- LATEST BLOG POST
- echo $post_date ?>
- Big data or Thick data: two faces of a coin which can be defined as follows. Big data is a…
- Read More
|Event:||A Step by Step Guide to Risk Informed Decision Making for Mining Projects and Operations|
|Date/Time:||05/11/2017 - All Day|
|Location:||FAIRMONT BANFF SPRINGS, 405 Spray Avenue , Banff, Alberta|
Tailings and Mine Waste 2017
A step by step guide to Risk Informed Decision Making for mining projects and operations course at TMW2017
November 5th-8th 2017 Banff Springs Hotel,
Riskope will be present and active with two papers and a short course.
Short course: A step by step guide to Risk Informed Decision Making for mining projects and operations.
A step by step guide to Risk Informed Decision Making for mining projects and operations will be a hands-on exercise. We will use the Balangero Asbestos Mine Dumps Environmental Rehabilitation as a basis. That project, a competitive bid, was won by an engineering group supported by what was then called Risk Based Decision Making (RBDM). Thus it was demonstrated that including risk assessment through the design of a project, from cradle to delivery and including risk driven maintenance concepts brought value and a leading edge to the proponents.
Together we will work through all the phases of the approach (based on the ORE methodology -Optimum Risk Estimates- ©Oboni Riskope Associates Inc.), including:
· System definition
Schedule and ToC follow the approach above:
|Event:||CIM Technical Session: "Towards Improving Environmental and Social Disclosure in NI43-101”|
|Date/Time:||02/05/2017 - All Day|
|Location:||Palais des congrès de Montréal, 1001 Jean Paul Riopelle Pl,, montreal,|
CIM Technical Session: “Towards Improving Environmental and Social Disclosure in NI43-101”
Co-chairs of CIM Technical Session: “Towards Improving Environmental and Social Disclosure in NI43-101”: Ian Thomson and Alistair Kent
The disclosure rule under NI 43-101 requires that companies provide technical information that is:
The Ontario Securities Commission and British Columbia Securities Commission review in 2013 , and 2015 , respectively, indicated that 80% of NI 43-101 was non-compliant and 32% of the environmental and social sections were not compliant.
The CIM has to date provided definitions, standards and best practices in the topics of geology and mining but has provided little guidance in social and environmental aspects. The fact that there are no defined requirements for what is a qualified person; definitions, standards and best practices for aspects such as water, tailings and mineral waste management would suggest that deficiencies in the environmental and social sections in NI 43-101 technical reports are higher than 32%.
The Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Disclosure Working Group has the mandate to codify best practices related to NI 43-101. The scope of this working group includes:
Topics for discussion could include:
CIM discussion abstract:
NI 43-101 and risks. What risks?
The definition of the “viewing angle” (corporate, investor, regulators, public, etc.), the success/ failure criteria, the resulting multi-dimensional consequences are of paramount importance when attempting to perform a risk assessment (RA). If any of those is missing or unclear any RA will be meaningless or at least misleading.
This is particularly important when looking at the relationship between the disclosure requirements intended for investors following, for example, NI43-101. NI43-101 reports should provide information about a mine to prospective investors. However, in our experience, numerous factors generally not included in the report can turn a great prospect into a financial disaster, with dire consequences to the investors.
Recent failures of tailings facilities brought back this particular issue with great emphasis.
Thus it is reasonable to ask: should an NI43-101 report contain information about critical mine’s facilities (risks) such as tailings, access roads, logistics, etc..? And, if positive, which ones? Should NI43-101 report include holistic convergent scalable and drillable risk assessments? Again, if positive, convergence should cover at least:
We will focus the attention on various well reported accidents such as Duke Energy, Mount Polley, Boliden, Samarco looking at the share valuation over the accident period and other consequences and comparing those “occurred risks” to other possible events. We will show the effect of “one out of many” possible events, compare it to “one out of one” event. As we have developed to date large spectrum risk assessments for tailings systems, dumps, road and railroad mining logistic, mining wharves, water, energy, cyber, etc. we will use these example to show that a risk assessment intended for investors is very different (in its conclusions) than the one intended for the corporation or a manager.
Conclusion: if considering investment in a new mine or investment in a mine upgrade read the NI43-101 report but don’t think it is enough. It is time to get the full picture and understand a few specific points about what risks really matter to you, the investor.
|Event:||Private presentation at Biotechnology Research Institute of the National Research Council of Canada|
|Date/Time:||28/04/2017 - 10:00 am - 12:00 pm|
|Location:||National Research Council Canada, 6100 Royalmount, montreal,|
Private presentation at Biotechnology Research Institute of the National Research Council of Canada
This Private presentation at Biotechnology Research Institute of the National Research Council of Canada is a two hours event covering a wide spectrum of interests.
Scope of the presentation