Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:59:29.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accidents in the Energy Sector and Energy Infrastructure Attacks in the Context of Energy Security

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter Burgherr ,
Jennifer Giroux  and
Matteo Spada
Peter Burgherr
Affiliation:
Technology Assessment at the Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI)
Jennifer Giroux
Affiliation:
specialized in research on (societal) resilience, business in conflict zones, and critical infrastructure protection
Matteo Spada
Affiliation:
Paul Scherrer Institut (PSI)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The risks of technological accidents in the energy sector and their potentially disastrous effects have been analyzed over the past decades, and are nowadays generally recognized to constitute a key factor in an encompassing assessment of energy security. In contrast, the issue of intentional attacks on energy infrastructures has received increased attentionmore recently, particularly due to growing dependence of energy imports fromand transit routes through regions considered less reliable and politically stable. Both types of risks, however, illuminate different vulnerabilities. Therefore, the focus of the present analysis was on these two risk categories: accidents and intentional attacks in the energy sector. Risk assessment resultswere based on quantitative data from the databases ENSAD (Energy-related Severe Accident Database) and EIAD (Energy Infrastructure Attack Database). Evaluations examined similarities and differences between technological accidents and intentional attacks in terms of frequencies and consequences, considering time-series trends and regional patterns. A key difference is that accidents are typically rare and independent events, whereas intentional attacks are often multiple events and concentrated both in time and space, resulting in distinct hotspots. Concerning consequences, the severity distribution for accidents generally stretches over a broad range, with low-probability high-consequence events being an important factor of both energy chain performance and as a measure of risk aversion. On the other hand, these types of consequences are usually less important for intentional attacks because targeted energy infrastructures are often of “linear” nature (e.g. pipelines and transmission lines) that are difficult to protect and usually lead through remote areas with low population density. However, when frequently attacked substantial business and supply disruptions can occur. In summary, the joint analysis of accidents and intentional attacks provides a comprehensive and complementary approach on two types of risks that have rather different properties, but are essential in an energy security perspective.

Type
Symposium on Critical Infrastructures: Risk, Responsibility and Liability
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 271 - 283
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kröger, W. (2008) Critical infrastructures at risk: A need for a new conceptual approach and extended analytical tools. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 93, 1781–1787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Rinaldi, S. M., Peerenboom, J. P. & Kelly, T. K. (2001) Identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 21, 11–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Aven, T. (2012) The risk concept – historical and recent development trends. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 99, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Haimes, Y. Y. (2009) On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems-Based Approach. Risk Analysis, 29, 1647–1654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5 Cox Jr., L. A. (2008) Some limitations of “risk = threat × vulnerability × consequence” for risk analysis of terrorist attacks. Ibid.28, 1749–1761.

6 Scouras, J., Parnell, G. S., Ayyub, B. M. & Liebe, R. M. (2009) Risk analysis frameworks for counterterrorism. in Voeller, J. G. (Ed.) Wiley Handbook of Science and Technology for Homeland Security. Hoboken NJ, USA, John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar

7 Gregory, R. & Lichtenstein, S. (1994) A hint of risk: tradeoffs between quantitative and qualitative risk factors. Risk Analysis, 14, 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Stirling, A. (1999) Risk at a turning point? Journal of Environmental Medicine, 1, 119–126.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Slovic, P. (2001) The risk game. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 86, 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Aven, T. (2013) On Funtowicz and Ravetz's “Decision Stake System Uncertainties” Structure and Recently Developed Risk Perspectives. Risk Analysis, 33, 270–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. (1985) Three types of risk assessment. in Whipple, C. & Covello, V. T. (Eds.) Risk Analysis in the Private Sector. New York (USA), Plenum Press.Google Scholar

12 Funtowicz, S. O. & Ravetz, J. R. (1994) The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a postnormal science. Ecological Economics, 10, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Greenberg, M., Haas, C., Cox, J., Anthony, , Lowrie, K., McComas, K. & North, W. (2012) Ten most important accomplishments in risk analysis, 1980–2010. Risk Analysis, 32, 771–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Aven, T. & Zio, E. (2014) Foundational Issues in Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Ibid.34, 1164–1172.

15 Eckle, P. & Burgherr, P. (2013) Bayesian data analysis of severe fatal accident risk in the oil chain. Ibid.33, 146–160.

