Análisis Estado de Fuentes y Empleos de Fondos para los períodos 2009 al 2012

Literature related to risk and consequence assessment were reviewed. Due to the very close alignment, further review was not deemed necessary.

2.8.1

Risk consequence (2002) – Dr Hendrik Kirsten

(From the author’s personal experience and notes from work done on surveying and mapping risk in 2002.)

The risk and consequence assessment system is simple and effective, tabling Event, Category (of risk), Type, Frequency, Impact, Cause and Lesson. Monetary value is not assigned (therefore not subject to subjective assignment of value or depreciation over time). The type of risk accommodates all risks which may have Safety, Financial or Reputational risk and therefore has broad application.

34

2.8.2

Guidance Note QGN 17 (2010) – Government of Queensland,

Australia

Guidance Note QGN 17 (2010); Development of effective Job Safety Analysis, is a comprehensive document which provides “practical guidance for holders, operators, site senior executives, supervisors, contractors and persons generally who have obligations under the legislation” in how to conduct Job Safety Analysis within a set framework.

It addresses Consequence, Injury, Property damage or process loss (in financial terms) and Environmental Impact, for a particular event. It also provides a rating scale, with examples, to determine likely frequency of the event occurring. While the framework is sufficiently flexible to enable broader application, its focus is on job safety.

2.8.3

Anglo American plc risk matrix

The Anglo American risk matrix is the most comprehensive of the three risk and consequence assessment systems reviewed and is designed for the broadest application. Business units may adapt the matrix to ensure situational fit.

Consequence Type has seven categories, namely, Financial, Safety, Occupational Health, Environment, Legal & Regulatory, Social / Communities and Reputation. Consequence has five levels, namely, 1 – Insignificant, 2 – Minor, 3 – Moderate, 4 – High and 5 – Major.

Likelihood has five levels, namely, 5 – Almost Certain, 1 year, 4 – Likely, 3 years, 3 – Possible, 10 years, 2 – Unlikely, 30 years and 1 – Rare, >30 years.

Consequence and Likelihood levels (each between 1 and 5) are multiplied to determine a risk rating between 1 and 25 to determine a risk level (Low, Medium, Significant and High) based on the range in which the risk level falls.

Table 2.1 shows the risk matrix detail and the response required per risk rating range, adapted (from the above description) and approved by Anglo’s Coal business unit.

35 Table 2.1 Anglo American Coal Risk Matrix

Anglo American Plc Risk Matrix Hazard Effect / Consequence

(Where an event has more than one ‘Loss Type’, choose the ‘Consequence’ with the highest rating) Loss Type

(Additional ‘Loss Types’ may exist for an event; identify and rate accordingly) Insignificant1

2 Minor 3 Moderate 4 High 5 Major (S/H)

Harm to People (Safety/Health) First aid case / Exposure to minor health risk Exposure to major health risk Medical treatment case / Lost time injury / Reversible impact on health Single fatality or loss of quality of life / irreversible impact on health Multiple fatalities / impact on health ultimately fatal (EI)

Environmental Impact Minimal environmental harm – L1 incident Material environmental harm – L2 incident, remediable short term

Serious environmental harm – L2

incident remediable within LOM Major environmental harm – L2 incident remediable post LOM Extreme environmental harm – L3 incident irreversible (BI/MD)

Business Interruption/Material Damage and Other Consequential Losses

No disruption to operation / 5% loss of budgeted operating profit

Brief disruption to operation 10% loss of budgeted operating

profit/listed assets

Partial shutdown / 15% loss of budgeted operating

profit/listed assets

Partial loss of operation 20% loss of budgeted operating

profit/listed assets

Substantial or total loss of operation / 25% loss of budgeted

operating profit/listed assets (L&R)

Legal and Regulatory

Low level legal issue Minor legal issue; non- compliance and breaches of the

law

Serious breach of law; investigation/report to authority,

prosecution and/or moderate penalty

Major breach of the law; considerable prosecution and

penalties

Very considerable penalties & prosecutions. Multiple law suits

and jail terms (R/S/C)

