One decision model for the whole project.
A registered family of models, assessments and registers that brings engineering, environment, construction, regulatory and financial input into a single, scored and traceable decision — on projects of any size.
Inside most project teams, each division builds its own plan and no one owns the job of combining them. Outside, reviews often come down to whose expert sounds most confident. RiskReady® replaces both with one common, inspectable decision model: every criterion has a definition, every score has a calculation, and every recommendation traces back to the evidence and the regulatory source it came from.
RiskReady® Crossing Model
Should a watercourse be crossed by open cut or by drill? The answer is rarely obvious. The Crossing Model runs 10,000 simulations per crossing to compare methods across the factors that matter, including the uncertainty in each, and produces a relative risk score for each option.
- Supports pipeline alignment and routing decisions by comparing route options crossing by crossing and segment by segment
- Footprint, excavation and dewatering volumes
- Schedule, frac-out and subsidence risk
- Sound and vibration, pipe coating and integrity indications
- Fish and habitat effects, weighted by number of drills
- One-page summary report per crossing
Open cut Trenchless A lower score is more favourable. Illustrative figures from an anonymized small-creek crossing where an open cut was recommended.
RiskReady® Drill Execution Plan Assessment
A structured review of contractor drill execution plans for HDD, direct pipe, two-pass direct steerable pipe thrusting, microtunnel and auger bore crossings. Each of 75 criteria is rated and risk-ranked, and the dashboard calculates the overall score, outcome band and high-risk gaps automatically.
- Ten sections, from design basis and geotechnical to reclamation
- Criteria drawn from regulator filings, management plans and EPP contingency plans
- Comparable across plan revisions, from preliminary to issued-for-construction
- Key deficiencies and client recommendations on the cover page
| Section | Score | Highest risk |
|---|---|---|
| Design basis & geotechnical | 38% | High |
| Construction execution | 60% | Medium |
| Drilling fluid management | 44% | Medium |
| Inadvertent return contingency | 12% | High |
| Environmental & cultural protection | 12% | High |
| Contingency crossing method | 0% | High |
Adequate = 2 points, partially addressed = 1, not addressed = 0. Score bands: green ≥ 85%, amber 65–84%, red < 65%. Six of ten sections shown; figures from an anonymized preliminary plan.
RiskReady® Gap Register
Used with the assessment, the Gap Register records each gap between what the regulator requires, what the approved Environmental Protection Plan contains, and what our client expects — and follows each one through to a co-developed resolution.
- One record per gap with evidence and references
- Recommended position and the proponent's response side by side
- Action owner, status and agreed outcome
- A clean audit trail for regulators and leadership
| What the regulator requires | Certificate condition or binding commitment |
| What the approved EPP contains | Measures already committed by the proponent |
| Gap and evidence | Where the plan falls short, with references |
| Recommended position | Our client's request to the proponent |
| Proponent response | Recorded verbatim, with date |
| Co-developed outcome | Agreed resolution, action owner, status |
Status: Open · Raised · Response received · Under co-development · Resolved · Closed. Risk rated High / Medium / Low for fish and water, material culture, rights and project integrity.
RiskReady® Soil Decision Framework
A decision tree for soils disturbed by construction. Laboratory results are screened against CCME agricultural guidelines and BC Contaminated Sites Regulation standards, then routed to the handling, testing and monitoring steps they call for.
- Screening for metals, hydrocarbons, salinity and soil chemistry
- Distinguishes natural background from point-source concerns
- Stockpile, setback and reuse recommendations by result
- Executive summary format for decision makers
A simplified view of the decision tree used in Oilpaw soil reporting. Site-specific criteria and land and water uses govern each decision.
Every criterion has a source.
Each RiskReady® tool is issued with a process and source traceability record: where we searched, what we selected and why, and which source document each criterion came from. Our clients can show their leadership — and the regulator — exactly how a conclusion was reached.
RiskReady® scales to any project.
The unit of RiskReady® analysis is the segment. A long linear project is divided into discrete segments, each analysed in full and then rolled up. A single site is simply one segment. The method, the rigour and the result are the same: one complete decision model.
Pipelines, transmission lines, roads and rail
Continuous route. The full corridor, with every crossing, soil type, constraint and cost along it.
Discrete segments. Divided where conditions, methods or approvals change — and compared across alternative alignments to support routing decisions.
Each segment analysed. Engineering, environment, construction, regulatory and financial factors scored for every segment.
Rolled up into one model. Route and alignment comparisons, project-wide priorities and decisions, traceable to the segment level.
Mines, quarries, marine, energy and other single sites
Mines and quarries · Wharves and piers · Solar and wind farms · Facilities, stations and crossings
One site. A mine, quarry, wharf, pier, solar or wind farm, or facility, treated as a single segment.
One complete analysis. The same factors, criteria and scoring used on the largest corridors.
One model. A clear, defensible decision for the site, ready for every team and every party.
Want to see RiskReady® applied to your project?
We can walk you through a sample assessment and discuss how the tools fit your review process.