200
14 Risk Assessment for the Twenty-First Century
their lives so that the societal risk of dam failure remains within the ALARP zone
(ANCOLD 2003; Barker 2011) (see Sect. 13.2.1).
Regarding permit conditions, leading practice requires that permits and permit
amendments be granted on the basis of strict conditions related to critical operating
parameters and risk mitigating strategies and that they be measurable and enforceable.
As we have stated earlier, there is a blatant gap between the above requirements,
similar to those discussed in Chap. 5, and the capabilities of common practices
(see Chap. 6 and Sect. 7.8). Pigs do not fly (https://www.riskope.com/wp-content/
uploads/2013/06/Riskope-White-Paper.pdf) when tailings systems need to be evaluated at any time horizon (Oboni et al. 2013). Furthermore Canadian requirements
such as NI43-101 (https://www.riskope.com/2017/05/10/technical-session-towardsimproving-environmental-social-disclosure-ni43-101/) will force mining industries
to develop better risk assessments which allow potential investors to UNDERSTAND
realistic risk landscape of mining corporations.
Thus, in this present section we examine how to build an ISO 31000-compliant
modern quantitative risk approach which is scalable, drillable, convergent and allows
Bayesian updates as new data become available. In other words, a risk assessment
which covers the specs indicated in Chaps. 5 and 6. Furthermore, risk assessment
should be used for RIDM as we will show in Part III.
We also discuss the use of risk tolerance (thresholds discussed in Chap. 13), which
should be developed independent of the probability consequence register in order to
avoid biases and “conflicts of interest”. Incidentally we will show that families of risk
(i.e., tolerable risks, intolerable, but manageable and intolerable and unmanageable)
will become self-evident once tolerance is used. We will show that this latter family
covers the “strategic risks” and that these are the result of a risk assessment and not
an arbitrary, a priori, intuition based on “the scariest stuff”.
Finally we will explain the principle of the quantitative, scalable, convergent,
drillable risk assessment methodology, which transparently includes uncertainties
and which we deploy through the array of mining and non-mining cases we study in
our day-to-day practice.
Let’s define the terms we have just used and are paramount to define a modern, sustainable, rational and prone to support risk informed decision-making risk
assessment methodology:
• Uncertainties exist in both the probability and the consequences of events
(Sect. 7.4). They are included using ranges based on the state of knowledge at
the moment of the deployment. These will be altered during the life of the system
(see “Updatable” below).
• Convergent means that all hazards potentially present (technical, man-made, natural, etc.) (Chaps. 9 and 12) are considered in the aggregate risk evaluations.
• Scalable means that the risk register is built in such a way that new projects,
alterations, in-depth studies of some structures or system’s elements can be added
and developed within the same risk register.
14 Risk Assessment for the Twenty-First Century
their lives so that the societal risk of dam failure remains within the ALARP zone
(ANCOLD 2003; Barker 2011) (see Sect. 13.2.1).
Regarding permit conditions, leading practice requires that permits and permit
amendments be granted on the basis of strict conditions related to critical operating
parameters and risk mitigating strategies and that they be measurable and enforceable.
As we have stated earlier, there is a blatant gap between the above requirements,
similar to those discussed in Chap. 5, and the capabilities of common practices
(see Chap. 6 and Sect. 7.8). Pigs do not fly (https://www.riskope.com/wp-content/
uploads/2013/06/Riskope-White-Paper.pdf) when tailings systems need to be evaluated at any time horizon (Oboni et al. 2013). Furthermore Canadian requirements
such as NI43-101 (https://www.riskope.com/2017/05/10/technical-session-towardsimproving-environmental-social-disclosure-ni43-101/) will force mining industries
to develop better risk assessments which allow potential investors to UNDERSTAND
realistic risk landscape of mining corporations.
Thus, in this present section we examine how to build an ISO 31000-compliant
modern quantitative risk approach which is scalable, drillable, convergent and allows
Bayesian updates as new data become available. In other words, a risk assessment
which covers the specs indicated in Chaps. 5 and 6. Furthermore, risk assessment
should be used for RIDM as we will show in Part III.
We also discuss the use of risk tolerance (thresholds discussed in Chap. 13), which
should be developed independent of the probability consequence register in order to
avoid biases and “conflicts of interest”. Incidentally we will show that families of risk
(i.e., tolerable risks, intolerable, but manageable and intolerable and unmanageable)
will become self-evident once tolerance is used. We will show that this latter family
covers the “strategic risks” and that these are the result of a risk assessment and not
an arbitrary, a priori, intuition based on “the scariest stuff”.
Finally we will explain the principle of the quantitative, scalable, convergent,
drillable risk assessment methodology, which transparently includes uncertainties
and which we deploy through the array of mining and non-mining cases we study in
our day-to-day practice.
Let’s define the terms we have just used and are paramount to define a modern, sustainable, rational and prone to support risk informed decision-making risk
assessment methodology:
• Uncertainties exist in both the probability and the consequences of events
(Sect. 7.4). They are included using ranges based on the state of knowledge at
the moment of the deployment. These will be altered during the life of the system
(see “Updatable” below).
• Convergent means that all hazards potentially present (technical, man-made, natural, etc.) (Chaps. 9 and 12) are considered in the aggregate risk evaluations.
• Scalable means that the risk register is built in such a way that new projects,
alterations, in-depth studies of some structures or system’s elements can be added
and developed within the same risk register.