a solid surface called a triangulated irregular network
(Buckley et al., 2008b). Points can be linked together in a variety of
ways, but typically a Delaunay triangulation (Delaunay, 1934) is
used which has the property minimizing the number of long thin or
sliver triangles in the mesh. Once a mesh has been created the
orientation of the triangles can be used to implement relief
shading, as well calculating some basic surface attributes (e.g. dip,
dip-direction and curvature). For example the stereonet plot of all

Figure 3. Point cloud data (A), Triangulated, un-decimated, mesh (B) with adaptive meshes (CeF) based on degree of co-planarity (Fernández, 2005) of all points within a radius of
10 cm of each individual point. As degree of filtering increases the number of point and triangles in the mesh decreases, with an associated loss of detail in the data and increasing
clustering of the data.
340 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
the triangle orientations in the mesh will highlight common ori-
entations which can be a result of bedding planes, faults and frac-
tures. It is very common in outcrop datasets to see a high
proportion of triangles dipping around 35e45 e the angle of
repose of sediment, representing the areas of no exposure in the
dataset.
Triangulated meshes are not without difficulties. The number of
triangles generated from a point cloud of n points is 2n  2  k
(where k is the number of points around the edge of the data)
meaning a point cloud of 1,000,000 points could produce a mesh
with up to 1,999,998 triangles (depending on the overall geometry).
Given that triangulation increases the number of elements to be
visualized, and that triangle elements are more complex than
simple points (triangles comprise 3 points, and each individual
point belongs on average to 6 triangles in a mesh) rendering large
triangulated datasets has been problematic. Approaches such as
point cloud (Buckley et al., 2008a, 2008b) and mesh decimation
(Bærentzen et al., 2012; Schroeder et al., 1992) may be applied,
where in areas of low geometric complexity or non-interest (no
exposure for example) the number of triangles is reduced while still
maintaining the overall geometry. This decreases the overall tri-
angle count and improves rendering speed. Figure 3CeD shows
how progressive decimation of a meshes dataset based on co-
planarity, reducing the number of triangles in relatively flat areas
while retaining the topographic complexity in less co-planar areas.
Decimation will always have an impact on the accuracy of the data,
and has the undesirable effect of causing clustering in the data
which will produce artefacts during any statistical analysis, though
for pure visualization purposes the decimation approach, combined
with projective texturing, provides good results.
The solid surfaces generated by the meshing process are easier
to interpret than the raw point cloud data as they are visually easier
to understand, however triangulation can be a very slow process
(seconds to hours depending on machine and size of dataset,
though this generally only has to be done once), and in complex
datasets from multiple scan positions triangulation can be very
difficult due to overlapping surfaces which may not mesh in an
appropriate manner. The triangulated mesh data may be displayed
with a variety of attributes, and if the original point data has RGB
information from digital images attached to it, the mesh may be
displayed in true colour giving the mode a more realistic appear-
ance. The addition of high resolution digital imagery can improve
the visual appearance of the model even more, and aid geological
interpretation.
4.3. Photorealistic models
Photorealistic models use digital photographs attached to the
triangulated mesh to enhance visual detail in the model (Alfarhan
et al., 2008; Buckley et al., 2008b; McCaffrey et al., 2005). The
process of attaching the images is more than a simple image drape
as is used with ortho-corrected satellite images, but a projective
texturing using information on the cameras interior orientation
(focal length, principal point, lens distortion etc.) and exterior
orientation (camera position and orientation). The approach is to
use the digital images to fill in the information gaps between the
points in the point cloud allowing higher resolution interpretations
to be made. Figure 4 illustrates a decimated digital model with a
projective textured image, allowing measurements at a much
smaller scale than on the point cloud or mesh alone, in this case bed
thickness of less than 1 cm can be resolved. Care must be taken with
this approach particularly when using high resolution images on
low resolution data as orientation measurements can be inaccurate
due to the data not being dense enough to encapsulate the vari-
ability in the topography.
5. Attributes
Using lidar data it is now easy to make photorealistic models,
but the high resolution digital outcrop model facilitates the gen-
eration of surface attributes such as curvature, co-planarity
(Falivene et al., 2010; Fernández, 2005; García-Sellés et al., 2011)
and roughness (Pollyea and Fairley, 2012) for example (see Fig. 5)
which may be used to highlight features not easily seen in the
photo-realistic model. The information extracted from these
outcrop analogue datasets include geostatistics on the underlying
geological control on the surface morphology such as bedding
orientation, fault geometry and facies distribution.
5.1. Intensity
Intensity data is the reflection strength of the laser pulse upon
return to the laser scanner. The intensity of the returned pulse is
dependent upon reflectivity of the target, range to the target (due to
beam divergence of the laser as the laser pulse becomes wider and
less intense with distance) and atmospheric conditions (presence
of dust/rain etc.). Some of the current generations of scanner record
returned intensity information in an 8bit data structure allowing
for only 256 discrete intensity levels. This means that as range in-
creases and reflected intensity is reduced by atmospheric condi-
tions and beam divergence, the intensity variation caused by
material properties can be reduced to a limited number of intensity
values. Correction for range and atmospheric attenuation is prob-
lematic due to the discrete nature of the reflection intensity infor-
mation, though approaches to intensity correction are available
(Höfle and Pfeifer, 2007) and have been applied to geological ap-
plications (Burton et al., 2011). An example of corrected intensity
data following the approach of Burton et al. (2011) is shown in
Figure 6. Despite these limitations the reflection data is still very
useful as the lithology still has an impact, and indeed some litho-
logical variations do show up strongly in intensity information. On
scanners with a near infra-red laser, the resulting intensity data can
be regarded as an infrared image of the outcrop, giving some very
limited spectral information.
The intensity returns from lidar scans have been used as a
remote sensor of rock properties. Distance normalised data
approximating original target reflectivity has been used, with good
results, to differentiate between sandstone and mudstone in core,
and to a lesser degree in outcrop due to weathering effects (Burton
et al., 2011). Care must be taken with this approach to ensure the
intensity variability is actually representing the lithological varia-
tion and not some other effect such as weathering style, and as
always with digital outcrop data, good observations on the ground
must be combined with the digital data to understand the rela-
tionship between intensity and lithology.
5.2. RGB colour channels
Red, Green and Blue colour channels can be extracted from the
digital images and manipulated using standard image processing
techniques. As the RGB data comes from digital photographs they
suffer from the same problems as photographs in general. Photo-
graphing an outcrop at different times of day will give rise to var-
iations in illumination, as will variations in weather conditions.
Matching colour variations on a set of photographs taken over
several hours and locations can be problematic and lead to unre-
alistic colour variations within the photorealistic model. These ef-
fects can be minimized using correct camera settings in the field as
well as image processing at a later stage. Another issue is that of the
presence of shadows in the image. In 2D images shadows provide
an important indicator of relief for the observer, though in a 3D
 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354 341

Figure 4. Close up view of the model from Figure 1 with the mesh outline shown to illustrate variability in triangle size. A) Points with co-planarity of <4.0 retained showing high
degree of decimation. B) Projective texturing of mesh in A) with a 3008  2000 pixel image from a Nikon D100 with 85 mm lens. Each pixel is approximately 1.5 cm on the outcrop.
C) Projective texture, un-decimated, model showing interpretations utilizing the extra information provided by the higher resolution image.

digital model the illumination is from a virtual light source.
Removal of shadows is a difficult process, though given that digital
images are time-stamped and if the digital outcrop model is
accurately georeferenced then it is possible to generate a shadow
map (a process used in many computer games) of the outcrop for
the position of the sun at the location of the study area at the time
the photograph is taken, or in the absence of accurate time-stamp
data the sun position can be derived from the shadows cast from
objects within the scene. This shadow map could then be used to
selectively image process the digital imagery and lighten the areas
in shadow (Li et al., 2005). This approach, however, would only be
applicable if the shadows are cast by objects within the scan, ob-
jects outside the scan area may cause shadows in the photographs,
but would not be represented in the models shadow map. Shadow
removal from images is an area of active research in computer
science and machine vision (Arbel and Hel-Or, 2011; Finlayson
et al., 2009; McFeely et al., 2012), as shadows effect the reliability
of many computer vision algorithms. Effective shadow removal
without degrading the rest of the image is by no means a simple
problem.
Image registration (the process of calculating the cameras
exterior orientation) is also a very time consuming job. Many
modern laser scanners automatically provide this orientation data,
though calibrations drift with time and need to be regularly
updated. It is sometimes desirable to take photographs from
somewhere other than the scanners location to give a better data
coverage, and these image have to be manually linked into the
dataset via a point matching process. As digital cameras become
342 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354

Figure 5. Attribute generation from a lidar dataset shown in A). Scale bars are 5.0 m in all figures. B) Outcrop surface azimuth data derived from tensor analysis on the point cloud.
C) Co-planarity from tensor analysis. D) Triangle area on a decimated mesh showing variation in triangle size. E) Dip from tensor analysis of a point cloud. F) Dip from triangle
orientation in a decimated mesh. Colour scale shows values, as well as histograms (increasing value to the right) for each parameter showing distribution of values within the data
range.

higher resolution fewer images are needed to gain the image
quality needed for digital outcrop modelling (reducing the number
of images to be manually oriented), or increasing levels of detail
may be incorporated and interpreted depending on the needs of
the project.
5.3. Surface attributes
As already mentioned the high resolution nature of lidar derived
digital outcrop models facilitates the generation of surface attri-
butes (Fig. 5). These surface attributes not only make manual
interpretation of the data easier, but facilitate the development of
more automated mapping and tracking tools, which are essential in
the large datasets provided by terrestrial and airborne laser
scanning.
Attribute analysis of the point cloud data requires the data to be
fairly evenly spaced. As most scanners are based on angular coor-
dinate systems they often show an increase in data density closer to
the scanner, as well as varying data densities in overlapping scans
and data shadow areas. Declustering of data needs to be performed
in order to reduce the impact of data distribution on any analysis
undertaken. This is not the same as adaptive mesh decimation for
increased rendering speed, which actively increases clustering.
The orientation-tensor method for analysing directional data
provides a set of Eigen values that can then be used as indicators of
fabric shape (Woodcock, 1977). This approach has been adapted to
 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354 343

