5.1 Lessons Learned from Recent Conferences
55
5.1.2 Managing Risks London Conference
Franco Oboni had the honour of chairing a session at the “Managing Risks Across
the Mining and Oil and Gas Lifecycle” conference in London in July 2017. The session’s title was “Managing our wastes for the long term” (https://www.riskope.com/
2017/07/19/managing-risks-across-the-mining-and-oil-gas-lifecycle/). The conference was held at the Imperial College as part of The Geological Society’s “Year
of Risk” with the cooperation of the Institute of Risk Management. The conference’s
aim was to bring together mining and oil and gas professionals to discuss their respective and common risks, including how the industries manage their wastes for the long
term.
We found it frustrating to see that, despite a unanimous agreement that changes and
enhancements from common practices are badly needed, everyone seems to prefer
status quo. Recurring phrases heard at the conference were: “we would like to…, but
for this reason…, we can’t” or “we would like to…, but we do not know how”. In fact,
both difficulties can be overcome by abandoning obsolete recipes, leaving behind
common risk assessment practices, using scientific methods to evaluate holistic risks,
and including social and environmental consequences, as will be discussed.
A case history was presented and the groups were asked to come up, as we will
see later, with the preliminary steps of a risk assessment, i.e., performance criteria,
system definition and hazard identification. The outcome was extremely interesting
and clearly showed the asymmetry in the requirements of the two groups. It became
apparent to all participants that reaching a consensus early on in the risk assessment
procedure represents a viable step towards mitigating later chances of confrontation
and dismissal of the results.
The common thread among the presentations was that systems have to be described
and defined before sensible risk assessment and decision-making can be undertaken.
Managing risks across the mining and oil and gas lifecycle requires, to start with,
holistic approaches and a well-defined glossary. That came together with other points,
summarized as follows:
• Simplistic solutions can have serious consequences, at both the modelling level
and the mitigation level.
• There is major confusion even about basic definitions of risk and uncertainty, even
within a single industry, or, even worse, across industries. It is time to see a single,
robust glossary used world-wide.
• Both industries need approaches that are simple but not simplistic.
• We should not use words such as “never”, “nil”, and “zero”, especially when
talking about hazards and risks.
• Transparent credibility levels (e.g. 10
−5 10
−6 ) should be used.
• What is generally considered “long term” may be very short, especially in the face
of events driven by climate change. And perpetuity may be an awfully long time.
• Censoring and biasing reality are lurking “mortal” sins.
• CSR and SLO dictate ethical behaviour and correct evaluation and presentation of
risks.
55
5.1.2 Managing Risks London Conference
Franco Oboni had the honour of chairing a session at the “Managing Risks Across
the Mining and Oil and Gas Lifecycle” conference in London in July 2017. The session’s title was “Managing our wastes for the long term” (https://www.riskope.com/
2017/07/19/managing-risks-across-the-mining-and-oil-gas-lifecycle/). The conference was held at the Imperial College as part of The Geological Society’s “Year
of Risk” with the cooperation of the Institute of Risk Management. The conference’s
aim was to bring together mining and oil and gas professionals to discuss their respective and common risks, including how the industries manage their wastes for the long
term.
We found it frustrating to see that, despite a unanimous agreement that changes and
enhancements from common practices are badly needed, everyone seems to prefer
status quo. Recurring phrases heard at the conference were: “we would like to…, but
for this reason…, we can’t” or “we would like to…, but we do not know how”. In fact,
both difficulties can be overcome by abandoning obsolete recipes, leaving behind
common risk assessment practices, using scientific methods to evaluate holistic risks,
and including social and environmental consequences, as will be discussed.
A case history was presented and the groups were asked to come up, as we will
see later, with the preliminary steps of a risk assessment, i.e., performance criteria,
system definition and hazard identification. The outcome was extremely interesting
and clearly showed the asymmetry in the requirements of the two groups. It became
apparent to all participants that reaching a consensus early on in the risk assessment
procedure represents a viable step towards mitigating later chances of confrontation
and dismissal of the results.
The common thread among the presentations was that systems have to be described
and defined before sensible risk assessment and decision-making can be undertaken.
Managing risks across the mining and oil and gas lifecycle requires, to start with,
holistic approaches and a well-defined glossary. That came together with other points,
summarized as follows:
• Simplistic solutions can have serious consequences, at both the modelling level
and the mitigation level.
• There is major confusion even about basic definitions of risk and uncertainty, even
within a single industry, or, even worse, across industries. It is time to see a single,
robust glossary used world-wide.
• Both industries need approaches that are simple but not simplistic.
• We should not use words such as “never”, “nil”, and “zero”, especially when
talking about hazards and risks.
• Transparent credibility levels (e.g. 10
−5 10
−6 ) should be used.
• What is generally considered “long term” may be very short, especially in the face
of events driven by climate change. And perpetuity may be an awfully long time.
• Censoring and biasing reality are lurking “mortal” sins.
• CSR and SLO dictate ethical behaviour and correct evaluation and presentation of
risks.