A studio service
Mining pitch deck design where the reporting code sets the ceiling.
Mining is one of the few sectors where what you may claim is written down. Resource classification, study stage and the qualified person behind them decide which numbers can appear at all, and a deck that overstates any of them is not just unconvincing — it is a compliance problem. We design to that discipline rather than around it.
Investment
Three ways to raise.
Fixed price, fixed scope. Pick the tier that matches your raise — from a single deal deck to a full capital-raise kit.
Essential
A sharp investor deck at the length most decks should be — you bring the content, we design it.
5–7 business days
- 12–15 designed slides
- Core investor structure (problem → ask)
- Your brand applied throughout
- Custom charts (market, traction)
- 1 revision round
- Editable PowerPoint source files
Standard
The full raise: we shape the narrative from your inputs at the length investors actually read.
Priority · 4–5 business days
- 15–20 designed slides
- We build the narrative from your inputs
- Full custom chart set
- Matching 1-page investor teaser
- 2 revision rounds
- Editable PowerPoint + source
Complete
A comprehensive deck for detailed raises and sales — full appendix, plus a condensed sales version.
Rush available
- 25–40 slides — deck + appendix
- Custom graphics & data-room slides
- Condensed sales version of the deck
- 3 revision rounds, white-glove
- 30-minute strategy call
- All source files
N° 01What mining decks get wrong
Four ways a deck oversteps.
01
Precision the study stage does not support
A scoping-level estimate carries a much wider error band than a feasibility study. Presenting early-stage economics with the confidence of a completed study is the most common overreach, and the easiest for a technical reader to catch.
02
Resource categories blurred together
Inferred, indicated and measured mean specific things and carry specific restrictions on how they may be used. Summing them into one headline tonnage removes exactly the information a resource geologist reads first.
03
Cautionary language treated as a formality
The disclosures the reporting codes require are not fine print to be minimised — to this audience they are a signal that the company knows the rules. Burying them reads worse than showing them.
04
Jurisdiction risk left out
Permitting timelines, tenure security and fiscal terms move project value as much as grade does. A deck silent on jurisdiction invites the assumption that the answer is unflattering.
N° 02What we design
The slides a technical reader checks first.
01
The resource slide
Classification, grade and tonnage presented by category, with the reporting code and qualified person named. Designed so the categories stay visually distinct rather than merged into one number.
02
The study-stage slide
Which study has been completed, what accuracy band the industry attaches to it, and what the next study is expected to change. It sets the reader's expectation before they reach the economics.
03
Route from rock to revenue
Recovery, deleterious elements, concentrate terms and offtake. Investors want to see that the pathway to a saleable product is understood, not only that the mineral is in the ground.
04
Permitting and jurisdiction
Named consents, the authority granting them, the current stage and the realistic timeline. Specific and unglamorous beats a row of green ticks, which reads as evasion.
Sample slides
Sample slides, in house style.
Generated in our editorial discipline — framed to your vertical. Every deck we ship is original and bespoke.
Questions
The answers we give most often.
- Can you work within the reporting codes?
- We design to them; we do not interpret them. Your qualified or competent person owns what may be stated and how. We make sure the design does not overstate a category, imply precision the study stage does not support, or bury required disclosure.
- How do we present an early-stage project attractively?
- By being exact about the stage and putting the weight on what makes it interesting — grade, geology, jurisdiction, the analogue nearby. Confidence borrowed from a later study stage is the thing most likely to lose a technical reader.
- What about the corporate deck versus the project deck?
- A single-asset story and a portfolio story are different arguments. We build the one you are raising on, and keep a project appendix that can travel with either.
- Do you design for retail as well as institutional audiences?
- The same facts, different density. Retail decks lean harder on clear geology visuals and plain-language explanation; institutional decks assume the vocabulary and go faster to the economics. Both stay inside the same disclosure discipline.
- Can you design cross-sections and maps?
- Yes — redrawn to publication standard from your geologist's files, without changing what they show. Where a figure would need to imply more than the data supports, we will say so rather than draw it.
- How much detail belongs in the main deck?
- The resource, the stage, the route to revenue and the jurisdiction. Drill tables, assay detail and full study outputs belong in an appendix and the data room.
Next step
Raising for a project?
Tell us the commodity, the classification and which study stage you have reached. We'll come back with the structure we'd build and what your QP needs to sign off.