For the mining industry, the governance of risk in recent decades has predominantly involved the identification of possible environmental impacts, their classification into different levels of possibility, and the creation of corresponding risk management plans, such as the ubiquitous ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ (EIA). At a first glance, these governance tools seem to be addressing the possibilities of environmental harm for both humans and non-humans as a consequence of mining. However, interviews with mining consultants and employees, from those working ‘on the ground’ to those based in global headquarters and responsible for the creation of corporate policy, reveal a shared awareness that the ultimate risk for a mining company is the possibility of stopping operations before planned closure. This risk is closely followed by the possibility of a decline in share prices due to reputational problems even if operations continue. In this paper I argue that understanding risk this way transforms the objects of risk governance from socionatures to discourses and perceptions (what is known in the industry as ‘community relations’ work), as well as the tools and techniques used by the industry to minimise risk: from the EIAs in and of themselves, to communication materials to ‘socialise’ strategically selected EIA messages among community members. Moreover, this shift in the object of mining risk governance enhances a capitalist ethics rather than one centred around environmental justice, with damaging material and symbolic consequences for the earthbeings of the mining time/landscape.