The following link is the current draft version of the proposed industry standard for electrical geophysics.
The committee ask that you utilise the discussion forum below to share your comments and feedback on the draft document. Alternatively you can discuss the draft document via our Linked In or Facebook pages. Utilising these types of discussion forums should ensure transparency in the review process with feedback open for discussion amongst all stakeholders
PDF: Ground Geophysical Electrical Methods 281112 Final Draft
5 Replies to “Proposed Industry Standard for Electrical Geophysics”
These standards have adequately dealt with hazards on large mineral exploration systems however exemptions are neccessary for smaller equipment such as multi-takeout cable systems used for soil investigation. For each requirement, a minimum voltage/wattage should be specified so as not to put the soil industry geophysicists out of work. Similarly for mobile systems, it is not possible to implement the open circuit protection because the system is frequently becoming open circuit. For such systems alternate protection such as low voltage/amperage operation and/or personnel separation is routinely applied.
ASST will submit a comprehensive comment later, however for a start I would like to say the following; the policy makers are quick to jump up and down to make the workplace “safe” but in reality they have a poor understanding of how geophysical surveys are conducted. They also seems to forget that you need to ensure that you have tools in place to assist companies once the policies take effect. For example – do we have enough engineering to deal with the so-call certification of equipment? Is there a set standard for them to work from? The answer is no.
David, the safety concern is only partially related to the transmitter itself. For example seemingly no one has thought of someone banging a peg into a 11KV underground cable and what the consequences will be. In fact in that situation the type of system becomes irrelevant because the take outs is the point of transmission.
Also, nowhere is there mentioning that a geophysicist should be in charge of the survey. We see in the industry that larger engineering firms do their own geophysical surveys because …….well nothing prevents them from doing so and they don’t have to employ a physicist. They don’t even necessarily know anything about getting equipment certified.
At the moment electrical engineers do not have a standard that they can use to evaluating the ESWP that they certified. I have also discovered that some don’t have a clue what they are talking about and more specifically the engineers working for the policy makers.
Lastly, there need to be a costing guideline for procedures because at present engineers charge more to read through a ESWP than what the equipment costs and don’t be fooled by the “free market” argument. This is not a “bread and butter” job for engineers and they don’t want to spend hours reading ESWPs. Also they need to sign off on something that will not be covered by their PL and PI insurance. Therefore they charge a lot and spend months to read through the few pages. Unavoidably rates for geophysical surveys in Aus will go up. Competitiveness and production goes down (fact) – the risk stays the same (my opinion) and the benefit is highly debateable.
The document is on the way to being pretty good – some questions:
Training – what requirements are there in jurisdictions like WA, NSW, SA? e.g. Dept of Commerce Energy Safety WA training for Tx operators?
Procedures – 5m clearance from live cables – how practical is this in Tasmania and Pacific Islands where people are working along cut lines?
High Voltage – is this document appropriate for both less than and greater than 1500V DC? What about geotech and soil resistivity systems which operate under 60V?
you may want to read this doc that can be found on DOCEP site R060 0712.pdf
Irrespective of the method or application – any transmitter above 50V need certification by an electrical engineer. Riaan
This draft framework has gone some way to addressing need for a unified set of standards in geophysical field work. The majority of the content seems sound however some details may need more attention. Under whose authority are “necessary licenses” granted GGSSA, Contractors, State or Government?
The use of petrol generators is a high fire risk. Considering clients increasingly deny their use on mine sites and exploration leases as part of their own fire safety standards, landholders often bar there use as part of their access agreements on the grounds of extreme fire risk. If fire safety is second only to risk of electric shock then a move to diesel only survey sites seems natural.
The practicality/cost of the high voltage cables required by this standard frame work need to examined more closely.
Comments are closed.