Satellite survey & AI targeting
Multispectral imagery and machine-assisted anomaly detection that narrow a licence area to the ground worth walking — and tell you where not to bother.
Multispectral & radarAnomaly rankingField verification
Multispectral imagery and machine-assisted anomaly detection that narrow a licence area to the ground worth walking — and tell you where not to bother.
This is worth being blunt about, because the industry is not. Remote sensing and machine learning rank ground by how much it resembles ground that was productive elsewhere. That is a prioritisation tool, and a good one. It is not a discovery.
What it changes is the budget. Conventional coverage spreads a fixed exploration spend evenly across a licence. Ranked ground concentrates the same spend on the fraction most likely to repay it, and — as importantly — takes the rest out of the programme.
Nothing is drilled on a screen alone. Every ranked target is walked by a crew before it enters a drilling programme, and targets that do not survive that walk are reported as failures rather than quietly dropped.
Delivered as georeferenced layers you can load into your own software, plus a written interpretation. Not as screenshots.
Four stages. The fourth is the one that separates this from a data product.
Multispectral and radar imagery over the whole licence, not a sample of it.
Models trained on verified occurrences rank alteration and structure by confidence.
Crews walk the highest-ranked ground. Nothing is drilled on a screen alone.
Verified samples build the resource model, and the model decides where equipment goes.
Stated here so that the first conversation can be about the work rather than about how we charge for it.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Input required | A licence boundary or a set of coordinates. Existing data helps but is not required |
| Typical turnaround | Two to four weeks for processing and ranking; verification is scheduled separately |
| Delivery format | GeoTIFF and shapefile layers, plus a written interpretation |
| Confidence | Stated per target, with the evidence listed. Targets are never presented without it |
| Verification | Field crew mobilised on request; findings reported whether or not they support the ranking |
| What it is not | It is not a resource estimate and it is not a substitute for drilling |
It is a ranking, not a prediction, and we report it as one. The useful measure is how much ground it removes from a programme: typically a licence reduces to a small fraction of its area for first-pass fieldwork.
No. A boundary is enough to start. Where previous sampling exists it is used to calibrate the ranking, which materially improves it.
Yes, over open ground, and it is one of the more sensible uses of the method — it is far cheaper to rank ground before applying for it than after.
It is written up as a negative result with the reasons. A method that never reports failures is not producing information, it is producing reassurance.
A licence boundary or a single point is enough to begin. We will come back with what the imagery supports, what it does not, and what a verification programme would cost.