248
15 Risk-Informed Decision Making
Table 15.11 Quantified consequences for each dam
Dam
PL (M$)
HS (casualties) BI (years)
ED (M$)
RD
1A
35
40
3
100
5
1B
90
100
5
200
10
2
10
10
0.5
10
2
3
15
20
2
60
5
4
8
10
2
120
3
2 on 3
40
50
3
160
10
BI damage requires an enterprise risk management approach, where interdependencies are looked at a higher level, still approachable with the type of rational analysis
described in this book. However, due to obvious limitations of space, we will exclude
BI from this discussion.
ED = include various sub-dimensions: geographic dispersion of damage, duration
of the damage, reversibility of the damage (see Sect. 7.4). In some studies, the
environmental damages are evaluated in classes as a simplification, but the preferred
practice is to analyze each sub-dimension.
RD = measures the reputational damages and public outcry, including legal fines,
with a “consequences multiplier.” A range between 1 and 10 seems reasonable based
on our experience. Numerous recent examples ranging from the Mont Blanc tunnel to Fukushima to the Lac Megantic rail disaster and others have shown that the
approach of “fact-driven” approach to the evaluations of consequences will lead its
user to an unsustainable stance (https://www.riskope.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/
10/Quantifying-Social-Perception-of-an-Industrial-Accident-Risk.pdf).
CR = impact on SLO and CSR, considered here to impact BI (boycotts, blockades,
etc.) as a multiplier of the BI duration.
The additive consequence dimensions can be evaluated as shown in Table 15.11.
As the BI damage will not enter in the discussion (see Table 15.11 and explanations
above), the multiplication of BI by CR will also be excluded from further analyses
in this discussion.
15.7 Portfolio Risk Assessment and Benchmarking
Now that probabilities and consequences (ranges) are evaluated it is possible to
determine risks for each dam using the definition of risk we gave in Sect. 1.2.
As discussed in Sect. 12.1 the consequence function is additive, i.e., a sum of
the various consequence dimensions. For HS (casualties) we have selected a WTP
= 2.5 M$ value as an average (see Sect. 13.1.2). Two values of C are calculated in
Eqs. 15.1 and 15.2, C min and C max , respectively without and with the influence of
RD:
15 Risk-Informed Decision Making
Table 15.11 Quantified consequences for each dam
Dam
PL (M$)
HS (casualties) BI (years)
ED (M$)
RD
1A
35
40
3
100
5
1B
90
100
5
200
10
2
10
10
0.5
10
2
3
15
20
2
60
5
4
8
10
2
120
3
2 on 3
40
50
3
160
10
BI damage requires an enterprise risk management approach, where interdependencies are looked at a higher level, still approachable with the type of rational analysis
described in this book. However, due to obvious limitations of space, we will exclude
BI from this discussion.
ED = include various sub-dimensions: geographic dispersion of damage, duration
of the damage, reversibility of the damage (see Sect. 7.4). In some studies, the
environmental damages are evaluated in classes as a simplification, but the preferred
practice is to analyze each sub-dimension.
RD = measures the reputational damages and public outcry, including legal fines,
with a “consequences multiplier.” A range between 1 and 10 seems reasonable based
on our experience. Numerous recent examples ranging from the Mont Blanc tunnel to Fukushima to the Lac Megantic rail disaster and others have shown that the
approach of “fact-driven” approach to the evaluations of consequences will lead its
user to an unsustainable stance (https://www.riskope.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/
10/Quantifying-Social-Perception-of-an-Industrial-Accident-Risk.pdf).
CR = impact on SLO and CSR, considered here to impact BI (boycotts, blockades,
etc.) as a multiplier of the BI duration.
The additive consequence dimensions can be evaluated as shown in Table 15.11.
As the BI damage will not enter in the discussion (see Table 15.11 and explanations
above), the multiplication of BI by CR will also be excluded from further analyses
in this discussion.
15.7 Portfolio Risk Assessment and Benchmarking
Now that probabilities and consequences (ranges) are evaluated it is possible to
determine risks for each dam using the definition of risk we gave in Sect. 1.2.
As discussed in Sect. 12.1 the consequence function is additive, i.e., a sum of
the various consequence dimensions. For HS (casualties) we have selected a WTP
= 2.5 M$ value as an average (see Sect. 13.1.2). Two values of C are calculated in
Eqs. 15.1 and 15.2, C min and C max , respectively without and with the influence of
RD: