- LATEST BLOG POST
- echo $post_date ?>
- Integrated and convergent risk approaches need some discussion. Are they so different? And what about the good old Enterprise Risk…
- Read More
|Event:||MBA Risk Management Module|
|Date/Time:||17/01/2019 - 19/01/2019 - All Day|
MBA Risk Management Module
Location: SAA – School of Management
Organizer/where: SAA Turin (University of Turin School of Management)
This is the fourth edition of our Risk module in MBA course at the SAA (University of Turin, Italy, School of Management).
Through a series of exercises of increasing complexity delegates will have the opportunity to practice the correct glossary and then:
MBA Risk Management Module
We make a point to illustrate each concept with countless anecdotes and “vignettes”. Furthermore this year we will use the horrific highway accidents in Bologna as well as the Morandi Bridge disaster to illustrate numerous aspects of risk management.
Delegates will e able to realize by themselves the limitation of classic, common practice 4×4 or 5×5 risk matrix approaches (FMEA). They will come to understand the advantages of modern approaches, especially when risk informed decision-making (RIDM) is requested.
This year again we will offer delegates the opportunity to use a Riskope test which delivers a view on the participant talents and risk taking archetypes.
We will then perform exercises first with “homogeneous” groups, i.e. delegates with similar talents and archetypes, then with “mixed” groups.
|Event:||Water Management and Treatment – Risks and Best Practices|
|Date/Time:||21/01/2019 - 24/01/2019 - All Day|
Water Management and Treatment – Risks and Best Practices
Location: The Westin Ottawa
Water Management and Treatment – Risks and Best Practices Description:
Water has become a strategic issue for the industry as it can be both a threat and an opportunity. Thus decisions about water have grown increasingly complex. As a result new tools are being applied to enable holistic assessments of water management in mineral processing. These aim at improving performance of projects while reducing multi-hazard risks since pre-feasibility stage .
The course will draw on examples of existing and/or historic operations to explain the benefit of adopting modern best practices in water treatment, tailings management, and finally risk assessments. In brief, the participants will learn the following:
Block 1: Introduction: Change in industry’s thinking about water
Block 2: Effects of water on project performance:
Block 3: Review of Water Management and Treatment Risks:
Block 4: Best Practices – Risk Adjusted Life Cycle Cost Analysis
Block 5: Closing remarks:
|Event:||SYMPOSIUM 2018 ROUYN-NORANDA MINES AND THE ENVIRONMENT|
|Date/Time:||18/06/2018 - 19/06/2018 - All Day|
|Location:||Centre des Congrès de l’hôtel Gouverneur de Rouyn-Noranda, Centre des Congrès de l'hôtel Gouverneur , Rouyn-Noranda,|
SYMPOSIUM 2018 ROUYN-NORANDA MINES AND THE ENVIRONMENT SUR L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET LES MINES
Riskope was asked to present a paper at SYMPOSIUM 2018 ROUYN-NORANDA MINES AND THE ENVIRONMENT SUR L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET LES MINES.
We are pleased to present below the abstract of the article we wrote with MDA for this event.
In this paper we demonstrate how Space Observation and Quantitative Risk Assessment synergy delivers value to the mining industry. The term Space Observation refers to a mix of radar and optical satellite image data, as well as specific algorithms. These constitute the input to a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) platform. We describe a QRA platform capable of using that “Rich Data” context to deliver an enhanced, updated risk landscape of a project or operation. The QRA platform has to be updatable, scalable, drillable and convergent to maximize benefits.
This paper provides examples of specific applications this joint technology provides to miners.
The paper allows for better Risk Informed Decision Making, which in turn generates value.
The marriage of rich data context with an optimized risk assessment platform brings significant advantages to mining end-users, whether they are mining managers, tailings stewards, other key stakeholders, or the general public.
Preliminary quantitative risk off-line studies, using multiple data sources, deliver initial estimates regarding probability of occurrence of various failure modes, consequences of those failure modes, and preliminary alert thresholds. They also provide results that assist in the setup of emergency procedures.
Thanks to Space Observation technologies, it is then possible to confirm and gradually calibrate extant data. Then to validate old reports and their assumptions.
An additional key benefit comes from high resolution imagery. We can use it to rather inexpensively perform quantitative analyses of surface features, volume measurements, and other terrain calculations. Furthermore one can use these analyses to verify the volume of mass movements. Additionally one can analyze whether they are the consequence of man-made (construction) or natural (slides, displacements, erosion) hazards.
By virtue of this joint technology it is also possible to:
This allows to understand where projects or operations stand in term of risk mitigation at discrete and up to almost real-time pace, if and when required.
|Event:||Resources for Future Generations 2018 a Keynote Lecture|
|Date/Time:||16/06/2018 - 21/06/2018 - All Day|
|Location:||Vancouver Convention Centre, 1055 Canada Pl, Vancouver,|
.Riskope is proud to announce that we got invited to present at Resources for Future Generations 2018 a Keynote Lecture
Geoethical consensus building through independent risk assessments
It is common that consultants hired by the “proponents of new projects” and the public strongly disagree in their analysis of significant adverse impacts. One of the components allowing to determine potential adverse impacts should be the risk assessment. However, risk assessments are oftentimes the source of conflict, rather that of consensus.
Indeed, numerous voices are raising around the world to show how misleading and fuzzy commonly used risk assessments methods are. Misleading and fuzzy risk assessment are contrary to geoethics principle and cause public rejection.
This keynote lecture presents a case where, as shown by public records, after two iterations between proponent and the Environmental Impact Review Board consensus was not possible. Thus the latter decided to ask a third party external risk advisor to develop a risk assessment.
The goal was to help the different parties to form a balanced opinion on the significant adverse impacts of the project. Indeed, that balanced and informed opinion constitutes the backbone of a geoethical consensus.
A well documented case history
This keynote lecture delves into the peculiarity of the case study. In particular it shows how to deliver a transparent risk assessment by analyzing various steps. They go from the definition of the system, the assumptions, and limitations to the delivery of the final results.
Interestingly, documents on this case are entirely available on the Environmental Impact Review Board public record. This offers scholars and interested party a rare occasion to see how to use and discuss a quantitative risk assessment to reach consensus.
This keynote lecture also showcases how we define the risk metric, we evaluate probabilities and how we define of consequences. This enables a rational discussion going beyond gut feelings and emotions.
In the case history, this enabled a consensus-seeking discussion. The subject were possible mitigation of the project for a safer and more resilient society. As a matter of fact, after a fierce, healthy public hearing, the proponent updated his views on risk. The study identified stretches of road which may require additional mitigation. The proponent proposed additional mitigation for risk exposing people and the environment. Thus conditions set by the Board were finally met.