16 Giroux, J., Burgherr, P. & Melkunaite, L. (2013) Research Note on the Energy Infrastructure Attack Database (EIAD). Perspectives on Terrorism, 7, 113–125.Google Scholar

17 Burgherr, P., Giroux, J. & Spada, M. (2015) Vulnerability of Eenergy infrastructure to intentional attacks - the interplay of resource, conflict and security. in Nowakowski, T., Mlynczak, M., Jodejko-Pietruczuk, A. & Werbinska-Woiciechowska, S. (Eds.) Safety and Reliability: Methodology and Applications. London, UK, Taylor anf Francis Group.Google Scholar

18 RMS (2005) Hurricane Katrina: Profile of a Super Cat. Lessons and Implications for Catastrophe Risk Management, Newark, CA, USA, Risk Management Solutions (RMS).Google Scholar

19 MMS (2007) Assessment of fixed offshore platform performance in hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Final Report, May 2007, Herndon, VA, USA, Mineral Management Service (MMS), U.S. Department of the Interior.Google Scholar

20 Cruz, A. M. & Krausmann, E. (2009) Hazardous-materials releases from offshore oil and gas facilities and emergency response following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Santella, N., Steinberg, L. J. & Sengul, H. (2010) Petroleum and Hazardous Material Releases from Industrial Facilities Associated with Hurricane Katrina. Risk Analysis, 30, 635–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Sutton, I. (2012) Major events. in Sutton, I. (Ed.) Offshore Safety Management. Amsterdam (The Netherlands) CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Elsevier, , Zio, E. & Aven, T. (2013) Industrial disasters: Extreme events, extremely rare. Some reflections on the treatment of uncertainties in the assessment of the associated risks. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 9 1, 91, 31–45.Google Scholar

23 Elahi, S. (2011) Here be dragons… exploring the‘unknown unknowns’. Futures, 43, 196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Paté-Cornell, E. (2012) On “Black Swans” and “Perfect Storms”: risk analysis and management when statistics are not enough. Risk Analysis, 32, 1823–1833.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

25 Sornette, D. & Ouillon, G. (2012) Dragon-kings: Mechanisms, statistical methods and empirical evidence. The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 205, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Gray, P. C. R. & Wiedemann, P. M. (1999) Risk management and sustainable development: mutual lessons from approaches to the use of indicators. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Musango, J. K. & Brent, A. C. (2011) A conceptual framework for energy technology sustainability assessment. Energy for Sustainable Development, 15, 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Santoyo-Castelazo, E. & Azapagic, A. (2014) Sustainability assessment of energy systems: integrating environmental, economic and social aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 80, 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Cherp, A. & Jewell, J. (2014) The concept of energy security: Beyond the four As. Energy Policy, 75, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Chester, L. (2010) Conceptualising energy security and making explicit its polysemic nature. Ibid.38, 887–895.

31 ????

32 Winzer, C. (2012) Conceptualizing energy security. Ibid.46, 36–48.

33 Ang, B. W., Choong, W. L. & Ng, T. S. (2015) Energy security: Definitions, dimensions and indexes. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 42, 1077–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 Brown, M. A., Wang, Y., Sovacool, B. K. & D’Agostino, A. L. (2014) Forty years of energy security trends: A comparative assessment of 22 industrialized countries. Energy Research & Social Science, 4, 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Månsson, A., Johansson, B. & Nilsson, L. J. (2014) Assessing energy security: An overview of commonly used methodologies. Energy, 73, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 DunnCavelty, M. & Suter, M. (2009) Public–Private Partnerships are no silver bullet: An expanded governance model for Critical Infrastructure Protection. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 2, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Yustaa, J. M., Correa, G. J. & Lacal-Arántegui, R. (2011) Methodologies and applications for critical infrastructure protection: State-of-the-art. Energy Policy, 39, 6100–6119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Murray, A. T. & Grubesic, T. H. (2012) Critical infrastructure protection: The vulnerability conundrum. Telematics and Informatics, 29, 56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 Lewis, A. M., Ward, D., Cyra, L. & Kourti, N. (2013) European Reference Network for Critical Infrastructure Protection. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 6, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Bruneau, M., Chang, S. E., Eguchi, R. T., Lee, G. C., O’Rourke, T. D., Reinhorn, A. M., Shinozuka, M., Tierney, K., Wallace, W. A. & von Winterfeldt, D. (2003) A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19, 733–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 Kröger, W. & Zio, E. (2011) Vulnerable systems, London (UK), Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Filippini, R. & Silva, A. (2012) Resilience analysis of networked systems-of-systems based on structural and dynamic interdependencies. Psam 11 & esrel 2012. Helsinki (Finland), pp 10.Google Scholar