Figure 6. Intensity correction for range related variations in a lidar dataset. A) Coloured point cloud for reference. B) View of the uncorrected intensity from the lidar scan.
C) Average intensity for range bin of 2 m, note the general decrease in intensity with distance. D) Corrected intensity data using the average values in C) to re-scale the intensity
values. The intensity data now may be used as an aid to rock type classification, with mudstones showing lower (less reflective) values.

the problem of fitting a best fit plane through 3D data (Fernández,
2005) with associated parameters of co-planarity (Fig. 5C)
(whether the selected points lie on the same plane) and co-linearity
(whether the selected points make a straight line). Fernández
(2005) used this approach to provide a numerical estimate of ac-
curacy of orientation data derived from points digitized on DEM
data, and the approach has been further developed for providing
attribute data for lidar point clouds (Falivene et al., 2010; García-
Sellés et al., 2011). The tensor analysis approach can be used to
derive surface orientation information (Fig. 5B and E) useful for
identification of fractures, bedding surfaces and for implementing
relief shading in the point clouds without the need for mesh
generation.
5.4. Waveform data
Early laser scanner systems return an X,Y,Z position for each
point along with an intensity attribute showing the strength of the
returned laser pulse. The emitted laser pulse interacts with surface
(or surfaces) it reflects from resulting in modification of the
returned pulse. The shape of the returned pulse can provide addi-
tional information about the physical backscattering characteristics
and structure of the scanned surfaces (Mallet and Bretar, 2009).
Waveform data have been extensively used in forestry (Blair et al.,
1994; Hyde et al., 2005; Reitberger et al., 2008) and to a lesser
extent in urban areas (Jutzi and Stilla, 2003; Mallet et al., 2008).
Classification of urban objects has been possible with waveform
data, with simple classifications differentiating buildings, vegeta-
tion, artificial ground and natural ground being possible (Mallet
et al., 2008). Full waveform data is now available from the latest
generation of terrestrial laser scanners, though this new type of
data is yet to be applied at the outcrop scale. Waveform data will
add another layer of information that geologists may use to aid
interpretation and classification, though more research is needed to
find out exactly how much use this data will be.
6. Integration with other data types
Once the lidar survey data has been collected, merged and
georeferenced, the dataset provides an ideal 3D framework for the
storage and analysis of other data types. These may include tradi-
tional field data such as sedimentary logs, outcrop samples and
field gamma-ray, which can be digitized into the lidar scan data and
tied accurately into the 3D framework as shown in Figure 7. Not
only can this be done with field data, but information from thin
sections and other analytical techniques (e.g. permeability and
porosity measurements) can also be placed accurately into a 3D
environment. Geo-referencing of field observations can be done
very accurately with a Differential GPS if available. Otherwise
handheld GPS can be used linked with a digital photograph of the
sampling locality which provides enough information to match the
sampling locality with the lidar data, via the digital photograph,
often with accuracy on the cm scale. The geo-referenced lidar data
can also be taken back into the field with a GPS enabled laptop,
allowing real-time navigation through the data to match the ge-
ologists location in the real world, allowing measurements and
observations to be attached directly to the scan data while in the
field.
344 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
Figure 7. Integration of outcrop sedimentary logs with digital outcrop data. Top and base of the individual logs have GPS positions as well as locations marked on digital images in
order to position the logs within the model. Key stratal surfaces, marker beds and other recognizable features act as tie points within the logs to ensure accurate positioning on the
DOM.
Subsurface imaging techniques (borehole logs, GPR and onshore
seismic data) provide improved data coverage away from the out-
crops themselves. These data types can easily be integrated with
digital outcrop models. Sub-seismic scale reservoir stratigraphy can
be investigated in outcrop by integrating high-resolution sedi-
mentological data with lidar and GPR data as demonstrated in the
Upper Cretaceous Ferron Sandstone tidal-channel deposits of Dry
Wash, USA (Lee et al., 2007), Namurian turbidites near the Bridge of
Ross in County Clare, western Ireland (Jones et al., 2010) and the
Cretaceous Panther Tongue, USA (Olariu et al., 2011a).
6.1. Multispectral and hyperspectral imagery
Multispectral and hyperspectral imaging uses wavelengths
outside the normal visible spectrum of light to provide more in-
formation on the properties of the surface being imaged. In the
visible spectrum many facies share similar or even identical visible
properties (e.g. colour, texture) and therefore cannot be mapped
using the visible spectrum alone (Ragona et al., 2006). Remote
sensed multispectral imagery was first developed in the 1960s
using 12 to 18 spectral bands from visible, reflective infra-red and
thermal infrared (Mikhail et al., 2001). In 1972 Landsat 1 was
launched carrying the first sensor of this type in a satellite imaging
a pixel size of 80  80 m with 4 spectral bands per pixel in a 6 bit
system, giving 64 intensity levels (Mikhail et al., 2001). The current
Landsat 7 (launched in 1999) has 8 spectral bands and a 30 m pixel
size (NASA, 2011). Hyperspectral imagery is similar to multispectral
except that in a hyperspectral scanner the spectral bands are much
narrower, and many more bands are collected. The Airborne Visible
Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) is an example of a
commonly used hyperspectral sensor with 224 different channels
each with a wavelength sensitive range of approximately 10 nm
covering the range between 380 nm and 2500 nm (JPL, 2011).
Multispectral and Hyperspectral imagery has found many appli-
cations including agriculture, forestry (Lee et al., 2004), land use,
water resources, natural resource exploration, human population
census, growth of global urbanization, monitoring of coastal wet-
lands, agricultural productivity evaluation and crop forecasting
(NASA, 2011). Applications of multispectral satellite imagery to
geology have included mineral exploration (Sabins, 1999) and
identification of dolomite using airborne sensors (Bellian et al.,
2007b). More recently terrestrial based systems have been used
to help classify rock types from the core scale (Ragona et al., 2006),
through to outcrop scale using a terrestrial hyperspectral scanner
(Kurz et al., 2011). Hyperspectral data have been collected for the
early and late Albian carbonates of the Pozalagua Quarry in the
Cantabrian Mountains, Spain (Kurz et al., 2011). This work showed
the differentiation of limestone from dolomite was possible, and
information on sedimentary and digenetic processes could poten-
tially be obtained through the classification of the data by spectral
absorption signatures. Diagenetic effects (paleokarst, hydrothermal
karst, solution enlarged fractures, and different dolomites types)
were distinguishable using this approach.
7. Interpretation
The nature of digital outcrop models means there are typically
large amounts of data and large areas to be interpreted. Being able
to easily, accurately and rapidly interpret these datasets is impor-
tant to enable large geostatistical and geological databases to be
 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
derived. Interpretation can be divided into manual and automated
approaches in much the same way as with seismic data.
7.1. Manual interpretation
Manual digitizing of polylines on Digital Outcrop Models to
delimit bedding planes, faults and other key stratal surfaces is the
most basic form of interpretation carried out (Fig. 4 C). Slightly
more advanced interpretation involved measurement of plane
orientations by selection of 3 or more non-collinear points on a
bedding plane or similar planar feature (e.g. oriented fractures
shown in Figure 4C). In an ideal situation the points should define
an equilateral triangle, and the triangle is as large as possible to
ensure a mathematically rigorous result. If the triangle is too large,
however, the structure may not be accurately represented. A po-
tential error estimate can be made from 3 point solution by
determining the ratio of the circum-circle to the inner-circle of the
triangle (i.e. the more co-linear the points are the larger the circum-
circle, the smaller the inner-circle and the larger the ratio). The
tensor analysis approach (Fernández, 2005; Woodcock, 1977) as
described in section 5.3, may be applied to records with more than
3 points, with the resulting tensor again giving an estimate of fit of
the points to a plane. It should be noted that error estimates by
circle ratio or by tensor is one of how well the points represent a
planar surface, not necessarily of how well the result matches the
feature orientation as this is a result of the picking accuracy of the
interpreter. A manual check by observation is always the best
approach to check for errors.
7.2. Automated approaches
Large datasets are time-consuming to interpret, so efforts are in
progress to develop more automated interpretation approaches to
reduce the amount of time required to collect statistically signifi-
cant numbers of interpretations.
7.2.1. Artificial intelligence approaches
In the geological sciences we tend to deal with fuzzy, indistinct
boundaries and features which require expertise and knowledge
which come from many years of learning and personal experience.
The features we see are not always obvious to the untrained eye.
Given this it is not surprising that geometric approaches, though
very useful, often fail to yield useful results and the interpreter has
to resort back to manual interpretation. Intelligent approaches are
required to further improve automated interpretation approaches.
The term Artificial Intelligence (AI) is defined as “the science and
engineering of making intelligent machines, especially intelligent
computer programs. It is related to the similar task of using com-
puters to understand human intelligence, but AI does not have to
confine itself to methods that are biologically observable.”
(McCarthy, 2007). More recently the field of Soft Computing has
emerged, relating to the merging of a variety of approaches
including Artificial Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic and Evolutionary
Algorithms (Dubois and Prade, 1998) and can be defined as
“computational methods tolerant to sub optimality and impre-
ciseness (vagueness) and giving quick, simple and sufficiently good
solutions” (Zadeh, 1994). An overview of applications of AI in the
environmental sciences can be found in Haupt et al. (2009).
Swarm intelligence is the collective behaviour that emerges
from a group of social insects, where the relatively simple actions of
individuals can result in the solving of complex problems at a group
level (Bonbeau and Theraulaz, 2000). A common example cited is
how ants find the shortest path between the nest and a food source
by communicating via chemicals that attract other ants (phero-
mones). The use of software “insects” has been applied in seismic
345
interpretation to map faults in 3D seismic volumes (Pedersen et al.,
2005) and fractures in lidar data (Gillespie et al., 2010; Hunt et al.,
2010) using the following approach:
Software agents or insects are programmed to respond to at-
tributes in the seismic volume which indicate a fault. As the agent
moves along the fault it will emit a virtual-pheromone along its
trail. The software agents are deployed randomly throughout the
seismic volume and allowed to move around leaving their phero-
mone traces. Agents positioned at points where there is no surface
or unstructured noise will be terminated shortly or immediately
after their deployment. The result of this approach is that the fault
traces have a strong virtual-pheromone trace along them, and are
therefore easier to extract using a pheromone threshold value
(Pedersen et al., 2005). A key aspect of this approach is the selection
of an appropriate attribute to track upon, which must act to high-
light the feature of interest (in this case a fault). This process has
been applied with great success to lidar data and Digital Outcrop
Models of fracture carbonates from USA, Europe and the Middle
East, providing a rapid and robust method that allows for the
extraction of statistically representative fracture populations (Hunt
et al., 2010). Comparison of the data derived from direct field
observation matched with a high degree of confidence those
derived from the automated approach. A similar approach has been
applied to the Lower Jurassic rocks from Somerset, U.K. (Gillespie
et al., 2010) where the ant tracking approach allowed large
amounts of fracture information to be derived.
Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) is an AI approach also falling
into the soft computing realm. The ANN attempts to solve problems
using a similar approach to that used in biological systems such as a
brain. A brain is comprised of many interconnected neurons which
work together to solve problems, an ANN works in the same way
using interconnected perceptions. Neural networks excel at prob-
lems to do with pattern mapping, completion and classification
(Dayhoff, 1990), and can work on and classify multiple input pa-
rameters. Neural network modelling has been integrated with lidar
data and Multispectral imagery for marsh-land characterization
(Morris et al., 2005) though in this approach the ANN was used to
classify the imagery rather than the lidar data itself. Neural network
classification of objects such as cars and trees from lidar data has
been achieved using range information (Prokhorov, 2009), though
this is some way from identifying the features necessary for
geological interpretation.
Competitive-learning ANN’s are where the elements in the
neural network compete with each other to respond to the input
data (Dayhoff, 1990), providing one possible approach to aid the
interpretation and classification of point cloud data. This ANN
approach performs unsupervised learning where a set of training
patterns is used, but no target answer (classification category) is
given, allowing the network to organize the data into classes of its
own. Figure 8 shows a lidar dataset classified into planar areas,
grouped into different orientations or sets using this competitive
learning approach. In this case surface dip, azimuth and co-
planarity are used as input to the ANN. After several training
passes through the data the point cloud is classified into co-planar
areas of different orientation. These sets of planes can then be
manually classified into faults, fractures or bedding planes as
necessary. This approach is particularly useful when attempting to
classify large numbers of input parameters.
8. Applications
Previous reviews of digital outcrop geology have been focused
on approaches and techniques (Bellian et al., 2005; Buckley et al.,
2008b; Pringle et al., 2006), though since these reviews there has
been a rapid increase in the number of published examples of
346 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354