Impact on Reputation/Social/Community

Slight impact - public awareness may exist but no public concern

Limited impact - local public concern

Considerable impact – regional public concern

National impact – national public concern

International impact – international public attention. Likelihood

Examples

(Consider near-hits as well as actual events) Risk Rating 5

(Almost Certain)

The unwanted event has occurred frequently; occurs in order of one or more times per year & is likely to

reoccur within 1 year 11 (M) 16 (S) 20 (S) 23 (H) 25 (H)

4 (Likely)

The unwanted event has occurred infrequently; occurs in order of less than once per year & is likely to reoccur

within 5 years 7 (M) 12 (M) 17 (S) 21 (H) 24 (H)

3 (Possible)

The unwanted event has happened in the business at

some time, or could happen within 10 years 4 (L) 8 (M) 13 (S) 18 (S) 22 (H)

2 (Unlikely)

The unwanted event has happened in the business at

some time, or could happen within 20 years 2 (L) 5(L) 9 (M) 14 (S) 19 (S)

1 (Rare)

The unwanted event has never been known to occur in the business; or it is highly unlikely that it will occur

within 20 years 1 (L) 3 (L) 6 (M) 10(M) 15 (S)

Risk Rating Risk Level Guidelines for Risk Matrix

21 to 25 (H) – High A high risk exists that management’s objectives may not be achieved. Appropriate mitigation strategy to be devised immediately.

13 to 20 (S) – Significant A significant risk exists that management’s objectives may not be achieved. Appropriate mitigation strategy to be devised as soon as possible.

6 to 12 (M) – Medium A moderate risk exists that management’s objectives may not be achieved. Appropriate mitigation strategy to be devised as part of normal management process.

1 to 5 (L) – Low A low risk exists that management’s objectives may not be achieved. Monitor risk, no further mitigation required. Source: Annual Environmental Management Report 2011, Drayton Mine, Page 135 of 171

36

2.9

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a summary review of existing knowledge related to this topic that has already been published. It has drawn from diverse sources and has therefore not been confined to scholarly books and articles by recognised experts, and has included legislation, codes and standards from numerous countries, as well as personal notes.

The value chain review concluded that the principal differentiator between the value chain models reviewed and this research, is the concept of geospatial context along the activities of the mining/minerals value chain, cross-functional interdependencies and leveraging value in geospatial information. Additionally, the review demonstrated that the use of the value chain in mining by other authors was in support of work which is distinctly different from the purpose of this research. Literature on downhole borehole surveying demonstrated that geospatial error could result in Mineral Resource classification being downgraded, thereby highlighting geospatial risk during the exploration and study phases of a mining project. The literature also noted the extreme cost risk potential when mine plans and resource estimates are based on deficient geospatial information.

The review of international codes, standards or guidelines for reporting of mineral exploration results, resources and reserves demonstrated the understandable focus of Competent Person’s reporting on transparency, competency and materiality, with increasing levels of geological confidence ultimately leading to the application of techno-economic modifying factors required for ore reserve classification and mine establishment. No information is provided for what constitutes a competent person in a surveying or geospatial context, or the contribution of geospatial confidence to geological confidence which appears to be either assumed, or overlooked.

Leading from the above-mentioned issue of competency in a surveying or geospatial context, the underlying theory and principles of surveying were reviewed, to demonstrate the required understanding of ellipsoids, geoids, gravity, datums and map projections, and accuracy standards for mapping, noting that without such competency in surveying, it is possible to propagate errors, or even blunders, into geospatial data sets.

37

The review of relevant survey legislation and codes presented a summary of content and/or intent of statutory instruments, from a number of countries, directed at mineral and land tenure, and mine surveying and mine plans. The common intent is to mitigate risk of geospatial error or deficiencies and to ensure consistent standards of practice.

Noting the focus of mine surveying legislation, standards and codes on safety and health, four recent and prominent mine accidents, two of which resulted in multiple fatalities, were reviewed. The review demonstrated the role of deficient geospatial information as the cause or aggravator in the incident, and the role of good, accurate geospatial information in the successful rescue of people trapped underground.

Finally, the chapter concluded with a review of methods to determine risk and consequence, which are carried as a theme throughout this research.

The content of the literature review will be referred to in greater detail in the chapters to follow.

38