Is GEOVIA Minex still supported?
Yes — under Continued Support, at the current release. What that status changes is the planning horizon, not the software on your desk. Here is the position, sourced rather than guessed.
What is actually true right now
Every line below comes from vendor material or from the installed product, not from speculation.
- The current line is actively maintained. Its recent point releases carried documented enhancements across Open Pit, Seam Modelling, Core and Borehole. Anyone still on an older branch is running behind.
- Continued Support is running. Dassault Systèmes is delivering an eleven-workshop programme from March 2026 through January 2027.
- The vendor's own framing. Its campaign describes the programme as supporting teams as Minex full support concludes. That is the vendor's wording, not ours.
- Absent from the current portfolio page. Minex no longer appears on the current GEOVIA portfolio listing.
Read together, that describes a mature platform in managed transition rather than one under active feature development. None of it changes what Minex still does on stratified coal that generic packages cannot — splitting seams, reverse faults, washability curves. It means the roadmap needs planning instead of assuming.
Your models do not expire when a support tier does
Seam models, wash curves and reserve statements outlive licence agreements. What matters is whether someone in your organisation can still rebuild them.
Keep licences current while they are available
Continued Support entitlement is scoped around the current line. Sitting on an old branch is the one position that is clearly worse than either upgrading or deciding deliberately to stop.
Get models into a documented, scripted state
The risk is not the software being withdrawn. The risk is the only person who understood the model leaving while the workflow lives in their head.
Train enough people that it stops being a single point of failure
Two people who can rebuild the model is a different risk profile from one. That is the cheapest insurance available here.
The line, the programme, and how much of it is left
Every entry below is drawn from vendor material or from the installed product. Release dates are deliberately absent: the version sequence is documented, the individual release dates are not, and we would rather show a gap than fill it with a guess.
-
Earlier release
Older branches
Where a surprising number of sites still sit. Behind the current line, which is the one position clearly worse than either upgrading or deciding deliberately to stop.
-
Releases
Recent point releases
Documented enhancements across Open Pit, Seam Modelling, Core and Borehole. Worth knowing what you skipped if you are on an older branch.
-
Current line
The maintained release
The release Continued Support entitlement is scoped around. If you are anywhere else, this is the first thing to fix.
-
March 2026
Continued Support opens
Dassault Systèmes begins an eleven-workshop programme. Its own campaign describes this as support for teams “as Minex full support concludes.”
-
August 2026
You are here
Roughly halfway through the programme. Enough time left to attend the sessions that matter and to get your models documented before the window narrows.
-
January 2027
Programme concludes
The published workshop schedule ends. What follows has not been announced, which is precisely why the roadmap needs planning rather than assuming.
Sitting outside the sequence, because it is a state rather than a date: Minex no longer appears on the current GEOVIA portfolio listing. Read together with the rest, that describes a mature platform in managed transition — not one under active feature development, and not one being switched off.
Scrutiny is rising while the platform enters transition
The honest read on adoption is not that more teams are taking Minex up. It is that the teams already on it are being asked for more, from two directions at once.
Reporting is being checked harder
KCMI and the Competent Person Indonesia scheme have become the settled expectation for domestic reporting, alongside SNI 5015:2019. Where a lender or an offshore parent is involved, a JORC, SAMREC or NI 43-101 statement is usually wanted in parallel. RKAB submissions and feasibility studies are read more closely than they were, and a classification boundary that cannot be argued from a variance grid is a finding waiting to happen.
The platform needs a decision
Continued Support, an eleven-workshop window with a published end date, and absence from the current portfolio listing. None of that changes what Minex handles that generic packages cannot — splitting seams, reverse faults, washability curves. It does mean the platform question now has a date attached to it rather than sitting indefinitely on the list.
What the two together actually mean
Your obligations do not pause while a platform transitions. RKAB comes round every year regardless of a vendor roadmap, and the reserve statement still has to be defensible. The models, wash curves and reserve statements you already hold do not expire when a support tier does — what matters is whether someone in your organisation can still rebuild them.
That is the squeeze, and it is the whole reason this practice exists: rising scrutiny on one side, a platform decision with a date on the other, and the same team expected to handle both.
We are not going to publish an adoption figure we cannot substantiate. What we will say is that the installed base in Indonesian coal is substantial, those models are still being reported from, and the work of getting them documented and defensible has a deadline now. Detail on the reporting side is on our JORC, SNI and RKAB page.
What we would do in your position
Not a migration pitch. A sequence.
- Audit before deciding. Establish what you actually run, what version, and which models could not be rebuilt today if the author resigned.
- Upgrade to the current line. Cheap, and it keeps support entitlement intact while the programme is running.
- Document and script the monthly cycle. This is the work that pays regardless of what the vendor does next.
- Then, and only then, evaluate alternatives. A migration decision made from a documented, scripted position is a decision. Made from an undocumented one, it is a gamble.
What buyers ask about continued support
Is GEOVIA Minex discontinued?
No. It is on Continued Support at the current release, with a full eleven-workshop programme running from March 2026 through January 2027. It has, however, come off the current GEOVIA portfolio listing, and the vendor's own campaign describes the programme as support for teams as Minex full support concludes. Treat it as a mature platform in managed transition.
Should we migrate away from Minex now?
Not as a reflex. Minex handles splitting seams, reverse faults and washability curves that generic packages cannot express, and no migration removes that requirement from your deposit. The sequence that makes sense is: get current, get documented, get more than one person trained — then evaluate. A migration decided from an undocumented position is a gamble.
What happens to our models if support ends entirely?
The models are yours and they do not stop working. What you lose is vendor assistance when something breaks and the ability to raise defects. That is exactly why the documented, scripted state matters more than the licence status.
We are on an older release. What should we do first?
Upgrade to the current line. It is the cheapest action available and it keeps Continued Support entitlement intact. The work sits in re-validating models built under the older version, not in the installer.
Tell us about your deposit
Commodity, seam count, Minex version and user count. Those four lines are enough for us to answer with numbers instead of questions.
Related: Licensing & pricing · GEOVIA Minex training