尾矿设施的真正风险是什么?

B. Brown
{"title":"尾矿设施的真正风险是什么?","authors":"B. Brown","doi":"10.36487/ACG_REP/1905_0.2_BROWN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The movement towards risk-based design and operation of tailings storage facilities (TSFs) has taken place over the last few decades. The establishment of the consequence of failure of a facility is used to determine the design criteria to be used in its design. These criteria generally set the acceptable return periods for seismic and hydrologic events that the facility must accommodate. In addition, there are generally several levels of risk assessment of the design carried out to highlight technical risks that require particular attention and controls to manage. These are usually addressed in the design phase of project development. \nDespite this focus on technical risk assessment at the design phases of the development of a TSF, there is still a significant number of failures occurring every year. In recent times, there have been a number of high profile TSF failures in facilities owned by major mining houses and/or located in highly regulated, first world countries. In almost every case, the investigations into the failures have been carried out by high profile, internationally recognised geotechnical engineers who have identified the technical reasons for the failure. \nIn many cases, it has been shown that the root causes of the failures have been a failure in governance, capital constraints, change management, independent reviews, construction supervision, operation, etc. The investigation of failures and reports to the public are almost exclusively focused on the technical cause with much less focus on what is often the underlying root cause. \nA number of international mining industry groups have recognised the lack of effective governance as being a major risk that could lead to TSF failures. The Mining Association of Canada (MAC) and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) are two examples. \nIn this paper, the various methods for risk assessment and management are described. Non-technical risks that arise in the design and operation of TSFs are discussed and importance of good governance and continuity of its application during the full lifecycle of the facilities is emphasised.","PeriodicalId":337751,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mining Geomechanical Risk","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What are the real risks for tailings facilities?\",\"authors\":\"B. Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.36487/ACG_REP/1905_0.2_BROWN\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The movement towards risk-based design and operation of tailings storage facilities (TSFs) has taken place over the last few decades. The establishment of the consequence of failure of a facility is used to determine the design criteria to be used in its design. These criteria generally set the acceptable return periods for seismic and hydrologic events that the facility must accommodate. In addition, there are generally several levels of risk assessment of the design carried out to highlight technical risks that require particular attention and controls to manage. These are usually addressed in the design phase of project development. \\nDespite this focus on technical risk assessment at the design phases of the development of a TSF, there is still a significant number of failures occurring every year. In recent times, there have been a number of high profile TSF failures in facilities owned by major mining houses and/or located in highly regulated, first world countries. In almost every case, the investigations into the failures have been carried out by high profile, internationally recognised geotechnical engineers who have identified the technical reasons for the failure. \\nIn many cases, it has been shown that the root causes of the failures have been a failure in governance, capital constraints, change management, independent reviews, construction supervision, operation, etc. The investigation of failures and reports to the public are almost exclusively focused on the technical cause with much less focus on what is often the underlying root cause. \\nA number of international mining industry groups have recognised the lack of effective governance as being a major risk that could lead to TSF failures. The Mining Association of Canada (MAC) and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) are two examples. \\nIn this paper, the various methods for risk assessment and management are described. Non-technical risks that arise in the design and operation of TSFs are discussed and importance of good governance and continuity of its application during the full lifecycle of the facilities is emphasised.\",\"PeriodicalId\":337751,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mining Geomechanical Risk\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mining Geomechanical Risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_REP/1905_0.2_BROWN\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the First International Conference on Mining Geomechanical Risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_REP/1905_0.2_BROWN","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在过去的几十年里,已经出现了基于风险的尾矿储存设施设计和操作的趋势。设施失效后果的建立用于确定其设计中使用的设计准则。这些标准通常规定了设施必须适应的地震和水文事件的可接受重现期。此外,通常有几个级别的设计风险评估,以突出需要特别注意和控制的技术风险。这些通常在项目开发的设计阶段解决。尽管在TSF开发的设计阶段关注技术风险评估,但每年仍有大量的故障发生。最近,在主要采矿公司拥有的和/或位于管制严格的第一世界国家的设施中发生了一些引人注目的TSF故障。在几乎每一个案例中,对失败的调查都是由知名的、国际公认的岩土工程师进行的,他们已经确定了失败的技术原因。许多案例表明,失败的根本原因是治理、资金约束、变更管理、独立审查、施工监督、运营等方面的失败。对失败的调查和对公众的报告几乎完全集中在技术原因上,而很少关注潜在的根本原因。一些国际矿业集团已经认识到,缺乏有效治理是可能导致TSF破产的一个主要风险。加拿大矿业协会和国际矿业和金属理事会就是两个例子。本文介绍了各种风险评估和管理方法。讨论了在设施的整个生命周期中,在设计和运行中出现的非技术风险,并强调了良好治理和其应用连续性的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What are the real risks for tailings facilities?
The movement towards risk-based design and operation of tailings storage facilities (TSFs) has taken place over the last few decades. The establishment of the consequence of failure of a facility is used to determine the design criteria to be used in its design. These criteria generally set the acceptable return periods for seismic and hydrologic events that the facility must accommodate. In addition, there are generally several levels of risk assessment of the design carried out to highlight technical risks that require particular attention and controls to manage. These are usually addressed in the design phase of project development. Despite this focus on technical risk assessment at the design phases of the development of a TSF, there is still a significant number of failures occurring every year. In recent times, there have been a number of high profile TSF failures in facilities owned by major mining houses and/or located in highly regulated, first world countries. In almost every case, the investigations into the failures have been carried out by high profile, internationally recognised geotechnical engineers who have identified the technical reasons for the failure. In many cases, it has been shown that the root causes of the failures have been a failure in governance, capital constraints, change management, independent reviews, construction supervision, operation, etc. The investigation of failures and reports to the public are almost exclusively focused on the technical cause with much less focus on what is often the underlying root cause. A number of international mining industry groups have recognised the lack of effective governance as being a major risk that could lead to TSF failures. The Mining Association of Canada (MAC) and the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) are two examples. In this paper, the various methods for risk assessment and management are described. Non-technical risks that arise in the design and operation of TSFs are discussed and importance of good governance and continuity of its application during the full lifecycle of the facilities is emphasised.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信