Ayesha Ahmed

Happy Friday, fellow geoscientists and data scientists! This week, I’d like to reflect on the value of prospectivity studies in mineral exploration. Over the course of my career, I’ve had the opportunity to conduct or contribute to the creation of dozens of prospectivity maps. These projects have involved collaborations with various teams both within and outside of SRK, exposing me to a wide range of methods and philosophies. The scales of these studies have ranged from individual deposits to global-scale investigations. Through these experiences, I’ve formed a few opinions on where the true value of prospectivity studies lies—and where it doesn’t: - Prospectivity studies excel at consolidating large, complex datasets and ideas into one or a few layers. They are particularly valuable when working with extensive datasets across large areas to map intricate mineral systems. However, in simpler exploration projects, prospectivity maps may not be the most effective tool. For example, if soil sample anomalies are the primary targeting method, there is no need for a prospectivity map. Just go check the anomalies in the field. - These studies provide a structured framework for compiling and interpreting geological knowledge alongside available data. Interestingly, only 5–10% of the effort in a prospectivity study is spent on creating the actual map. The real value lies in the process, which enhances geological understanding of the area, regardless of the final map’s outcome. - A well-executed prospectivity study highlights areas with potential but high uncertainty, as well as gaps in the available data. This enables teams to identify missing information that could either increase confidence in the model or refine its resolution. The logical next step is to collect this additional data, further narrowing the exploration space. - Ultimately, a prospectivity study helps identify areas with higher mineralization potential, supported by geological reasoning. When possible, it can even provide a quantitative estimation of why specific areas are more prospective. The result is not a treasure map with a X where to drill, but a synthesis of all the work done before that allows to make decisions based on quantitative estimates with known uncertainties. The key takeaway is that the final prospectivity map is just one part of the value these studies offer. Prospectivity studies are a powerful tool for integrating and synthesizing the data we’ve collected—they’re not a substitute for the data itself. Rather than viewing them as a standalone product, we should see them as a framework to support and guide exploration efforts. Wishing you all a great weekend!

79

4 Comments

Santana Minerals Ltd just dropped its updated PFS and it might be a good bit better than the headline numbers suggest. Headline numbers are: After-tax NPV: A$1.5B at today’s gold price. Capex: A$277M. Payback: <1.7 years. Market cap: A$440M (after a 20x move since 2022). All looks great, and the real results may be even better because of conservative assumptions and speed. The PFS is based on A$3,500/oz gold. That’s about US$2,300/oz. If the price holds or grinds higher, the NPV could grow fast. The timeline is another bright spot. First pour could be about 18 months out if the schedule sticks, putting early production in 2027. The jurisdiction helps. If it proceeds, this would move from discovery to production in the same decade. That would be a clear signal New Zealand is open for modern mining again, building on its long mining history. Bottom line, this is a strong study, with conservative inputs, and a clear path to cash flow. If permits, financing, and execution land on this schedule, and if gold stays firm, this could be one of the fastest discovery-to-cash-flow stories in the sector. Big step for everyone at Santana Minerals too.

73