Feasibility Study UF Landmine Detection System. 1 UF Mine Detection Technology What does it do?...

Feasibility Study

UF Landmine Detection System

2


UF Mine Detection Technology

What does it do?

– Identifies landmines based on GPR image

What is it?

– Neural network classifier

– GPR signal pre-processing and pos-processing

– Neural network training method

3


Potential Benefits

Improved probability of detection

Reduced rate of false positive

Increase rate of clearance

Optimize software for particular environmental conditions

4


UF Technology Status

Successfully tested in laboratory setting

Successfully demonstrated training strategy

5


Train software to recognize mines in field conditions.

Train software to recognize mines in field conditions.

Technology must be tested in real demining environments.

Technology must be tested in real demining environments.

Next Steps

NN Training Field Testing

Incorporate Feedback

Next Steps

Incorporate feedback from personnel in the field to aid product adoption.

Incorporate feedback from personnel in the field to aid product adoption.

Code must be converted Code must be converted

Productize Technology

6Filename/RPS Number

The Landmine Problem

7


The Mine Problem

8


Geopolitical

Landmines kill and maim long after the war is over

90% of those killed are civilians

It costs ~$3 to place a mine

It costs $300 to $1000 to detect it and remove it

~20,000 people are killed each year

9


The Future

Despite global political

movements and treaties the

global landmine and UXO threat

is increasing

Child standing next to a mine. Colombia

10


Technology Hurdles

High cost of clearance

– Traditional technology is low cost but labor intensive

– 100% detection is required to declare an area clear

– Slow process

Detection

False Alarms

11


Humanitarian Mine Detection Technologies

Maturity

Cost and ComplexityLow High

Available

Far

Metal Detectors

Strong fit with market criteria

Medium fit with market criteria

Weak fit with market criteria

IR

Bio-sensor

GPR

Neutron Activation Analysis

Nuclear Quadruple Activation

Market Analysis

12


Global Military Expenditures and Demining Operations

13


UN Humanitarian Demining Expenditures

Ongoing Project Funds:

14


The Proposed Strategy is centered around four cornerstones

Field TestField Test

ProductizeProductize

SellSell

LicenseLicense

Field test technology with common GPRsDetermine technological advantagesQuantify performance in varied field conditions

Ensure technology meets landmine detection GPR requirementsDevelop compatible and flexible softwareTest software integrated to commercial GPR

Sell firm to market insider

Licence software (not immediately feasible but should be evaluated)

15


SWOT AnalysisStrengths Built on mature GPR platform Allows for faster detection of mines Allows for significant reduction in false positives Allows for smaller demining teams resulting in net savings since the largest expense utilizing current metal detection technologies is the cost of labor.

Weakness Remains untested in field Out of over 750 different types of mines,

currently only recognizes approx. 200 types

Opportunities A true understanding of field conditions can be gained from visiting mined areas allowing for field testing and adaptation based on user input. DOD is already funding GPR as a viable technology

Threats Loss of political will to continue funding GPR may not be approved by UN GPR may not be adopted by commercial

contractors or local demining teams Another technology may become dominate in

the market in the time it takes to field test and refine the product.

Trend in the market is moving towards multi-sensor systems

16


Financial Analysis Two Sets of Projections: Developers and Buyout Investors

Strategy and Time Horizon

Assumptions Drawn from Prior Research

– 2006 Geneva International Centre’s Guidebook on Detection Technologies

– 2002 European Union Cost-Benefits Study

Basic Assumptions: Market Share Units Sold

Price Development Costs

Capital Structure Labor

What’s in it For Investors?

17


Product LifecycleSales Volume vs. Profits

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

1 3 5 7 9 11Year

Unit Sales

Net Profits

18


(in thousands) DEVELOPMENT PHASE P R O D U C T I O N P H A S E

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Net Profits from Operations $ (1,078) $ (1,060) $ (1,267) $ 775 $ 1,086 $ 1,366 $ 1,481 $ 1,457

Total Uses of Cash 50 10 10 229 804 531 494 471

Sources of Cash:

Net Sale of Company $ (2,891)

Investor Capital Calls $ 2,000 $ 2,891 $ 109 $ - $ - $ -

Grants 500 500 500 - - - - -

Subtotal $ 2,500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 109 $ - $ - $ - $ -

Net Financing Activities 1,920 (480) (1,440) 1,440 - - - -

$ (144) $ (144) $ (144) $ (144) $ (144)

Net Sources/Uses of Cash 3,303 (1,038) (2,206) 1,962 149 702 855 854

Cash at Beginning of Period $ - $ 3,303 $ 2,265 $ 59 $ 2,021 $ 2,170 $ 2,872 $ 3,727

Cash at End of Period 3,303 2,265 59 2,021 2,170 2,872 3,727 4,581

CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

19


Year 2

+$1,377k

+$785k

-$3.0 millionInitial Buyout

Year 1

t0

Year 5Year 3 Year 4+$1,097k

+$1,492k

+$1,470k

Peak in Profit Growth

First Five YearsIRR 45%

What’s in it for the Buyout Investors?

What’s in it for the Developers?

End of Year 3Year

2

($2,000k)Capital Contributions

Year 1 $2,891k

Proceeds from Sale of Firm

t0

45% ROI

Development Phase Production and Sales Phase

20


Discussion

Feasibility Study UF Landmine Detection System. 1 UF Mine Detection Technology What does it do?...

Documents

Transcript of Feasibility Study UF Landmine Detection System. 1 UF Mine Detection Technology What does it do?...