Our AI model NEW
The work on this ground since 1949, most of it on paper, is now in one database that the Property Viewer reads. Much of it is old-school field data from one man: Doug Robinson, P.Eng., who has mapped, sampled and surveyed these claims since 1994 and whose reports set the gold signs the model uses.
In plain words
The model is not a black box. It walks every spot along the old grid lines, every 25 m, and asks the same questions Doug Robinson would: is there pyrite or iron-carbonate alteration here? Gold in the rock or soil? A magnetic low, an EM conductor, a mapped structure? Each “yes” adds that sign’s weight. The total is the spot’s score out of 100, and every score lists the signs behind it, so anyone can check it.
What is new: the weights are now Doug Robinson’s own (his sheet “Drill Priority Artificial Intelligence vs Surface Evidence”, 2026), not a first guess, and a spot becomes a target by its score, not by a count of survey signs. Owners can change the weights in the Property Viewer and every target re-ranks at once.
- Digitise. Assessment reports, field notes, hand-drawn maps and lab certificates are scanned, placed on the map and keyed in. Each value stays tied to its source.
- Combine. Geology mapping, gold in soil and rock, ground and drone magnetics, EM conductors and 3D IP are all lined up on the same grid lines.
- Score. Every spot gets a weighted score out of 100 from Doug Robinson’s gold signs. See the current weights
- Rank. The spots where the evidence agrees are ranked, each with a plain reason, and checked against Doug Robinson’s holes.
Our current decision model
- The dataField notes, samples and surveys since 1949
- 23 gold signsTested at each spot within 25 m
- Score out of 100The share of the weight a spot earns
- 30 or moreThe spot is a target
- RankedBest score first, each with its reasons
- QP reviewA Qualified Person checks it
- DrillOnly drilling tests it
How much each sign adds to a spot’s score (weights as of 1 November 2026). Alteration and magnetics carry the most, as they do in Doug Robinson’s reports.
Alteration 25%
Gold at surface 10%
Magnetics 24%
EM and IP 17%
Structure 15%
Soil chemistry 4%
Wet ground 4%
Every sign and how it is tested
| Sign | Share | How it is tested |
|---|---|---|
| EM (MaxMin) conductor | 12.2% | A picked conductor, or the in-phase reading at –10% or lower, within 25 m |
| Pyrite (–albite) alteration | 10.2% | A 1994–96 field note, or a rock or channel sample's description, mentioning pyrite (Py) or sulphide within 25 m – float and talus left out, Po (pyrrhotite) not counted |
| Gold at surface | 10.2% | A rock sample of 0.1 g/t or more, or a soil value in the line's top 20% (and at least 0.5 ppb), within 25 m |
| Fault or structure striking 070–090° (Larder Lake breaks) | 8.6% | One of Doug Robinson's mapped structures or a measured vein striking 070–090° within 25 m (props.strike_deg / strike_set: conductor axis 4 at 090°, the Reed Showing 090° and G4 080° veins) |
| Iron-carbonate alteration | 8.1% | A field note mentioning Fe-carbonate (FeCA / carb / ankerite) within 25 m |
| Magnetic low (high-altitude drone survey) | 6.1% | Not tested by the map yet – the high-altitude drone data is still to come (2022); earns nothing until then |
| Fault or structure (135° Lincoln Continental trend) | 6.1% | One of Doug Robinson's mapped structures (magnetic structure, conductor axes) or a measured vein strike within 25 m – the ~135° ones (110–160°) and any without a strike; those striking 070–090° score as the break sign instead |
| Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96) | 4.1% | Walk magnetics in the line's lowest 15% within 25 m (to change: inside a broad area of low total field – dark blue – compared with its surroundings) |
| Magnetic low, linear trend (ground, 1994–96) | 4.1% | Not tested by the map yet – to come: a line of walk-mag lows that each drop sharply from the readings around them, lined up along a trend; earns nothing until then |
| Magnetic low (drone, 2021) | 3% | Drone magnetics (levelled) in the property's lowest 15%, within 12.5 m of the line and 25 m along it |
| Quartz vein or breccia | 3% | A 1994–96 field note or a rock or channel sample's description mentioning a quartz vein (QV) or breccia (Bx), or a mapped vein, within 25 m – float and talus left out; "quartz" counts only as a vein or breccia, not in a rock's name (quartz gabbro, quartz-feldspar porphyry) |
| MMI soil rubidium (Rb) anomaly | 3% | An MMI soil sample within 25 m whose rubidium is in its own survey's top 20% (2012 report 20000008656, 2016 report 20000015637) – investors and owners |
| Magnetic body (drone model) | 3% | The 2021 drone-magnetics model shows a body 20–80 m down |
| High IP chargeability | 2.5% | 2022 IP chargeability about 17.6 mV/V or more, 20–80 m down |
| Low resistivity (high conductivity) in IP | 2.5% | 2022 IP resistivity in the lowest 20% of the model (about 300 ohm·m or less), 20–80 m down |
| Edge of a magnetic high and low | 2% | The walk-magnetics change over 10 m in the line's top 15% within 25 m |
| Deep magnetic high (aerial drone survey, Otto Twp lease) | 2% | Inside the Otto Twp lease (LEA-109272), the 2021 drone-magnetics SimPEG model shows a body (0.01 SI or more) 200–400 m down – the high at about 0–100 m above sea level, 230–330 m below surface |
| Leucoxene alteration (coarse quartz gabbro) | 2% | A rock or channel sample within 25 m whose description mentions leucoxene (Doug Robinson's 2021 Reed notes). The coarse quartz-gabbro unit isn't mapped yet (question C79), so samples only for now |
| Wet-ground note (swamp lineament) | 2% | A wet-ground note on the 1994–96 geology map (Wet, Alder, Beaver, Pond; cedar left out) or a swamp stretch written on the 1994 EM sheets, within 25 m |
| Inside a mapped swamp | 2% | Inside a swamp outline drawn round the grass-tuft swamp symbols of the 1994–96 field geology map (groups of 4 or more tufts; 30 outlines, about 40 ha) |
| Sericite / potassic alteration | 1% | A field note mentioning sericite within 25 m |
| Chlorite alteration (outer halo) | 1% | Inside a 'chloritic alteration' unit (7a–7d) of the 1994–96 geology map |
| MMI soil cerium–neodymium high | 1% | An MMI soil sample within 25 m whose cerium + neodymium is in its own survey's top 20% (2012 and 2016 MMI surveys) – investors and owners |
The weights are Doug Robinson’s (Doug Robinson, 2026). How each sign is tested is our reading of his reports and is still being checked with him.
The AI picks
Ranked targets – for investors
Investors can see the ranked list, each target’s score and how the targets line up with Doug Robinson’s proposed holes in the Property Viewer.
Every proposed hole, scored the same way
Doug Robinson’s 20 proposed holes that test a target, from his filed report, and EO-22-004 placed blind among them. Each hole gets the score of the best target it passes within 75 m of. Sorted by value for money – how much score each dollar of drilling buys; click any heading to sort another way. EO-22-004 comes last of 21. Its score ties with 2 others on 21, but at 969 m it costs the most of any hole here.
