Book a demo
Mining operations

Take the right decision,
for the right reasons.

Finance and Operations come at every procurement from opposite ends. RiskOpex gives them a single framework: the same financial terms, set before the decision and on record after. Straightforward to monitor, audit and update regularly.

See it in action Talk to us

Many perspectives. One platform.

For you personally

Every call is recorded with its reasoning: enough to convince Finance and your team, as well as the auditors.

The job is taking risks well: knowing which risks are justified, and being able to show why.

The right decision for your team, in budgeting, implementation and reporting.

For the business

Getting the framing right: assess what a decision means for the bottom line, not one silo.

Across every location and department: one set of numbers, one consistent framework.

Get a clear picture of what your control options mean in terms of loss frequency and impact.

Not for compliance — for the business.

Box-ticking protects no one. Here is what risk management looks like when it isn't doing its job:

Inconsistent decisions across sites

Same risk, different answer at every location

Risk matrices that don't help you decide

A grid of colours won't tell you what to do

Risk-control spend you can't defend

Real money committed, no proof it was the right call

Approvals that don't show the reasoning

Signed off, with nothing to show the thinking behind it

Complex decisions. Clear options.

The modelling underneath is complex. What you work with is straightforward: weigh the options, see the trade-off, and commit when the case holds up.

Three real cases from our own experience, modelled here using public industry data.

◈
RiskOpex Illustrative figures
To avoid $5M in wear and a risk nobody had quantified, the de-rate cut output by $250M.
A fleet of Cat 798 haul trucks, run below spec after a spate of fault warnings nobody could pin down. The fix was framed as avoiding faults — but no one put a number on how likely they were, or what they'd cost. Each option starts from the same $800M of output, less what it costs to reach it: even in the worst plausible year, restoring spec beat the de-rate by $242M.
DECIDED RESTORE SPEC $550M · de-rate level $800M at spec ≈575k oz $700M $600M $500M $400M $545M ≈ 390,000 oz −$250M output given up De-rate $791M Average year $787M Worst year 1-in-100 output produced wear ($5M) fault risk ($3.75–8M)
De-rateAverage
forecast		Worst
forecast
Gross output$545M$800M$800M
Wear cost— avoided−$5M−$5M
Fault risk—−$3.75M
5 faults, expected		−$8M
11 faults, 1-in-100
Net output$545M$791M$787M
vs de-rate—+$246M+$242M
The de-rate traded output against wear and a fear of faults — with neither the fault odds nor the output at stake ever put in numbers. Measured, restoring spec pays even on the pessimistic forecast. The faults never came.
Output shown in gold to give the scale a feel: $800M is about 575,000 oz at 2019 prices — a large open-pit year. Figures are illustrative, not from any operation.
◈
RiskOpex Illustrative figures
The upgrade did cut the everyday outages. That is the number the whole decision was argued on.
Moving to remote support genuinely reduced minor outages and saved about $18K a year of overtime — a real, visible win. But it removed the specialists who keep a control outage from outlasting manual control, doubling the odds of a $1B freeze, from 1-in-200 to 1-in-100. The case was won on the $20K line. The billion-dollar line was never put on the table.
What each way of running support costs the business each year Running cost you pay for certain, plus the freeze risk — a rare $1B shutdown, spread over the years between them. Worst case either way — a $1B freeze (full shutdown): $10M $7.5M $5M $2.5M 0 $5M / yr freeze risk $5.2M / yr Standard, on-site IT today · $242K certain freeze ≈ once in 200 yrs 1-in-200 $10M / yr freeze risk $10.7M / yr HA, remote support proposed · $669K certain freeze ≈ once in 100 yrs — twice as likely 1-in-100 $5M / yr freeze risk $6M / yr HA, specialists on site $969K certain freeze ≈ once in 200 yrs 1-in-200 certain support cost freeze risk — the $1B freeze spread over the years between events (most years $0)
Standard,
on-site IT		HA, remote
support		HA, specialists
on site
Certain each year$242K$669K$969K
Everyday outages
what the case was argued on		~$20K
6 a year		~$2K
cut to 0.5 a year		~$2K
cut to 0.5 a year
The freeze
what decides it		$5M
1-in-200		$10M
1-in-100, doubled		$5M
1-in-200
All-in each year$5.2M$10.7M$6M
Read the amber differently from the last example. There it was output given up every year, for certain. Here it is a freeze that almost never happens — a single $1B shutdown — carried as its annual cost: the $1B spread across the roughly 100 or 200 years between events. Most years the real loss is nothing; the number is the price of the exposure, and remote support doubles it.
The everyday outages were real, and remote support genuinely cut them — from six a year to almost none. That is the line the case was built on: about $20K of nuisance, removed. The line nobody put on the table is a $1B freeze, and remote support doubles its odds. The decision was won on the peanuts while the prize sat off the page — which is exactly what a shared frame is meant to prevent.

A 50% discount isn't the question.

The vendor that caused the largest IT outage in history offers half price to renew. But once the numbers are in, cost is close across the options — within about $60K a year. What actually differs is the shape of the year that goes wrong.

◈
RiskOpex Illustrative figures
Half price from the vendor that took the world down. Is that even the question?
The discount frames the decision around price. But once the numbers are in, the options cost about the same — within $60K a year. What actually differs is which tail you carry into a bad year.
Cost to the business each year = certain spend + expected loss (probability × impact) worst plausible year: $600K $400K $200K 0 $230K risk $336K spend $566K Renew, 50% off the tempting offer $2M breach · 1-in-30 + $750K outage · 1-in-30 $230K risk $275K spend $505K · best Switch to Microsoft EDR on every device $2M breach · 1-in-30 $377K risk $181K $558K Switch, cut corners no EDR for 1,500 $12.5M breach 1-in-60 · six× the others same cost as the rest carries neither bad tail certain spend expected loss worst plausible year (either/or, not added)
Renew,
50% off		Microsoft,
tiered		Microsoft,
cut corners
Certain each year$336K$275K$181K
At risk each year$230K$230K$377K
Worst plausible year$2M breach 1-in-30
+ $750K outage 1-in-30		$2M breach
1-in-30		$12.5M breach
1-in-60
All-in each year$566K$505K$558K
Same expected cost across the board, within about $60K a year — reasonable either way. What differs is which tail you carry: renewing keeps an every-PC outage tail, cutting EDR off 1,500 laptops carries a $12.5M breach year. The middle option carries neither.

What you walk away with.

Control spend you can defend
See which controls earn their keep and which are dead spend
One picture across every site
The same method, the same answer, wherever you operate
Every decision justified
The rationale is on record before the outcome is known

Who's behind RiskOpex.

Paul Young

Paul Young

Co-founder & Chief Technology Officer
25+ years in mining operations, risk, and digital transformation. Rio Tinto, Newcrest Mining, and 11 years at Centerra Gold — rising to Director of Digital Mines across operations in Canada, the US, Türkiye, and Kyrgyzstan.
Johannes Chudoba

Johannes Chudoba

Co-founder & Chief Strategy Officer
30+ years called in where others would not go — Croatia, Bosnia, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria. From 2014, in mining: strategic planning, risk and digital transformation for Centerra Gold across Kyrgyzstan, Türkiye, the US and Canada.
Mining trucks

Ready to see it work with your data?

30-minute walkthrough. No pitch deck. Just the product, your scenarios.

Book a walkthrough
© 2026 RiskOpex GmbH·Impressum·Datenschutz·Contact