43 Ouyang, M. (2014) Review on modeling and simulation of interdependent critical infrastructure systems. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 121, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Roege, P. E., Collier, Z. A., Mancillas, James, McDonagh, J. A. & Linkov, I. (2014) Metrics for energy resilience. Energy Policy, 72, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Renn, O., Klinke, A. & van Asselt, M. (2011) Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. Ambio, 40, 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Linkov, I., Bridges, T., Creutzig, Felix, Decker, J., Fox-Lent, C., Kröger, W., Lambert, J. H., Levermann, A., Montreuil, B., Nathwani, J., Nyer, R., Renn, O., Scharte, B., Scheffler, A., Schreurs, M. & Thiel-Clemen, T. (2014) Changing the resilience paradigm. Nature Climate Change, 4, 407–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47 Sidortsov, R. (2014) Reinventing rules for environmental risk governance in the energy sector. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Kappes, M. S., Keiler, M., von Elverfeldt, K. & Glade, T. (2012) Challenges of analyzing multi-hazard risk: a review Natural Hazards, 64, 1925–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Komendantova, N., Mrzyglocki, R., Mignan, A., Khazai, B., Wenzel, F., Patt, A. & Fleming, K. (2014) Multi-hazard and multirisk decision-support tools as a part of participatory risk governance: Feedback from civil protection stakeholders. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 8, 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

50 Mignan, A., Wiemer, S. & Giardini, D. (2014) The quantification of low-probability–high-consequences events: part I. A generic multi-risk approach. Natural Hazards, Online First, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1178-4.

51 Hirschberg, S., Spiekerman, G. & Dones, R. (1998) Severe accidents in the energy sector - first edition. PSI Report No. 98-16, Villigen PSI, Switzerland, Paul Scherrer Institut.Google Scholar

52 Burgherr, P., Hirschberg, S. & Spada, M. (2013b) Comparative Assessment of Accident Risks in the Energy Sector. in Kovacevic, R. M., Pflug, G. C. & Vespucci, M. T. (Eds.) Handbook of Risk Management in Energy Production and Trading. New York (USA), Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar

53 Giroux, J., Burgherr, P. & Melkunaite, L. (2013) Research Note on the Energy Infrastructure Attack Database (EIAD). Perspectives on Terrorism, 7, 113–125.Google Scholar

54 Burgherr, P., Giroux, J. & Spada, M. (2015) Vulnerability of Eenergy infrastructure to intentional attacks - the interplay of resource, conflict and security. in Nowakowski, T., Mlynczak, M., Jodejko-Pietruczuk, A. & Werbinska-Woiciechowska, S. (Eds.) Safety and Reliability: Methodology and Applications. London, UK, Taylor anf Francis Group.Google Scholar

55 Hirschberg, S., Spiekerman, G. & Dones, R. (1998) Severe accidents in the energy sector - first edition. PSI Report No. 98-16, Villigen PSI, Switzerland, Paul Scherrer Institut.Google Scholar

56 Burgherr, P., Hirschberg, S. & Spada, M. (2013b) Comparative Assessment of Accident Risks in the Energy Sector. in Kovacevic, R. M., Pflug, G. C. & Vespucci, M. T. (Eds.) Handbook of Risk Management in Energy Production and Trading. New York (USA), Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar

57 Burgherr, P., Hirschberg, S. & Cazzoli, E. (2008) Final report on quantification of risk indicators for sustainability assessment of future electricity supply options. Needs Deliverable n° D7.1 - Research Stream 2b. Needs project “New Energy Externalities Developments for Sustainability”, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar

58 Burgherr, P., Eckle, P., Hirschberg, S. & Cazzoli, E. (2011) Final Report on Severe Accident Risks including Key Indicators. Secure Deliverable No. D5.7.2a, Brussels, Belgium, Secure project - Security of Energy Considering its Uncertainty, Risk and Economic implications.Google Scholar

59 Giroux, J., Burgherr, P. & Melkunaite, L. (2013) Research Note on the Energy Infrastructure Attack Database (EIAD). Perspectives on Terrorism, 7, 113–125.Google Scholar

