IMU is Changing the Game: Highlights from the Cambio User Group in Calgary

Across the day, operators, consultants, and researchers shared lessons from the field, debated monitoring strategies, and explored how geohazard programs are evolving.

But one theme kept resurfacing in nearly every discussion:
Where it can be collected, IMU data is critical for modern geohazard programs.

During a live poll, operators were asked: If you had an extra $100,000 to spend on landslide monitoring, where would you invest it?

The results were decisive.

• IMU data – 43 votes
• Lidar change detection – 28
• Ground inspections – 10
• Survey spikes – 9
• InSAR – 3

Unlocking the Value of IMU Data

IMU has become one of the most powerful tools in pipeline geohazard management. Yet many programs still face a familiar problem:

Most operators collect IMU data.
Few teams can easily use it all.

Last week, we announced several updates designed to change that.

‍1. IMU Plotting — Available Now‍

Operators can now easily open IMU plots directly inside Cambio. Instead of stitching together data from multiple tools, engineers can visualize strain signatures along the pipeline in seconds and investigate potential hazards alongside lidar, site inventories, and inspection records.

The goal is simple: Remove friction between data collection and interpretation.

‍2. Self-Serve IMU Data Upload — Coming April 2026

Another capability announced at the event is self-serve IMU data uploads, arriving in the coming weeks. Operators will be able to upload IMU runs directly into Cambio, where the system automatically:

• Normalizes data across vendors
• Organizes tabular IMU data, pipe tally information, and vendor bending strains
• Makes the data available for plotting and analysis

This addresses one of the most common frustrations operators raised during the discussions: managing hundreds of IMU reports across different vendors and formats.

Learning From Near Misses

Another session explored an incredibly valuable source of insight: near misses.

Looking at more than 100 real-world landslide case histories, the study asked a simple question: What actually raises the alarm before a failure occurs?

The analysis examined how different monitoring tools performed across historical cases:

• Ground inspections
• Aerial patrols
• Lidar change detection
• IMU data from inline inspections
• InSAR satellite monitoring
• Survey monitoring spikes

Historically, ground inspections detected many sites first simply because they were the most widely used. But more recently, IMU has become one of the most powerful escalation tools, responsible for detecting more than half of critical sites identified in recent case histories.

The discussion also highlighted the continued value of survey monitoring spikes. One operator in the room shared that survey spikes are the second largest monitoring tool in their geohazard program after IMU, and they have found them to deliver measurements within ±20 mm accuracy 93.5% of the time.

The takeaway? Monitoring spikes may be more reliable than many practitioners assume.

But the bigger lesson was this: No single monitoring method tells the full story. The strongest geohazard programs combine multiple tools — each revealing different signals of ground movement.

Optimizing Geohazard Programs

Another major theme throughout the day was how geohazard programs are evolving.

Over the past decade, proactive monitoring and improved hazard inventories have driven failure rates to exceptionally low levels across many systems. That success introduces a new question: If failures are already rare, how do we optimize programs without increasing risk?

One approach discussed involves modeling how pipeline segments affected by landslides can change over time — and how different monitoring or mitigation strategies influence both risk and lifecycle cost.

By combining historical performance data, inspection practices, and remediation costs, operators can evaluate questions like:

• Are we inspecting the right sites?
• Are we monitoring stable sites too frequently?
• Where should mitigation occur earlier instead of later?
• Is mitigation more cost effective over the longer term, or is monitoring combined with stress relief a better program strategy?

The goal isn’t just to spend less. It’s to ensure resources are directed where they matter most.

The Real Value of the User Group

While the presentations were valuable, many of the most interesting insights came from the open discussions between sessions. Operators spoke candidly about challenges such as:

• rapidly increasing data volumes
• the reality that we can’t simply keep adding more monitoring programs forever
• deciding when monitoring programs are no longer delivering the value they once did
• and determining where machine learning adds value.

That openness is exactly why the Cambio User Group exists.

Geohazard management is still evolving.
No single company has all the answers.

But when operators share lessons openly — including failures and near misses — the entire industry gets better.

Next Stop: Houston

The conversation continues on April 14 in Houston at the PRCI Technology Development Center.

Registration here:

If Calgary showed us anything, it’s that the Cambio community is growing, facing similar geohazard challenges, and the tools available for geohazard programs are evolving quickly.

We hope you’ll join us for the next chapter.