Sort by:
| Rank | Hole | Ratingtotal /100 = score + value for money | Length (m) | Est. cost | Signs at its best target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | P13 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 86 | 200 | $45,000 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, Pyrite (–albite) alteration, Gold in surface samples, Fault or structure striking 070–090° (Larder Lake breaks), Iron-carbonate alteration, Fault or structure (135° Lincoln Continental trend), Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), Magnetic low (drone, 2021), Quartz vein or breccia, High IP chargeability, Inside a mapped swamp, Sericite / potassic alteration |
| 2 | P05 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 61 | 100 | $22,500 | Gold in surface samples, Iron-carbonate alteration, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), High IP chargeability, Edge of a magnetic high and low, Wet-ground note (swamp lineament), Inside a mapped swamp |
| 3 | P16 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 55 | 208 | $46,800 | Pyrite (–albite) alteration, Gold in surface samples, Fault or structure striking 070–090° (Larder Lake breaks), Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), Quartz vein or breccia, Magnetic body (drone model), Edge of a magnetic high and low, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 4 | P14 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 52 | 250 | $56,250 | Pyrite (–albite) alteration, Gold in surface samples, Iron-carbonate alteration, Fault or structure (135° Lincoln Continental trend), Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), Magnetic low (drone, 2021), Quartz vein or breccia, High IP chargeability, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 5 | P20 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 42 | 225 | $50,625 | Pyrite (–albite) alteration, Gold in surface samples, Iron-carbonate alteration, High IP chargeability, Edge of a magnetic high and low, Wet-ground note (swamp lineament), Inside a mapped swamp |
| 6 | P11 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 40 | 400 | $90,000 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, Pyrite (–albite) alteration, Fault or structure striking 070–090° (Larder Lake breaks), Iron-carbonate alteration, Quartz vein or breccia, Low resistivity (high conductivity) in IP, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 7 | P01 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 36 | 400 | $90,000 | Pyrite (–albite) alteration, Gold in surface samples, Iron-carbonate alteration, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), Quartz vein or breccia, Low resistivity (high conductivity) in IP, Edge of a magnetic high and low, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 8 | P09 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 22 | 200 | $45,000 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), Inside a mapped swamp |
| 9 | P03 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 33 | 450 | $101,250 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, Gold in surface samples, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), High IP chargeability, Low resistivity (high conductivity) in IP, Edge of a magnetic high and low, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 10 | P12 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 22 | 250 | $56,250 | Fault or structure (135° Lincoln Continental trend), Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), Magnetic low (drone, 2021), Quartz vein or breccia, High IP chargeability, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 11 | P04 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 26 | 450 | $101,250 | Gold in surface samples, Iron-carbonate alteration, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), High IP chargeability, Edge of a magnetic high and low, Wet-ground note (swamp lineament), Inside a mapped swamp |
| 12 | P02 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 24 | 400 | $90,000 | Gold in surface samples, Iron-carbonate alteration, High IP chargeability, Low resistivity (high conductivity) in IP, Edge of a magnetic high and low, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 13 | P08 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 18 | 300 | $67,500 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, High IP chargeability, Edge of a magnetic high and low, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 14= | P06 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 19 | 350 | $78,750 | Iron-carbonate alteration, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), High IP chargeability, Low resistivity (high conductivity) in IP, Edge of a magnetic high and low, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 15= | P19 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 20 | 400 | $90,000 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), Magnetic low (drone, 2021), High IP chargeability, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 15= | P10 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 17 | 300 | $67,500 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 17 | P17 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 20 | 425 | $95,625 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), Magnetic low (drone, 2021), High IP chargeability, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 18= | P07 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 15 | 300 | $67,500 | Iron-carbonate alteration, High IP chargeability, Edge of a magnetic high and low, Inside a mapped swamp |
| 18= | P15 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 15 | 300 | $67,500 | Gold in surface samples, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96) |
| 20 | P18 Doug Robinson, 2022 | 17 | 510 | $114,750 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), Magnetic low (drone, 2021), High IP chargeability |
| 21 | EO-22-004 position theoretical hole – same spot, angle and depth, scored without its results | 14 | 969 | $218,025 | EM (MaxMin) conductor, Magnetic low, broad area (ground, 1994–96), High IP chargeability, Inside a mapped swamp |
Estimated cost = length × $225 per metre (the site’s current all-in drilling rate). Value for money = how many score points each $100,000 of drilling buys: the score divided by the cost, times $100,000. For example, P13 scores 71 for $45,000, so it buys about 158 points per $100k; EO-22-004 scores 21 but costs $218,025, so it buys about 10. Rating stacks the two, half each: the score (gold) and the value for money scaled so the best-value hole is 100 (blue); the big number is the total out of 100. The score ranks holes against each other from surface evidence; it is not a probability of finding gold. Scores from the Property Viewer’s target rules, 1 November 2026; weights still to be checked by Doug Robinson.
What this is not. A score shows that the evidence lines up. It does not show that gold is there. Only drilling tests a target, and every target needs a Qualified Person’s review before it is drilled.
See Doug Robinson’s picks › How the model scores hole EO-22-004