Independent InSAR Validation and Second Opinion
We provide independent validation and second-opinion review of satellite InSAR ground-deformation results - whether produced by another provider or by your own team. We benchmark the measurements against GNSS and field data, audit the methodology, and report plainly where the results are reliable, so that regulators, lenders, insurers, and asset owners can trust the numbers a monitoring program is built on.
Where Independent Validation Adds Value
| Situation | What independent review provides |
|---|---|
| Regulatory or lender review of a monitoring program | Independent confirmation that the results are sound |
| Conflicting or unexpected InSAR results | A neutral second opinion on what the data show |
| After a failure or incident | Forensic reconstruction of what moved and when |
| GISTM tailings assurance | Independent deformation evidence aligned with the standard |
| Vendor selection or quality assurance | Benchmarking of a provider's accuracy claims |
Independent Validation and Benchmarking
Validation means checking an InSAR result against independent ground truth rather than taking the numbers at face value. We compare a deformation dataset against GNSS, levelling, or field survey measurements at common points, quantify how closely they agree, and report where the InSAR is reliable and where it is not. Where two viewing geometries are available, we can separate vertical from horizontal movement and check each component on its own, which is a far stronger test than comparing a single line-of-sight rate. The result is a clear, documented statement of accuracy that a monitoring program, a regulator, or a lender can stand behind.
Second Opinion on InSAR Results
When a monitoring result is disputed, unexpected, or about to drive a costly decision, a neutral expert review is worth having before acting on it. We examine how the data were processed, reprocess or independently interpret the deformation where needed, and say plainly whether the original conclusion holds. Because we are independent of the team that produced the data, the opinion is unconflicted - useful precisely when the stakes are high and the parties involved disagree.
Forensic and Post-Event Analysis
After a slope failure, dam incident, or structural problem, the satellite radar archive often holds a record of how the ground was moving beforehand - even where no instrument was ever installed. We reconstruct the pre-event displacement history from archived imagery reaching back several years, showing whether movement was steady, accelerating, or sudden. This provides a neutral, independent evidence base for investigations, insurers, and regulators, built from data that pre-dates the event and cannot be arranged after the fact.
GISTM and Regulatory Assurance
Under the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management (GISTM) and similar dam-safety regimes, operators are expected to maintain, and to be able to demonstrate, ongoing deformation surveillance. Independent review adds weight to that evidence: because we are separate from both the operator and the original data provider, our validation of a tailings or dam monitoring dataset gives regulators, lenders, and review boards an unconflicted basis for assurance. We benchmark the results, document the methodology, and provide reporting suited to regulatory and compliance use. Tailings monitoring itself is covered on our mining ground deformation monitoring page. See also our tailings dam monitoring service.
Why an Independent Reviewer
Satellite operators and the firms that produced an original dataset have an inherent interest in that data standing up to scrutiny. An independent specialist has none, which is exactly what makes the check credible. Our methods are grounded in peer-reviewed research published in international remote-sensing journals, and we apply the same multi-track processing and GNSS benchmarking to a review as we do to our own monitoring. Independent validation and second opinions complement our four core monitoring services - mining, land subsidence, landslides, and oil and gas - and can be provided as a standalone engagement.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you validate InSAR data produced by another company?
Yes. We routinely review third-party InSAR results, benchmark them against independent ground truth such as GNSS or field measurements, and report where the data are reliable. Being independent of the original provider is what makes the review meaningful.
How do you validate InSAR results?
We compare the deformation dataset against independent measurements at common points, quantify the level of agreement, and, where two geometries are available, check vertical and horizontal components separately. We also examine how the data were processed. The outcome is a documented accuracy assessment rather than a simple yes or no.
Can you provide evidence after a failure has already happened?
Often, yes. The satellite radar archive reaches back several years, so we can reconstruct how the ground was moving before an event even if no instrument was installed at the time. This gives investigators and insurers an independent record built from data that pre-dates the incident.
Do you support GISTM tailings assurance?
Yes. We provide independent deformation evidence and validation aligned with the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management, giving regulators, lenders, and review boards an unconflicted basis for assurance on a tailings or dam monitoring program.
Is the review genuinely independent?
Yes. We do not operate satellites and we do not design or build the structures we assess, so we have no stake in a particular result. That independence is the whole point of a second opinion.