Feasibility Study

UF Landmine Detection System

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 posprocessing Neural network training method

UF Landmine Detection System

1

Potential Benefits
Improved probability of detection Reduced rate of false positive Increase rate of clearance Optimize software for particular environmental conditions

UF Landmine Detection System

2

UF Technology Status

Successfully tested in laboratory setting

Successfully demonstrated training strategy

UF Landmine Detection System

3

Next Steps
Technology must be tested in real demining environments. Train software to recognize mines in field conditions.

Field Testing
Next Steps

NN Training

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

Productize Technology
Code must be converted

UF Landmine Detection System

4

The Landmine Problem

Filename/RPS Number

The Mine Problem

UF Landmine Detection System

6

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

UF Landmine Detection System

7

The Future
Despite global political Child standing next to a mine. Colombia

movements and treaties the

global landmine and UXO threat is increasing

UF Landmine Detection System

8

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

UF Landmine Detection System

9

Humanitarian Mine Detection Technologies

Far Nuclear Quadruple Activation Bio-sensor
Strong fit with market criteria

Medium fit with market criteria

Maturity

IR

Weak fit with market criteria

Available

Metal Detectors Low

GPR

Neutron Activation Analysis

Cost and Complexity

High Market Analysis

10

UF Landmine Detection System

Global Military Expenditures and Demining Operations

UF Landmine Detection System

11

UN Humanitarian Demining Expenditures

Ongoing Project Funds:

Funding Short Fall, $149,008,431

Current Funding, $286,431,592

UF Landmine Detection System

12

The Proposed Strategy is centered around four cornerstones

Field Test

Field test technology with common GPRs Determine technological advantages Quantify performance in varied field conditions Ensure technology meets landmine detection GPR requirements Develop compatible and flexible software Test software integrated to commercial GPR

Productize

Sell

Sell firm to market insider

License

Licence software (not immediately feasible but should be evaluated)

UF Landmine Detection System

13

SWOT Analysis
Strengths
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 multisensor systems

UF Landmine Detection System

14

Financial Analysis
Strategy and Time Horizon Assumptions Drawn from Prior Research

Whats in it For Investors?

Two Sets of Projections: Developers and Buyout Investors

2006 Geneva International Centres Guidebook on Detection Technologies 2002 European Union Cost-Benefits Study Basic Assumptions: Market Share Price Capital Structure Units Sold Development Costs Labor

UF Landmine Detection System

15

Product Lifecycle
Sales Volume vs. Profits 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 1 3 5 7 Year 9 11 Unit Sales Net Profits

UF Landmine Detection System

16

CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS

(in thousands)
FY 2007 Net Profits from Operations $ (1,078)

MOST LIKELY SCENARIO

P R O D U C T I O N
FY 2009 $ (1,267) $ FY 2010 775 FY 2011 $ 1,086 FY 2012 $ 1,366

DEVELOPMENT PHASE
FY 2008 $ (1,060)

P H A S E
FY 2013 $ 1,481 FY 2014 $ 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 Grants Subtotal

$ 2,000 500 $ 2,500 $ 500 500

$ 2,891 500 $ 500

109 $ -

109

Net Financing Activities

1,920

(480)

(1,440)

1,440

$ (144) Net Sources/Uses of Cash Cash at Beginning of Period Cash at End of Period $ 3,303 3,303 (1,038) $ 3,303 2,265 (2,206) $ 2,265 59 $ 1,962 59 2,021

$ (144) 149 $ 2,021 2,170

$ (144) 702 $ 2,170 2,872

$ (144) 855 $ 2,872 3,727

$ (144) 854 $ 3,727 4,581

UF Landmine Detection System

17

Whats in it for the Developers?

Whats in it for the Buyout Investors?

Development Phase

Production and Sales Phase

Peak in Profit Growth

+$1,470k

t0

Year 1

Year 2

End 45% ROI of Year 3

$2,891k
Proceeds from Sale of Firm

+$1,492k

Year 1

Year 2

t0
+$1,097k +$785k

+$1,377k

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

($2,000k)
Capital Contributions -$3.0 million Initial Buyout

First Five Years IRR 45%

UF Landmine Detection System

18

Discussion

UF Landmine Detection System

19