CIM MES Vancouver NI 43-101 and Risks. What Risks?

CIM MES Vancouver NI 43-101 and Risks. What Risks?

Oct 12th, 2017

Date/Time
Date(s) - 12/10/2017
4:15 pm

Location
Room 2800, Segal Graduate School of Business – Simon Fraser University

Categories


CIM MES Vancouver NI 43-101 and Risks. What Risks? shows how 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 for example due to fuzzy glossary  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.

CIM MES Vancouver NI 43-101 and Risks. What Risks?

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.

Johari window application in risk management

Some operational risk may indeed significantly affect share values and ability to conduct business, maintain Social License to Operate (SLO).

The Expert Panel opinion report on the Mt Polley tailings facility failure recommended that all proposed new tailings facilities should include a bankable feasibility study, but “bankable” is not an assurance either.

What should a NI 43-101 include from a risk perspective?

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:

  • tailings facilities and dumps
  • ingress/egress (logistic and supplying infrastructures)
  • energy
  • closure …

We will use examples from large spectrum risk assessments for tailings systems, dumps, road and railroad mining logistic, mining wharves, water, energy, cyber, etc.  We will show that risk assessments intended for investors may highlight different conclusions than the ones intended for the corporation or management, although both are based on the same holistic hazard and risk register.

It is ok to read NI43-101 report but don’t think it is enough. If considering investment in a new mine or investment it is time to get the full picture. That includes understanding a few specific points about what risks really matter.

Registration

Please visit CIM MES post to register as early as possible as seating is limited.

 

 

Category: Risk Analysis, Risk Management

Comments are closed.

Riskope Blog latests posts

  • Prefeasibility hazard adjusted NPV
  • 25-01-2023
  • A mining company asked us to perform a Prefeasibility hazard adjusted NPV evaluation. Our action first focused on bringing clarity…
  • Read More
  • OpenAI’s ChatGPT applied to tailings dams and associated risks
  • 11-01-2023
  • As everyone else, we got excited about the new ChatGPT so we tried OpenAI’s ChatGPT applied to tailings dams and…
  • Read More
  • ORE2_Tailings and ALARP
  • 4-01-2023
  • A colleague recently engaged a discussion on ORE2_Tailings and ALARP. He presented various refences on the subject then asked us…
  • Read More
  • Get in Touch
  • Learn more about our services by contacting us today
  • t +1 604-341-4485
  • +39 347-700-7420

Hosted and powered by WR London.