Figure 8. Simple artificial neural network classification of a point cloud dataset using a 2 layer competitive learning network. This approach classified the data based on the input
parameters to the ANN, in this case dip, azimuth and Co-planarity. Several planar sets are identified by different colours, representing fracture and fault planes.

outcrop data, through to geocellular models and further (Buckley Labourdette and Jones, 2007; Rarity et al., 2007; Redfern et al.,
et al., 2010; Enge et al., 2007; Enge and Howell, 2010; Fabuel- 2007; Verwer et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2007).
Perez et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Hodgetts, 2009; Hunt et al., Table 1 shows the lidar based studies with direct petroleum sig-
2010; Jones et al., 2009a; Kurtzman et al., 2009; Kurz et al., 2011; nificance found during the course of this review, with localities and

Table 1
Summary of published (peer reviewed) LiDAR based outcrop modelling.

Paper Environment Age Keywords

1 (Enge et al., 2007) Deltaic Triassic Geocellular Modelling

2 (Fabuel-Perez et al., 2009a,2010) Fluvial Triassic Object-based geological modelling, braided fluvial
sandstones, Morocco
3 (Janson et al., 2007) Carbonates Permian Synthetic Seismic
5 (Jones et al., 2009b) Arkitsa fault Fault Geometry
6 (Lee et al., 2007) Tidal Channels Late Cretaceous Architecture and Geobodies
7 (Olariu et al., 2008) Deep Water Late Carboniferous Fractures
8 (Phelps and Kerans, 2007) Carbonate Permian Architecture and Geobodies
9 (Tomasso et al., 2006) Deep-water Permian Brushy Canyon, West Texas. Geological, petrophysical
and Seismic modelling.
10 (Lee et al., 2007) Tidal channel Ferron Sandstone, Utah. GPR
11 (Verwer et al., 2009) Carbonate Platform Early Jurassic Architecture and Geobodies
12 (Wilson et al., 2009a, 2010; 2009b) Tidal-Shallow Marine Miocene Normal faults, Fault growth,
Fault linkage, Rift basins, Suez rift
13 (Gillespie et al., 2010) Marine Lower Jurassic Fracture, carbonate, photorealistic, Somerset (UK)
14 (Lamarche et al., 2010) Marine Carbonates Upper Jurassic Lidar, dolomite, reservoir, 3D model, numerical geology,
Mesozoic (SE France)
15 (Nichols et al., 2010) Fluvial/braided stream Tertiary Aquifer, Groundwater Modelling, New Mexico
16 (Radies et al., 2010) Shallow-marine Upper Silurian Libya, Acacus Formation, synthetic seismic
17 (Richet et al., 2010) Carbonate platforms Lower Cretaceous (Barremian) Gresse-en-Vercors cliffs (SE France). Stratigraphic
architecture, facies partitioning
18 (Rust et al., 2010) Braided-stream deposits Plio-Pleistocene Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) tomography,
Integration with LiDAR
19 (Franceschi et al., 2009) Marls and Limestones Lower Jurassic Rotzo Radiometric, Recognition. Classification from Intensity
Formation
20 (García-Sellés et al., 2011) Limestones Cretaceous Fractures; Bedding; Outcrop characterization;
Moment of inertia analysis; Segmentation
21 (van Lanen et al., 2009) Fluvial Triassic Nova Scotia, Canada. Morocco.
22 (Kenter et al., 2008) Carbonate Ramp Jurassic Lithofacies, architecture, Morocco.
23 (Olariu et al., 2011b) Deep Water Pennsylvanian Turbidite architecture; Jackfork group; Slope channel;
Lidar; 3-D photo real model
24 (Labourdette and Jones, 2007) Fluvial braided system Eocene Three-dimensional methods, laser surveys,
photogrammetry, braided channels
 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
keywords. The list has been limited mainly to those studies covered
in peer-reviewed journals and as such does not represent a com-
plete list of digital outcrop studies, and indeed more are being
published each month. In the following sections the main areas of
application will be highlighted, with references to appropriate
studies where necessary.
8.1. Geostatistics
In the field of petroleum geology geostatistics are typically
thought of as the statistics used to control the distribution of
geo-bodies, facies and petrophysical data in a reservoir model,
however geostatistics is much more wide ranging than this now
encompassing the general characterization of spatial phenomena.
In the following section geostatistics for geocellular model con-
struction will be considered, with a focus on the main modelling
approaches of Object Modelling, Sequential Simulations and Mul-
tipoint Simulations.
8.1.1. Object statistics
Object Modelling, sometimes known as Boolean or General
Marked Point Process (GMPP) is an approach where a series of
Probability Distribution Functions (PDF’s) are assembled to
describe the geometry of geo-bodies. Fluvial systems are commonly
modelled with this approach, especially channel geometries where
a channel system may be described by a set of PDF’s for channel
width, thickness, amplitude, wavelength and flow direction.
Object statistics of fluvial systems have been extracted for the
Triassic (Carnian) Oukaimeden Sandstone formation in Morocco
(Fabuel-Perez et al., 2009a, 2010). The scale of the outcrop
exposure ranging from 20 m(65.61 ft.) up to 380 m(1246.71 ft.)
thick with a lateral extent of more than 2 km (1.24 mi), and high
degree of exposure. The approach used for the Oukaimeden study
involved detailed mapping of 6th order (major units or members),
5th order (sub-units of major members) and 4th order (archi-
tectural elements within a sub-unit) boundaries and the identi-
fication and mapping of body types (e.g. channel and bar forms)
based on direct field observation, logs and the digital outcrop
model. The bodies mapped on the outcrop are a 2D cut through a
3D object, and so will represent an apparent width size of the
object. Factors which need to be taken into account when deter-
mining the correct object size are the objects position, the ge-
ometry of the cliff face and orientation of the object. The objects
spatial position is given by mapped polylines defining the objects
extent, the cliff face orientation is mapped by the lidar scan (and
is also inherent in the polyline interpretation of the object), and
the objects orientation is typically defined by the palaeoflow di-
rection. Palaeoflow is difficult to obtain from lidar data (though is
possible in some limited cases) so this information has to be
collected by direct field observation. By projecting the polylines
along flow direction onto a flat plane valid channel and bar ge-
ometries can be identified and true width/thickness dimensions
measured (See Fig. 9). This approach uses a single palaeoflow
orientation which is not generally a valid assumption in fluvial
systems, however palaeocurrents in the Oukaimeden sections
have a relatively low palaeoflow dispersion (35e97 with a mean
of 63) showing a low channel sinuosity on the scale of the
outcrop. The projection plane approach was applied using the
minimum, mean and maximum palaeoflow directions to provide
3 width thickness datasets so the effect of the palaeoflow uncer-
tainty could be investigated. The approach was also applied for
individual parts of the Oukaimeden sandstone (Lower, Middle and
Upper) to show the temporal variation in statistics.
Though it could be argued this approach could be replicated
using traditional field approaches alone, traditional mapping
347
methods would have been subject to access limitations (only being
able to measure where you can physically reach) and errors from
distortions in photo panels. The digital outcrop approach here, and
particularly the use of lidar, has resulted in a far greater number of
object interpretations than would have been possible with tradi-
tional approaches, thus increasing the sample size and making the
results more statistically significant.
8.1.2. Variograms and SIS/SGS
Sequential Simulations are pixel based modelling approaches,
using variograms to define the distribution of facies (Sequential
Indicator Simulations for discrete data) or petrophysical parame-
ters (Sequential Gaussian Simulations for continuous data). Vario-
grams are typically derived from log data in reservoir models,
which can provide good estimates of vertical variability but are very
poor for estimates of lateral variability. Digital outcrop models
provide a much higher degree of directly measureable lateral
continuity than can be achieved in the subsurface, and as such the
potential for defining the horizontal component of a variogram is
greatly increased. Variograms for a Triassic braided fluvial system
have been derived from outcrops of the Wolfville formation in Nova
Scotia (van Lanen et al., 2009). This process has involved classifying
the point cloud data on a per point basis according to facies asso-
ciation, importing the data into Schlumberger’s reservoir modelling
software Petrel and up-scaling the data into a modelling grid.
Variograms are then calculated from the up-scaled cells in the
modelling grid using Petrels data analysis tools (Fig. 10). The point
cloud classification was undertaken by a process of interpreting
digital images in the field, projecting the interpreted images onto
triangulated meshes and using them as a basis for polyline in-
terpretations, as well as extracting the colour from the colour coded
images as a point cloud attribute to act as the basis for up-scaling.
Due to the lack of topographic information expressing facies vari-
ations and similarity in colour and texture of many of the facies
types neither the attribute analysis or photorealistic approach
provided all the information needed to classify the model directly,
therefore a significant amount of the image interpretation was
done in the field. This approach to extracting variograms from
outcrop data has also been applied to Miocene syn-rift tidal sedi-
ments in the Gulf Of Suez (Rarity, 2012).
8.1.3. Multipoint statistics and training images
Multipoint statistical modelling approaches go beyond the
simple 2 point statistics of the variogram modelling approach
(Guardiano and Srivastava, 1992; Strebelle, 2002). The approach
uses a training image (a three dimensional conceptual model) from
which the multipoint statistics are derived. These statistics are then
used to build model realisations around the conditioning data in
the reservoir model (Strebelle and Levy, 2008) following a process
of pattern extraction from the training image, pattern recognition
in the conditioning data then pattern reconstruction around the
conditioning data using the MPS. As powerful as this approach is
there is still the issue of how to build the training image. Strebelle
and Levy (2008) discuss the use of photographs and cross sections
as a basis for training images and recognise the 2D limitation of
such data and advocates an approach based on unconditional ob-
ject or process based simulations using user defined trends and
rules. The application of digital outcrop models to this approach
providing accurate information on relationships between geo-
bodies and facies distributions would help improve training im-
ages, particularly if several DOM’s are used to generate each
training image to help encapsulate the variability seen in different
exposures.
Measured sections, photo-mosaic mapping, DGPS, and lidar data
have been collected along a 38 km dip exposure of Lower Jurassic
348 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354

