Explore the unseen.

From data to discovery.

Deep Imaging. Accurate Data. Smarter Decisions.

Established in 2005 by Shane Evans, Moombarriga has become a market leader in providing cutting-edge magnetotelluric (MT) acquisition and modelling services.

Initially serving Government Agencies and mineral and geothermal exploration companies, Moombarriga has built a solid reputation for delivering high-quality data while continuously improving our methodology and capabilities. We provide expertise in all aspects of MT surveying.

Over the past decade, we have significantly expanded by acquiring a specialised induced polarisation (IP) data acquisition company, Search Exploration. This acquisition has enhanced our ability to deliver top-notch data products for clients and ensured that we maintain capacity and expertise in high-powered IP surveying.

Our Global Footprint.

Localised expertise, international reach.

With offices strategically located in the United States, Canada, and Australia, we operate at the forefront of subsurface exploration across multiple continents.

With successful projects completed across North America, Australia, and Africa, applying innovative geophysical solutions in diverse terrains and challenging environments - our global presence enables us to provide high-quality results, wherever your project takes us.

15+

Countries

400+

Surveys

10,000+

MT Sites

Our key services.

Mineral Exploration

Geothermal Exploration

Oil & Gas Exploration

Regional Mapping

Our technology, your solutions.

We employ a range of advanced geophysical acquisition systems designed to deliver high-quality data with the flexibility to tailor survey specifications to your project's unique requirements. Our systems capture satellite-synchronised data at variable sample rates, ensuring comprehensive frequency coverage across the depth range of interest. This approach allows us to optimize both data resolution and survey efficiency, delivering reliable results without compromising productivity

Learn more

Recent news & projects.

The Power of Properly Done MT

October 13, 2025

The inversion of magnetotelluric (MT) data is as much an art form as it is a science. Not only does a full 3D MT inversion (which is what everyone should be doing these days!) take a lot of computational resources (we're talking supercomputers here), but it also demands a high degree of expertise from the professional performing the inversion. To get good inversion results, you really need someone who has access to good inversion tools and who really knows how to use them. The black-box approach doesn't work here! When MT is done well, the results can be spectacularly valuable to a project. When MT is done poorly, you can end up feeling like you dropped a big chunk of cash for nothing. The difference between success and failure here depends highly on the expertise of your contractor. So, to illustrate this point, let's take a look at an example of well-done MT.

2D versus 3D Magnetotelluric Imaging

May 16, 2025

Geology & Geophysics Magnetotelluric (MT) imaging has come a long way in the last 10 years. A decade ago, you'd have to leave a 2D inversion running on your desktop computer over night; now, it'll run on modern laptops in just 15 minutes. Similarly, a decade ago, 3D inversions were barely possible due to computational resource limitations; now, they're the industry standard. Until somewhat recently, most MT studies (academic as well as industrial) were performed in 2D, due to the aforementioned computational limitations. 2D inversion of MT data is certainly a useful approximation in some situations; however, 3D MT inversion now makes it possible to extract more information from the data and to gain much more robust insights into what the data are telling us about subsurface conductivity structure. In this article, we're going to take a look at some comparisons between 2D and 3D inversion of the same data. As you'll see, sometimes the 2D and 3D inversion results are similar, but sometimes they're very different, with implications for the questions you're trying to answer. Dataset and Methodology. The dataset we're using here is shown in Figure 1 below. We inverted the full dataset in a fully 3D inversion, and we also selected four profiles of sites with which we performed 2D profile inversions and individual 3D inversions just of the profile sites. For each of the four profiles, this gives us three images to compare: the corresponding slice through the full 3D model, the slice through the 3D inversion using only the profile data, and the 2D inversion for the profile. We won't go into the details of our inversion methodology here, but suffice to say that our approach for 2D inversions is similar to what has often been done (and still is being done to some extent) in industrial MT applications. 2D vs 3D Comparisons Figure 1 shows a depth slice through the full 3D conductivity model derived from the full dataset. As you can see, there are several major conductivity lineaments, and we chose our four data profiles to cross these lineaments.