Dear Authors,

The manuscript is informative and useful to mining-related sectors. The research combines different methods and provides detailed analysis. It can be accepted for publication after some modifications.

In L27 and L81, data are plural.

Please define abbreviations before using them, such as UAS and PGE.

The figures are not cited in the order. Readers have to jump about to find the figures regarding the text. I suggest better organizing the figures. Maybe removing some subfigures is a solution. More comments on the figures are below.

Why the multispectral survey area is not overlapping the magnetic survey area?

In L326, most of the anomalies are trending in an NW-SE direction? I don't see it in the figure.

Anomalies in Fig. 4 are not well labeled. A seems in the sea. Since you didn't indicate the anomalies with arrows, you would better keep the marks at the same location in all the subfigures. F seems moving quite a bit and B and C are also shifted a bit in the different subfigures. I also suggest marking the anomalies in Figs 12 and 13. Since the N is oriented differently in those figures. It is not easy to follow what you refer to in the discussion.

In L394, 'a constant altitude of 40 m were used as input' is written. However, in the early text, it says that the mean of the latitude is 70 m. Why do you use 40 m here?

The reference model generated for the MVI is not convincing. The base/thickness of the magmatic body is constrained by a single borehole. Magnetic inversion is prone to push the anomalies upwards to the surface. Besides, if the base is varying in 3D, the magnetic inversion may not resolve it. If you use a thicker magmatic in the reference model, the inversion will eventually fit the data too. But your results will be different. Therefore, more information at depth is needed. You have cited the results from MT data and airborne EM data. Why not use the subtracted resistivity models from the papers to better constrain the reference model, especially, at the depth? Those profiles are in 2D and probably overlapping with your survey area, it should be useful. Please show the data fits too.

In Figs 10 and 11, the analysis of a sample at the transition depth (~127m) is not shown. All the samples of cores are from the lower basalts. What do the ones from upper basalts (at 58-127 m depth) look like? What are the fillings among different minerals? Do they play a role to show different susceptibility?

In L585, the main target body is about 7.5 km2, however, the magnetic survey is about 6.8 km2. How do you fill the gap? Also, some parts of the magnetic anomalies may be caused by the drifts from the main body due to landslides.

It is better not to say the constrained information agrees with the inversion result. The two should not conflict with each other.

The magnetic data don't well resolve the structure at the depth. And the depth of investigation from the inversion is limited, so the statement in In L604-606 is not convincing. Comparing the results with MT and airborne EM results would be useful.

Hopefully, the comments are somehow useful. Cheers

Dear Authors,

Overall, a comprehensive and informative case study which combines a wide variety of remote sensing (legacy geophysics, UAS-based magnetics, ground magnetics, UAS-based multispectral) and laboratory measurements (petrophysical measurements, borehole logging, mineralogical SEM analyses) to further the exploration understanding of Ni-Cu-Co-PGE-Au mineralization at Qullissat, Disko Island, Greenland. The manuscript provides a detailed summary and combination of several state-of-the-art exploration methods and discussion on how these methods were used and combined to improve mineral exploration within challenging/remote terrains.

Listed are some minor comments that would help clarify and improve the manuscript. These comments are listed based on the page numbering, line numbering in SE-21-133.

(Page 8, Line 225) – Briefly state whether the UAS-based magnetic flight lines were draped over the topography model.

(Page 9, Line 230) - What was this 1-5 nT magnetic noise in the raw data mainly from… platform electromagnetic interference, sensor motion? Briefly state the reason for the magnetic noise...

(Page 10, Figure 2) – Make the outlines a different color than the data you present in Figure 2a. Both present light blue and purple colored data and figure outlines, which are challenging to differentiate. Check color contrasts and consistencies in other figures.

(Page 19, Figure 17) – In the three depth slides, the magmatic body shifts to the West and changes shape slightly with increasing depth (surface to 100 m below surface) as would be expected given the topography and horizontal nature of the formation.  However, the magnetization anomalies associated to points A and B remain larger unchanged in shape, position, and magnetization strength. Why is this the case? If they are assumed to be blocks of the main sill that slide down the hillside (Page 27, Ln 610) or anthropogenic sources, would it be expected that the magnetization would remain unchanged and extend to depth? Maybe a brief sentence or comment clarifying or addressing these assumed point source anomalies and how they interact with the inversion models.