Figure 9. Projection plane technique applied to the Oukaimeden sandstone, Morocco. This allows corrected geometries of channels and bar forms to be visualized and quantified.
Adapted from Fabuel-Perez et al. (2009a).

carbonate ramp strata in the High Atlas of Morocco, and converted
into a static model using multiple point statistics (Playton et al.,
2010). In this case rather than the DOM being used as a training
image, the DOM was used as a basis for building a static model in
order to test model building strategies as well as addressing issues
such as well spacing, facies delineation schemes and effects of
geological heterogeneity on fluid flow.
Fomel, 2010; Janson et al., 2007; Tomasso et al., 2006, 2010) and
provide a critical scale link between seismic and borehole scale.
With outcrops generally being smaller than seismic datasets and
also not giving a full 3D coverage of the geology, synthetic seismic
modelling is often carried out on a modelled representation of the
outcrop data, such as a geocellular model, rather than on the
outcrop data itself.

8.1.4. Synthetic seismic modelling 8.1.5. Fault and fracture statistics

Outcrop data has previously been used as a basis of synthetic Faults and fractures impact significantly on reservoir perfor-
seismic modelling (Bakke et al., 2008; Hodgetts and Howell, 2000; mance (either positively or negatively depending on the context).
Schwab et al., 2004; Stafleu et al., 1996). Digital outcrop models Fractures can enhance porosity and permeability particularly in
provide an ideal basis for synthetic seismic modelling (Janson and carbonate reservoirs where the matrix tends to have poor reservoir
 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354 349

Figure 10. Example of variograms extracted from digital outcrop data. The classified lidar points are upscaled into a Petrel modelling grid, from which variograms are calculated via
the data analysis tools. The variograms are them used to construct model realizations using the upscaled point cloud as conditioning data.

characteristics. Fractures are below current seismic resolution and
only visible in the subsurface via boreholes, while some faults are
visible in seismic (though this may well represent a relatively small
subset of those actually in the reservoir). As a result outcrop ana-
logues provide one of the most important sources of data for fault
and fracture data (Gillespie et al., 2010). Fault modelling and anal-
ysis from lidar data has been demonstrated in several examples
(Jones et al., 2009b; Rotevatn et al., 2009; Wilson et al., 2009a,
2009b), though it is perhaps in fracture modelling where lidar data
is having the greatest impact (Gillespie et al., 2010; Hunt et al., 2010;
Kurtzman et al., 2009; Olariu et al., 2008; Pearce et al., 2011; Wilson
et al., 2011). Fracture networks from outcrop data were first used in
water resource management (Long and Billaux, 1987) and fracture
modelling from lidar data is common practice in geotechnical fields
(Deparis et al., 2008; Gigli and Casagli, 2011; Schulz, 2007). Fracture
studies from lidar data are currently been used with increasing
frequency in the hydrocarbon industry (Barr et al., 2007; De Keijzer
et al., 2007; Gillespie et al., 2010; Kurtzman et al., 2009; Rogers et al.,
2007). A Discrete Fracture Network or DFN approach models fluid
flow processes through rock masses via a series of connected frac-
tures (Jing and Stephansson, 2007) and requires statistics on size,
density, orientation, position, and aperture of the fractures to
generate a stochastic model of the fracture network. While well
data can provide limited control on a subset of fracture parameters,
outcrop analogue data can provide the extra information needed to
populate models away from boreholes. In outcrop data fractures can
appear as planes when oriented sub-parallel to exposure, or as lines
or traces when oriented perpendicular to exposure (in this case 3D
orientation is difficult to obtain accurately), presenting different
interpretation challenges.
Gigli and Casagli (2011) recognise 2 levels of automation in
extraction of rock mass geomechanical characteristics. 1) Manual
approaches by inspecting the point cloud or the derived surface,
fitting local planes, taking measurements, drawing polylines of
interest, and 2) Automatic/semi-automatic approaches by selecting
a specific algorithm for the segmentation of the original data in
clusters of points belonging to the same discontinuity.
Automated approaches include identifying connected triangles
of a similar orientation within a triangulated mesh (Slob et al.,
2005), or from direct classification of the point cloud data
(Jaboyedoff et al., 2007) negating the need for triangulation. For
fault and fracture trace mapping the Ant Tracking approach
(Gillespie et al., 2010; Hunt et al., 2010) provides a good solution to
the automated extraction issue.
García-Sellés et al. (2011) present a method for the supervised
and automated identification of planar geological features (faults,
fractures and bedding planes for example) within un-decimated
point cloud data, where the features have a 3D exposure in the
350 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
outcrop (i.e. the planes themselves are exposed). This workflow
employs the tensor analysis approach (Fernández, 2005) to create
dip, azimuth and reliability and number of points (used in the
regression) attributes for the point cloud. Points which do not fulfill
a near planar condition are then filtered out using the attributes.
The resulting subset of data then comprises discrete patches of
points representing the exposed planar surfaces in the outcrop.
These patches are then converted into individual surfaces via a
triangulation process. An example from a Cretaceous limestone
outcrop in the Southern Pyrenees is used to show the workflow in a
real situation (García-Sellés et al., 2011), here the approach allowed
identification of 3 fracture sets and bedding, however one fracture
set observed in the field was not identified in the digital data as this
fracture set did not have any surface expression that could be
identified by this approach.
Combining automated and manual approaches along with
direct field observation where possible will provide large, robust,
datasets for geostatistical analysis, providing most of the data for
DFN modelling. Width/thickness relationships still remain difficult
to define (observed fracture extents are usually less than the true
extent due to position of the outcrop-fracture intersection and
exposure) and facture width is usually below DOM resolution (as
are some of the smallest fractures - hence the need for field ob-
servations to be included). However even with these limitations
fracture extraction from DOM’s hugely increases the statistical
significance of fracture datasets.
8.2. Training
For the petroleum and academic sectors the use of digital
outcrop models in training is an important and underutilised
aspect of these types of models. Though digital outcrop models are
far from being a direct replacement for fieldwork the integration of
DOM’s with field training has several benefits, including the ability
to familiarise the geologist with the outcrop before, and after,
visiting the exposure itself, as well as being able to use the DOM as a
training tool on a traditional fieldtrip (McCaffrey et al., 2010). These
2 aspects make time in the field more productive, and allow re-
enforcement of learning outcomes from the field. The DOM also
allows understanding and visualization of exposures at a variety of
scales and from virtual viewpoints not available in the field. Once a
lidar dataset has been collected and georeferenced the data may be
taken back into the field and GPS data used to navigate, in real time,
through the lidar dataset to the position of the field geologist,
allowing previously collected data to be interrogated, tested and
used in training during the field trip. Field ruggedized net books are
available now which are powerful enough and with sufficiently
adequate daylight viewable screens to make this a viable proposi-
tion for field trips.
8.2.1. Virtual and augmented reality
Virtual Reality (VR) is widely recognised as meaning the
computer simulation of a three dimensional environment with
which a user may interact. This maybe through desktop VR (e.g.
working with a stereo display on a computer), or though more
immersive systems such a stereo walls, headsets and cave type
environments. These VR environments are commonplace in in-
dustrial and academic environments, but are not necessarily a tool
in everyday use by the geologists. The 3D nature of lidar based
models make them ideal candidates for visualisation in VR suites,
and indeed VR suites make an ideal place for the quality control of
lidar data and interpretations of the DOM’s, though many users
find long periods of VR immersion uncomfortable making stan-
dard 2D visualisation and interpretation the most common
approach.
In augmented reality the real world is augmented with extra
information though an indirect view of the real world, this is now a
familiar sight on television where extra information is super-
imposed into the camera view, typically in sporting events, to
convey extra information to the viewer. Digital outcrop data has
been suggested as good application for the use of augmented reality
(Bellian et al., 2007a). This would mean the ability to visualise in-
terpretations, measurements and other data from laboratory
analysis of samples, for example, while in the field. The information
superimposed on the geologists view of the outcrop would indeed
provide a useful training tool. Current technology is still far from
making this a practical proposition using headset type technology,
but the advent of tablet PCs with geo-location facilities and built in
compasses make a tablet PC approach to augmented reality (an-
notations on a 2D view from the PCs webcam) a real and viable
possibility.
9. Future developments
Terrestrial and airborne lidar is gaining usage both within and
outside the petroleum sector. The increase in usage will naturally
lead to market driven technological enhancements which can only
lead to benefits for the geoscientist.
9.1. Hardware developments
The most recent advancement in terrestrial lidar has been the
introduction of full waveform scanners (see Section 5.4), and new
generation scanners are exhibiting faster collection rates of up to
100,000 points per second (depending on the scanner type),
meaning faster data acquisition and reduction in often-expensive
field time. For the field geologist one of the main concerns is
portability of the system. The trend in scanner development is to-
wards more compact, energy efficient systems which are not only
lighter but require smaller batteries to run them during a field
campaign. Some systems now come with integrated GNSS, digital
compass and on-board computers making transportation much
easier and reducing the reliance on cables in the field, cables being
one of the common weak points in such a system.
Flash lidar is another development which proposes interesting
applications in the geoscience sector in general. Flash lidar systems
record the whole scene in 1 pulse rather than using the rotating
mirror assemblies found in most laser scanning systems, giving
flash lidar the advantage of being light weight, solid state and very
rapid data collection of 16,384 points per frame (Advanced
Scientific Concepts, 2010) with ranges similar to those of more
traditional lidar systems. Flash lidar behave more like traditional
2D digital cameras, and do not need the stable platform required by
most lidar systems. This technology could well represent the way in
which lidar will gain wide use in the geoscience sector.
9.2. Software developments
Hardware developments in lidar systems and increased data
collection rates mean that typical lidar datasets are very large and
often are at the limit or beyond the size of dataset that modern
computer hardware can handle efficiently leading to problems in
processing, visualisation and interpretation. For the geologist there
are, as yet, no commercial geology-specific software for the inter-
pretation of this kind of data leaving the geologists to rely on
software developed typically for surveyors and engineers. Several
academic and industrial groups are now developing software for
specific lidar data interpretation purposes (García-Sellés et al.,
2011; Hodgetts, 2009; Hodgetts et al., 2007; Hunt et al., 2010)
which will improve the usability of lidar data.
 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
9.3. Photogrammetric approaches
A cost effective alternative to expensive, and heavy, lidar sys-
tems is the use of close range digital photogrammetry (Dueholm
and Olsen, 1993; Filipe and Sausse, 2004; Fischer and Keating,
2005; Moore, 1974; Yakar, 2011). A rapid, automated photogram-
metric approach using freely available software has recently been
presented (Favalli et al., 2011) allowing inexpensive digital cameras
to be used for collection of digital topographic data from geological
exposures. Though cost effective close range photogrammetry
works best on scales of up to a few 10’s metres, and at the moment
is not necessarily a viable alternative for reservoir scale studies.
10. Summary and conclusions
The use of lidar for digital outcrop analogues in the petroleum
industry has increased rapidly over the past few years. Table 1
shows a list of the outcrop analogue studies undertaken with
lidar, covering siliciclastic, carbonate and structural examples.
Though there are undoubtedly more studies that have been pre-
sented at conferences, this table illustrates well the increase in
usage of lidar since the publication of Bellian et al. (2005).
Throughout this period there has been much work on the devel-
opment of new approaches to extracting information from lidar
data both from within and outside the petroleum sector, whether
from the use of attributes generated from the data (Section 5),
application of manual interpretation (Section 7.1) or development
of automated approaches (Section 7.2). Though the body of work
represented by Table 1 shows the strength and range of the
application of lidar based fieldwork, the approach is far from
standard practice within outcrop analogue studies, mainly due to
the expense. Terrestrial lidar systems are yet to see a drop in price,
due to a relatively small user base, and longevity of the equipment
in general, with most developments being an in increase in speed,
accuracy and implementation of new features rather than in the
production of cheaper systems within the price range of most ac-
ademic users. Some of the advantages of digital outcrop data
collection via a lidar system are outlined in Section 1.2, though
some consideration should be given to where the lidar-based
approach may not be the best methodology to use. For lidar data-
sets of 10’s to 1000’s metres exposures are best, with relatively
continuous, clean exposure. Large amounts of vegetation can be
problematic, particularly shrub sized vegetation which can hide the
outcrop, though larger vegetation such as trees are easier to
remove, and scanning from multiple locations can result in
continuous coverage of the exposure. Areas of poor, discontinuous,
exposure are best addressed using other approaches such as dGPS
surveying and mapping. A final question to be addressed in
choosing a lidar based approach is what exactly is the deliverable of
the study? Is it worth collecting lidar if a high quality digital
photograph or some other approach will do the job?
All petroleum geologists will agree that outcrop analogues are
an essential part of understanding the subsurface, with the
analogue providing both soft (qualitative) and hard (quantitative)
information. The soft information (interpretations) includes con-
ceptual models and principles of how the depositional system
operated and how we may use observations at one point to predict
what occurs at another. The hard information (observed data) is the
direct measurements from the outcrop (width, thickness, position
etc.). Each outcrop will have its own unique set of hard data
(every outcrop is different) though the soft data will be common
among several different exposures assuming similar depositional
processes were occurring at the time of deposition. So how is this
quantitative, hard, digital data to be used in the subsurface? Given
every outcrop will have its own unique set of geostatistics, so will
351
every subsurface reservoir. It is therefore not a viable proposition to
merely apply an outcrops geostatistics to a reservoir model. Expo-
sures can however provide us with an understanding of the ranges
and variability of statistical parameters. In order to do this, hard
data from many exposures, considered to be comparative ana-
logues, need to be used to help understand the variability in the
statistics and the geological controls on that variability. To this end
several database systems have been developed in order to integrate
and analyse both quantitative and qualitative outcrop data, and put
this information into a context useful for reservoir characterisation.
These systems include WODAD (Kenter and Harris, 2008), Safari
(http://org.uib.no/cipr/Project/VOG/safari.htm) and ERGO (http://
www.fugro-robertson.com/geoscience/exploration/global_
thematic_studies/ergo/) which all aim to integrate published data
into a useable format. The success of these database systems relies
on the continued collection of high quality datasets to extend the
range of statistical information available.
The advent of lidar, particularly terrestrial systems, is having a
great impact on the way we do fieldwork on well exposed outcrop
analogues. The increase in geostatistical dataset size helps increase
the statistical significance of our outcrop datasets, and our under-
standing of the underlying geology. The coming years will see im-
provements in hardware and software to enable better use of this
powerful data, and the increase in the number of datasets will
improve the use of outcrop analogue data in the petroleum in-
dustry through the better understanding of variability within
similar depositional systems.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Franklin Rarity, Dr. Paul Wilson,
Mr. Thomas Seers, Dr. Ivan Fabuel-Perez, Dr. Xavier Van Lanen and
Dr. Mimi Hill for discussion and research into aspects of the use of
digital outcrop data over the past years. I would also like to thank
Schlumberger for providing license for Petrel (used in Fig. 10).
Figures showing lidar data have been created using Virtual Reality
Geological Studio (VRGS) developed in-house at the University of
Manchester. Thanks also go to 3 anonymous reviewers whose
comments helped to strengthen this paper.
References
Advanced Scientific Concepts, I.A, 2010. 3D Flash LiDAR Technology Overview.
http://www.advancedscientificconcepts.com/technology/technology.html.
Alfarhan, M., White, L., Tuck, D., Aiken, C., 2008. Laser rangefinders and ArcGIS
combined with three-dimensional photorealistic modeling for mapping out-
crops in the Slick Hills, Oklahoma. Geosphere 4, 576e587.
Arbel, E., Hel-Or, H., 2011. Shadow removal using intensity surfaces and texture
anchor points. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, IEEE Transactions on
33, 1202e1216.
Bærentzen, J., Gravesen, J., Anton, F., Aanæs, H., 2012. Simplifying and Optimizing
Triangle Meshes, Guide to Computational Geometry Processing. Springer,
London, pp. 191e211.
Bakke, K., Gjelberg, J., Agerlin Petersen, S., 2008. Compound seismic modelling of
the Ainsa II turbidite system, Spain: application to deep-water channel systems
offshore Angola. Marine and Petroleum Geology 25, 1058e1073.
Barr, D., Savory, K.E., Fowler, S.R., Arman, K., McGarrity, J.P., 2007. Pre-development
Fracture Modelling in the Clair field, West of Shetland. In: Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, vol. 270, pp. 205e225.
Bellian, J.A., Adams, E.W., Pöppelreiter, M.C., 2007a. Lidar & Augmented Reality
Devices Integrated for Stratigraphic Modeling, from Outcrop to Asset: Recent
Advances in Digital Outcrop Data Collection and Modelling Techniques. The
Geological Society of London, Manchester, England.
Bellian, J.A., Beck, R., Kerans, C., 2007b. Analysis of hyperspectral and lidar data:
remote optical mineralogy and fracture identification. Geosphere 3, 491e500.
Bellian, J.A., Kerans, C., Jennette, D.C., 2005. Digital outcrop models: applications of
terrestrial scanning lidar technology in stratigraphic modeling. Journal of
Sedimentary Research 75, 166e176.
Blair, J.B., Coyle, D.B., Bufton, J.L., Harding, D.J., 1994. Optimization of an airborne
laser altimeter for remote sensing of vegetation and tree canopies, Geoscience
and Remote Sensing Symposium, 1994. IGARSS ’94. Surface and Atmospheric
352 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
Remote Sensing: Technologies, Data Analysis and Interpretation, International
vol. 932, 939e941.
Bonbeau, E., Theraulaz, G., 2000. Swarm smarts. Scientific American, 51e64.
Bryant, I., Carr, D., Cirilli, P., Drinkwater, N., McCormick, D., Tilke, P., Thurmond, J.,
2000. Use of 3D digital analogues as templates in reservoir modelling. Petro-
leum Geoscience 6, 195e201.
Buckley, S., Vallet, J., Braathen, A., Wheeler, W., 2008a. Oblique helicopter-based
laser scanning for digital terrain modelling and visualisation of geological
outcrops international archives of the photogrammetry. Remote Sensing and
Spatial Information Sciences, 493e498.
Buckley, S.J., Howell, J.A., Enge, H.D., Kurz, T.H., 2008b. Terrestrial laser scanning in
geology: data acquisition, processing and accuracy considerations. Journal of
the Geological Society 165, 625e638.
Buckley, S.J., Schwarz, E., Terlaky, V., 2010. Combining aerial photogrammetry and
terrestrial lidar for reservoir analog modeling. Photogrammetric Engineering
and Remote Sensing 76, 953e963.
Burton, D., Dunlap, D.B., Wood, L.J., Flaig, P.P., 2011. Lidar intensity as a remote
sensor of rock properties. Journal of Sedimentary Research 81, 339e347.
Contreras, C., Gamero, H., Drinkwater, N., Geel, C.R., Luthi, S., Hodgetts, D., Hu, Y.G.,
Johannessen, E., Johansson, M., Mizobe, A., Montaggioni, P., Postman, P., Ray, S.,
Shang, R., Saltmarsh, A., 2003. Investigating clastic reservoir sedimentology.
Oilfield Review 15, 54e81.
Dayhoff, J., 1990. Neural Network Architectures. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
De Keijzer, M., Hillgartner, H., Al Dhahab, S., Rawnsley, K., 2007. A Surface-subsur-
face Study of Reservoir-scale Fracture Heterogeneities in Cretaceous Carbon-
ates, North Oman. In: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, vol. 270,
pp. 227e244.
Delaunay, B.N., 1934. Sur la sphère vide. Izvestia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Otdelenie
Matematicheskikh i Estestvennykh Nauk, 7, pp. 793e800.
Deparis, J., Fricout, B., Jongmans, D., et al., 2008. Combined use of geophysical
methods and remote techniques for characterizing the fracture network of a
potentially unstable cliff site (the ’Roche du Midi’, Vercors massif, France).
Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 5, 147e157.
Dubois, D., Prade, H., 1998. Soft computing, fuzzy logic, and artificial intelligence. Soft
Computing e a Fusion of Foundations. Methodologies and Applications 2, 7e11.
Dueholm, K.S., Olsen, T., 1993. Reservoir analog studies using multimodel photo-
grammetry; a new tool for the petroleum industry. AAPG Bulletin 77, 2023e
2031.
Enge, H.D., Buckley, S.J., Rotevatn, A., Howell, J.A., 2007. From outcrop to reservoir
simulation model: workflow and procedures. Geosphere 3, 469e490.
Enge, H.D., Howell, J.A., 2010. Impact of deltaic clinothems on reservoir perfor-
mance: dynamic studies of reservoir analogs from the Ferron Sandstone
Member and Panther Tongue, Utah. AAPG Bulletin 94, 139e161.
Fabuel-Perez, I., Hodgetts, D., Redfern, J., 2009a. A new approach for outcrop
characterization and geostatistical analysis of a low-sinuosity fluvial-dominated
succession using digital outcrop models: upper triassic oukaimeden sandstone
formation, central high Atlas, Morocco. AAPG Bulletin 93, 795e827.
Fabuel-Perez, I., Hodgetts, D., Redfern, J., 2010. Integration of digital outcrop models
(DOMs) and high resolution sedimentology e workflow and implications for
geological modelling: oukaimeden Sandstone Formation, High Atlas (Morocco).
Petroleum Geoscience 16, 133e154.
Fabuel-Perez, I., Redfern, J., Hodgetts, D., 2009b. Sedimentology of an intra-montane
rift-controlled fluvial dominated succession: the Upper Triassic Oukaimeden
Sandstone Formation, Central High Atlas, Morocco. Sedimentary Geology 218,
103e140.
Falivene, O., Garcia-Sellés, D., Arbués, P., Gratacós, O., Anton Muñoz, J., Tavani, S.,
2010. A Workflow for the Automatic Characterization of Geological Surfaces
from Terrestrial LIDAR Data, 72nd EAGE Conference & Exhibition incorporating
SPE EUROPEC 2010. EAGE, Barcelona.
Favalli, M., Fornaciai, A., Isola, I., Tarquini, S., Nannipieri, L., 2011. Multi-view 3D
reconstruction in geosciences. Computers & Geosciences. Available online.
Fernández, O., 2005. Obtaining a best fitting plane through 3D georeferenced data.
Journal of Structural Geology 27, 855e858.
Filipe, F., Sausse, J., 2004. Use of close-range photogrammetry to characterize
fracture surfaces. Bulletin de la Societe Geologique de France 175, 481e490.
Finlayson, G., Drew, M., Lu, C., 2009. Entropy minimization for shadow removal.
International Journal of Computer Vision 85, 35e57.
Fischer, M.P., Keating, D.P., 2005. Photogrammetric techniques for analyzing
displacement, strain, and structural geometry in physical models: application to
the growth of monoclinal basement uplifts. Geological Society of America
Bulletin 117, 369e382.
Franceschi, M., Teza, G., Preto, N., Pesci, A., Galgaro, A., Girardi, S., 2009.
Discrimination between marls and limestones using intensity data from
terrestrial laser scanner. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing 64, 522e528.
García-Sellés, D., Falivene, O., Arbués, P., Gratacos, O., Tavani, S., Muñoz, J.A., 2011.
Supervised identification and reconstruction of near-planar geological surfaces
from terrestrial laser scanning. Computers & Geosciences 37, 1584e1594.
Gigli, G., Casagli, N., 2011. Semi-automatic extraction of rock mass structural data
from high resolution LIDAR point clouds. International Journal of Rock Me-
chanics and Mining Sciences 48, 187e198.
Gillespie, P., Monsen, E., Maerten, L., Hunt, D., Thurmond, J., Tuck, D., 2010. Fractures
in carbonates: from digital outcrops to mechanical models. In: Martinsen, O.J.,
Pulham, A.J., Haughton, P., Sullivan, M.D. (Eds.), Outcrops Revitalized: Tools,
Techniques and Applications. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology).
Guardiano, F., Srivastava, M., 1992. Multivariate geostatistics: beyond bivariate
moments. In: Soares, A. (Ed.), Geostatistics-troia. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Holland,
pp. 133e144.
Haupt, S.E., Pasini, A., Marzban, C., 2009. Artificial Intelligence Methods in the
Environmental Sciences. Springer.
Hodgetts, D., 2009. Lidar in the Environmental Sciences: Geological Applications.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Hodgetts, D., Drinkwater, N.J., Hodgson, J., Kavanagh, J., Flint, S.S., Keogh, K.J.,
Howell, J.A., 2004. Three-dimensional Geological Models from Outcrop Data
Using Digital Data Collection Techniques: an Example from the Tanqua
Karoo Depocentre, South Africa. In: Geological Society Special Publication,
pp. 57e75.
Hodgetts, D., Gawthorpe, R.L., Wilson, P., Rarity, F., 2007. Integrating digital and
traditional field techniques using virtual reality geological studio (VRGS), So-
ciety of Petroleum Engineers e 69th European Association of Geoscientists and
Engineers Conference and Exhibition 2007. Securing the Future, 83e87.
Hodgetts, D., Howell, J.A., 2000. Synthetic seismic modelling of a large-scale
geological cross-section from the Book Cliffs, Utah, USA. Petroleum Geo-
science 6, 221e229.
Höfle, B., Pfeifer, N., 2007. Correction of laser scanning intensity data: data and
model-driven approaches. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote
Sensing 62, 415e433.
Hunt, D.W., Gillsepie, P., Thurmond, J., Casini, G., Monsen, E., 2010. Development
and Testing of New Automated Methods for the Capture of Quantitative Frac-
ture Data from Outcrop Analogues, AAPG Annual Convention and Exhibition.
AAPG, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Hyde, P., Dubayah, R., Peterson, B., Blair, J.B., Hofton, M., Hunsaker, C., Knox, R.,
Walker, W., 2005. Mapping forest structure for wildlife habitat analysis using
waveform lidar: validation of montane ecosystems. Remote Sensing of Envi-
ronment 96, 427e437.
Jaboyedoff, M., Metzger, R., Oppikofer, T., Couture, R., Derron, M.H., Locat, J.,
Turmel, D., 2007. New insight techniques to analyze rock-slope relief using DEM
and 3D-imaging cloud points: COLTOP-3D software. In: Eberhardt, E., Stead, D.,
Morrison, T. (Eds.), Rock Mechanics: Meeting Society’s Challenges and De-
mands. Proceedings of the 1st Canada-U.S. Rock Mechanics Symposium, Van-
couver, Canada, May 27e31. Taylor & Francis.
Janson, X., Fomel, S., 2010. 3-D forward seismic model of an outcrop-based geo-
cellular model. In: Martinsen, O.J., Pulham, A.J., Haughton, P., Sullivan, M.D.
(Eds.), Outcrops Revitalized: Tools, Techniques and Applications. SEPM (Society
for Sedimentary Geology).
Janson, X., Kerans, C., Bellian, J.A., Fitchen, W., 2007. Three-dimensional geological
and synthetic seismic model of Early Permian redeposited basinal carbonate
deposits, Victorio Canyon, west Texas. AAPG Bulletin 91, 1405e1436.
Jing, L., Stephansson, O., 2007. Discrete fracture network (DFN) method. In: Lanru, J.,
Ove, S. (Eds.), Developments in Geotechnical Engineering. Elsevier, pp. 365e398.
Jones, R.R., McCaffrey, K.J.W., Clegg, P., Wilson, R.W., Holliman, N.S.,
Holdsworth, R.E., Imber, J., Waggott, S., 2009a. Integration of regional to outcrop
digital data: 3D visualisation of multi-scale geological models. Computers &
Geosciences 35, 4e18.
Jones, R.R., Kokkalas, S., McCaffrey, K.J.W., 2009b. Quantitative analysis and visu-
alization of nonplanar fault surfaces using terrestrial laser scanning (LIDAR)-the
Arkitsa fault, central Greece, as a case study. Geosphere 5, 465e482.
Jones, R.R., Pringle, J.K., McCaffrey, K.J.W., Imber, J., Wightman, R.H., Guo, J., Long, J.J.,
2010. Extending digital outcrop geology into the subsurface. In: Martinsen, O.J.,
Pulham, A.J., Haughton, P., Sullivan, M.D. (Eds.), Outcrops Revitalized: Tools,
Techniques and Applications. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology).
JPL, N., 2011. http://aviris.jpl.nasa.gov/html/aviris.concept.html.
Jutzi, B., Stilla, U., 2003. Laser pulse analysis for reconstruction and classification of
urban objects. In: Ebner, H. (Ed.), International Society for Photogrammetry and
Remote Sensing Conference: Photogrammetric Image Analysis, Munich,
Germany 17th to 19th September 2003.
Kenter, J., Harris, M., Pierre, A., 2008. Digital Outcrop Models of Carbonate Platform
and Ramp Systems: Analogs for Reservoir Characterization and Modeling. In:
AAPG International Conference and Exhibition, Cape Town, South Africa.
Kenter, J.A.M., Harris, P.M., 2008. Web-based Outcrop Digital Analog Database
(WODAD): Archiving Carbonate Platform Margins. AAPG Annual Convention.
AAPG, Houston, Texas.
Kurtzman, D., El Azzi, J.A., Lucia, F.J., Bellian, J., Zahm, C., Janson, X., 2009. Improving
fractured carbonate-reservoir characterization with remote sensing of beds,
fractures, and vugs. Geosphere 5, 126e139.
Kurz, T.H., Dewit, J., Buckley, S.J., Thurmond, J.B., W.Hunt, D., Swennen, R., 2011.
Hyperspectral image analysis of different carbonate lithologies (limestone,
karst, hydrothermal dolomites): the Pozalagua Quarry case study (Cantabria,
NW Spain). Sedimentology 59, 623e645.
Labourdette, R., Jones, R.R., 2007. Characterization of fluvial architectural elements
using a three-dimensional outcrop data set: Escanilla braided system, South-
Central Pyrenees, Spain. Geosphere 3, 422e434.
Labourdette, R., J.R.R, 2007. Characterization of fluvial architectural elements using
a three-dimensional outcrop data set: Escanilla braided system, South-Central
Pyrenees, Spain. Geosphere 3, 422e434.
Lamarche, J., Borgomano, J., Caline, B., Gisquet, F., Rigaud, S., Schroder, S., Viseur, S.,
2010. Characterization of fault-related dolomite bodies in carbonate reservoirs
using lidar scanning. In: Martinsen, O.J., Pulham, A.J., Haughton, P.,
Sullivan, M.D. (Eds.), Outcrops Revitalized: Tools, Techniques and Applications.
SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology).
 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
Large, A.R.G., Heritage, G.L., Charlton, M.E., 2009. Laser Scanning: the Future. Wiley-
Blackwell.
Lee, K.-S., Cohen, W.B., Kennedy, R.E., 2004. Hyperspectral versus multispectral data
for estimating leaf area index in four different biomes. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 12.
Lee, K., Tomasso, M., Ambrose, W.A., Bouroullec, R., 2007. Integration of GPR with
stratigraphic and lidar data to investigate behind-the-outcrop 3D geometry of a
tidal channel reservoir analog, upper Ferron Sandstone, Utah. TLE 26, 994e998.
Li, Y., Gong, P., Sasagawa, T., 2005. Integrated shadow removal based on photo-
grammetry and image analysis. International Journal of Remote Sensing 26,
3911e3929.
Long, J.C.S., Billaux, D.M., 1987. From field data to fracture network modeling: an
example incorporating spatial structure. Water Resources Research 23, 1201e
1216.
Mallet, C., Bretar, F., 2009. Full-waveform topographic lidar: state-of-the-art. ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 64, 1e16.
Mallet, C., Soergel, U., Bretar, F., 2008. Analysis of Full-waveform Lidar Data for
Classification of Urban Areas. The International Archives of the Photogram-
metry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Beijing.
McCaffrey, K.J.W., Hodgetts, D., Howell, J., Hunt, D., Imber, J., Jones, R.R., Tomasso, M.,
Thurmond, J., Viseur, S., 2010. Virtual Fieldtrips for Petroleum Geoscientists. In:
Petroleum Geology Conference Series, vol. 7. Geological Society, London,
pp. 19e26.
McCaffrey, K.J.W., Jones, R.R., Holdsworth, R.E., Wilson, R.W., Clegg, P., Imber, J.,
Holliman, N., Trinks, I., 2005. Unlocking the spatial dimension: digital tech-
nologies and the future of geoscience fieldwork. Journal of the Geological So-
ciety 162, 927e938.
McCarthy, J., 2007. What is Artificial Intelligence (Website).
McFeely, R., Glavin, M., Jones, E., 2012. Shadow identification for digital imagery
using colour and texture cues. Image Processing, IET 6, 148e159.
Mikhail, E.M., Bethel, J., McGlone, J.C., 2001. Introduction to Modern Photogram-
metry. Wiley.
Moore, J.F.A., 1974. Mapping major joints in the Lower Oxford Clay using terrestrial
photogrammetry. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology
7, 57e67.
Morris, J., Porter, D., Neet, M., Noble, P., Schmidt, L., Lapine, L., Jensen, J., 2005.
Integrating LIDAR elevation data, multispectral imagery and neural network
modelling for marsh characterization. International Journal of Remote Sensing
26, 5221e5234.
NASA, 2011. NASA Landsat Website.
Nichols, E.M., Weissmann, G.S., Wawrzyniec, T.F., Frechette, J.D., Klise, K.A., 2010.
Processing of outcrop-based lidar imagery to characterize heterogeneity for
groundwater models. In: Martinsen, O.J., Pulham, A.J., Haughton, P.,
Sullivan, M.D. (Eds.), Outcrops Revitalized: Tools, Techniques and Applications.
SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology).
OED, 2012. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press.
Olariu, C., Bhattacharya, J.P., Xu, X., Aiken, C.L.V., Zeng, X., McMechan, G.A., 2011a.
Integrated Study of Ancient Delta-front Deposits, Using Outcrop, Ground-
penetrating Radar, and Three-dimensional Photorealistic Data: Cretaceous
Panther Tongue Sandstone, Utah, U.S.A, River Deltas-concepts, Models, and
Examples. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology), pp. 155e177.
Olariu, M., Ferguson, J.F., Aiken, C.L.V., 2008. Outcrop fracture characterization using
terrestrial laser scanners: deep-water Jackfork sandstone at Big Rock Quarry,