60 Fritzsche, A. F. (1989) The health risks of energy production. Risk Analysis, 9, 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Inhaber, H. (2004) Risk analysis applied to energy systems. in Cleveland, C. J. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Energy, Volume 5. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier.Google Scholar

62 Rasmussen, N. C. (1981) The application of probabilistic risk assessment techniques to energy technologies. Annual Review of Energy, 6, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Hirschberg, S., Spiekerman, G. & Dones, R. (1998) Severe accidents in the energy sector - first edition. PSI Report No. 98-16, Villigen PSI, Switzerland, Paul Scherrer Institut.Google Scholar

64 Burgherr, P. & Hirschberg, S. (2008a) A comparative analysis of accident risks in fossil, hydro and nuclear energy chains. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 14, 947–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

65 Burgherr, P., Eckle, P. & Hirschberg, S. (2013a) Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector based on the Ensad database: 20 years of experience. in Steenbergen, R. D. J. M., Van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., Miraglia, S. & Vrouwenvelder, A. C. W. M. (Eds.) Safety, reliability and risk analysis: beyond the horizon. London (UK), CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

66 Burgherr, P., Hirschberg, S. & Spada, M. (2013b) Comparative Assessment of Accident Risks in the Energy Sector. in Kovacevic, R. M., Pflug, G. C. & Vespucci, M. T. (Eds.) Handbook of Risk Management in Energy Production and Trading. New York (USA), Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar

67 Burgherr, P., Eckle, P. & Hirschberg, S. (2014) Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector based on the Ensad database: 20 years of experience. in Steenbergen, R. D. J. M., Van Gelder, P. H. A. J. M., Miraglia, S. & Vrouwenvelder, A. C. W. M. (Eds.) Safety, Reliability and Risk Analysis: Beyond the Horizon. London (UK), Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

68 Burgherr, P. & Hirschberg, S. (2014) Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector. Energy Policy, 74, S45–S56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 LaFree, G. & Dugan, L. (2007) Introducing the Global Terrorism Database. Terrorism and Political Violence, 19, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 Wigle, J. (2010) Introducing the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS). Perspectives on Terrorism, 4, 3–23.Google Scholar

71 Giroux, J., Burgherr, P. & Melkunaite, L. (2013) Research Note on the Energy Infrastructure Attack Database (EIAD). Ibid. 7, 113–125.Google Scholar

72 OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, EU: European Union

73 Burgherr, P., Hirschberg, S. & Spada, M. (2013b) Comparative Assessment of Accident Risks in the Energy Sector. in Kovacevic, R. M., Pflug, G. C. & Vespucci, M. T. (Eds.) Handbook of Risk Management in Energy Production and Trading. New York (USA), Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar

74 Burgherr, P. & Hirschberg, S. (2014) Comparative risk assessment of severe accidents in the energy sector. Energy Policy, 74, S45–S56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Giroux, J., Burgherr, P. & Melkunaite, L. (2013) Research Note on the Energy Infrastructure Attack Database (EIAD). Perspectives on Terrorism, 7, 113–125.Google Scholar

76 Burgherr, P., Giroux, J. & Spada, M. (2015) Vulnerability of Eenergy infrastructure to intentional attacks - the interplay of resource, conflict and security. in Nowakowski, T., Mlynczak, M., Jodejko-Pietruczuk, A. & Werbinska-Woiciechowska, S. (Eds.) Safety and Reliability: Methodology and Applications. London, UK, Taylor anf Francis Group.Google Scholar

77 Hirschberg, S., Burgherr, P., Spiekerman, G., Cazzoli, E., Vitazek, J. & Cheng, L. (2003) Assessment of severe accident risks. in Eliasson, B. & Lee, Y. Y. (Eds.) Integrated assessment of sustainable energy systems in China. The China Energy Technology Program - A framework for decision support in the electric sector of Shandong province. Alliance for Global Sustainability Series Vol. 4. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

78 Burgherr, P. & Hirschberg, S. (2007) Assessment of severe accident risks in the Chinese coal chain. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 7, 1157–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 Burgherr, P. & Hirschberg, S. (2008b) Severe accident risks in fossil energy chains: a comparative analysis. Energy, 33, 538–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

80 IEA (2014) World Energy Outlook 2014, Paris (France), International Energy Agency (IEA).Google Scholar

81 Burgherr, P. & Hirschberg, S. (2007) Assessment of severe accident risks in the Chinese coal chain. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, 7, 1157–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar