gerritgroot: the subject of camera settings is addressed on page 2 of the article, in section 6. Had you read the full article before commenting, you would have learned (i) what ranges of settings are recommended as a starting point, and (ii) that optimal settings depend on factors including the strength of the particular aurora you are photographing, such that EXIF data from images of aurorae you did not photograph would be "pretty useless."
That said, if you still want EXIF data (and additional photos) you can find it here:http://www.pbase.com/hattenbach/alaska
Boorrris- you raise a good question about the 24 f/1.4. I have both that lens and the 14-24, but strongly prefer the 14-24 when I'm in a location with arourae regularly appearing overhead (such as Iceland, where you're going). If you want to include some foreground as well as a large portion of the sky, a 14mm field of view makes an enormous difference -- one that more than compensates for its narrower aperture, in my opinion.
When the aurora can be seen significantly south of the arctic (e.g., in Minnesota, or even Mexico, where it reportedly appeared in 1859!), it will more often be hovering near the horizon. In those situations, a 24mm view may work better from a compositional perspective and the wider aperature of the prime would be a plus.
Hi Folks. Thanks very much for all the positive feedback. It will help keep me warm on my next photoshoot. Poul, with respect to your comment on the science, the scientific portion of the article (Section 1) was provided by a Ph.D. astrophysicist who, as a professor and researcher, has studied aurorae not only on earth but on other planets. It was intended to be understandable by lay people, not a comprehensive dissertation; nonetheless, I believe (and sure hope) it is entierly accurate from a scientific perspective.