Arkansas. Geosphere 4, 247e259.
Olariu, M.I., Aiken, C.L.V., Bhattacharya, J.P., Xu, X., 2011b. Interpretation of chan-
nelized architecture using three-dimensional photo real models, Pennsylvanian
deep-water deposits at Big Rock Quarry, Arkansas. Marine and Petroleum Ge-
ology 28, 1157e1170.
Pearce, M.A., Jones, R.R., Smith, S.A.F., McCaffrey, K.J.W., 2011. Quantification of fold
curvature and fracturing using terrestrial laser scanning. AAPG Bulletin 95,
771e794.
Pedersen, S., Skov, T., Randen, T., Sønneland, L., 2005. Automatic fault extraction using
artificial ants. In: Bock, H.G., Hoog, F., Friedman, A., Gupta, A., Neunzert, H.,
Pulleyblank, W.R., Rusten, T., Santosa, F., Tornberg, A.-K., Capasso, V., Mattheij, R.,
Scherzer, O. (Eds.), Mathematical Methods and Modelling in Hydrocarbon
Exploration and Production. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 107e116.
Phelps, R.M., Kerans, C., 2007. Architectural characterization and three-dimensional
modeling of a carbonate channel levee complex: Permian San Andres Forma-
tion, last chance canyon, new Mexico, U.S.A. Journal of Sedimentary Research
77, 939e964.
Playton, T., Kenter, J., Levy, M., Pierre, A., Jones, G.D., Harris, P.M., 2010. Strategies for
Modeling Depositional Heterogeneity of Carbonate Ramps Using Outcrop An-
alogs and Multiple Point Statistics, AAPG GEO 2010 Middle East, Bahrain.
Pollyea, R.M., Fairley, J.P., 2012. Experimental evaluation of terrestrial LiDAR-based
surface roughness estimates. Geosphere 8, 222e228.
Pringle, J.K., Howell, J.A., Hodgetts, D., Westerman, A.R., Hodgson, D.M., 2006. Vir-
tual outcrop models of petroleum reservoir analogues: a review of the current
state-of-the-art. First Break 24, 33e42.
Prokhorov, D.V., 2009. Object Recognition in 3D Lidar Data with Recurrent Neural
Network, pp. 9e15.
Radies, D., Scherer, M., Koehazy, R., 2010. Application of terrestrial LiDAR to Upper
Silurian, shallow-marine outcrops, southern Libya e implications for subsurface
exploration. In: Martinsen, O.J., Pulham, A.J., Haughton, P., Sullivan, M.D. (Eds.),
Outcrops Revitalized: Tools, Techniques and Applications. SEPM (Society for
Sedimentary Geology).
353
Ragona, D.E., Minster, B., Rockwell, T., Jasso, H., 2006. Automated classification and
correlation of drill cores using high-resolution hyperspectral images and su-
pervised pattern classification algorithms. Applications to Paleoseismology.
AGU Fall Meeting.
Rarity, F., 2012. Digital Outcrop Characterisation of Syn-rift Structure and Stratig-
raphy: Nukhul Half-graben, Suez Rift, Egypt. Unpublished PhD thesis. School Of
Earth, Atmospheric and Environmental Sciences. University of Manchester,
Manchester.
Rarity, G.F., Hodgetts, D., Wilson, P., Gawthorpe, R., 2007. Modelling synrift tidal
heterogeneity using integrated digital-outcrop and field geology e Suez Rift,
Society of Petroleum Engineers e 69th European Association of Geoscientists
and Engineers Conference and Exhibition 2007. Securing the Future, 119e123.
Redfern, J., Hodgetts, D., Fabuel-Perez, I., 2007. Digital analysis brings renaissance
for petroleum geology outcrop studies in North Africa. First Break 25, 81e87.
Reitberger, J., Krzystek, P., Stilla, U., 2008. Analysis of full waveform LIDAR data for
the classification of deciduous and coniferous trees. International Journal of
Remote Sensing 29, 1407e1431.
Richet, M., Borgomano, J., Adams, E.W., Masse, J.P., Viseur, J.P., 2010. Numerical outcrop
geology applied to stratigraphical modeling of ancient carbonate platforms: the
Lower Cretaceous Vercors carbonate platform (SE France). In: Martinsen, O.J.,
Pulham, A.J., Haughton, P., Sullivan, M.D. (Eds.), Outcrops Revitalized: Tools,
Techniques and Applications. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology).
Rieger, P., Studnicka, N., Pfennigbauer, M., Zach, G., Ullrich, A., 2010. Advances in
Mobile Laser Scanning Data Acquisition. FIG Congress 2010, Sydney, Australia.
Rittersbacher, A., Howell, J.A., Buckley., S.J., Richter, N., Sima., A., Vallet, J., Keogh, K.,
2010. Using Oblique Helicopter Lidar to Document Fluvial Reservoir Architec-
ture: Examples from the Cretaceous and Tertiary of Eastern Utah. In: AAPG
Annual Convention and Exhibition, 12e14 April, 2010, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Rogers, S., Enachescu, C., Trice, R., Buer, K., 2007. Integrating Discrete Fracture
Network Models and Pressure Transient Data for Testing Conceptual Fracture
Models of the Valhall Chalk Reservoir, Norwegian North Sea. In: Geological
Society, London, Special Publications, vol. 270, pp. 193e204.
Rotevatn, A., Buckley, S.J., Howell, J.A., Fossen, H., 2009. Overlapping faults and their
effect on fluid flow in different reservoir types: a LIDAR-based outcrop
modeling and flow simulation study. AAPG Bulletin 93, 407e427.
Rust, G.L., Weissmann, G.S., Werban, U., Frechette, J.D., Wawrzyniec, T.F., 2010.
Outcrop-based GPR tomography through braided-stream deposits. In:
Martinsen, O.J., Pulham, A.J., Haughton, P., Sullivan, M.D. (Eds.), Outcrops
Revitalized: Tools, Techniques and Applications. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary
Geology).
Sabins, F.F., 1999. Remote sensing for mineral exploration. Ore Geology Reviews 14,
157e183.
Schroeder, W.J., Zarge, J.A., Lorensen, W.E., 1992. Decimation of Triangle Meshes.
SIGGRAPH ’92, Chicago, IL, USA, pp. 65e70.
Schulz, W.H., 2007. Landslide susceptibility revealed by LIDAR imagery and his-
torical records, Seattle, Washington. Engineering Geology 89, 67e87.
Schwab, A.M., Buchem, F.S.P.v., Eberli, G.P., 2004. Integration of high-resolution
outcrop and subsurface data to enhance interpretation of low-resolution
seismic data in the upper Devonian (Frasnian) carbonate system in western
Canada. In: Grammer, G.M., Harris, P.M., Eberli, G.P. (Eds.), Integration of
Outcrop and Modern Analogs in Reservoir Modeling AAPG.
Slob, S., Hack, R., Knapen, B.V., Turner, K., Kemeny, J., 2005. A method for automated
discontinuity analysis of rock slopes with 3D laser scanning. Transportation
Research Record 1913, 187e208.
Stafleu, J., Schlager, W., Everts, A.J.W., Kenter, J.A.M., Blommers, G., van Voorden, A.,
1996. Outcrop topography as a proxy of acoustic impedance in synthetic seis-
mograms. Geophysics 61, 1779e1788.
Strebelle, S., 2002. Conditional simulation of complex geological structures using
multiple-point statistics. Mathematical Geology 34.
Strebelle, S., Levy, M., 2008. Using Multiple-point Statistics to Build Geologically
Realistic Reservoir Models: the MPS/FDM Workflow. In: Geological Society,
London, Special Publications, vol. 309, pp. 67e74.
Tomasso, M., Bonnaffé, F.L., Bouroullec, R., Pyles, D.R., Jennette, D.C., 2006. Outcrop
versus seismic architecture of deep-water deposits: use of lidar along a slope-
to-basin transect of the Brushy Canyon Formation, West Texas. In: Slatt, R.M.,
Rosen, N.C., Bowman, M., Castagna, J., Good, T., Loucks, R., Latimer, R.,
Scheihing, M., Smith, R. (Eds.), Reservoir Characterization: Integrating Tech-
nology and Business Practices: Proceedings of the 26th Annual GCSSEPM
Foundation Bob F. Perkins Research Conference. SEPM, Houston, Texas,
pp. 755e770.
Tomasso, M., Bouroullec, R., Pyles, D.R., 2010. The use of spectral recomposition in
tailored forward seismic modeling of outcrop analogs. AAPG Bulletin 94, 457e
474.
van Lanen, X.M.T., Hodgetts, D., Redfern, J., Fabuel-Perez, I., 2009. Applications of
digital outcrop models: two fluvial case studies from the Triassic Wolfville Fm.,
Canada and Oukaimeden Sandstone Fm., Morocco. Geological Journal 44, 742e
760.
Verwer, K., Merino-Tome, O., Kenter, J.A.M., Della Porta, G., 2009. Evolution of a
high-relief carbonate platform slope using 3D digital outcrop models: Lower
Jurassic Djebel Bou Dahar, high Atlas, Morocco. Journal of Sedimentary Research
79, 416e439.
Wilson, C.E., Aydin, A., Karimi-Fard, M., Durlofsky, L.J., Sagy, A., Brodsky, E.E.,
Kreylos, O., Kellogg, L.H., 2011. From outcrop to flow simulation: con-
structing discrete fracture models from a LIDAR survey. AAPG Bulletin 95,
1883e1905.
354 D. Hodgetts / Marine and Petroleum Geology 46 (2013) 335e354
Wilson, P., Gawthorpe, R.L., Hodgetts, D., Rarity, F., Sharp, I.R., 2009a. Geometry and
architecture of faults in a syn-rift normal fault array: the Nukhul half-graben,
Suez rift, Egypt. Journal of Structural Geology 31, 759e775.
Wilson, P., Hodgetts, D., Rarity, F., Gawthorpe, R.L., 2010. Half-graben-scale geo-
cellular outcrop modelling of rift initiation strata from LiDAR-based digital
outcrop data: the Nukhul syncline, Suez rift, Egypt. In: Martinsen, O.J.,
Pulham, A.J., Haughton, P., Sullivan, M.D. (Eds.), Outcrops Revitalized: Tools,
Techniques and Applications. SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology).
Wilson, P., Hodgetts, D., Rarity, F., Gawthorpe, R.L., Sharp, I.R., 2009b. Structural
geology and 4D evolution of a half-graben: new digital outcrop modelling
techniques applied to the Nukhul half-graben, Suez rift, Egypt. Journal of
Structural Geology 31, 328e345.
Wilson, P., Rarity, F., Hodgetts, D., Gawthorpe, R.L., 2007. A lidar study of struc-
tural style and stratigraphic response in the Nukhul half graben, Suez rift,
Egypt, Society of petroleum Engineers e 69th European Association of Geo-
scientists and Engineers Conference and Exhibition 2007. Securing the Future,
93e97.
Woodcock, N.H., 1977. Specification of fabric shapes using an eigenvalue method.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 88, 1231e1236.
Xu, X., 2000. 3D Virtual Geology; Photorealistic Outcrops and their Acquistion,
Visualization and Analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis. The University of Texas at
Dallas, Dallas.
Xu, X., Aiken, C., Bhattacharya, J.P., Corbeanu, R.M., Nielsen, K.C., McMechan, G.A.,
Abdelsalam, M.G., 2000. Creating virtual 3D outcrop. TLE 19, 197e202.
Xu, X., Aiken, C.L.V., Nielsen, K.C., 1999. Real time and the virtual outcrop improve
geological field mapping. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union AGU
80, 317e324.
Xu, X., Bhattacharya, J.B., Davies, R.K., Aiken, C.L.V., 2001. Digital geologic mapping
of the Ferron sandstone, Muddy Creek, Utah, with GPS and reflectorless laser
rangefinders. GPS Solutions 5, 15e23.
Yakar, M., 2011. Using close range photogrammetry to measure the position of
inaccessible geological features. Experimental Techniques 35, 54e59.
Zadeh, L., 1994. Preface. In: Marks, R.J. (Ed.), Fuzzy Logic Technology and Applica-
tions. IEEE Publications.
David Hodgetts completed his degree in Geology in 1991 from Durham University,
followed by Computing in Earth Sciences MSc (1992) and PhD in Three Dimensional
Numerical Modelling of Continental Lithospheric Deformation (1995) at the University
of Keele. He has completed post docs in diverse subjects from development of struc-
tural restoration algorithms at Keele, seismic interpretation, reservoir characterisation
and modelling and digital outcrop geology at the University of Liverpool in the STRAT
group, before joining the Basin Studies and Petroleum Geology at the University of
Manchester as a lecturer in Petroleum Geology and Reservoir Modelling. He is
currently running several digital outcrop projects around the globe, and leads the
Quantitative Geology and Outcrop Characterisation research group at Manchester
University. He has also been developing software called Virtual Reality Geological
Studio (VRGS) for the geoscientific interpretation of lidar data.