- LATEST BLOG POST
- echo $post_date ?>
- Probabilities statistics and rate of failure data in literature demand caution even if delving in reputable databases seems to offer…
- Read More
The course emphasys was on risk assessment methodologies, but we included many failures case studies such as the recent Mount Polley (based on public data) and a view on perpetuity. The subject of perpetuity was the focus of our paper at this conference (also with Jack) entitled “Risk Assessment of the Long Term Performance of Closed Tailings Facilities”.
Having practiced risk management for over 20 years, we strongly believe in rational and well conceived Risk Assessments and also here. So when we read the title of the paper presented by Steven Vick entitled “The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis”, we were ready to cross swords with him. However it took Steven two introductory phrases to solve all our concerns. Although we use completely different approaches, we arrive to the same conclusions.
In particular, quoting Steven’s paper “FMEA systematically produces failure-mode risks that are too low due to cognitive bias, both innate and structural. It also adopts the flawed premise that if individual failure mode risks are low, then system risk must be low.”
The circle of common practice critics is getting larger and we believe this is a very good thing for the mining industry and our society.
So, summarizing to the extreme what we have presented: Corporate leadership and societal acceptability require a paradigm shift in mines’ assessment and management.
That paradigm shift can be achieved as follows: