AI Footprint

Mining, resources, oil and gas

Seven tools for decarbonisation that holds up, compliance you can evidence, and social licence that rests on a record rather than an assertion. Every stakeholder gets their own way in.

Start from your role

A board director and a community engagement lead are asking different questions of the same evidence. Pick the one closest to yours and you get a journey through the tools that matter to you, in order. Nothing is locked: every tool works on its own, and you can widen the view at any point.

  • Accountable for oversight, disclosure and the claims the organisation makes publicly.

    What are we exposed to, and can we stand behind what we have said?

  • Owns the inventory, the transition plan and the reporting cycle.

    Where are the gaps between what we report and what the standards ask for?

  • Owns the controls, the register and the evidence that controls actually operate.

    Which controls can I evidence as operating, and which are only designed?

  • Turns abatement ambition into a sequence of things that actually happen on site.

    What do we do first, and when does our baseline headroom run out?

  • Holds the relationships on which the operation's social licence actually rests.

    Can we evidence the process, and where is the relationship carrying risk?

  • Assessing whether an issuer's disclosure and claims hold together.

    What should this issuer be able to produce, and what should I ask them for?

  • Working backwards from the artefact to the evidence and the source behind it.

    What does this pack assert, on what basis, and against which provision?

  • Being asked for data that lands in someone else's scope 3.

    What is my customer going to ask me for, and can I answer it?

  • Wanting a straight answer about what the organisation has committed to.

    What has been promised, what does it actually mean, and where do I raise a concern?

The tools

  • Which regimes may reach you, on what you can tell us, with the published threshold and who can settle it.

  • What you can actually produce against published criteria, and the artefacts to go and find, grouped by owner.

  • Your levers ordered by the mitigation hierarchy, with the share of the plan carried by purchased units made visible.

  • What published sources say should sit behind a claim, including the three different things carbon positive is used to mean.

  • Process evidence for engagement, human rights and heritage. Consent questions are marked as belonging to rights-holders.

  • Which controls exist, which operate, and which someone outside your team has actually tested.

  • Everything above in one traceable table, exportable as CSV, JSON or PDF, with every source dated.

35 sources
Australian legislation, accounting standards, sector protocols and rights frameworks. Each one carries its version and the date a human last read it.
See the register
55 criteria, 28 controls, 20 claim gates
Every one written as a question about evidence you can produce, and every one carrying a citation. A criterion without a source does not compile.
AI with the guardrails shown
AI explains, drafts and reviews your wording. It never scores, never decides a threshold and never states a figure. Cite an invented source and the whole response is thrown away.
How AI is used here